Please note that this is an introduction to the following post written by Mark McCall–KSH.
Sad to say, it seems virtually certain that TEC will reject any covenant proposal that limits its autonomy. Its leadership has consistently argued for a view of communion that resides in mutual hospitality and practice (as seen from the leadership’s perspective). They have also made clear their resistance to any meaningful form of restraint on a Province that decides to act against the views of the Communion as a whole.
Should the General Convention reject the proposed covenant, the paper we are posting clearly implies that individual dioceses within TEC have a constitutional right to vote for adoption on their own. The Instruments of Communion would then have to decide whether or not to allow individual dioceses that dissent from the negative actions of their Province to be covenant partners with the other Provinces of the Communion. Circumstances such as these present other polity issues, but the Archbishop of Canterbury has already indicated the theological appropriateness of this course of action. It would, nonetheless, still have to receive some form of Communion approval. It is difficult to imagine that such approval would not be forthcoming.
It is painful to think of TEC rejecting the covenant, though this is the course of action intimated. This eventuality will result in individual dioceses being put in the position of adopting a covenant on their own. There is a promise of renewal and reform attached to these possibilities. By adopting the covenant, dissenting dioceses within TEC would place themselves within a communion of provinces and dioceses wherein effective hierarchies are extant. In so doing they would place the hierarchy that orders their own dioceses within a more Catholic (with big C) and less congregationally ordered form of polity.
Bunyanesque hand wringing by the ACI:
[blockquote] Well, when I had thus put mine ends together,
I shewed them others, that I might see whether
They would condemn them, or them justify:
And some said, Let them live; some, Let them die;
Some said, JOHN, print it; others said, Not so;
Some said, It might do good; others said, No.
Now was I in a strait, and did not see
Which was the best thing to be done by me:
At last I thought, Since you are thus divided,
I print it will, and so the case decided.[/blockquote]
The ACI-ers fear the document provides legal backing to the secessionist movement which aims to form a separate, alternative, orthodox diocese in North America. I have pointed out that overlapping ecclesiastical authority is hardly un-Anglican – we have it currently in Europe and in the Philippines.
But despite the letter to Bp Howe, the ACI-ers are very much provinicially minded in their ecclesiology [i]”Our concern is for a Communion ordered by Instruments, and an Episcopal Church in full relationship with it.”[/i] They show concern about the costy and unity of the church. The current, endless infighting and bitter rancor is hardly unity which is far more costly in terms of membership and ultimately money. Who wants to attend a church that is constantly bickering? Hence, the TEC’s crown of the fastest declining denomination.
They propose more vague future relief for the Anglo-catholics, a primatial vicar plan that doesn’t involve violating precious polity. That reminds me of the [url=http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=2700 ]assessment of the GAFCON/FCA of the process heretofore[/url]:
[blockquote]…a series of hapless committees that pour forth jejune words and useless empty phrases that achieve nothing. We are “continually offered the same strategies which mean further delay and unlikely results. Indeed, delay itself seems to be a strategy employed by some in order to resolve the issue through weariness,†they said.[/blockquote]
The reality is that Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin are gone or will be gone (taking care of the three sponsoring bishops of FiFNA). Forward in Faith in the Episcopal church will be dead as it will be in CoE.
And then we have the covenant: “The point of most immediate promise concerns the covenant that soon will be presented for ratification to the Communion as a whole.” The covenant written, in compromised fashion for a pre-GAFCON Anglican Communion will be irrelevant. The “soon-ness” is up to debate depending on to whom you talk, but it is clear that the AC is undergoing radical changes. Even the framers admit that the convenant is not up to addressing the current problems of the AC but rather it is designed for hypothetical future ones. I would call on CDG to put on hold the covenant design process and then offering a more relevant document rather than an obsolete one that doesn’t reflect soon to be present realities.
[i] Please comment on the content of the post, rather than offering an opinion of the organization. [/i]
-Elf Lady
It was said: [blockquote]The Instruments of Communion would then have to decide whether or not to allow individual dioceses that dissent from the negative actions of their Province to be covenant partners with the other Provinces of the Communion. Circumstances such as these present other polity issues, [i]but the Archbishop of Canterbury has already indicated the theological appropriateness of this course of action.[/i][/blockquote]
To what does this refer? The Archbishop’s letter to Bishop Howe? If so, that would certainly seem to be reading a lot into it.