(ENS) If a proposed Anglican covenant is released in mid-May for adoption by the Anglican Communion’s provinces, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori will “strongly discourage” any effort to bring that request to the 76th General Convention in July….
Anglican Communion provinces have until the end of March 2009 to respond to the current version of the proposed covenant, known as the St. Andrew’s Draft. The Covenant Design Group meets in London in April 2009 and may issue another draft of a covenant. That draft is expected to be reviewed by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) during its May 1-12, 2009 meeting. The ACC could decide to release that version to the provinces for their adoption.
If the ACC decides to do that, “my sense is that the time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church and I’m therefore going to strongly discourage any move to bring it to General Convention,” Jefferts Schori told the Executive Council. “I just think it’s inappropriate to make a decision that weighty” that quickly, she added.
Surprise. Surprise. Why am I not surprised?
This is one of the biggest problems with the whole Windsor Process; it takes FAR too long to be of any practical help in our current crisis. And it’s hard to resist the temptation to think that this wasn’t part of ++Rowan William’s intention all along, i.e., to delay any real action or discipline for those promoting the false “gay is OK” delusion within Anglicanism as long as possible.
I’ve said it before here, and I’ll say it again. Put no trust in the proposed Covenant. Put no trust in the Windsor Continuation Group. Put no trust in the proposed Forum, or Faith and Order Commission, or anything else coming out of Lambeth Palace.
Trust the Lord and the GAFCON/FCA Primates, but don’t trust any of the four official Instruments of Communion in the AC these days, for there is no help in them. The old wineskins of the AC are unable to cope with this crisis. They will be replaced.
David Handy+
Heh heh.
Looks as if their former proclamations that the Covenant was not going to come out before GC 2009 are not going to prove true.
Need a new plan, Stan! ; > )
We have no god but 815!
(sarcasm)
Of course, since Executive Council has the rights to bind TECUSA to all sorts of things, such as the RCRC, I would expect that they would overwhelmingly approve the Covenant within 2 months of the Covenant being published. (/sarcasm)
This move surprises no one.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
a-pos-ta-sy: (uh-pos-tuh-see) – noun, a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
So any approval would be at GC2012. They’ll need three years to consider a final copy of something they’ve already seen a draft of, which they pretty well know that they’re unwilling to sign anyway. Wow. So glad to be in the Southern Cone. So glad.
Historical question: How long before General Convention was Gene Robinson elected? How much time did they have to debate? Perhaps, a better question would be, how long did they have to prepare for they sloganeering campaign? Making all those “Ask me about Gene” buttons does take a little time.
The approval of the election Gene Robinson certainly had more effect on the TEO as well as the Anglican Communion than the present St Andrew’s draft would. (The SAD covenant makes Rowan Williams the ultimate arbiter in whether there has beeen a violation and what should be done about it. Does anyone believe that Rowan would actually mete out any substantive discipline? The TEO could sign on to the SAD covenant and act with reckless abandon – nothing new – and have no fear of consequences.)
She is a complete disaster. Positions such as this — the frustration at every turn of fair process for conservatives — leads to what we see on the ground. She deserves no less. Liar, liar, pants of fire!
The last paragraphs in Fr. Handy’s and RobRoy’s comments are truth and should be re-read, marked, remembered.
Fr. Handy: “Trust the Lord and the GAFCON/FCA Primates, but don’t trust any of the four official Instruments of Communion in the AC these days, for there is no help in them. The old wineskins of the AC are unable to cope with this crisis. They will be replaced.”
Robroy: “The SAD covenant makes Rowan Williams the ultimate arbiter in whether there has beeen a violation and what should be done about it. Does anyone believe that Rowan would actually mete out any substantive discipline? The TEO could sign on to the SAD covenant and act with reckless abandon – nothing new – and have no fear of consequences.”
Or put another way, what does it matter what General Convention does or does not approve? In the end it is mere words anyway.
As we have repeatedly seen TEC can act fast when it wants too.
“General Convention should not consider Anglican covenant, Presiding Bishop tells Executive Council” —ENS
That’s right. No one but the General Convention could agree to the covenant. Not the House of Bishops. Not the Executive Council. Not the PB’s Council of Bad Advice. Not nobody.
And the covenant would require changes in ECUSA’s glorious canons if not its most glorious constitution, right? And those changes would need approval by two consecutive General Conventions. So ECUSA couldn’t start before 2012 or finish before 2015.
“My sense is that the time is far too short before our General Convention for us to have a thorough discussion of it as a church” —KJS
But just think of the rushed, slapdash way in which GC 2003 and GC 2006 adopted some of their most important resolutions.
Some folks are going to need a lot of time to decide what, if anything, they believe when it comes to matters of faith and doctrine. You can not agree with the covenant when you have ill defined beliefs.
I predict a number of US dioceses individually ‘signing on’ to the convenant regardless of what GC09 does or doesn’t do.
On the other hand, in the final anaysis, I don’t think the covenant will amount to much either way. That is I see no consequences if TEC rejects it.
Why shouldn’t they NOT consider it? They have already shown by their action and inaction that TEc is bound and determined to ignore the will of the Communion and practice intolerance to reasserting Christians in any and every thing, prefering to go their own way.
Precisely, libraryjim,
“I luv thee, I luv thee
And that Thou dost know,
But how much I luv thee
My actions will show.”
(apologies to the hymnist who actually wrote
I love Thee, I love Thee, I love Thee, my Lord;
I love Thee, my Savior, I love Thee, my God;
I love Thee, I love Thee, and that Thou dost know;
But how much I love Thee my actions will show.)
http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/l/ilovethe.htm
This can serve the salutary purpose of showing General Convention unable, ill-disposed, or otherwise ‘hampered’ in doing what individual dioceses inclined to be Anglican Communion dioceses can do. A further argument for the integrity of anglicanism inside the US zone at the level of dioceses.