Dr. Noll’s paper, which forms the substance of Philip Ashey’s article, is must reading.
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/assets/News-and-Commentary-Files/2010/08-2010/Revised-Covenant-1-Aug-10WEB.pdf]Here’s the link[/url]
I most sincerely pray that this receives deep and perceptive
study prior to our Diocese signing the covenant. Reading the latest from England, it seems that we might indeed be “joining” a state-established entity, that could cause real problems.
I wonder how likely it is that anyone with authority will even bother reviewing Dr. Noll’s program. Oh me, of little faith in the Anglican Communion.
Grandmother in SC
We are getting a Communion with more coordinated and focused relationships – whether it is to be located in the new Standing Committee (as seems the plan of the ACO) or more equally amongst the Instruments of Unity. This is a long term trajectory within the Communion’s life.
As I understanding it the Pope has by divine law ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese in communion with the See of Peter. Curial authority stems, in large part, from this theological claim. I don’t see anyone in the current Anglican making such an assertion about any body.
The pressing questions are about how the relationships the Communion has claimed exist, are reflected and represented in our shared life. Jibes about the curia poorly reflect what we claim to have agreed about the exercise of authority in the church in our ecumenical conversations. In addition too often they seem to reflect not a principled reflection on authority within the church but simply a way of throwing mud at authority with which one thinks one may disagree.
The covenant only exists between provinces. That much is clear at the moment. I am sort of mystified at how people who claim the 39 Articles with their defense of “national churches” and the Lambeth Quadrilateral with its affirmation of communion and “adaption for local conditions” can possibly think this thing is a good idea. One can be left or right orriented, liberal or conservative and still see it for what it is — a power grab.
Authority is exercised according to some sorts of theological realities and principles. We have wanted to reflect a pattern of ecclesial relationships not limited to the boundaries of the nation state (TEC itself is famously international). Embodying the reality what we share in Christ is what the Communion is, and always has been, about.
That is Anglicans have both historically rejected the Papal claims of ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese and wanted to find ways of appropriately embodying and manifesting our shared life in Christ.
I should just say that my reflection is that such a proposal represents not an attempt to further one of the original aims of the Covenant (which was to embody the unity that existed within the Communion) but to formalize the lack of unity. So there’s a sense in which it’s attempting, in this respect, to do something quite different than that at which the Covenant originally aimed.
UnAnglican? Its as UnAnglican as having one prayerbook for the whole of England and beyond. Unity through conformity. Now that the question of Women’s Ordination has been settled, there will be no deviation. Whatever Communion we have had, and I do not think there has been much (except the Grand Idea) is now down the drain.
Sorry, but I find most of the comments so far in this thread on Dr. Noll’s suggestions totally unintelligible. “Curia?” where does that come from in these? While I’m doubtful that even the ineffective draft of the Covenant now circulating in the Communion will be passed, and I’m even less hopeful that Professor Noll’s ideas will ever get a serious hearing within the institutional structures of the Communion, but they at least deserve coherent responses from thoughtful commentators on T19!
#14 Well, I find myself living in the rubble of my hopes for Anglicanism. Every time we claim to be trying to build up trust, the reality of our broken life is manifested with heartbreaking clarity. I keep saying my prayers and asking for mercy. What we are, and have become, horrifies me but it is what it is. I’m tempted by the sins of despair, apathy and restlessness but try to rest my heart in Christ.
Chris, don’t expect honest comments on the Covenant from revisionists just as conservatives shouldn’t accept advice from liberal MSM [sic] pundits.
Professor Noll addresses your queston of whether an appropriately revised Covenant will get a “serious hearing.” There is a meeting of African primates later this month in Uganda. I agree the “Final Draft” Covenant is dead after the meeting of the “Standing Committee” (revisionists overplaying their hand again). The question is whether some of the more tainted provinces such as South Africa would go along with Professor Noll’s Covenant? (Let’s call it the PNC.) I don’t know. How about the Comm Con provinces such as Tanzania and West Africa? I don’t know. Would the steadfast provinces such as Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda ratify it without unanimity? I don’t know. Hopefully, we will see some action.
francis, the actual quote is: “good [i]fences[/i] make good neighbors” taken from Frost’s poem which begins: “Something there is which does not love a wall.” in which he makes the point that the stone walls which separate fields in New England (and New York) must continually be rebuilt because they continually tumble down. Later in the poem he wonders if his neighbor is worried that the apple trees will wander into the wrong field if there is no wall to keep them in.
So there’s your parable.
Now we have two covenants on the table: one apparently designed specifically to prevent action from being taken against TEC and the other to ensure real accountability to orthodoxy.
When a cell splits, it first forms parallel structures which line up until a cell wall forms down the middle and the two go their separate ways. Parallel structures have been forming now for several years with the finishing touch of now a parallel — but vastly different — covenant.
So, something there is which [b]does[/b] in fact love a wall. Looks to me like she’s gettin’ ready to blow.
“Where does ‘curia’ come from?” What do you call a council of primates making centralized decisions?
If one puts down the ideological hats and looks at sections 3 and 4, what you find is a legal system. At this moment, one can argue that Nigeria, Uganda, R’wanda, USA, Canada and England are all in violation.
Now nothing is gonna happen to England or Ireland regardless of what they do. By now we should be clear on who the master manipulators are. Canon Kearon and Dr. Williams are not going to let something happen to their homes. The “standing committee” just voted to study the financial impact of tossing TEC out. As TEC provides about 30% of the ACC budget, one might predict the outcome of the study. So who gets tossed?
Conservatives may think of TEC as the bad guys, and liberals may think of conservatives as the bad guys, but clearly Dr. Williams has a somewhat different view. Any trouble making colonial is a bad guy. So you all want this thing because?
Well, Dr Noll’s rewrite sounds more like ‘The Road to Lambeth’ and the Jerusalem Declaration. Now if that is what some people want, no doubt they will sign up to the Jerusalem Declaration.
I am not sure that that is either what most of the Communion, or indeed the Global South want and it cannot be found in the totality of the Singapore Communique.
It says: there is a crisis in the Communion, therefore the answer is a fedcon answer, with Canterbury removed, or sidelined.
In its own way it is as extreme as what Canterbury has come up with which is to say: there is a crisis in the Communion, therefore the answer is a centralised controlled answer, with all control under a liberal dominated Standing Committee blocking everthing and perpetual everlasting Indaba.
Neither is attractive to me and I suspect many other people but there must be an answer which restores control to the provinces in counsel, democratically and representatively and under the rule of law. My suspicion is that that lies in what the Global South actually wrote in their Singapore Communique. So somewhere in between…….
Canterbury is a useful focus for our Communion for a number of different reasons, notwithstanding the current incumbent, and my hope would be that it survives him.
It is perhaps worth reading again carefully the Global South Singapore Communique and in particular para 18-22 which Dr Noll has previously highlighted:
[blockquote]18. Some of our Provinces are already in a state of broken and impaired Communion with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Their continued refusal to honor the many requests1 made of them by the various meetings of the Primates throughout the Windsor Process have brought discredit to our witness and we urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the recommended actions. In light of the above, this Fourth South-to-South Encounter encourages our various Provinces to reconsider their communion relationships with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada until it becomes clear that there is genuine repentance.
19. We were pleased to welcome two Communion Partner bishops from The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and acknowledge that with them there are many within TEC who do not accept their church’s innovations. We assure them of our loving and prayerful support. We are grateful that the recently formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a faithful expression of Anglicanism. We welcomed them as partners in the Gospel and our hope is that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners.
20. For many generations Anglicans have lived together with a shared understanding of our common faith; indeed among our great gifts has been the Book of Common Prayer that has provided a foundation for our common life. In recent years the peace of our Communion has been deeply wounded by those who continue to claim the name Anglican but who pursue an agenda of their own desire in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice. This has led to a number of developments including the GAFCON meeting that took place in Jerusalem in June 2008. 2
21. Global South leaders have been in the forefront of the development of the ‘Anglican Covenant’ that seeks to articulate the essential elements of our faith together with means by which we might exercise meaningful and loving discipline for those who depart from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints.’ We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
22. Over the last 20 years we have been distracted by conflicts and controversies that have kept us from effectively fulfilling the Great Commission. While we have been so distracted, Christian heritage, identity and influence has continued to decline in the West. We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
It is quite clear from the recent Standing Committee meeting and Dr Williams other recent pronouncements, that he and the ACO have failed to take this seriously, and I think that is a pity and a lost opportunity. There has been some movement, but unfortunately Dr Williams considers that the Global South call to reform Instruments is a licence to him to promote, not more representative democracy and accountability but more Indaba, Indaba, Indaba. He has also clearly signalled his intention of pushing further the Listening Indaba process with the sole intention of people living with the sort of innovation which the US has promoted, but at the international Communion level. All the signs are that his intention is to continue to frustrate order, except when it empowers him, and to manipulate and undermine, except when it promotes his peculiar liberal view of the world.
So it is necessary for the Communion to grow up, and for representative and democratic control in the Communion to pass back to the overwhelmingly orthodox provinces.
How might this be achieved? Well my suggestion is that people get hold of a Skype or VoIP account and start talking to one another: comcon and fedcon, ACNA and Communion Partners, Africa and Asia, Europe and Africa, and so on. Forgo the attempts which will be made by Lambeth Palace and the ACO to ‘facilitate’ this process. There are five months to go till January which is time enough to negotiate a coalition agreement. After all, in May, two of our opposing parties in Britain put together a coalition government!
For those in the UK, the fascinating story ‘Five Days which changed Britain’ from the BBC can be seen here. It is a lesson in how to do it!
It deals with how two parties with apparently incompatible policies nevertheless came together for the interests of government. A lot of give and take on both sides, and the reason it works is because the groundwork of preparing an agreed document setting out the agreed policies for government was thrashed out. I wonder if a similar exercise is needed between the GS members and others.
Restoration of control back to the provinces of the Anglican Communion is the prize, and that our governance reflects the missionary zeal and energy with which our Communion is growing. The AC deserves this from its leadership, so that Christ is placed back at our head.
I was very encouraged to see Dr. Noll’s proposal. And especially encouraging to see that it is targeted toward the Bishops attending the August 23 All Africa Bishops gathering in Uganda. I agree with Dr. Noll that this is a critical opportunity for the GS Primates to again provide leadership towards a faithful 21st century Anglicanism.
The crisis within TEC and within Anglicanism has been a failure to discipline heterodoxy. That is – a failure to guard the faith and order of the Church. There is an opportunity for a new reformation which addresses the exercise of authority within Anglicanism. Discipline requires the exercise of authority. The 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 represented and still represents the “mind of the Anglican Communionâ€. But there have been no structures for discipline within the “bonds of affectionâ€. Those bonds have been broken. The proposed Covenant is intended to address this.
The strengths which I see in this proposal to revise the Covenant are: (1) the affirmation of Lambeth 1.10 within the Covenant and (2) the removal of the ACC and the Standing Committee from a position of authority. There also seems to be a carefully nuanced inclusion of and respect for the ABC office while opening the door for effective discipline by the Bishops or Primates in Council.
#25 JimB
Not at all. We had a polity, but TEC bust that apart by doing its own thing. Moves were on track at Dar by the Primates Meeting, authorised by the other Instruments, to deal with the issues, including the issues of Covenant. That was the last democratic and representative meeting that took place in the Communion, by the primates of all the Communion provinces holding an individual vote.
Then Dr Williams intervened, ignored the decision of the Primates, and substituted his own will for what would happen. The subsequent meetings of the Lambeth Conference, Primates Meeting at Alexandria and ACC meeting at Jamaica were marked by stage management by Williams and the ACO, Indaba, and such votes as there were were on resolutions which had been manipulated by the JSC, but mainly votes were not permitted, only reflections collected and interpreted by Dr Williams and his goons.
Even the ACC has now been rendered completely compromised by the gerrymandering of its Constitution by Williams and Rees, something they have kept secret from everyone including the Covenant Design Group. Now there is no way to unpick the shambles Rees and Williams have reduced the ACC and its Standing Committee to, without starting again as Dr Noll notes.
It is possible that even Dr Williams has now lost control of the monster he created. The lawlessness Schori brought to TEC bodies is now entrenched in the Communion Instruments, and the lies continue. In the same meeting where we were told that it is financially impossible for the 38 Primates to meet annually, and in future they will meet bi-annually, the Standing Committee went on to organise the next meeting of the ACC in New Zealand, remote from most provinces in the Communion, and one of the most expensive places in the world to travel to. Money is no object for the new English subjected ACC ruled by the Standing Committee, but there is, we are told by the fibbers on the Standing Committee, no money for Primates Meetings. So the manipulation, the scheming, and the downright lies from the Lambeth and St Andrew’s House bureaucracies continue. Dr Noll is right – the Instruments are in dire need of reform, personnel included.
The polity of the Communion has been reduced to a shambles, and there is indeed much work to do, even to get back to the position the Communion was in, even at Dar, and even further work is required to put things back on a representative footing.
Which brings one back to the Covenant issue. There was not a problem, before the Americans and Canadians broke, no shattered, the ‘bonds of affection’ which Provinces used previously in their Communion relationships. Since then these two small and collapsing provinces have made a noise and level of disruption out of all proportion to their size. There is now a need for democratic governance, so that the Provinces are properly represented. This does not mean in my view that it can only be about Bishops, as has been the way ACNA, and the Jerusalem Declaration have gone, but like the CofE, clergy and laity also need a say, but when it comes to decision- making in the Communion, it is important that each province is entitled to a vote, in accordance with the discernment of that province. One cannot have people from provinces co-opted onto councils and committees, as is happening with the Standing Committees, without necessarily them reflecting the discernment of their own provinces councils and synods.
I would say though that the proposal for automatic arrangements to remove and replace provinces, although ACNA might be happy with it, is just out of the old Gafcon idea, and I doubt very much that that was the will of either the Singapore meeting or of the broader Communion.
People have asked, how could a negotiation and decision-making process in the Communion proceed? It does require several people and organisations to take a lead, to come up with papers with concrete proposals and suggestions, and then for the broader community to consider and where appropriate amend or negotiate them, not in secret conclave, or ABC appointed committee, but properly, reporting back perhaps to the Primates’ Committee, CAPA and the GS encounter for example. But this also requires a body which will impliment them, and in the absence of a compromised ACO office, completely under-equiped Lambeth Palace, who can this be? Again the obvious answer is the Primates Meeting, who would need to set up a secretariat and provinces would need to contribute time and resources to set this up.
I commend those who have contributed so far, the Global South, ACI, and Gafcon, and particularly think that a draft with concrete revisions such as Dr Noll has presented, whether or not you agree with it, is a positive addition, and something which gives food for thought and can crystalise the issues which need to be dealt with. I hope the various bodies do engage with each other, but at the end of the day, all the talk is meaningless unless the will to act on those decisions is also there, including a will not to be deflected.
Pageantmaster wrote:
[blockquote] Canterbury is a useful focus for our Communion for a number of different reasons, notwithstanding the current incumbent, and my hope would be that it survives him. [/blockquote]
This is based on an unspoken assumption, that the next ABC will be better (from an orthodox point of view) than the current incumbent. But don’t all indicators lead us to expect that the next ABC will be just as tolerant of apostasy as the current one, indeed probably more so, and just as devious?
That being the case, why should orthodox Anglicans continue to tolerate the continued centrality of Canterbury in the Communion?
There is no point in trashing the Jerusalem Declaration. The Jerusalem Conference and the Lambeth boycott which followed it were warnings or harbingers of what must inevitably happen if Canterbury continues to flirt with apostasy.
If someone of the calibre of Mouneer Anis or Gregory Venables was made Archbishop of Canterbury, then I agree the problem would disappear overnight. But that is not going to happen – there are very few orthodox bishops left in CofE, and none of them have any realistic chance of being chosen as the next ABC. Therefore it seems inevitable that the Communion will spin away from Canterbury – it won’t happen overnight of course, and some will come to the conclusion quicker than others, but it is inevitable – and the fault is entirely Canterbury’s.
That being the case, shouldn’t we accept it, and get something in place sooner rather than later, e.g. a “Primate of the Communion” elected by all the Primates for a period of five years. At the same time, ABC can continue with his traditional role of being head of the CofE, which are of far greater antiquity than any role of leadership in the Communion.
I am not going to defend Williams, not any longer anyway. I think his manipulation and overreach is indefensible and continuing.
Nevertheless, my understanding is that soundings are taken from the Communion before confirmation of a new ABC. If there is a move to tighten doctrinal observance in the Communion that will impact the CofE as well. We do not know who will follow this one, but if Williams has anything to do with it it will probably be Sentamu who is probably more liberal, although I would not term him revisionist, in the American sense.
Nevertheless, I do not support a fedcon alternative, although some parts of Gafcon and ACNA no doubt do, including perhaps MichaelA.
I am in favor of a democratic Communion accountable to its member provinces, proper governance which cannot be manipulated by either the ABC and its secretariat, nor by a few rump liberal white provinces who have managed a coup in relation to the Standing Committee with the assistance of Canon Rees. I am for the rule of law, not making it up as one goes along. I believe that words matter, and where the primates issue communiques such as Dar, the rule of law means that they are not ignored, as Dr Williams and the ACO has done.
I have no problem with the ABC being first among equals, primus inter pares, not gatherer and abuser of powers. The power of gathering, agenda and timing needs to be on a regularised footing, determined by for example the Primates in relation to the Primates Meeting, not the ABC, ACO nor the usurper Standing Committee.
That does not mean that an ABC can be elected from among the Communion provinces, as the ABC is head of an English diocese, province and primate of the English church. There is no reason why for example the head of the Primates Meeting cannot rotate nor any reason why the ABC has to be chairman – he is not in relation to either the ACC or Standing Committee, but he does have the position, usually honorary, of President.
Of course that won’t satisfy the fedcons, but then I am not one of them.
I hesitate to enter into a discussion of my own essay, as I have tried to lay out the argument thoroughly there. However, I feel I must speak to a couple issues raised by Pageantmaster.
He says:
[blockquote]I would say though that the proposal for automatic arrangements to remove and replace provinces, although ACNA might be happy with it, is just out of the old Gafcon idea, and I doubt very much that that was the will of either the Singapore meeting or of the broader Communion.[/blockquote]
My proposal places the authority to exclude in the hands of the Primates (suspension) and Lambeth Council/Conference (final excommunication), after a careful process outlined in large part by the current Covenant text. The real question is whether exclusion (and replacement) are options at all. What are the alternatives? So far as I can see, they are: no exclusion ever, or exclusion by a sovereign and perhaps arbitrary decision of the ABC. (The issue of whether the two Councils I propose should have lay and clergy representation is debatable, but it seems to me that Primates and bishops actually represent their clergy and laity better at the international level, and that a system of “diversity†such as practiced by the ACC is far more open to manipulation by Communion bureaucrats.)
Secondly, he says:
[blockquote]That does not mean that an ABC can be elected from among the Communion provinces, as the ABC is head of an English diocese, province and primate of the English church.[/blockquote]
I have not set said that. In fact, my essay provides just the opposite: for the ABC to continue as an Instrument of Communion, a focus of unity with primacy of honour. It only restricts his arbitrary refusing to carry out decisions of council (Dar), calling and not calling of Primates’ Meetings (e.g. return to biennial meetings) inviting of some members he wants and not others (Lambeth) and running the bureaucracy out of London.
Pageantmaster, it seems like you are screaming “Gafcon†and running out of the room. I fear that my proposal will be as unacceptable to many in FCA as it is to you.
“I fear that my proposal will be as unacceptable to many in FCA as it is to you.” Steve–why is that? Are you saying that this view of Anglicanism is one you prefer but that it will not be shared widely, and if so, why is that? Anglo Catholics won’t like it; it is too theoretical and tries to rearrange things too ambitiously; the FCA is too varieagated; it represents an academic’s take; etc. Curious why you conclude in this way.
I am grateful to Dr Noll and somewhat overawed that he has responded to some of my points above to clarify them. If I may there are a couple of points I still do not understand:
1. Covenanting Provinces
[blockquote]My proposal places the authority to exclude in the hands of the Primates (suspension) and Lambeth Council/Conference (final excommunication), after a careful process outlined in large part by the current Covenant text. The real question is whether exclusion (and replacement) are options at all. What are the alternatives? So far as I can see, they are: no exclusion ever, or exclusion by a sovereign and perhaps arbitrary decision of the ABC. (The issue of whether the two Councils I propose should have lay and clergy representation is debatable, but it seems to me that Primates and bishops actually represent their clergy and laity better at the international level, and that a system of “diversity†such as practiced by the ACC is far more open to manipulation by Communion bureaucrats.) [/blockquote]
I think there is a difference between protecting the Communion from those who act unilaterally and ignore Communion teaching, and those who do not sign up to the Covenant, or decide for whatever reason to leave the Covenanted Group. And yet, both groups under this draft are treated in exactly the same way, perhaps worse in the latter group because the process of adjudication by the Primates’ Council and ratification by the Lambeth gathering is not applied to them.
One can see this in Dr Noll’s Draft at Revision 5 ‘Binding the Communion into an Accountable Union’ [page 6/7]. The key wording is:
[blockquote]Provinces that reject adoption [of the Covenant] in a timely manner will be declared vacant by the Primates’ Council and de-recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [para 4.1.4]
Churches – dioceses, parishes and ecclesial networks – in non- adopting national and regional Churches will be recognised by the Primates’ Council as having provisional status within the Communion until such time as the status of a replacement….Church is ratified by the Lambeth Council of Bishops and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
…
Rationale:…it looks forward to the replacement of those [non-Covenant] Provinces and the incorporation of the dissenting churches into the new Province.[/blockquote]
It seems to me one thing to say, as the current draft Covenant does, that not Covenanting means that you will not participate in the decisions of the Covenanted Communion, and another to say that we envisage that if you do not Covenant, we envisage actively derecognizing you as Anglican, replacing you with a new Province, and pressuring dissenting congregations and dioceses from the old Province to leave for the new one under threat of Communion excommunication. Isn’t this well beyond anything that was suggested or approved at Singapore by the GS statement, and indeed a discouragement to the principled approach taken by for example the Communion Partners?
[Just a side-note: There may well be principled reasons why Provinces cannot sign on to the Covenant for political or constitutional reasons, for example there might be difficulties for some of the amalgamated churches of the Indian sub-continent, who although not participating much, I do not necessarily see any reason to declare vacant and to seek to replace, even if that were a financially viable or practical prospect. Similarly you might have problems persuading the Scots to accept the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, something which has never been part of their church.]
2. The ABC
Dr Noll, The quote from me was given was in response to MichaelA’s comment at #27:
[blockquote]27. MichaelA wrote:
….That being the case, why should orthodox Anglicans continue to tolerate the continued centrality of Canterbury in the Communion?…
If someone of the calibre of Mouneer Anis or Gregory Venables was made Archbishop of Canterbury, then I agree the problem would disappear overnight. But that is not going to happen – there are very few orthodox bishops left in CofE, and none of them have any realistic chance of being chosen as the next ABC. Therefore it seems inevitable that the Communion will spin away from Canterbury – it won’t happen overnight of course, and some will come to the conclusion quicker than others, but it is inevitable – and the fault is entirely Canterbury’s.
That being the case, shouldn’t we accept it, and get something in place sooner rather than later, e.g. a “Primate of the Communion†elected by all the Primates for a period of five years. At the same time, ABC can continue with his traditional role of being head of the CofE, which are of far greater antiquity than any role of leadership in the Communion.[/blockquote]
I do apologize for not making it clear and regret any misunderstanding. You did not say this, and as it happens I largely agree with what you say:
[blockquote]my essay provides just the opposite: for the ABC to continue as an Instrument of Communion, a focus of unity with primacy of honour. It only restricts his arbitrary refusing to carry out decisions of council (Dar), calling and not calling of Primates’ Meetings (e.g. return to biennial meetings) inviting of some members he wants and not others (Lambeth) and running the bureaucracy out of London.[/blockquote]
3. [blockquote]Pageantmaster, it seems like you are screaming “Gafcon†and running out of the room. I fear that my proposal will be as unacceptable to many in FCA as it is to you.[/blockquote]
I wish it were that simple with me I am afraid – I actually agree with the doctrine of the Jerusalem declaration, but like the point raised about your draft above at point 1, I am uncertain about some of the drastic procedural answers it provides. I have been to I think every meeting of Gafcon/FCA in London to see what is going on, and found much I agreed with.
I am afraid as with everything else, the devil is in the detail, and may I encourage you in the work you are doing, and for all conservatives to open dialogue about the issues which keep them divided.
It may not produce an ideal solution, but like our new coalition government, in the UK, may produce a workable one. Certainly that must be better than the current liberal hegemony of the Communion structures which is enabled to exist only through the divisions of conservatives.
Just one point about lay and clergy representation. Most of the provinces themselves [like the CofE] have synods composed of all three orders. We in the CofE would probably be lost if we were solely ruled by our current divided House of Bishops. Sometimes the laity inject some common sense, although rarely the clergy sadly.
The problem we have experienced in the Communion Instruments has come from the promotion recently of the un-reformed Anglican Consultative Council from a ‘consultative’ body advising the other Instruments, to a decision-making body, and indeed the pre-eminent one, not to mention the attempted promotion last month of its Standing Committee to unaccountable ruler of the ACC and other Instruments.
There must be a role for the input of clergy and laity at both provincial and Communion level, and I can’t see any objection myself to the consultative role they formerly held under the ACC as originally envisaged.
Nevertheless, at Communion level, it is important for Provinces to be able to present a single collective front in decision-making, and as I say the Primates Meeting is currently the closest to achieving this. Ideally the representatives of provinces, whether primates or others should be putting the collective discernment of their provinces, not their personal views, and this means coming with a specific agreed, preferably written brief from their provinces.
I do not see this redrafted Covenant being acceptable to any of the British Churches within the Communion.- is that intended?
I cannot see the Archbishop of Canterbury signing up to this – is that intended?
Assuming the ABC refuses this role – is there an alternative?
As this redefines the Lambeth Conference – this could not be approved before 2018 when they are next invited to meet by the ABC – so is this intended to be this long in its development?
Surely the Archbishop of Sydney could not sign up to all this?
#33 How fortunate we are, Rev Reynolds, to have you to tell us what the British Churches and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Sydney will find acceptable.
Unlike you to be so dismissive and somewhat snide Pageantmaster, I use the appropriate rhetorical devices: “I do not see …..” “I cannot see …..” and then the question “Surely ……”
Do you really think that this Noll draft has any chance of passing through the various governing bodies in the UK?
Sorry, Rev Reynolds – it was intended to be a bit of gentle ribbing in a puckish sort of way. The written word does not always read the same to everyone.
I am not sure I know what would would or would not pass by the “the various governing bodies in the UK” – how much the Church of Ireland, Church in Wales, Scottish Episcopal Church and Church of England really see eye to eye? In any event, I am not sure in the first instance it is directed with them in mind.
I don’t know who Dr Noll’s draft would or would not pass by. I doubt if it would, as is, but that is not to say that it does not contain ideas which are worth thinking about and discussing, and since Dr Noll has gone to the trouble of putting it up for appraisal, why would people not consider it?
You make what I see as a fairly large leap over the facts when you suggest that a polity was in place. What we had was a series of meetings you mention none of which were ever formally invested with authority by the constituent provinces. The primates do not have the authority the covenant would invest in them at this moment and have never had it.
That is where I differ with you, Dr. Noll and Dr. Williams. I am not the least be interested in the formation of what Dr. Williams refers to as, “The Anglican Church” on the corpse of the communion. I see two views emerging: the actions of those provinces that have declared “impaired communion” have de facto killed the communion and something new is required or the communion is wounded and needs healing.
I find myself in the second place. Nothing done yet, even by Nigeria in its constitutional changes makes it impossible for the communion to recover. The question is will not ability.
#37 JimB
It depends what you mean by ‘in communion’. Currently it means mutual recognition of doctrine, sacraments and orders as the Anglican Communion has received them. TEC broke that by ordaining as a bishop someone who most of the Communion could not recognise. Nothing to do with “the actions of those provinces that have declared “impaired communion†have de facto killed the communion” as you suggest.
But of course, I recognise that you do not wish to see an Anglican Church or even anything more than independent provinces doing their own thing with complete disregard for anyone else.
But there we are.
The Primates were tasked by the meetings following the Windsor Report to deal with the Communion issues thrown up by TEC behaviour, so yes, they indeed have been given authority by the provinces, whether you wish that to be the case or not. It just IS.
In response to comments by Pageantmaster (#31) on the non-adopting churches where I have proposed:
[blockquote](4.1.4) Every national or regional Church of the Anglican Communion is expected to adopt this Covenant according to its own constitutional procedures. Provinces that reject adoption or fail to adopt in a timely manner will be declared vacant by the Primates’ Council and de-recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [/blockquote]
Let me begin by saying I hardly claim infallibility in these proposed revisions to the Covenant text. Indeed I assume that if they did receive serious attention, there would be revisions to the revisions.
My intention in the clause above about those who “fail to adopt in a timely manner†is to guard against those churches who clearly reject the Communion faith and order but who simply refuse to act as a political maneuver, hence leaving dissenting (or confessing) groups without recourse or any hope to join the Communion.
I do recognize that there may be constitutional and legal obstacles to adopting the Covenant that would take time to change (the C of E and Sydney may be such cases). In cases where the obstacles were legal or procedural, certainly the Primates could interpret “timely†in an expansive way. Perhaps the “will be declared†should say “may be declared.†Nevertheless the final goal of the Covenant should be to constitute one Communion of Churches.
Martin Reynolds (#33), you say:
[blockquote]As this redefines the Lambeth Conference – this could not be approved before 2018 when they are next invited to meet by the ABC – so is this intended to be this long in its development?[/blockquote]
Well, that is an institutionalist way of looking at things. However, if a sufficient number of Provinces choose to adopt a revised Covenant and begin operating according to it, they are breaking no law – as the Anglican Communion has no “international law.†I am sure that there will be parallel structures in the future, just as there are now, especially since the “official†organs have lost all credibility in the eyes of a large portion of Anglicans worldwide.
Chris Seitz (#30), you ask why FCA members might hesitate to sign on to a revised Covenant. Let me begin with the caveat that I have no sure knowledge of how FCA leaders may react to my proposal, only impressions. It may well be that some like Sydney have principled objections to a stronger union rather than a looser association. Others, however, have been so turned off by the manipulations of the process since Dar and Jamaica that they consider the Covenant as dead on arrival. These people are certainly not going to adopt the “final†text. I would like to think if they saw the revised Covenant as representing their own leadership rather than that of Canterbury and the Standing Committee, they might own it for themselves. But that will take a lot of convincing, I would guess.
Which is what I am trying to do. I have been advocating in favor of the Covenant from the very beginning. This is not the case with many Anglicans who have had Lucy pull the political football back and left them flat out on the ground too often to try it again.
Pagentmaster, that meeting was not constitutional, and has not been affirmed by the provinces. Its authority, like that of the “steering committee” is in polite company, “assumed,” which is a nice word for “usurped.”
Going back to Pageantmaster’s 28,
[blockquote] “Nevertheless, I do not support a fedcon alternative, although some parts of Gafcon and ACNA no doubt do, including perhaps MichaelA.” [/blockquote]
What does this mean? The *existing* model of the communion consists of 38 autonomous provinces. No-one, including ABC or ACC has any legal power over any of them. That sounds like Fedcon to me. It has never been a “church” (although there are some senses in which it is proper to describe it as such) but a communion of churches. The way in which we interact is governed by a small number of rules that the various provinces voluntarily agree to, but also underlain by a common understanding of doctrine – orthodox as opposed to liberal. The vast majority of the communion are orthodox in their orientation, despite their apparent differences on the lines of evangelical, traditional, anglo-catholic etc. Even where they disagree on how to respond to TEC’s apostasy, there are very few provinces that will ever accept that apostasy for themselves.
My concern is that those who advocate a covenant tend not to address the nature of the current crisis. It is due fundamentally to two factors: (a) the open apostasy of TEC and other western churches; and (b) the tolerance of that apostasy by the current ABC and his continual intrigue in support of it.
But we also have to bear in mind that those two factors are not of short term duration. Again, two fundamental factors: (a) it is obvious by now that the current ABC will not alter his behaviour, i.e. tolerance of liberalism and intrigue; and (b) the leadership of CofE is such that it is very likely that any future ABC will be at least as liberal as Dr Williams, if not more so.
Those who advocate a covenant rarely seem to confront this fundamental nature of the problem.
But what really surprises me is that those in favour of the covenant will not acknowledge that it is extremely innovative. It is a major change that goes well beyond what is necessary to address the problem. Why do we need such a radical change? It is not clear that it will address the issues I identified above, and it goes far beyond what is necessary to address those issues.
Pageantmaster writes:
[blockquote] “I am for the rule of law, not making it up as one goes along”. [/blockquote]
Precisely my point. The covenant is a severe case of making it up as we go along, because it alters the very nature of the Communion in a major way.
Pageantmaster also wrote:
[blockquote] “That does not mean that an ABC can be elected from among the Communion provinces, as the ABC is head of an English diocese, province and primate of the English church.” [/blockquote]
Of course. But it begs a question about his *fourth* role, which does not inherently follow from the first three: Why should the ABC be head of the Communion, even in a limited titular sense?
The Communion is largely orthodox, whereas the ABC is strongly tolerant of liberalism and future ABC’s are likely to be the same. Clearly he must remain in the positions listed by Pageantmaster – diocesan, provincial and primate of the English church. But when he is and will remain so out of step with most of the Communion, why should he be permitted to retain any real role in it, apart from as one of 38 Primates?
8. JimB, what about the power grabbing stunt that KJS has pulled with the Standing Committee? You know, the overweening influence that she has used on behalf of TEC to the point where now she has assumed so much control? If this isn’t a power grab, what is?
#39 Dr Noll – interesting last two paragraphs of your post – thank you for explaining your thinking:
[blockquote]Others, however, have been so turned off by the manipulations of the process since Dar and Jamaica that they consider the Covenant as dead on arrival. These people are certainly not going to adopt the “final†text. I would like to think if they saw the revised Covenant as representing their own leadership rather than that of Canterbury and the Standing Committee, they might own it for themselves. But that will take a lot of convincing, I would guess.
Which is what I am trying to do. I have been advocating in favor of the Covenant from the very beginning. This is not the case with many Anglicans who have had Lucy pull the political football back and left them flat out on the ground too often to try it again.[/blockquote]
There is indeed a problem of trust, and I don’t know the answer to that.
Without conceding or denying anything you wish to count as bad conduct by the presiding bishop (I am not a fan of hers by the bye) I only offer you the mantra of every parent, “two wrongs do not make a right.” It may be that she has acted badly, we might even agree on some cases but that does not invest in the “standing committee” or ACC or anyone else the authority to take the communion into a church nor does it grant the primates curial authority.
The problem is as old as Franklin’s observation that those who sacrifice liberty for security gain neither. If we impose this model on the church it will be there, with all its authority as the prize. The activists on both sides will be focused on controlling it. Sooner or later someone will gain ascendancy. That is how the world works.
Cennydd responded to your post at #8, wherein you asserted that all Anglicans, no matter what their background, should recognise the draft of the covenant as a “power grab”. His very reasonable question may be paraphrased, ‘why are liberals whingeing about power grabs when they do the same thing themselves?’
And behind his question was something deeper – that KJS and her cronies have effectively subverted the Standing Committee of the ACC.
In this context, it may well be that “two wrongs do make a right”. Things have to be “set right”.
As you will have noted above, I am against the covenant for other reasons, but I agree with Cennydd that there has been a significant change in the purpose and motives of the Standing Committee, whereby the proponents of an apostate and alien doctrine have subverted it from its original orthodox purpose. In this context, something has to be done. Whether it is the covenant, or whether it is the bypassing of the ACC so that the ordinary affairs of the communion are dealt with by a different body.
Dr. Noll’s paper, which forms the substance of Philip Ashey’s article, is must reading.
[url=http://www.americananglican.org/assets/News-and-Commentary-Files/2010/08-2010/Revised-Covenant-1-Aug-10WEB.pdf]Here’s the link[/url]
Do you really want the curia? Why not simply go with the original?
FWIW
jimB
How is this different from Rome?
I most sincerely pray that this receives deep and perceptive
study prior to our Diocese signing the covenant. Reading the latest from England, it seems that we might indeed be “joining” a state-established entity, that could cause real problems.
I wonder how likely it is that anyone with authority will even bother reviewing Dr. Noll’s program. Oh me, of little faith in the Anglican Communion.
Grandmother in SC
We are getting a Communion with more coordinated and focused relationships – whether it is to be located in the new Standing Committee (as seems the plan of the ACO) or more equally amongst the Instruments of Unity. This is a long term trajectory within the Communion’s life.
As I understanding it the Pope has by divine law ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese in communion with the See of Peter. Curial authority stems, in large part, from this theological claim. I don’t see anyone in the current Anglican making such an assertion about any body.
The pressing questions are about how the relationships the Communion has claimed exist, are reflected and represented in our shared life. Jibes about the curia poorly reflect what we claim to have agreed about the exercise of authority in the church in our ecumenical conversations. In addition too often they seem to reflect not a principled reflection on authority within the church but simply a way of throwing mud at authority with which one thinks one may disagree.
Driver, I do not care if I agree with it or not. I think it is a bad idea.
FWIW
jimB
Is it a bad idea within Provinces or just between Provinces?
Driver,
The covenant only exists between provinces. That much is clear at the moment. I am sort of mystified at how people who claim the 39 Articles with their defense of “national churches” and the Lambeth Quadrilateral with its affirmation of communion and “adaption for local conditions” can possibly think this thing is a good idea. One can be left or right orriented, liberal or conservative and still see it for what it is — a power grab.
FWIW
jimB
Walls make good neighbors.
Authority is exercised according to some sorts of theological realities and principles. We have wanted to reflect a pattern of ecclesial relationships not limited to the boundaries of the nation state (TEC itself is famously international). Embodying the reality what we share in Christ is what the Communion is, and always has been, about.
That is Anglicans have both historically rejected the Papal claims of ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese and wanted to find ways of appropriately embodying and manifesting our shared life in Christ.
#9 Not so much if you are trying to show how Christ unites you in his one household.
I should just say that my reflection is that such a proposal represents not an attempt to further one of the original aims of the Covenant (which was to embody the unity that existed within the Communion) but to formalize the lack of unity. So there’s a sense in which it’s attempting, in this respect, to do something quite different than that at which the Covenant originally aimed.
RE: “Is it a bad idea within Provinces or just between Provinces?”
Heh — good question.
Answer: It’s a *great* idea when it comes to centralizing power in TEC.
It’s a thoroughly UnAnglican and *bad* idea when it comes to the Anglican Communion. ; > )
UnAnglican? Its as UnAnglican as having one prayerbook for the whole of England and beyond. Unity through conformity. Now that the question of Women’s Ordination has been settled, there will be no deviation. Whatever Communion we have had, and I do not think there has been much (except the Grand Idea) is now down the drain.
Sorry, but I find most of the comments so far in this thread on Dr. Noll’s suggestions totally unintelligible. “Curia?” where does that come from in these? While I’m doubtful that even the ineffective draft of the Covenant now circulating in the Communion will be passed, and I’m even less hopeful that Professor Noll’s ideas will ever get a serious hearing within the institutional structures of the Communion, but they at least deserve coherent responses from thoughtful commentators on T19!
#14 Well, I find myself living in the rubble of my hopes for Anglicanism. Every time we claim to be trying to build up trust, the reality of our broken life is manifested with heartbreaking clarity. I keep saying my prayers and asking for mercy. What we are, and have become, horrifies me but it is what it is. I’m tempted by the sins of despair, apathy and restlessness but try to rest my heart in Christ.
Chris, don’t expect honest comments on the Covenant from revisionists just as conservatives shouldn’t accept advice from liberal MSM [sic] pundits.
Professor Noll addresses your queston of whether an appropriately revised Covenant will get a “serious hearing.” There is a meeting of African primates later this month in Uganda. I agree the “Final Draft” Covenant is dead after the meeting of the “Standing Committee” (revisionists overplaying their hand again). The question is whether some of the more tainted provinces such as South Africa would go along with Professor Noll’s Covenant? (Let’s call it the PNC.) I don’t know. How about the Comm Con provinces such as Tanzania and West Africa? I don’t know. Would the steadfast provinces such as Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda ratify it without unanimity? I don’t know. Hopefully, we will see some action.
francis, the actual quote is: “good [i]fences[/i] make good neighbors” taken from Frost’s poem which begins: “Something there is which does not love a wall.” in which he makes the point that the stone walls which separate fields in New England (and New York) must continually be rebuilt because they continually tumble down. Later in the poem he wonders if his neighbor is worried that the apple trees will wander into the wrong field if there is no wall to keep them in.
So there’s your parable.
Now we have two covenants on the table: one apparently designed specifically to prevent action from being taken against TEC and the other to ensure real accountability to orthodoxy.
When a cell splits, it first forms parallel structures which line up until a cell wall forms down the middle and the two go their separate ways. Parallel structures have been forming now for several years with the finishing touch of now a parallel — but vastly different — covenant.
So, something there is which [b]does[/b] in fact love a wall. Looks to me like she’s gettin’ ready to blow.
“Where does ‘curia’ come from?” What do you call a council of primates making centralized decisions?
If one puts down the ideological hats and looks at sections 3 and 4, what you find is a legal system. At this moment, one can argue that Nigeria, Uganda, R’wanda, USA, Canada and England are all in violation.
Now nothing is gonna happen to England or Ireland regardless of what they do. By now we should be clear on who the master manipulators are. Canon Kearon and Dr. Williams are not going to let something happen to their homes. The “standing committee” just voted to study the financial impact of tossing TEC out. As TEC provides about 30% of the ACC budget, one might predict the outcome of the study. So who gets tossed?
Conservatives may think of TEC as the bad guys, and liberals may think of conservatives as the bad guys, but clearly Dr. Williams has a somewhat different view. Any trouble making colonial is a bad guy. So you all want this thing because?
FWIW
jimB
Well, Dr Noll’s rewrite sounds more like ‘The Road to Lambeth’ and the Jerusalem Declaration. Now if that is what some people want, no doubt they will sign up to the Jerusalem Declaration.
I am not sure that that is either what most of the Communion, or indeed the Global South want and it cannot be found in the totality of the Singapore Communique.
It says: there is a crisis in the Communion, therefore the answer is a fedcon answer, with Canterbury removed, or sidelined.
In its own way it is as extreme as what Canterbury has come up with which is to say: there is a crisis in the Communion, therefore the answer is a centralised controlled answer, with all control under a liberal dominated Standing Committee blocking everthing and perpetual everlasting Indaba.
Neither is attractive to me and I suspect many other people but there must be an answer which restores control to the provinces in counsel, democratically and representatively and under the rule of law. My suspicion is that that lies in what the Global South actually wrote in their Singapore Communique. So somewhere in between…….
Canterbury is a useful focus for our Communion for a number of different reasons, notwithstanding the current incumbent, and my hope would be that it survives him.
It is perhaps worth reading again carefully the Global South Singapore Communique and in particular para 18-22 which Dr Noll has previously highlighted:
[blockquote]18. Some of our Provinces are already in a state of broken and impaired Communion with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Their continued refusal to honor the many requests1 made of them by the various meetings of the Primates throughout the Windsor Process have brought discredit to our witness and we urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the recommended actions. In light of the above, this Fourth South-to-South Encounter encourages our various Provinces to reconsider their communion relationships with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada until it becomes clear that there is genuine repentance.
19. We were pleased to welcome two Communion Partner bishops from The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and acknowledge that with them there are many within TEC who do not accept their church’s innovations. We assure them of our loving and prayerful support. We are grateful that the recently formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a faithful expression of Anglicanism. We welcomed them as partners in the Gospel and our hope is that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners.
20. For many generations Anglicans have lived together with a shared understanding of our common faith; indeed among our great gifts has been the Book of Common Prayer that has provided a foundation for our common life. In recent years the peace of our Communion has been deeply wounded by those who continue to claim the name Anglican but who pursue an agenda of their own desire in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice. This has led to a number of developments including the GAFCON meeting that took place in Jerusalem in June 2008. 2
21. Global South leaders have been in the forefront of the development of the ‘Anglican Covenant’ that seeks to articulate the essential elements of our faith together with means by which we might exercise meaningful and loving discipline for those who depart from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints.’ We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
22. Over the last 20 years we have been distracted by conflicts and controversies that have kept us from effectively fulfilling the Great Commission. While we have been so distracted, Christian heritage, identity and influence has continued to decline in the West. We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
It is quite clear from the recent Standing Committee meeting and Dr Williams other recent pronouncements, that he and the ACO have failed to take this seriously, and I think that is a pity and a lost opportunity. There has been some movement, but unfortunately Dr Williams considers that the Global South call to reform Instruments is a licence to him to promote, not more representative democracy and accountability but more Indaba, Indaba, Indaba. He has also clearly signalled his intention of pushing further the Listening Indaba process with the sole intention of people living with the sort of innovation which the US has promoted, but at the international Communion level. All the signs are that his intention is to continue to frustrate order, except when it empowers him, and to manipulate and undermine, except when it promotes his peculiar liberal view of the world.
So it is necessary for the Communion to grow up, and for representative and democratic control in the Communion to pass back to the overwhelmingly orthodox provinces.
How might this be achieved? Well my suggestion is that people get hold of a Skype or VoIP account and start talking to one another: comcon and fedcon, ACNA and Communion Partners, Africa and Asia, Europe and Africa, and so on. Forgo the attempts which will be made by Lambeth Palace and the ACO to ‘facilitate’ this process. There are five months to go till January which is time enough to negotiate a coalition agreement. After all, in May, two of our opposing parties in Britain put together a coalition government!
I should add that the coalition government here was put together in five days!
For those in the UK, the fascinating story ‘Five Days which changed Britain’ from the BBC can be seen here. It is a lesson in how to do it!
It deals with how two parties with apparently incompatible policies nevertheless came together for the interests of government. A lot of give and take on both sides, and the reason it works is because the groundwork of preparing an agreed document setting out the agreed policies for government was thrashed out. I wonder if a similar exercise is needed between the GS members and others.
Restoration of control back to the provinces of the Anglican Communion is the prize, and that our governance reflects the missionary zeal and energy with which our Communion is growing. The AC deserves this from its leadership, so that Christ is placed back at our head.
I was very encouraged to see Dr. Noll’s proposal. And especially encouraging to see that it is targeted toward the Bishops attending the August 23 All Africa Bishops gathering in Uganda. I agree with Dr. Noll that this is a critical opportunity for the GS Primates to again provide leadership towards a faithful 21st century Anglicanism.
The crisis within TEC and within Anglicanism has been a failure to discipline heterodoxy. That is – a failure to guard the faith and order of the Church. There is an opportunity for a new reformation which addresses the exercise of authority within Anglicanism. Discipline requires the exercise of authority. The 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 represented and still represents the “mind of the Anglican Communionâ€. But there have been no structures for discipline within the “bonds of affectionâ€. Those bonds have been broken. The proposed Covenant is intended to address this.
The strengths which I see in this proposal to revise the Covenant are: (1) the affirmation of Lambeth 1.10 within the Covenant and (2) the removal of the ACC and the Standing Committee from a position of authority. There also seems to be a carefully nuanced inclusion of and respect for the ABC office while opening the door for effective discipline by the Bishops or Primates in Council.
Pagentmaster, I fear you long for a time that never was. “Restoration of control” requires that one once had it. Simply not the case.
FWIW
jimB
#25 JimB
Not at all. We had a polity, but TEC bust that apart by doing its own thing. Moves were on track at Dar by the Primates Meeting, authorised by the other Instruments, to deal with the issues, including the issues of Covenant. That was the last democratic and representative meeting that took place in the Communion, by the primates of all the Communion provinces holding an individual vote.
Then Dr Williams intervened, ignored the decision of the Primates, and substituted his own will for what would happen. The subsequent meetings of the Lambeth Conference, Primates Meeting at Alexandria and ACC meeting at Jamaica were marked by stage management by Williams and the ACO, Indaba, and such votes as there were were on resolutions which had been manipulated by the JSC, but mainly votes were not permitted, only reflections collected and interpreted by Dr Williams and his goons.
Even the ACC has now been rendered completely compromised by the gerrymandering of its Constitution by Williams and Rees, something they have kept secret from everyone including the Covenant Design Group. Now there is no way to unpick the shambles Rees and Williams have reduced the ACC and its Standing Committee to, without starting again as Dr Noll notes.
It is possible that even Dr Williams has now lost control of the monster he created. The lawlessness Schori brought to TEC bodies is now entrenched in the Communion Instruments, and the lies continue. In the same meeting where we were told that it is financially impossible for the 38 Primates to meet annually, and in future they will meet bi-annually, the Standing Committee went on to organise the next meeting of the ACC in New Zealand, remote from most provinces in the Communion, and one of the most expensive places in the world to travel to. Money is no object for the new English subjected ACC ruled by the Standing Committee, but there is, we are told by the fibbers on the Standing Committee, no money for Primates Meetings. So the manipulation, the scheming, and the downright lies from the Lambeth and St Andrew’s House bureaucracies continue. Dr Noll is right – the Instruments are in dire need of reform, personnel included.
The polity of the Communion has been reduced to a shambles, and there is indeed much work to do, even to get back to the position the Communion was in, even at Dar, and even further work is required to put things back on a representative footing.
Which brings one back to the Covenant issue. There was not a problem, before the Americans and Canadians broke, no shattered, the ‘bonds of affection’ which Provinces used previously in their Communion relationships. Since then these two small and collapsing provinces have made a noise and level of disruption out of all proportion to their size. There is now a need for democratic governance, so that the Provinces are properly represented. This does not mean in my view that it can only be about Bishops, as has been the way ACNA, and the Jerusalem Declaration have gone, but like the CofE, clergy and laity also need a say, but when it comes to decision- making in the Communion, it is important that each province is entitled to a vote, in accordance with the discernment of that province. One cannot have people from provinces co-opted onto councils and committees, as is happening with the Standing Committees, without necessarily them reflecting the discernment of their own provinces councils and synods.
I would say though that the proposal for automatic arrangements to remove and replace provinces, although ACNA might be happy with it, is just out of the old Gafcon idea, and I doubt very much that that was the will of either the Singapore meeting or of the broader Communion.
People have asked, how could a negotiation and decision-making process in the Communion proceed? It does require several people and organisations to take a lead, to come up with papers with concrete proposals and suggestions, and then for the broader community to consider and where appropriate amend or negotiate them, not in secret conclave, or ABC appointed committee, but properly, reporting back perhaps to the Primates’ Committee, CAPA and the GS encounter for example. But this also requires a body which will impliment them, and in the absence of a compromised ACO office, completely under-equiped Lambeth Palace, who can this be? Again the obvious answer is the Primates Meeting, who would need to set up a secretariat and provinces would need to contribute time and resources to set this up.
I commend those who have contributed so far, the Global South, ACI, and Gafcon, and particularly think that a draft with concrete revisions such as Dr Noll has presented, whether or not you agree with it, is a positive addition, and something which gives food for thought and can crystalise the issues which need to be dealt with. I hope the various bodies do engage with each other, but at the end of the day, all the talk is meaningless unless the will to act on those decisions is also there, including a will not to be deflected.
Pageantmaster wrote:
[blockquote] Canterbury is a useful focus for our Communion for a number of different reasons, notwithstanding the current incumbent, and my hope would be that it survives him. [/blockquote]
This is based on an unspoken assumption, that the next ABC will be better (from an orthodox point of view) than the current incumbent. But don’t all indicators lead us to expect that the next ABC will be just as tolerant of apostasy as the current one, indeed probably more so, and just as devious?
That being the case, why should orthodox Anglicans continue to tolerate the continued centrality of Canterbury in the Communion?
There is no point in trashing the Jerusalem Declaration. The Jerusalem Conference and the Lambeth boycott which followed it were warnings or harbingers of what must inevitably happen if Canterbury continues to flirt with apostasy.
If someone of the calibre of Mouneer Anis or Gregory Venables was made Archbishop of Canterbury, then I agree the problem would disappear overnight. But that is not going to happen – there are very few orthodox bishops left in CofE, and none of them have any realistic chance of being chosen as the next ABC. Therefore it seems inevitable that the Communion will spin away from Canterbury – it won’t happen overnight of course, and some will come to the conclusion quicker than others, but it is inevitable – and the fault is entirely Canterbury’s.
That being the case, shouldn’t we accept it, and get something in place sooner rather than later, e.g. a “Primate of the Communion” elected by all the Primates for a period of five years. At the same time, ABC can continue with his traditional role of being head of the CofE, which are of far greater antiquity than any role of leadership in the Communion.
I am not going to defend Williams, not any longer anyway. I think his manipulation and overreach is indefensible and continuing.
Nevertheless, my understanding is that soundings are taken from the Communion before confirmation of a new ABC. If there is a move to tighten doctrinal observance in the Communion that will impact the CofE as well. We do not know who will follow this one, but if Williams has anything to do with it it will probably be Sentamu who is probably more liberal, although I would not term him revisionist, in the American sense.
Nevertheless, I do not support a fedcon alternative, although some parts of Gafcon and ACNA no doubt do, including perhaps MichaelA.
I am in favor of a democratic Communion accountable to its member provinces, proper governance which cannot be manipulated by either the ABC and its secretariat, nor by a few rump liberal white provinces who have managed a coup in relation to the Standing Committee with the assistance of Canon Rees. I am for the rule of law, not making it up as one goes along. I believe that words matter, and where the primates issue communiques such as Dar, the rule of law means that they are not ignored, as Dr Williams and the ACO has done.
I have no problem with the ABC being first among equals, primus inter pares, not gatherer and abuser of powers. The power of gathering, agenda and timing needs to be on a regularised footing, determined by for example the Primates in relation to the Primates Meeting, not the ABC, ACO nor the usurper Standing Committee.
That does not mean that an ABC can be elected from among the Communion provinces, as the ABC is head of an English diocese, province and primate of the English church. There is no reason why for example the head of the Primates Meeting cannot rotate nor any reason why the ABC has to be chairman – he is not in relation to either the ACC or Standing Committee, but he does have the position, usually honorary, of President.
Of course that won’t satisfy the fedcons, but then I am not one of them.
I hesitate to enter into a discussion of my own essay, as I have tried to lay out the argument thoroughly there. However, I feel I must speak to a couple issues raised by Pageantmaster.
He says:
[blockquote]I would say though that the proposal for automatic arrangements to remove and replace provinces, although ACNA might be happy with it, is just out of the old Gafcon idea, and I doubt very much that that was the will of either the Singapore meeting or of the broader Communion.[/blockquote]
My proposal places the authority to exclude in the hands of the Primates (suspension) and Lambeth Council/Conference (final excommunication), after a careful process outlined in large part by the current Covenant text. The real question is whether exclusion (and replacement) are options at all. What are the alternatives? So far as I can see, they are: no exclusion ever, or exclusion by a sovereign and perhaps arbitrary decision of the ABC. (The issue of whether the two Councils I propose should have lay and clergy representation is debatable, but it seems to me that Primates and bishops actually represent their clergy and laity better at the international level, and that a system of “diversity†such as practiced by the ACC is far more open to manipulation by Communion bureaucrats.)
Secondly, he says:
[blockquote]That does not mean that an ABC can be elected from among the Communion provinces, as the ABC is head of an English diocese, province and primate of the English church.[/blockquote]
I have not set said that. In fact, my essay provides just the opposite: for the ABC to continue as an Instrument of Communion, a focus of unity with primacy of honour. It only restricts his arbitrary refusing to carry out decisions of council (Dar), calling and not calling of Primates’ Meetings (e.g. return to biennial meetings) inviting of some members he wants and not others (Lambeth) and running the bureaucracy out of London.
Pageantmaster, it seems like you are screaming “Gafcon†and running out of the room. I fear that my proposal will be as unacceptable to many in FCA as it is to you.
“I fear that my proposal will be as unacceptable to many in FCA as it is to you.” Steve–why is that? Are you saying that this view of Anglicanism is one you prefer but that it will not be shared widely, and if so, why is that? Anglo Catholics won’t like it; it is too theoretical and tries to rearrange things too ambitiously; the FCA is too varieagated; it represents an academic’s take; etc. Curious why you conclude in this way.
I am grateful to Dr Noll and somewhat overawed that he has responded to some of my points above to clarify them. If I may there are a couple of points I still do not understand:
1. Covenanting Provinces
[blockquote]My proposal places the authority to exclude in the hands of the Primates (suspension) and Lambeth Council/Conference (final excommunication), after a careful process outlined in large part by the current Covenant text. The real question is whether exclusion (and replacement) are options at all. What are the alternatives? So far as I can see, they are: no exclusion ever, or exclusion by a sovereign and perhaps arbitrary decision of the ABC. (The issue of whether the two Councils I propose should have lay and clergy representation is debatable, but it seems to me that Primates and bishops actually represent their clergy and laity better at the international level, and that a system of “diversity†such as practiced by the ACC is far more open to manipulation by Communion bureaucrats.) [/blockquote]
I think there is a difference between protecting the Communion from those who act unilaterally and ignore Communion teaching, and those who do not sign up to the Covenant, or decide for whatever reason to leave the Covenanted Group. And yet, both groups under this draft are treated in exactly the same way, perhaps worse in the latter group because the process of adjudication by the Primates’ Council and ratification by the Lambeth gathering is not applied to them.
One can see this in Dr Noll’s Draft at Revision 5 ‘Binding the Communion into an Accountable Union’ [page 6/7]. The key wording is:
[blockquote]Provinces that reject adoption [of the Covenant] in a timely manner will be declared vacant by the Primates’ Council and de-recognised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [para 4.1.4]
Churches – dioceses, parishes and ecclesial networks – in non- adopting national and regional Churches will be recognised by the Primates’ Council as having provisional status within the Communion until such time as the status of a replacement….Church is ratified by the Lambeth Council of Bishops and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
…
Rationale:…it looks forward to the replacement of those [non-Covenant] Provinces and the incorporation of the dissenting churches into the new Province.[/blockquote]
It seems to me one thing to say, as the current draft Covenant does, that not Covenanting means that you will not participate in the decisions of the Covenanted Communion, and another to say that we envisage that if you do not Covenant, we envisage actively derecognizing you as Anglican, replacing you with a new Province, and pressuring dissenting congregations and dioceses from the old Province to leave for the new one under threat of Communion excommunication. Isn’t this well beyond anything that was suggested or approved at Singapore by the GS statement, and indeed a discouragement to the principled approach taken by for example the Communion Partners?
[Just a side-note: There may well be principled reasons why Provinces cannot sign on to the Covenant for political or constitutional reasons, for example there might be difficulties for some of the amalgamated churches of the Indian sub-continent, who although not participating much, I do not necessarily see any reason to declare vacant and to seek to replace, even if that were a financially viable or practical prospect. Similarly you might have problems persuading the Scots to accept the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, something which has never been part of their church.]
2. The ABC
Dr Noll, The quote from me was given was in response to MichaelA’s comment at #27:
[blockquote]27. MichaelA wrote:
….That being the case, why should orthodox Anglicans continue to tolerate the continued centrality of Canterbury in the Communion?…
If someone of the calibre of Mouneer Anis or Gregory Venables was made Archbishop of Canterbury, then I agree the problem would disappear overnight. But that is not going to happen – there are very few orthodox bishops left in CofE, and none of them have any realistic chance of being chosen as the next ABC. Therefore it seems inevitable that the Communion will spin away from Canterbury – it won’t happen overnight of course, and some will come to the conclusion quicker than others, but it is inevitable – and the fault is entirely Canterbury’s.
That being the case, shouldn’t we accept it, and get something in place sooner rather than later, e.g. a “Primate of the Communion†elected by all the Primates for a period of five years. At the same time, ABC can continue with his traditional role of being head of the CofE, which are of far greater antiquity than any role of leadership in the Communion.[/blockquote]
I do apologize for not making it clear and regret any misunderstanding. You did not say this, and as it happens I largely agree with what you say:
[blockquote]my essay provides just the opposite: for the ABC to continue as an Instrument of Communion, a focus of unity with primacy of honour. It only restricts his arbitrary refusing to carry out decisions of council (Dar), calling and not calling of Primates’ Meetings (e.g. return to biennial meetings) inviting of some members he wants and not others (Lambeth) and running the bureaucracy out of London.[/blockquote]
3. [blockquote]Pageantmaster, it seems like you are screaming “Gafcon†and running out of the room. I fear that my proposal will be as unacceptable to many in FCA as it is to you.[/blockquote]
I wish it were that simple with me I am afraid – I actually agree with the doctrine of the Jerusalem declaration, but like the point raised about your draft above at point 1, I am uncertain about some of the drastic procedural answers it provides. I have been to I think every meeting of Gafcon/FCA in London to see what is going on, and found much I agreed with.
I am afraid as with everything else, the devil is in the detail, and may I encourage you in the work you are doing, and for all conservatives to open dialogue about the issues which keep them divided.
It may not produce an ideal solution, but like our new coalition government, in the UK, may produce a workable one. Certainly that must be better than the current liberal hegemony of the Communion structures which is enabled to exist only through the divisions of conservatives.
Just one point about lay and clergy representation. Most of the provinces themselves [like the CofE] have synods composed of all three orders. We in the CofE would probably be lost if we were solely ruled by our current divided House of Bishops. Sometimes the laity inject some common sense, although rarely the clergy sadly.
The problem we have experienced in the Communion Instruments has come from the promotion recently of the un-reformed Anglican Consultative Council from a ‘consultative’ body advising the other Instruments, to a decision-making body, and indeed the pre-eminent one, not to mention the attempted promotion last month of its Standing Committee to unaccountable ruler of the ACC and other Instruments.
There must be a role for the input of clergy and laity at both provincial and Communion level, and I can’t see any objection myself to the consultative role they formerly held under the ACC as originally envisaged.
Nevertheless, at Communion level, it is important for Provinces to be able to present a single collective front in decision-making, and as I say the Primates Meeting is currently the closest to achieving this. Ideally the representatives of provinces, whether primates or others should be putting the collective discernment of their provinces, not their personal views, and this means coming with a specific agreed, preferably written brief from their provinces.
Or that is my view fwiw.
I do not see this redrafted Covenant being acceptable to any of the British Churches within the Communion.- is that intended?
I cannot see the Archbishop of Canterbury signing up to this – is that intended?
Assuming the ABC refuses this role – is there an alternative?
As this redefines the Lambeth Conference – this could not be approved before 2018 when they are next invited to meet by the ABC – so is this intended to be this long in its development?
Surely the Archbishop of Sydney could not sign up to all this?
#33 How fortunate we are, Rev Reynolds, to have you to tell us what the British Churches and the Archbishops of Canterbury and Sydney will find acceptable.
Unlike you to be so dismissive and somewhat snide Pageantmaster, I use the appropriate rhetorical devices: “I do not see …..” “I cannot see …..” and then the question “Surely ……”
Do you really think that this Noll draft has any chance of passing through the various governing bodies in the UK?
Sorry, Rev Reynolds – it was intended to be a bit of gentle ribbing in a puckish sort of way. The written word does not always read the same to everyone.
I am not sure I know what would would or would not pass by the “the various governing bodies in the UK” – how much the Church of Ireland, Church in Wales, Scottish Episcopal Church and Church of England really see eye to eye? In any event, I am not sure in the first instance it is directed with them in mind.
I don’t know who Dr Noll’s draft would or would not pass by. I doubt if it would, as is, but that is not to say that it does not contain ideas which are worth thinking about and discussing, and since Dr Noll has gone to the trouble of putting it up for appraisal, why would people not consider it?
Pagentmaster,
You make what I see as a fairly large leap over the facts when you suggest that a polity was in place. What we had was a series of meetings you mention none of which were ever formally invested with authority by the constituent provinces. The primates do not have the authority the covenant would invest in them at this moment and have never had it.
That is where I differ with you, Dr. Noll and Dr. Williams. I am not the least be interested in the formation of what Dr. Williams refers to as, “The Anglican Church” on the corpse of the communion. I see two views emerging: the actions of those provinces that have declared “impaired communion” have de facto killed the communion and something new is required or the communion is wounded and needs healing.
I find myself in the second place. Nothing done yet, even by Nigeria in its constitutional changes makes it impossible for the communion to recover. The question is will not ability.
FWIW
jimB
#37 JimB
It depends what you mean by ‘in communion’. Currently it means mutual recognition of doctrine, sacraments and orders as the Anglican Communion has received them. TEC broke that by ordaining as a bishop someone who most of the Communion could not recognise. Nothing to do with “the actions of those provinces that have declared “impaired communion†have de facto killed the communion” as you suggest.
But of course, I recognise that you do not wish to see an Anglican Church or even anything more than independent provinces doing their own thing with complete disregard for anyone else.
But there we are.
The Primates were tasked by the meetings following the Windsor Report to deal with the Communion issues thrown up by TEC behaviour, so yes, they indeed have been given authority by the provinces, whether you wish that to be the case or not. It just IS.
In response to comments by Pageantmaster (#31) on the non-adopting churches where I have proposed:
[blockquote](4.1.4) Every national or regional Church of the Anglican Communion is expected to adopt this Covenant according to its own constitutional procedures. Provinces that reject adoption or fail to adopt in a timely manner will be declared vacant by the Primates’ Council and de-recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. [/blockquote]
Let me begin by saying I hardly claim infallibility in these proposed revisions to the Covenant text. Indeed I assume that if they did receive serious attention, there would be revisions to the revisions.
My intention in the clause above about those who “fail to adopt in a timely manner†is to guard against those churches who clearly reject the Communion faith and order but who simply refuse to act as a political maneuver, hence leaving dissenting (or confessing) groups without recourse or any hope to join the Communion.
I do recognize that there may be constitutional and legal obstacles to adopting the Covenant that would take time to change (the C of E and Sydney may be such cases). In cases where the obstacles were legal or procedural, certainly the Primates could interpret “timely†in an expansive way. Perhaps the “will be declared†should say “may be declared.†Nevertheless the final goal of the Covenant should be to constitute one Communion of Churches.
Martin Reynolds (#33), you say:
[blockquote]As this redefines the Lambeth Conference – this could not be approved before 2018 when they are next invited to meet by the ABC – so is this intended to be this long in its development?[/blockquote]
Well, that is an institutionalist way of looking at things. However, if a sufficient number of Provinces choose to adopt a revised Covenant and begin operating according to it, they are breaking no law – as the Anglican Communion has no “international law.†I am sure that there will be parallel structures in the future, just as there are now, especially since the “official†organs have lost all credibility in the eyes of a large portion of Anglicans worldwide.
Chris Seitz (#30), you ask why FCA members might hesitate to sign on to a revised Covenant. Let me begin with the caveat that I have no sure knowledge of how FCA leaders may react to my proposal, only impressions. It may well be that some like Sydney have principled objections to a stronger union rather than a looser association. Others, however, have been so turned off by the manipulations of the process since Dar and Jamaica that they consider the Covenant as dead on arrival. These people are certainly not going to adopt the “final†text. I would like to think if they saw the revised Covenant as representing their own leadership rather than that of Canterbury and the Standing Committee, they might own it for themselves. But that will take a lot of convincing, I would guess.
Which is what I am trying to do. I have been advocating in favor of the Covenant from the very beginning. This is not the case with many Anglicans who have had Lucy pull the political football back and left them flat out on the ground too often to try it again.
Pagentmaster, that meeting was not constitutional, and has not been affirmed by the provinces. Its authority, like that of the “steering committee” is in polite company, “assumed,” which is a nice word for “usurped.”
FWIW
jimB
Going back to Pageantmaster’s 28,
[blockquote] “Nevertheless, I do not support a fedcon alternative, although some parts of Gafcon and ACNA no doubt do, including perhaps MichaelA.” [/blockquote]
What does this mean? The *existing* model of the communion consists of 38 autonomous provinces. No-one, including ABC or ACC has any legal power over any of them. That sounds like Fedcon to me. It has never been a “church” (although there are some senses in which it is proper to describe it as such) but a communion of churches. The way in which we interact is governed by a small number of rules that the various provinces voluntarily agree to, but also underlain by a common understanding of doctrine – orthodox as opposed to liberal. The vast majority of the communion are orthodox in their orientation, despite their apparent differences on the lines of evangelical, traditional, anglo-catholic etc. Even where they disagree on how to respond to TEC’s apostasy, there are very few provinces that will ever accept that apostasy for themselves.
My concern is that those who advocate a covenant tend not to address the nature of the current crisis. It is due fundamentally to two factors: (a) the open apostasy of TEC and other western churches; and (b) the tolerance of that apostasy by the current ABC and his continual intrigue in support of it.
But we also have to bear in mind that those two factors are not of short term duration. Again, two fundamental factors: (a) it is obvious by now that the current ABC will not alter his behaviour, i.e. tolerance of liberalism and intrigue; and (b) the leadership of CofE is such that it is very likely that any future ABC will be at least as liberal as Dr Williams, if not more so.
Those who advocate a covenant rarely seem to confront this fundamental nature of the problem.
But what really surprises me is that those in favour of the covenant will not acknowledge that it is extremely innovative. It is a major change that goes well beyond what is necessary to address the problem. Why do we need such a radical change? It is not clear that it will address the issues I identified above, and it goes far beyond what is necessary to address those issues.
Pageantmaster writes:
[blockquote] “I am for the rule of law, not making it up as one goes along”. [/blockquote]
Precisely my point. The covenant is a severe case of making it up as we go along, because it alters the very nature of the Communion in a major way.
Pageantmaster also wrote:
[blockquote] “That does not mean that an ABC can be elected from among the Communion provinces, as the ABC is head of an English diocese, province and primate of the English church.” [/blockquote]
Of course. But it begs a question about his *fourth* role, which does not inherently follow from the first three: Why should the ABC be head of the Communion, even in a limited titular sense?
The Communion is largely orthodox, whereas the ABC is strongly tolerant of liberalism and future ABC’s are likely to be the same. Clearly he must remain in the positions listed by Pageantmaster – diocesan, provincial and primate of the English church. But when he is and will remain so out of step with most of the Communion, why should he be permitted to retain any real role in it, apart from as one of 38 Primates?
8. JimB, what about the power grabbing stunt that KJS has pulled with the Standing Committee? You know, the overweening influence that she has used on behalf of TEC to the point where now she has assumed so much control? If this isn’t a power grab, what is?
#39 Dr Noll – interesting last two paragraphs of your post – thank you for explaining your thinking:
[blockquote]Others, however, have been so turned off by the manipulations of the process since Dar and Jamaica that they consider the Covenant as dead on arrival. These people are certainly not going to adopt the “final†text. I would like to think if they saw the revised Covenant as representing their own leadership rather than that of Canterbury and the Standing Committee, they might own it for themselves. But that will take a lot of convincing, I would guess.
Which is what I am trying to do. I have been advocating in favor of the Covenant from the very beginning. This is not the case with many Anglicans who have had Lucy pull the political football back and left them flat out on the ground too often to try it again.[/blockquote]
There is indeed a problem of trust, and I don’t know the answer to that.
Cennydd13,
Without conceding or denying anything you wish to count as bad conduct by the presiding bishop (I am not a fan of hers by the bye) I only offer you the mantra of every parent, “two wrongs do not make a right.” It may be that she has acted badly, we might even agree on some cases but that does not invest in the “standing committee” or ACC or anyone else the authority to take the communion into a church nor does it grant the primates curial authority.
The problem is as old as Franklin’s observation that those who sacrifice liberty for security gain neither. If we impose this model on the church it will be there, with all its authority as the prize. The activists on both sides will be focused on controlling it. Sooner or later someone will gain ascendancy. That is how the world works.
FWIW
jimB
JimB,
Cennydd responded to your post at #8, wherein you asserted that all Anglicans, no matter what their background, should recognise the draft of the covenant as a “power grab”. His very reasonable question may be paraphrased, ‘why are liberals whingeing about power grabs when they do the same thing themselves?’
And behind his question was something deeper – that KJS and her cronies have effectively subverted the Standing Committee of the ACC.
In this context, it may well be that “two wrongs do make a right”. Things have to be “set right”.
As you will have noted above, I am against the covenant for other reasons, but I agree with Cennydd that there has been a significant change in the purpose and motives of the Standing Committee, whereby the proponents of an apostate and alien doctrine have subverted it from its original orthodox purpose. In this context, something has to be done. Whether it is the covenant, or whether it is the bypassing of the ACC so that the ordinary affairs of the communion are dealt with by a different body.