1. Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?
It would be helpful at this point in time for the Anglican Communion to make up its mind whether the needs of the world and the mission of the church in response to those needs will be better served by a more strictly and centrally regulated structure, or by a more open model deployed for ministry. We favor the latter as more in keeping with Christ’s commission to the church, which is focused not on itself and its structures but on the proclamation of the saving message to a wounded world. It appears that the more we attempt to secure our inner agreements the more we focus on the things that divide us. The Anglican Communion has been known until recently as a body governed not by statute but by bonds of affection, and a Covenant, if needed, should, unlike the present proposal, focus on the affection rather than the bondage. Such a Covenant would be tolerant of diversity and encourage bilateral cooperation in meeting local and global needs through partnerships rather than promoting more complex and rigid structures, as the present proposal seems to advise.
“Such a Covenant would be tolerant of diversity and encourage bilateral cooperation in meeting local and global needs through partnerships rather than promoting more complex and rigid structures, as the present proposal seems to advise.”
Fine. Then let’s abolish the primatial and diocesan hierarchies forthwith, because they clearly serve no purpose other than as a jobs program for aging Baby Boomers.
This would be a good statement and more believable if the places in the Anglican Communion where growth and mission are taking place were places like New York or Newark or Olympia or Washington DC.
As it stands, the places where mission is occuring and where people are being healed and given new life by the love and acceptence of Jesus Christ are in the Global South.
When I was in Peru a few weeks ago, a priest was told by his bishop to not plant any more missions. This is because he had planted so many in the recent months that he didn’t have time to support them all. I was there when a different priest started a new mission. The people in the shanty town had asked Fr. Julio to come and bless their cross. He came, celebrated Eucharist, and after the cross was blessed, he said: “come back Sunday! This is now Mission Rosales!” He planted a mission there because they needed the ministry of the Church. That is where mission is happening. That is where growth is taking place. That is where people are being healed and restored to fellowship with God and each other.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“Anglican Communion has been known until recently as a body governed not by statute but by bonds of affection….”
And the covenant would not be needed if TECUSA had not breached the bonds of affection in its actions in GC2003 and GC2006 and in countless acts by priests and bishops that contradict the universal teaching of the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Perfect Mr. Snyder! I was going to say the same thing but you got there first with post #3.
Speaking of local needs and “complex and rigid structures”, they make a fine case against the General Convention and the Dennis Canon. Physician heal thyself.
I do find it ironic that those who resist the idea of a covenant have no problem with requiring clergy to “conform to the Doctrine (whatever that is), Discipline and Worship of the Episcopal Church”. Thus, they want to go their own way as regards the AC, yet impose their own “covenant” localy. But this has been SOP for many years.
#6. Br. Michael,
When has it ever been otherwise in dealing with self-appointed, doctrinaire, authoritarian politicians. Not every one who is a Bishop in the Episcopal Church is a politician, but much of getting elected is politics, i.e., saying what one perceives the audience desires to hear, engaging in demagoguery, flattering the audience, speaking from an assumed position of moral superiority, etc?
I have been an Episcopalian for the past 36 of my 61 years and during that time far too much of what I have read in missives from either the PB or my diocesan Bishop, has been a very calculated message written in “code words”. That is why clergy who speak plainly and unambiguously about what they know to be true is so refreshing, even when what they know is, in fact, not so! I know that listening to +Orombi in his interview a week or so ago met that standard. I think most of us who post here have a hunger for the truth, even if we may not always be sure what it is. The older I have gotten, the more obvious it is when someone is speaking politically, rather than speaking the simple truth. I believe most others do also, if they are not engaged in deceiving themselves.
Blessings and kind regards,
7, I heard Bishop Orombi speak at TESM and you are so, so right.