so one conclusion and one question: 1) this is like a 'fractured fairy tlaes/ecclesial version of 'the emperor has no clothes' and 2) who's going to point that out to brother grimmm ... I mean +rowan???

susan russell

I guess you could always do the "we'll sign it if you sign it" thing! So if the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church, and the Church of England are not signatories of the Covenant, exactly what sort of Anglican Covenant is it? Covenant of the Formerly Colonial?

++KJS, are you and the Executive Council paying attention to this? And how about you who will be attending GC '09?

Richard Warren

Not quite "the Formerly Colonial," since the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada fall into that category. This whole debacle is the result of over-defining the relationships among the formerly autonomous national churches founded by the Church of England and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. As the instruments of unity were spelled out the door was opened for some to see this as a membership structure which has a kind of magisterium and which can dictate right belief and right practice. That, in turn, left the door open for certain church leaders (read Primates and some bishops)to turn the definition of orthodoxy and orthopraxy into a political power struggle with those having the largest plurality or the largest majority having the right to define for the rest what will be the beliefs and practices of the church. In turn, that hegemony also would carry the right of exclusion where there are deviations from the defined norms.

Something about all this echoes the doctrinal squabbles of the Athanasian period. The majority defines and the rest are required to fall in line. (see Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God for the most lucid description of these doctrinal struggles. Much clearer than J.N.D. Kelly).

It reminds me somehow of a much less important matter closer to home. Back some 30 years or more clergy began agitating to have contracts so parishes would not shortchange them. No sooner did they succeed in getting these contracts (abetted then and now required by some dioceses), than they woke up and realized that they were now regarded as employees, subject to constant review and being fired. This, was hardly their aim.

So it is with over defining the bonds of unity.
What once was a bond of love, historical loyal,ty and fealty has become a more and more a legal relationship and one which aspires to define and exclude.

Without reflection we walked into this state of affairs with our eyes open but our judgment on hold and it has come back to bite us. We need with some contrition to back out and return to the status quo ante. If others choose to go off and organize themselves into some other kind of association, let them do that. At least we will not be subject to their whims and ambitions.

Brother Warren, do not fear. Deputies are certainly alert on this.

I don't think this will be an issue per se next summer. Although some will agitate otherwise, I expect most Deputies will agree with the PB that anything worth thinking about is worth thinking about for three years. And over three years, as the scholar said in the story, "the king may die, or I may die; or the ass may learn to talk."

Now that I'm NOT trying to comment on my PDA in an airport, let me try that one again:

So one conclusion and one question: 1) CONCLUSION: this is like a 'Fractured Fairy Tales/ecclesial version of 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' and 2) QUESTION: who's going to point that out to Brother Grimm ... I mean +Rowan???

(Not to mention the conundrum of noting that the Gregory Venables and Ephraim Radner are the foxes in charge of the Covenant Chicken Coop ... come on, people ... wake up and smell the coffee -- and then let's throw a little more tea in the harbor and move on with the mission and ministry of the church!)

susan russell

This is wonderful! It's the best news I've heard in a long time. I can hardly believe it's true. How did the ABC miss this?

June Butler

I'm hurt.

I've been noting this irony in several different places for some time now.

Malcolm French

Malcolm, I've wondered how the Covenant would work with the reigning monarch as the head of the Church of England. And I've pondered whether permission to sign would need to be approved by the British Parliament, but I thought I must be missing something. I didn't speak up, but now I see I should have.

June Butler

I'm the person who asked the question... I have to say I was surprised at the answer. I had expected complete obscurity, not this kind of gratifying, if unwitting, clarity.

However, I would say that the response makes it clear that the problem with the Church of England and a Covenant from the legal point of view only applies to a Covenant with a disciplinary mechanism attached. Some sort of motherhood and apple pie statement of general niceness would be fine. It's also not really true at the moment that Archbishop Rowan is asking everybody else to sign up to something the C. of E. can't sign, as there is no final draft yet - the problems will come if it takes the sort of form that the Gafcon crowd seem to want.

As a final thought, I would suggest that Tom's comment is absolutely right - if the C of E doesn't sign up, then it's not an Anglican Covenant. End of story.

Justin Brett