3. We believe that we are now entering a new era for the Anglican Communion. New ways of living out our common life are emerging as old structures are proven to be ineffective in confronting the challenges of living in a pluralistic global community. We rejoice in the call of the Jerusalem Declaration for a renewed commitment to the authority of scripture and the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly the rejection of these historic anchors to our faith has brought us to a crisis in the life of the Communion.
4. As we have made clear in numerous communiqués and meetings those who have abandoned the historic teaching of the Church have torn the fabric of our life together at its deepest level. We have made repeated attempts to bring repentance and restoration and yet these efforts have been rejected. We grieve for those who have walked apart and earnestly pray for them and the people under their care.
5. For the sake of Christ and of His Gospel we can no longer maintain the illusion of normalcy and so we join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present at the next Primates’ meeting to be held in Ireland. And while we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.
So is this a declaration of (in)formal independence?
It is interesting that throughout this process the watchword in North America has been that the faithful must walk away and yet ambiguity persists at the global level.
Very Anglican, of course.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Very Anglican, of course. Sadly so.
Looks like the Covenant is well and truly dead. The Left fear it and these folks won’t support it. My guess is that with GAFCON/FCA opting out of the covenant, TEC and their fellow travelers will suddenly embrace it and they will thereby be declared the legitimate members of the Anglican Communion and the GAFCON/FCA folks will be either outside the communion or in RW’s “second tier.”
#3 — have you seen the lopsided vote in the CofE?
Dr. Seitz,
No sir, I haven’t.
RE: “Looks like the Covenant is well and truly dead.”
Hi Evan Miller — I don’t think the Covenant can ever be dead. That is something that [i]simply will not be allowed to happen[/i] for obvious political reasons.
I think you now have a battle for the “Category 4” Primates — those informed, moderate conservative Primates who are suspicious of this current draft but are not the Gafcon Primates.
We know that the uninformed middle will sign anything — and I do mean *anything* — that could possibly give them some reason to hope that all of this conflict will someday go away.
So if the Covenant supporters could get the combo of the uninformed middle Primates [and I think that’s a given] plus the informed moderate conservative Primates, then it’s a ballgame.
That then leaves the fringe frothing left — who won’t be signing — and the Gafcon 6 over on the right.
Sarah, you’re a much keener, better informed observer than I and may well be right.
I should add that I think Bishop Hill’s comments in support of the Covenant — particularly the below sentence — are especially good at reminding people of the [i]problem[/i] with the current text of the Covenant [although he did not mean that to be so, I’m sure].
[blockquote]It is not to deal with our mess but to keep talking about our mess.[/blockquote]
That is, of course, what the Gafcon Primates recognize as well, and probably what the “Category 4” Primates [i]suspect[/i] is all too true. Only not only does the current text of the Covenant not “deal with our mess” and “keep talking about our mess” but it also adds 1) a turgid process to talk about our mess, and 2) a “Standing Committee” that will have significant power within that turgid process of “talking about our mess.”
Somehow, the Covenant proponents have got to make all that attractive to the informed [now very very informed, having participated in the past 7-year debacle] moderate conservative Primates.
They may — somehow — succeed, perhaps by downplaying it all, or coming up with a new description that somehow makes it look better.
It’s hard to predict what General Convention 2012 will do with respect to the Covenant, since one of the few things we can say with confidence is that the situation will have evolved significantly by that time.
However, I suspect #3 evan miller may be right. If the GAFCON provinces reject the Covenant (as they have stated they will), and the C of E signs it (and this morning’s vote suggests that Synod, at least, is strongly in favor) and depending on how the (as Sarah calls them) “informed moderate conservative” provinces seem to be lining up — then I think there is a real possibility that TEC might decide to sign on. Without the GAFCON provinces involved, the voices calling for the use of section 4’s disciplinary process, such as it is, against TEC would be much less ardent.
Of course it would be a contentious vote, if it were to happen — a lot of people in TEC oppose the Covenant as a matter of principle — but I could see it falling out that way.
Yes, I think the key will be that cluster of informed moderate conservative Primates signing on.
Of course, the irony will be that were TEC to sign on [and I really don’t believe that they will because you have such a huge chunck in the HOD/HOB who are incensed by the very thought of “interdependence” — these are the foaming revisionists who make up the preponderance of the General Convention now, and one has but to “absorb the atmosphere” for two weeks at just one of these to recognize that], then the informed conservative moderate Primates would realize *even faster* than they might have just how meaningless and time-wasting signing such a thing will be.
Either way, they’ll realize it when after several years nothing is any better. But TEC signing on would, shall we say, “hasten the realization.” ; > )
Once again, those I stupidly believed would protect me are abandoning me. If the orthodox hadn’t jumped ship from P/ECUSA/TEC and stayed and fought, if the overseas Primates and Bishops had used their numbers to overwhelm the heresiarchs, none of this would be happening. Instead, comme toujours they withdraw into their own safe havens and set up their own little subsystems to keep themselves clean and tidy, leaving me and others to remain and do the best we can.
RE: “If the orthodox hadn’t jumped ship from P/ECUSA/TEC and stayed and fought, if the overseas Primates and Bishops had used their numbers to overwhelm the heresiarchs, none of this would be happening.”
Obviously I completely disagree with this entire statement. If “the orthodox hadn’t jumped ship” we’d still have all the actions of GC and KJS et al. And we’d still have the Communion Partners telling the other guys that they shouldn’t be pursuing whatever internal-TEC strategy they’d be pursuing. And vice versa too.
Once one recognizes that the strategies are entirely different — and would have remained so no matter if the parties had *been in TEC* or outside of TEC, then it’s best for the Leavers to leave anyway.
Plus — unlike you or me — their consciences were violated by remaining in such a gangrenous body. I understand and empathize with that, though of course, I don’t share that conviction.
The Gafcon Primates are good to be so clear and up-front. And they’re right that the current text of the Covenant is a meaningless, time-wasting, and slightly harmful [due to the time wasting] dead end.
Sorry Sarah, in my long so-called career I’ve noticed that the Anglican right has an infallible ability to lose absolutely every single time because they do not know how to get things done. A lack of furbizia (Italian, sort of like cunning) characterizes everything that’s happened to the orthodox since the 1960s. Thank God for the Curmudgeon’s wise example! As for their tender consciences causing them to cut and run, for the most part (and you and I know most of them) in many, MANY cases it’s more a result of a lack of impulse control combined with slight case of hystrionic personality syndrome. Seriously.
The politics of this whackafrazz is more than I want to grasp, but this much should be clear to everyone. It makes no difference who does or does not sign on to the covenant; The die has been cast for dissolution because there is no clear trustworthy leadership. Mind you, the disparate elements will go on calling meetings and going to Synods and listening listening listening, but this is tire spinning. The Gafconologists have taken the only meaningful action possible: They have said , politely, we are sick of you and want nothing to do with you. At last the only thing to do with poison ivy is kill it and root it out.
But who can root out the ABC, since this is clearly necessary? Maybe no one. I have a lot of complaints about the ACA (of which I am a part), but at least they have the sense to stay clear of the ABCdearians and this present dystopia.
Has it occurred to you this endless meeting echolalia is like Groundhog Day? i Larry
Larry- AGREED! Alas.
“Has it occurred to you this endless meeting echolalia is like Groundhog Day?”
Interesting point: but the movie was funny and entertaining. This version is just plain sad.
RE: “As for their tender consciences causing them to cut and run, for the most part (and you and I know most of them) in many, MANY cases it’s more a result of a lack of impulse control combined with slight case of hystrionic personality syndrome.”
Well, I just don’t think that this can possibly be true of even a majority of the 50,000 or so, give or take, which have left TEC deliberately to go to ACNA [not to mention the the many many more who have left TEC and gone to a non-Anglican denomination entirely].
I think that’s troweling it on a bit rich. Surely you can’t think that it’s “hystrionic” to not desire to be a part of such an incredibly corrupt organization? I find it perfectly normal and reasonable myself, and castigating others for having the gall to not want to swim in sewage while going to church seems far far odder than people simply desiring to leave the sewage.
Look, we’re in a pretty rotten place led by some really really ghastly people. I mean — really ghastly, dysfunctional, and ill.
I think it is pretty normal for healthy people — not *all* healthy people mind you — but plenty of healthy people to say “goodbye, weirdos” and waltz out the door.
Truth is, the far far far larger issue with “strategy in TEC” or “staying and fighting” is not the Leavers, [i]but the Stayers[/i]. For as you and I both know, there are far more traditional people who have stayed in TEC than who have left TEC in the past 7 years. Problem is . . . [i]most of ’em are sitting on their duffs and placidly knitting away[/i]. They shall experience consequences for that failure of character — but by the time the consequences are recognized, it is too late.
I can perfectly understand why people — who really really would have liked to accomplish something — looked around them at all the placid knitters and said “well . . . cheerio then.”
And yes, people’s consciences all have different “trigger points.” A lot of these folks — including my brother — had young children to be concerned about and the last thing they wanted was to have their children hanging out in a church that publicly, nationally, officially, and formally applauds same-gender sexual relationships, [not to mention all the other ghastly heresies and practices they’re applauding, like oh say chanting that “abortion is a blessing”] and remaining in parishes and dioceses which did absolutely nothing to say “yes, that’s what our national church believes, but we repudiate such harmful and dysfunctional beliefs and actions and we sharply distinguish ourselves from those stances and those heresies — they are *not* the Christian faith or gospel in any way, shape, or form.”
Once you’re in a place where neither parish, nor diocese is willing to differentiate — AND one has children whom one is trying to form in the Christian faith in a very very challenging secular culture — AND one’s conscience is deeply troubled, it’s pretty much impossible to resist that call.
As I’ve said for years — I’m thrilled to stay and very happy I am where I am, nor do I think it intrinsically wrong to stay in a corrupt organization led by corrupt leaders. But neither do I think it intrinsically wrong to leave either. And we reached the tipping point long long ago with TEC.
As a friend of mine said about 2000 — one can be in the process of turning around a runaway bus, and yet have it roll off the cliff anyway. And once it’s rolled off the cliff . . . no amount of turning the bus does a bit of good.
That’s what happened to national TEC. It went off the cliff and its demise was assured long ago, whether people stayed or left. The sheer mathematics of the complete and total control of the instruments of power in TEC — the HOD, the HOB [where the teensiest dying diocese gets the same number of deputies AND bishop as the largest], the Executive Committee and all the commissions appointed by the President of the HOD and the PB . . . those things were irrevocably secured by the foaming revisionists long long ago.
And as such, reform at those levels is not possible save for an action by God akin to pouring fire down from heaven onto the soaked altars of Baal. And if God intends to do that — [i]He doesn’t need the Leavers to be in TEC to watch[/i].
Sarah – you are your very insightful and lucid self as usual.
As to the Covenant, it isn’t “dead” but my prediction is that it will not end with a bang but just fade away. My prediction is that the Covenant will be passed by the moderate middle of the Communion and the CofE, but by nobody else. GAFCON has already announced it won’t accept it, and I seriously doubt that TEC or its liberal allies would pass it either. Basically, the liberal powers that be want nothing like a Covenant and so won’t pass it. TEC and its liberal allies would also move to undermine any sort of serious discipline envisaged under the Covenant anyway (they wouldn’t want to set precedents). Neither the CofE nor the moderate signers-on would ever make serious use of the enforcement provisions, thus, this Covenant will be a dead letter. Another pretty bauble that was supposed to have done something but which has been neutered of any power and so sitting uselessly on Rowan Williams’ mantelpiece.
Sarah is quite correct – the only effect this Covenant will have is that it may waste some more time as the mushy moderates have yet another excuse to sit on the fence while Rowan’s Latest Solution is given a few years to fizzle out.
Two observations here: First, the analogy of a torn garment re the effect of TEC’s regrettable consecration (I believe the term was first used by the ABC now over seven years ago) may be the result of a British penchant for dealing with materials–however, the analogy seems other than “spot-on”. The best analogy seems to me to be that of a marriage that’s involved with the results of a spouse’s extra-marital dalliance(s)–something that’s grounds for civil divorce just about universally–and TEC has, in essence, been saying all these years since that its dalliance is, of course, justified because its marital status shouldn’t interfere with the moral understanding it now has as to how its life should be lived, regardless of any marital status. So all the passively-generated tinkering at the edges–and the Covenant unfortunately falls in this category–amounts to merely a series of ineffectual attempts that resolve little, regardless of whatever forms or methods are involved (so that, in the case of the Covenant, whether or however it might be adopted would ultimately be of little importance). The one thing I have read from the ABC that made sense as an attempt to resolve something other than at the edges–viz., the permissibility of ordaining homosexual priests provided a life of celibacy is to follow such ordination–is undoubtedly doomed to failure, even though it’s in reality a conservative step, but a very useful one, in dealing with the real issue(s) involved in the Communion, including relations with other conservative Christian bodies.
Secondly, I fail to understand what the relevance of the term “moderate conservative” as applied to prelates given the nominal marriage that is today’s Anglican Communion. Truly conservative clergy would either have already worked out their ministerial functions in the Communion in recognition of the reality of the fact that this marriage is a nominal one with the moral claim on their ministry appropriate to such marriages, or are now in a position to be considering a change in their ministerial functions in the light of the reality involved. The use of “moderate conservative” may have been intended to suggest “conservative-leaning” prelates, however, given the status quo in the Communion, how, for any appreciable time, any such “leaning” could be sustained and be very effective, seems very questionable. What I think many fail to recognize is that there may be a bright future for groups such as ACNA (a group with which I have no affiliation), because the future could bring a uniting, in North America for example, of conservative Anglicans, Lutherans (which might include the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), and even Presbyterians and others who would desire to be a part of a unifying, traditional church, and the probability of such a church eclipsing TEC in membership in the not-too-distant future is not unrealistic.
#19 Very will written. ACNA and its brethren are the correct answer. When I read what you said, I thought, of course, this is the only answer, the only way forward. Larry
[blockquote]ACNA and its brethren are the correct answer.[/blockquote]
To which question?
What can we do the will solve the problem of the ABC and his inability to lead and the riven church? Larry
If the question is, “What can we do that will solve the problem of the ABC’s inability to lead?” then I don’t see how ACNA is a solution to the problem. It side-steps the problem without addressing it. If the ABC is unable to lead, it is either because he is unmotivated or he just can’t lead in the way we want him to for personal, social, and/or institutional reasons. ACNA addresses none of these issues. The Covenant at least attempts to address the institutional issue.
If the question is, “What can we do that will solve the problem of a riven church?” then I don’t see how ACNA can be the answer to that question either. Historically, council has always been the answer. The Covenant has attempted to provide the institutional framework in which meaningful council can be taken about these issues.
As far as I can tell, ACNA further exacerbates the ABC’s leadership problem and further divides the Church. Therefore, I don’t see how it can be the correct answer to those questions. Am I missing something here?
RE: “To which question?”
JIngalls — to the question that the folks who chose to go to ACNA are asking. ; > )
RE: “Secondly, I fail to understand what the relevance of the term “moderate conservative†as applied to prelates given the nominal marriage that is today’s Anglican Communion.”
Well — *some* sort of term has to be used to describe that group of Primates who are traditional in theology, informed in their knowledge of the actions of TEC/et al, but do *not* desire to be a part of Gafcon/FCA/ACNA/Jerusalem and think that’s the wrong way to go strategically. We might call that group “kumquats” or any number of other terms — so I’m not wedded to having to call them “informed conservative moderates.”
RE: “Truly conservative clergy . . . ”
Ah. Okay — so those Primates who are *not* willing to be a part of the Gafcon/FCA/ACNA/Jerusalem strategery are not “truly conservative.”
That’s fine. But then we would need a word to describe that group of Primates who “are not truly conservative as defined by the Gafcon/FCA/ACNA/Jerusalem strategians but who are traditional in theology, informed about the actions of TEC/et al, and desire to do other things besides sign on to the Jerusalem/FCA/ACNA/Gafcon strategy. ; > )
I’m fine with kumquats to describe that group. But then, I’m also fine with informed moderate conservative Primates too.
I think we all know what that term means now.
RE: “What I think many fail to recognize is that there may be a bright future for groups such as ACNA (a group with which I have no affiliation), because the future could bring a uniting, in North America for example, of conservative Anglicans, Lutherans (which might include the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), and even Presbyterians and others who would desire to be a part of a unifying, traditional church, and the probability of such a church eclipsing TEC in membership in the not-too-distant future is not unrealistic.”
Yes — you just named *yet another* reason why people don’t want to be a part of the ACNA/Gafcon/Jerusalem/FCA strategy.
Which demonstrates to me — once again — that the differences between the two strategies have indeed much to do with big theological differences.
[blockquote]Which demonstrates to me—once again—that the differences between the two strategies have indeed much to do with big theological differences.[/blockquote]
I’d love to hear your enumeration of those theological differences. As a ‘stayer’ in TEC, I’m quite curious.
Well — one obvious theological difference would be that one group believes it a great idea to bundle together various “conservative” denominations into one “unifying, traditional [sic] church” . . .
That goes along with an affinity for having recent Vineyard pastors as Anglican bishops and Apostolic Catholic Church of Brazil clergy as Anglican bishops and other similar bishops.
I have long since given up being surprised or shocked. I’ve just accepted the theological differences and emphases that lead to those decisions — and so many other decisions — and focused on my own troubles in TEC. But it’s hard to focus on where I am, when so many others keep announcing that ACNA is the answer to whatever question anyone is asking and that “truly conservative clergy” would recognize that.
As far as other theological differences — I think I’ll just stick with pointing out the one that billtrianglenc inadvertently demonstrated above, since there are so many other threads where others are dealt with.
As an example of another “theological difference” you would swiftly encounter if you tried to put “traditional Anglicans” and “traditional Lutherans” in the same church, consder apostolic succession. TEC and the ELCA were only able to sign a full communion agreement after lengthy wrangling and a contentious compromise on that issue — and I know several people in the ELCA, died-in-the-wool liberals, who still resent that compromise and think the ELCA gave away too much. I doubt that “traditional” types on either side are going to be more willing to bend on doctrinal matters than the liberals were.