Ms. [Janet] Marshall gave a brief history of FWMC’s work on human sexuality this past triennium. She reminded COGS that they had already stated their preference for a dialogue-focused General Synod that upheld the value of local, national, and international relationships.
Ms. Marshall then walked COGS through FWMC’s proposed process for discussing issues of human sexuality at General Synod. In the proposed format, General Synod would begin by “faithful reporting” of FWMC’s work in plenary, then break out into smaller discussion groups. Feedback from these groups would be collated and shared in plenary. The smaller groups would meet again for the same process of synthesis and shared plenary feedback. Finally a resolution would be shaped out of this feedback, and General Synod would vote on it.
COGS members discussed the proposed process. Some responded very positively. Others asked for clarification on who would draft the final resolution and whether there would be enough time for this process on the General Synod agenda.
One council member proposed that a motion-affirming the local option for dioceses to approve same-sex blessings-be brought to General Synod. COGS discussed this motion, but ultimately decided not to forward it to General Synod.
“The Rev. Grieb noted that no provinces have yet ratified this Covenant. She said that from TEC’s perspective the document has progressed from being very rough to being a draft “that they could live with.””
Yep, TEC will sign it, and continue to tear the Communion apart.
“COGS members raised a variety of questions about the Covenant. Some asked whether elements of section four could be used to take punitive action against the Anglican Church of Canada. The Rev. Grieb clarified that the Covenant would not be retroactive and is intended as a “new start” within the Communion.”
So, the Covenant accepts SSBs and gay bishops as status quo. Wonder if anyone has told the GS that this is the case, or if this is only being shared among those who are friends of the ACO and the Standing Committee.
Too true, TJ. Just as the Anaheim statement was rendered impotent by having revisionists sign on to it, so will the Covenant. Everyone will be at the table at the end which was Rowan’s goal – a two tier Communion where everyone is in the first tier.
If TEC continues to tear the Communion apart, it will only be because the Communion allows it.
#3- I don’t think rational analysis leads to the conclusion that everyone will be at the table. I tend to think it leads to there being one real Communion of Churches that is poor, and another group that is pretending to be churches, but has lots of money.
Agreed (#1-4). As usual, I particularly concur with robroy’s rather brutal summary of an all-too-plausible outcome (#3).
This short report from the ACoC’s General Synod practically shouts out the severe and damning limitations of the current Covenant. If TEC can find this Covenant something [i]”they could live with,”[/i] then it’s completely useless. A total waste of time and effort. And the succinct summation of Dr. Scully’s report immediately gets to the heart of the problem, that section 4 now leaves the hopelessly compromised “AC Standing Committee” in charge of adjudicating conflicts.
But what in the world do you expect when liberals are part of the CDG in the first place? The very fact that Dr. Grieb and especially the even more liberal Dr. Eileen Scully were appointed (by ++RW of course, not by the Primates or some representative group) to serve on the CDG is symptomatic of why (IMHO) the whole process was fatally flawed from the start. You don’t put rebellious teenagers on the family council, with veto power over whatever family rules are made for dealing with their own insubordinate behavior. You don’t let prisoners serve on the committee that determines when they are eligible for parole, etc.
Sadly, the Covenant is a tragic farce, as this highly revealing little Canadian report shows all too clearly (with no attempt to disguise its implications). The ONLY possible way to preserve communion within the AC is on the basis of genuine repentance on the part of those provinces currently “walking apart” from not only the majority of the AC but the great majority of Christians worldwide. And more importantly, walking resolutely away the Scriptures, the consensual moral tradition of the Church for 2,000 years, and not least away from Christ himself.
The bottom line is that there are WORSE things than the institutional break up of the AC. Heresy of the blatant kind we’re now witnessing within western, Global North Anglicanism is WORSE. Far worse in my judgment. That is the fundamental reality, the harsh, bitter reality which many leaders in the AC (including not a few honorable orthodox ones) still shy away from facing squarely.
I sure hope this kind of smug, complacent, unrepentant analysis of prospects by American and Canadian leaders is widely shared and made known at the upcoming South to South Encounter. It ought to reinforce the grim warnings of Dr. Stephen Noll that the current draft of the Covenant is so flawed as to render it useless.
David Handy+