Thursday, November 11, 2010

The verdict on the Covenant was

9-1 in favour. Actually, last night's meeting at Theology House on the Anglican Covenant:Progress or Stalemate? was more interesting than 'for' versus 'against' (though both views were represented across those present). The evening's short presentations and much longer discussions indicated the vitality of the 'autonomy has priority over interdependence'  and 'interdependence has priority over autonomy' views of Communion life. It offered evidence of the extent of lack of knowledge about the Covenant (i.e. some had come specifically to find out more about the Covenant). The discussion underlined some of the most repeated concerns about the Covenant as the e-discussion of it continues around the globe: renewed Communion stuctures will be under-represented by women, lacking in the voices of laity, liable to mistrust on the basis of past performance, etc.

It was good to be reminded that there should be a common life possible for Anglicans because we belong together by virtue of our life in (the one) Christ. Why can we not share a common life together?

For me, one of the best things said was that the Covenant should bring us together. There are many signs that the Covenant is not doing that - are we considering with care why we are not being united by the Covenant? The question also arose, however, about what alternative proposal is emerging from those against the Covenant as to what will undo our disintegration.

As to the question of 'progress or stalemate?', there was serious recognition that we seem to be closer to stalemate across the Communion than to progress.

This wasn't said last night, so I will add it in this morning: the Primates Meeting in January could be the game-breaker, the momentum mover towards progress or the moment when we all realise we are at a stalemate.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Too many people are judging the covenant in terms of - will it give me the outcome i desire. It needs to be treated as a principled document. The question will be, at the end of the consultative process - where does our province go from here. Do we dissent from the final determination and stand aside in some degree, or are we able to live with the mind of the communion. This stage will always be part of the process and is implied in the logic of the covenant. That after all is part of the protestant heritage.
Rhys L

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Rhys,
I think you are hitting the nail on the head here. The Covenant will not herd cats that insist on remaining 'wild' (i.e. very diverse).

kiwianglo said...

"The question also arose, however, about what alternative proposal is emerging from those against the Covenant as to what will undo our disintegration." - Peter Carrell -

The disintegration - i.e. breaking-up already occurred with the refusal of G.S. Primates to sit at the Table with TEC at Lambeth 2008. It was also further riven by the G.S. invasion of TEC and the A.C.ofC. with faux bishops into a sodi=ality which has since emerged as ACNA. The Communion is already broken. But by whom?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron (kiwianglo),

Your question is a good one. I suspect you know that more than one answer is proposed to it.