ABOUT THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...

Recently, I read three excellent posts on the Anglican Covenant, which I believe warrant wide coverage. As many of you know, I am a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, and I make no effort to provide balanced coverage, since I hope very much that many churches in the Anglican Communion vote against adopting the covenant.

Canon Alan Perry of the Anglican Church of Canada says in his post titled 'Logs and Specks':

The proposed Covenant is about logs and specks. It's about being empowered, and possibly even obligated, to look for the specks in others' eyes, which will inevitably give rise to others pointing to logs in one's own eyes. The trouble, as Jesus suggests, is that it is often much more interesting to look for specks than to deal with one's own logs, and in fact it's human nature to be in denial about one's own logs.

I can see already the long procession of people claiming to see specks in the eyes of other churches in the communion. What are the rules for presenting claims against other churches (or your own church, for that matter!), and which bureaucracy will winnow the complaints and decide which warrant further investigation by the newly-endowed-with-great-powers Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion? Many questions; few answers.

Next up is a post by Paul Bagshaw, a priest in the Church of England, titled 'Seven constitutional questions on the Covenant'. Paul's post references constitutional questions that may arise in the Church of England if General Synod votes to adopt the covenant. Since a number of people from England read my blog, I link to Paul's post mainly for their benefit, but those of us from other churches should be mindful that the adoption of the covenant may pose constitutional questions for our own churches.

Paul says:

Now it may be that someone somewhere has drafted answers to all these questions and more. In which case it would be useful to have the proposals public so voters can see some of the ramifications of the options before they make their decision. But if no-one has addressed the constitutional implications then I'm even more worried.

Let's face it. The covenant is being rushed through General Synod of the Church of England in the hope of a vote in favor before too many people have an opportunity to take a close look at the document and consider the consequences for the church. It appears to me that those who are so very intent on pushing the covenant may not themselves have considered the consequences. If they have, then they're being very quiet about their deliberations.

At Lesley's Blog is the address by Perran Gay, Canon Precentor of Truro Cathedral, to the Diocese of Truro Synod titled 'The presentation against the Covenant in Truro'

Dreadful though all of this is, it might almost be worth putting up with it if there were any real indication that the covenant would work. But of course it won’t: although it is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not accept the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The Orwellian implications of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between full and ‘less-than-full’ members of the Communion, making it harder to have the kind of discussions that family members ought to have together. And as we know, the more conservative Anglican churches who most want this kind of arrangement in place, who subscribe to a notion of a clear Anglican doctrinal identity that has never existed, have already started to boycott Anglican Communion affairs in any case, staying away from the Lambeth Conference, setting up a rival bishops’ meeting and working towards an alternative global fellowship. Even if adopted, the Covenant is set to fail.

I had a difficult time extracting a quote from Canon Perran Gay's address because of its excellence in its entirety. In the end, the Anglican Diocese of Truro voted against the adoption of the covenant.

Please, if you are at all interested or concerned about the Anglican Covenant, get a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, a glass of wine, or a good stiff drink, make yourself comfortable, and read the posts to which I've linked. C'mon. Just do it.

'WHY I OPPOSE THE ANGLICAN COVENANT' - CANON ALAN PERRY

Canon Alan Perry of the Anglican Church of Canada, who blogs at Insert Catchy Blog Title Here, dissected the Anglican Covenant, part by part, in a good many posts at his blog. At the link above Alan summarizes the reasons why he opposes the covenant. His entire post is excellent, but two statements in his summary jumped out at me.

Most of the member churches of the Anglican Communion seemed to find the first three sections of the covenant acceptable as a document to which they could attach their name, but Alan cautions us to think again. With regard to Section 3:

But, as I have said, “there is one fundamental problem with this whole section of the proposed Covenant, and that is that it seems to assume both that Churches will have a tendency to act in a manner which is irresponsible, or that their mechanisms for discernment and consultation are inadequate. And it seems to assume that relations among the churches of the Anglican Communion will normally be marked by conflict.” In fact, those assumptions underlie the entire proposed Covenant, which says much more about the context of our current conflict than about our aspirations for life as an Anglican Communion. (My emphasis)

That's a pretty sad assumption. What a crooked foundation upon which to build a community based on the New Covenant of Jesus Christ in which we are bid to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves!

Skipping to Alan's commentary on Section 4:

And what to say of the dispute-settling mechanism? It provides for a process by which “controversial actions” can be assessed and, if such actions are determined to be “incompatible with the Covenant,” impose “relational consequences” on a Church that refuses to withdraw the offending action. But this process has more holes than Swiss cheese. For starters, there is no definition of what might constitute a “controversial action.” You might imagine that it would be something that is contrary to the standards of faith, but since, as mentioned above, these standards are not clearly defined, we're really no further ahead. Nor are “relational consequences” clearly defined. So we don't really know what the rules are or what the punishment is for violating them. (My emphasis)

So. We are to sign on to play the Anglican Covenant game despite uncertainty about what will be required of us after we sign and what consequences will follow if we break the rules of the game, even though we don't know the rules. The words in bold actually made me burst out laughing, but it's not funny, because the people in high places who ask us to agree to such an absurd document are quite serious.

Alan has a Master's Degree in Canon Law from Cardiff University, but he wishes his words on the covenant to stand or fall on their own without reference to his credentialed expertise. Oh that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams would take a lesson from Alan! For his part, he seems determined to ram the adoption of the covenant through the Church of England General Synod, not on the basis of the soundness of the document itself, but on the basis of personal loyalty to him in his position as Archbishop of Canterbury. It's a shameful exercise to witness.

Read Alan's entire summary.

The complete text of the Anglican Covenant may be found here.

A TEST DRIVE? NO THANK YOU

Canon Alan Perry, who blogs at Insert Catchy Blog Title Here, and is a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, has written a remarkable series of in-depth posts on the proposed Anglican Covenant. His latest is titled Test Driving the Anglican Covenant – Part 1. It is excellent.

I believe that I'd rather not test drive the proposed covenant. After reading Alan's recent post and his earlier posts parsing the document, I'll take Alan's word for it that the covenant will very likely solve nothing and will rather exacerbate the frustration and anger experienced by certain members of the churches in the Anglican Communion.

In Alan's next to last post, titled Yes, Virginia, There is an Alternative, he punches enough holes in the TINA ("There is no alternative.") excuse for adopting the covenant to turn it into a sieve. See for yourself.

REJOICE IN THE ANGLICAN COVENANT!

From the introduction to the Study Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant:

In December 2009 the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion sent the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant to all the member churches of the Anglican Communion, asking that they consider it for adoption according to their own internal procedures. It is hoped that there will be wide consultation within those churches, so that Anglicans around the world will have an opportunity to understand and rejoice in the commitment which the churches are being asked to make. (My emphasis)

So. Anglicans around the world are to rejoice in the commitment to the covenant even before they undertake to study the text of the covenant to see if its implementation WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR THE AC! I'm sorry to shout, but I thought studies were to be impartial, with the conclusion left open to come AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE STUDY! Oops! There I am shouting again.

Alan Perry, a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, who blogs at Insert Catchy Blog Title Here, riffs off the crazy-making study guide which accompanies the daft covenant and introduces sanity into the discussion. Please read his post. Thank you.

"BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU PRAY FOR"


Click on the cartoon for the larger view of this fine example of MadPriest's brilliance.

(MadPriest insists that the description of the cartoon includes "brilliance" or "brilliant" as a condition for its use.)

QUOTE OF THE DAY - FEAR OVER REASON

"It's very hard to unscare people.... [P]eople are far more compelled by their fears than by their reason." (Dr Paul Offit)

As Athenae at First Draft reminds us, it's not just Sarah Palin, and I add, Glenn Beck, and their ilk, who speak out in public forums in misleading or outright false statements, laden with militaristic references and imagery, with the intention to promote fear and deep distrust amongst the American people, but also those who supply the money, some of whom prefer to remain in the background, out of the limelight:

It's about the people who fund the tea party and every other ultra-right-wing movement in this country.

Jane Mayer in The New Yorker writes at length about the billionaire Koch brothers, David and Charles:

In Washington, [David] Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.

Bear with me as I take a detour to address an article in USA Today which concerns the study that linked certain vaccines for children to autism, which has since been proved to be "an elaborate fraud," but which nevertheless caused, and still causes, many parents to avoid having their children vaccinated.

Last year, The Lancet issued a formal retraction. British medical authorities last year also found the study's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, guilty of serious professional misconduct, stripping him of his ability to practice medicine in England.

Now, the BMJ (a British medical journal) reports that Wakefield, who was paid more than $675,000 by a lawyer hoping to sue vaccine makers, was not just unethical — he falsified data in the study, which suggested that children developed autism after getting a shot against measles, mumps and rubella.

Vaccination rates fell in Britain and the US, leading to outbreaks of measles in Britain and Ireland, which caused many children to become ill and even a few deaths. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, says:

...it may take years to rebuild trust in vaccines. "It's very hard to unscare people. You can do study after study, but people are far more compelled by their fears than by their reason."

Now, turn your attention to the myths and falsehoods promulgated about health care reform:

1: There is no health care crisis

2. Health care reform will impose rationing

3: Health care reform provides for euthanasia, "death panel"

4: Health care reform legislation will cover undocumented immigrants

5: Health care reform will raise your taxes

Cont....

Altogether, Media Matters lists 15 myths about health care reform. Read the rest at their website. No matter how many facts were offered to those who spread the falsehoods around, they persisted in their beliefs(?) and their versions of "the facts".

Which leads me back to my quote for the day. Slightly edited, Dr Paul Offit's quote applies to the political situation in the US today"

"It's very hard to unscare people.... [P]eople are far more compelled by their fears than by their reason."

Thanks to Canon Alan Perry, who blogs at Insert Catchy Blog Title Here, who called my attention to the quote. He applied the quote to the situation today in the Anglican Communion, where it seems just as pertinent. Dr Offit's words seem very wise to me.

OFF TOPIC UPDATE: Alan Perry has a series of excellent posts on the Anglican Covenant which are well worth reading.