Andrew Brown wrote Covenant and Schism.
There may be some good reasons for the Church of England to sign up to the Covenant. But the bishop of Croydon’s are absurd.
Lionel Deimel wrote No Anglican Covenant. He has even produced a logo for this, in small and large sizes.
Mark Harris and the ACI have been holding a dialogue.
First, ACI wrote Communion And Hierarchy.
Mark Harris… makes a number of observations and comments, some more accurate and apposite than others. However, one observation/comment in particular stands out and deserves thoughtful consideration, namely his claim that the position about the nature and structure of the Anglican Communion articulated by the Archbishop of Canterbury implies a form of global governance and hierarchy that runs all the way down. Fr. Harris’ claim deserves careful consideration because it has become already the default position of progressive defenders of TEC’s recent actions, and will without doubt stand near the center of TEC’s defense of the actions of its General Convention…
Then Mark wrote Why direct diocesan sign-on now to the Covenant is a bad idea.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said… “the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.”
The Anglican Consultative Council determined that it was asking Provinces to consider the Anglican Covenant. That, of course, is appropriate, for the ACC is an “organization of organizations,” that is, its members are Churches. So the ACC asks its members (the Provinces) to respond to the Covenant. At that point the ACC is clear – it is Provinces, not dioceses, that are being asked to sign-on…
The ACI felt it necessary to respond to this, with More On Communion And Hierarchy.
Mark Harris responded again with Followup on Communion and Hierarchy, my article “Why direct sign on..,” etc.
I posted Lionel’s emblem on my blog. Thank you, Lionel.
June Butler
I posted Lionel’s emblem on my blog. Thank you, Lionel.¨ Grandmère Mimi
Make that a double! THANK YOU, Lionel and Mimi!
“The upshot is that the bishop is going to vote for a covenant in which he does not himself believe because he thinks other Christians and secular foreign politicians value the Communion for exactly those qualities which the covenant is designed to stamp out.” – Andrew Brown’s Blog – Andrew Brown is surely right is this supposition, that the Bishop of Croydon is doing what the Covenant is trying to suppress – he is believing in one strategy (No-Covenasnt), and signing up for another (Yes-Covenant). Surely, if the Covenant means anything at all that is new and effectively binding on… Read more »
“To Fr. Harris’ credit, he has another, and to my mind nobler, reason for defending this position. He does not want the dioceses of TEC to be able to act independently of the General Convention, the Executive Council, and the Office of the Presiding Bishop. Thus, Fr Harris has a position that is, as it were, a knife that cuts in two directions. Internationally, he seeks to establish the unfettered autonomy of the several provinces of the communion and so preclude any form of “global governance,” and domestically he wishes to establish a form of hierarchy, like that of the… Read more »
…or to put it another way, Fr Ron, what diocesan bishop would tolerate parishes in his/her diocese making a “covenant” with the bishop of another diocese (that could give the slightest pause of to whom said parishes ultimately were responsible)?
This isn’t really so complicated—
National churches: autonomous. (*)
Dioceses, parishes: NOT.
(*) Except in extremely *limited* ways, e.g., can’t decide to send more than their canonically allotted share of (voting) representatives to the Anglican Consultative Council.
One reason why the pro-covenant side don’t take seriously the provisions against cross-border raids: after the covenant is signed, the provinces outside it will become officially partes infideli — so planting churches there is just evangelism., Of course, that’s what they think already, but the covenant will regularise their case.
re Andrew Brown’s comment – I find it distinctly odd that the dissidents, who have already distanced themselves from the polity of the Communion (by their withdrawal of official support for the Communion – e.g. as in Nigeria and Uganda) should be siding with those looking for a Covenantal relationship – especially when it is precisely they who have departed from the policies of the ACC. No-one in their right mind would want to separate out from TEC and the A.C.of C. – unless it helped in their quest for puritanical and institutional uniformity. Would the Covenant guarantee that there… Read more »
It’s local politics, folks – only local.
ACI spin doctors are pretty consistent in what they write and preach, insofar as they follow the rule: …, We presume this way when it favors us, and we presume that way when it undermines everybody else. ACI and conservative realignment Anglicans want the covenant they want, no less, no more. ACI wants, above all, power to police and punish everybody who does not follow their ways. They do not quite have that yet, effectively, so in the meanwhile running up to new police powers, ACI simply presumes that right now, top Anglican structures-processes innately trump and define all provincial… Read more »
On the Covenant/ecumenical issue, We (= liberal Anglicans) are doing what is right. Sooner or later, everyone else will catch up. Many are, of course, unofficially. That ‘unofficial’ is the key. The C of E, in its beauty and wisdom, and TEC (ditto), extends the Eucharist to all who receive communion in their own churches. Thre is much traffic in all directions under these, or similar, rubrics, or tacit ‘disobedience’ of spurious official prohibitions. Who cares what the (present) Pope thinks, or Tom Wright, or whoever? Who cares that there is not – and never can be – unanimity about… Read more »
I reiterate my point that the purpose of the Covenant is schism but that refusal to take communion together means that the schism has already occurred by the GAFCONites “walking away” (TEC bishops did not boycott Lambeth — TEC has never threatened to leave the WWAC — they have repeatedly been threatened with expulsion — let’s get some facts straight)
Another conservative Anglican vision wears the face of safety. Seeking high safety. Via un-Anglican means. Distance, barriers, condemnation, police, punishments, Us vs Them? – these are the tools – indeed the weapons? – of alarm, fear mongering, and prescient pre-existing judgements. Anglican Conservatives know all about people as condemned categories – way before any real, live people walk on any real world stage connected with being Anglican. A strong and bitter field it all is – spikey and overgrown with weeds. Not the sort of verdant, breezy park lands where one goes with one’s beloved and the kids to enjoy… Read more »
“I reiterate my point that the purpose of the Covenant is schism but that refusal to take communion together means that the schism has already occurred by the GAFCONites “walking away””
Indeed, if being Anglican means being in communion with Canterbury, the act of refusing to receive Holy Communion from the ABC because of the presence of others at the rail would seem to be an important act. But it seems to have been overlooked.
Can anyone get Rowan Williams to read Letter from a Birmingham Jail? Please? It says all that needs to be said about why this Covenant is wrong.