Friday, September 25, 2009

"Why No Anglican Covenant: Part 2"

Lionel Deimel, following upon his previous essays No Anglican Covenant and Why No Anglican Covenant: Part 1, gives us his third word on the Covenant. Links for the two earlier posts are at his blog.

In his opening paragraph, Lionel says:

There is much to be said about what is in the Ridley Cambridge Draft proposed as an Anglican covenant. Too little attention has been paid to what is not in the draft, however. In this essay, I want to discuss an important provision that is missing.

Further along Lionel notes a curious silence about about a certain matter:

It is curious that “orthodox” elements of the Communion continue to advocate the three moratoria while conspicuously ignoring ongoing (and expanding) incursions. It is also curious that the proposed covenant, while requiring churches to do and to believe all manner of things, is silent on the matter of not messing in the affairs of sister Communion churches. Perhaps that is because the purpose of the covenant is to mess in the affairs of other churches.

Lionel's final paragraph is worth the price of admission, so I'm not giving it away. The cost is a simple click over to his site to read the essay. You won't be sorry.

8 comments:

  1. He is so right! The purpose is to mess with sister communion churches!

    ReplyDelete
  2. And why no rules in the Covenant about incursions into the territory of other provinces?

    ReplyDelete
  3. See paragraphs 1.2.7 and 3.2.2. These are directed against incursions and other disrespectful canonical irregularities.

    Lionel continues to think that the Covenant is about the past. It isn't. It is about the future. That doesn't mean it will be successful, but it is off point to see it solely in terms of the "moratoria."

    OCICBW.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tobias, you and I so seldom disagree, but in this instance, we do. The statements you reference are not explicit enough to suit me.

    I'd like to be more hopeful about the future of the Anglican Communion as we know it, but I see it as pretty well finished. Of course, informal relationships will continue as before.

    In my conversation with Bp. Michael Smith of ND (one of the seven who met with the ABC) in New Orleans, he wants it not to be easy for progressives (for lack of a better word) to sign on. If it's easy for us, then we probably should not sign. It's true as others have said, that many on the conservative side do not want us to sign the covenant, but that, in itself, is not reason enough for us to sign on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Mimi, I know we disagree on this, and please know I have no ill feelings on that account. I just wish more progressives could understand that the Covenant isn't about punishing TEC any more. That was the early draft, which almost no one would have signed on to, including England.

    As to the WWAC as we knew it -- it IS finished. The far-right provinces have walked apart -- they will not sign the Covenant. I think TEC could well join the moderate provinces that remain, and make something of this.

    Or we can go with the second-track model, disengage from all but those who want to partner with us -- which would still be a good portion of the Communion. We'll still be "Anglican" but less connected.

    Ultimately it isn't about us alone, but about us and them -- and only about us in relationship with them.

    I'm not saying, "Sign." I'm saying, we should keep our eyes open and critique the real issues. My objection to Lionel's essay is that he's addressing issues that are really already off the table as far as the Communion is concerned. The interventions won't stop because the intervening churches aren't part of the Windsor Process -- which they aren't, because they are in violation. They won't sign the Covenant. But if we don't sign either, we leave the door open for them -- exactly what they want.

    I see signing on as a remedy to piracy. And I see the Covenant as primarily about hopes, not discipline. As I said to Simon and Giles last week, the WWAC doesn't have a standing army -- everything about this will be voluntary, based on willingness to live together and consult and share more widely. I think if the Covenant had been in place 20 years ago we would be where we are now with much greater understanding -- because we would have been able to do the listening mandated since 1978, but with no mechanism to undertake it!

    I definitely see the glass as half full. But perhaps my optimism is misplaced, and you may be right. But as my old pastoral theology teacher used to say, in facing anxiety, "What's the worst that could happen? ... And what would you do?"

    Be well, dear Grandmère! Je regret que de temps en temps je semble fou...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Non, non! Pas fou, mon cher Tobias. Peut-être tu as le droit d'avoir l'espoir.

    (In great hope that I'm not butchering the French beyond recognition!)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tobias,

    I don’t often disagree with you, but your optimism, in my view, borders on the irresponsible. Recognize that this is coming from someone who has lived through schism initiated by the militant traditionalists who show no sign of abandoning their program of Anglican World domination. (And, no, I did consider this statement alarmist or exaggerated.)

    Maybe the provisions you cite in the draft covenant refer to border crossings; maybe they don’t. How can we tell? Like most of the covenant, they are too vague to be useful for anything but starting, not settling, arguments.

    If, as you suggest, the militant traditionalists have already “walked apart,” why do even need the covenant?

    I simply don’t understand how the covenant is going to help do anything except waste our resources when we should be using them to spread the gospel and ameliorate suffering.

    What do you see as the end game here?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lionel, I think your having lived in a place like Pittsburgh has exacerbated your sensitivity to issues which actually no longer form a part of the discussion. Duncan is not a "Windsor Bishop" however much he may claim so. ACNA was not a creation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Etc. You are at the vortex of the spin-cycle, and are understandably concerned, but from a broader perspective, particularly an international one, in short, "The Covenant is not about TEC."

    As I noted, the militant conservatives are no longer part of the real Covenant process. Their pet has had its teeth pulled, and they will not be permitted to grow back. It will not be used to the end they desired, i.e., the excision of TEC.

    Of what use is it, then? Much -- precisely to help the remaining real Anglicans continue to do the work of the gospel, including corporal works of mercy, more effectively and with greater confidence and mutual trust -- a confidence that was shattered not by the actions of TEC or ACoC, but by the deliberate program of a small group of schismatical US bishops stirring up flames in the Global South. The flames are now petering out, the embers may still glow, but the work of the real Communion needs to go on. See the Covenant as a means forward, to help repair the tears made by those who actually made them: including Gomez and Wright. They are now trying to continue their programs of excision, but are no longer taken seriously. Just because they still pitch the Covenant as a coercive engine is no reason for us to believe them.

    With apologies to our gracious host Mimi for intruding this discussion too much into your living room!

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.