From Openly Episcopal in Albany:
As mentioned in a previous post, the national church has invited each diocese and parish of The Episcopal Church to comment on the proposed Angican Covenant, which will be considered at the next General Convention in 2012. The parish of St. Andrew's in Albany formed a six-week workshop beginning in January to study the covenant. After much prayerful consideration, discussion and friendly debate, it was determined that the group would present a resolution to the vestry for possible submission to the national church.
....
Resolution of the Vestry
St. Andrew's Episcopal Church
Albany, New York
In response to the invitation extended to all parishes in The Episcopal Church to study and comment upon the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant, this parish of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Albany, New York recommends that the General Convention of The Episcopal Church not endorse the Covenant. These are our reasons:
* The Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 provides a sufficient base for the unity of The Anglican Communion.
* The discipline that would be imposed by the Covenant is contrary to the traditional autonomy of the provinces of the Anglican Communion [Covenant § 3.2.2] and, in particular, of The Episcopal Church.
* The Covenant would change the balance of Scripture, reason, and tradition by minimizing the role of reason.
* We are concerned that the Covenant would establish an ultimate teaching authority that would impair freedom of conscience by dictating which beliefs and norms are permitted to Anglicans.
* We believe The Episcopal Church should continue to be free to respond to its discernment of God's will.
Bear with me (or not) for a long post as I place the vote by St. Andrew's vestry in context with a look back to the diocesan convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany, June 11-13th, 2010.
Before the diocesan convention, Bishop William Love stated the following, as reported in the Albany Episcopalian (pdf.):
“The Anglican Communion Covenant is not designed nor intended to divide or punish, but rather provide a framework in which the members of the Anglican Communion can live and work together to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, building up the Kingdom of God, while resolving issues that could divide us”
“As your Bishop I endorse the Anglican Communion Covenant and I encourage you to do the same.”
Pardon me, but Section 4 of the text of the Anglican Covenant with its references to "consequences" is designed to "divide and punish". Further, I see little to nothing in the Anglican Covenant which will serve to build up the Kingdom of God. I see much in the covenant which may serve to build up the Kingdom of Canterbury and the Primates of the Anglican Communion. As to trickle-down power-sharing with the laity, or even with un-mitred clergy, well, you can forget about that.
Present at the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany was:
"The Most Reverend Drexel Gomez, the recently retired Archbishop and Primate of the Province of the West Indies and Bishop of the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands and his wife Carroll. Archbishop Gomez was involved in the writing and publication of the Windsor Report in 2004, and later, appointed as the Chair of the Covenant Design Group which produced the Anglican Communion Covenant."
The invitation to the Chair of the Covenant Design Group to attend the convention was a sure sign that Bishop Love was confident that the vote to endorse the covenant would pass by an overwhelming majority.
On Bishop Love's address to the convention:
Nearing the end of his address, Bishop Love turned to the topic that everyone waited anxiously to hear. He said, “Like many of you, I remain deeply frustrated and grieved by the growing division within The Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion. The recent election and consecration of an individual living in a homosexual relationship with another person, as Bishop Suffragan of Los Angeles, has only added more fuel to the fire. I know there are some well intentioned people in this room who support the Los Angeles election, while most, to include myself, do not. Regardless of where one stands on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of homosexual relationships (or any sexual relationship for that matter outside of marriage between a man and a women), once again The Episcopal Church has taken an action that the vast majority of the world wide Anglican Communion asked them not to do, showing disregard not only for the wishes of the rest of the Communion, but for the damage and harm the Los Angeles election is causing for many of our brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the Communion, especially those living in Islamic countries.”
“Some of the questions that have come up during the recent discussions around the Diocese on the Anglican Covenant, is “Why now? The Anglican Communion has existed all these many years without a Covenant, why do we need one now? If we treat one another with dignity and respect, why do we need a Covenant? Won’t it just cause more division by punishing certain members of the Communion and forcing them out? “
“In response to these questions, I would suggest that we have only to look at the recent Los Angles (sic) election to see why an Anglican Covenant is now needed. Common beliefs and values that we once shared have come under attack and can no longer be taken for granted. The bonds of affection and respect that once existed throughout the Anglican Communion have been shredded. The Anglican Communion Covenant is not designed nor intended to divide or punish, but rather provide a framework in which the members of the Anglican Communion can live and work together to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, building up the Kingdom of God, while resolving issues that could divide us. The Anglican Covenant reminds us of that which we hold in common and cautions us for the sake of the Communion, not to act unilaterally in areas that would be seen as divisive. While not demanding that every member respond in exactly the same way to the various issues before us, it does remind us that our actions do have consequences and we need to be accountable to one another.”
The delegates to the convention did, indeed, vote to endorse the adoption of the Anglican Covenant by an overwhelming majority:
Saturday morning, the long awaited Resolution on the Anglican Covenant was brought before the Convention for action. As expected, a debate ensued. Speakers for and against the Resolution rose to microphones to present their arguments. By the debate’s end, the Resolution passed by an overwhelming 80% (314 to 76) and read as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Episcopal Diocese of Albany endorses the Anglican Communion Covenant (final text, approved for distribution December 18, 2009) and recommends its adoption by all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion.
What the significance is of a diocesan convention vote to endorse the covenant, I have no idea. Whatever its significance, the vestry of St. Andrew's Church chose to disassociate the parish from the vote at diocesan convention.
UPDATE: From the comments:
1) Bp. Love and the DoA Standing Committee endorsed the Covenant before the ink was on the final version, much less dry.
2) At the DoA's 2010 convention, support for the covenant came from three bishops: +Love, ++Gomez, and +++Williams. The last appeared on video just before the vote. (No pressure, of course!)
3) Not all of the "nay" votes at the convention came from progressives. Several very conservative folks opposed the covenant because it's too soft on TEC.
Robert T. Dodd
And I say, “Curiouser and curiouser!”
