A Covenant will yield a stronger, more coherent and unified Anglicanism. It may mean that some Provinces such as TEC and some of the GAFCON Provinces will opt out both from the Covenant and attendance at inter-Anglican meetings.
That does not mean a complete break-up of Anglicanism – participation in the “instruments of communion” is important but not the only expression of being Anglican. The liturgies of Anglican Provinces bear a strong family resemblance. The mission societies, the Mother’s Unions, diocesan links, fraternal links among cathedrals and schools will not cease to operate.
Meanwhile as the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, work will be done on reforming the “instruments” because it is largely their failure to be effective that has triggered the crisis in Anglicanism.
Prepare for the assault on this uncluttered account from the liberal blogs…
Some thoughts and questions:
“The liturgies of Anglican Provinces bear a strong family resemblance. The mission societies, the Mother’s Unions, diocesan links, fraternal links among cathedrals and schools will not cease to operate.”
True, but is that to be the distinctive of Anglicanism going forward? If so, that is very small beer. I would suggest that it is far more important which churches one is actually in communion with. And by that standard, the Anglican communion is dividing quickly.
“Meanwhile as the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, work will be done on reforming the “instruments†because it is largely their failure to be effective that has triggered the crisis in Anglicanism.”
Setting aside the mistatement that the failures of the instruments “triggered” the crisis – TEC’s actions triggered the crisis, the instruments exacerbated it – what exactly is it that the instruments failed to do? I think one should be able to declare clearly what the failure was and what the covenant will do to remedy the failure if one hopes to convince others that the covenant will be the better option. And the reason I say that is that I do not believe that the revisionists, institutionalists and orthodox see the same failure or seek the same remedy.
“Gone will be the idea you can be Anglican and believe whatever you like.”
I think this is quite an overstatement. I am not certain where this is apparent from the current draft.
“For the Catholic Church it will be good news. It has a great affection for Anglicanism and hopes to find in it a partner in ecumenical dialogue with which it can do business.”
I think there is some truth in that, but based upon who currently seems likely to accept the covenant in its present form, in the event that is the smaller part lead by TEC and the CoE, I have doubts it will be the part with which the Catholic Church wishes to “do business”.
I appreciate, I think, that from the perspective of the CoE, the covenant has some attraction. But from a more global Anglican perspective, I don’t think it is fit for purpose, if that purpose is to hold the vast majority of orthodox Anglicans in the global south in the current communion, such as it is.
I seem to remember that the Primates were ready to discipline the TEC when the ABC sabotaged it. Or do I misremember Dar es Salaam?
I could “assault” it and I’m traditional.
Similar issues are being discussed on StandFirm and I believe this comment sums it up better than John Martin, not to mention any drivel that I would write:
“I think it unfortunate that so many conservatives seem taken with the Covenant in its current form. To vote in favor, at this point, is to condone KJS and the Standing Committee’s overthrow of the primates as an Instrument of Communion, to acquiesce to her “leadership†and put oneself under the authority of the ultra-revisionists who clearly rule the SC by fiat.
It is also to commit to a way of doing things based about gaining consensus, then turning over the agreement to a hand selected committee to re-write so TEC likes it better. Which is what happened. The Ridley draft (still horrid, with its acquiescence to the SC, but radically better than the current draft in that the Primates were at least in the loop) would have been adopted at Jamaica, but for the personal intervention of the ABoC, but instead was turned over to Gregory Cameron to re-write to please TEC, NZ, etc, with seemingly all GS recommendations rejected.
So, for Gafcon to sign on in the present form is for Gafcon to put itself under the discipline of TEC. The last SC meeting resulted in rejecting ANY discipline for TEC over the Glasspool consecration, by a vote of 8-2, seating 2 illegally appointed members, and the full participation of KJS in votes she should have recused herself from, since she is the one who consecrated Glasspool, and was effectively running the jury determining the case.
Unfortunately, to vote in favor of the Covenant is to give support to those things.
Fix the SC, make it representative of the Communion, and the issues with the Covenant may disappear. But the SC abuses MUST be addressed BEFORE signing on to the Covenant”.
Martin: “A Covenant will yield a stronger, more coherent and unified Anglicanism. It may mean that some Provinces such as TEC and some of the GAFCON Provinces will opt out both from the Covenant and attendance at inter-Anglican meetings”.
Bookworm: A “stronger, more coherent, and unified Anglicanism”? Really? Well, I’d love to know how Martin defines that, especially if there is no process for dealing with those who color outside the lines, and/or thus truly cease to be Anglican.
Martin: “Meanwhile as the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, work will be done on reforming the “instruments†because it is largely their failure to be effective that has triggered the crisis in Anglicanism”.
Work might not need to be done on reforming the instruments(with the exception of Canterbury) if the AB of C had not, to date, done such a successful job of neutering the other instruments or stacking the deck where the ?Standing Committee or the Covenant Revision types were concerned–what, truly was wrong with Dr. Radner’s group and the Ridley Draft that it needed to be revised by a hand-picked ABoC “committee”, other than the fact that TEC and their revisionist company didn’t like it?
TEC and co. might not have ANY problem signing on to a straw-man covenant, thus far with no disciplinary structure and/or the fox in charge of the henhouse, as evidenced by KJS and Ian Douglas’s fingers still in pies they have no business being in. I’m sure +Williams is aware that he has allowed those who have torn the bonds in the Communion to still have huge roles in Communion governance. Is that oxymoron lost on him? And he wonders why the Global South, which represents the majority of the world’s Anglicans, has a problem with this?
Methinks the only “discipline” the innovators will ever see is that openly gay bishops forfeit their Lambeth invitations. But their consecrators get a free pass.
Based on much of the above, it seems the AB of C is truly Katherine Schori. No wonder GAFCON doesn’t care to play ball.
“For the Catholic Church it will be good news. It has a great affection for Anglicanism and hopes to find in it a partner in ecumenical dialogue with which it can do business”.
Except for the lack of discipline when there are doctrinal violations and the ordination of women-thingy.
Our view is the GS will/ought to covenant and also see to its proper administration. Why concede to the present SC? Gafcon appears to be more worried about the SC than the actual covenant text; that is correct. I also doubt whether TEC will do anything with this covenant no matter what kind of SC is alongside it. Why should they? Covenanting is not a pro-KJS endorsement.
There is much here that just does not ring true.
But just for a start – he writes
“For Anglicans it will close down endless rows about sexuality ”
While the Windsor Report states clearly
“it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. “
‘Closed’ presumably as the main bloc of Anglicans worldwide continues in full Communion and in continuity with the church’s teaching, whilst a second group moves forward with a new understanding of human sexual behaviour and the blessings required for that. This would at least permit the mission of the main bloc to proceed apace, and the other tier could conduct its own form of evangelisation. The Windsor Report likely has this view of the only possible resolution, given the ‘radically different positions.’
The “impaired communion” within the “main bloc” that prefigured the sexuality debate will continue – “full Communion” will not continue.
Paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report does not give any support to the view expressed above.
Dr. Seitz, the ACI, Fulcrum etc are determined on the Covenant. They want to preserve the Communion at the expense of the North American orthodox and all other orthodox for that matter. Indeed the AC wants to preserve its unity through deliberate inaction even if it results in the destruction of the North American orthodoxy.?
1. Agreed: to covenant is in principle a good principle. This should predispose to mutual accountability and so foster trust, both of which are in rather short supply around the AC.
2. However: while sections 1-3 constitute a good form of covenant, there remains section 4 and the very loose SC at its heart. And since the Instruments have mostly failed these past few years (Dar’s conclusions were effectively emasculated, and while Alexandria gained some purchase, other committees have proven more ‘effective’ still; Lambeth 2008 was, well, a nice seminar format but no Church Council; ACC in Jamaica was frankly a public farce), comments regarding their supposed reform, in the face of the current SC and its brief track record, predispose one to ask: why would we put any trust in such statements regarding reform when earlier comments in this thread have nailed the diagnosis as to banal vagueness rather accurately.
3. QED: Any covenant, without a due mechanism for serious implementation, both initially and ongoing, is sheer “motherhood and apple pie†(albeit, IMHO as it currently stands via RCD, rather good apple-pie). The middle ground – I am tempted to say [i]Via Media[/i] – has slipped into vagueness itself on account of its being gently levered into irrelevance by other “wills to power†across and within the AC. Martin’s diagnosis fails to perceive Bp Scofield’s seminal remark from some time ago: “to recognize the tear is not to cause it!†And for all the emphasis the ABC placed on that key word “recognition†in his 2007 Advent Pastoral Letter, both his failure and Martin’s failure to see clearly now the difference between such [i]adequate[/i] “recognition†and “causationâ€, and the necessary follow-through on the distinction, will almost certainly mean the “slow train-wreck†(NTW) will continue.
4. For finally: from where, and therefore with what authority, will any “due mechanism†actually arise?!
I think one has to be quite practical rather than emotional about all this. There are still serious questions over the Instruments. In particular there is a view in the Global South, CAPA and GAFCON that there are weaknesses in the current text, and the current substituted “Standing Committee” is not fit for purpose. They prefer the Primates’ Meeting or some derivation from that which represents the Communion provinces as a whole rather than a small Western liberal elite.
The whole thing needs to work together and be seen as a whole, and I say that as a Covenant supporter. To have a coherant Covenant text with incoherent Instruments is as bad as coherant Instruments with an incoherent Covenant text. You need to have your ducks lined up so that the whole thing works. A Covenant is a serious matter, like a treaty, or any contract. The terms determine exactly how the whole thing will work, and people should not sign such a thing unless they are confident of what they are signing up to. To do anything else is wishful thinking. But when people are sure that the Instruments are in a fit state to take on the duties allocated to them under the Covenant, and the text accurately expresses what they wish the Covenant to do, they should sign up; not before, but that is my view.
There was a overwhelming Synod vote – that was partly enthusiasm, partly loyalty, and partly [and I supported that] a determination that the wrecking attempts organised from TEC should not succeed in wrecking the prospects for a Covenant, and destabilise our Archbishop.
Good piece from John Martin.
Brother Michael, post 3,
Unfortunately you don’t “misremember Dar es Salaam” and I doubt that you “misremember” New Orleans either.
“Our view is the GS will/ought to covenant and also see to its proper administration”.
How would they believe they could do the latter if, to date, they’ve had no more than sabotage of their efforts and/or “talk to the hand”?
TEC might avoid signing onto it like the plague because of a future fear that discipline might come about under different leadership. I can dream… 🙂
DeS failed, or was never implemented, because TEC wouldn’t play–I still believe the AB of C could have executed it by playing around them with those in TEC who were WILLING to play, but he chose against that, and here we sit.
Bear in mind, with respect, that there are a lot of people out there who achieve Machiavelli by looking Fawlty…what my spouse likes to call “intentional bumbling”.
And the band plays on…
#9 The ACI, Fulcrum etc, don’t want to abandon orthodoxy in either North America or elsewhere in an attempt to have the Covenant. However, despite ACI recognition of a need to reform the SC pretty much created by fiat, I don’t see any institutional will by RW++ or the ACC to change it which appear to be the only Instruments of Unity not to have been eviscerated over the last few years.
The ABC has zero credibility beginning with his torpedoing the recommendations of Dar. His intervention sent the Covenant’s section 4 to a handpicked and liberal-stacked group to rewrite.
I don’t think anyone was prepared for the end-run which they instituted by changing the Joint Standing Commitee of the Primates and the head of the ACC into some kind of Standing Commitee of the Anglican Communion charged with dispensing consequences to failure to live up to the covenant.
The unfortunate fact is that unless RW changes his mind and his behavior, there is practically nothing that can be done to reestablish order and the proper workings of the Primates Meeting and Lambeth.
Once again, though I don’t think it’s fair to blame ACI who have worked in good faith to try to hold the Anglican Communion together, despite the ever-growing evidence that the current ABC is not brokering a good faith deal on his own.
14, you write: “#9 The ACI, Fulcrum etc, don’t want to abandon orthodoxy in either North America or elsewhere in an attempt to have the Covenant.” Nevertheless that is the outcome. The Covenant will not force or cause TEC to reverse course. The Covenant will not sanction TEC for its persecution of the orthodox. Neither the Covenant not the AC will act to intervene to offer aid and comfort to those orthodox. The only aid has come from the Global South whom the Covenant and AC condemn as “border crossers”. They may not be shooting but they are certainly holding the horses.
Gosh – I can argue that way too.
One would hope, given the record of failure and patent abuse, that we had stepped beyond the point of such unabashed question begging.
🙄
#13 — You can consult our detailed proposal at our website. Those who covenant — should the SC not be corrected and made more representative — simply create an ad hoc means for doing that work. If the SC is not made a trusted representative, then the covenant will be pointless anyway, as those who sought this way forward realise it is serving no purpose. The problem is that at present the widest majority of the communion are not rallying behind Gafcon. One could say that that is fine, and the covenant is a waste of time, both. But it is hard to see what we will be getting except further free-fall. ACI believes the covenant idea has merit, and prays for greater cooperation and coordination from the widest majority of the Communion.
But why bother #17. The damage is done and it is irreversible is it not?
The covenant proposes to close the barn doors even though we all know the horses don’t want to be in that barn and don’t want their stalls together and the barn is burning anyway. Larry
It will not be up to ACI or me, but involves the Primates as a whole, especially in the Global South. I don’t think God is a God of irreversable damage, but of resurrection and new life. The communion is a gift of the Holy Spirit and we pray that it is preserved at its widest reach. Until the covenant proves impossible to use to this end, no other modus vivendi is up and running, or likely to gain assent.
[blockquote]”…the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you (proceeds to read the agreement). […] We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.”
****
“My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. [b]I believe it is peace for our time[/b] [emphasis added]. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. And now I recommend you to go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”[/blockquote]
30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The German occupation of the Sudetenland began on the next day, 1 October.
Funny, I tend to think of the strength and authority of the main lines of the Communion more on analogy with Churchill. I guess I don’t think they are prone to capitulation or manipulation, and I do not believe the opposition — if that is the correct term — has anything like the power of the Wehrmacht.
Those of us abandoned, by you, to the wolves wish you well.
Dr. Seitz, thank you for your post at #17. I think this is your money sentence:
“Those who covenant—should the SC not be corrected and made more representative—simply create an ad hoc means for doing that work. If the SC is not made a trusted representative, then the covenant will be pointless anyway, as those who sought this way forward realise it is serving no purpose”.
Even kids are smart, and they won’t play with what they don’t trust. And I think we know who has sown the seeds of mistrust.
He who made the Standing Committee could have made it correct in the first place by making it more representative. But that’s not how it happened. And ACI has already written extensively on why the creation of that Standing Committee is not “legal” or “constitutional”. I don’t see anyone falling all over himself to correct any (intentional?) mistakes on the SC score. Not to mention the Jamaica debacle which also went uncorrected, with the Ridley draft eventually getting the shaft for no reason, other than to appease TEC. I for one don’t view appeasement as a leadership style.
It’s flawed, but I believe the Covenant is all we have right now. I’m not necessarily writing against it. Yet I think your sentence says it all–“if the SC is not made a trusted representative, then the Covenant will be pointless anyway, as those who sought this way forward realise it is serving no purpose”.
I’d like to be an optimist too, but figure the odds. And there’s that sad-thingy about people’s past behavior predicting their future behavior. Prayer is “it”. Mine, too, will be directed at the other primates seeing the light and rallying with GAFCON. But I doubt they will until they can see the top as, at best, ineffective; at worst, corrupt.
Off-topic and tongue-in-cheek, I’ve always wondered why Brits(and those who spend a lot of time there :-)) dislike use of the letter “z”.
Addendum–John Adams nailed it years ago, regardless of the organization he was describing–“Great statesmen will not always be at the helm”.
We can only hope that we survive them, and they don’t ruin the structure in perpetuity.
You hopefulness is meritorious, Dr. Seitz, but the covenant is obviously one more “committee meting,” one more “listening,” one more “indaba.” What it does at last is that which the above all do, namely, postpone clear decision making, delay strong leadership. It is delay, delay,delay out of fear of the consequences of doing otherwise. it is an attempt to circumvent dealing in a courageous manner with altered world. Tell me now that the Anglican world is NOT altered beyond reversal. The covenant is not the way forward, it is the way of avoiding it. Larry
How odd. I do not consider my remarks ‘hopeful’ in the least. They are marching orders for the GS and the main lines of the Communion to covenant and see to its proper deployment. The Covenant Design Committee did not construct a covenant so it could be the property of committee–not least the one that emerged–but of the communion members who go this route.
#22 — my sense of the GS is that they do not consider themselves stuck between two choices: ‘trust the top’ (your language) or ‘follow Gafcon.’ They understand the character of ‘the top’ already and the challenges around that, and also have decided for their own reasons not to fold into the six who represent Gafcon. Indeed, one might question how solid the support for Gafcon is amongst the Bishops in W Africa, Kenya, and Tanzania. This is simply a reality on the ground.
cseitz, Post 26,
Are you content with the leadership of Presiding Bishop Schori and the Standing Committee?
At what point would you refuse to accept future revisions to the Covenant?
Please read anything ACI has written. Our website is
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/
Content with the leadership of the PB? Please see our site.
With the Standing Committee. Ditto. We have argued it is politically manipulated.
Future Revisions? I believe these are complete. At issue is the SC. Modest improvements could be made if the SC of the Primates was recalibrated. We read reports this could happen. But the proof will be in the pudding.
Dr. Seitz, thank you for your clarity.
Dr Seitz: I found your article very informative, thank you for presenting the situation so clearly. I was especially interested in your understanding of border crossing.[blockquote]In respect to border crossing, that report noted without reference to precedent or legislation that the Anglican Communion holds to the ancient norm that [i]all Christians[/i] in one place should be united in prayer, worship and sacramental life. On this basis the report called for a moratorium on all further intervention[/blockquote]My point of view is that of an ordinary Christian who wishes to be a member of a Christian church. It seems to me that the key words in this statement are “all Christians”. How can a Christian border be established by a church leader who seems to refuse to say the words that would represent her and her church in the same way that ordinary Christians identify themselves and other Christians?
It causes strife. It has happened endlessly in church history. Not ‘having borders’ has fared equally poorly. Strife is what makes Christians strain for truth and holiness. Dioceses are created to further the mission of the Gospel, in orderly and concerted fashion. But when sin invades, no system can prevent the chaos that results. Read the Book of Judges, or the reign of Manasseh. Often these dark periods are followed by periods of Great Light.