Kearon does not explicitly say that the covenant was rejected in the dioceses in the Church of England. He speaks simply of "today's news" and notes, "What next steps are taken by the Church of England is up to that Province." Nor does Kearon mention that the Episcopal Church in the Philippines rejected the proposed covenant. Despite the rejection of the covenant by "that province" (Church of England), the provinces in the Communion which have not yet declared their positions are encouraged to carry on with consideration of the covenant.
According to the text of the proposed covenant:
(4.1.6) This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant.Now that the 'mother' church has rejected the covenant, I wonder if the provinces that have already signed on are asking themselves, "Where do we go from here?" The covenant states only the following:
(4.2.1) The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates' Meeting, or any body that succeeds it, shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion.There is no prescribed time limit for adopting the covenant, nor is there a requirement for a specific number of provinces to sign on before the document is in effect.
As for Kearon, he wants the so called "covenant" and any thing he says is going to be propaganda. The CoE did say "no" and he cannot spin the votes as a "well, perhaps" no matter how he tries. He is out of touch with the reality of the situation and the reality of the way the Communion feels about foreign interloping into internal affairs.
ReplyDeleteJames, exactly. No one should be deluded into thinking the ACO is impartial in its press releases on the covenant.
ReplyDeletePS: I think it's called spin.
ReplyDeleteJust like some of the CofE Bishops, he is out of touch with what is going on in National provinces. Perhaps we need a new Secretary General for the Anglican Communion as well as ABC.
ReplyDeleteThey can bugger off and do their own thing or rescind it?
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure the thing is quite completely dead in England yet. However, it's rejection at this point may well lead Southern Africa not to give final approval later this year. I don't think TEC is going to adopt. The English action may well have a chilling effect -- but it may inspire some of the Gafcon folks who were against it to sign on, and then amend the thing to their liking. I think that may have been in their minds all along, and Ephraim Radner suggested as much not too far back.
ReplyDeleteNow, what that means is that there will be a new group of "Covenant Anglicans" who will more or less go their own way once they've amended the Insturments out of the Covenant and turned over decision making to the Primates of the Covenant group. Thus the plan to bring unity will have accomplished exactly the opposite.
Mark my words.
This is a major mess. As near as I can figure this out once you sign on to the covenant you are in the covenanted group. This is not based on a majority of provinces signing on. Whomsoever does not sign on is in the "second tier"? or whatever the heck the "out" group is going to be. However, not going to lose any sleep over this. I really doubt that the real head of the CoE will be allowing her church to be in the "out", "second tier" group.
ReplyDeleteToo early to predict where the end game on this is going. Except I think that the start of the end game was to gently remove the old dear before he causes any more damage. (gut feeling)
The "ins" can change the covenant but they all have to agree to it.
There are some interesting articles over at Thinking Anglicans.
None of the pro-covenant folks seem to have entertained the possibility that England would reject the covenant. If Kearon et al. are ever going get around to formulating Plan B, they'll have to stop pretending the rejection didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteTobias, I'll mark your words, but I hope what you say is not true. However, I remember saying some years ago, half jokingly, that the splinter groups and the groups which have not quite splintered will never be satisfied with less than the crown jewel of the Anglican Communion, which is the See of Canterbury.
Bonnie, Rowan is not old in years. He's younger than Tobias, but look at him. The years as ABC have aged him terribly.
I don't know where all this is going, but it's one fine mess you've got us into, Ollie.
And just by happenstance, the GAFCONites will gather in London next month.
If it is active for any other than the CofE, it is not an Anglican Covenant - Anglican *means* English, or Church of England, specifically. That is why I am insistent that I am not an Anglican, but an Episcopalian. They are not the same church. It was always a bad idea to call it the "Anglican" Communion, because it reinforced empire. We can refer to an anglican tradition, Commonwealth church structures may be Anglican, but we are not Anglican. The glossing over of differences we've done has not been healthy - true community recognizes the differences, as well as the shared roots.
ReplyDeleteMark, I'm coming around to your way of thinking about calling myself Anglican, but I see much of value in the Anglican Way, as Tobias Haller calls it, although perhaps I'd use lower case letters - anglican way.
ReplyDeletePerry Butler reminded us, on Thinking Anglicans, that Lambeth itself once declared the Communion provisional - that its purpose is to disappear. That's anglicanism. The Anglican Communion Covenant is solely for the purpose of binding and cementing and making obnoxiously centralized and self-proclaimed - to make empire where empire failed.
ReplyDelete"The glossing over of differences we've done has not been healthy - true community recognizes the differences, as well as the shared roots." Amen to that!
ReplyDeleteAlso just my 2 cents worth, recognizing and respecting those differences brings us to that "we" which God created. Something the covenant crowd seems to be rejecting.
Mimi--I can never keep track of who is in the GAFCONite crowd. It will be interesting to see what happens at their meeting next month.
Just noticed the ACI is once again seeking to co-opt the Covenant via amendment. It should be noted that the amendment process to the Covenant involves and requires the full Standing Committee and Primates and ACC -- not just the signatories. The signatories have the last word on amendments once passed through this digestion process -- which includes the power to revise the amendment -- but they have no capability to amend on their own.
ReplyDeleteIn some instances, Rowan acted as though the covenant was already in force.
ReplyDeleteTobias, your second comment is a bit of a relief. I'm not sure I understand the intricacies of the process of amending the covenant, but it appears that it's not simple.
Stan Laurel's words pop into my mind fairly often when I think about the attempts to get the covenant adopted. "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."