NEW PRO-COVENANT WEBSITE

The recent weekend sweep of four dioceses in the Church of England voting against adoption of the Anglican Covenant may have inspired the creation of the website Yes to the Covenant. The content of the site is thin gruel at the moment, but, of course, the site is new, and perhaps their gruel will thicken, given time.

Themethatisme who blogs at conscientisation posted his 'initial reactions' to the reasons given on the website for 'Why we need an Anglican Covenant', which I believe are quite good. He may post 'something a tad more erudite' later, but I'm pleased I caught his early responses because I may not be able to comprehend his later, more erudite responses.

Adrian Worsfold, who blogs at Pluralist Speaks, is no longer a member of the Anglican family, but he does our work for us in his post on the new website. Adrian writes about the repeated references to the Anglican Communion as a worldwide church or global church.

The communion is not now and has never been a worldwide church. Just because pro-covenant people call the Anglican Communion a church doesn't make it so.

IS THE ANGLICAN COVENANT THE BEST WAY FORWARD? REALLY?

Mark Harris at Preludium directs our attention to the three videos from the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO) in defense of the Anglican Covenant. The first video is here. Links to the other two may be found at Preludium.

Below is the commentary that accompanies the video:

In this video, members of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO http://bit.ly/wIPVqK) reflect on the Sections of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The members include:
- The Revd Canon Dr Sarah Rowland Jones, Anglican Church of Southern Africa
- The Rt Revd Kumara Ilangasinghe, recently retired Bishop of Kurunagala, Church of Ceylon
- The Rt Revd William Mchombo, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
- The Rt Revd Dr Howard Gregory, Bishop of Jamaica & The Cayman Islands, The Church in the Province of the West Indies
- The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, The Episcopal Church

Mark points out the irony of Dr Katherine Grieb's presence in the video.

Professor Grieb is herself now a consultant to IASCUFO rather than a full member precisely because of the "consequences" of The Episcopal Church's actions, and was done in ways similar to that provided for in Section Four.It is quite interesting, perhaps ironic, that she is in this video at all, what with her relation to a church so questionable that she is reduced to consultant status simply because she belongs to that church.

So. Because of the naughtiness of the Episcopal Church in ordaining gay bishops, Dr Grieb is already sidelined in the committee by some authority or other in the Anglican Communion, and yet she tells us not to worry. The covenant will apply to the church 'just as we are'. But, as Mark says further:

The real question IS about the future. If we sign or not, "where do we go from here?" If we sign, we will surely be disciplined and / or politically pressured and we will fight against that and be called divisive. If we do not, we will surely be called divisive for not signing.

To me, adopting or not adopting the proposed Anglican Covenant looks more and more like a Catch-22 situation for the Episcopal Church.

A further irony is that the videos were produced by (IASCUFO), a committee which is under the authority of the Anglican Communion Office, which is funded by all of the provinces in the Communion. Why then are the reflections in the videos entirely pro-covenant? If each province must decide whether to adopt the covenant or not, there is the possibility that not all will decide to adopt. Wouldn't it be fairer to present both pro and con material on whether the proposed covenant is the proper solution to the present disagreements in the Anglican Communion? Is no one at all on the committee entertaining doubts about whether the best way forward is to draw provinces of the communion together by exclusion or reduction to a lower status of certain present member provinces?

Have I mentioned that the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order reminds me of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which began life as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition? I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental.

JONATHAN CLATWORTHY ON THE PAPER DOLL

At Modern Church, Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary to the organization, wrote an excellent response to Peter Doll's inaccurate and downright insulting essay on the Episcopal Church in the United States and its relationship to the Anglican Communion and to the proposed Anglican Covenant. Doll is originally from the US, but he has served in the Church of England since his ordination. Still, Doll claims to know the church which he says nurtured him well. Peter Doll is Canon Librarian at Norwich Cathedral in England, therefore one would expect the fruits of his personal knowledge and research to exhibit a result that paints an accurate and evenhanded picture of the Episcopal Church, rather than the biased views expressed in the essay.

Keep in mind that Clatworthy is English and that it is entirely possible to arrive at a more realistic and balanced view of the Episcopal Church from across the big pond in the Green and Pleasant Land. That Doll's paper was sent to all the bishops in the Church of England with the stamp of approval from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is astounding to me.

Wait! On second thought, as I remember certain of Rowan's statements about the Episcopal Church, I am not so surprised, because Doll and Rowan come to seem more like birds of a feather, which makes me even more grateful for Clatworthy's admirable rebuttal.

I met Jonathan when I was in England, and we had a wonderful, long, chatty lunch in London between his trains, and I speak from personal knowledge when I say that he's all right.

Disclosure: Jonathan and I are both members of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.

Jonathan Clatworthy lives in Liverpool and is Modern Church General Secretary. He has worked as a parish priest, university chaplain and lecturer in Ethics.

'CHURCH OF ENGLAND REPORTS ON ACNA'

From Thinking Anglicans:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

18. We would, therefore, encourage an open-ended engagement with ACNA on the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet, especially given the strong feelings on all sides of the debate in North America.

19. The Church of England remains fully committed to the Anglican Communion and to being in communion both with the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church (TEC). In addition, the Synod motion has given Church of England affirmation to the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the Anglican famil

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

There you have it. Nothing to see here. Move along.

THE VIRTUE OF MINDING ONE'S OWN BUSINESS

Everyone who's anyone, and I mean everyone, has picked up Tobias Haller's reminder of the Encyclical letter of the 1878 Lambeth Conference, section 1.5 titled Those Were the Days (Lambeth 1878).

There are certain principles of church order which, your Committee consider, ought to be distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion.

1. First, that the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members.

2. Secondly, that when a diocese, or territorial sphere of administration, has been constituted by the authority of any Church or province of this Communion within its own limits, no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.

3. Thirdly, that no bishop should authorise to officiate in his diocese a clergyman coming from another Church or province, unless such clergyman present letters testimonial, countersigned by the bishop of the diocese from which he comes; such letters to be, as nearly as possible, in the form adopted by such Church or province in the case of the transfer of a clergyman from one diocese to another.

For well over 100 years, the churches of the Anglican Communion lived according to the rules listed in the section of the encyclical quoted above, with the churches joined one to the other in the mutual bonds of affection, but with respect to polity and governance, the various churches practiced the good old-fashioned virtue of minding their own business and not intruding into the affairs of other churches without permission.

See what Tobias says about the application of the rules in the encyclical in the Anglican Communion today.

LIFTING THE BAN

From the AP via The Huffington Post:

Marine Gen. James F. Amos, the face of opposition in the military to lifting the ban on gays serving openly, now acknowledges his concern has proven unfounded that repeal would undermine the war effort. In fact, he says, Marines have embraced the change.

In an Associated Press interview, Amos called the repeal in September "a non-event."

That is in contrast to his cautionary words to Congress in December 2010, shortly before President Barack Obama signed the repeal legislation. The ban was not lifted until this year to allow the Pentagon to prepare troops for the change.

"Successfully implementing repeal and assimilating openly homosexual Marines into the tightly woven fabric of our combat units has strong potential for disruption at the small unit level as it will no doubt divert leadership attention away from an almost singular focus on preparing units for combat," Amos testified. Still, he said at the time that if the law were changed, it would be faithfully followed by Marines.

He now sees no sign of disruption in the ranks – even on the front lines.

"I'm very pleased with how it has gone," Amos said during a weeklong trip that included four days in Afghanistan, where he heard nary a word of worry about gays. During give-and-take sessions with Marines serving on in Helmand province, he was asked about a range of issues, including the future of the Corps – but not one about gays.

Jim Naughton at The Lead says:

You have lived to see the day on which the commander of the U. S. Marine Corps sounds more irenic about the future of LGBT people within his organization that the Archbishop of Canterbury does about the future of LGBT people within his.

What an embarrassment! Are you embarrased? I know I am.

The Church of England and the Anglican Communion have experimented with 'Don't ask; don't tell' for ages now. Isn't the time ripe to move forward?

Note to the Archbishop of Canterbury: Tell it to the Commandant of the Marines.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO US!

Statue of Richard Hooker in front of Exeter Cathedral.

O God of truth and peace, who raised up your servant Richard Hooker in a day of bitter controversy to defend with sound reasoning and great charity the catholic and reformed religion: Grant that we may maintain that middle way, not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen

From Lionel Deimel at Comprehensive Unity, The No Anglican Covenant Blog:

A year ago today, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition announced that it had come on the scene to defeat adoption of the Anglican Covenant. The date of November 3 was chosen because it is the day that Anglicans remember Richard Hooker, that quintessential Anglican theologian who, we believed, would be appalled at the direction the Anglican Communion seemed to be headed.

As the Coalition celebrates its first birthday, there is cause for both optimism and concern. The program to impose a repressive covenant on worldwide Anglicanism has lost momentum. Few churches have adopted it, and some of those that have have framed their actions in ways that undermine the intent of the proposed agreement. The GAFCON churches have largely rejected the Covenant as inadequate, and many Western churches are expected to reject it as too intrusive. The Covenant is not dead, but it is severely wounded.
....

Much has been accomplished in the past year, and there is reason to believe that the Anglican Covenant will never become the Anglican straightjacket that threatened to constrain Anglican thought and action. Defeating the Covenant is, nonetheless, an ongoing task. Re-imagining the Anglican Communion to allow it to move forward as an instrument of God’s grace and mercy in the twenty-first century will be an even more daunting enterprise. It is a task about which Anglicans everywhere should be thinking and praying.

Read the post in its entirety at the link above.

Photo of the Richard Hooker statue from Wikipedia.

A VISION OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION?

James Ussher, Irish primate and Archbishop of Armagh by Sir Peter Lely - National Portrait Gallery, London

[Archbishop of Canterbury William] Laud's interference in the affairs of the Church of Ireland, aided by [King]Charles [I]'s high-handed Lord Deputy in Ireland, Thomas Wentworth, Lord Strafford, likewise angered the Irish primate, James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh. Ussher was a rare figure as a member of an old Irish family which had become firmly Protestant, for the established Church had failed to carry more than a minority of the people of Ireland with it away from Catholicism. He is now unfairly remembered only for the misguided humanist historical precision of his calculation that God created the world on the night preceding 23 October 4004 BCE, but he was a formidable scholar who wanted to defend the independence of his Protestant Church. Ussher knew the Irish Church's weakness was the result of a badly funded and badly administered Reformation, in a country in which English colonial interference produced a state of permanent crisis, but nevertheless he saw it as a potential vehicle of proper Reformation in Ireland. He was very consciously part of an international Reformed Protestant world, but in his discreet efforts to maintain his position against Archbishop Laud, Ussher might also be seen as the first senior churchman to have a vision of episcopally governed sister Churches which might cooperate in a common identity across national boundaries, without any single leader to tell them what to do. Without knowing the later phrase, he was envisioning the worldwide Anglican Communion. (My emphasis)

Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch, p. 651.

I must say that I was pretty excited when I read the paragraph above. Archbishop Ussher was a true visionary way back in the 18th century. At present, we're still fighting the battle to resist the Archbishop of Canterbury's attempt to force the centralization of power on the churches in the communion with the Anglican Covenant.

Image from Wikipedia Commons.

ON CHECKING THE DRIFT IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION

Lionel Deimel struck gold. At least, I think he has with the statement by Bishop John Akao, chair of the Church of Nigeria Theological Resource group, on the original intention of the Anglican Covenant in the Church Times. (Not yet online, but David Virtue posted the statement in its entirety.)

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was suggested by the Global South to check the drift of some members especially in TEC and Canada as well as some other parts of Europe like Germany and Britain in the wake of revisionist agenda manifested radically by the recognition of same -sex relationships by the Church, especially the consecration of two same-sex practitioners as bishops in The Episcopal Church of America.

Aside: Are "same-sex practitioners" members of a new medical specialty of which I've never heard?

The Global South's intention was to "check the drift" in certain churches in the Anglican Communion with the Anglican Covenant. How does one "check the drift" without consequences? Indaba is not what the Global South had in mind.

The bishop has no kind words for the Episcopal Church:

The offending TEC remained defiant and recalcitrant despite series of appeals and resolutions. This attitude of TEC to the entire Communion smacks of arrogance and colonial mentality against the African voice.

Read the quote from Bishop Akao's statement at Lionel's blog as to why the Anglican Covenant is no longer acceptable to the Global South, along with Lionel's commentary.

The original intention of the Anglican Covenant was to force the churches in the Communion into compliance with "the faith handed down", as certain member churches interpreted the faith. Let's not forget that the disciplinary consequences for non-compliance are still present in the final draft of the covenant, admittedly in a softened form, in the objectionable Section 4.

ON PROPAGATING CHANGE

From Bishop Gregory Cameron's article in support of the adoption of the Anglican Covenant by the churches in the Anglican Communion in Search; a Church of Ireland Journal:

Whilst this report criticises those who have propagated change without sufficient regard to the common life of the Communion, it has to be recognised that debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion. (The Windsor Report, para. 146)

And who are "those who have propagated change"?

Paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report states:

One of the deepest realities that the Communion faces is continuing difference on the presenting issue of ministry by and to persons who openly engage in sexually active homosexual relationships.

Could the answer be the Episcopal Church?

I must take issue with the phrase "have propagated change". The Episcopal Church has instituted changes within our own church that certain other churches deem offensive and unacceptable, but we have not pushed changes on other churches in the communion.

prop·a·gate - To cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread.

In my dreams, as an experiment, I'd like to see the Episcopal Church step back from official participation in the affairs of the AC for a season and watch to see if those who have absented themselves from communion gatherings return to the fold and if perfect peace descends upon the Anglican Communion once our troublesome presence is gone.

I'm sick to death of being blamed for all the troubles in the Anglican Communion, as well as the suggestions that we must be disciplined for our wayward ways, or, as others phrase it, lets "spank the Yank".

I'll leave it to my betters to take up the rebuttal of Bp Cameron's push for the adoption of the Anglican Covenant it's entirety, but I could not resist saying my piece on the accusation of propagating changes.

DRIVEN BY FEAR

Malcolm+ posted at the No Anglican Covenant blog on the information coming from The Anglican Communion Office, Lambeth Palace, and Church House in Westminster:

So much of what has been driving the machinations of international Anglicanism over the past 15 years or so has been rooted in fear—fear of women, fear of LGBTQTS, fear of modernity, fear of post-modernity, fear of the loss of privilege, fear of the loss of power and influence.
....

Sadly, that is the point we’ve now reached in international Anglicanism, and in the deliberations on the proposed Anglican Covenant. Full and fair debate is no longer on the table—at least at the Anglican Communion Office, Lambeth Palace, or Church House in Westminster.

Read the rest at the NAC site.

Malcolm+ blogs at Simple Massing Priest.

I'M STILL ON SABBATICAL...

...from matters Anglican, but Paul Bagshaw, at Not the Same Stream, is not. His latest post titled "End Game" begins:

I am now confident that, at last, we have finally come to the beginning of the end of the schism in Anglicanism, though not in a way I had anticipated.

Enough to whet your appetite?

And if you look at the picture, which I lifted from Paul's blog, of the primates who attended the Primates' Meeting, you see that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori does not put herself forward at picture-taking time. There she be, in the background, one woman amongst the men, but I believe she more than holds her own in the meetings.

DEFINE THE LIMITS OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION?

From Anglicans United comes a report on the Mere Anglicanism Conference in Charleston, SC.

In the "About" link on the home page of Anglicans United is the following:

Purpose: to grow a faithful church for the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while forming Christian disciples in the evangelical, catholic and reformed Anglican way.

Anglicans United traces its roots to the 3R’s Conference held in Winter Park, Florida in January of 1986. The conference brought together evangelicals, charismatics and broad-church traditional Episcopalians who shared a growing sense of alarm at the continuing moral and doctrinal slide of their Church.

Opposed to moral and doctrinal relativism, the conference highlighted the Revelation of God in the Scriptures, and called for the Renewal of God’s people. Alarmed by trends within the denomination, everyone saw the need for Reformation. The conference ended with the issuance of a 3R’s Statement and publication of a book, “The Gospel Conspiracy in the Episcopal Church”, written by the Rev. Charles Irish and the Rt. Rev. Michael Marshall.

Alarm! Alarm!

This is the first I hear of Anglicans United, or, if I have heard of them previously, I've forgotten. Perhaps, I'm derelict in not knowing or remembering.

The Mere Anglicanism conference appears to be sponsored by the Diocese of South Carolina. (Note the absence of "Episcopal" in the name of the diocese.)

The theme for the 2011 Mere Anglicanism Conference, which will be held January 20-22 is "Biblical Anglicanism for a Global Future: Recovering the Power of the Word."

At the conference, Abp. Mouneer Anis, Cairo, Egypt, the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East and the Diocese of Egypt, gave the main address, titled “Recovering the Power of the Word for the Anglican Communion”. The entire text of the address may be found at Anglicans United.

The archbishop spoke first about the recent New Year's Eve bombing in Alexandria.

This year the bomb happened in the New Year’s Eve service 2011, as they were coming out of the church this bombing took place. It shook the nation, as well as the moderate Muslims as well. We are not used to this. We are a peaceful nation and this happening is upsetting many Christians. Something good may come out of this. Many moderate Muslims condemned this and speak of the right of the Christians to be there and worship. I want you to pray that the Church will continue to speak in love. The Church in Egypt was founded on the blood of the martyrs. Pray for us. We are not afraid and are ready to die for the sake of Jesus Christ in Egypt.

Yes. Please pray for peace between Christians and Muslims in Egypt and other countries in Africa and the Middle East.

Then, Abp. Anis spoke about faithfulness to the Word of God, meaning the Bible. He says the following in reference to the Lambeth Conference 1888: Resolution 11.1 “The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary to salvation”:

We were formed as a Biblical Communion. We are commanded to read and interpret Scripture together in order to define the limits of Anglican Communion in regard to the interpretation of Scripture. I believe we are far from that. If we followed what our predecessors decreed since 1888, we would not be an impaired, dysfunctional Communion today.

Um - no. To set limits to who is in the family of the Anglican Communion, and who is out, according to a certain group's ideas of the proper interpretation of Scripture seems quite un-Anglican, if one knows even a little of the history of the Anglican Communion.

Later, in the Q&A period, Abp. Anis gave the following response to a question about the upcoming Primates Meeting:

With the regard of the upcoming Primate’s meeting, (Dublin, Ireland Jan 25-30, 2011) we are not boycotting. Many have said that we are boycotting this meeting. We however are not attending.

Why? Because we did ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to follow up on the recommendations of the previous meeting (Dar es Salaam, 2006; no meeting was held in 2008 because of the Lambeth Conference). At that meeting we discussed, decided and recommended actions. This was never done. It is time for decisions after comprehensive discussion.

For this meeting, we received an invitation to sit in 2 separate rooms: the revisionists in one and the Global South in another. This is a joke. We were not given a chance to affect the process and have some ownership of the meeting. When we are given that opportunity, we will attend.

Can the invitations really have gone out inviting the Primates to meet in separate rooms?

Back in October of 2010, David Anderson of the American Anglican Council gave the following opinion on the arrangements for the Primates Meeting:

Dr. Williams is being advised that numerous provinces won't attend the Primates Meeting if Jefferts Schori attends. Having booked the venue, he might as well have the meeting since he is committed to paying for it, but without the orthodox Primates in attendance it could be a dangerous meeting, giving opinion and credence to teachings and beliefs that are not representative of orthodox Anglicanism.

If asked my opinion, I would strongly advise the orthodox Primates to 1) organize before the Primates' meeting, and 2) attend and remove by force of numbers the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church (not physically, but by either voting her off the "island," or recessing to another room and not letting her in). The meeting is a place to gather and potentially to settle some of the issues that are pulling the Anglican Communion apart, and to begin to restore health to a most wonderful communion.

Can it be that Abp. Rowan Williams took David Anderson's idea of meeting in separate rooms and ran with it? I don't have the answer, but I'd like to know.

And the bishops are not boycotting the Primates Meeting; they are just not attending, because Abp. Williams has not followed through on recommended actions. I'm guessing Abp. Anis refers to actions not taken by Abp. Williams to discipline certain member provinces of the AC. And it seems that Abp. Anis was offended, rather than appeased, by the invitation to meet in separate rooms - if such is the case of the invitations going out as the archbishop describes them.

If this post seems rambling, bear with me. I'm writing in part to try to get the groups and their shenanigans straight in my head, and I'm not sure I succeeded.

H/T to Simon Sarmiento Thinking Anglicans.

Stephen Colbert On The Anglican Communion

The Colbert Report
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Colbert Report on Facebook

Other bloggers, Klady, Fran, and Elizabeth have posted or linked to this video, but I could not resist. Stephen solves all the problems in the Anglican Communion over at Comedy Central. Why isn't he at Lambeth to share his wisdom with the bishops?

UPDATE: Malcolm+ says that Canadians can view the video here.