General Synod 2010 will consider the Covenant. The question is whether or not the Anglican Church of Canada should approve or adopt the Covenant. We suggest that the church, given its present practice with regard to same-sex blessings, cannot in good faith adopt or approve the Covenant.
Indeed, the Covenant offers the Anglican Church of Canada an opportunity to be honest before the world about its commitment to same-sex blessings and its willingness, in the name of its own standards of justice, to walk apart from the universal church.ӬWhy can the church not adopt the Covenant? It cannot because the Covenant insists on a primary commitment to the universal and apostolic church, a commitment that the movement for same-sex blessings rejects as opposing its standards of justice.
To approve the Covenant is to approve its insistence on the wider voice of the church in our own deliberations about same-sex blessings in Canada. It is to take seriously the inherited teaching of the church on scripture, in this case with regard to marriage. To approve the Covenant is therefore to refuse to proceed unilaterally with same-sex blessings.
Would that all could be so commendably honest; I wonder if anyone in TEC will take the same stand.
Did anyone else wonder whether the author’s themselves endorse the “justice” rhetoric or were simply calling on the church to have the courage to be consistent in the position it has in fact taken? Comments like this seem to have a sharp edge that cuts both ways:
[blockquote]To approve the Covenant is to approve its insistence on the wider voice of the church in our own deliberations about same-sex blessings in Canada. It is to take seriously the inherited teaching of the church on scripture, in this case with regard to marriage. To approve the Covenant is therefore to refuse to proceed unilaterally with same-sex blessings.[/blockquote]
I know Dean+ and Catherine+, and can say they are firmly opposed to same-sex blessings. They were key leaders in Fidelity, which is the conservative counterpoint to Integrity in Canada.
I think what they’re trying to do in this article is to appeal to liberals’ sense of honesty. The Anglican Church of Canada is hell-bent on going its own way on gay marriage, and I don’t think there’s any point in trying to stop it. Those with power decided a long time ago they want it, so that’s what will happen.
Given that, these writers’ appeal is to have leadership accept the consequences of its decisions. If you really think this is the prophetic way forward, and worth breaking faith with the rest of the communion, then do it right. Say that you don’t feel constrained by communion opinion. Don’t go on in the communion as if nothing has happened to tear its fabric.
For what it’s worth, I think their argument would resonate with many libs. The activist types don’t want any restriction on blessings, so they are uncomfortable with any document which could put limits on their behaviour. It remains to be seen if the Global South’s efforts will result in a covenant with teeth, but even if it doesn’t, a covenant presents at least a potential check on self-determination. What benefit would it be for activists to sign it then? They have what they want without it, and wouldn’t have to go through the trouble of using double-talk to pretend they care what Africans think.
Stephen+
#2, it is the latter of those two positions.
Precisely, Stephen+. One of the things that most disgusts me, and I suspect a lot of traditionalists, is the insistence of the “progressives” to want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to ramrod their “prophetic way forward” (though manifestly not supported by either the OT Law, or prophets, or the clear witness of the NT, or a mere two millennia of Church tradition), and still blithely claim a seat in the Communion, as if nothing they’ve done has been communion-breaking. Or at most what we hear are “regrets” for shredding the bonds of affection, but no attempts at repentance or true reconciliation. Of course I realize that for those who are dedicated to this path, there IS no need for repentance, since in their worldview, there has been no transgression.
I would have a lot more respect for the leadership of TEC and the ACC if they simply acknowledged the consequences of their decisions and removed themselves from the Anglican Communion. But I also know that this will likely never happen, since they are both wedded to their worldview and enjoy the trappings of affiliation with the WWAC too much to divorce themselves. It would also be a frank admission that their “gospel” is NOT the gospel of the majority of the WWAC, or that of the majority of Christians.
J. Champlin (#2),
I had the same instinctive reaction, without knowing anything about the two authors. But seeing that Catherine Sider-Hamilton was a doctoral candidate at Wycliffe College in Tornota strengthened my hope that they were, as #3-4 have confirmed, speaking from the conservative side and challenging the liberals to have the courage of their convictions and be honest enough to accept the consequences.
I think it’s a very sensible, effective piece. Hopefully, the Canadian leaders have more integrity than PBs Griswold and Jefferts Schori. #5 seems sure our neighbors to the north will prove as feckless and duplicitous as in America. I don’t know. At least the Anglican Journal gets credit for publisihing the challenge. Time will tell.
David Handy+
Two corrections. First, sorry for the misspelling of Toronto. But more importantly, I thought I vaguely remembered that Catherine Sider-Hamilton actually taught at Wycliffe College, and sure enough, she is listed as an adjunct faculty member. A Google search shows that among other things, she signed the April 18, 2007 letter of protest sent to the Canadian HoB by James Packer and 24 other conservative Canadian theologians and scholars.
The more I think about it, the more remarkable I think it is that [b]The Anglican Journal,[/b] as an inhouse ACoC publication, would publish such a bold challenge to the dominant liberal wing of that denomination. I doubt that Jim McNaughton would allow any such thing over at The Episcopal Cafe, etc.
David Handy+
My favorite line:
“Since we are already proceeding with same-sex blessings in three dioceses, it would be self-contradictory, if not dishonest, to approve, still less adopt, the Covenant.”
Absolutely right.
That’s highly quotable, and that entirely valid point ought to be pressed with the stubbornly unrepentant leaders of TEC who must likewise eventually decide what to do about the Covenant. For the worst possible scenario would be for the leaders of ACoC and TEC to go ahead and sign the Covenant with their fingers crossed behind their backs, and then to blithely ignore and flout it as they continue to walk apart.
David Handy+