The ABC is dispirited that he cannot rely on General Synod being a rubber stamp where people don't come having done their homework. And you gotta love this justification from the mouth of the ABC: "The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America." Like Ephraim Radner, a board member of the IRD at the time he was appointed to the Covenant drafting committee?

These are pretty weak justifications for the Covenant. "If we don't sign this agreeing to new structures that aren't spelled out, there may be new structures. We are in crisis people!"

"We can't work together unless we sign on the line that we're working together. We are in crisis people!"

Anybody who has been paying even somewhat blind attention recognizes that the whole point of the Covenant is to institutionalize punishment, particularly for North America.

This was the genesis of the Covenant and has been its guiding principle ever since.

The rest is all fluff.

This statement is more of the same, "we need this desperately but it won't really change that much" line of thinking. For all the fuss and bother, it is just not worth it. There are too many known unknowns in the list of ingredients to make it palatable.

A, ye olde legal solution to a people problem. It's like attacking a jellyfish with a mallet.

I am sorry, but the principal drafters of the Covenant were Ephraim Radner and Drexel Gomez, the former set on hurting TEC and the latter doing it by jurisdiction jumping. The earliest drafts were done in conjunction with meetings of the Global South Primates who are certainly set on excluding TEC.

The iron fist is hidden in a somnolence producing glove of ambiguous and typically Radnerian prose. The original "final" draft allowed complainants to shop out their gripes to whichever fictitious Instrument of Communion they might think most receptive. The "improved" final draft centralizes power in a newly enfranchised Standing Committee that even the conservatives object too.

The reality is that Radner and his crew have already said that those who sign the Covenant have an initial task of rewriting it again. How amazing that we are being asked to sign a "final" document that is already up for revision!

The ++ABC's role in promoting this as some widely acceptable way forward is sad. More than any other factor his spineless appeasement policy and betrayal of Jeffrey Johns is responsible for the shape of this disaster.

If we ignore this, we ignore what is already a real danger, the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion and the emergence of new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly.

Translation:

If you don't vote for this, I won't be important anymore! And you won't either!

Unfortunately, I suspect that is really the argument that will win the day. I would love to be proven wrong....

His address had other "dismal" aspects as well. I found his suggestions regarding the "positions" of those in favor of positive attitudes towards LGBT persons and their relationships as a sort of capitulation to popular culture at the expense of the church ("one of those matters on which the Church must be brought inexorably into line with what our culture can make sense of.") to be particularly depressing. He wants discussion of the "theology," and labels the positions of the conservative and liberal sides as both "unthinking." It's just more of the ongoing cry of those who would delay/wait interminably to "do the theology." Sorry ++Rowan, been there, done that (and having "done that" in your own writings, you know it as well). This is getting old. How about we "do the theology" of the covenant itself for another 100 years or so and not jump to react so precipitously to "bring the Church inexorably into line?"

"Union at any cost" & the obvious fear of "What will the Global South say??" are poor justifications indeed. When *our* primate (And yes, I know she isn't an AB) must go literally hat in hand to meetings with others of her stature simply because she's a woman, I don't feel too disposed to a "union at any cost" rationale....

Bill_info_pro - please sign your name next time you comment. Thx ~ed.

"The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America."

Okay, there were Ephraim Radner and Kathy Grieb. Diverse views, granted. Am I missing somebody? Does two constitute several? As someone pointed out, it should have been well known to +Rowan when he appointed Radner that Radner wanted to see TEC punished and ostracized.

"It does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority . . ."

Well, I suppose the Covenant doesn't "invent" SCAC.

"After such a number of discussions and revisions, it is dispiriting to see the Covenant still being represented as a tool of exclusion and tyranny."

If it isn't a tool of exclusion, what is it? I mean, that is the possibility inherent in Sec 4, right? Whether or not exclusion is tyrannical probably varies depending on whether you are doing the excluding or being excluded yourself.

"The unpalatable fact is that certain decisions in any province affect all. We may think they shouldn't, but they simply do."

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. There are times when you might wish that what happens in one province would have a bigger affect in another province (like the idea that killing gays is bad would have a bigger affect for gays in Uganda). I think this argument has been overblown though. We must minister within our own context first. We can, and should, explain why we are doing what we are doing. But we can't neglect to reach out to all people here, just because some people are excluded there.

"among the potential casualties are all those areas of interaction and exchange that are part of the lifeblood of our church and of many often quite vulnerable churches elsewhere."

As far as I can tell, "all those areas of interaction and exchange" have continued. Is there any reason to think they will cease if this Covenant fails?

"These relations are remarkably robust, given the institutional tensions at the moment, and, as I've often said, many will survive further disruption."

Doesn't this contradict your previous sentence?

"But they will be complicated and weakened by major fracture and realignment."

I don't buy it. Not if we keep showing up, as provinces of good will have done.

"[The Covenant] also recognises that even after consultation there may still be disagreement, that such disagreement may result in rupture of some aspects of communion, and that this needs to be managed in a careful and orderly way."

Yes . . . careful and orderly rupture of communion is eminently preferable to slapdash and disorderly rupture of communion. (Seriously, this is the best you can do?)

"Now the risk and reality of such rupture is already there, make no mistake. The question is whether we are able to make an intelligent decision about how we deal with it. To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly."

The Anglican Covenant: it will give us the option of tying our hands! Isn't that just what we need?

****
You know, we had the option of tying our hands. We struggled with the decision and chose not too. That was good news for GLBT people in our context. I imagine it was also good news for GLBT people in other contexts as well. It also upset some people. That's life. You can't make everybody happy all the time.

But when you start to believe that one path leads to justice, and another path leads to injustice, you can't just continue down the path to injustice. To do so would be to deny that Jesus is Lord.

It is true that if England doesn’t sign on to the Covenant, the Anglican Communion will be in turmoil. It is also true that if England does sign on to the Covenant we will also be in turmoil. The only question is whether the Church of England wants some control over its fate. It will have less if it approves the Covenant.

The issue for Episcopalians is not to prognosticate whether or not the Church of England's General Synod will authorize the Anglican Covenant's creation. This appears to be a certainty given all of the ecclesiastical and political capital that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expended into the covenant's creation. Therefore, Episcopalian lay, ordained, and episcopal leaders should strategically begin to plan their strategies for how The Episcopal Church's General Convention will respond to the Archbishop of Canterbury's unwarranted intrusion into the life of this church as well as what steps it will take to authentically uphold its values. How shall Episcopalians who value our Anglican relationships maintain "bonds of affection" even as The Episcopal Church appropriately pushes back against internal and external provincial demands and retribution for the Anglican Consultative Council and or The Primates. The Anglican Communion as a body that has grounded its existence in shared prayer and communion will soon longer exist, if it ever did. What seems to be coming into being is a more hierarchical institution that will bump up against post-modern understandings of interdependence and mutual understanding.

In his words on the Big Society, the ABC says:

We are going to be discussing the language of the Big Society in this group of sessions. And if such language means anything – as I believe it does – it looks to an ideal that (John) Wesley would have recognised easily: men and women determined to enhance each others' lives by building up their freedom to shape their future and their communal life with fairness and generosity; people for whom responsibility is not a grim and repressive word but a joyful acknowledgement of what we owe to each other.

Except for teh gays, of course.

Is it just me who sees here a mind-boggling disconnection?

June Butler

Once again I affirm a simple truth: if we could all agree to the Covenant we wouldn't need it.

Read it. Understood it. Rejected it.

We need to seek the highest degree of communion possible with all Christians. Period. In a fragmented ecclesial world, lamentable as that fact may be, some forms of communion are not possible. I don't see the Covenant proposal as bringing us any closer to that unity for which Christ prayed.

I don't really see relationship with the Church of England or the Archbishop of Canterbury as essential to my Anglican identity. They are historical facts and welcome ones in spite of the ambiguities of the colonial past, but I'm shocked that Archbishop Rowan would sink low enough to appeal to English anxieties about declining significance. We are Anglicans because of the BCP, a certain theological-spiritual stance, and the exceptional heritage of the saints of our tradition. Binding ourselves to a narrow evangelicalism for sake of connection to the colonial mother church strikes me as a betrayal of this heritage of the first order.

An amen ditto to Paige and Bill commenting on the ABC's play to English anxiety about declining significance. Appalling line of argument.

And note he's giving a sugarcoated version of the assertion that CoE opponents of the Covenant are Little Englanders who want to pull up the drawbridges to the rest of the world and join the BNP.

You can, Archbishop, care about, be cared for by and be in relationship with the rest of the world without having to promise you'll never hurt the feelings (to paraphrase our esteemed Chief Editor).

"To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly."

Too costly to whom, Sir? To the voiceless LGBT baptized in Uganda still waiting for a word of hope from Canterbury? To the LGBT youth bullied from the self-loathing he's internalized from his church's message that he's an abomination to self-destruction rather be doomed to a life of loneliness, isolation and despair?

The "H" word in operation here isn't homosexuality. It's Honesty. And it's Hypocrisy. And it's a Horrific abdication of leadership when the Archbishop of Canterbury can dare to stand and make a statement so sweepingly dismissive of the pastoral needs of the LGBT baptized and crying needs of those LGBT people yearning to be evangelized.

Shame on you, +Rowan Williams. Shame on you.

Susan Russell

(If I'm not seen as too much Me-Too ;-/)

AMEN!

JC Fisher

["the Church of England's General Synod will authorize the Anglican Covenant's creation. This appears to be a certainty"

J Strader, I SO hope you're wrong...]

The concerns and debate surrounding the Anglican Covenant may be summed up by one key question that has been at the heart of debate and diverse views for decades: “How may we use and handle and interpret Scripture?”

Scripture in the Covenant is described as “the rule and ultimate standard of faith”. Almost inevitably therefore, what that means, and how Scripture should be interpreted, is likely to be played out “with relational consequences” or “suspension” through the Covenant’s operations.

Let us look therefore at the way the draft Covenant embeds the issue of Scripture.

In the section ‘Our inheritance of faith’ -

Each church affirms:

(1.1.3) the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary for salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith

In living out this inheritance of faith together in varying contexts, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself -

Each church affirms:

(1.2.1) to teach and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture

and

(1.2.2) to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture

and

(1.2.5) to ensure that biblical texts are received, read and interpreted faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently

The draft goes on, acknowledging our interdependent life, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself:

(3.2.4) to seek a shared mind with other Churches, through the Communion’s councils, about matters of common concern, in a way consistent with the Scriptures

Now...

If there is not consensus over how to read and interpret Scripture, whether it is fallible or inerrant, if there is no common mind on how Scripture should be interpreted then...

There is a problem with this:

(4.1.2) In adopting the Covenant for itself, each Church recognises in the preceding sections a statement of faith, mission and interdependence of life which is consistent with its own life and with the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith as it has received them. It recognises these elements as foundational for the life of the Anglican Communion and therefore for the relationships among the covenanting Churches.

How can a Church (Province) adopt the Covenant with the understanding that the ‘statement of faith’ involving the previously mentioned authoritative role of Scripture is consistent with its own interpretation of Scripture (and consequent practices)... if there is no common mind on what constitutes acceptable interpretation of Scripture.

Since this is not defined, individual Provinces are being asked to sign up for something which is not defined, which is known to be viewed differently, and which is at the root of the diverse approaches to sex and gender issues which led to the Covenant being developed in the first place?

Since the interpretation of scripture is so pivotal to diverse expressions of Christian ministry, it is exactly this issue which logically leads towards the Covenant being possible for some Provinces to endorse and not for others.

In the absence of some honesty of definition about how broad the interpretations of Scripture will be allowed to be, how can a Province know if it will conform to the Covenant or not? How can it sign up to something which is not yet clarified? How can individuals, across all Provinces, know if the Communion they belong to will regard their literal, or inerrant, or traditional, or critical, or liberal interpretations of the bible – all held in good faith – as acceptable or... ultimately beyond the bounds of the Communion’s Covenant?

Section 4 of the Covenant continues:

(4.2.1) ...Recognition of and fidelity to, this Covenant, enable mutual recognition and communion.

Since the Covenant is earlier rooted on Scripture as “the rule and ultimate standard of faith” recognition and communion seem dependent on fidelity to Scripture, yet the kind of interpretation and view of Scripture which constitutes “fidelity” is not defined at all. It is all left vague. This would be fine if it was going to be left vague in the future, to allow for unity in a diversity of liberal, inerrant, and literal approaches to Scripture and issues of gender and sex, but that does not seem to be the expectation at all, since otherwise, honestly, the need for the Covenant would not have arisen. The same clause continues:

(4.2.1) Participation in the Covenant implies a recognition by each Church of those elements which must be maintained in its own life

“Those elements”, which previously set Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith, are not explained. It’s left undefined. Is the bible inerrant? Can it be viewed as fallible and subject to contradiction in the light of emerging revelation and cultural development, or advances in science? In which case, homosexuality or female leadership may be no problem at all. But Provinces are being called to “Participation” in a document whose terms and conditions are not being revealed. How can they “recognise” “those elements which must be maintained” if there is neither consensus on how scripture should be read (there is not) nor consequent explanation of what on earth “Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith” actually means.

Yet, failure to conform to an undefined standard of scriptural interpretation may expose a Province to ‘relational consequences’ or ‘suspension’, depending on the findings of the Standing Committee.

So what constitute acceptable approaches to scriptural interpretation? We’re simply not told. Which is not surprising, because there’s wide variation and disagreement within the Communion about the inerrancy or otherwise of the Bible, and has been for years. The Communion has been held together because of shared faith in Christ. The diversity of biblical interpretation has been well known, but Anglicanism has continued to accept a unity based on diversity. At the point a Covenant starts to demand dogmatic adherence to some approaches to Scripture but disallows others – in other words when what has been left undefined here is subsequently defined – then Provinces may discover (and individuals within all Provinces may discover) that they are no longer fully in communion. There’s no clarity, no reassurance in advance, no definition of what constitutes acceptable scriptural interpretation.

It’s like saying to everyone, sign up for a cruise on a ship, but not being told the route, or whether you will be left on some island en route, and not being told what it will be like on the ship, or whether your own dietary needs will be met. You’re just told to buy your ticket, and work your way together with the others, but it’s all being kept secret as to whose tickets will be acceptable for the whole journey.

That there may be relational consequences – that passengers may be asked to get off – seems all too possible for anyone with any realistic awareness of the tensions and frictions that exist in the Communion today over how one Province runs its own affairs with regard to the appointment of gay and lesbian priests and bishops. This the Episcopal Church does, in good faith, according to its way of approaching scripture... an approach shared by significant others in many other Provinces around the world.

Since acceptable ways of interpreting Scripture are left undefined, and since so much opposition exists from some Anglicans with different views on Scripture, the Episcopal Church (but also many individual Christians in Anglican Churches around the world) will understandably see clause 4.2.5 as applicable, and very possibly enforceable against them in the future, as part of what the Covenant is for:

(4.2.5) “The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.”

The bottom line there IS no consensus on how to interpret Scripture. Furthermore, scripture may be understood in the context of many different cultures, and Christian ministry may find expression in a wide variety of ways, and not one-size-fits-all. There has been no consensus on scripture for decades on either what constitutes inerrancy or whether inerrancy is important; neither, more specifically, has there been consensus or a common mind on the relationship of scripture to issues of gender and sexuality. We all know that.

On the other hand, for many centuries, in the tradition of the Elizabethan Settlement, the Anglican Communion has found space for variant views and faithful expressions, in a comprehensive approach that has sought unity... not in some to-be-defined covenant process with its vagueness and unspecified relational consequences... but a unity in Christ and in the one Covenant that draws all Christians to communion in the end: the body and blood of Jesus Christ, whose life, and sacrifice, and death, and resurrection draws us towards that shared and common life that is the eternal life we have in Christ.

While the truth is that the Anglican Communion consists of Christians with many and varied approaches to Scripture, and those Christians, not the domain of a single Province, but spread across the World; and though there is indeed diversity in views; there is a humility in recognising that people may hold divergent views in an integrity of faith. And that, instead of trying to exclude those with different views to our own, we should focus... not on a process and procedures to govern compliance to an as-yet-undefined standard of Scripture, with as-yet-undefined sanctions for dissenting integrities... but rather we should focus on getting on with mission and living the gospel in out own localities, in our own good faith, and with all the variations of expression that one would expect in a colourful, variant and diverse world.

And that we should seek to live our faith, not judging others’ efforts to do the same, but trusting in the God who in Christ we find to be our life, our unity and our hope.

"To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly."

I don't have a clue what he means by "tie our hands". The Commmunion's hands? The C of E's hands? And tie them in what way?

Somebody help me out here. Am I just being dense?

Am I just being dense?

John, I don't think so. The statement makes no sense to me, either. Perhaps, the ABC means that one ties one's own hands, which is no mean feat.

June Butler