If the purpose of an Anglican Covenant is to maintain unity, it should forthrightly commit the entire Communion to it by forswearing schism. Our unity rests on a common belief in a creedal communion of churches, catholic and reformed, in which reason, scholarship, inquiring minds and discerning hearts are welcomed. The covenant should describe this charismatic nature of the Communion, and commit its members to maintain it. The covenant should dedicate the churches to the mission handed down by the apostles ”” to bring to all the world the saving benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. It should provide for the widest expression of koinonia among Anglicans and other sacramental Christians. Its new feature should be a commitment to debate disagreements until a solution appears that gains the acceptance of the Communion.
If the Anglican Communion remains true to its past, whatever mechanism is adopted for resolution of interchurch disputes will be administrative only, not adjudicatory. It will convene parties and facilitate discussion that continues until an accommodation is worked out. One acceptable outcome would be agreement that the issue partakes of permissible Anglican diversity and not essential catholicity. Above all, a covenant would exclude schism as a means of terminating debate. Serious engagement must continue until a matter is resolved. One side cannot say “We have no need of you” and leave, or expel the other.
In the long view, the covenant should declare that the Anglican Communion, along with the Eastern and Roman communions, is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It should point out the value of the Anglican Communion’s special and reformed understanding of the church, the scriptures, the historic ministry, and the sacraments; an understanding that in God’s time could form the basis for the reunion of catholic and protestant Christendom. And, as said above, it should forswear schism and anathema, opening a forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes without resort to an adjudicative curia, where debate would continue until it arrives at a “mind of the Communion,” compatible with the mind of Christ.
These two sentences reveal the heart of the problem, the square that Beaman is trying to turn into a circle:
[blockquote]In the long view, the covenant should declare that the Anglican Communion, along with the Eastern and Roman communions, is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It should point out the value of the Anglican Communion’s special and reformed understanding of the church, the scriptures, the historic ministry, and the sacraments; an understanding that in God’s time could form the basis for the reunion of catholic and protestant Christendom.[/blockquote]
If the Anglican Communion is an [i]integral[/i] part of the Catholic church [i]along with[/i] with Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches (something both Rome and the East deny), then how can it have a “special” understanding of church, ministry and sacraments? The first sentence declares that we are Catholic, but the second declares that we are sectarians.
Further, what is so “special” about our understanding of these things such that they could form the basis of corporate reunion of no less than all who call themselves Christian, particularly since we can’t seem to agree on them ourselves? The only thing “special” here is a kind of arrogance that has characterized Anglican self-understanding for a long time, the “bridge church” concept that, particularly in the light of recent events, shows itself to be without any real substance, especially so long as we continue to insist on being “special.”
Disagreements and debate can exist in the context of Communion. However such debate must be carried out in the context of mutual respect and shared parameters of faith. However when one part of the communion exceeds those paramters acts unilaterally by creating “facts on the ground” and refuses change its course, debate and mutual respect has ended. That is what TEC has done on the issue of blessing of same sex unions and the consecraton of partnered homosexuals as bishops and their ordination as priests and deacons. As our sufragan bishop recently stated, “We are who we are.” How can one say that they remain in communion under such circumstances?
The theological revision of TEC does not stop there. The Presiding Bishop is engaged on a course of religious pluralism that denies that Christ is the way the truth and the life; but rather is but one way among many. Leaders in the church are denying the atoning death and sacrifice of Christ. The church has redifined the mission from one of salvation to furthering the MDGs. All of which ultimately leads to the denial of Christ’s divinity. At what point will TEC unilateraly adopt these positions effectively telling the rest of he commuion to take it or leave it? Can communion continue under such circumstances?
As a parishioner I have litle impact on the larger issues of the Anglican Communion. I have little impact on the course of the national church. Our deputies to GC 2006 publicly stated that they were not obligated to represent the position or interests of anyone. In their view they were there to vote their own concience. So much for representative democracy in the church.
But how can I or my parish continue to support the church when its leadership that has embarked on such courses? Individuals can leave, and are leaving. Those who have an identity as a parish family may choose to leave together. They should be permitted to do so and to join with the broader communion. That is not schism. That is following one’s call in Christ.
Part of being a Christian body is to let others, who do not desire communion with us or who desire communion only on their terms leave. Just as Jesus let the Rich Young Ruler leave after Jesus told him to sell all that he had, we too may need to let TECUSA leave after we have told them (several times) that to act on “new teaching” without consensus is to act schismatically. We asked, we begged, we pleaded, but no one listened. It is time to let TECUSA walk away.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Taz said:
[blockquote] Leaders in the church are denying the atoning death and sacrifice of Christ. The church has redifined the mission from one of salvation to furthering the MDGs. All of which ultimately leads to the denial of Christ’s divinity. [/blockquote]
This is precisely the problem. There is nothing really wrong about the MDGs. I heard them mentioned at a Rotary meeting dealing with fresh water problems in underdeveloped countries. The MDGs are a great focus for Rotary action. But the Church is not the Rotary Club. The Church has been given a different and distinct mission from the Rotary Club.
[blockquote] The mission of the Church is to restore all people to
unity with God and each other in Christ. -BCP 855[/blockquote]
[blockquote]…the covenant should declare that the Anglican Communion, along with the Eastern and Roman communions, is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.[/blockquote]
Does this mean that the author is proposing that we reverse the innovations of the 20/21 centuries and hold such innovations in abeyance until accepted by the entire church catholic?
taz, as a layperson I share your frustration. I have written letters to our Bishop (unanswered), Bishop Griswold( lamely answered), and Bishop Schori (unanswered). I have talked two our priest’s and other perishoners. A lot of people are sitting on thier thumbs (me included) waiting to see how things shake out. The ship of Church is foundering and we just watch it break apart. TEC seems to feel that the homophile agenda is more important than unity and respect and the wisdom found incoming together with a loving attitude and submissive heart.
David B,
Indeed they are. There are a few who because of specific circumstances are still able to do some good within TEC, and could not be accurately described as sitting on their thumbs. For most of the rest (me included) there are solid grounds to leave, and opportunities outside TEC. While I am following the events within TEC with avid interest, I am rather more busy with my new/old churches. I already attend a faithful church, so what happens in TEC matters, but not that much personally.
I realize that everyone has a unique situation, but sitting this out in a non-TEC church removes you from complicity, however indirect. It also gives you some real peace of mind, and the ability to get on with the core tasks of the church. And no, I certainly don’t mean the MDGs! 🙂
APB
The problem with all of the discussions I have read of the proposed Anglican Covenant is that it seems everyone wants to use a watered-down definition of [i]covenant[/i]. A covenant is not like a contract in that a contract may be renegotiated as soon as it is signed. Biblically, the breaking of a covenant leads to the death of the one who broke it, although in many cases God was merciful to covenant breakers. However, in many other cases, we know He rained complete destruction upon them.
I would suggest that the Rev. Beaman read O. Palmer Robertson’s book, [i]The Christ of the Covenants[/i], which is the best I know of on covenant theology. Robertson defines a covenant as “a bond in [b]blood[/b] (emphasis mine) sovereignly adminstered”. Of course, the sovereign for the Biblical covenants is God. One of the main problems preventing the acceptance of an Anglican covenant is the refusal of so many provinces to accept the necessity of some sovereign to administer the covenant and to mete out punishment for those who break the covenant. Since it is not likely that any true blood punishments could be meted out, the only meaningful one would be expulsion, which would be tantamount to a sovereignly imposed schism, which I am sure would not be acceptable to Beaman+.
He also seems to have bought into women’s ordination, failing to see that WO was the thin edge of the wedge that opened the door to the ordination and consecration of noncelibate homosexuals. It appears he wants himself and his church to be members of the “Anglican Club” without meeting the requirements of membership as expressed in the proposed covenants, which are intended to be reflections of the standards set forth in the 39 Articles and the Bible.
Nice try, but it won’t work.
Oh to have your cake and eat it too –
the libertarianism that underlies the whole thrust of this article is the great Anglo-American fantasy that will not die. As I’d Rather Not Say makes clear, sectarianism is the fruit of this vision. If we are truly orthodox catholics, we submit to the wisdom of the Church as it has been revealed – period. Our “specialness” as Anglicans can only be in the service of Christ if it is used to lead the faithful to walk in the truth. It will bring no salt or light to the world if it is used to keep us in a state of constant re-evaluation of and speculation regarding core truths simply because some kind of self-proclaimed theologian or a “significant” minority has identified a new principle. If we are the Church, we resolve theological and moral/questions at the highest levels so that ministry goes forward in unity. Those who are recalcitrant in protecting their pet doctrines to the detriment of the catholic faith have to ultimately be excluded. We may not call them heretics anymore, but love requires that truth without sugar-coating is what must be fed the faithful. Those who desire to feed them delectations formed from their own exotic and specially-processed ingredients can have their own private parties.
RE: “…the covenant should declare that the Anglican Communion, along with the Eastern and Roman communions, is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
No, the covenant should declare that Sarah-At-T19 is “an intergral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
[roll eyes]
“In the long view, the covenant should declare that the Anglican Communion, along with the Eastern and Roman communions, is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Lotsa luck. Why not declare, instead, “that the Anglican Communion, along with the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht, the ‘Porvoo Communion,’ the ELCA and the Unitarian-Universalist Association, is an integral part of the Pluriform, Autonomous, Particular and Contemporary ‘Church’?” That would seem to fit the bill better, and involve like-minded and willing “bedfellows” rather then willing mates for an Anglican Shreck.
I think, in my simpleness, that a covanent should state what is needed to be believed and aceepted to be a member of the “group”, what the basic qualifications are to be clergy, and how to negotiate the rest.
“and involve like-minded and willing “bedfellows†rather then willing mates for an Anglican Shreck.”
I meant to write “unwilling” rather than “willing.” (The sense of my comment was, of course, that ECUSA, like the other “churches” or “communions” there mentioned have become the ecclesiastical equivalent of a freak-show. It is a strange world when the Unitarian-Universalist Association is probably in practice the most staid member of such a set of religious associations.)
#9: And excellent response and I am instructed. The bonf in blood is the right phrase, and I doubt that there is anyone left in the western world who is willing to commit himself to so strong (and proper) and agreement, because we are all taught that what is most important to us is keeping our options open. This means committing yourself to nothing too far; one must always be able to get out when a better option appears. This is certainly the American Way of Life. But I must add in honesty that if I were offered such a bond, I do not know that I would have the courage to enter it, because it should be as watertight as the marriage oath – (and yet, we know how watertight that is). Have I ever committed myself to anything to the very death? The martyrs have, but I doubt myself. Larry
Dave B:
[i]and other perishoners[/i]
Interesting (Freudian?) typo. Perish-oners? Parishoners is the correct spelling, but I had to share with you that it caused me a chuckle. 🙂
Peace
Jim Elliott
P.S. I will be the first to admit that I am not the best at proof-reading my posts for spelling. I think it goes back to old T1:9 to beat the math question time-outs. je