After the lull the storm. ++Mouneer Anis has resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion citing a lack of true willingness on the part of key players in the Covenant process to be committed to the Covenant. You can read his statement here, reaction on Titus One Nine here, and a frankly rude response-plus-comments from Episcopal Cafe over here (but only if you want to).
The ACI was already working on its current concerns about the Covenant while Bruce Kaye has posted his latest critique.
I hope to find a few moments to comment further, suffice to note for now that the Communion will end the way we want it to. If we do not want a Communion that is a communion (a real flesh-and-blood, Christ's body-and-blood fellowship of believers indwelt by the true Word of God), fine. But let's, for goodness sake, stop using the word 'Communion'. World Anglican Association will do. If we want a Communion which is what the label says, then let's work intentionally, whole heartedly on finding the way forward: no more Hegelian logic chopping!
Well, Peter, with all respect, I think that you are confusing rudeness with American directness.
ReplyDeleteKurt Hill
Brooklyn
Perhaps. But then I do not confuse President Obama with Congressman ("You lie") Wilson. Both American, but the former seems never to be rude, in contrast to the latter!
ReplyDeleteTo anyone who has met ++Mouneer, Naughton's comments are as ill-informed as they are offensive - sheer nonsense ('American directness' or otherwise).
ReplyDeleteThe independence of ++Mouneer's approach to things was clearly in evidence in regard to Gafcon and the Jerusalem Conference. He is a man of integrity, commitment to the Communion and significant patience - and he is as bright and perceptive as they come. It is just that he is wise enough not to be played as a token presence, and has the strength of mind to do something about it.
I would hope that his resignation would be viewed with respect and concern, and his detailed explanation deserves more of a response than the AoC has provided (no acknowledgment of ++Mouneer's concerns).
Peter, I suspect we are approaching 'crunch' time for the 'Communion' side of our Anglican existence. Trust is at an all-time low, and the Instruments of Unity have been seriously eroded to the point of ineffectiveness and increasing irrelevance- I suspect beyond repair.
I am not at all hopeful the covenant will do anything to change things, and the ACI's concerns about the role/legitimacy of the SCAC are very significant - how can Provinces sign on to the Covenant when there are so many uncertainties about the role the SCAC appears to have been shoe-horned into at a late stage and with minimal consultation or information? I doubt whether I would vote for the Covenant at this stage, which is a change in thinking on my part (otherwise a supporter of the notion, but not sure about this particular version of things).
How about confederation?
ReplyDeletehttp://kingofages.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/httpwp-mepk6aj-9l/
"WAA" or "WAConfederation"?
ReplyDeleteWAA reminds me of 'woe' and 'wail'; WAC would be a continuing reminder of how whacky it would be for the Communion to have lost the plot!
Thank you Tim for having the strength, courage, and humility to publicly change your mind.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced you are right: the covenant will not do what those who support it hope it will. The disagreements are in no way resolved by it.
It is unclear to me concretely what is meant by describing a communion as “a real flesh-and-blood, Christ's body-and-blood fellowship of believers indwelt by the true Word of God” – and how this description of “communion” differs from “province” and “diocese” – concretely, in practice. Can you give an example of a worldwide “communion” that functions under a covenant in the way advocated by this site?
We ceased being in full communion certainly when provinces stopped recognising each other’s ministries – when some provinces accepted divorced clergy and women clergy. I don’t see our own province rescinding those moves for the sake of the “communion”.
As for “eroding” the 4, 5, or maybe 6 “Instruments of Unity” – our province canonically only recognises one. Nigeria’s province canonically recognises none. They are not being “eroded” – because they have no formal status. Similarly, let’s be clear about the other things under discussion – the Windsor report is a report, the draft covenant is a draft covenant. Binding decisions are made at diocesan and general synods – and even then many neither know, nor care, nor adhere to those. Good luck, for example, for the average Kiwi Anglican trying to find online when and where General Synod meets and what they might discuss.
Blessings
Bosco
Hi Tim and Bosco
ReplyDeleteFidning time for a longer post is proving a challenge, but here are two quick replies to your comments (without pretence that they are fulsome replies):
(T) It is crunch time for the "Communion" side of being Anglican. It looks like it will prove (B) that it is either a long time since the Communion has been a real Communion (i.e. a body with common doctrine and practice undergirding its diverse life), or perhaps that there has never been such a time (!!). Which, for me, raises the question whether "the Anglican Communion" will have the strength, courage and humility to stop calling itself a "Communion".
Either way, I personally remain convinced that the Covenant has been an opportunity for the Anglican Communion to be or become a Communion in more than name.
It saddens me that we have, seemingly, no collective will to be a Communion.
Hi Tim and Bosco
ReplyDeleteFidning time for a longer post is proving a challenge, but here are two quick replies to your comments (without pretence that they are fulsome replies):
(T) It is crunch time for the "Communion" side of being Anglican. It looks like it will prove (B) that it is either a long time since the Communion has been a real Communion (i.e. a body with common doctrine and practice undergirding its diverse life), or perhaps that there has never been such a time (!!). Which, for me, raises the question whether "the Anglican Communion" will have the strength, courage and humility to stop calling itself a "Communion".
Either way, I personally remain convinced that the Covenant has been an opportunity for the Anglican Communion to be or become a Communion in more than name.
It saddens me that we have, seemingly, no collective will to be a Communion.
PS Have no idea how I ended up publishing that comment twice! It's not because I do not think readers will understand it ... :)
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
ReplyDeleteI blogged briefly on this resignation and I suppose some might think my response was rude. I do personally think the ACI are out of order to try to hijack the whole thing and to want it on their terms.
I have always seen the covenant as being about the attempt to discipline TEC( or to make it look as though TEC is going to be disciplined - not sure that is the same thing.)
Any sort of "unity" within the Communion can only be achieved IF a. TEC conform to conservative demands and turn their back on LGBT rights OR b. conservative groups are prepared to live in unity with those who have such differing beliefs and practices.
Neither A nor B is going to happen - so a divided communion and a fractured Anglicanism is and always was inevitable.