Sign the covenant? He must be kidding. The intent of the covenant is to create juridicial structures, without actually admitting that that is what's being done. At best, it postpones an inevitable showdown. Such a move would be a horrible mistake. It would also be an unnecessary compromise on a matter of principle with the forces of reaction. This proposal shows how deeply different our two eccesiastical cultures are. Canon Goddard, in a slightly different way than Archbishop Williams, has bought into a culture in which duplicity is the norm. Our own theological, spiritual, and moral integrity requires us to fight the covenant tooth and nail. This the kind of thinking that will lead the C of E sleepwalking into disaster. This is a very dangerous argument, because it could appeal to bishops ready to lose their nerve.

Only an Episcopal Church on the second tier can bear effective witness to the rest of the Communion.

Goodness, Bill. Speaking from a different culture perhaps, but "bought into a culture in which duplicity is the norm?" I'm not prepared to say that he is so blind or so duped himself, or to argue that we don't have enough duplicity in our own ranks, as to warrant that statement.

As to the Covenant: I go back and forth. If the additional committee this wall were to simply scrap the fourth section, that might get a fair hearing in the next General Convention. If that were to happen and enough progressive national churches were to sign on (or enough regressive churches were to patently reject it), it might pass. I can't see it passing, however, with the fourth section, or without the signature of the Church of England; and that last is hardly certain at this point.

Marshall Scott

We certainly have duplicity in our own ranks. Progressive support for B033 (some conservatives could have voted for it with integrity) is the prime example. It also exists among some Anglo-Catholic dreamers of reunion with Rome and Anglophiles.

I am responding to his self-description of English ecclesiastical culture, namely the following:

"Meanwhile, back in the UK we’ve been facing similar issues but dealing with them in a different way. As my American friends have often observed, we’re not as open as you; there’s a different relationship with the hierarchy and we tend to get on with things without being too public about them, while trying to work with the structures to bring about change."

I certainly admit that it describes some Episcopalians as well.

I see the adopt the covenant now that you've articulated your principles as consistent with this duplicitous stance. The covenant is proposed because some parts of the Communion are so homophobic that they view this as a communion breaking issue. To sign on to this would be to admit that there was some kind of binding consensus that we were going against. It would return the Episcopal Church to the place where we once were, a kind of don't ask don't tell. Those who are driving the push toward covenant will not be satisfied with any Communion that includes us as we are. I don't think we should lend any credibility to the covenant project, which has been morally abhorrent from the beginning.

We could easily sign on to a covenant that reaffirmed the Quadrilateral. Anything more than that is sin.

Giles,

This calls for a note.

It's really good to hear from you here in this piece at the Cafe and to hear in the same day at the Cafe of the plan for finding out how many LGBT clergy you have in the C of E. (http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/church_of_england/inclusive_church_to_try_to_cou.html)

I'm glad we in San Francisco and others around this country could welcome you and Philip Chester in your travels two years ago. I'm grateful to you also for the spirit of openness and discovery you brought on that visit to the U.S. There is a lovely way that when we're visitors we can help each other see local gifts and charisms.

Your suggestion of how we move forward, obviously, sounds provocative to friends on this side of the Atlantic. But meanwhile what I love here is the promise of opening the conversation and collaboration.

My experience as one of the few Americans at Inclusive Church's Drenched in Grace also felt like a taste of the real promise - that our two churches and all of us in them learn powerful things from each other as we let the Spirit stretch us to the openness Jesus asks of us. I really felt that in talking to C of E clergy of color and hearing the startling observation that none all of your clergy of color were born in former colonies and (as I remember this second point) educated outside of Britain as well. I think it's no accident that our (TEC's) much-loved teacher and liturigst Louis Weil delivered one of the richest and most compelling papers at that conference and English invitation. We really do need each other and how we live that out one tier, two tier or whatever. Caring for and strengthening real bonds of affection.

love, donald

The "process" begun by the Lambeth Commission was seriously wrong headed and has already done inestimably more harm than the ills it was put in place to heal. I am equally convinced the Covenant as presently conceived will continue to exacerbate divisions within and between our churches, far from preventing further crisis this Covenant has already split the community and will, I believe, be the cause of ever deepening and increasing divisions. It is a awful price to pay for giving a dubious legitimacy to the fragile structures and agreements formed by Anglican Apparatchik over the last few decades and to appease Roman Catholic and Orthodox threats to cease all future dialogue.

I am not sure what drove the decision of 13 UK based revisionist groups to commit themselves to the Ridley Draft Covenant but I suspect there may be a realisation that the English Synod is unlikely to reject the Covenant even though a "mind of synod" resolution is all the "commitment" English law might permit. Calls for a united mainstream campaign to reject or seriously rethink Covenant principles are unlikely unless the British academic establishment rouses itself - it has almost entirely ignored the debate so far! But, in my view Giles is right to say that for England to enter a Covenant with its present anti gay policy intact would be disastrous in the short, medium term, for I suggest the policy you take into the Covenant is the one you will be stuck with for some time to come! Doctrinal development is to be locked into an endless process that will require the approval of our ecumenical partners.

It now seems that some version of the Ridley Draft is likely to be offered for the consideration of the local churches and despite all I have said hitherto, I think it would also be sinful for TEC in some way or another NOT to nod to it, I am not suggesting that it is accepted into the Canon Law of TEC, rather a decision of General Convention that is "descriptive" of the Covenant as a useful (if temporary) tool to avoid further schism. Embracing it tentatively and exploratively.

This would have several results, most I believe would be helpful.

Most importantly I think it would make it clear that wide tent Anglicanism is not dead and that the same differences that existed within Anglicanism before Ridley exist now. There are those like the Bishop of Durham and his chums who are determined to force ever more divisions on TEC and to bury the breadth of Anglican comprehensiveness by denouncing the principles of tolerance laid out in paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report. So apart from nodding to the Covenant I would advise TEC bishops and Deputies to assent to the Anehiem Statement - ALL of them. Durham is also untruthfully claiming that there are "prerequisites" to nodding to the Covenant and trying to spin Rowan Williams' careful (if disappointing) words to suit his own rather nasty agenda.

There are often strong diffferences within Churches and we must guard aainst those schismatics who afre wishing to exploit this to divide us.

I think that the presence of TEC on the JSC and the significant role that group will now play in bedding down and interpreting the way the Covenant plays out in Communion life should not be thrown away - the only way that the NEW Anglicanism can see its inclusiveness preserved is to see TEC (with its present policies intact) playing a central role in all its important decision making bodies.

But I beleive other Covenants and links should be formed alongside the Ridley thing and that TEC should be central in creating and building new and effecive alliances worldwide.

It is far from ideal, but I think it probably is the least evil.

Giving in to a bully only makes him want more.

The responsibility for schism lies with those who break fellowship, not with those who are willing to maintain it but not at the price of selling their souls.

Bill,

"Giving in to a bully only makes him want more," is both true and not true. In daily Aikido practice, our physical engagement with 'attack' is a strong but flexible join with the partner's attack, but more profoundly with (and then taking) the partner's center. Morihei Uesheiba the founder of Aikido said (repeatedly in and various ways), "If I hold my own center, I join with love at the center of the universe and there is no enemy."

If by 'giving in to a bully' you mean something like Chamberlain's giving in to Hitler, I'm with you 100%. On the other hand, Jesus' sayings about 'turning the other cheek' and 'going the second mile' make perfect Aikido sense and sound to me in the context of Roman occupation like nonviolent intervention and defiance of oppression with the Gospel intention of un-making the enemy's power as enemy.

Donald,

I like this analogy, having trained in a martial art with some "soft style" elements for over 10 years.

I agree that we should reaffirm our desire to be in relationship. In my view, we cannot sign on to the covenant in its present proposed form or in any form that is likely to be offered.

Staying in second tier status and continuing the conversation is better in my book. I believe we can make the reactivity of others work for us by staying both connected and well defined. The problem with any affirmation of the covenant as I see it is that it joins into the anxiety about our relationship breaking up and gives credibility to the lie that unity is only possible on a covenanted model.

I believe this point would also follow from your analogy. No need to tell the Anglican Communion to go to hell. All we do is stay engaged and say, this is who we are. In this way, the violence has an opportunity to dissipate without finding a target.

Dear Martin Reynolds @ August 11, 2009 4:07 AM:

I want to correct what I think is a significant misreading of what the 13 UK groups said. They said, "We will work to ensure that if the Church of England is to sign up to the Covenant ...." (My emphasis.) They also said, "We find the notion of a 'two track communion' flawed." Contrary to your comment above, they are NOT committed to the covenant. (And also note what Giles says for himself above: "The big question facing us all is how we respond to the suggestion of a two-track Communion. The feeling within the progressive groups of the Church of England is that such a thing should be resisted, and if the Covenant were to bring this about it, too, should be resisted.")

See the last para of their statement,
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/003931.html

I agree with Bill Caroll that the Episcopal Church signing a covenant would be bad. It is not clear why Giles Goddard would argue for doing so. Signing a covenant would betray a principle of equality and would thus be very unwise.

I understand the discussion is in hypothetical mode but even entertaining the "if" makes it more likely one would trade the important principle of the infinite worth of the individual for some pathetic symbolic connection to the Church of England and the rest of the Anglican/English Communion.

"We are awaiting a further draft, but unless it contains radical strengthening of any judicial measures, it seems to me that TEC would be able to sign it, as a sign of its mutual commitment and in the context of its present policy of ensuring that it is open to LGBT people both single and in relationships."

Gary Paul Gilbert

Bill,

So, in passing I have to ask which art you've been practicing. Should we form a guild of martial arts practicing clergy? Maybe a Guild of Jacob and Judith? Of Ss. Martin of Tours and Joan of Arc.

I do like your response and also appreciate John's careful re-stating of what Giles said.

What I like best in Giles' delcaring publicly that it's time for a progressive alliance and there are C of E Anglicans ready for that work is that we're talking about strategy, ways, and means in public. So much of the 'conservatives' playing of all this (and us) to this point aimed for secrecy and P.R. managed events, statements and shows.

What the 13 C of E groups are offering us in a public alliance that thinks through a series of 'what ifs' quite openly is a genuinely progressive response to the secretiveness and careful (though sometimes not terribly effectual spin control) of the 'conservatives'' moves.

We've faulted ourselves for trying to be open and trust when we should have been suspicious and for treating adversaries as though they meant what they said. I think Giles's article and this conversation touches on the appropriate counter - truly fearless, open talking together about shared witness and what actions reflect shared witness.

Both Giles's belief that the Episcopal Church could, in good conscience and playing no games sign a covenant and your conviction that second tier is the place of witness assume we must and can continue to speak truth and offer the church what we are learning and believe we've been led to do in our practice of inclusion.

Thanks for all your responses. Bill, I take some of your points but not all! In terms of duplicity, I do go on my piece to say "I don’t defend that – it’s just the way we are." - and one of the things we are trying to do over here, as Donald notes, is to get more openness in the way the C of E works. So I think "duplicity" a stronger word than the circumstances permit. Thanks Donald for yours - I remember San Francisco with great affection.
My reason for suggesting that the Covenant might be signed by TEC is very simple. The Covenant is supposed to be a symbol of good intent, reflecting our common and various polities but also reflecting the ways in which we intend to work together. Martin - I don't think the "the thirteen revisionist groups (including yours!)" have committed themeselves to the Ridley draft - not sure where you got that from as our statement was clearly very provisional on the covenant's final wording. But I agree with you that some kind of nuanced approach may be right.
My justification for that is this: now that TEC has made the decisions it made in Anaheim the position is much clearer. The purpose of the Covenant is to affirm the common purpose and collective desire of the Anglican Communion to witness to the Gospel across the world, and TEC is part of that witness. So, especially given the way in which you are building better and better understandings with other provinces, and I'm told relationships with the international visitors who came to Anaheim were very positive, what's to stop TEC playing its full part in the life of the Communion? BUT, and this is the most important point, the Covenant is clearly being seen by conservatives and regressives as a way to exclude TEC further. You've only got to look at Tom Wright's latest splurge to see that. So it seems to me that simply to say "No, not under any circumstances" to the Covenant is playing into the conservatives' hands. It would be the thin end of a wedge which would, over years, be expanded to include who knows what forms (not just recognising ACNA but lots of other as yet undreamt of ways) of making sure that progressive Anglicanism is further undermined. And that, I think, wouldn't help anyone. It certainly wouldn't help those of us in the C of E who look to TEC as our brothers and sisters working in different ways for a similar proclamation of the Gospel.
Whereas, some sort of positive response to the covenant would mean that its potency as a means of exclusion and oppression would be undermined - indeed removed - and it would become what it ought to be - a non-discriminatory common statement of purpose. In so doing, I think it would make the covenant less significant - it's being talked up by conservatives with exactly the end in mind of further excluding TEC - and enable us all to continue to work together, without any more stuff about two tracks or anything else.
Overall, it's become clear to me that we're never going to reach agreeement on questions of human sexuality with conservatives. We've found ways of living together on questions over which we disagree - the remarriage of divorced people is the one I cite. But to enshrine that disagreement in two separate tracks would be really unhelpful - unhelpful, above all, for those who care about the generous and welcoming Gospel we hold. Which is also why, at the moment, I think the C of E would be making a grave mistake to sign the covenant given our current position on inclusion.
But it would be interesting to know what others in the UK - esp in Wales or Scotland who have both been much clearer than England about this- think?

But, having said all that, the main purpose of my piece wasn't about the Covenant. It was more about how and what we're trying to do in England about these questions which keep recurring - and how we'd love to have closer and better links with TEC and with the Anglican Church of Canada. And of course I realise that we have absolutely NOTHING to do with how TEC responds to the Covenant, or anything else! I don't want to be accused of being an Englishman lecturing the Yanks. There are enough of those around already :-)

I certainly welcome the alliance and want to state clearly that this is an argument about strategy among brothers and sisters who want fundamentally the same things.

I am not nearly so sanguine about the possibility of turning the Covenant into something good.

Holidays intervened .... As John B. Chilton noticed I missed the IF!

But despite this failure to understand the statement - the sad fact remains that even with the opposition of all these groups the future of practically ANY Covenant seems assured in the English General Synod.

I wish all possible alliances well - and hope they are a force for good in the life of God's Church - but I had hoped for a better debate on adoption of the Covenant here.

Perhaps the dialogue is taking place elsewhere? If so perhaps someone can post the location .....

Donald,

As lovely as the martial arts metaphor is, no martial art is effective in the face of a shotgun at 10 feet. Bullies do not play by the rules, they use they bluster to intimidate.
The only response that works is to take the luster off their bluster. Remember the Cowardly Lion?