We have three principle areas of concern regarding the Draft Covenant:
–The discussion of the foundations which are traditionally held to undergird Anglicanism omits to mention reason, which has long been thought to stand alongside scripture and tradition.
–The wording of section 6 of the Draft Covenant is potentially open to a wide variety of interpretations. For example, to take paragraph 6.3 alone, we feel that the expressions such as ”˜common mind’, ”˜matters of essential concern’, and ”˜common standards of faith’, all require significant further definition before they can bear the weight being placed upon them in the context of this Covenant. We are led to wonder whether the wording of section 6 of the Draft Covenant is fit for purpose in any practical circumstance in which it is likely to be called upon.
–We note that the Draft Covenant invests the Primates’ meeting with considerable and wide-ranging powers. We question whether the Primates’ meeting is the Instrument of Unity best suited to the task being entrusted to it (rather than the ACC, which contains a more wide-ranging representation of Church members).
[blockquote] The discussion of the foundations which are traditionally held to undergird Anglicanism omits to mention reason, which has long been thought to stand alongside scripture and tradition. [/blockquote] So now the venerable “three-legged stool” fallacy has been given an official imprimatur.
Perhaps they meant to say this…
[blockquote]”–The discussion of the foundations which are traditionally held to undergird Anglicanism omits to mention reason, which has long been thought to stand alongside[u], but subordinate to,[/u] scripture and tradition.”[/blockquote]
…because to say it the other way would be misleading and self serving.
😉
#2…If reason were subordinate to scripture and tradition, there would be no way to reconcile the numerous conflicts in scripture and tradition.
“We note that the Draft Covenant invests the Primates’ meeting with considerable and wide-ranging powers. We question whether the Primates’ meeting is the Instrument of Unity best suited to the task being entrusted to it (rather than the ACC, which contains a more wide-ranging representation of Church members).”
The ACC? The ACC!!!???
The ACC has shown itself to far too mallealable to those who unscrupulously push forward progressive-revisionist agendas.
And those agendas have little to do with “reason” and much to do with attaining political objectives.
Its far better for all of the primates to meet in ‘synod’ when attempts to ‘adjust’ matters of Scripture and doctrine are being made to suit the needs of the progressive-revisionists.
Here’s the quote:
[blockquote]”What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due, the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth.”[/blockquote]
Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, Chapter 8, Section 2 (as
quoted in Chris Findley, “A Most Dangerous Myth: The place of the Bible in the Anglican/Episcopal Church”)
AnglicanFirst (#4),
One could also argue that the Primates’ Meeting has shown itself “far too malleable to those who unscrupulously push forward” a right-wing revisionist agenda that seeks to reshape Anglicanism in its own mould.
Kevin, your comment might be somewhat believable, except for the word, ‘revisionist’.
Reply to #6 who said,
“…a right-wing revisionist agenda that seeks to reshape Anglicanism in its own mould.”
Kevin,
First, those of us who adhere to “the Faith once given” cannot be categorized as “right wing” and certainly not as “revisionist.”
Orthodox Anglicans are from across the secular political spectrum. That is there are secularly liberal orthox Anglicans and secularly conservative Anglicans. And a defender of “the Faith once given” can hardly be called “revisionist.”
And the “mould” that you speak of IS “the Faith once given.”
Chan eil mi ‘nam thuigsinn de a tha thu a’ ciallachadh.
Glad to read this. I think what the statement says about the liturgy of the Eucharist is very important, and I’m glad that it referred to the American-Scottish Concordant of 1784. When Samuel Seabury went to Scotland to be consecrated a bishop he agreed (I assume through this Concordant, to adopt the Eucharistic Prayer from the Scottish Prayer Book, which is based on the 1549 rather than the 1662 book. And for sound theological reasons, I believe. I share the SEC’s concern that the draft covenant refers only to the 1662 prayer book. Subsequent prayer books of several provinces and united churchs offered a much more rich and comprehensive liturgical traditions, which the revisers of the 1979 American PB took much advantage of. The Scots are right on this one. The covenant (or concordant) needs to honor other prayer books and not in just a footnote.
With the statement from SEC along with Wales, Ireland and the C of E, and the response of the Executive Council of TEC, it is clear that several provinces want to see substantial revision of the draft covenant. There has emerged another division here, with the GS provinces who want to see the draft adopted as is right away and imposed on the whole AC.
I share the same concern that over the past several years the Primates’ Conference has been arrogating to itself more and more power among the Instruments. The value of the Angican Consultative Council in acting as an Instrument for the adjudication of issues arising under the covenant is that it is much more representative, containing clergy and laity as well as bishops. The Primates would have a say in this their Standing Committee now sits on the ACC.
I also appreciate the Scot’s suspicion of “covenants,” having visited Scotland recently and learned about the history of the Covenanters there.
[blockquote]”…over the past several years the Primates’ Conference has been arrogating to itself more and more power…”[/blockquote]
The 1988 Lambeth Conference passed the following resolution:
[blockquote]“18.2.(a) Urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.[/blockquote]
Thus, the role of the Primates Meeting under WR/DC/DES.
If the ACC is going to be an enforcement body, then I suggest that we make it more representative by apportioning members based on ASA rather than setting membership within the constitution. The provinces could then select their members as seems best for the province. This would be a truly “democratic” approach.
What do you all think?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Reply to #11.
Phil,
I agree with you representation based upon ASA is the only honest ‘way to go.’
If a national church can’t/doesn’t try to achieve high levels of ASA then that is a sure sign of an organization that “talks the talk” but doesn’t “walk the walk.”
Also, when we talk about representation, whether its clergy or laity, the ‘vote’ that a primacy has in the Anglican Communion should be based upon its total numbers. Scotland and Wales shouldn’t have the same influence upon the Communion as a primacy with 10, 20 or 50 times their memberships.
AF (#12)
We could see the ACC and Primates as similar to the US Congress with the ACC being the House of Repesentatives and the Primates being the Senate. This would allow for the ACC and Primates to a check or balance on each other. If we want to fulfill this even further, then we could allow the Lambeth Conference to either be a form of Supreme Court where those issues that deadlock between ACC and Primates are adjudicated or where one could appeal when disclipined – providing that discipline remains in effect until the appeal is heard.
What do you think of that?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Reply to #13.
Yes, but to make any system work all involved must have a “good faith (small ‘f’)” willingness to make it work. What we are are witnessing in the Anglican Communion is a “bad faith” effort to ’tilt the playing field’ so that only the revisionists ‘get their way.’
Also, on matters requiring theological competence, as discerned in an episcopacy, I believe that it is up to the clergy to make changes in Scriptural ‘reading’ and to approve doctrinal changes. Why else have clergy?
Allowing the laity to approve or make these changes is like allowing the general public into an operating room to tell doctors how to perform surgery.
Just as we should recognize that there is a difference between an MD and an emergency medical technician, we should recognize that there is a difference between a clergyman in an episcopacy and a member of the laity of that episcopacy.
If there is any pretense to being catholic then you shouldn’t be talking about how best to construct a representative governing body at least as it pertains to doctrine. In the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church bishops have received the charism to teach, sanctify and govern. We don’t make this stuff up!
[blockquote]If the ACC is going to be an enforcement body, then I suggest that we make it more representative by apportioning members based on ASA rather than setting membership within the constitution[/blockquote]
While we’re at it, let’s fund worldwide Anglican operations the same way–at a per-head rate, based on ASA.
With regard to #11ff, I would be interested to find out how ACC representatives are elected in other countries. In my own, they are ‘chosen’ by General Synod who are a very liberal body, therefore the rank and file of the church have no say in that election. In fact I would venture to suggest that no one sitting on the pews of an Anglican church in New Zealand even knows the names of their representatives, nor anything about them. On the other hand, a Primate has been through several electoral procedures in which the church has had a great deal of say. Not only that they have been ‘seen’ as they performed their duties as both priest and bishop before they were chosen as Primate .. so I’m much more inclined to trust that instrument of unity referred to as ‘the Primates’ .. than I am a completely unknown group referred to as ACC .. DESPITE the fact that it consists of all three houses.
Tegularius,
Should we then fund the Federal Government the same way? Each person pays a per capita tax? I’ll go for that!
It seems, rather, that you believe that, since TECUSA pays a greater share of the world wide budget (currently), that it should have a greater say in what the doctrines and order of the Anglican Communion should be. I urge you to be very careful with that idea as it tends to lead to “them what has the gold, makes the rules.” Imagine, if you will, if we apportioned votes in the US the same way. Each person or corporation gets one vote for each dollar he/she/it spends in federal taxes. Thus, people who do not pay taxes get no vote!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Due to its Celtic heritage, the undivided Catholic Church in Scotland highly prized diocesan autonomy. For most of the Middle Ages, it was the only nation that lacked a provincial structure or Metropolitan; each diocese was directly and separately subject to the Pope. For awhile after the Reformation, the Church of Scotland had “flying bishops” to perform all the customary pontifical rites, but these bishops did not have any jurisdiction over the presbyterian synods that actually ran the dioceses. After the Nonjuror Schism finally separated Scots Episcopalians from both the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, the dioceses continued to exercise considerable independence of the very weak national institutions. The Primus, even more than the American Presiding Bishop, is purely first among equals, with all real authority residing elsewhere. Given that history, it is hardly surprising that the SEC might be hesitant to give a group of foreign primates the authority that it has never been willing to give to its own primate.
All politics is local politics, even when it is ecclesiastical politics.