However, although acknowledging that commendable effort, we believe that our Communion does not need new instruments of consensus beyond those that historically have been our benchmarks in terms of identity.
We have diligently studied the second draft of the Covenant, known as the St Andrew’s Draft, and despite some new insights shown from the first reactions to the proposal coming from various parts of the Communion, according to our view, the proposition is still problematic.
Sections 05 and 06 in the new proposal focus on elements that we believe are unnecessary and inapplicable to our Communion. In the manner in which they are presented, they constitute a serious setback in the understanding of what is Communion, prioritising the juridical dimension more and less so the ecclesiological and affective dimensions that have been the historical mark of our mutual interdependence.
The Covenant continues to be a mistaken proposal for the resolution of conflicts through the creation of curial instances absolutely alien to our ethos.
We are fully convinced that the time in which we live is marked by symptoms that value highly the building up of networks and other manifestations of communion in a spontaneous way in the various aspects of human life. Insisting on a formal and juridical Covenant, with the logic of discipline and exercise of power, means to move in the opposite direction, thus returning to the days of Modernity, with its Confessions, Covenants, Diets and other rational instruments of theological consensus.
The province of Brazil has 10,000 regular members in a country of 184 million. The diocese of Recife has 4,000 and growing.
There is a must see flow chart to detail the appendix of the St. Andrews draft conflict resolution found [url=http://www.modchurchunion.org/Publications/Papers/Covenant/2008/Draft%20Covenant%20Procedures%20Flow%20chart.pdf ]here[/url]. Levels and levels of bureaucratic actions or inactions.
While the covenant will not work or even be accepted, the status quo also does not work. For the present structure to work there must be mutual accountability. The Brazilian Bishops, like TEC, want to be accountable to no one and to be able to do what they want, when they want, and at the same time to be able to claim that they are in communion. In short they want it both ways.
I see this as parroting TEC’s line, and nothing more. The same old same old.
[blockquote]we believe that our Communion does not need new instruments of consensus beyond those that historically have been our benchmarks in terms of identity[/blockquote]
That must be because the current instruments of consensus have worked so well at adjudicating the issues that arise when one or two provinces ignore the consensus of the Communion.
The problem is that the Communion without teeth works only so long as everyone acts with mutual respect and mutual submission and accountability. Once one province says: “You are not the boss of me!” that accountability and submission vanish.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
“We are fully convinced that the time in which we live is marked by symptoms that value highly the building up of networks and other manifestations of communion in a spontaneous way in the various aspects of human life.”
Oh, good, well at least they support the Network, Common Cause and GAFCON.
“We can not, however, allow it to be replaced by a legal, circumstantial instrument of political control. Communion is never created and developed by the letter.”
And they oppose the elevation of canon law above Scripture and the use of litigation to suppress the orthodox in the US and Canada! Hooray!
The preceeding message was bought and paid for by the political action arm of TEC, and they are solely responsable for it’s contents.
Why do I find it amusing that this is posted between two more entries about “gas”? Frances Scott
Help me here … why is it that when Anglicans from the global south express perspectives congruent with neo-orthodoxy, any inference that they are being influenced by conservatives from North America is charged with being multi-culturally insensitive and racist … but when Anglicans from the global south express perspectives congruent with a more progressive, inclusive vision of the Kingdom then they are the running dogs of Yankee Liberal Imperialism?
I’m thinking that it’s a tough sell to have it both ways.
Isn’t it JUST POSSIBLE that there really is a broad diversity of experience and understanding [i]throughout[/i] the communion and figuring out how to live together in communion in spite of those differences … not figuring out how to boot people out of the communion because of them … should be the point of any “covenant” to begin with?
Susan: Bring The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada back into line, and maybe we’ll talk turkey. Until then……..
Perhaps, as this Brazilian outpost of The World Wide Episcopal Communion opines, the days of “rational instruments of theological consensus” are indeed at an end, and post-modernism will rule the day for the next century or so.
And perhaps not. Perhaps instead, the post-modernists will rapidly find their world hollow without a faith based on central unchanging truths, and indeed, “rational instruments of theological consensus.”
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
In the words of Archbishop Drexel Gomez, this “rampant individualism and selfishness of Western culture [is] the greatest single threat to the faith.” The Anglican world will be much the poorer without the authoritative voice of this retiring archbishop.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Susan, (9), see the Rabbit (#12) above. It is because the U S is the acknowledged center of selfish individualism that we presume influence. Since the GS does perfectly well with orthodoxy without our help, the such influence would hardly ring true in that catagory, quite the reverse, in fact.
The real question is whether or not the “broad diversity” has so split us that we are in fact two religions.
It doesn’t help Ms. Russell’s argument that the “chicken-dinners” and barely past animism (or some such) comments made by a bishop of the Episcopal Church actually were multi-culturally insensitive and racist. Moreover, establishing a client relationship of the moribund Brazilian Anglicanism to TEC would be far easier than showing a subordinate relationship between the thriving African churches and American conservatives.
Richard and I are on our 7th read through of the Bible, reading sections of the Wisdom books, the rest of the O.T., the Epistles, and the Gospels each day. We have just completed reading the historcal section of the O.T. and, as always, I am struck by the “if” passages that always form an integral part of the “covenant” passages. When God covenanted with His people, He was alway careful to spell out for them the consequences of not keeping their end of the covenant. The histories show in detail what then occurred because the people broke covenant with God. I am glad to see that the covenant design group has, to some extent, been willing to attach a few consequences for covenant breakers. I can only hope that, in the end, the consequences will involve less complicated processes to enforce. Frances Scott
Somehow, using rational instruments of unity (theological consensus) doesn’t sound so bad to me. It would certainly be a major improvement over the current irrational theology and utter lack or consensus.
Susan [#9]: Most orthodox Anglican churches overseas would remain viable—indeed, vibrant—without financial support from North American reasserters.
I doubt the same would be true of the ECUSA-supported churches in places like Brazil and Mexico.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“Prioritising the juridical dimension more and less so the ecclesiological and affective dimensions that have been the historical mark of our mutual interdependence”
Meaning that they might not get away with whatever they feel like.
Hello Susan. Good to see you on here. You write:
Can you clarify for us here at T19 whether there are ANY kinds of doctrinal departures which for you would signal a need to exclude a bishop or church from authentic Anglicanism?
For example, do you believe that Bishop Spong in his attacks on the Nicene Creed is just as authentically Anglican as bishops who fervently believe in it? Should NO doctrinal departures be regarded as grounds for not “living together in communion”? Do you believe Athanasius was wrong to reject the idea of “living together in communion” with the Arians? If you do think there are legitimate grounds, can you give us an idea what those might be for you?
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Susan, at a certain point the differences in religious practice become so extreme that some cannot, in good conscious, be in communion with others. TEC was warned that VGR’s consecration was was one of those things. TEC had the choice between not consecrating and holding the communion together or going ahead with the consecration and “tearing the fabric of the communion”. The HOB, HOD, standing committees and VGR himself all had a choice to make, which was more important. That decision has been made, and confirmed over and over again. TEC chose homosexuality over communion. I appears you and the powers that be in the TEC think it was the right thing to do. That’s fine but please admit it and take responsibility for it.
Neo-orthodoxy? Paleo-orthodoxy is more like it. ABp Akinola, Orombi, Nzimbi, Kolini, etc are upholding Christian tradition as it has been passed down for 2000 years in contrast to Ms Russell’s innovations.
Why don’t the Brazilians stop taking TEO mammon and then we can revisit the issue? Trinity Wall Street is busy trying to buy off provinces. Looks like they succeeded with Sudan. But the South Africans are pulling back. But the Brazilians are firmly in the pocket of the Americans.
Susan, the WR answers your question thusly:
The Anglican Communion cannot again afford, in every sense, the crippling prospect of repeated worldwide inter-Anglican conflict such as that engendered by the current crisis. [created by a single member, TEC] Given the imperfections of our communion and human nature, doubtless there will be more disagreements. It is our shared responsibility to have in place an agreed mechanism to enable and maintain life in communion, and to prevent and manage communion disputes. WP, Paragraph 119
¨
Susan, another way to look at it is that the covenant process is not to kick a province out of the communion, it is a way of recognizing when a province has chosen to leave. TEC has, by it’s actions, chosen to break communion with many of the provinces, but does not want to admit it. The ABC also doesn’t want to admit it and isn’t sure which side of the break he wants to be on.
Another point, if you want to know what a communion breaking action is, one way to tell is if you are told beforehand that it is.
When The Episcopal Church decided to go international with dioceses in foreign countries, that tells me one thing: They have decided to go off on their own. They are in fact a communion…..The Episcopal Communion. But for another province to dare to do the same on our shores is impermissible, according to TEC.
Of course the real answer to Rev. Susan’s question is that when one is out of intellectual arguements one attacks the messenger.
FWIW
jimB