Leander Harding’s Earlier Response to the Announcement of The Anglican Covenant

It is precisely as a “long term solution” that the Covenant’s failure is most evident. As I noted here
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/25180/

it sets the community as the norma normans of Christian truth. It creates a sort of Sola Ecclesia—if we all agree that a given action is faithful, then it is. If we do not, then it is not.

You DO NOT enter into an agreement with a vendor you do not trust.  Ever.  The agreement may give you some measure of protection should things go bad.  But you don’t put your company at risk by doing business with those that are not trustworthy.

So, you REALLY want to be in a covenant relationship with TEC?  Do you trust them? 

We all know TEC will sign it and then immediately ignore it, then “spin it” to their advantage.  Add to that the COMPLETE AND TOTAL LACK OF LEADERSHIP from the ABC and the other Primates and you have a receipe for disaster.  The ABC had a chance to address TEC’s heresy, and for whatever reason chose not to deal with it.  The covenant doesn’t change the ABC’s leadership style does it?

Having a covenant that expresses Orthodox beliefs is all fine and dandy.  But if anyone thinks it will get TEC to reform you are kidding yourself.  From that perspective, the covenant is A COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.

I’m always happy when I can express full agreement with Matt (given our sharp differences on some other matters).  And so I’m delighted to say that I’m in hearty agreement with his #1.

I think when solid, brave, honorable orthodox leaders like Dr. Harding of TSM say that the Covenant is our “best hope for maintaining the faith, order and mission of the world wide Anglican Communion,” I think the implicit, unspoken assumption is that it’s the best realistic hope that is conceivable, given the deplorable realities we face.  That is, it’s the best that they can imagine actually being achievable, though far from ideal.

I can respect that.  It’s plausible and a very widely held view.  Of course, I myself take a much more radical postion.  The Covenant may be our best hope as orthodox Anglicans for working for the renewal of Anglicanism from within the current system.  But that’s precisely the problem.  The whole current system is so hopelessly broken that it can’t be repaired.  It must be replaced.

Rather than futilely trying to work within the system, it’s time to create a new system (albeit a system within the system, perhaps).  That’s how I see the ACNA and the wider FCA movement.

That’s what Reformations do.  They create new systems.  And that includes the Catholic Reformation of the 16th century, which in many ways created a whole new system from within.

David Handy+

RE: “it sets the community as the norma normans of Christian truth. . . . “

I disagree.

I’ve explained all of my issues with the Covenant.

But I think what it does is *set boundaries on the community*.  That is a different thing than making the community the source of truth.

I do wholeheartedly agree with setting the boundaries.

If one is going to be in the community one cannot conduct cross-border raids in other rooms of the family’s house, or one is out of the community.  At the same time, the family members cannot light their own rooms on fire either.

You have to have both in a boundaried community.  That doesn’t mean that setting one’s room on fire is equivalent to conducting a cross-border raid on a room.  It just means that the people who do either aren’t in the community.

Were the Covenant to actually work [highly doubtful in my opinion] I would be thrilled to be in a community where neither of those were allowed.  That way, the AMiA can plant their parishes in Dallas—and neither are in the same community.  That’s integrity for both parties.  The Anglican Communion party and the alternate Anglican entity party.

And truth to tell—it’s that precise issue listed in the previous paragraph that has no doubt gotten Tay so worked up. 

I don’t honestly see how ACNA will be able to sign, even were they to want to sign or even if they *should* sign.  They’ve got at least one and probably several other entities within their entity that simply ain’t gonna want to cease scavenging off of the bones of conservative dioceses.  In fact—conservative dioceses are the most fruitful places to “plant” [sic] churches.

Hi Sarah,
hi Sarah,

If there are parishes in a conservative diocese that would like to leave TEC but the bishop prohibits that or people in TEC parishes in a conservative diocese who would like to leave but their rector’s refuse to go, then I see no problem setting up an alternative—breaking down the ecclesial barriers to allow people who do not want to be in TEC but want to remain in the Anglican tradition, to get out—I think its a good thing.

Of course, you may be speaking about something entirely different. 

In any case, in principle, the covenant sets relational boundaries above doctrinal ones. So long as the entire community, for example, were to agree that jettisoning the doctrine of marriage is in keeping with scripture and tradition, then blessing same sex marriages etc will carry no sanction and in fact opposing them and seeking to come to the aid of parishes in provinces that perform them will run counter to the Covenant.

That’s the problem, in my opinion, with an agreement that grounds community life in relationship rather than on an articulated confession.

But we may disagree on that.

RE: “If there are parishes in a conservative diocese that would like to leave TEC but the bishop prohibits that or people in TEC parishes in a conservative diocese who would like to leave but their rector’s refuse to go, then I see no problem setting up an alternative—breaking down the ecclesial barriers to allow people who do not want to be in TEC but want to remain in the Anglican tradition, to get out—I think its a good thing.”

Sure—but they don’t need to be in the Anglican tradition within the family of the Anglican Communion.  Now remember—that would be IF the Covenant would actually work [which again I think highly doubtful].  But IF the Covenant were to work, then TEC would be “second-tiered,” the dioceses that were good would be Anglican Communion dioceses, and there wouldn’t be an issue as the inevitable result—again, according to the optimistic Ephraim Radner—would be a folding in of those orthodox dioceses within the Communion structure.  What that would mean is that TEC—in a frenzied rage—would go EVEN MORE LAWSUIT HAPPY than they are now.  They’d sue the dioceses for their property and claim that the bishops were “abandoning the Communion of TEC.”  And they’d depose those bishops.  But remember—those dioceses would be in the Anglican Communion structure.  So the only thing left for TEC to do is what it is already doing—sue for property.

Again—all of the above is predicated on the Covenant actually working.  If you’re talking about *right now*—sure I have no problem with border crosssing.

But were we in an actual disciplined ordered community, with a working Covenant and a distanced TEC—then yes, I have a problem with border crossing.  And so will the AMiA and perhaps others in ACNA as well.

RE: “In any case, in principle, the covenant sets relational boundaries above doctrinal ones.”

I disagree.  I think the covenant merely articulates the relational boundaries *all things being equal doctrinely*.  It doesn’t purport to address doctrine.  It merely purports to address the community boundaries as long as the entities in the community *already agree on the doctrine in question*. 

So—nobody can sign on to the Covenant if they don’t already agree on basics.  And *then*—if there is *future disagreements* the question before the house is “how shall we resolve them.*

This is best highlighted by the Sydney issues which Sydney will—inevitably—bring up.

Is Sydney bad?  No not necessarily.  Is it “unChristian”?  No.  But I would expect the Covenant to deal with the Sydney issue in the same way that I’d want it to deal with TEC sacrificing goats on the altar at the Holy Eucharist.  That is . . . “if you do this it is going to have *these specific consequences*.  We’re not going to debate theology or have long discussions on lay-consecrated Eucharists—we’re just making the point that you’re not going to be in the Anglican Communion if you do this.  Period.”

If an Anglican diocese or Province suddenly decides that it would be a great idea to make everyone handle snakes before confirmation . . . that may not be “unChristian”—but it simply won’t be accepted in the Anglican Communion.

I don’t see that as making the community the decider of doctrinal truth.  I see that as simply the community deciding what it will put up with and what it won’t for members to be a part of its community.

Tennis clubs and swimming clubs have “non-doctrinal rules” for belonging in those clubs all the time.  That doesn’t make the tennis club the “arbiter of tennis truth”—it merely makes the tennis club the arbiter of who will be allowed membership in that particular club.

I expect our debate is pedantic however.  I don’t think the Covenant will do what I describe above anyway.

I don’t see how TEC and ACNA can both be parties to the covenant.  If TEC is a party to the covenant without repentance and reformation (no chance of that short of a miracle), the covenant has no meaning and ACNA shouldn’t sign on to it (neither should any other province).  If the covenant has true meaning, any churches that sign on to it should be able to work out border issues.  I just don’t see a scenario with TEC and ACNA both being parties to it.

“...it sets the community as the norma normans of Christian truth. It creates a sort of Sola Ecclesia—if we all agree that a given action is faithful, then it is. If we do not, then it is not.”

I agree with, with the distinction that ISTM that it could also be used also to determine administrative or non-doctrinal matters as well.  It seems quite possible that the covenant could draw the line on an issue of truth deemed essential for salvation. At the same time, it could be used to specify acceptable/non-divisive colors for the carpet in the nave and narthex, or appropriate sources for coffee.

I wonder if a preliminary question is whether such a body is a church… a question I leave those better trained and engaged at a higher anglican paygrade.

“So long as the entire community, for example, were to agree that jettisoning the doctrine of marriage is in keeping with scripture and tradition, then blessing same sex marriages etc will carry no sanction and in fact opposing them and seeking to come to the aid of parishes in provinces that perform them will run counter to the Covenant.

That’s the problem, in my opinion, with an agreement that grounds community life in relationship rather than on an articulated confession”.

I fully agree, and the above “relational” nonsense is probably a liberal/revisionist way of getting around Scripture and Tradition once again. 

“If humans ‘reason’ it out and relationally we all agree with it, then we can do whatever we want”. 

More fodder, as well, for the goals/purposes of the ‘listening process’...if we just hear more ‘stories’, they will enlighten our contemporary understanding and Doctrine/Scripture don’t need to matter anymore. 

Frankly, the sooner the Global South sets up another Anglican See, the better.  This other stuff has gone to the dogs(or the demons…).

Eeeww…

It seems to me that the test of this covenant is enforcement.  Whether or not it is based on relationship on or an articulated confession doesn’t matter.  If a large enough group of people that vote decide to change the doctrine of marriage it will be ...the entire community agreeing that jettisoning the doctrine of marriage is in keeping with scripture and tradition.  Or ...the entire community agreeing that jettisoning the doctrine of marriage is in keeping with the articulated confession.

In the end whether or not there is a covenant, and no matter who signs it, provinces/groups that agree with the doctrine and practices of other provinces/groups will work together, support each other, and respect each others.  Those that don’t, won’t.  It would be nice if there was a formal organization that facilitated these relationships, but it is not necessary.

Sarah at #7 wrote:

This is best highlighted by the Sydney issues which Sydney will—inevitably—bring up.
Is Sydney bad?  No not necessarily.  Is it “unChristian”?  No.  But I would expect the Covenant to deal with the Sydney issue in the same way that I’d want it to deal with TEC sacrificing goats on the altar at the Holy Eucharist.  That is . . . “if you do this it is going to have *these specific consequences*.  We’re not going to debate theology or have long discussions on lay-consecrated Eucharists—we’re just making the point that you’re not going to be in the Anglican Communion if you do this.  Period.”

That is not going to happen Sarah. Period.

Sydney is part of the Anglican Communion, and it will continue to be so even if it introduces lay presidency of the Lord’s Supper.

Those who have criticised Sydney would do better to dialogue with it rather than adopting entrenched positions - they might well achieve everythng they desire (e.g. no lay presidency). As things stand, *their* own refusal to fellowship with Sydney in the past has played a substantial role in bringing about the push for lay presidency, and a number of other points of contention.

Sydney Archdiocese tends to have a fortress-like mentality. This arises from it having been virtually an island of orthodoxy in a sea of Liberalism for many decades. Many of those in the Communion who now criticise Sydney for issues like lay presidency did *nothing* to support its stance for orthodoxy durng those decades. Sydney as a diocese (I can tell you this extends to the whole Synod - its not just ++Jensen) has for a long time felt abandoned by the rest of the Communion. Not surprisingly, it has gone its own way on many things.

I would say to all critcs of Sydney - if you want it back in the fold, put some *work* into the relationship. Anyone can criticize from the sidelines. These people in Sydney (of which I am one) have been fighting the hard fight against liberalism for a long time - if you criticise them without having given any indication over the past decades (or even now) that you share Sydney’s fight against liberalistic teaching, ordination of women, abortion on demand etc etc, then how much of a hearing do you think you will get (or deserve)?

Whilst I wouldn’t want to minimise the momentum which the push for lay presidency has gained in Sydney, there are a few things worth remembering:
The push for Lay Presidency began as a response to the perceived need for MORE celebration of Holy Communion, particularly in circumstances where an ordained minister was not available. This was an issue in Sydney some years ago as the growth of parishes and the demand for Sydney’s orhodox clergy from parishes in other (liberal) dioceses created a “priest-shortage” on the ground.

This is a common issue for discussion in many Catholic churches (including Roman Catholic and Anglo Catholic commentators). For example, I have seen on this thread fully orthodox anglicans proposing to use the “sick ordinance” to convey the bread and wine by a lay person from an orthodox parish to the faithful in liberal areas. In my view, this is contrary to the clear purpose of the Sick Ordinance - but I understand and sympathise with the concerns of those who proposed it.

There are many in Sydney who now sympathise with Zwinglian concepts. That number has been growing steadily over the past years - and it is a direct result of Sydney’s isolation, caused by many Anglo-Catholic and Traditionalist Anglicans who preferred to maintain close relations with other Australian dioceses that were outwardly Traditional, but inwardly were thoroughly liberal. Chickens are coming home to roost.

Hi MichaelA, I’m not certain why you spend several paragraphs on those who criticize Sydney.  I in no way criticized Sydney’s theology.

I merely pointed out what I predict to be the likely outcome *were the Covenant actually to be implemented* [which as I’ve explained, I doubt].  The Sydney lay movement is a *perfect* example of just what the Covenant was designed to deal with—so much so that it’s been mentioned in numerous speeches about the Covenant by various apparatchiks including Rowan Williams.

I see that you predict the complete opposite happening if the Covenant is implemented.

I expect we’ll have to wait and see—again, *if* the Covenant is actually ever implemented—to see which prediction is correct.

I so stand behind my prediction, however—and so believe that others have the same view—that I also expect that—if the Covenant even *looks* as if it will ever become “effective” that Sydney will at least attempt to or make noises about “opting out” of signing the Covenant even if its Province does sign it. 

Remember that one of the things I’ve pointed out for a long long time now is that certain conservative Anglicans very much hope—and have hoped—that the Covenant has no teeth and establishes no order or Communion discipline since they themselves have other agendas, including their own innovations, and including a desire for their own “empires” to grow, which would be greatly straightened were the Covenant to actually do what people want it to do.  Some organizations thrive, shall we say, on chaos and disorder in the Communion.  ; > )

And I speak not of Sydney necessarily in the latter fond hopes regarding the Covenant.

You DO NOT enter into an agreement with a vendor you do not trust.

I will happily enter into an agreement with the 20 primates of the Global South. If they sign on the the covenant, then I’ll sign on to the covenant.

What TEC does (and really, what +RDW does) is irrelevant. TEC can claim they are in the Anglican Communion all they want. I will ignore them, and pay attention as to whether my bishop and primate are in Communion with them.

You’re not alone!

Thanks, I needed that.

Sarah,

Thanks, good points.

I would make the comment about Sydney anyway, to anyone (including to those in Sydney). Many (perhaps most) influential Anglicans in Sydney are isolatonist. ++Jensen is an exception - he has in some respects promoted involvement in Gafcon against the inclinations of many of his influential clergy and laity. Not that they would disagree with the Jerusalem Declaration, just that isolationism can become self-justifying after a while [that is a nasty barb from me].

My personal view is that it is in the interest of both Sydney and other orthodox dioceses around the world that they continue to pursue real dialogue and real communion. All have much to gain from this.

Re your comment about the province: its a little more complicated than that: There is a national church (the Anglican Church of Australia) headed by a Primate. This is divided into six provinces each headed by a Metropolitan.

The largest province is New South Wales and its Metropolitan is ++Jensen, who is also the Archbishop of Sydney arch-diocese.

In addition, although the liberals dominate the national Synod, they do not otherwise have the same dominance as they appear to have had in America: 1/3 of the entire ASA of Australia is in Sydney arch-diocese. There are a few other dioceses which are evangelical or traditional, and a few more which waver. Strongly liberal bishops tend to be restrained and careful - they are aware that there are “radicals” within Sydney that are looking for an excuse to cross diocesan boundaries. If they irritate Sydney Standing Committee or even Sydney Synod, the radicals might be let off the leash (I don’t think they would be, but fear is a wonderful thing).

So, what effect will signing or not signing the covenant have in Australia? Heaven knows!