Many attempts have been made to address the breach of relationships caused by the setting aside of biblical teaching by some provinces, dioceses, and individual bishops, beginning at Kuala Lumpur in 1997, at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, and culminating recently, after consistent efforts in the intervening years, in the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.
Sadly this new draft of An Anglican Covenant is both seriously limited and severely flawed. Whether or not the tool of covenant is the right way to approach the crisis within the Communion, this document is defective and its defects cannot be corrected by piecemeal amendment because they are fundamental. The St. Andrews Draft is theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable. It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis and the new realities which have ensued.
This document falls in effect into two parts. Sections 1 and 2 mention some matters of faith, but section 3 is in fact the critical section of the document, because this introduces the thought of Churches as being ”˜autonomous-in-communion’. It is on this concept that the proposed resolution of Communion disputes rests.
Excellent document – lays out the issues in a clear and precise manner.
“section 3 is in fact the critical section of the document, because this introduces the thought of Churches as being ‘autonomous-in-communion’. It is on this concept that the proposed resolution of Communion disputes rests.”
Is not being “autonomous-in-communion” very similar to the arrangement between the multitude of Eastern & Western Orthodox churches and jurisdictions?
Yes, Archangelica, I think that would be fair to say, at least for the churches generally in communion with Constantinople. It’s interesting to note that in that communion, there have often been periods of breaking of communion of certain “national” churches, with later re-establishment of fellowship once the irritant involved has reached some proper resolution.
I will begin with the most obvious critique: the drafters of this response have clearly missed the mandate of the Covenant Agreement (CA). The CA is not intended to address current issues; rather it is intended to provide a framework for establishing definitions of what it means to be in a relationship that is faithful to that which has already been given to us by God in Christ.
Next, the responders critique of the CA document as something “defective and not correctable by piecemeal amendment because they [its defects] are fundamental,” which is “theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable,” is itself rather incoherent given the vague, broad brushed criticism provided and its already noted lack of understanding of the intention of the CA itself.
Now my critique by points:
1. This point is irrelevant. As discussed above, addressing current issues is not, nor has it ever been, the intended purpose of the document.
2. This issue of autonomy in communion is addressed throughout the document but in particular, it is addressed in the following section 3.2 and in the appendix:
“Acknowledging our interdependent life, each Church of the Communion commits itself:
(3.2.1) to have regard to the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy, and to support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it;
(3.2.2) to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole[12];
(3.2.3) to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. Such prayer, study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as its seeks to be led by the Spirit into all truth and to proclaim the Gospel afresh in each generation. Some issues, which are perceived as controversial or new when they arise, may well evoke a deeper understanding of the implications of God’s revelation to us; others may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith: all therefore need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.
(3.2.4) to seek with other Churches, through the Communion’s shared councils, a common mind about matters understood to be of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.
(3.2.5) to act with diligence, care and caution in respect to actions, either proposed or enacted, at a provincial or local level, which, in its own view or the expressed view of any Province or in the view of any one of the Instruments of Communion, are deemed to threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission, and to consent to the following principles and procedural elements:
(3.2.5.a) to undertake wide consultation with the other churches of the Anglican Communion and with the Instruments and Commissions of the Communion;
(3.2.5.b) to accept the legitimacy of processes for communion-wide evaluation which any of the Instruments of Communion may commission, according to such procedures as are appended to this covenant;
(3.2.5.c) to be ready to participate in mediated conversation between parties, which may be in conflict, according to such procedures as are appended to this covenant;
(3.2.5.d) to be willing to receive from the Instruments of Communion a request to adopt a particular course of action in respect of the matter under dispute. While the Instruments of Communion have no legislative, executive or judicial authority in our Provinces, except where provided in their own laws, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.
(3.2.5.e) Any such request would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church. However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion, that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.
(3.2.6) to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to seek the highest possible degree of communion.”
3. I have no idea what statement 3 is meaning to say. “The entire document, and particularly the statement concerning ‘the inheritance of faith’ in paragraph 1, is detached from the Scriptural narrative of salvation and redemption from sin, which Churches in the Communion have seen realised.” What exactly have the Churches in the Communion “seen realized?” “The unity of Christians flows out of the redeeming work of Christ and the incorporative ministry of the Spirit.” The introduction of the CA establishes this; although it could (and as responses have thus far suggested) be articulated more strongly. The entire document is attempting to argue that any structure we develop is based on the prior determinative reality of what God has done in Christ.
4. No any doctrine of the Church presupposes a doctrine of God. The first two sentences in the response are both misguided. The document has begun with a doctrine of God. These first two statements are liberal hog wash. The remainder of this paragraph is a rather obvious statement and I don’t see its value.
5. “Its preoccupation with institutional processes is at the expense of a proper sense of our corporate and individual accountability to God on the Last Day for proper custodianship of the deposit of Faith.” How does one purport to shape and form a corporate sense of accountability without developing a structure capable of accounting for our still sinful nature. How are we to move forward without institutional process? I would however agree that more should be included in the CA that speaks of our sin and God’s judgment. I would be particularly happy to see more that acknowledges our continual division and self proclaimed righteousness as the sin it is and that God is indeed judging our divided churches; both the liberals and conservatives for our lack of humility and charity.
6. Obedience to the Word of God. What does that mean? Liberals claim they are being obedient to the Word of God and that conservatives are not and vice versa. I am not going to argue that there are not biblical truths that we must obey: I believe there are. But this response provides a vacuous statement; the type the CA has sought to avoid by presenting a framework for the means of discerning the Word of God. Being obedient to the Word of God necessitates being obedient to its discernment within the body divinely given. It cannot mean individual interpretation: that is what has gotten us into this quagmire in the first place. It also cannot mean a propositional set of statements of faith: that does not account for the living dynamic between history, humanity and God.
7. Neither truth nor unity can be pursued in a mutually exclusive fashion as this response seems to imply. They go hand-in-hand. This response is absolutely vacuous in and of itself. It takes no account of nearly 100 years of ecumenical discussion concerning this issue of truth and unity, most particularly discussions at Malines, ARCIC, Ut Unum Sint, BEM. Without unity, the truth is simply obscured by our own shadow.
To summarize: This response is lacking in background, research, and coherent biblical and theological argument. It is clearly driven by a mistaken assumption of the intent of the CA document itself and a desire to set its writers in opposition to the “weeds” of the Church. Look out I say, for that log, it seems dangerously close to poking this group in the eyes. Where I ask, are the suggestions for amendments? Or is this simply a statement to justify a movement toward yet another division in Protestant Christianity? Shall we discuss this sin?
It is worth noting that several Orthodox churches have noted that TEC’s theology of human sexuality, autonomous or not, is in itself enough to impair or break ecclesial relationships.
[blockquote]A failure to address the issue
Any covenant document has to recognise fully the mischief it seeks to address. This document makes no mention of the crisis which has generated the call for such a remedy, which is a crisis of obedience to Scripture. Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the ‘instruments of Communion’ (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem. This means that trying to use such failed instruments as arbiters of a future solution is problematic in the extreme. Put bluntly, this covenant will not allow the real issues to be addressed.[/blockquote]
This is an excellent document, and the above point is well made. Yet not definitively so: however categorical the differences are regarding the authority of Scripture, there is actually a more definitive and fatal difference in their views of Truth itself. What good is any formalized agreement with men and women who are candid in their derision for formailized agreements?
Why are we doing this?
optimus prime: Yes, the Covenant is not intended to address the current controversy BUT (and this is a HUGE BUT!!!!) if the Covenant is incapable of addressing similar future controversies (if it is incapable of dealing with the current one, it is incapable of dealing with future ones) then what is it’s point?
An analogy: Let’s suppose that a new levee plan for the City of New Orleans is released. It is stated that this new levee plan is intended to deal with future storms. It is then pointed out by critics that the future levee plan would have failed in Katrina’s case. Would any reasonable citizen accept the government responding “that doesn’t matter, this levee plan is intended for future storms.”
If the Covenant is incapable of handling Communion controversies, it is not worth the paper it is printed on or the time wasted in developing it. The Covenant should most certainly be addressed to the WIDER issue of Communion conflict – to be sure! – but it must AT A MINIMUM be capable of dealing with the current controversy OR the current controversy must be dealth with BEFORE the Covenant is agreed upon. It simply makes no sense otherwise.
Actually jamesw, it is not; and I have that on good authority. Furthermore, it is evident by its very nature that it is not meant to address present issues but rather has grown out of an obvious and particular recognition of the challenges that lay ahead.
It is of course a document that will enable us to handle Communion controversies; however, its intention is not aimed at addressing crises, rather it is aimed at articulating the manner in which we engage one another in relationship.
Why should the issues be dealt with ahead of time? The Covenant is defining the requirements for living together in mutually accountable relationships that enable the discernment of the Word of God across time. If the extreme right or the extreme left choose not to enter into a relationship that demands charity and humility in articulating (speaking and living) their faith, then no Covenant can force people into this relationship.
Could the Covenant, were it in place 25 years ago, have addressed this issue? That is an interesting question. I would venture to say that it most certainly would. We must remember though, that this document is still in draft stages. To walk away from it is simply shutting the door to the opportunity it presents; it is a response of fear and protection rather than a response of courage and trust. Rather than walk, let us gird up with the faith that has been so graciously given to us, take courage and respond to the document as conservatives so that the Covenant Design Group cannot help but hear a constructive and humble plea for a polity grounded in Scripture and tradition (not an arrogant liberal dismissal – you should hear their arguments against the draft).
If we walk away and simply criticize the document, we will either end up with the route proposed by GAFCON which if you have read or have read commentaries on, is short on substance and practical means of ordering or we will end up with a rather liberal shaped Church. Either way we will shatter into many sects; not a fruitful or faithful way forward.
Optimus,
Great critique and good points. I recall many of the covenant designers, such as Dr. Radner+, saying repeatedly that the covenant is not meant to directly address the current unpleasantness, but to guide how we live out the future together. That being the case, however, it raises the question of whether the covenant is a wise idea right now. A covenant presupposes trustworthiness and commitment on the covenanting parties. That is both the blessing and the deficiency of the covenant as it takes the stage now. It can’t do all that is needed in the communion today.
There simply is no trust, largely as a result of the actions undertaken by TEC and the Canadian church. Since the covenant is not meant to address “the issue”, our communion requires something that will address it before the covenant has a hope of succeeding. To use the analogy of marriage, you don’t enter into that covenant unless you trust your fiancee and have confidence that you both understand the meaning of the covenant you are entering. It’s only when the couple trusts each other and is willing to submit to the authority of the covenantal vows they make that a covenant is worthy of the name. When that trust is there, you don’t need a long legal document spelling out all the dos and don’ts because you are both committed to the wellbeing of the other, and wouldn’t do that which harms the other. It’s entirely different if trust isn’t there.
I worry that in talking about the covenant at this juncture in communion life, without having any clear idea of how to resolve our current difficulties, we will inevitably place unrealistic hopes on the covenant. We’ll try to grab onto it as a way out, when it simply won’t do that. Many of the GAFCON criticisms of the covenant arise not out of problems with the covenant itself, I think, but out of the fact that we need more than the covenant right now. We need resolution of our impasse and genuine reconciliation. Yet, neither seem to be forthcoming. Since that leaves the covenant as the only game in town, that’s where we take out our frustrations.
YBIC
Stephen+
Hi Stephen+
Actually I would suggest that this is in fact the genius of the Covenant; that is, the Covenant itself should not be ‘doing’ anything but giving us a Scripturally derived (one that still requires some work Scripturally) framework for what it means to be in relationship. We must then in faith, willingly enter into relationship in which all sides, liberal, conservative and in between must submit to God’s shaping of our discernment process across time. This structure has divine integrity (allows us to be shaped by God) by the fact that it leaves time and space for God to work. The players (all of us) have been limited in our ability to forge ahead with our own ‘vision;’ our power has been necessarily limited as Nicholas of Cusa (“The Catholic Concordance”), a conciliarist theologian of the late medieval Church argued was necessary to allow God to shape us. The Covenant, in following this vision (or so I believe), is attempting to equal the playing field to limit power and yet to also require a humility and self giving in discernment in decision-making.
I think that the only thing that will create (and should create) trust is faith and prayer. I think the Covenant enables us to enter with faith if we are courageous enough to accept. If TEC and the ACoC want to sign onto the CA, they will need to abide by its call to mutual accountability and to not acting according to their own ideologies. Because you’re right, we cannot force relationships (not only does it not work, it borders on Pelagianism). We must enter with trust and I think the CA creates the conditions necessary by limiting power and autonomy while giving us over through time and space, to God’s shaping.
I certainly understand the ‘suffering’ that forms your third paragraph. It is very agonizing. And I do indeed fear you may be right. This is why I so passionately hope and pray that we, as conservatives, might offer response to this document to help strengthen it and amend some sections that definitely need amendment. But to walk away or write it off is to turn our backs both on one another and on God.
Optimus –
I did not read this critique as a writing off of the Covenant. It just said that what has been proposed is inadequate to the task. There is a briefing paper on the GAFCON site which might lend some insight into the points made in this current document. But I still did not read it as a dismissal of the covenant idea.
However, if the proposed covenenant could not deal with the current situation, I join others in asking whether all the generated heat and light is actually worth it? For one thing, your articulation of how the members of the Communion are supposed to relate to each other (as your suggest section 3 outlines) is wanting in several areas. All of these sub-paragraphs express ideal ways for the Provinces to relate to each other in good faith. But where is the section which deals with the case where a Province does not deal in good faith?
For this is where this crisis originated. There is also a background assumption that the Anglican Communon somehow represents the Church Catholic to the extent that a “general consensus” is enough for it to change the definition of “the faith once delivered.” I do not believe that the Anglican Communion can arrogate that status to itself. This sort of thinking is what got us here in the first place.
Allen –
The critique, in its lack of offering constructive proposals for amendments, has indeed simply dismissed the Covenant.
Further the critique has erred in identifying what the “task” of the Covenant is. The problem is, predicated upon this faulty understanding, the subsequent critique lacks substantive merit.
(3.2.5.d) to be willing to receive from the Instruments of Communion a request to adopt a particular course of action in respect of the matter under dispute. While the Instruments of Communion have no legislative, executive or judicial authority in our Provinces, except where provided in their own laws, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.
(3.2.5.e) Any such request would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church. However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion, that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.
In addition to the appendix which provides the ‘teeth’ you are seeking; the ‘juridical force.’
Nor do I believe that this is a status that the AC can arrogate to itself. Before I comment further, could you please explain how you are using the term “general consensus?” and what you mean by a “definition of the faith once delivered” (i.e. the Kerygma, etc).
If you are concerned that the Covenant would enable a Church subject to the social whims of its members with no conviction of biblical/theological truth, I would ask if you believe then, that the Spirit has abandoned the Church? Scripture tells us that God will keep us in the truth; but does this mean at all times and places? Perhaps the Spirit has abandoned us; but which parts? Just the ones we think are all liberal, but what if there is just one who has faith in those churches, would God abandoned even one of his flock? Perhaps in our divided state, we have all been left to God’s judgment, to suffer the humiliation of our arrogance and sinful division, stuck in a quagmire of unrepentant and continuous division. Perhaps when we’ve divided to the point where we recognize we’re not right but broken, we’ll be open again to hearing his Word and receiving his guidance. Perhaps that is what the Covenant agreement opens us to; recognition that all of us are so devoid of the truth that we are willing to submit not to being shaped by human structures, held back by human structure yes, but held back so we might be in a posture of receipt.
The concept of autonomy has worked well, with occasional problems, in the Orthodox world because they are in agreement on the basics of faith and practice. Anglicans aren’t any more.
And I agree with jamesw. Setting up a Covenant to deal with future problems while ignoring any solution to the current one makes little sense.
The GAFCON approach is “faith first.” The Lambeth approach is “get along, never mind about the faith.”
O.Prime has certainly spent a lot of time disecting GAFCONs response, and I appreciate several of his points, but this I don’t get: “6. Obedience to the Word of God… It also cannot mean [setting forth? obedience to?] a propositional set of statements of faith: that does not account for the living dynamic between history, humanity and God. ”
Would O.Prime then say the “dynamic” of obedience to God was violated when the Church set forth the Nicene Creed? The 39 Articles? Any Canons? Lambeth Quadrilateral? Lambeth 1.10? And isn’t his propositional statement on obedience, that it, “[b]cannot[/b] mean a propositional set of statements of faith” self-contradictory?
Finally, I agree with the others, O.Prime is whistling in the wind if he thinks the general truths that the Covenant is a) forward looking and b) not meant to deal with any one crisis in particular, justifies an irrelevance to the crisis at hand! To actively promote such irrelevance in the full current context, would be, as per Bishop Chane’s term, the opposite of angelic.
[blockquote] Actually I would suggest that this is in fact the genius of the Covenant; that is, the Covenant itself should not be ‘doing’ anything but giving us a Scripturally derived (one that still requires some work Scripturally) framework for what it means to be in relationship. We must then in faith, willingly enter into relationship in which all sides, liberal, conservative and in between must submit to God’s shaping of our discernment process across time. This structure has divine integrity (allows us to be shaped by God) by the fact that it leaves time and space for God to work. The players (all of us) have been limited in our ability to forge ahead with our own ‘vision;’ our power has been necessarily limited as Nicholas of Cusa (“The Catholic Concordance”), a conciliarist theologian of the late medieval Church argued was necessary to allow God to shape us. The Covenant, in following this vision (or so I believe), is attempting to equal the playing field to limit power and yet to also require a humility and self giving in discernment in decision-making.[/blockquote]
Talk about wishful thinking. You might as well try to stuff smoke in a bottle. This says absolutely nothing but “I wish we could all get along” And it does absolutly nothing to stop TEC from forging ahead.
No, at this point GAFCON is the only way to move forward.
On the one hand, Br. Michael is correct. Nothing in the covenant will stop TEC from slamming around the deck. Stopping this loose canon is of the first importance because its power to damage lies in its being out of anyone’s control. Rewriting the rules for the correct use of cannons is sensible but useless.
As well, timing is so much. This covenant requires trust to work.There is none now, nor should there be. When will we face this necessity, that now is the time for hard handstrokes? The covenant, if it is to work, will be bought with blood. Do you doubt this for one second? Larry
optimus prime, I’ve been struggling with your responses on this thread.
You begin by stating that the Covenant Agreement’s purpose is not to fix or address the current issues confronting the Anglican Communion — and we’ve certainly had that pounded into our heads over the past two years.
In fact, nothing at all is supposed to fix or address the current issues confronting the Anglican Communion — we are all supposed to live with the new facts on the ground and continue in conversation as a church. I see that. Same sex blessings and various other actions of TEC and Canada are in a period of reception, and if we all keep meeting and conversing, we’ll be living into the tension of the way church is.
But then, later on, after you’ve stated again that the Covenant is not supposed to be dealing with current issues — and I understand that and have almost from the beginning of the process — you make a plea for all of us to value the Covenant and work with the Covenant and critique the Covenant and offer constructive proposals for amendments of the Covenant.
And I just can’t understand why or how any thinking conservative Anglican is supposed to do that.
Why is the Covenant important? To me — as I look both at the past five years of tortuous process that we have all been engaged in and the long stretch of future ahead of us in the coming decades and centuries of human existence, I can see nothing at all that the Covenant will accomplish, other than sit there. I have tried to wrap my mind around the Covenant and look at it from all angles as to what the Covenant might accomplish, and I can’t see it. It may be that I am too American for it — that it is wrong of me to think that the Covenant should actually accomplish something rather than simply “be.” I have often been told that I think too much about doing and not simply being, and so perhaps the Covenant’s worth is in its being or existence.
I’ll give you a personal example that is not connected with church that articulates my confusion and frustration. It’s as if we’ve all been plunged into the desert with no survival tools, or we’re in the aftermath of a trainwreck, or we’re in a burning building or [insert any crisis here], and a small child approaches me with a leaf.
The child holds out the leaf for my examination, my critique, my impressions . . . but I am focused on other matters.
I am instructed by another adult earnestly that children are important — Jesus loved and valued children — and I try to redirect my attention back to the child and the leaf. But it’s hard — the flames are roaring, the lions approach, the train is creaking, etc, etc, etc, — and I cannot concentrate on the leaf.
I am told earnestly by the adult that God made the leaf. Leaves are valuable — they serve incredibly useful purposes in nature and offer shelter, shade, even water. And I agree. And I struggle to examine the leaf and comment on the leaf and offer constructive proposals for amendments of the leaf — but the flames, the metal grinding, the roars, etc, etc, etc, are really getting into my consciousness at this point and, while I am conscious of my failure to appropriately value the leaf and child — as I often fail — [i]I cannot look at the leaf any longer.[/i]
For the purposes of this situation — the train wreck, the blazing building, the desert survival — the leaf is not merely to the periphery of my interest or focus, it is actually of non-importance. It solves nothing, does nothing for the future, it merely sits there, looking green and lovely.
I know that many Christians are able to jump in here and instruct me about the spiritual significances of leaves and I’m sorry that I’m so unspiritual as to not see how deeply and abstractly important the Covenant is, but I simply cannot see it.
In charity to those who view the Covenant as vital and meaningful, I can only assume that we are living in different realities. Where I hear lions roaring, the Covenanters are hearing the barkings of a toy poodle within a fence. Where I hear the train groaning and creaking as it prepares to slide further down the embankment, the Covenanters hear a house settling comfortably on its foundations in the night. Where I feel the heat and crackle of flames drawing near, they feel the heat of a tea kettle just finishing up some steaming Earl Gray. Those are the circumstances, I suppose, that enable the Covenanters to be able to take the leaf, explore the leaf, discuss the leaf, and admire the leaf.
I’m not going to try any more to convince others that we are in dire circumstances in the Communion. I recognize now that if people don’t, then they don’t, and there’s nothing really that I can do about that.
And so in one sense, I have sympathy for those who are able to sit down with the Covenant and offer constructive proposals for amendments of the Covenant. In their world, it’s an important document and meaningful to them and it must be frustrating to hear others get the purpose of the Covenant wrong, or otherwise blanketly critique it without offering detailed possibilities for improvement of it. I hear people instructing others to “critique the Covenant” or offer amendments and ideas for improvement — in fact there were several outraged cries from various conservatives in the Communion that Gafcon had not “mentioned” or “responded to” the Covenant.
But you see what happens when people “respond to the Covenant” or “mention” the Covenant who don’t actually see what the Covenant’s worth is??? They produce the Response of GAFCON — and then you tell them that their response or mention is not good enough, that they did not offer constructive proposals for amendment.
But that’s what happens when someone like me or someone else responds to the Covenant when we cannot wrap our minds around its value or meaning or import. The response is pointless and meaningless.
Its as if I am asked to respond to the leaf in the midst of the crisis. The very most that I can manage is — through gritted teeth — “thank you, sweetie, that’s so lovely — are you giving it to me, thank you, I’ll put it safe right here in my pocket.” In other words — no real response at all, because I am who I am, in the situation in which I find myself, experiencing the reality that I am experiencing, and with the ignorant, or non-appreciative mind that I have.
The seven Primates whose names are attached to the document are not dolts, and I expect that they are Christians. But they simply do not see what you are seeing enough to be capable of responding in the way that you wish.
I can’t offer anything constructive to your comments, optimus prime. I hear the frustration in your comments, and I have no answers. I know that you’re sincere, and I have seen from your past comments that you must be a traditional Anglican in theology.
I am dumbfounded by our differences, then, on this issue of the Covenant. I recognize that we have much in common — but I simply cannot see what you are seeing in the Covenant.
Brilliant, Sarah.
Claims that the Covenant is not meant to handle the current crisis simply do not ring true. Plans did not simply spring forth from a sudden new found desire for closer connections between Provinces. The idea originated in the Windsor Report which was in fact produced to address the current crisis in the Anglican Communion. And it does in fact have its own solution to the current crisis- remain united despite differences, stay in relationship no matter what an autonomous Province decides to do. Please don’t tell me the Covenant wasn’t designed to propose a solution to the current crisis.
The only covenant that would be at all helpful would be a covenant that is entirely orthodox, deals decisively with the elephant in the room, can be quickly implemented, and has inflexible consequences for those who do not sign on. Period. Anything less than that is simply part of the problem that got us here in the first place.
The covenant as currently being implemented seems intentionally designed to subvert the notion of covenant as it was originally requested by the Windsor Report. As the Windsor Report became the never-ending “Windsor Process,†so the new Covenant will be a never-ending, intentionally ambiguous “Covenant Process,†with no consequences whatsoever for those who do or do not sign on, and no discipline for those who claim to sign on and then go about their merry way disregarding what they had committed themselves to.
As the stacked Joint Standing Committee (with KJS as a member) assured us all that TEC really had met the conditions of the Windsor Report at the HOB meeting in New Orleans, so, no doubt, a similar Covenant Committee will give us similar reassurances. This non-response to the Covenant will take at least as long to implement as the non-response to the Windsor Report has taken, and be just as non-consequential.
Despite loud protests at any restrictions of their freedom, TEC may well sign on to a toothless covenant in hopes of providing legal cover in future lawsuits.
(Sorry about double-posting this at SFIF.)
1. If the leaders of most of the Anglicans in the AC misunderstand the purpose of the covenant, then I respectfully suggest that the communication problem does not lie with those leaders.
2. If the covenant is for future problems only and will not address the current crisis, then there may be an problem of priorities.
🙄
It is also probably intended to subvert GAFCON by giving the illusion that something is being done to address TEC and Canada’s actions.
If we apply Biblical witness to your question, we have the example of Sodom and Gomorrah. We are told Lot was a righteous man. Let’s assume he labored daily bringing the message of repentence to his fellow citizens. Possibly they considered him like an eccentric uncle – crazy but they loved him anyway. Or possibly they tolerated him for another reason, his money or maybe he made the best barbeque in the land. We do know that his message fell on deaf ears. And we also know at the end of the day God sent His messengers into the fray to call him out of a people whose conduct God could no longer tolerate.
So to me the question becomes if the Communion is not interested in restoring order within her body but tolerates all forms of heresies and rebellion, if she is not interested in restoration – reformation – where the main and central tenents of the faith are once again proclaimed, then the question is no longer will she survive but how long can one afford to remain calling to those who still have ears to hear without being at risk to the very real flames Sarah describes above.
Exactly how has a captain served his passengers by keeping them so calm and undivided that they remained sunning in the deck chairs while the ship is being riddled with holes? Surely a proclamation signed by everyone aboard will not keep the ship afloat unless someone fixes the holes.
Hi all,
I wish to respond to everyone’s posts and will do so; however I am planting a church and we have a fantastic missionary team here that is working to put on a BBQ with Bible dramas, preaching, and Bible study groups to help build up this little Church. We’ve gone from 1 to 20 in 4 weeks, plus I’ve got a small Bible study group of “those who think people in the Church suck” but are nonetheless drawn to exploring the Bible. Please pray for us! Church planting is challenging and a struggle, but who said the journey of faith should be easy hey?! Thanks. I will try to respond ASAP
#10
I hear what you’re saying. Like I said about marriage, a covenant isn’t about listing rules to follow and meting out punishments for non-compliance. It is about shaping a relationship. As such, it requires submission not only to the other, but to something greater–to a way of relating that transcends our own wishes and desires. Hence, you are right that a covenant doesn’t “do something” so much as set up the manner by which we “do something”.
But I keep coming back to the fact that it requires trust to believe the other will follow this manner in good faith. Regardless of how it is accomplished, people need to be brought to a point of willingness to submit to a covenant. This willingness can’t be forced, and requires faith, prayer, and above all the grace of our Lord for it to happen.
I wonder though if we are really setting up the conditions for this prayer and faith to happen. I suppose that was the idea behind indaba at Lambeth, but as +Wright pointed out, the conference is divided into 2 hour vignettes where it’s hard to have any concerted prayer or faith-building. What is being done on a communion level to bring us to a point where the covenant is viable? I don’t see much. Are TEC and ACoC really being told in no uncertain terms that they have to humble themselves before entering the covenant? I know conservatives need to hear this too, but it’s particularly hard for rich, powerful North American churches to hear it. My disappointment now is not that a covenant is being floated, but that we aren’t really doing the hard prep work to make it viable.
#19
I dont’ want to be nit-picky, but I don’t think that’s quite right. I agree that the crisis is what prompted the perceived need for a covenant, but it doesn’t follow that therefore it is meant as the solution to the crisis. At best, it helps lay out a process by which some solution might be arrived at. And it certainly does not say that we are to “remain united” no matter what autonomous provinces do. As para. 3.2.5.e makes clear, some decisions made by a province could effectively place it outside the covenant relationship and thus no longer “united”. Many conservatives, like myself, think the covenant needs to be elaborated more on this line, but in its germ it nevertheless still rejects the belief that we are united no matter what we do or believe. Incidentally, that is also the core objection raised by the liberal provinces of the communion in response to the covenant–it raises the possibility of being held to account for actions that defy the covenant.
The problem is that a covenant, by its very nature, assumes a level of common trust that is lacking today. I’m not privy to the deliberations of the covenant design group, but from the people I am familiar with, like Dr. Radner+, they always point back to the mutual trust necessary for this to be entered into. That’s one of the reasons they offer for not elaborating on remedies for non-compliance: you don’t join a covenant with the idea of breaking it. How could this be expected to solve our problems when it assumes what can’t be assumed right now: that we can trust one another?
Stephen+
#13 Katherine wrote:
[i] The GAFCON approach is “faith first.†The Lambeth approach is “get along, never mind about the faith.†[/i]
I would amend that to read:
The GAFCON approach is “faith [b] and discipline [/b] first.†The Lambeth approach is “get along, never mind about the faith [b] or the discipline [/b].â€
Dr. Radner, who accepted the premise that the covenant itself was not intended to resolve the current difficulties with TEC, nonetheless considered that a resolution of those difficulties needed to be reached before a covenant could usefully be entered into. (I don’t think he meant a resolution by inaction and putting the matter aside. See his letter of July 13.) It seems possible at least to envision a solution involving a combination of a covenant involving substantial improvements to the St. Andrew’s draft (without scrapping it altogether) and a contemporaneous disciplining of TEC that would be illustrative as to future application. Without at least that, it is hard to see the value of proceeding with a covenant.
Mike: Very quickly on the fly – yes, I would certainly concur both with you and with Dr. Radner on this point. I do indeed believe that we will need faith, prayer, and a strengthened Covenant – which should compel all of us to take part in offering constructive criticism and suggestions for how the Covenant might seek to offer definition of what it means to be in relationship and disciplinary measures for future application. There certainly are criticisms that should and must be addressed in future drafts of the Covenant; but we must not simply offer criticism, we need to actively offer suggestions for more appropriate direction and submit it to the Covenant Design Group. I only see 4 responses to the draft so far, wonderful, why are all the critiques on blogs?
hanks #26, agreed.
Just wanted to point this out to people before I begin to respond:
http://fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=330
This appears to be a very valid point, Optimus. The GAFCON primates do appear to have been shooting from the hip, or not shooting straight in their statements on the Covenant drafts (if you will pardon the gunslinger metaphors). Maybe it’s time to clearly address the actual documents again — but not forgetting the very real plight which bears hard on many congregations in America.
yohanelejos – I think we definitely need to go back and assess, examine, review and offer suggestions to the Covenant Design group for the development of the next draft of the CA; there are definitely areas that need to be addressed somewhat differently.
We need to do this as individuals, as groups, as churches, as dioceses, etc for the very reason that how we articulate (speak and live) our faith does indeed “bear hard” not just on American congregations, but those all over the world. There most certainly are truths that need to be upheld concerning our Christian faith and the agony of seeing people from within our own Church seemingly spit in the face of God’s grace is sickening. This should be acknowledged indeed. But if we’re to work through this time in our church with faith, we must engage in one another with humility, patience and self-giving. That is not my idea, it is not some philosophical or psychosocial idea, rather it is how Christ gave us life and freedom in the Spirit, and it is how he calls us to live continually with one another – particularly those with whom we do not agree, or those whom we hate. I simply ask that we recognize our brokenness; that we go forward with humility that I often find quite lacking on these blogs (both conservative and liberal).
#32, Though we may love our unrepentant brother or sister who is in sin or error, we cannot give him/her the affirmation of their behavior and or place and office he/she may want or demand in the Body of Christ. We do not need to let him/her hold office, teach, preach, be a delegate, use the church for his/her agenda, will, birthday party (Elton John’s blaspheming the Cathedral of St. John the Divine NYC with his birthday bash)….nor should we have communion with him/her.
This is Scriptural.
Jesus DID NOT call us to tolerate, include, live or have Eucharist or fellowship with them – Revelation 2:20, Jude 4-8 and on and on in the NT…
Why have these unregenerate unrepentant agenda-driven people been allowed to take over the church?
[blockquote]Why have these unregenerate unrepentant agenda-driven people been allowed to take over the church?[/blockquote]
The parable of the wheat and the tares applies to the laity but not to the clergy. Jesus was not unclear about that we will be beset by false teachers and that we must shun them.
#32, when you can show me every unrepentant sinner, particularly in leadership positions in the Church, I might buy your argument. Until then, I shall allow Christ to do the judging and the sorting of the wheat and tares on judgment day.
Furthermore, what is Scriptural, is that Christ tolerated, included, lived and broke bread with unrepentant sinners and thank goodness he did or we’d all be dead to our sin. Are we not to follow Him as John 21:15-19 asks?
You do make a compelling point: “we cannot give him/her the affirmation of their behavior.” This is very true. Fortunately, this is exactly what the Covenant seeks to remedy: autonomous behavior not consistent with the (hopefully to be amended to read) “mind of Christ” as discerned in Scripture by the whole Church.
That is quite a judgment to level; do you have the authority to make such a call? Scripture would say otherwise about your ability to see how God’s plan unfolds.
I do understand the frustration and anger however, believe me, I know it first hand. But let us not throw in the towel on something that has the potential to provide a definition of what it means to be in a relationship of trust. It is very true that trust is required before we could enter into the type of relationship the Covenant calls us to. Do you think TEC will sign on? Nor do I. But that will be there choice. Our opportunity right now, is to offer critique that will ask for more stringent definitions of our traditional faith, and for means of ensuring adherence to that faith; something that both protects our relationships of trust and that makes transparent the processes for addressing situations in which those who choose or who do walk away from the relationship of their own consciences.
Living together in the future is going to require us to form a more coherent structure that seeks to better balance our unity and diversity; a structure that maintains divine integrity and one that will allow us to move toward closer unity with our ecumencial partners.
Right now, we’re a big unwieldy beast; none of our ecumencial partners knows whether we’re coming or going, who they might be addressing when statements are made (evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, liberals, conservatives, middle of the pack, etc…). Until we address our own internal structural deficiencies, we cannot progress ecumenically, and we most certainly cannot witness missionally.