One way to think about the Anglican Covenant is that it constitutes a measure of our willingness to be autonomous Anglican churches in communion together in the face of the possibility of formal schism or schisms occurring across the Anglican world. With one measure of the closeness of the world to nuclear conflagration in the background, I suggest that if midnight is the point when we are in schism, then we could assess the arguments for and against the Covenant in terms of minutes before midnight.
In my reading of criticism of the Covenant, most of the criticism stems from an unwillingness to let go of even one iota of autonomy. So when criticism waxes rather than wanes, the likelihood is that Anglican churches, in the end, will go their own way and schism will take place. Right now my assessment is that we are five minutes from midnight!
There is an alternative to schism (as I have been pushing in recent posts): we agree on one thing together, that we are not in fact a Communion and so we will call ourselves something else ... the World Anglican Association, perhaps.
5 comments:
Peter, the schism has already taken place. It happened on a world scale a dozen years ago at Lambeth when certain Global South bishops refused to take communion with Westerners with whom they disagreed. Table Fellowship is the most basic aspect of any Communion. The Covenant, even if it is adopted by most Provinces, (which, IMO, looks increasingly doubtful), will not change this fact on the ground.
Now, one might explore ways to heal the breach. Time, I believe, is the best medicine at this point. My own opinion is that the division will last until the more socially backward Provinces “catch up” to the West. I’m confident that this will eventually happen, but it will take some time; I don’t expect that it will be accomplished for at least half a century. Perhaps around 2060 a united Communion will be possible again.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn
Clearly I need to revise my aim to live to 100. 101 will be the new target.
Hi Kurt
"Socially backward Provinces" needing to "catch up" to the West highlights a chasm itself in the Communion ... a chasm between those who think of others as socially backward and those who do not.
Further, I think you may be mistaken about a refusal to take communion together at Lambeth occurring in 1998. That some bishops have not communed with other bishops since 2003 is true, but did it take place before then?
No, you are correct Peter. My mistake. I conflated two events together.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
PS:
You don't think things, such as, for example, discriminating on the basis of one's race, is "socially backward?" In the 1950s the American South (and not only the South) was definately socially backward on a number of questions. People here have advanced foreward in 50 years; there is no reason to believe that Global South societies may not also make advancements in the next 50 years.
Hi Kurt
Different nations and different societies are in different places in respect of social actions, attitudes, and aspirations. It is easy to apply a judgment from "our" perspective, based on a move we have made, to "their" situation. But do we understand that situation as well as we understand our own? What looks like racism, for example, in another country might turn out to be tribalism? The judgment "socially backward" may be too easily arrived at without deep understanding of all relevant factors. Thus it might be better to appraise situations in places we do not know well in different ways.
Post a Comment