Thinking Anglicans posted "On the Archbishop’s Reflections", a joint statement by 13 groups in the Church of England. This appears to be the completed text of the draft which Ruth Gledhill speaks of in her blog post yesterday.
TA's version includes an additional paragraph on the covenant, which is rather startling to me.
We will work to ensure that if the Church of England is to sign up to the Covenant, it has potential for rapid progress on this and other issues. We find the notion of a “two track communion” flawed in the way that the Act of Synod is flawed, and we commit ourselves to continuing the effort to find ways forward through which those who disagree profoundly on this and on other issues can continue to celebrate their common membership of the Church of England and unity in Christ.
What are they thinking?
Pluralist parses the reflection on the reflection. His commentary is quite good, especially on the reference in the statement to the covenant.
Mimi, I know we disagree on this, but I too think the best way forward is a Covenant of some sort -- the exact form of which is yet to be seen. The real troublemakers -- GAFCON & Co. -- have made it clear they are not for a covenant unless it excludes TEC -- the ACI makes a similar case in its attack on Mark Harris today. So the surest way to disarm them is to sign on. That will effectively force them either to play fair or continue to try to take their ball and go home.
ReplyDeleteI'm pursuing more intently trying to model the Covenant along Benedictine lines -- where it is a document all agree to live by, with no mechanism for anyone outside any individual province to say to another -- you aren't keeping the rules. The rule should be kept out of Conscience and Belief. Such a common Rule (expanding on the Lambeth Quadrilateral) would not, to my mind, be a bad thing. And only open minded people would sign on to it -- which at this point I think is two-thirds of the communion. The split is between them and GAFCON.
Perhaps this comes in part from my belief in Rules (i.e., as in religious orders). Adrian comes from a very different perspective, not liking rules of this sort, and finding them counterproductive. So we come from very different angles.
My perspective is that thought the Covenant tree grows from manure, it may bear good fruit. The important thing is to see what the final text actually says and requires before nixing the whole idea just because it had a bad and stinking start. Things can get better through a process of critique and examination. The very fact that GAFCON and ACI are so against the "watered down" Covenant is to me a commendation! THey are not getting what they wanted -- which is good news, I think.
Tobias, I'm not a rule person, either. The fewer, the better, except for those necessary for safety and good order. I would have made terrible member of a religious order. I'm not proud of that, but it's true.
ReplyDeleteI understand that others may be comfortable with more rules than I, and so long as the rules seem reasonable, I won't be a vocal opponent. However, I can't envision a covenant along Benedictine lines coming out of the draft process. I can't see anything coming out of that process that wouldn't make us hypocrites if we sign on. There must be a big slice of something that I'm missing.
What influence will you have on the wording of the covenant before you are possibly asked to vote for or against it as a delegate to the next convention, probably with no opportunity to amend the document? I confess that I don't understand your optimism.
But I loves ya anyway.
Well, Mimi, I do understand, and that doesn't lessen the respect I hold for you, Adrian, or others who don't want much in the way of rules. I really don't want much either, but a few basic rules would be good. Such as "No meddling in the internal affairs of other provinces." I think that's a good rule, and one that GAFCON disobey, in spite of the fact that it's already as much on the books as possible. (Tradition, the canons of the early church, and previous Lambeth resolutions -- not that I give too much weight to the latter, but they are there...)
ReplyDeleteAs to influence, as I understand it, the draft of the covenant as it stands is "out for review" by the provinces. I've not seen any official responses yet, just the general comments from GAFCON that it is inadequate, and several others at the ACC that got part 4 removed for further work. In the meantime, I think it is good to look at the actual wording of what we've got in the first three parts, and make specific critiques. I plan to do that, officially as a deputy, when time comes, and probably informally before that.
I favor a "loose" covenant, with lots of space for growth and a strong prohibition on intervention from outside. I think that could work.
In the meantiome, luv ya too!
Such as "No meddling in the internal affairs of other provinces." I think that's a good rule, and one that GAFCON disobey, in spite of the fact that it's already as much on the books as possible.
ReplyDeleteI think that's a good rule, too.
As to the draft being "out for review", I understood that the first three parts were not open to amendment, that they must be accepted as is. That being said, I'm glad to hear that you will be critiquing the first three parts, both officially and unofficially.