Mark Andrus–Anglican Covenant statment made at the House of Bishops meeting

I also want to remember the statement of the Primate of Korea, who with two other primates addressed our House of Bishops on the subject of the proposed covenant. He strikingly said that the province he served would reject the proposed covenant, because, in their considered opinion, to accept would be to internalize the colonialism the has inhered in the historical relationship between the Anglican provinces of the West and their province.

My own memory is of having participated in the Lambeth Conference, 2008, a conference where it was made widely clear that we would have a non-legislative meeting ”“ no voting. There were a series of meetings held on the proposed covenant, all of which I attended. The points of view expressed about the fourth part of the proposed covenant, which contains a mechanism whereby errant (in the judgment of some larger part of the Communion) provinces could have their status as full and equal members of the Communion reduced, were strongly negative. In our daily Indaba groups (discussion groups of about 40 bishops each), the proposed covenant was a discussion topic on one day. Though there was no voting, as advertised, amazingly the report that came out from Lambeth regarding the content of the conference said that a majority of participants favored an Anglican covenant. No mention was made of the opinions expressed in the meetings focused on the proposed covenant.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Covenant, Episcopal Church (TEC), Lambeth 2008, TEC Bishops

7 comments on “Mark Andrus–Anglican Covenant statment made at the House of Bishops meeting

  1. Rob Eaton+ says:

    If Bp Anderson’s comment is the anamnetic moment for the Covenant, then Bp Andrus is only off by 45 years. Such a ploy. Perhaps, though, we should show compassion for historical ignorance.
    This is the problem with a body whose collective memory is defined only by those who are currently present.
    Thank God we have 4 Gospels which are brought forward to us as the Body of Christ weekly, so we do not lose focus or remembrance of just Who is in fact the Risen Christ.

  2. driver8 says:

    each of you here, and the dioceses you serve, through your formal companion diocese relationships and your many lines of mutual ministry and service that stretch in every direction across the whole of the Communion have sent the strongest, most positive message possible about our solidarity with the Communion

    It’s no surprise that Bishop Andrus thinks the Covenant is “A BAD THING”. What is funny and sad is the obviously barking mad view about what messages they have been sending to the wider Communion.

  3. Teatime2 says:

    If those were truly the sentiments of the “primate of Korea,” one wonders why he would be Anglican at all if he’s concerned about “internalizing colonialism.” Do they ever listen to themselves?

  4. Br. Michael says:

    Heaven forbid that the AC be bound by common doctrine and belief. After all we want to be autonomous and free to do what we feel is right in our own eyes. Now where have I read that?

  5. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Well, if history is any prognosticator, TEc would have signed anything and continued to do as it pleased a la the Griz et alia laying hands on VGR, so why is Andrus’ vexed? The ABC copied the TEc playbook? Amazingly short-sighted view of his own “process” – probably due to undigested chicken dinners or such.

  6. tired says:

    ” I took him to mean that we hold together as a spiritual body, whose bonds are more than affection, but are the love of Christ, the vivifying blood that reaches each community of the Communion equally… Affirming the Covenant, besides the negatives factors I have mentioned, is totally unnecessary to tell our sisters and brothers that we love them”

    Communion? What communion? Instead – he has a Potemkin Village notion intended to mislead others, and from which he and certain other clergy might seek a false credibility or authority.


  7. MichaelA says:

    Mark Andrus is right about one thing: Lambeth 2008 with its “Indaba”, and lack of conciliar debate and resolution, provides no basis or foundation for anything.

    In 1998 the Lambeth Conference functioned as a council of bishops: A number of bishops demanded that a motion be debated which (to the dismay of the AC/Lambeth palace bureaucracy) was not on the official agenda. After extensive and vigorous debate, that motion became Lambeth Resolution I:10 on Human Sexuality. It was passed by a massive majority of bishops.

    Since then, the AC/Lambeth bureaucracy and the western liberals have worked (for different reasons) to bury Resolution I:10. But it just won’t die, because it truly did represent the considered will of the bishops of the whole Communion.

    By contrast Lambeth 2008, the conduct of which was specifically designed to prevent any more “surprises” like Resolution 1.10, does not resonate with anyone. It is already in process of being forgotten, a few short years later.