CAN THIS COVENANT BE RESUSCITATED?

Cartoon by Jonathan Hagger (aka MadPriest)

A memory supplied by Facebook from four years ago. The cartoon is, for the most part, an insider for Episcopalians and Anglicans about the odious Anglican Covenant that former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and certain other Primates in the Anglican Communion attempted, unsuccessfully, to foist on the rest of the churches in the Communion. The rest of us were, in the main, not having any of it. The coup de grâce was delivered by diocesan vote in the Church of England, Rowan Williams very own church, a sweet victory.

Archbishop Justin Welby summoned the Primates of the Anglican Communion to a meeting at Canterbury in January 2016, and, according to The Living Church, there are those who will try to resuscitate the covenant as a primatial option at the meeting. Of course, the primatial option will be meaningless in the Episcopal Church in the US and in many other churches in the Communion.

Something very much like the Covenant remains, in Oliver O’Donovan’s memorable phrase, “the only game in town” (originally said of The Windsor Report), for the simple reason that it delivers a synthesis of Anglican thinking about the Church wrought as a vision for the future. The alternatives to the Covenant school are amnesia at best, innovation at worst — of an invisibilist or otherwise weakened sort that perceives the Church as simply affective gathering in mission across difference. In ecumenical terms, the pressure to opt for mere “Life and Work” would have us surrender the upward call to a common “Faith and Order,” as if the two are separable.

I'll just say the covenant is not for everyone and refer to Mark Harris at Preludium for further commentary in his post titled Flogging the dead horse "Anglican Covenant".

So the Anglican Covenant is being touted again as a way forward in deepening communion. Who knows if the Primates meeting will take up again the somewhat tattered and torn text of the Anglican Covenant.  Who knows if that meeting will pay attention to TLC's editorial opinion concerning their work. We shall see. 

In the vein of my earlier statement above:

The notion of a "Preferential option" by the Primates for the Anglican Covenant makes it appear that somehow the Primates could decide on their own to declare for the Anglican Covenant.  I suppose they could. But they cannot declare for their churches.  Oh, in some Provinces where the Primate exercises extraordinary executive authority, I suppose they could. But most Churches are guided in polity questions by some sort of synodical processes. So a "Primatial Option" would be the opinion of the primates. Unless it were a unanimous vote for support it would simply affirm that the Anglican Communion is no where near a place of agreement on the Anglican Covenant. Most disturbing is the idea that this title puts forth: namely that a "Primatial option" even exists. There is no common agreement that statements by the Primates on any matter stand separate from the ACC and the decisions by the member churches. "Primatial option" is a really bad idea. It smacks of a primatial preemption.

Exactly.  The piece in TLC mentions "The Virginia Report" and "The Windsor Report", which are history that I assume the writer wishes were not, and the two are reports, just that, and non-binding on any of the churches in the Communion.  I had to search for "The Virginia Report", from 2007, because I did not know what it was.  No, I did not read it all.

In sum, whatever else happens to the Anglican Covenant, I hope the Primates will spend as little time in trying to revive the horse as possible and more time in such difficult tasks as looking to common core concerns.

Indeed.  Let it be so.

'CALLING THE ARCHBISHOPS' BLUFF'

Don't blame me. Blame Mr C. In my heart, I can't blame him at all. It's way past time for the misogynistic nonsense to be over.

In the event that you don't understand Mr C's every word, the transcript is at his blog and at YouTube.

PREJUDICE IS PREJUDICE IS PREJUDICE

Andrew Brown in the Guardian:

The Church of England's House of Bishops – for which, read the archbishops of Canterbury and York – has explained how they hope to mollify the opponents of female clergy. The proposals are breathtaking.

From the Code of Practice suggested by the two archbishops:

The House of Bishops does not wish to see any outcome that would entrench radical division or give any impression of a 'two-tier‘ episcopate. Because of their commitment both to this principle and to the most adequate and sustainable provision for theological dissent over the ordination of women, they are seeking a balanced provision within the overall framework that will allow all members of the Church of England to flourish and to pursue the mission to our nation and society that we share.

We are aware as bishops that there are very difficult decisions ahead for many of our clergy and faithful; we want to honour the desire of all who wish to remain loyal Anglicans, fully engaged in this mission. And we are not thinking in terms of a time-limited provision, mindful that such a suggestion was rejected at the Revision stage of amending the legislation under discussion.

Despite the statement above, in the suggested 'Code of Practice' the two archbishops in the Church of England are quite determined to enable prejudice against women bishops and, further, to assure that prejudicial attitudes and practices remain entrenched in the church.

Andrew Brown:

The archbishops envisage that the Church of England, once it has female bishops, will continue ordaining men who do not accept these women, finding them jobs they will deign to accept, and promoting some of them to be bishops who will work to ensure the continued supply of male priests who refuse to accept female clergy. In fact, the church will pay three bishops (the formerly "flying" sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough, and Beverley) to work full time against their female colleagues, and to nourish the resistance.

Funds are scarce, and yet the CofE will support three bishops to continue to ordain priests who would not consider ordination by a female bishop as valid, because, not only would the women not be real bishops, but they were never even real priests in the first place. How is the support of bishops to prevent candidates for ordination from besmirchment by the laying on of hands by a woman bishop not entrenchment of division?

Code of Practice

In the light of our discussion, the House will continue to uphold these three principles:

• Bishops will continue not to discriminate in selecting candidates for ordination on the grounds of their theological convictions regarding the admission of women to Holy Orders;

• In choosing bishops to provide episcopal ministry under diocesan schemes for parishes requesting this provision, diocesan bishops will seek to identify those whose ministry will be consistent with the theological convictions concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate underlying the Letter of Request;

• The archbishops and bishops commit themselves to seeking to maintain a supply of bishops able to minister on this basis. This will obviously have a bearing on decisions about appointments and on the role of bishops occupying the sees of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough (which will, as a matter of law, continue to exist even after the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod has been rescinded).

Andrew Brown

Despite all these concessions, there will be female bishops, as there are already female priests, and these will be treated exactly the same as male ones – except by the men who don't want to treat them equally and who believe that God has called them to undermine women's authority wherever it appears.

This is apparently Rowan Williams's idea of justice.

The two archbishops could not get their desired legislation through the previous General Synod and are aware that church members, bishops, and clergy are embarrassed and weary of efforts to cater to the prejudicial "theological convictions" of the squeamish, so now they attempt a new tactic by calling the effort to prolong discrimination against women by a different name, a 'Code of Practice'. Do the archbishops think that by this blatant attempt at subterfuge through name change, they will get the code passed? Perhaps they will. I hope not.

UPDATE: The official title is 'The Illustrative Draft Code of Practice'. I was tempted to omit the letter 'r' from one of the words in the title. The word starts with 'D'.

MUGABE SHOCKED, JUST SHOCKED

From the Daily Mail:

The Archbishop of Canterbury shared tea, scones and jam with Robert Mugabe as he confronted the dictator over the persecution of Anglicans in Zimbabwe.
....

Dr Rowan Williams urged the tyrant to call a halt to a campaign of terror which has seen thousands of the country's Anglicans forced out of their churches and abused.

Dr Williams later said the tyrant, who is a Catholic, claimed to have been shocked at the level of persecution of Anglicans in his country.

He said: ‘He expressed his concern at the damage the division was doing to communities generally in Zimbabwe.'

No doubt Mugabe is a tyrant, but as the Mail tells the story, one pictures the scene with Dr Williams shouting, 'You tyrant! Stop the persecution now!'

BECAUSE I LOVE AN OXYMORON

A rough outline of sequence of events that led the late Colin Slee, former Dean of Southwark Cathedral, to write the Slee Memo, which was recently leaked to the Guardian:

The position of Bishop of the Diocese of Southwark in south London becomes vacant.

Dr Jeffery John, Dean of St Alban's Cathedral, who is gay and in a civil partnership, but celibate, is one of the nominees for the position.

Jeffrey John's name is leaked to the media, despite the vow of confidentiality taken by the members of the Crown Nominations Commission.

According to Dean Colin Slee's account in the Slee Memo, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself may have been the leaker when he inquired of church lawyers if there was any reason to decline the nomination of Jeffrey John as bishop of the Diocese of Southwark. In his memo, Slee alleges that the Archbishop had no right to break the vow of confidentiality taken by all members of the commission in order to consult the lawyers.

The news of Jeffrey John's nomination spreads through the media.

After vehement objections to Jeffrey John and another nominee by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Crown Nominations Commission submits the name of Christopher Chessun to the crown, and he is appointed to the position of Bishop of Southwark.

An inquiry into the leak (the Fitchie Enquiry) begins. The findings of the inquiry are to be secret, says the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Concerning a phrase included in Terms of Reference of (the Fritchie Enquiry) Colin Slee says in an email to Chris Smith of the Anglican Communion Office:

Finally, I hope you are aware of the marvellous oxymoron in the terms of reference, (your italics) '...and to make any recommendations necessary to improve the confidentiality in the work of the Commission as it seeks to open up its processes.' (My emphasis)

Colin Slee writes in the memo about the conduct of the Crown Nominations Commission meeting to choose the bishop of Southwark:

The oxymoron within the Terms of Reference will be a delight to me for years to come; it exhibits the chaotic unreality that prevailed from the very beginning.

The purpose of this post is to call attention to the "marvellous oxymoron" and to the "chaotic unreality" of the process of choosing bishops in the Church of England and also as a memory aid for me of the sequence of events if I choose to write about the Slee Memo yet again.

Thanks to Pluralist for the reminder of the oxymoron in his post titled "More on the Smell".

THE ROYAL WEDDING IN STITCHES

 

The happy couple

From the Daily Mail:

If you’re needled about not being invited to the royal wedding, don’t despair – for now you can knit yourself there.

Among the wealth of tea towels, printed plates and specially forged coins, this unusual souvenir kit has emerged, featuring knitting patterns for ten ‘characters’ from William and Kate’s nuptials.

These include the bride and groom, the Queen and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. And, of course, the corgis.

 

The minister

 

The rest of them, including the corgis

Knit Your Own Royal Wedding costs £9.99. To order a copy for £8.99 (p&p free) call 0845 155 0720 or see Ivy Press.

I want exclusive rights to the pictures from those of you who decide to take up the project, okay?

Thanks to Ann for the link.

THE COVENANT AS ALBATROSS

A statue of the Ancient Mariner, with the albatross around his neck, at Watchet, Somerset. The statue was unveiled in September 2003 as a tribute to Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Andrew Gerns at The Lead posted the letter of Archbishop Rowan Williams to the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

The letter begins nicely in the spirit of the season of Lent, as the archbishop expresses his hope that we draw nearer to "the reality of Christs's love". Then he moves on to remind the Primates and the rest of us of Christians throughout the world who suffer from real and costly persecution for their faith, in such places as Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Jerusalem. (Real persecution, as opposed to faux persecution, to which certain Christians in the US and England continue to lay claim, even as they go about the practice of their faith unimpeded and unthreatened.)

The Archbishop then names the places in the world which have experienced large-scale natural disasters, such as Christchurch, New Zealand, Haiti, Pakistan, and Japan and commends to our attention those who suffer and those who aid the suffering, reminding us that churches in the Anglican community are a healing presence.

These events also remind us of the importance of our worldwide fellowship. Whatever the wounds in that fellowship – and they are still deep in many ways – there should be no doubt of the willingness of all in our Communion to stand together in prayer and solidarity when confronted by attacks on the gospel and its witnesses, or by human suffering and loss.

How very good and true thus far.

The unanimous judgement of those who were present was that the Meeting should not see itself as a ‘supreme court’, with canonical powers, but that it should nevertheless be profoundly and regularly concerned with looking for ways of securing unity and building relationships of trust.

Still good that the Primates do not view the Primates' Meeting as the 'supreme court'of the Anglican Communion. Nor do many of the rest of us view the gathering of the Primates as the 'supreme' authority in the Communion, although there are those in our midst who would like to see such authority vested in the Primates' Meeting.

And then:

But it is also important to recognise that the Primates made no change to their existing commitments to both the Covenant process and the moratoria requests. The purpose of the Dublin meeting was, as I have said, not to offer fresh solutions but to clarify what we believed about our shared purpose and identity as a Primates’ Meeting. I think that this clarity was achieved, and achieved in an atmosphere of very demanding and searching conversation, which intensified our sense of commitment to each other and the Communion.

In the letter, the Archbishop takes the high road until he addresses the moratoria and Anglican Covenant. Then he descends to a "putting facts on the ground" strategy. Is it possible that the commitment to the moratoria requests as stated by the Archbishop was not unanimous amongst the Primates? And his words on the Covanant suggest an attempt to convince us all that the Anglican Covenant is all but a fait accompli, when the commitment to the Covenant process should not be mistaken for a commitment to the Anglican Covenant itself, for that commitment is yet to be determined. We already know that a good many of the Primates who were not present at the meeting have stated that they will not adopt the Covenant.

Archbishop Rowan continues to make the adoption of the Covenant the defining issue of his term as Primus inter Pares of the Anglican Communion, which I believe is a great mistake. I see the Covenant as the Archbishop of Canterbury's albatross which he hung around his own neck and the tale of which, in one form or another, he will continue to tell time and time again.