Paul, I commend you on the clarity of your breakdown on what I choose to call the awfulness of Part 4 of the Daft Covenant.
I've said elsewhere that while many of us see no need for an Anglican Covenant, at least some of us could perhaps live with the first three sections. Part 4, with its snatching away of autonomy from member churches and its punitive consequences for those churches who don't have their doctrinal and practical ducks lined up in a proper row, is the section that is unacceptable as it's now presented. That the Daft Covenant is declared to be not subject to amendment, means that only a yea or nay vote on the document as submitted is all that is possible.
The emblem on my sidebar clearly sends the message that I see no need for an Anglican Covenant. The Anglican Communion has held together without a Covenant since 1867. Why now? If common worship and the bonds of affection will not hold us together, if, indeed, the bonds of affection are already severed in the case of several churches of the Communion with respect to several other churches, how will the Covenant restore the bonds? Will expelling members from the Communion or demoting them to second tier membership serve the purpose? As I see it, the Covenant as is now written is a set-up for accusations by one or more provinces against one or more other provinces with the consequent wrangling amongst the membership as to whether the actions (and teachings?) of a particular province should result in expulsion from the Communion or demotion from full membership.
But I digress. Forgive me for taking off on my own away from the subject of Paul's post, the legal fiction of the Covenant. For me, the Covenant is one of the subjects about which I say, "Don't get me started!" To put it simply, those who will share Communion at the Lord's table are those who are in communion with each other.
Please read Paul's post. As he says, "The fiction is that no Covenant signatory is in any way subordinated to an external body."
You asked "The Anglican Communion has held together without a Covenant since 1867. Why now?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps because we have not yet quite realized that all historic institutions are under a great deal of pressure and have little or no 'authority' or authenticity presently --or, as it appears, in the coming days.... and the Daft Covenant is a desperate move to try to duct-tape the Communion together, hoping this is what will make it survive, when in all actuality, something quite different is needed.
What that something is, --I am not sure. As my blessed father-in-law said, I don't know what it is, but that ain't it... I am keeping my eyes open for the signs.... if you know what I mean...!
I don't know what it is, but that ain't it...
ReplyDeleteRight, Margaret.
See Tobias Haller's latest post, Too Dangerous to Play At.