The proposed Anglican Covenant could be applied in a variety of circumstances, including lay presidency of Holy Eucharist, according to the Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, Archbishop of the West Indies. Archbishop Gomez delivered the opening address at “An Anglican Covenant: Divisive or Reconciling?”, a conference and panel discussion April 10-12 at The General Theological Seminary (GTS) in New York City.
Archbishop Gomez is chairman of the Covenant Design Group, a task force appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to prepare a draft covenant for the Anglican Communion. Given his position, Archbishop Gomez said it should not be surprising that he speaks with a bias in favor of adopting an Anglican Covenant.
He outlined his role and offered a host of reasons why a covenant is not a foreign concept to the Anglican way of life, but rather is a laudable way to foster trust when the bonds of affection are strained within the Communion are strained. Most of his presentation was spent answering questions from conference attendees.
Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, assistant professor of church history at Church Divinity School of the Pacific, posed the question that if the presenting issue is human sexuality, what other issues could an Anglican Covenant address? Archbishop Gomez said that “if we took a second draft, lay presidency had been mentioned” as one possibility.
Ah yes, where is the love? If Gomez can hint that everything is up for discussion and that there is really no way the church can hold any province accountable by requiring it to submit to some minimal doctrinal and moral standard, then by what criteria can we consider the Anglican Church a Christian church – as least as it was defined by the pre-Nicene and Nicene Fathers?
I read his statement and wondered why anyone should consider Anglicanism worth fighting for. It’s a question that troubles me even more deeply day by day.
The covenant process is completely off track.
I strongly support the eventual creation of a document that indicates the minimum set of beliefs that define membership in the AC but we do not have to start there. We have much more fundamental issues at stake.
Let’s start with a simple statement affirming belief in the divinity of Jesus, his bodily resurrection and his essential and unique role in our salvation. If someone does not believe at least this much they have declared themselves to not be Christian much less Anglican.
All the other stuff is important but it distracts from the main issue. It seems to me that there are many in the TEC and other churches that do not even meet the definition of what it means to be Christian. Until that is established there is no point in going on the rest.
[blockquote]“It is not up to us to determine with whom we can break bread,†Archbishop Gomez replied, as that gives us an authority that is “Christ’s alone.†“The Eucharist is knitted by Christ; it is his table. We show our love to him through our obedience to his commands.[/blockquote]
(Ahem.) One of Christ’s commands, expressed to us through Saint Paul, is that we are not to eat or associate as Christians with heretics and the immoral. The authority for determining that in an orderly manner has always been seen to rest with the bishop. Is Archbishop Gomez renouncing this authority and declaring that no other bishops ought to excercize this apostolic disciplne?
This Covenant is dead in the water if this is how it’s going to shape out.
#2 and #3,
I’m afraid you are both right. I have great respect for ++Gomez, but from what I read here, I think the Covenant as it is taking shape is essentially worthless. It could have been something that actually defined parameters for being Anglican, in which case it would have been worth the effort. As things stand now, it doesn’t appear it will be anything of the kind. Very discouraging for this communion conservative Anglo-Catholic.
John A. #2: “I strongly support the eventual creation of a document that indicates the minimum set of beliefs that define membership in the AC but we do not have to start there. ”
We already have such a document.
It’s called the Chicago Quadrilateral.
I really don’t understand the strategy of the CDG people. It is a waste of time talking to liberals about the covenant. If you want their acceptance, simply dilute the covenant to meaninglessness. Otherwise, they will not accede to any diminution of their power base one iota. We view chaos and division in the Anglican Communion as an execration. They see it as an opportunity.
#2 said “Let’s start with a simple statement affirming belief in the divinity of Jesus, his bodily resurrection and his essential and unique role in our salvation.”
One problem I have in all these discussions is just how people think these sorts of things are going to be policed. Should GC have to reaffirm it every three years? House of Bishops 4 times a year? Should the PB have to affirm it on her election?
Here’s an idea: since one thing all anglicans celebrate is the idea (at least) of a BCP — a model of common prayer in a single book — why not use a minimal liturgical standard instead of a covenant? Simply require that the Nicene or Apostles creed should be a fixture on Sundays and other Major Feasts. But wait! That’s exactly what the BCP says of the Nicene Creed at the Eucharist.
So on what basis are you going to throw TEC out of the communion if TEC’s primary doctrinal document is so clearly orthodox?
PadreWayne,
I agree that we have a statement in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. I disagree that it has done anything to hold us together, let alone move us toward the stated goal of the Quadrilateral “that we all may be one.”
It would seem that the history of the Anglican Communion, especially in her Western provinces, has been to move away from reunion. I do not think the argument can be made that TEC has worked to prevent schisms in the wider Church (not merely the AC) with the drive for innovative theology and practice.
The Quadrilateral is a great document. But its great theology and apparent humility have not been backed up with the spine needed to enforce theology and practice. This merely proves the point once again, that a church must have theology, practice, and discipline in place and defined to be a church.
I also find it intersting that the Quadrilateral (at least according to my BCP) was never fully adopted. It was, rather, sent off to a committee for further study and action by the HoD. Which, again, gives us an example of how our polity/practice can keep us from joining the rest of the church.
TEC basic documents say one thing and TEC’s official position is often at odds with them, at least until the next revision. The BCP says:
[blockquote] BCP 853- 854 Catechism
Q. How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy
Spirit?
A. We recognize truths to be taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures.
The Holy Scriptures
Q. What are the Holy Scriptures?
A. The Holy Scriptures, commonly called the Bible, are the
books of the Old and New Testaments; other books, called the Apocrypha, are often included in the Bible.
Q. What is the Old Testament?
A. The Old Testament consists of books written by the people of the Old Covenant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to show God at work in nature and history.
Q. What is the New Testament?
A. The New Testament consists of books written by the people of the New Covenant, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to set forth the life and teachings of Jesus and to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom for all people.
Q. What is the Apocrypha?
A. The Apocrypha is a collection of additional books written by people of the Old Covenant, and used in the Christian Church.
Q. Why do we call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God?
A. We call them the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible.
Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true interpretation of the Scriptures.[/blockquote]
Yet on the TEC web site we find the following:
[blockquote] Anglicans have a high regard for the Holy Scriptures, but we do not describe them as having ultimate authority in all matters, nor do we assert that everything found within them is binding on us. We are a biblical tradition, but we have no doctrine of biblical supremacy, literal inspiration, or verbal inerrancy. While not accepting the Scriptures as our sole authority or guide, we do believe they provide the Church with the primary criteria for its teaching and the chief source of guidance, in terms of principles and norms for its life.
******
The Scriptures emerged from the experience of a community who believed that God had been and was mysteriously, but clearly, present and active in their midst. Beginning as an oral tradition, the Hebrew people and the Church gradually gathered and developed its sacred texts and established a final, unchanging canon to be a measuring rod or standard for the Christian life of faith. [b]These Scriptures, however, were intended to be interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again in the light of contemporary knowledge and experience within a believing and worshiping community open to the leading of God’s Spirit into new truth.[/b]
From Called to Teach and Learn: A Catechetical Guide for the Episcopal Church, 1994, pages 66-67.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/50534_50909_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=50908%5B/blockquote%5D
Thus is the Holy Spirit, in the light of current exerience, can revise and edit the very same Scripuures that the Church officially claims He caused to have authored in the first place.
Basically, TEC is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Br. Michael quotes Called to Teach and Learn: “These Scriptures, however, were intended to be interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again in the light of contemporary knowledge and experience within a believing and worshiping community open to the leading of God’s Spirit into new truth.”
…as if this were contradictory to the Catechetical entry he quotes. I don’t see it this way. It seems to me that to deny the possibility of new revelation (leading to new interpretation) is to deny the possibility of God’s continual self-revealing — i.e., putting God in a nice, neat, but overly small, box. I think that’s rather arrogant.
Didn’t the Holy Spirit give us a new revelation in the Incarnation?
Didn’t the Holy Spirit give us new revelation at Pentecost?
Why would it be fair (or appropriate) to assume that the work of the Holy Spirit is finished? This would seem to be a “new thing.”
Moreover, in terms of scriptural studies, do new discoveries — scrolls, archaeological digs and findings, anthropological and historical studies of the world of the Mediterranean — mean nothing to our further interpretation and understanding?
“TEC basic documents say one thing and TEC’s official position is often at odds with them, at least until the next revision. ”
A posting on a the Youth Ministries’ web site, a comment by the PB, a sermon by your local priest — none of these is “TEC’s official position.” Every Sunday, the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians in church say the Nicene Creed because that is the official position of TEC. Many of them would not utter words like “only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father” or “on the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures” every Sunday were it not the official position of TEC as carried out by a TEC trained and/or certified minister using TEC’s Book of Common Prayer.
Just because we all get our news off the internet doesn’t mean the church has to be judged at the speed of light; we can wait for the instruments that have always guided the Episcopal Church to do their work. Meanwhile, whatever the ecclesiastical versions of the drudgereport publish on their web sites to try to whip us all into a lather about what “everyone knows all those people in 815 really believe” (and no, I’m not talking about T19 here), I’m going to keep showing up and praying from the official texts.
PadreWayne, the Holy Spirit has spoken through the Anglican Communion and repeatedly said “No” to ECUSA/TEC/GCC EO-PAC apirations to redefining sexual morality and the tradition in its own image. The question is how many times “no” must be said until it is heard. The answer appears to be infinite number of times.
There was “No” at Lambeth 1998. “NO” after VGR’s ‘election’. “NO” before and after VGR’s ‘consecration’. You know, the ABC’s comments his ministry wouldn’t be received. You know, the Provinces in broken or impaired communion with ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO are still saying “NO”. The Orthodox say “NO” as do the Romans.
Are ye all deaf?
dwstroudmd, I do believe that [i]you[/i] (and many, many others, the majority, in fact, of the Anglican Communion) believe that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the majority at Lambeth (as well as through the Orthodox Church and Rome). Many of us, however, believe differently: That the Holy Spirit is guiding us to new (not old) ways of looking at Holy Scripture and tradition. My personal view is a hermeneutic of “I could be wrong.”
I’m not deaf. Ye all certainly speak loudly enough. But I am not convinced.
#5 Thanks for pointing out that document. The Chicago Quadrilateral could be the starting point for a discussion but the differences in the AC are even more fundamental. It could be boiled down to “Who do you say that I am?”. If not “My Lord and Saviour” then the communion is already broken.
#7 Once the communion is sorted out this will be an easy problem to solve. It is simply a matter of having the appropriate procedures to initiate a review and a 2/3 majority decision to expel a member. The near term is more difficult. The AC is already divided and dysfunctional but as the individual fragments are more clearly separated they will define their own procedures and it will be straightforward to establish the appropriate requirements for defining membership.
10, PadreWayne says the Jesus is not God’s final revelaltation. We are indeed preaching two or more religions. It’s the way God chose to do it, not that He is in a small box. I am glad PW commented as he did as it makes the point.
And the posting was from an official TEC site. Period.
Padrewayne, the Incarnation and Pentecost were both acts of God. They were not interpretations of men. And, speaking for myself, I do not claim that the Holy Spirit spoke at Lambeth or any other gathering of men. He spoke through the writings of the prophets and apostles. Period. We can not be certaiin about Him speaking at any other time except that it agress with where we know He has spoken.
It’s really that simple. If you don’t buy it you simply aren’t recognizably orthodox. If God speaks any time you decide he has spoken then God never really speaks at all. We are not the Holy Spirit. You and your friends are not the Holy Spirit.
When the spirit that is guiding you guys can raise someone from the dead, we’ll talk. Until then, your spirit guide can only be a human or demonic one. It doesn’t really matter to me which one it is because they all end up in the same place.
Appreciate your posting the quotation from the TEC web site, Br. Michael, although I suppose it only sets in concrete what we already know about TEC’s relation to the Bible. For TEC, the Bible is a working hypothesis, as it is to a scientist, a point d’appui, and no more.
Someone earlier here remarked about the a lack of spine in implementing one Grand Meeting or another. IN many ways, this is the operative notion in all that the Anglican church is not doing, this is what spinelessness means, a yellow robe under the white one. Why are the power centers, the major voices of our church, so afraid? What are they so afraid of? Schori shows no fear whatsoever and she acts; we tremble with an incomprehensible terror and therefore do nothing. Why? This quaking and vacillating baffles me.
Someone tell me what we are waiting for. Larry
[i]When the spirit that is guiding you guys can raise someone from the dead, we’ll talk.[/i]
And even then maybe not given the images and scenes of things to come in Revelation 13-17.