In trawling around the Angliblogosphere I notice some positive ruminations about the future of the Communion. All could yet be well. That sort of thing. Maybe I was too bleak last week? In my defence I would say that if the future Communion is congenial and coherent at the cost of being smaller in size then the present Communion has unravelled; and if its happier state is at the expense of independency being favoured over interdependency then 'Communion' is the wrong name for what will be a federation of independent churches willing to talk to each other. Part of the positivity is some reassessment of the Covenant's future. Thinking Anglicans has drawn my attention to a Jim Naughton article at The Lead which I had missed. Naughton thinks ++Rowan may be quietly satisfied with progress to date, envisioning a future in which the Covenant sits right at the centre of AngComm life:
'I am wondering if the proposed Anglican Covenant is as dead as many Episcopalians think it is. It seems to me that Rowan Williams is making slow but significant progress toward assembling a notional center that he can then play off against the left (constituted by us, the Brazilians, the Scots and maybe the Welsh) and the right (constituted by Nigeria, Uganda and the Southern Cone.)
Consider: The Churches of Mexico, Myanmar and the West Indies have approved the covenant, and the Churches of England and South Africa have embarked on a process that seems almost certain to end in its approval. Mexico and South Africa are two of the provinces that opponents of the covenant within the Episcopal Church hoped might keep us company if we declined to sign up.
The Australians and Canadians are in the midst of processes whose likely outcomes are not clear to me. But both are members of the British Commonwealth, and Archbishop Philip Aspinall of Australia is a leading figure among the Primates, so covenant opponents would be foolish to presume that these two provinces won’t follow where Canterbury leads.'
The analysis and prognostications continue till Naughton reaches ACANZP:
'Which brings me to New Zealand. At the moment that province has ratified the first three sections of the document, but not the disciplinary fourth section. Maybe they will leave it at that. Is that an approach our church [TEC] could be comfortable with?'
In the comments responding to the post the 'NZ option' for TEC is canvassed back and forth.
As a matter of fact I am not sure that what we have done thus far is to 'ratify' the first three sections. I think we have said at General Synod that we have no objections to the first three sections, and look forward to further discussion in the dioceses confirming that assessment or otherwise, as well as discussion of the Covenant as a whole with a view to the whole church endorsing the Covenant or not via General Synod 2012. On the fourth section we have sought a legal opinion about an aspect of it - about its constitutional propriety re the ACC. As an observer of these things I do not care to offer an opinion on whether that concern re S4 is such that a good legal opinion being received we will then proceed to endorse the whole Covenant or such that it is effectively a holding action which allows us, for the time being, to have a bob each way. If the wave across the Communion is to endorse the Covenant then we will (after all we were almost there ourselves) and if not then we won't (our concern has been justified)!
What could be interesting for our church is Naughton's thesis that the centre is, so to speak, marshalling its forces, quietly forwarding the Covenant as the key to a balanced Communion. Despite what some say about our church being a fellow traveller on the left with TEC, we are heterogeneous, composed of progressives and conservatives, TECophiles and CofEophiles, those who feel GAFCON is the future and those preferring Global South's lead, some who would happily not the sign the Covenant when everyone else is and some who would vigorously demand that we go along with whatever the remainder of the Anglcian family thinks best, etc. I think that when push came to shove, if (say) Australia and England sign to the Covenant, that would weigh more influentially in our minds that (say) TEC not signing. Further, if (say) Nigeria and Uganda don't sign, I suggest arguments against S4 because it is 'punitive' would be undermined. Who would be driving the punishment forward?
In short: if the Covenant is the centrepiece of a centrist drive to build the future of the Communion (whatever size it is), then it may be hard for ACANZP to resist a gentle wave of peer pressure to endorse it!
16 comments:
" I do not care to offer an opinion on whether that concern re S4 is such that a good legal opinion being received we will then proceed to endorse the whole Covenant or such that it is effectively a holding action which allows us, for the time being, to have a bob each way. If the wave across the Communion is to endorse the Covenant then we will (after all we were almost there ourselves) and if not then we won't (our concern has been justified)!"
You opinion here, Peter, though offered in the negative, seems to be that, if ACNZAP waits for a legal opinion on Section 4 before committing itself to either epprove of disapprove of joing in Covenant, it is merely 'having a bob each way".
However, as a pragmatist myself, I would favour waiting to see what the non-Gafcon Provinces are up to in the present stand-off, before 'jumping the gun'. This is entirely in accord with the majority of the peace-loving Provinces who just want to get on with the process of del;evering the Gospel to ALL people - including the LGBT community that has been at the forefront of arguments for Gospel inclusivity within the Communion.
After all, is this not what Gamaliel advised the Jews of his days to do about the burgeoning culture of Christianity? If it fails, then we can see that God's will is not in the process. The failure of GAFCON to being the Communion down on its ploy of intended coercion and non-attendance at Lambeth and Dublin has not worked. And as a direct (and, to me, welcome) consequence, the slimmed down Communion may be both stronger and more able to bring the Gospel to ALL people - not only the 'good'.
I think this is an example of the saying that the journey is sometimes more important than the destination. Whether the covenant itself will serve to unify the AC is debatable, but at least people are talking about it, and they are looking at what other Provinces are doing (and hopefully considering how adopting or not adopting it may affect people in other Provinces). So, discussion of the covenant may become a source of unity, whether the covenant itself does or not.
RE: "What could be interesting for our church is Naughton's thesis that the centre is, so to speak, marshalling its forces, quietly forwarding the Covenant as the key to a balanced Communion."
I cannot imagine the group of Provinces who wish desperately "that all of this would go away" won't sign on to the Covenant. That's why I've always postulated three groups within the Communion: the radical revisionists, the traditionalists, and the "please everybody can't you be quiet" group -- the "moderates." That latter would be the ones who I've always thought would sign on to the Covenant.
I see, too, that Japan is well on its way. I think RW will have at least a good 15 or more who sign on.
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
Might I be permitted to propose that you are right and wrong?
Right: three blocs in the Communion as you aver.
Wrong: I think that, in the end, the radical revisionists, understanding that the way to forward agendas is to stick with the crowd at the centre, will also sign the Covenant. Can't do any harm in the long run! But the traditionalists, would they also sign? Not sure
Peter, who do you mean, exactly, when you talk about 'revisionists' as against the 'traditionalists'?
Top my mind, being a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, I would question your seeming inference that the 'orthodox' traditionalists are those who follow the way of 'Virtue On Line', the web-site that calls itself 'Orthodox'.
From my point of view, 'revisionists' are those who have chosen to opt out of our traditional Anglican *Scripture, Tradition and Reason* polity, in order to announce their new polity in the Jerusalem Statement of GAFCON. Thsat is revisonist!
It all depends, I guess on your point of view, precisely who is engaged in what enterprise.
RE: "I think that, in the end, the radical revisionists, understanding that the way to forward agendas is to stick with the crowd at the centre, will also sign the Covenant."
Well -- some have thought that would be the case, particularly given TEC's propensity to lie publicly and officially about its intentions and actions. But I think more of that occurred when Griswold was doing the old "softly softly" strategy. ; > ) The last gasp was at the 06 General Convention when they produced two resolutions that everyone knew *at the time* that they had no intentions of keeping and indeed were not keeping *at that very moment*.
But frankly I respect our PB hugely more than her predecessor -- she's not nearly so adept at prevaricating and obscuring in fog as Griswold, and frankly it's just not her style. Ham-fisted is her style and I like it a whole lot better. I'll never forget the moment I found that she was elected PB -- I was traveling down the escalator at convention and someone called me on my cell phone -- I was simply ecstatic -- she was easily the best choice of the bunch as there was no way that she could -- or wanted to be -- as politically adept as the other revisionists up.
So I find it somewhat doubtful that the leaders of TECusa could be prevailed upon to lie and sign on to the Covenant, pretending as if they weren't going to carry right on along with their particular gospel.
RE: "Can't do any harm in the long run! But the traditionalists, would they also sign?"
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by harm. I mean -- I'd hope that -- were the radical revisionists to sign on to the Covenant -- that the traditionalists of course would definitely not, as that would demonstrate what so many of us already suspect anyway which is that the Covenant is a farcical paper-over and delaying tactic.
At the end of the day, Peter, what I've said all along is going to happen, I think, no matter the how -- and that is that the two mutually opposing gospels will not be in the same entity together. That's just not the way organizations work -- they simply cannot hold together antithetical foundational belief systems in one place. It could be that the radical revisionists defy my thoughts about "where they are" at this time and sign on to the Covenant. In which case the moderates will be happily ensconsed with the TECusans. Which means . . . their church won't be very quiet and peaceful for long. ; > )
But I think I stand by my prediction of the three groups.
Sarah
Hi Ron,
Please cut me a bit of slack! A comment is not a place to challenge, correct and then recast definitions etc. I used those terms in a comment to continue a conversation.
You will not find me using the term 'revisionist' for myself in posts: I find it an unhelpful term for precisely the reasons you give: lots of Anglicans on all sides are cheerfully 'revising' what they think Anglican faith and practice is!
Hi Sarah,
Of all the concerns about the future of the communion the least would be whether the school of prognostication re 'two' or 'three' groupings is going to be proven correct. Its very survival as a meaningful entity is at stake!
RE: "Of all the concerns about the future of the communion the least would be . . . "
I understand -- I was just attempting to respond to your thoughts about whether the revisionist bloc would sign on to the Covenant.
I guess I went through my stages of grief regarding the Communion as a whole back in 07/08, just as I went through my stages of grief regarding TECusa as a whole back in 03/04.
Wasn't trying to quibble with you -- just respond to the thesis.
Sarah
All understood, Sarah!
". It could be that the radical revisionists defy my thoughts about "where they are" at this time and sign on to the Covenant"
- Sarah Hey (Anonymous?)-
Here we are again, Sarah. Your definitation of who are *revisionists* in the Communion are different from mine. I guess that, as you are a TEC member, dis-satisfied with your Provincial leadership, you have a bone to pick with TEC. But here is perhaps not the place to harp on that. I'm sure virtueonline, which hosts many of your articles which are critical of TEC and the A.C.of C., would be a much more fruitful venue - that is, if you want controversy.
We in New Zealand/Aotearoa/New Zealand are keen to find a way through the problems of the Communion - not to exacerbate them.
Ron/Sarah
Sarah is very welcome to 'harp' on here as her comments are shaped around the future of the Communion. I am confident she won't waste time here on any dissatisfactions which are completely internal to the life of TEC.
RE: "Your definitation of who are *revisionists* in the Communion are different from mine."
Well of course it is. As are my definitions of "sin" and "holy" and "blessed" and "authority" and "love" and "atonement" and "Jesus" and "the Fall" and "resurrection" and "salvation" and "sanctification" and most other words of importance are. That sort of goes without saying given our two differing and mutually opposing foundational worldviews.
RE: "I'm sure virtueonline, which hosts many of your articles which are critical of TEC and the A.C.of C., would be a much more fruitful venue - that is, if you want controversy."
I see that you continue to be determined to be ignorant. That website does not host "many" or "some" of even "any" of whatever "articles" you are referring to.
Do you even do *any* research at all -- or even engage the little grey cells ever so slightly -- before just spouting off, and repeating what others, equally ignorant and embittered, say, Father Ron Smith?
Obviously not.
Sarah
[From Sarah, lightly edited by me to exclude some words which I prefer to omit, in order to uphold my policy in comments of criticising the person and not the ideas of the person. Peter C]
"RE: "Your definitation of who are *revisionists* in the Communion are different from mine."
Well of course it is. As are my definitions of "sin" and "holy" and "blessed" and "authority" and "love" and "atonement" and "Jesus" and "the Fall" and "resurrection" and "salvation" and "sanctification" and most other words of importance are. That sort of goes without saying given our two differing and mutually opposing foundational worldviews.
RE: "I'm sure virtueonline, which hosts many of your articles which are critical of TEC and the A.C.of C., would be a much more fruitful venue - that is, if you want controversy."
I see that you continue to be determined to be ignorant. That website does not host "many" or "some" of even "any" of whatever "articles" you are referring to.
[omitted]
Sarah "
Hey -- along with my sentence about what makes the unnamed commenter the way he is [sadly cast into outer blog darkness], shouldn't you have also edited the descriptive adjective "ignorant" too?
; > )
More seriously, blessings to you, Peter, during this time of pain and loss in Christchurch. I am so sorry, and hope that you are given great reserves of peace, wisdom, and clarity of mind and heart. May you be ever aware of Jesus's nearness to you and your people.
Sarah
Hi Sarah
Thanks for your kind and prayerful wishes, Sarah.
I did not exclude the word 'ignorant' because it was an accurate description of a lack of knowledge of the distinction between 'Virtue Online' and 'Stand Firm' which not everyone in Anglicanland realises are not different brand names for the same product!
Post a Comment