Well at least this answers the question of whether they would sign on and subvert the Covenant or once again thumb their nose at the Communion and refuse to sign it.
It reminds me of the quaint days back when we thought refusing the Covenant might actually have some consequences. My how times have changed.
‘The resolution also promises that the church will “recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening the unity of the communion” and commits to “continued participation in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion” and dialogue…’
I’d prefer to see GC pass a resolution banning use of the word ‘dialogue’ for the next fifty years.
‘with our brothers and sisters in other provinces to deepen understanding and to insure the continued integrity of the Anglican Communion’
Only TEC could manage to make the phrase ‘deepen understanding’ sound smug.
‘Convention is “the only body that can act on behalf of the whole church in this matter,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said during a post-meeting press conference.’
Where ‘the whole church’ = this one small (and getting smaller) American denomination.
I confess that in my insularity, I was unaware of the “Five Marks” of mission. I can understand why TEC would find them such a superior foundation as opposed to the Covenant: despite all of the “good” that is found in them, they are grossly elastic and superficially unifying. They make for fine (arguably) propaganda, but are useless for navigating discord. TEC can “dialogue” about them for decades to come without having to decide anything, change anything, or take a position on anything. Brilliant.
Readers of this article may want to have tall boots and a well-made shovel at hand.
It does cause one to ponder whether dioceses that have adopted the Covenant will be found “out of communion.”
It is fascinating watching the over-reach going on, not only of the Presiding Bishop, but now of the TEC Executive Council over the General Convention which has now become an emasculated rubber stamp for 815’s plans. It parallels just what has happened as the Archbishop of Canterbury has emasculated the other Instruments, and created an overarching ‘Standing Committee’ of like-minded white liberal cronies to over-reach the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the ACC. Bureaucrats are all the same.
As for why no one has spoken out in favor of the Anglican Covenant, why should that be surprising? Any doubt of the lack of wisdom of such a course of action will have been put to rest watching Bishop Lawrence and South Carolina having charges laid at them of supporting the Anglican Covenant, going to meetings with the Archbishop of Canterbury and supporting the Anglican Communion. Any one speaking in favour of the Anglican Covenant even in this supposed consultation would surely on the same precedent be liable to be targeted for deposition by KJS, Beers and Goodwin Proctor through their stooges +Henderson, +Ian Douglas, Parker Poe and the rest of the rogues gallery who have lined up to sit on +Jeffert Schori’s Kangaroo Court, as it has been exposed to be.
‘The resolution also promises that the church will “recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening the unity of the communion’
No doubt, they will debate this resolution right AFTER they adopt gay marriage at GC 2012. Then they will dialogue with everybody about their decision to canonize Pelagius and remove Augustine from the calendar. Then, of course, they will do it anyway, as the purpose of dialogue is to let everyone else know what stodgy old fuddy duddies they are.
Amazing, isn’t it, that they have gone so far from where they were 2 years ago that they can no longer sign the Covenant that the ABoC re-wrote to their precise specifications. He had 30 ACC votes in hand for the Ridley draft- at the time even Nigeria and Uganda would have supported it- even with the Standing Committee replacing the Primates. He scotched it on the floor at Jamaica solely to make TEC and ACoC happy, rewrote it as instructed, and now they are stabbing him in the back. But he can’t say we didn’t warn him at the time.
#5- One can only assume that if +Mark Lawrence has been charged with abandonment over being mentioned in an ACNA power point presentation on a meeting with the ABoC, the other 6 bishops are also under investigation. And if he is under investigation because his diocese adopted a resolution supporting the Covenant, the bishops of the several other dioceses that adopted similar resolutions are also under investigation.
When Ms. Hicks recused herself in the S Carolina “matter”, Henderson said she would continue to work on other “matters” before the disciplinary board (for bishops)- so we can assume that there are matters (plural) that she is investigating. And since all “matters” before that particular board involve the discipline of bishops, we can assume that there are other bishops seen by Henderson and his board as in need of discipline. The use of the plural (“matters”) implies that the “matter” of Bp. Warner is not the only one they are currently working on in addition to +SC.
Surprise. Surprise. Why am I not surprised? Does anyone doubt that the resolution will pass next year?
While I agree in general with everyone above, I especially concur with #2 (billqs) and #6 (Pageantmaster).
It is constantly becoming more and more apparent that the old wineskins of Anglicanism at the international level are obsolete and inadequate to deal with the kind of blatant heresy and rampant immorality now on public display in the Global North. TEC unrepentantly continues to insist on completely unbridled autonomy, and so do the Anglican provinces of Canada and New Zealand (as they’ve already made quite clear).
The question thus is not whether or not the Anglican Communion will continue to tear itself apart, but rather the only question now is what will take the place of those old institutional wineskins.
Personally, I continue to find ++Robert Duncan’s far-sighted vision the most compelling way to look at this whole mess. As he put it several years ago, the old “Elizabethan Settlement” is defunct and will have to be replaced by a new “Global (Post-Colonial) Settlement.”
I fully agree. But I’d go a big step further than ++Duncan the Lionhearted. These are the early stages, the birth pangs, of the Second Reformation. The outdated old nationally-based, Erastian polity structures that served us well for over 400 years have finally outlived their usefulness. Whatever takes their place will have to be not only a Global and Post-Colonial Settlement, but more importantly, a [b]Post-Christendom[/b] Settlement, able to help Anglicans everywhere, but especially in the increasingly de-Christianized Global North, to function as a coherent and highly disciplined minority group in a scary new cultural context that is indifferent to Christianity at best, and often hostile at worst. Given our state church heritage, that is a HUGE change, with very far-reaching implications that we are only beginning to sense and explore.
But I remain hopeful that the best days for orthodox Anglicanism are still to come. The death of the current wineskins of the Anglican Communion will allow the rebirth or resurrection of Anglicanism in a radically new form, as befits the New Reformation.
I find it especially ironic that the toadies at TEC say that the covenant “would significantly alter our current understanding of what it means to be an autonomous province.”
South Carolina is being brought to task for claiming to be an autonomous diocese, thus rejecting the “radical inclusivism” of TEC.
I was a member of the Episcopal Church. I used to visit this site frequently in the early days of the brouhaha over the bishop. I was feeling a pang of regret about having left, so I visited again today. I honestly had to verify the site was still up, running, and being updated by noticing the dates on the stories. All of this seems so ‘last three years.’ Nothing has changed, except for perhaps for Episcopalians now being compared to Mormons, for Pete’s sake. What a difference a day doesn’t make, or three years worth of them either.
How sad, how really, incredibly, very sad.
Hey CharlietheCook, I’m sorry you’re sad and certainly hope you feel better soon. Hopefully your new church will help. God certainly restores joy as a part of the fruit of the Spirit — I should know!
Not unexpected. Yes, they want to remain in the AC, but on their own terms. And the AC is content to let them.
Well at least this answers the question of whether they would sign on and subvert the Covenant or once again thumb their nose at the Communion and refuse to sign it.
It reminds me of the quaint days back when we thought refusing the Covenant might actually have some consequences. My how times have changed.
‘The resolution also promises that the church will “recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening the unity of the communion” and commits to “continued participation in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion” and dialogue…’
I’d prefer to see GC pass a resolution banning use of the word ‘dialogue’ for the next fifty years.
‘with our brothers and sisters in other provinces to deepen understanding and to insure the continued integrity of the Anglican Communion’
Only TEC could manage to make the phrase ‘deepen understanding’ sound smug.
‘Convention is “the only body that can act on behalf of the whole church in this matter,” Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said during a post-meeting press conference.’
Where ‘the whole church’ = this one small (and getting smaller) American denomination.
I confess that in my insularity, I was unaware of the “Five Marks” of mission. I can understand why TEC would find them such a superior foundation as opposed to the Covenant: despite all of the “good” that is found in them, they are grossly elastic and superficially unifying. They make for fine (arguably) propaganda, but are useless for navigating discord. TEC can “dialogue” about them for decades to come without having to decide anything, change anything, or take a position on anything. Brilliant.
Readers of this article may want to have tall boots and a well-made shovel at hand.
It does cause one to ponder whether dioceses that have adopted the Covenant will be found “out of communion.”
It is fascinating watching the over-reach going on, not only of the Presiding Bishop, but now of the TEC Executive Council over the General Convention which has now become an emasculated rubber stamp for 815’s plans. It parallels just what has happened as the Archbishop of Canterbury has emasculated the other Instruments, and created an overarching ‘Standing Committee’ of like-minded white liberal cronies to over-reach the Lambeth Conference, the Primates Meeting and the ACC. Bureaucrats are all the same.
As for why no one has spoken out in favor of the Anglican Covenant, why should that be surprising? Any doubt of the lack of wisdom of such a course of action will have been put to rest watching Bishop Lawrence and South Carolina having charges laid at them of supporting the Anglican Covenant, going to meetings with the Archbishop of Canterbury and supporting the Anglican Communion. Any one speaking in favour of the Anglican Covenant even in this supposed consultation would surely on the same precedent be liable to be targeted for deposition by KJS, Beers and Goodwin Proctor through their stooges +Henderson, +Ian Douglas, Parker Poe and the rest of the rogues gallery who have lined up to sit on +Jeffert Schori’s Kangaroo Court, as it has been exposed to be.
‘The resolution also promises that the church will “recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening the unity of the communion’
No doubt, they will debate this resolution right AFTER they adopt gay marriage at GC 2012. Then they will dialogue with everybody about their decision to canonize Pelagius and remove Augustine from the calendar. Then, of course, they will do it anyway, as the purpose of dialogue is to let everyone else know what stodgy old fuddy duddies they are.
Amazing, isn’t it, that they have gone so far from where they were 2 years ago that they can no longer sign the Covenant that the ABoC re-wrote to their precise specifications. He had 30 ACC votes in hand for the Ridley draft- at the time even Nigeria and Uganda would have supported it- even with the Standing Committee replacing the Primates. He scotched it on the floor at Jamaica solely to make TEC and ACoC happy, rewrote it as instructed, and now they are stabbing him in the back. But he can’t say we didn’t warn him at the time.
#5- One can only assume that if +Mark Lawrence has been charged with abandonment over being mentioned in an ACNA power point presentation on a meeting with the ABoC, the other 6 bishops are also under investigation. And if he is under investigation because his diocese adopted a resolution supporting the Covenant, the bishops of the several other dioceses that adopted similar resolutions are also under investigation.
When Ms. Hicks recused herself in the S Carolina “matter”, Henderson said she would continue to work on other “matters” before the disciplinary board (for bishops)- so we can assume that there are matters (plural) that she is investigating. And since all “matters” before that particular board involve the discipline of bishops, we can assume that there are other bishops seen by Henderson and his board as in need of discipline. The use of the plural (“matters”) implies that the “matter” of Bp. Warner is not the only one they are currently working on in addition to +SC.
Thank you, gentlemen in #6, 7, and 8–that about sums it up.
Surprise. Surprise. Why am I not surprised? Does anyone doubt that the resolution will pass next year?
While I agree in general with everyone above, I especially concur with #2 (billqs) and #6 (Pageantmaster).
It is constantly becoming more and more apparent that the old wineskins of Anglicanism at the international level are obsolete and inadequate to deal with the kind of blatant heresy and rampant immorality now on public display in the Global North. TEC unrepentantly continues to insist on completely unbridled autonomy, and so do the Anglican provinces of Canada and New Zealand (as they’ve already made quite clear).
The question thus is not whether or not the Anglican Communion will continue to tear itself apart, but rather the only question now is what will take the place of those old institutional wineskins.
Personally, I continue to find ++Robert Duncan’s far-sighted vision the most compelling way to look at this whole mess. As he put it several years ago, the old “Elizabethan Settlement” is defunct and will have to be replaced by a new “Global (Post-Colonial) Settlement.”
I fully agree. But I’d go a big step further than ++Duncan the Lionhearted. These are the early stages, the birth pangs, of the Second Reformation. The outdated old nationally-based, Erastian polity structures that served us well for over 400 years have finally outlived their usefulness. Whatever takes their place will have to be not only a Global and Post-Colonial Settlement, but more importantly, a [b]Post-Christendom[/b] Settlement, able to help Anglicans everywhere, but especially in the increasingly de-Christianized Global North, to function as a coherent and highly disciplined minority group in a scary new cultural context that is indifferent to Christianity at best, and often hostile at worst. Given our state church heritage, that is a HUGE change, with very far-reaching implications that we are only beginning to sense and explore.
But I remain hopeful that the best days for orthodox Anglicanism are still to come. The death of the current wineskins of the Anglican Communion will allow the rebirth or resurrection of Anglicanism in a radically new form, as befits the New Reformation.
David Handy+
I find it especially ironic that the toadies at TEC say that the covenant “would significantly alter our current understanding of what it means to be an autonomous province.”
South Carolina is being brought to task for claiming to be an autonomous diocese, thus rejecting the “radical inclusivism” of TEC.
I was a member of the Episcopal Church. I used to visit this site frequently in the early days of the brouhaha over the bishop. I was feeling a pang of regret about having left, so I visited again today. I honestly had to verify the site was still up, running, and being updated by noticing the dates on the stories. All of this seems so ‘last three years.’ Nothing has changed, except for perhaps for Episcopalians now being compared to Mormons, for Pete’s sake. What a difference a day doesn’t make, or three years worth of them either.
How sad, how really, incredibly, very sad.
Hey CharlietheCook, I’m sorry you’re sad and certainly hope you feel better soon. Hopefully your new church will help. God certainly restores joy as a part of the fruit of the Spirit — I should know!