Adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant could be completed much sooner than the 10-year time frame mentioned frequently during the Lambeth Conference, according to one of the two Covenant Design Group members from The Episcopal Church.
Basing on submissions received from bishops attending the Lambeth Conference, the Rev. Ephraim Radner predicted that only a small minority of provinces would fail to approve the Covenant. Prof. Radner, who teaches historical theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto, said the Covenant Design Group is scheduled to disband after holding a second meeting sometime after the first of the year. From there, the Covenant is scheduled to be considered by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), which meets next May in Jamaica.
Prof. Radner told The Living Church it is not clear whether the ACC would be asked to hold an up-or-down vote on the final language drafted by the Covenant Design Group or whether they would be encouraged to propose amendments before a vote.
Will the proposed covenant work?
That is, will it result in a communion based upon “…the Faith once given…” or will it result in a communion that finds itself vulnerable to the ‘boundless’ theosophical interpretations and inventions that are now tearing the Communion apart?
Will it be something that can, and most likely will, be manipulated and twisted about by the revisionists?
TEC needs to accept, even welcome and affirm, a kind of affiliate/associate status within the Anglican Communion (as well perhaps as NZ and some parts of Cananda). May we reappraisers accept this diminished status with serenity knowing it is the most authentic, transparent and honorable thing to do. Let’s own the reality we are: rooted in, formed by and connected through bonds of history, affection and piety yet also open to more change, reform and risk than the majority of our fellow Anglicans. Let us reappraisers accept our divine call and diminished status and be done with it so we can all move on and be about the real work of ministry, worship and spiritual formation. Judaism eventually divided into three paths: Orthodox, Conservative and Reform with some much smaller sub groups. Let Anglicanism do the same so we can bless one another and set each other free. I think we will end up being good neighbors once we have good fences.
Dr. Radner believes that there is hope in an Anglican Covenant. Why? Let’s review what has been the past history of the Crisis in the Anglican Communion. After GC03, we received the Windsor Report that was twisted into the Windsor Process. This is typical EC re-interpretations efforts of Scripture or anything they do not like. In their mind, the end justifies the means to attain it. Then examine the lack of intervention by the Instruments of Unity. Only the Primates tried to address the crisis directly. Their efforts were undermined by the ABC, ACC, and Lambeth. Attempts at having other Communion initiatives have proved useless, and now we are to place our hopes, all our eggs in one basket?
Makes no sense to me nor to many others in TEC presently. I place no hope in the Instruments of Unity. The argument that they were never intended to address a crisis of this level may be true but shows the major weakness of Anglicanism. If a Communion is truly a Communion, then it must have a means of maintaining discipline. This was lost in the last century for the EC, and now we are to place our trust in a Covenant with the EC in the mix. If past behavior is any predictor of future actions, then it will be re-interpreted (like the WR) to mean something it is not intended. TEC will not self select to remove itself from the AC. It will simply lie and continue with its actions saying , “You don’t understand our polity or our society and culture…ours is different from yours. One day you will understand us and agree!”
Now, just to make Dr. Radner’s day….guess what…..too little, way too late. There was a time when this might have worked. In the light of recent history in TEC and the AC, this is no longer the case.
The dog will eventually have to get out of the manger. Once the General Convention recogn izes that it does not represent all the Anglicans in the United States – as it now recognizes in its full communion agreements with the ELCA and others that it does not represent all the Christians – the kind of ecumenical relationships archangelica in comment 2 will be possible. The present actions of some of the leadership of General Convention are a hindrance to Christian unity.
Not going to happen. The ABC will certainly continue to stonewall discipline and assist the promulgation of “affirming gays = affirming catholicism” so long as the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC money conduit flows. Besides, past history is the best predictor of future behaviour, and there is no hare in the Global North! The tortoise is much preferred as the mode of change to affirm the errors introduced. Keeps the laity numb with “listening” and allows the continued perversion of the Truth to suit reappraisers.
archangelica, if reappraisers had had integrity, they would have done as you suggest decades ago. Care to venture why they did not so do? I’d be interested to hear your views.
This suggestion of something in place by May 2009 is delusionally ludicrous and has not a whit of basis in anything other than a pipe-dream. What’s in the pipe? It must be very potent!
Modification of a post from Transfiguration:
See also the important essay by Drs Phil Turner and Chris Seitz, [url=http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=268 ]here[/url]. In particular, those authors are concerned that a the TEO will have undue influence on the final form of the covenant, detoothing the final form. I am actually more concerned that the final form of the covenant will be a source of division of the orthodox. I think the present “St Andrews draft” would do this. It places Rowan [i]homosexual – relations – can – be – equivalent – to – Christian – marriage[/i] Williams as the be all, end all of Anglicanism – no longer primum inter pares.
Ephraim+ has decried the term “moral equivalency” with regards to “border crossing” and sanctification of homosexuality. Of course, it is the liberals who are trying to establish this (including Rowan when he called for his three moratoria) and the orthodox who are denying it. So call it “parity” rather than “moral equivalency” – I don’t really care. I foresee the final draft of the covenant as establishing parity between these issues and dividing the orthodox between the givers of alternative oversight (Nigeria, Uganda, etc) and the non-givers (Tanzania, Middle East, etc).
#2… thanks for your thoughts, AA. I totally agree with you. You are CORRECT that this would be “authentic, transparent and honorable.” TEC should just admit that they have drastically broken (ecclessially and theologically) with the rest of the AC and accept the affiliate status.
But as I hope you’ll agree, TEC leadership has not been authentic and transparent and honorable. I would have had so much respect for them if they would have (say at GC 2006) told the truth: which is that we have no intention of pulling back and indeed plan to continue to move further down this path, with eventually many dioceses doing full blown gay weddings and us having several more gay bishops. (And that only focuses on transparency about the issue of sexual ethics: I’d also love to see transparency about the degree to which many priests, bishops, and lay leaders no longer believe the Creeds as they have been understood for the last 1500 years.)
But of course TEC has done the opposite. There’s been lots of lying going on. (e.g. Bruno: no gay weddings in my diocese!) You know this. If you are a reappraiser I truly feel for you because you seem like an honest and honorable guy, and the tremendous duplicity of TEC leadership must be an occasion of great suffering for you.
Again, let me back you up completely and say that I completely agree with you here. Being open and honest would be wonderful here.
I would say, however, that it is only half of what TEC needs to do to ensure that “we can all move on and be about the real work of ministry, worship and spiritual formation.” You are right that TEC needs to honest about who they are, what they believe and where they are going. Yes. And that they need to have the humility to admit that this has logical consequences; they can’t be in full communion with the AC when they are so markedly different and when they have clearly rejected any desire to be obedient to it. Yes.
But TEC also needs to solve its approach to dealing with parishes INSIDE ITSELF who are profoundly at odds with their new direction. The KJS approach of draconian legal attacks has GOT to stop. Otherwise, you can see I am sure, that there is no way that “we can all move on and be about the real work of ministry, worship and spiritual formation.”
While I disagreed profoundly with KJS’ predecessor (Griswold) on theological issues, I had great respect for his quiet and successful attempts (in 2005 and 2006) to negotiate settlements with dissenting parishes and permit them to leave on terms they and TEC could both live with. KJS has done “a new thing” by comparison, and her draconian style is not Holy Spirit led.
I’d like to suggest to anyone who wishes to read it a prescient graceful loving and Christ centered suggestion, written by Paul Zahl back in early 2004, in which he identifies exactly what TEC needed to do to prevent all this horrible bitterness and ugliness which as you rightly observe has so hindered everyone’s witness and mission:
http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=1625
Comforting to know that Radner and ACI has all the answers. At least John Howe thinks so.
and pigs will fly soon.
I loved this part:
[blockquote]“Individual dioceses who accept the Covenant apart from their provinces or national churches, or congregations whose bishops are not part of the Covenant, are free to seek informal partnerships with other Covenanted Communion bodies, and, if there is no change in status in the meantime, are free to petition the next Lambeth Conference for recognition of their partnerships as formal covenanting dioceses or provinces,†[Radner] wrote. “Matters relating to property, however, are to be resolved solely within the negotiations and parameters of local law, seeking where possible to mediating counsel of the Pastoral Forum.â€[/blockquote]
Translation: “You are free to stick your neck out and join the Covenant, but when your bosses come after you the rest of us will just watch. Have a nice day.”
OMG. That was really funny, Chris. Especially: “have a nice day.”
The real point is this has been over for several years, Williams just refuses to accept the fact that there are two groups that can not and will not ever agree. Since the CoE is as divided as the ECUSA I believe GAFCON is the only answer and just forget about the old, failed, moribund AC and move on.
What do you want to bet that signing the covenant will be deemed proof of “anbandonment of the Communion”?