The final text of the Anglican Communion Covenant pleased the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, who has served on the document’s design group since its inception in 2006. Dr. Radner, an Episcopal priest, is professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto, Ontario.
“My sense about it is that they didn’t really change anything substantial,” he told The Living Church, referring to the working group charged with revising the document from its previous iteration as the Ridley Cambridge draft.
“They salvaged what could have been a bad mess from May [2009],” when the Anglican Consultative Council met and, after a chaotic legislative session, ultimately asked for revisions to the document’s fourth section, which proposes how provinces will be accountable to the Anglican Communion as a whole.
Because changes to the fourth section did not reflect what Episcopal Church leaders were seeking, Dr. Radner said, the document helps change that province’s standing. He described it as being part of a pattern, along with the ecumenical dialogues of the Anglican”“Roman Catholic International Commission and the recent meeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury with Pope Benedict XVI.
RE: ““You take this, with the restarting of the ARCIC dialogue and what Rowan was engaged in at Rome, and there is a shift going on, and that shift is leaving the Episcopal Church behind,†he said. “There’s nothing the Episcopal Church can do about it at this point.â€
It honestly ought to be incredible that someone can believe that the ARCIC dialogue and Rowan’s embarrassing visit with Rome is supposed to somehow imply that TEC is being left “behind.”
But it’s not incredible. As has been the case since 2003, it doesn’t matter what Rome or Canterbury or Bishop Bruno or GC or whatever does . . . some people can always somehow firmly believe that something positive is taking place in regards to Anglican Communion discipline, whether that movement exists in reality.
How on earth does ARCIC — which has been going on forever — have anything whatsoever to do with “Tec is being left behind.”
I understand that there’s lots of excitement about the Covenant — from those who have always been excited about the Covenant. I get that.
I just don’t see how the excitement about the Covenant — which as has been said all along by others, will be one of Rowan’s Best Ever Yet Tools-For-Delay — can now glom onto ARCIC and Rowan-in-Rome.
I think we get so caught up in the ecclesiastical realm, we forget that this is spiritual warfare. I sincerely believe that when the ACC accepted the Satcher Institute grant, they moved the Communion away from God’s protective wing; that as long as that relationship is in effect, the Communion will be more vulnerable to Satan’s efforts to kill, steal, and destroy; and that this will be the case regardless of the efficacy of the Covenant.
[blockquote]Because changes to the fourth section did not reflect what Episcopal Church leaders were seeking, Dr. Radner said, the document helps change that province’s standing. He described it as being part of a pattern, along with the ecumenical dialogues of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission and the recent meeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury with Pope Benedict XVI.[/blockquote]
[i]Will the change in standing actually happen? I’m talking about TEC’s actual standing, NOT its virtual standing amongst the majority of the AC.[/i]
“You take this, with the restarting of the ARCIC dialogue and what Rowan was engaged in at Rome, and there is a shift going on, and that shift is leaving the Episcopal Church behind,†he said. “There’s nothing the Episcopal Church can do about it at this point.â€
[i]Rome will never engage TEC revisionists, except perhaps to excoriate the garbage TEC passes off as a “new thing”.[/i]
While acknowledging the archbishop’s explanation that the Covenant is “not going to be a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply,†Dr. Radner said of Episcopal Church leaders: “They’re not going to be able to claim any moral high ground. They’ve been sidelined.â€
[i]Sidelined? Really now. Do tell me another one! BTW, TEC will claim its “justice” “theology” is the new moral high ground.[/i]
Those leaders are not being shown the exit, he said, but “they’re on a path that’s going around the side of the building.â€
[i]What the heck does this mean?? TEC didn’t get what it wanted (see above), but it’s still going to be a constituent member of the AC, because Rowan plotted it that way and the JSC is stacked and the new Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is stacked.[/i]
He highlighted Section 4.1.6, which says simply, “This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.â€
[i]Does this mean adoption of the “Covenant” allows ACNA (and/or an orthodox diocese acting contrary to the almighty will of TEC) de facto recognition? I think not.[/i]
Conservative provinces in the Global South “ought to be able to go ahead with it,†he said about adoption of the Covenant, “whatever problems there are with this or that detail.â€
[i]Remember the cliche: the Devil is in the details. The “Covenant” is problematic at so very many levels, not the least of which is/will be interpretation. Mark my words, there will be myriad midrashes on the “Covenant”. If you don’t agree with one midrash, you’ll be able to concoct one that pleases you.[/i]
He said the document muted, rather than resolved, the question of whether churches may join the Anglican Communion by adopting the Covenant.
[i]I’ll grant that the “Covenant” is mute. It is also deaf and blind.[/i]
The big news of the end of the year is the +Chew indication via the GS that 20 Primates will sign the covenant in April. If that happens, the vast bulk of the Communion will be in a covenant they themselves will defend. The odds are probably good that the CoE will sign. TEC using a ‘two conventions until we could sign, if we wanted to/decided to’ logic will simply look like a sideshow, as the rest of the Communion moves forward. Radner rightly indicates that diocesan endorsement will signal to the GS that covenant partners exist in the US region. #1 — the point here is that Kasper indicated last summer that it could not have dialogues via ARCIC if the Anglican Communion had no on-the-ground coherence, via a covenant (if that was the way anglicanism sought to manifest that). The GS is leading the way for a coherent covenant via the simple decision to move forward and establish the integrity of the vast preponderance of Anglicans worldwide. ARCIC has not been ‘going on forever.’ It was stalled and the odds were good that the other forces in the Vatican would declare that way closed off. The covenant is the means by which a renewed ARCIC can have any chance of success, on the terms of the previous discussions, and in the light of TEC unilateralism threatening those discussions’ furtherance. There is nothing odd in Radner’s logic. But he can speak for himself. What remains unclear in your analysis is why you judge the GS so benighted as to covenant when all it does is enhance what you call RDW’s ‘Best Tools Ever for Delay.’ If this is your view, it would make sense to lobby as hard as you can to tell +Chew and the GS tout court that they are wrong and you are right.
Chris,
The Covenant is better than nothing. I believe the Global South will sign onto it. However, I see little to no consistency with the ABC. ARIC meanings nothing. The Anglican Communion will go its own way and there is no chance it will return back from its path any more than the EC.
The paths are set…the covenant may slow the fracturing down, but it is not enough to stop it. Past behavior is the best predictor of future action. If this premise is valid, then unless God intervenes, the EC and the AC will do what it does best, equivocate and stall. It has worked thus far for the EC and the ABC has found this tactic useful at the last Lambeth. Eventually, the trouble makers will leave and those with the New Gospel will be unstoppable, at least from any human perspective, and yes, this is a spiritual war. Let us not forget this fact, and that God’s will cannot be thwarted in the end.
I think Chris is on to something in noting the significance of Chew’s announcement as well as the likelihood of strong Global South (GS) support. The covenant is only as good as the actual support it receives from those who sign-on. It will be very difficult for TEC’s agenda to be sustained for long if, indeed, a vigorously GS-weighted covenant is in-play from here on. No one, not least the ABC, will be able to equivocate with a more vigilant GS presence in the “only game in town” (the covenant).
This along with Leander Harding’s insights on the theological underpinnings of the ‘mere’ aspects of the covenant give me some hope.
Chris Seitz says I can speak for myself, which, obviously, I can. However in this case, I will pick up the refrain from some of the above: pointless. Those who have no interest in ARCIC, the Covenant, the Communion itself, Rowan Williams, and so on, or who have given up on these elements — for them, consideration about these matters is indeed pointless. But I really don’t think they are going to be convinced by any argument I can make that there IS a point, so my own arguments are rather pointless too in this context.
Rather than argue, let me simply state a few facts, which people will accept, dismiss, refute as their prejudices lead them:
a. Rowan Williams’ own ecclesiology, as I understand it, is strongly oriented towards a kind of catholic but non-centralised vision of common commitments and order. (In this regard, he is more eastern orthodox in terms of structure, but he is, after all, Western in his general categories of thinking all the same.) This is why he — to the chagrin of liberals — has put aside whatever views he has had regarding gay inclusion (debatable up to a point as to their depth of commitment, but I don’t really know) in favor of wider concerns. This is also why he has refused to assert personal authority (moral or otherwise), but preferred to have larger groups within the Communion deal with our conflicts. The question of common work, mission, witness, and agreement with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is in fact critical to his ecclesiological commitments.
2. Important leadership in the Vatican do not want to see the fragmentation of the Anglican Communion, but would like to see some kind of coherent common life and witness. (Why this is the case may have multiple reasons, but it seems to be the case.) The Covenant is relatively well-viewed by these people, and they are supportive of its prosecution and adoption.
3. The re-starting of ARCIC has been a conditional priority for many, both Roman Catholic and Anglican — and the condition has been a sense of concrete movement towards re-established coherence among Anglicans.
4. The fact that this is now happening, is a sign, presumably, that the concrete movement is now believed, by Vatican leadership, to be taking place.
5. The ARCIC topic ahead is obviously pertinent: the relationship of local to universal church in moral decision-making. Maybe there is something to be learned here!
6. Finally, many of these concerns are shared by anglican leaders of the Global South.
7. Hence my sense of a converging directional pull away from the concerns dominated by and to some real extent manipulated by TEC.
RE: “If this is your view, it would make sense to lobby as hard as you can to tell +Chew and the GS tout court that they are wrong and you are right.”
Not sure about “lobbying” — in my own small little way — I’ve simply repeatedly pointed out in writing that the GS should not sign the current Covenant [Section 4 is a mess, as expected and as it has been] or attend further meetings — that’s been clear for three years now, ever since RW proved that he would do as he pleases despite however many meetings or documents were signed. As I’ve stated for years now . . . the only person with any power is the ABC — he had the power to implement Dar and he, of course, refused. And the only way that the ABC will wield power and implement Primatial agreements will be if the Primates cease playing his game and move away from showing up at his “table” — which is how he gages “success” and “reconciliation” — if everybody still “shows up at the table” no matter whether anyone actually eats and drinks at the table. As I’ve said for several years now, the GS Primates should not be playing his game. But — they continue and it’s their decision, not mine. I have but to point out why it’s the wrong decision, which I believe — shockingly — I’m allowed to do in the freedom of cyberspace. ; > ) Maybe we can call that “cyber-lobbying.”
We’ll see who turns out correct in prediction. I’ve made mine fair and square. Indeed — I note that a more minor prediction has already been proven correct — as many pointed out back when the Covenant was first touted, it would certainly be many years before any fruit could come from the Covenant or before it could be implemented. Others — on this very blog — were predicting that it would be 2008 and 2009. . . . Heh.
But no worries — “fruit” will be redefined anyway. After all — in fantasy-land TEC is already “isolated.” It will take but a few months before it’s pronounced that TEC has been “disciplined,” the Communion is “saved,” and we can all move on in “mission and ministry.” And that will be the virtual “fruit” of the Covenant.
RE: “No one, not least the ABC, will be able to equivocate with a more vigilant GS presence in the “only game in town†(the covenant).”
Phil Harrold . . . . you mean . . . like nobody was “able to equivocate” with the former former former “only game in town” — the “Windsor Report” — wait, no, the “Windsor Process” . . . no wait, the Dar Communique? No wait, the Lambeth Commission? No, that’s not it . . . the . . .
The Covenant — as it stands now — is merely the Windsor Process, dragged on another decade or more.
It’s a pity.
I wish it weren’t so.
I hope very much that what I see as rank fantasizing from others will actually be proven correct.
I would happily have mud all over my face, if actual Communion discipline could occur.
Thanks for the explanation, Dr. Radner — that helps a lot with my understanding and answers the question and confusion I had in my first comment.
RE: “Those who have no interest in ARCIC, the Covenant, the Communion itself, Rowan Williams, and so on, or who have given up on these elements—for them, consideration about these matters is indeed pointless.”
A person like me — who has given up on the Covenant working while the current ABC is around — does not find consideration “pointless” at all. That’s why I’m commenting.
RE: “But I really don’t think they are going to be convinced by any argument I can make that there IS a point, so my own arguments are rather pointless too in this context.”
Oh, I certainly believe there is a point — it’s always important if people follow the wrong or the right strategy.
RE: “This is also why he has refused to assert personal authority (moral or otherwise), but preferred to have larger groups within the Communion deal with our conflicts.”
He did assert personal authority. He issued the invitations to Lambeth.
Sarah– the Covenant offers a focal point for consensus and an instrument for action that the Windsor Report (and ‘process’) has anticipated for, yes, some years now. The new game in town has a reasonable potential for being much more definitive. Of course we can all readily imagine various ways it might be thwarted, inadvertently by the ABC, perhaps, or more intentionally by TEC, but it focuses attention and energy in a deliberative way that previous initiatives did not, or could not, given the lack of any sort of roadmap for conflict resolution. So, again, I think it quite reasonable to hold out some hope here, especially as the Global South seizes the moment.
Well, I can imagine various ways that it can be thwarted quite deliberately by the ABC — if it weren’t an instrument of delay — which is what I believe it is.
Just one example.
The Standing Committee of the AC — by some incredible miracle — declares some proposed action by TEC — sacrificing goats on the altar at Holy Eucharist, for instance — “incompatible with the Covenant.” It goes even further — it actually makes “recommendations to the Instruments of Communion and to the Churches of the Communion of the relational consequences” which includes recommendation to the ACC and the Primates Meetings and the ABC not to include TEC in its member meetings.
By a second unbelievable miracle, the Primates “disinvite” the new PB [by this time, KJS’s term is finished] to their meetings. The ACC disinvites the TEC representatives.
. . .
. . .
The ABC issues invitations to all TEC bishops to Lambeth.
Some might trumpet that this would “plunge the Communion into chaos.”
Yes.
So it did. And has. And is.
I think it would be a good opportunity for the global south to seize the initiative, and I would not be surprised to see the status of the ACNA as a replacement “province-in-waiting” to be raised a few notches along the way. I don’t think, post-Lambeth, post-GAFCON and post-Jamaica, that the Archbishop controls the process as much as some may think.
Sarah– yep, and all that happened before anything like the COVENANT was available to hold all sides, including the ABC, to account for such actions/inactions… and, certainly, apart from a more unified GS’s weighty commitment to seeing a more clearly marked path of accountabilit–indeed, as Leander Harding notes, catholicity–enacted.
Hi Phil — I see nothing in the Covenant that at all holds the ABC “to account” for not doing what the Standing Committee recommends when a Province does something “incompatible with the Covenant.”
I agree, Phil. The covenant will be as strong as its signers and their sense of mission. Naturally it is always possible to default to a view that the ABC will scuttle anything by acting secretly/deviously, as so many maintain on blogs; for those of us who have worked for conciliar anglicanism, it has not been our wont to speculate about why things must fail, but to try to work for something we believe is now emerging. (The other real story in all this is the new face of GS anglicanism with its shifting leadership and new primates). I agree with Radner that the ABC has set in motion–and has allowed to come to fruition–a model of Communion that will now move with its own steam via a covenant. I also believe that +Chew sees this as consistent with his own understanding of Anglican Christianity, now led by the GS. The speculation that everything will be defeated by an ABC and mechanisms of secret dismantling cannot be be properly adjudicated via a blog contest; what the genuine alternatives to trusting the covenant and the GS are, is not clear and has not been articulated (except by TEC progressives who hate the idea of both covenant and interdependence with GS). My main point is that none of this is lost on the GS leadership. If they are prepared to adopt the covenant, I cannot believe they would do so without also reckoning with the need to make sure it is effective and not commandeered by phony committees of one sort of another. It bears remembering that the covenant that we have emerged from a committee with Uganda and Middle East both present. If in turn the GS says it is prepared to sign, then it must believe it can meet the challenge of assuring the covenant is not what has been called the ABC’s Delay Tactic.
Sarah (@ #14):
Regarding the Covenant, 4.2.6 “On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant.â€
Clearly, the ABC will not be the sole, or even central player, at such a stage of deliberation. Whatever he says or does individually will no longer matter in quite the same way because there is a mechanism in place that has a formal advisory function. He cannot ignore it lightly. Furthermore this function is backed-up by a broad Covenant-galvanized scrutiny that has, heretofore, been lacking due to inadequate ad hoc protocols.
But I do agree with Leander Harding when he observes: “The wording here is significant. The Standing Committee makes a determination about whether an action is incompatible with the covenant not altogether on its own but on the basis of advice received from the ACC and the Primates. It is not clear to me what might happen if these advisors disagreed. Perhaps this is unlikely given the overlap in membership between the ACC and the Primates but it seems to me a potential trouble spot.”
Given a stronger GS alignment (and real ownership of the Covenant) I would expect this troublesome ambiguity in the Covenant will matter somewhat less.
I should clarify– the ambiguity will not, as I said, “matter less”… instead, it will be overcome by a much more energized climate of expectation–and all a result of the fact that the AC now expects something to happen through its new instrument of accountability that it previously could not, at least reasonably, hope for.
I agree with what Ephraim Radner says about Rowan Williams’s consistent commitment to the discernment process. It’s what I said in a letter to the Atlantic Monthly not long ago. My interpretation was blasted by the author of the RW profile. But I stand by it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/letters
Ephraim seems to be suggesting that Williams’ “open-ended struggle” ecclesiology is more akin to Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m not sure the EO should be flattered by that comparison. What Williams’ ecclesiology is like is Academia’s “endless conversation”. It’s not about the truth of the matter; it’s about keeping the conversation going.
No. 19: You refer to “Academia’s ‘endless conversation’. It’s not about the truth of the matter; it’s about keeping the conversation going.”
It’s not quite that simple, though, is it? I’ve been a practicing academic for over 25 years and what you describe sounds more like a faculty meeting chaired by administrators than like the scholarship we all try to do. Of course academics in their published work are engaged in an ongoing conversation–we’re not building a brick wall, where every brick is perfect; we’re all contributing to a stream, so to speak–but we’re also trying in the process to get closer to truth.
A familiar, less-controversial (than contemporary Anglicanism) historical example:
Many of us have read or maybe even written Civil War histories and biographies. None is perfect. But Civil War history is better today–yes, closer to a full, balanced view of what happened and its historical meaning–than Civil War history of 80 or 100 or 120 years ago. I’m not saying things invariably get better and better. I’m just saying that academics do–with a good bit of humility–think that they’re participating in this ongoing conversation in order to get a bit closer to the truth.
RE: “Whatever he says or does individually will no longer matter in quite the same way because there is a mechanism in place that has a formal advisory function. He cannot ignore it lightly.”
Again — I don’t comprehend this statement. The ABC has a simple power — to call meetings and invite participants. I don’t see how that will “no longer matter in quite the same way because there is a mechanism in place that has a formal advisory function.”
The Primates are a “formal advisory function.”
And no, the ABC didn’t ignore them “lightly.” But he issued invitations all the same.
Please re-read Jill Woodliff (#2) above. I believe she is right.
I am confused that Ephraim argues that a new round of ARCIC leaves TEC “behind” since TEC is already involved in this new round of dialogue. Am I missing something?
Furthermore, until TEC’s is dis-invited from AC representative functions, I don’t see how the Covenant will much change our current situation. When the disciplinary mechanism is actually triggered and functioning, then I could find myself in agreement – but not until then. I have witnessed too many shenanigans to be that optimistic. However, I would love to be proven wrong.
Tory: I’m not aware that the commission has been appointed yet. (So, at any rate, the Vatican said when it was announced a month ago, and I’m not aware of any appointments in the last few weeks.) Obviously, it will be interesting to see who is appointed, although having someone from TEC on the commission will not necessarily be a bad thing, given the topic — as I said, there is something to be learned in this discussion. The point is that the groundwork for this renewed discussion flies in the face of TEC’s own official dynamics of resistance to Communion coherence and Anglican-Catholic search for common commitments and unity. I think it fair to say that any agreement reached by a future ARCIC on the topic proposed will not be closely parallelled by General Convention and 815, let alone Diocese of LA strategic hopes and actions.
David,#19, you’re conflating scholarship with academia. They are only accidently related to one another.
I can understand about keeping an open mind about the reasons for Gen. Lee’s actions at Gettysburg, but I have a closed mind when it comes to the immorality of sexual acts outside of marriage. The Church has spoken clearly and consistently on this issue for 2000 years. Hopefully, the current controversies will help the church better pastor those who suffer from same-sex attraction, but there’s nothing to “discern” as to whether same-sex acts are moral- the Church has definitively spoken on this issue.
RE: “I think it fair to say that any agreement reached by a future ARCIC on the topic proposed will not be closely parallelled by General Convention and 815, let alone Diocese of LA strategic hopes and actions.”
The same could be said by past ARCIC agreements too.
I wish I could be so sanguine about this effort. The problem I see is that of human will. IMHO, it is not that the AC lacked the organizing authority or means to discipline a province, but that the ABC interfered with the implementation of that discipline. The most conciliar of the instruments (i.e., the bishops) – gathered at 1998 Lambeth Conference (n.b., the last conference in which it conducted business under recognizable and generally accepted rules of order) – and re-authorized the primates’ meeting to fill a certain role:
[blockquote]Resolutions from 1998
Resolution III.6
Instruments of the Anglican Communion
This Conference, noting the need to strengthen mutual accountability and interdependence among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, reaffirms Resolution 18.2(a) of Lambeth 1988 which “urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates’ Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters”;
asks that the Primates’ Meeting, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, include among its responsibilities positive encouragement to mission, [b]intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies;[/b]
recommends that these responsibilities should be exercised in sensitive consultation with the relevant provinces and with the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) or in cases of emergency the Executive of the ACC and that, while not interfering with the juridical authority of the provinces, the exercise of these responsibilities by the Primates’ Meeting should carry moral authority calling for ready acceptance throughout the Communion, and to this end it is further recommended that the Primates should meet more frequently than the ACC;…[/blockquote]
By choosing to interfere with implementation of the DES Communique, the ABC, among other things: (i) called into question the authority of the primates’ meeting to take any action; (ii) called into question the authority of the Lambeth Conference. The means were in place, but the ABC did not respect their actions or decisions.
ISTM the scenario of [11] is quite possible even with the covenant. What then? In order for the covenant to still be effective and authoritative, maybe the SCotAC would then be required to become a sort of super-instrument capable of determining full membership of the inner core or first tier; the instruments of the LC and the ABC would necessarily have to be transformed into marks or characteristics of lesser association: a second tier. In other words, the LC would become more like a meeting of those belonging to an industry association, rather than a meeting of communion members.
(note 1: the primates’ meeting has been diminished to such a point that I question its long term viability. Further, the ABC’s strategy for the LC in 2008 has left it vulnerable to further diminishment.)
(note 2: it is not lost on me that diminishing the authority of the LC, neatly diminishes the authority of 1998 Resolution I.10. No doubt that would please certain bishops.)
Given our history, however, I do not see the ABC willingly embracing a diminished role or, for that matter, bishops acknowledging that attending the LC is something akin to attending an Anglican trade show.
🙄
Sarah @ #21: everyone, and especially the ABC, is more accountable given the framework afforded by the COVENANT. This is because: (1) there is a more formal mechanism in place to address disputes; and (2) there is a higher level of expectation given the sort of effort being poured into the Covenant adoption process–indeed, a ‘climate change’ here; and (3) the GS Primates seem to be forming a strong consensus of support, with an instrument of accountability that they can monitor more effectively.
If the ABC or any other entity in the AC makes a move that is outside of Covenant protocols, an explanation will be required–or perhaps a defense! These protocols–as minimal as they are–were either absent, ambiguous, or underdeveloped pre-Covenant. No one doubts that this new covenant thingy could be thwarted, given the sort of ambiguities noted by Harding et al., but when all three factors listed above are taken into consideration, I think it reasonable to assume that the Covenant just might work.
In his [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/12/14/ACNS4354]2007 Advent Letter[/url] Archbishop Williams wrote “At the moment, the question of ‘who speaks for the Communion?’ is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolutionâ€. This is the question that the Covenant is designed to answer. It does answer it. I expect the GS Primates will quickly sign on and exercise their new voice.
#2 and #22 are correct.
May I add one thing: What has all the self-perpetuating Covenant blather done for the parishioners of TEC, CofE, any other AC province??? Please do not patronize me by starting saying something such as, “The Covenant (insert ‘if’ qualifiers here) will…” I am not into tea leaf reading.
Call me old-fashioned, but I’m results-oriented more and more in my old age…
Not quite, Sarah (26): the emergence of the Covenant and the shape it has taken, has been directly and significantly enabled (though not exclusively) by previous ARCIC work. One might also argue that the very concerns and dynamics that have pressed Anglicanism into the challenge of being a “communion” in a more robust way grow out of the larger understandings of “communion” that ARCIC was preeminently responsible for.
This is one reason why TEC has indeed fallen behind the developing understanding and articulation of what the Christian Church is called to be, and her opposition to the Covenant is bound up with her loss of communion character in a deeper way: she remains stuck in a parochial and nativistic understanding of the Church that is quite anachronistic. It is unfortunate, furthermore, that many conservative American anglicans are as anachronistic in this respect as their more liberal counterparts, and have pressed this constraint upon others elsewhere in the world.
I have been a great critic of aspects of direct ecumenical dialogue over the past decades (as opposed to ecumenical organizations), but not on the basis of its false interests and focus — I don’t believe that has been the case — but on the basis of its unwillingness to take account of the failures of leadership and more widely, of membership, in terms of heart-work (to use an old evangelical term). But criticism is not the same thing as rejection. Furthermore, the failures of heart-work we have seen scuttle the potential of ecumenical work are the same ones that scuttle ANY ecclesial force of witness. One doesn’t fix things simply by changing the topic.
Of course, disappointments accrue, frustrations mount, and distractions overwhelm — people naturally would like to think that everything could be solved if we just found “another way”. No doubt there are several paths that must be pursued at once for the healing of Christ’s Church. But Christians sitting down together and seeking the will of God for the conversion of their common lives is a rather central one.
[b]COVENANT[/b] or [b]CONTEXT[/b]–WHICH ONE is the PROBLEM?
1) First, regarding the covenant: Prior to the release of the covenant, there was a fear among us fellow bloggers that the select Revision committee was going to gut the Ridley draft. There arose a drumbeat among us fellow bloggers that the Ridley draft should be adopted without amendment, and I believe we even witnessed the Global South beating that drum.
Something unexpected happened in the Revision committee: they did [i]not[/i] gut the Ridley draft. What they did was set up specific mechanisms in the Covenant that strengthened the position of the ACC and most especially the [J]SC, and including the ABC.
Meanwhile, there was a significant and to this time un-noted and un-noticed development (as far as I can see) that disconnected the Covenant and the Lambeth conference. As it currently stands, the Covenant is irrelevant to Lambeth, and Lambeth is irrelevant to the Covenant.
Not so for the Anglican Consultative Council. The ACC and the Covenant are inextricably tied together. At the beginning of this process, only members of the ACC are eligible. Sign-on of groups such as ACNA implies (demands?) admission to the august chamber of the ACC. Again here, Lambeth is irrelevant.
2) If the Covenant was not gutted, why is it then generating so much negative emotion among the conservative/orthodox community? I submit that the Covenant is innocent. The blame for the negative reactions does not lie with the Covenant at all, but with the Context of the Anglican Communion as it now stands. The ABC, The [J]SC, and the ACC are the problem, not the Covenant. Let’s take the Covenant out of the whipping dock and focus on the weaknesses in the Anglican Communion. A strong covenant does not create a strong Anglican Communion; but rather a strong Communion will create a strong covenant.
It helps not a whit that, while this was going on, the constitution of the Anglican Communion was in a process of revision–even perhaps metamorphosis. Changes have taken place in the constitution of the ACC, and even more dramatically, in the constitution of the [J]SC. Worse than that, these changes were taking place behind the scenes. If even one percent of our attention and scrutiny had been applied to these changes in the AC rather than the changes in the Covenant, we would have been better served.
3) For many still in TEC (especially the orthodox) and for most of those in ACNA, recognized membership in the Anglican Communion is a treasure to be greatly desired. But what constitutes the Anglican Communion? How does one identify himself as a member?
I remember the conversation we all were having before the last Lambeth. We had decided that de facto membership in the Anglican Communion could be proven if your bishop was invited to Lambeth. We mourned when +Schori was invited, and celebrated when +Robinson was not. Since then, extending that model, the members that make up ACNA are claiming that because one of the Primates that were invited to Lambeth has an affection for their own bishop, therefore they are by extension also members of the Anglican Communion.
Section four of the Covenant calls the whole premise into question. I submit that future “membership” in the Anglican Communion will not be determined by attendance at the Lambeth tea party, but by representation at the Anglican Consultative Council. Those will be the constitutional facts.
But as Sarah notes, that has no bearing on Lambeth. Those that are invited to Lambeth (at least, if +RDW is still around) will most assuredly include +Schori’s successor and most of the rest of TEC. +Robinson and +(Insert New Lesbian Bishop Here) will not be invited. TEC (and possibly ACoC) will claim that they are part of the AC because they got invited to the tea party. +Robinson and +INLBH will claim that they are part of the AC because their primate likes them.
Shall we beat up on the covenant because the ABC still controls Lambeth invitations? I would rather not. It’s his tea party, he can invite whoever he wants, and we all can stay away (or gather at Jerusalem) if we want. LAMBETH IS NO LONGER THE COMMUNION, if it ever was.
Also the Covenant is not the problem. The context is the problem. The weakness of the ACI, including both of its members above, is that they do not address the weaknesses in the constitution of the AC, or even tackle the secretive constitutional processes openly.
Or maybe that’s their strength. What is the best way to effect change? From the inside, or from the outside?
But let’s put our weight behind the Global South and their effort to create a strong Covenant, and instead focus our (outside strategy) energy on illuminating and exposing the inner workings of a secretive cabal that will not readily release its hold on the reins of power.
IMO, the problem isn’t so much the Covenant itself, as it is diminished trust in the ABC and others to deliver an instrument upon which they are willing to act in good faith. Once ++Rowan torched Dar, he lost a whole lot of trust with the traditional Anglican community. His open invitation to Lambeth, the TEC’s subsequent reinvitations to the ACC and Joint Standing Committee after they were asked to withdraw, the refusal to seat the Ugandan deputation at ACC while allowing full seating for TEC where SSB’s and noncelebate gay candidates continue unabated, further lower levels of trust. We *hope* rather than *expect* the current ABC will deal forthrightly with us.
As I’ve said before, I want to give ++Rowan the benefit of the doubt, but not only is he long on words and short on action, what action he has taken has mostly advanced the Left’s agenda. All that being said, I’m also personally of the opinion that the Covenant is pretty much the only game in town and so it enjoys by (admittedly lukewarm) support.
I didn’t see #32 when I posted, but Br_er sums it up much better than I did.
I want to thank Seitz+ and Radner+ for their contributions and hopeful outlook, especially explaining the relationship with ARCIC. That was all very helpful.
Do Seitz+ or Radner+ think TEC will refuse to sign? I wouldn’t put it past them to sign with “crossed fingers.” That has been the pattern. But perhaps TEC has moved “prophetically” beyond that kind of duplicity? I would be interested in your thoughts.
#32 and #33 present two very important and sobering observations–many thanks.
As always, I’m glad that Dr. Seitz and especially Dr. Radner have weighed in here and added their helpful perspectives to this thread. They may find my current comment about as irrelevant as my past ones have been, for as always, I remain extremely skeptical about the value of the Covenant. But I’ll at least admit that I share Dr. Radner’s relief that section 4 wasn’t gutted in the revision process.
But FWIW, I remain totally convinced that the whole Covenant Process is woefully inadequate. It amounts to the usual bureaucratic style, incremental, gradual change, working within the system for what is politically possible. That’s a perfectly understandable, normal, predicatable response to any crisis. But it amounts to putting a bandaid on a malignant cancer.
The root problem is that the whole Windsor/Covenant approach is utterly unequal to the depth, intensity, and severity of this vexed crisis. What is called for isn’t moderate, slow, evolutionary change, working within the system, attractive and tempting as that appears. Rather it’s time to junk the whole obsolete, broken system and opt for a total, radical overhaul of Anglican polity at the international level. In other words, revolutionary change, not evolutionary change. A New Reformation, you might say.
And if that ends up fatally dividing the Communion??
Well, there are worse things.
I really mean that. But the reality is that the AC is already fatally wounded and hopelessly divided. A house divided against itself can’t and won’t stand.
Nor should it.
What is needed is nothing less than a new, binding Anglican creed to replace, or at least supplement the old 39 Articles and which will forthrightly declare theological and moral relativism to be the unacceptable heresy that it is, and to anathamatize all those many thousands of clerics (much less laity) who have fallen for it. And new polity structures will have to be devised, with binding, transprovincial powers.
As I never tire of saying, the real problem we face isn’t the dreaded phantasm of Roman style tyranny, the imaginary boogeyman that so many fear. This isn’t the 16th century anymore. Rather, the true problem is the blatant reality of Protestant anarchy.
We face the same problem that pre-monarchic Israel faced, “when every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). It’s time to crack down on heresy and to crack down hard. And to tighten up the boundaries of Anglican orthodoxy, strictly and harshly, if need be.
Cantaur insists that the Covenant isn’t intended as [i]”a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply.”[/i]
Yeah. Exactly. And that’s precisely what’s wrong with it. It [b]SHOULD[/b] be a penal code!
David Handy+
Dear #35–I said what I thought in my previous comment. That is, TEC is likely to say ‘their hands are tied’ due to some obstruse account of their own ability to sign, via General Conventions, meaning they will plead special status — and, in my view, get it. That is, the Communion will move on. No one is waiting on TEC and its six-year idea of signing capability. That is why if GS and CoE sign and things move on, TEC can sit in its own confused account of its specialness. Meanwhile, the GS and others know beyond any doubt that many inside TEC wish to covenant, and they will respond to that from within their own covenant commitments. TEC will get what it wants: a special and insignificant place in a Communion it has decided it does not want. The real question will be the future of TEC’s legal prosecutions and their success, esp if the courts begin to realise that the categories ‘hierarchical’ and ‘congregation’ do not comprehend the complexities of the situation, a topic to be addressed in detail by a panel of experts in Dallas next month at the ACI conference.
There’s another way of looking at the GS Primates’ readiness to sign the Covenant. (Although surely in at least some of those provinces their Synods or equivalents will have to concur before it becomes official? However, that doesn’t matter for the purposes of this comment.)
As I read the situation, the GS provinces have largely given up on the existing Communion instruments and are concentrating on their own structures — FCA, GAFCON, etc. However, they have not formally withdrawn from anything, and I think that’s a part of their strategy — they know that TEC/ACoC/et al would find it convenient if the GS provinces dropped out of the Communion, and so they don’t. They will not, perhaps, any longer expend great effort fighting TEC etc., but anything they can easily do that to some extent frustrates what they view as heretical innovations in the old Communion they’ll do happily.
Signing the Covenant is just such an action. It costs them very little to do so — I believe that they see themselves as already living by everything the Covenant requires in any case — and it is more of a spoke in the wheels of TEC than not signing it would be. So, I suspect, they sign the Covenant in the belief that it won’t hurt and might do some small good.
If I’m right, then while the GS provinces will readily sign the Covenant, I wouldn’t necessarily look to see them vigorously pursue it as the future of Communion life.
I agree Jill Woodliff’s comment is probably the most important. Br’er Rabbit’s is helpful, too.
The Curmudgeon has an analysis of the TEClub options. If they have a resolution to adopt the Covenant at the next GC (just 2 1/2 years away!) and the resolution is defeated or if they simply ignore it, then they put themselves firmly in the non-signatory category. If it is passed and is to be taken up by the following GC for a second reading, well, that would draw things out. I see them as signing on in 6 years time and daring the “Standing Committee” to do something about it. Why not? The “SC” is stacked with revisionists and bureaucrats who are beholden to the TEClub.
It would be interesting to see if the lackies of the TEClub (ACoC, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, etc) sign on to the Covenant and the TEClub doesn’t.
Sarah brings up a point I have made about guaranteed continuing Anglichaos where the different instruments of (dys-)unity recognize different provinces differently. (Vive la difference!)
I really don’t see the relevance of the ARCIC talks. It seems to me that the RC church and pope are moving on. Their actions speak a lot more boldly. They will keep the talks going merely to assuage Rowan’s hurt feelings.
#39–for what it’s worth, I have never heard +Mouneer or +Chew speak this way. Both have had significant investment in covenant/communion. +Chew logged innumerable hard hours on the covenant. +Mouneer fought for a decent version coming out of the last session. Both are leaders in the GS.
[blockquote]What has all the self-perpetuating Covenant blather done for the parishioners of TEC, CofE, any other AC province???[/blockquote]
I guess the answer is – absolutely nothing. That being the case, I’ll rephrase. What will all the self-perpetuating Covenant blather do for the parishioners of TEC, CofE, any other AC province???
Oh – same answer. The “Covenant” provides NO BENEFITS to parishioners (in the West, especially those who are fleeing TEC in large numbers). If the “Covenant” was all that and a bag o’ chips, leadership somewhere down the line would be communicating its benefits in clear, persuasive language – with the result being retention at a minimum. Point me to someone doing that at the parish level… Thought so.
The mushiness of Ecclesia Anglicana needs firming up. The Covenant ain’t the thing.
Folks it’s OK to state the absolute need for definition, clarity, precision, Christ-like care, and alacrity. It really is OK. In fact, I submit that with souls at stake, those 5 needs are mandated.
#37 New Reformation Advocate: I agree.
[blockquote] I share Dr. Radner’s relief that section 4 wasn’t gutted in the revision process.
…
It amounts to the usual bureaucratic style, incremental, gradual change, working within the system for what is politically possible.
…
Rather it’s time to junk the whole obsolete, broken system and opt for a total, radical overhaul of Anglican polity at the international level. In other words, revolutionary change, not evolutionary change. A New Reformation, you might say.
…
What is needed is nothing less than a new, binding Anglican creed to replace, or at least supplement the old 39 Articles and which will forthrightly declare theological and moral relativism to be the unacceptable heresy that it is,…
…
Rather, the true problem is the blatant reality of Protestant anarchy.
…
It SHOULD be a penal code! [/blockquote] I agree.
I am reminded of the city slicker that stopped his sedan at a farmer’s tractor alongside the road to ask for directions to Nellie Sue’s Magnolia Nursery. The farmer put his fingers to his chin: [blockquote] Wellsir, just keep on goin’ down this hyer road until you get to the crick crossin’ and…
No wait. First turn around, go back about seven miles, and turn left down the country lane beside the blue mailbox…
No hold on a sec. Try goin’ ahead about a mile and turn right…
No, lemme think about that. [/blockquote] After about a minute, the farmer looked up at the city slicker and said, [blockquote] I’m sorry, fella. You just can’t get there from here. [/blockquote] That’s where we are in the Anglican Communion.
We can’t get there from here.
We have to start from somewhere else.
Thanks, Br_er Rabbit (#43) for your kind words. Let me return the favor. Like others above (#36, 40), I found your #32 helpful as well.
David Handy+
42: I actually think it has done something — alot? Maybe not. May be not yet. But something, and more importantly, it has maintained some semblance of hope for the future in particular ways that would have vanished completely earlier without it.
I can refer to material people like Benjamin Twinamaana has posted in the past couple of years, regarding the character of the Anglican Communion itself — its very existence — for Christians in e.g. Uganda. The same is true elsewhere in the Sudan, or East and Central Africa (I am using them as examples I know, rather than as an exhaustive list), or Haiti: it is the case that the existence of the Communion and its Christian bonds, obligations, resopnsibilities, and spiritual graces has worked towards the sustenance of other Christians (and non-Christians too) who would have been otherwise abandoned to the overwhelming powers of human and political cruelty of various sorts, and the bitter assaults on faith and trust these often embody. And this sustenance — given in the form of prayer, advocacy, pleading, and material and personal aid — has not been only on the level of this-worldly concerns, but has contributed to the strengthening of hope in God (and prayers are not minor things). Conversely, something analogous has happened for many North American Anglicans, including more recently especially beleaguered traditionalists of various kinds.
These fruits did not spring up in a vacuum, however. They were the result of hard slogging over many generations and recent decades, and even sometimes bitter struggle of various kinds, fraught with real and sometimes bloody sacrifice for the sake of Jesus. The context was that of a Communion growing and taking hold of its gifts and God’s grace and calling that were inexplicably given in the Lord’s missionary reach and ecclesial upbuilding.
By the same token, more recently, the unraveling of some of these bonds in Christ and the weakening of communion has hurt many Christians — not just materially, but spiritually; and the way this happens often means that the two aspects are in any case intertwined. The utter failure of Anglican witness in the Eastern Congo, for example and in my view, is one of the great sins of the last decade, whose burden falls on “conservative” and “liberal” alike, North American and African (and others too, I suppose).
The press for a Covenant was not some idea dreamed up in the heads of a bunch of deviously secretive American and British elites seeking to avoid the “real” demands of the Gospel (pace the intransigent Moses Tay). It was a broad-based desire that has been consistently pressed by Global South Anglican leaders (like Tay’s successor) — not uniformly, to be sure, but significantly and crucially; and it follows, in its form, the general outline proposed by GS leaders in 2006. As a document, of course, it is not well-known within scattered congregations; it took work at the Lambeth Conference to be disseminated and discussed broadly at an episcopal level; only in some venues in the church are its contents carefully grasped. But what it stands for and the energies that have given it birth and sustained it over some obstacles in the past three years, and longer in terms of conception, are widely felt, understood, and appreciated. More than that, they are needed, because they constitute the faith-sustaining reality of the Body of Christ in an otherwise quite fragmented world unassisted because of a shamefully fragmented Christian Church. Far from soliciting the Vatican’s condescending nod out of pity for pathetic Rowan, it has encouraged, at least to this point and precisely because of its emergence against human odds, Catholic hope for a mission Rome knows she shares. If it is all “blather”, God help us; because the alternatives we have left skulking about the church’s ruins hold little promise of healing.
[blockquote] The press for a Covenant was not some idea dreamed up in the heads of a bunch of deviously secretive American and British elites seeking to avoid the “real†demands of the Gospel. [/blockquote] Agreed, and this is not something that I have alleged. On the other hand, the recent changes in the written and un-written constitution of the Anglican Communion have taken place in the dark, virtually inviting suspicions of “deviously secretive American and British elites seeking to avoid the “real†demands of the Gospel.” Whether that is the case will not be known until these changes and the processes that brought them about see the light of day.
I would add to my [27] that history illustrates the ABC’s procedural interference as contravening good order in the functioning of the AC – organizationally. Some attorneys in the west would describe this as bad faith. Management consultants might call it dysfunctional.
To the extent that the ACC and ‘SCotAC’ may be able to shrug off the current unrepresentative control of the western provinces, and become a good faith guardian of communion at a level higher than that of the status quo ante – well, that outcome depends on a considerable deal of unstated-but-hoped for developments. To that point, I believe that the last meeting of the ACC speaks for itself.
In the face of heresy, bishops have a choice to act as defenders of the faith in the tradition of the early church, or as something else.
“The press for a Covenant was not some idea dreamed up in the heads of a bunch of deviously secretive American and British elites…”
Yes and no. The Covenant is Rowan’s baby. He personally deep six-ed alternative approaches to the Anglichaos: his thoroughly manipulative undermining of the DeS accord (deadline is no deadline, having the JSC be the arbiter and declare the TEClub “mostly compliant”) and his early invitations to Lambeth including consecrators of Gene Robinson. RW appointed the Covenant Design Group, he was responsible for the Ridley draft being rejected in Jamaica, he appointed the “re-design” group (stacked with revisionists and token conservative ++Chew). As pointed out in #46, deviously secretive is an apt descriptor of the last ACC meeting.
Can we make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear? The Covenant might not have “dreamed up by a bunch of deviously secretive American and British elites.” Neither were Windsor, Dromantine, DeS. But lack of clarity in these other documents were all played upon by deviously secretive American and British elites to delay and dishearten. This new document shares the same lack of clarity and Christian boldness. Orthodox rightly should be wary of being duped again by new manipulation = processification.
But onward with the new Covenant processes!
Over at the inappropriately labeled Thinking Anglicans blog, they are calling Rowan Williams “Stalin” and even “worse than Stalin”. (The grotesque hyperbole leaves one gasping, despite its common application these days.) Here, it is just akin to Rasputin. Go figure. Knowing the Archbishop’s penchant for things Russian, perhaps he finds this an intriguing comment on the nature of human social existence before God.
I have had my own disappointments and outright disagreements with Canterbury’s chosen course of action at various points over the last few years, and I have shared this with him personally. Where some have urged a “bolder” response to TEC, within the limits of his ecclesial and moral authority, I have urged the same thing. But I categorically reject the charges made here that he has set about to undermine agreements made among the Primates, as at Dar es Salaam, or to manipulate and ignore legal processes such as those in place at the ACC last May.
In the first instance, RW was personally a key player (not the only one) at getting the Dar agreement nominally accepted, through face to face persuasion on the floor, as it were. That has been stated by several GS primates present at the time. But the agreement was also made possible by the compromise work of primates who were not personally disposed to aspects of its content, e.g. Australia. The Dar agreement, in other words, was intrinsically fragile, based as it was on temporary dynamics and uncertain internal commitments. The sense of Lambeth, it soon became apparent, was that its prosecution was thereby vulnerable from the start, and at the first sign of withdrawal of strong support outside of the meeting, Lambeth decided that pressing the agreement concretely would be counterproductive to the agreements actual aims. These “signs” included TEC and AMiA both immediately rejecting key provisions, and their allies quickly standing behind them.
I believe that RW gave up too quickly, choosing instead (as he has consistently done) to rebuild alternative consensus for change through other groups (e.g. the Windsor Continuation Group). This is fair game to debate and criticize, it seems to me. But the notion that RW was the skunk in the patch here is, to put it bluntly, a matter of sinners throwing stones. The Primates Meeting had already proved to be, in certain respects, a place where bishops behaved badly, and the fact that it was judged to be a weak reed should surprise no one. I don’t believe it needed to be left at this place, but again, that is matter for debate.
As for the ACC, we all know that the running of this meeting was a procedural disaster that has set back the ACC’s credibility enormously, fanning the flames of suspicion by all and sundry. No one can mitigate that loss of trust or the justifications in general for that loss. But there is a long way between such generally well-founded worries about the ACC’s ability to do its job fairly and well, and condemning this or that individual with deliberate and malicious intent. “Manipulation” there was, I would think, although any precise assessment of blame is not possible to come by. And Canterbury’s role in this demonstrates confusion — albeit deeply regrettable confusion — rather than strategic subversion. Furthermore, the outcome with respect to the Covenant strikes me as a sign of recognition of this fact: amazingly expeditious revision, and starkly restrained in its focus. People don’t seem to admit mistakes much anymore in public; but the manner of this outcome adds up to an admission of sorts. That is my read of the matter, and I don’t think it is particularly pollyannish. Not, that is, in the face of the anti-Stalinists and anti-Czarists faced off against each other.
I remain convinced that those leaders — bishops, clergy, and laity — who can order their service to the church for the long haul, steadily and solidly faithful, ordered, engaged in commonly established processes of ecclesial life, honest and charitable, and perseverant in their commitments within and for the sake of the people shared (not just locally), will prevail. That is a promise of the Lord, it seems, to “those who endure to the end”. People like Abps. Chew and Mouneer Anis presently, or Gomez recently; and others. And, for all my concerns about this and that, Rowan Williams too has demonstrated a perserverence that is bound to his faith in Christ Jesus as Lord, and not to self-interest. From that certainly I can be strengthened. So should others be, whether or not they can affirm his decisions in this or that particular matter.
Dr. Radner (#49),
I appreciate your frank, personal assessment of ++RW and the whole, convoluted, messy course of events within Anglicanism over the last few years. Given your extensive contacts with Cantaur and other AC leaders, it is very important testimony. Thank you.
FWIW, I prefer not to vilify individuals and to try to depersonalize our vexing disputes within Anglicanism (despite occasional hyperbolic language that may seem to the contrary), because I don’t believe that the root of the conflicts we’ve had to face in the AC have been due to personal weaknesses and failings, as glaring as tragic as they’ve been. There is no need to look for scapegoats, however natural and tempting that may be in tense, confusing times.
Rather, I firmly contend that it’s the whole Anglican SYSTEM that’s essentially at fault. IMHO, it’s hopelessly borken, beyond repair. And even if George Carey, or Robert Runcie, or Michael Ramsey, or Michael Nazir-Ali for that matter had been at the helm in recent years, we would STILL have had overwhelming difficulties dealing with this crisis.
That’s why I reassert the gist of my earlier, highly provocative claim (#37). What is needed is nothing less than a sweeping, drastic overhaul of the whole system of Anglican polity at the international level. But even more important is the deeper problem, the ingrained resistance to clarity about dogma within Anglicanism and the willingness to ENFORCE the limits of classical Anglican Doctrine and Discipline. Even at the cost of repeating the forced deposing of thousands of heretical or defiant clerics, as last happened after the Restoration in the early 1660s, when over 2,000 Puritan clergy were ejected from their livings (of course, by the brute power of the state).
Amputation is an ugly operation, clearly a desperate matter one only turns to as a last resort. But when gangrene has set in, it’s often necessary to save a life. I firmly believe that it’s sadly high time to do just that, and amputate the heretical elements within Anglicanism.
I was serious, when I said that the whole problem with the Covenant is that it eschews the notion of being punitive, aka a “penal code.”
The time for reconciliation comes AFTER the war is won, and our foes have been FORCED into uncondiational surrender. Then, and only then, are efforts at making peace and waging reconciliation proper and necessary.
But this is the time for all-out WAR, in the name of the Prince of Peace.
And I mean that literally. Doctrine trumps polity. Not vice versa. A superficial, merely institutional unity that doesn’t reflect genuine theological unity is OF NO VALUE whatsoever. None, in my book.
But of course, that’s why I unashamedly call for nothing less than a New Reformation, no matter how bitterly divisive it may prove.
“Dr. Phil” is famous for asking guests on his TV talk show, “Would you rather be right or be in relationship?” Well, in this case, I will unhesitatingly answer, “I’d rather be right.” And to hell with my theological adversaries!!
And again, I do mean that literally.
David Handy+
Oops, sorry for the typo’s in my little tirade and rant above. As is often the case, I wrote with white hot passion, more than due care.
I meant of course that our current Anglican is hopelessly [b]broken[/b], and one of the root causes is our pathetic [b]unwillingness[/b] to put the Doctrine and Discipline back into the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism, using whatever degree of force is necessary.
David Handy+
I understand the arguments regarding the ABC’s actions as akin to that of a contractual party that maintains that its performance is impossible due to changed circumstances. IMHO, this does not explain the need for resort to the JSC procedure for adjudication of the DES Communique, and ultimately the lack of any consequence in the face of patent non-compliance. I suppose we will disagree on this.
As a lowly blog commenter, my observations matter very little; but here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Statement:
[blockquote] The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions. We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global Communion with a colonial structure’.
Sadly, this crisis has torn the fabric of the Communion in such a way that it cannot simply be patched back together. At the same time, it has brought together many Anglicans across the globe into personal and pastoral relationships in a fellowship which is faithful to biblical teaching, more representative of the demographic distribution of global Anglicanism today and stronger as an instrument of effective mission, ministry and social involvement.[/blockquote]
ISTM that the SCotAC, in the context of the last ACC meeting, is facing a rather tall order.
#50 Many thanks for raising the seventeenth century example (and we might reflect too on the non-jurors). It is worth saying that attempts were made to maintain the comprehensiveness of the COE. Of course such attempts failed – which marked the failure of the “one church” theological norm that had been as essential to being of the church. Sadly, of course, the divisions in the Body of Christ that were institutionalized in mid-late seventeenth century scar the Body of Christ still. That might at least give us pause before dividing further?
Thanks for a typically thoughtful response, driver8 (#53) to my ill-tempered, inflammatory #50. Reading my post over again today, I must admit that I find it a little embarrassing, much more in the volatile, ferocious spirit of Martin Luther than the judicious, irenic spirit of Richard Hooker, but that’s actually characteristic of me, when I get in a peevish mood, which I must have been that day.
Anyway, my positive reference to the hardline ejection of the Puritan clergy after 1660 shouldn’t be taken as a blanket endorsement of all the harsh, even draconian policies adopted during the Restoration period. That may have been the glorious era of John Donne, but it was also the era that gave us John Bunyan’s masterpiece, [b]Pilgrim’s Progress[/b], after he spent at least 12 years in Bedford jail as a “dissenting” preacher for refusing to conform to the Established Church. And of course, it was also the era that gave us John Milton’s matchless [b]Paradise Lost[/b], completed around 1667. So I’m well aware that as the CoE began constricting inward and forcing Puritan-minded folks out, there was much that was good and noble that unfortunately was lost in the process. I realize that the price tag attached to greater theological clarity within the CoE was very high.
But I would still assert that it was probably worth it.
Bottom line: as I keep repeating ad nauseum, Dogma trumps Polity, not vice versa. And genuine theological unity certainly trumps an empty, superficial institutional unity. And the only realistic way to recover the classic Doctrine of Anglicanism, is by being willing to also recover and strenuously reassert the classic Discipline of Anglicanism, however many heretical heads must roll in the process.
Well, there I go again, with a grimly violent matephor, but hey, that’s par for the course, isn’t it?
Cheekily, but appreciatively,
David Handy+
#49 – Ephraim writes:
[blockquote]I remain convinced that those leaders—bishops, clergy, and laity—who can order their service to the church for the long haul, steadily and solidly faithful, ordered, engaged in commonly established processes of ecclesial life, honest and charitable, and perseverant in their commitments within and for the sake of the people shared (not just locally), will prevail. That is a promise of the Lord, it seems, to “those who endure to the endâ€. People like Abps. Chew and Mouneer Anis presently, or Gomez recently; and others. And, for all my concerns about this and that, Rowan Williams too has demonstrated a perserverence that is bound to his faith in Christ Jesus as Lord, and not to self-interest. From that certainly I can be strengthened. So should others be, whether or not they can affirm his decisions in this or that particular matter.[/blockquote]
I may be changing directions somewhat but I am intrigued by the notion of being at present in the midst of a reformation process. It is not simply doctrinal but constitutional. Certainly we are at a doctrinal tipping point and it remains to be seen how the Communion will emerge. I certainly hope that what emerges will be a robust Church that is Catholic and Reformed, and which says NO to the doctrinal revisions that are partly at the heart of our conflict. I do believe that Truth trumps Unity so long as it is objective Truth that is Apostolic, Biblical and Catholic. We are still in the midst of discussions as to adiaphora and core doctrine and those will continue. The Covenant to my mind is still the best vehicle to work out how not to tear the fabric of the Communion in future times. I wish there were ways to mend the tear, however I suspect that that will not happen in my lifetime.
Meanwhile I see a process of reformation maybe taking place that moves the Anglican Communion from dependence upon a Canterbury bishop, who is by definition a part of the Church of England. I ask myself if there is a parallel with the fact that the Bishop of Rome is no longer Italian. In fact I am not sure that the dual roles of Canterbury could tolerate a foreigner. However I wonder if – without creating a papal figure for Anglicanism, which most would reject anyway – it might be possible to indeed move the locus of “authority” to a body that indeed is more representative of the Communion. If the new Joint Standing Committee is a start in that direction, then I wonder where it will go.
From my perspective the Canterbury link is precious but now onerous due to conflicts between the needs of the C of E and the needs of the Communion. I question the constitutional importance of Canterbury when he is inevitably a figurehead for the Western Anglican Church, but where the effective mass of Anglicans are in the Global South. This conflict constitutionally has, in my mind, become an issue since Lambeth 1988 when the Global South leadership found themselves in difficulty at such a “western” gathering with its resolutions and parliamentary procedures (all in English of course) – similarly a problem in Jamaica in 2009.
So where do we go? I am convinced we are going somewhere and if the GS commits to the Covenant as I expect and hope they will then they will set the course that Canterbury has opened since 2003.
Having said all this I take huge strength from the Windsor Report paragraph 42, which begins:
[blockquote]All of this can be summed up in a word which, though often misunderstood, denotes an elusive sixth element which might hold the key: authority. The Anglican Communion does not have a Pope, nor any system which corresponds to the authority structure and canonical organisation of the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican Communion has always declared that its supreme authority is scripture.[/blockquote]
By the way – thanks to those who have suggested that this is a spiritual warfare issue. I believe it is too. I abhor the influence of the Satcher institute and smell Wormwood at work.
Aye, Wormwood in collusion with Wormtongue.
#39 Ross–I can assure you that the GS is not just trying to brush off the west. The Global South understands itself to represent the majority of the Communion in terms of the number of provinces and communicants. Why should they brush off the Communion when they are the majority of the Communion? From their vantage point (which I believe will win the day), they already define the majority of the Communion and the direction of the Communion. While KJS is trying to win a game of baseball, the Global South has been playing cricket. Sooner or later it will not matter if KJS wins her game, because she will discover that the Communion has been playing cricket all along. It would have been much easier on all of us, had TEC five, ten, or fifteen years ago realized that the game at hand is not baseball. We keep going out there with a bat in hand swinging away trying to score runs, sometimes we think we’re doing well, sometimes we are stymied, but all along we’ve known something is amiss. I have had the privilege of watching Archbishop Chew since before his election as bishop. He is persistent and passionate for building up the Church and planting the Church where peoples have yet to hear the Gospel of Jesus, God Incarnate. He is playing to win; he is playing hard; and he is playing cricket.