A deeper look into the proposed Anglican Covenant

Lionel Deimel offers A Deeper Look into the Covenant in his blog entry If it looks like a duck... and while you are there scroll over the duck. Deimel offers a point by point examination of the entire document with charts of the relationships of the various so-called Instruments of Unity and how an issue would be handled if the Covenant is passed. (see below):


The crux of the Covenant, the place where its true intent is exposed, though veiled, is to be found in section 3.2, which begins, “Acknowledging our interdependent life, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself.” Here is a summary of the commitments, stripped of their Anglican smoke and mirrors:
(3.2.1) To pay for the Instruments of Communion and attempt to do what they say.
(3.2.2) To respect the autonomy of other churches, even as they restrict it.
(3.2.3) To agree that new and controversial issues “need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.” In other words, individual churches do not have the freedom to act on such matters until everyone agrees.
(3.2.4) To seek agreement with other churches of the Communion.
(3.2.5) To do nothing to upset other churches of the Communion.
(3.2.6) To keep talking and meeting when conflicts arise until consensus is reached, even if that is until hell freezes over.
(3.2.7) To keep in mind that bonds of affection and Christ’s love “compel”—interesting word choice—“us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.” (This is, of course, firm but gentle Anglican intimidation.)

In other words, the real purpose of the covenant is to get churches to agree to “shared discernment” on any matter that any church thinks is important and to not act until the shared discernment produces consensus. (The Covenant fails to give any operational definition of consensus.)

ac-structure-2.jpg

Click to enlarge

Read it all here. Deimel has take the UFO advice and "read, marked and inwardly digested" the document.

Posted by Ann Fontaine on November 18, 2010 9:56 AM | |
Comments (5)

The whole darned thing is frightening, even without Lionel's excellent chart. Why anyone would want to put the Gospel on hold until "consensus" is reached is beyond me. There certainly was no "consensus" over Jesus in his own time! That new thing that God was doing would have died in its tracks if "consensus" had been necessary.

Posted by laurenstanley [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 18, 2010 10:29 AM

I've put together a side-by-side translation of the whole Covenant into English from the original "Churchese." If you find it helpful, please pass it along.

Stephen
L2 Ohio

Posted by R. Stephen Gracey [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 18, 2010 10:37 AM

This shows the difference between a flow chart and a clot chart.

Posted by tobias haller [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 18, 2010 12:45 PM

*LMAO*, Tobias! }-D

JC Fisher

(I may steal this.)

Posted by tgflux [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 18, 2010 8:43 PM

Thanks for the translation of the document. Reading it makes it even clearer to me that this is not a document Jesus would ratify because it puts an institution and its interests above the needs of the most vulnerable among us. It asks them to be patient while the church tries to catch up. It ignores cultural differences. It gives more emphasis to everyone doing things the same way rather than to discerning the call of the Spirit in specific moments. It also redefines a few key Anglican principles in ways that seem very un-Anglican (like the interference of outside bishops in the life of a local church).

I am slowly coming to see that this whole mess is a North American problem. We decided to move forward. Some among us did not want that so they began pumping money into third world churches to use their numbers to influence the greater Communion to put a stop to it. So it's all about us and the desire of some to win at any cost, no matter who gets used. Disgusting.

Posted by Peter Pearson [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 19, 2010 8:09 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space