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.

IS THE ANGLICAN COVENANT THE BEST WAY FORWARD? REALLY?

Mark Harris at Preludium directs our attention to the three videos from the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO) in defense of the Anglican Covenant. The first video is here. Links to the other two may be found at Preludium.

Below is the commentary that accompanies the video:

In this video, members of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO http://bit.ly/wIPVqK) reflect on the Sections of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The members include:
- The Revd Canon Dr Sarah Rowland Jones, Anglican Church of Southern Africa
- The Rt Revd Kumara Ilangasinghe, recently retired Bishop of Kurunagala, Church of Ceylon
- The Rt Revd William Mchombo, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
- The Rt Revd Dr Howard Gregory, Bishop of Jamaica & The Cayman Islands, The Church in the Province of the West Indies
- The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, The Episcopal Church

Mark points out the irony of Dr Katherine Grieb's presence in the video.

Professor Grieb is herself now a consultant to IASCUFO rather than a full member precisely because of the "consequences" of The Episcopal Church's actions, and was done in ways similar to that provided for in Section Four.It is quite interesting, perhaps ironic, that she is in this video at all, what with her relation to a church so questionable that she is reduced to consultant status simply because she belongs to that church.

So. Because of the naughtiness of the Episcopal Church in ordaining gay bishops, Dr Grieb is already sidelined in the committee by some authority or other in the Anglican Communion, and yet she tells us not to worry. The covenant will apply to the church 'just as we are'. But, as Mark says further:

The real question IS about the future. If we sign or not, "where do we go from here?" If we sign, we will surely be disciplined and / or politically pressured and we will fight against that and be called divisive. If we do not, we will surely be called divisive for not signing.

To me, adopting or not adopting the proposed Anglican Covenant looks more and more like a Catch-22 situation for the Episcopal Church.

A further irony is that the videos were produced by (IASCUFO), a committee which is under the authority of the Anglican Communion Office, which is funded by all of the provinces in the Communion. Why then are the reflections in the videos entirely pro-covenant? If each province must decide whether to adopt the covenant or not, there is the possibility that not all will decide to adopt. Wouldn't it be fairer to present both pro and con material on whether the proposed covenant is the proper solution to the present disagreements in the Anglican Communion? Is no one at all on the committee entertaining doubts about whether the best way forward is to draw provinces of the communion together by exclusion or reduction to a lower status of certain present member provinces?

Have I mentioned that the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order reminds me of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which began life as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition? I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental.

SOUTHERN CONE ADOPTS ANGLICAN COVENANT - WHERE IS ACNA?

Mark Harris at Preludium puts 1 + 1 together and has a question. The Anglican Communion Office announced that the Province of the Southern Cone adopted the Anglican Covenant. Surprise, surprise!

The news release at the ACO website states:

In response to these novel practices the Southern Cone had held churches in North America under its wing for some time while the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) was formed. However, the Province has not maintained jurisdiction over any local churches there for over a year. As a result, all so called ‘border crossings’ by any provincial members ceased (as of October, 2010) even though the Southern Cone still remains in impaired communion with US and Canadian Provinces. It is hoped that the Covenant can now provide Communion stability.

Mark Harris further:

In ACNA land the Archbishop, himself a deposed bishop in The Episcopal Church was given residence in the PSC... that was in September 2008.

The Living Church stated, "Immediately after his deposition from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was welcomed into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables." But those days are over.

Mark is moved to ask:

If Duncan is not in the PSC, where is he?

A very good question. Apparently, that ACNA was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone for over a year was a rather well-kept secret until now. Is no one expected to note that ACNA is now free-floating? Unless, of course, there is more that we don't know, and another province is holding the ACNA 'fledgling Province' under its wing.

From Archbishop Robert Duncan of ACNA:

Recent events within the Anglican Mission in the Americas have challenged us all. This letter is a brief report to you all about those events and about our efforts to find a path forward. The present reality is brokenness. The vision, however, that governs our fledgling Province remains unchanged: a Biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America.

So. Brokenness. One thing leads to another. If you read on, you will see that some sort of negotiations will take place between the AMiA bishops who departed from the Church of Rwanda and ACNA which will include discussion of the complication of ACNA's relstionships with the bishops, clergy, and congregations who remain under the jurisdiction of the Church in Rwanda.

The resignation of nine Anglican Mission bishops, including the Bishop Chairman, from the House of Bishops of Rwanda, changed relationships with Rwanda, with fellow bishops and with the Anglican Church in North America. The resigned bishops lost their status in our College of Bishops as a result of their resignation from Rwanda. The Anglican Mission also lost its status as a Ministry Partner, since that status had been predicated on AMiA’s relationship with Rwanda. In addition, confusion and hurt has been created in Rwanda and in North America, and there is much serious work ahead of us.

Are you still with me? I'm not certain that I am still with me. My brain is much smaller than Mark's. The story gets more and more complicated with unexpected (at least to me) twists and turns. I am greatly indebted to Mark Harris and his brilliant thought processes as he made the connections for his post, and I hope I have not done him a disservice by my shameless picking of his brain for my post.

My question: Will this fledgling fly?

OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DEATH

Thus far, I haven't said much about Bin Laden's death. At The Lead, I said, "May the Lord have mercy upon him." I add now that God is just, and God is merciful, and I'll leave it to God to sort out Bin Laden's fate.

With all due respect and sympathy to all those who have suffered or died due to Bin Laden's evil schemes, I cannot find it within myself to take joy in the death of another human being. I wanted Bin Laden stopped from doing harm, and now he's stopped. For that I feel relief.

Several posts by bloggers speak wise words about Bin Laden's end. Mark Harris, at Preludium, Penny's post titled A Note About the Death, and Rmj at Adventus. Rmj picked up commentary from around and about and added his own.

As a sign that I am entirely human and capable of taking the low road, I said the following at Penny's blog:

Still, I take a certain satisfaction in the timing. For all George Bush's bluster, Osama bin Laden was not killed on his watch but on the watch of a president who has been labeled a terrorist by certain citizens of this country. Not exactly a Christian sentiment on my part, eh?

What I did not add at Penny's blog is the rest of what I wanted to say: "Up yours, all you Americans who call our president a terrorist!"

EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Read Mark Harris' explanation of his pie-chart and his prognostications on the outcome of the Anglican Covenant Crapshoot at his blog Preludium.

"...GOD'S LOVE AS THE BE ALL AND END ALL....

Mark Harris at Preludium preached a fine sermon for Lent II titled "God in the midst of death and destruction".

The Tweet summary:

Spirit filled and freed up, we Jesus people know that God loves the world fully and accept God’s love as the be all and end all of life.

Read the rest at Mark's blog. It's excellent.