Stand Firm

1. The Covenant may succeed in removing the Episcopal Church from full participation in Anglican Communion. The radical leftist ideologues who currently call the shots in TEC are not happy with the Covenant and will be pushing hard against submission to it. Anything can happen. I remember rejoicing on the eve of the release of the Windsor Report in 2004 because on first read, as passive and weak as it was, it seemed that it would be too much for TEC to swallow. But I did not take into account the dishonesty and duplicity of Episcopalian bishops. That was then. The Episcopal Church in 2009 is a much different beast. She is now an out of the closet, full speed ahead, no holds barred advocate for sexual perversion and she is no longer willing to bend to Communion sensibilities. She has her own “world-wide” communion, lot’s of money, and, perhaps, too much self-righteous indignation to articulate anything but a zealous and defiant “no” to the Covenant.

If so I will be thankful that the gangrenous infection prevailing in the Episcopal Church will have been at least prevented from spreading if not completely cut off.

2. The fact that a necessary end may have been reached does not justify the means used to get there. I really do not like the Covenant. I think the idea of the Covenant and the process by which it has been produced has been and will prove to be unhealthy for the Anglican Communion and, perhaps, the seed of its ultimate demise. What would a healthy, well grounded, orthodox church do when faced with something as grossly heretical as the consecration of impenitent non-celibate homosexuals to the highest ecclesial offices? Convene a council, call the errant member church to repent, lay down a deadline, and when the deadline passes without recantation or repentance, that would be it.

But in the Anglican Communion, on the Communion level, not speaking of individual provinces, the problem as it has been articulated is not that the Episcopal Church teaches and promotes a sick and twisted sexual theology that runs counter to all that is revealed in the word of God. The problem is that the Episcopal Church did something that other churches cannot agree with. So it is not so much that TEC has offended God and is leading her people into the darkness of sin and death—rather the offense is that she has done something disruptive to the relationships between Communion churches. In fact, in the recently published response of the new “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” to the election of Mary Glasspool in the Diocese of Los Angeles, border crossing was set on par with the actions of the Episcopal Church and Canada and viewed with equal approbation.

Such theological/moral equivalence has little in common with a scripturally shaped Christian worldview within which “crossing borders” to provide protection to churches fleeing from heretics would rightly be recognized as a mission imperative rather than a fellowship breaking violation of ecclesial standards. The fact that those promoting a damnable heresy and those who rescue sheep from them are set together as if they are somehow equally “bad” reveals that the measure or standard by which the Communion determines right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable and unacceptable is terribly skewed. God’s word, I think, is no longer the measure of action and behavior. We are. The Anglican Communion. The plumb line of the Anglican Communion is the Anglican Communion.

Should, in the future, the Covenant churches of the Communion come to the conclusion that TEC’s sick and twisted sexual morality is good and right, then there will be no reason—certainly the Covenant does not articulate one—not to go ahead with Communion approved consecrations of non-celibate homosexual bishops and same sex blessings. Because at that point such actions will no longer represent actions that endanger the Anglican Communion.

My problem with the Covenant is that it enshrines the Communion itself as the norma normans, the norm by which all other norms, including scripture and tradition, are to be normed. Many leaders in the ACNA support signing the Covenant. I am not there yet. I think the Covenant is a sub-Christian document.

3. Before the ACNA makes the decision to sign the Covenant, as I think we will, one question needs to be clearly answered: What are the rights of affiliate churches? Do those rights include sacrosanct borders? The ABC’s vision for two tiered Communion includes some churches that, because they cannot sign on to the Covenant, enjoy a second tiered status. Presumably, the Episcopal Church will occupy this second tier.

Let’s say that one day in the far far future the ACNA is received as a full member of the Communion and joins the ranks of those in the first tier of Covenant relationships. Will we then be obliged not to offer ministry and protection to parishes and groups in heretical dioceses of the Episcopal Church?

If so, then I do not think it will be possible to sign the covenant because we would be promising not to do what we must, as Christians, do—defend gospel and protect sheep from wolves.

If TEC rejects the Covenant, then it will be a victory of passion over logic. TEC is poised to take possession of the commanding heights of the Anglican Communion by proxy. The very people who control the Covenant are political and theological allies of TEC. Why then should TEC refuse to exploit the breech it has fought so long and so hard to create? All TEC has to do is sign the Covenant, and define its meaning according to its own liking. In the world of men, laws do not make the judge. Judges make the law.

Cooler heads will prevail. Passions will subside, and the cold hard logic of realpolitik will assert itself. It is in both the strategic and tactical interest of TEC to adopt this covenant. It is in the both the strategic and tactical interest of the AC bureaucracy that TEC adopt this covenant. It is only the conservatives who wish to see it used to enforce some level of doctrinal accountability. They simply do not have access to the power to realize this desire. And they aren’t going to get access to it, either.

This is why I have said repeatedly that nothing can be solved by addressing TECs relationship with the wider communion. TEC is being protected by its allies in the bureaucracy. The only way to move towards doctrinal accountability is to threaten the connections with Canterbury. When the major African provinces take some action to formally cut ties with the AoC, then you might see some movement. For then and only then will the AC bureaucracy be forced to choose between the sides in this dispute.

Of course, they will probably choose to side with TEC. But at least the decision will be open and honest and unambiguous and public for all to see. The double-game of speak to the Right, and act for the Left will be dead and buried.

Carl - you nailed the ABC’s modus operandi here: “The double-game of speak to the Right, and act for the Left will be dead and buried.”

Hi Carl, I can see your point—but I think you are speaking of TEC as she was in 2006. I think, at some point, between now and then, the ideologues began to gain ascendancy. 2009 was their convention. They owned it. I think they own Executive Council and the HOB too.

But of course this outcome was implicit in the Covenant Process from the beginning. There was never any desire to define doctrinal boundaries beyond simple references to external sources. And of course the authority and interpretation of those sources will never be specified. The Covenant has from the beginning been about maintaining the relational integrity of the AC. It has been written so that all sides in the dispute may sign onto it. This imperative precludes doctrinal specificity, and demands the Communion become exactly what you said is has become - the Norm that norms all norms.

I agree. Scripture, tradition, and reason support such a catholic approach. But our leadership rejected this approach. (As an aside, I find it curious that so few - if any - of the covenant supporters are willing to analyze and critique such an approach – in explanation of why they rejected it. I recall only arguments that individual provinces shouldn’t break communion…)

As an alternative, the AC could have developed a different approach, but without the participation of the errant members, which would then be presented for consideration.

Instead of either approach, the AC engaged the errant members, and along with the errant members, developed processes for trying to produce some minimal act that would be acceptable to enough members to implement…

The covenant: a possible, minimal act – that might be acceptable to the errant members.

Indeed. Engaging errant members, and allowing that member to influence, mold, and draft structural, ecclesial documents? No less so.

Sorry for the bad editing…Was in too much of a rush to post carefully. This is, as Greg says, this is the second yearly work week for priests. Everything should be fixed now.

Ahh, a house divided cannot stand. All we can do is call them back responsibly, in love, and to the Truth. If they continue to walk away, let them walk away. But the time of duplicitous double-speak must end. I agree, it’s actually very arrogant of the Communion to disregard the last 2000 years of collective Church wisdom, and presuppose that it alone can redefine the norm.
My real concern is for those faithful, believing that they can remain faithful within this house, staying put while it burns down around them.

Oh, interesting comparison Athanasian—but really really bad logic. So Athanasian, is it possible for any idea to be sub-Christian or is every document produced by a Christian necessarily a Christian document.

Any of those would have been preferable. I just find the alliterative associations of “sub-” anything to be extremely distasteful when applied to other human beings.

And I find it “extremely distasteful” when people do not read what they criticize.

Please show me where I have written that any “other human being” is “sub-anything”

I’m not sure that is a fair characterization of what is conveyed by ‘Sub-Christian.’ Instead it conveys the idea of something that purports to be Christian, but does not bear all the necessary characteristics of being Christian. If I really wanted to be bad, and drag the thread off topic, I would ask Matt why the Manhattan Declaration should not likewise be labeled ‘sub-Christian’ for the sake of consistency. But I have so far resisted the temptation, and maintained my spotless reputation for staying on topic.

Matt wrote that the DOCUMENT, not people, is sub-Christian. I don’t think I would go that far, but I think Matt’s concerns with the document are accurate and well-founded.

It will be interesting to see what happens, too, when any ACO corruption comes out in the wash.

Methinks Mr. First Among Equals might be using dithering and confusion as a smokescreen for what is truly revisionist means-to-an-end.

Most unbecoming…haven’t these revisionists figured out yet that if they have to basically lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their agenda, then maybe the agenda is wrong?!!

I don’t know enough to comment on the above, but I am glad that faithful Christians are alert, checking documents and pronouncements carefully, not taking anything for granted.

Bottom Feeder’s words bear repeating, haven’t these revisionists figured out yet that if they have to basically lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their agenda, then maybe the agenda is wrong?!!
The Truth is the Truth and always just speaks for itself.

Merry Second Day of Christmas to everyone!!!

The fact that there is a new Anglican Constitution and a “Standing Commission of the Anglican Communion” AND sweeping power resident in both without the knowledge AND participation of orthodox leadership IS reprehensible and far, far, far beyond the pale! ALL those who foisted this travesty on the worldwide Anglican communion are no more godly shepherds of Christ’s flock than my sweetly snarling…

Dr. Williams is puppet “leader” of a mechanism out to revise/gut a 400+ year old expression of Christianity. His success at so doing must STOP NOW.

I too am not crazy about the Anglican Covenant…..the only I AM crazy about is the one between God and His people…..and I repeat what I’ve said so many times before: This Covenant would never have been written, nor even been deemed necessary, had it not been for the actions of those who have seized control of the Episcopal Church. Now that there is the very good likelihood that it will be adopted, with the probable exception of TEC, they will either be reduced to second tier status in the Communion, or they will leave altogether. My bet is on the latter, since for all intents and purposes, they are a worldwide organization, and they have the means to support themselves as such.

I’m no longer certain what the Covenant was intended to accomplish. Initially it seemed as if it was intended to articulate what Anglicanism is, to restore trust between communion members and to insure due process to avoid unilateral decision making. The Covenant now seems to mean different things to different parties. At some point a retro virus was introduced and the DNA changed. I agree that I would not sign a document that is now nothing more than a blank check for the Standing Committee. Additionally, it seems ironic that because GAFCON understood and addressed the problems of the Communion head on, they were able to provide the Jerusalem Declaration in short order, which by contrast is a lively and robust document easily understood and enforceable. This description of the JD is from the GAFCON website.

The clarity of GAFCON is stunning when contrasted with the ambiguity and obfuscation of Canterbury. The covenant is not a cure, not even a band aid. It was a ploy to buy time for the rest of us to catch up with “prophetic innovation”. I never have and never will catch up.

Game, set, match, Dcn Dale #22. You smacked it w a y over the cheap seats! Thanks. Worth making note, your analysis!

22— “The Covenant now seems to mean different things to different parties. At some point a retro virus was introduced and the DNA changed. I agree that I would not sign a document that is now nothing more than a blank check for the Standing Committee.”

I agree with that observation. This was a chess game, as we now know one that involved the ACC constitional changes, the covenant, and other procedural elements. The other side has done an excellent job, often quietly, planning their next move.

Cennydd, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I see nothing to suggest that this covenant draft, and implementation process and timetable, will result in TEC withdrawing from a Canterbury centered Anglican Communion. The Covenant may be useful to some for other reasons, and may improve some things on the margins, but it will not change the fundamental relationship here. In fact, as currently written, given the constitutional changes it is much more likely to be used as a blocking mechanism for the ACNA than something that will be used to discipline TEC.

The “covenant” will N E V E R be used to discipline ANY revisionist element ever. Period. The “covenant” is and probably always was a smoke-screen.

I think that if TEC isn’t reduced to second-tier status, there will be a final schism, and most provinces will sever all connections with them. We know we’re right, and they’re wrong, and I’m starting to think that the ACNA’s being recognized as a Province of the Anglican Communion really isn’t so important any more, or at least not while the AC is in its present form….and I believe that’s where the GAFCON Declaration comes in.

#26. Cennydd,
Don’t be surprised if TEC and ACNA are “partnered” in 2nd tier status. ACNA could be given 2nd tier on the way in and TEC on the way out. Imagine the confusion trying to explain why we are not like them at that point.

Which means the ACNA wouldn’t be “second tier” for long. But if nothing changes, then I’d rather see us aligned with others in a GAFCON communion.

I appreciate your concern, Everlasting_Man (10). I and all those you are concerned about would appreciate it even more if you would commit us to your daily prayer, if not done so already..
In return, what supplications should be made on your behalf?

I agree with #22 that the covenant means different things to different people, but then, I think it always did.

The liberals saw it as another process they could subvert or define into harmlessness. However, they are now discovering, somewhat to their dismay, that the orthodox primates are using failure to finalise the covenant as a stick to publicly beat the liberals.

Anyway, as long as faithful Christians are alert and active, the covenant holds few terrors for us. If you don’t like the covenant, say so to your congregation and discuss your reasoning together. No-one can force you into it.

Things have changed once we leave a liberal-controlled hierarchy: Now each of us, and each congregation has the freedom and responsibility to make our own decisions. We won’t bow to the liberals any more. If liberalism creeps in again, we will fight it. If it takes over institutions, we will simply separate from them again, and join with those who are faithful

What the Anglican Communion needs is somebody to interpret the Thirty-Nine Articles and say, “This is OK,” and, more importantly, “This isn’t.”

Liberals in general don’t even agree that the 39 Articles have more than historical significance. Getting people to agree on the intent of the 39 Articles won’t matter if they aren’t accorded any binding authority. The problem is that liberals are making up the rules as they go along because they think there is no other way to make the rules. They consider the Scripture to be nothing more than a collection of rules made up by people long ago. They see no reason to be bound by the ideas and writings of people long since dead. Especially since liberals consider those long-since-dead people to be morally inferior. If they won’t listen to Scripture, they certainly won’t listen to the 39 Articles.

It is the collapse of epistemological certainty that is driving the conflict. The idea that man may know truth with sufficiency has been lost. That is the ground that must be regained.

And so it is. While it may not be harmful it is.
Why did God make covenants with us? Because he wished us to be in communion with him. Covenants move people towards communion. A Christian Covenant moves people towards communions in Christ. This covenant is sub-christian because it seeks ultimately to keep people in communion, any communion, rather than a strictly christian one. Does this document place more emphasis on Christ or Communion? If you have to think about it for more than a moment than the answer is clear. This documents hopes for a communion of Christians instead of a communion in Christ. It is a sub-Christian document.

I would use the word “certainty” rather than “sufficiency”.
I think the leader of TEC is looking at truth in at least five ways. 1. She has said that she looks at scripture through the lens of science. The scientific method is a limited model for discerning truth. 2. Another way is the question posed by Pilot, “What is Truth?” Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” JOHN 18:37, 38. This was really a rhetorical question from Pilot. He didn’t believe there was a Truth to be heard.
The third way is to arbitrarily and unilaterally declare the truth. “The canons mean what we say they mean.” The fourth way is the “subjective truth”. What is truth is truth as discerned by the individual. 5. The fifth truth is truth as process. This is why we hear the frequent phrase, “...living into ____”. I believe Truth (capital “T”) for the TEC leadership is ultimately unknowable and therefore for them a second order issue. They believe there are many truths (small “t”) and consequently many ways to God. When Christ is not THE way, you are left with Pilot’s question.

Can you take each of the five and counter them with Scripture and/or the Anglican Formulary?

#35. Floridian,
Help! I’m supposed to be studying for my canonicals that I will be taking one week from today. How about a rain check?

I always use the word ‘sufficiency’ because man is a lmited finite creature. He by virtue of his nature cannot know Truth with certainty. One would have to possess the nature of God to possess certainty. This does not trouble me because sufficient understanding is more than sufficent to the task ... to coin a phrase.

Is THAT what that nonsensical phrase refers to? I have never made that connection before. That was helpful to me.

I agree completely. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the tap root of all liberal religion is the unknowablity of truth. That is the epistemological crisis to which I referred.

Sure, Deacon Dale. I’ll give you 2 weeks to submit this paper to Stand Firm.
Contents: Official Rain Check (TM)
Redemptive date: Monday, January 7, 2010
First Name:Deacon Last Name: Dale
Terms of contract: Deacon Dale, party of the first part, agrees to refute the Five (name’em) Truth Errors of Liberal Christianity, particularly held dear to the hearts of revisionist Episcopalians before the Day of Redemption or will forthwith lose all claim to home, family, truck, dog, shotgun, rifle, all ammunition, food, livestock and arable land. He will thereafter join Jesus Christ with ‘nowhere to lay his head.’

OR - he may choose the greater humiliation, agony, punishment, pain and loss of renewing this Rain Check.

#38. Floridian,
The best humor I have ever seen from you and at my expense no less. But then maybe you weren’t trying to be funny. I will print out your #38 posting and ask if it could be used as as part of the written portion of my exam for the 4th through the 7th. Fortunately for me Fr. Rob Eaton will not be an examining chaplain this time around so I won’t have to attempt untying the Gordian Knot he would throw my way.

Deacon Dale, I’ll be satisfied when you put your astute theological training to the task. I don’t need your dog, truck, land or armaments…whoops, I forgot to add your boat and motor, and fishable land/waters, and all children old enough to work in the field or house, but that goes without saying.

The “persons” running TEC have only one fear and that’s the specter of illegitimacy as reflected in threats to its direct connection to Canterbury. They do not fear being out of Communion with other Provinces or being shunned from meetings. They do not care about members, clergy, theology, evangelism or church growth or planting. They are perfectly happy to cling to the Church apparatus until Doomsday. They will happily sign any document, no matter how repugnant, that allows them the freedom to define their own conduct and without fear of repercussion.

On further reading and consideration, I cannot fault Matt Kennedy’s reasoning in the article above. I cannot see that signing the covenant does anything to work towards a goal or goals that matter to orthodox anglicans, and signing the covenant creates significant dangers. As Matt points out, the liberals are experts at subverting documents like this.

In particular, the covenant may divert attention from the Jerusalem Declaration, which is the recent instrument with greatest credibility among the orthodox.

So, we should not sign. And, nothing should be allowed to interfere with the process of church building in ACNA - church-planting, evangelism, discipling. This is the greatest threat to the liberals in TEC - build a thriving alternative Anglican church, so their spiritual bankruptcy can be clearly seen for what it is.

Strange…
for a minute there I was sure I heard someone take my name in vain….

#45. Rob Eaton+,
Fr. Rob, you did indeed here your name. Are you implying that you wouldn’t have offered a difficult, multi-part query in the oral exam?

Dcn Dale,
Of course I would have - something along the theological and biblical basis of the Covenant (Anglican, that is) probably would have sufficed - and fully expected you to satisfy, my dear deacon.
But what you might not be asked (and I would have made sure to) is the one-liner which has caused even greater angst amongst examinees: “Tell us about the last time you personally were involved in helping a person come to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.”

Fr. Rob,
If I remember correctly,“Tell us about the last time you personally were involved in helping a person come to receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.” was the bonus round question from you for me for the Deacon exam. I was able to answer to your satisfaction. I did not need to call a friend.

I believe we are still talking “covenant”, aren’t we. Any ecclesial covenant, any ordinal covenant, any fellowship covenant must be built upon the capstone not simply of Jesus Christ as an idea, whereas even an idea can be given flesh by theological consideration, but the capstone of Jesus Christ as Y’shua, the Savior in every capacity. That most basic of covenants, which might be exemplified in the simplistic pastoral question, “How are you and Jesus doing?”, is where any other Christian covenantal relationship finds its model. If not, it is disconnected from the fullness of the truth at the outset.
Thus, yes, you got that question from me at your diaconal exams, and I can only hope (but doubt) you will get that question between 1/4 and 1/7; and if they should ever nominate you to be a bishop, that it would be one of your preliminary filtering questions. For ordination at any level has as some measure of responsibility the demand to protect the expectation of that basic covenant as essential to the validity and authenticity of the Faith for every soul.

#49. Thanks Fr. Rob and my response to your one statement would have to be Shermanesque since I lack the constitution, aptitude and Gifts necessary for the office.
Pax Vobis

Here is a quote from the first one:
“When I was a young man and entering into a business contract for the first time, I asked my father for some advice about the enforceability of a particular contract. He told me that if a man’s word wasn’t any good, his paper wasn’t any good either. In many cases the current chaos that we are experiencing in the Churches of the Anglican Communion is not a result of a lack of articulated rules and procedures of church discipline, but is the result of an unwillingness by those charged with the stewardship of the order of the church to enforce such discipline as has already been established. This version of the Anglican Covenant is a minimalist document. It does clarify issues of communion life and order and provide an agreed-upon process for handling disputes. It can be a real instrument for growth in truth, unity and mission, but only if those to whom the responsibility has been given to be stewards of the church’s order have the necessary moral courage to fulfill their office.”

I can understand the need for a contemporary document in certain circumstances, if it addresses particular current issues in a specific way.

But the most pressing problems in the Angican Communion today can be dealt with by reference to Scripture (as is always the case) and/or to the Anglican formularies. The problem is mostly not lack of specific references, but lack of the willingness to refer to (and be *obedient*) to those references.

When I see some of the men involved in negotiating this covenant, not least the ABC himself, I must ask the qusetion: “You could solve many of the problems yourself, right now, if you were truly committed to the principles taught in Scripture; If you haven’t shown *any* sign of such commitment now, then what possible difference can this covenant make?”

As I finished reviewing the seven ecumenical councils, It occurred to me that all the documentation that is necessary is already out there. Jesus also said that they have the law and the prophets and of course Jesus Christ did come back from the dead to testify also. The fault does not lie with the evidence for Orthodoxy. It lies with the heart that rejects it.

Certainly done, Rob (29). I hope and pray that those who fight from within stay strong, and true. Only you can know when it’s time to stay, or to leave. Breaking up is hard to do.

Pray for me, as this whole thing makes me look further east, to Rome and beyond.

Very simple solution. The majority of Anglican Bishops call for an Ecumenical Council to address false teaching and affirm a understanding of sexual relationships, marriage as family and church, and authority and interpretation of Scripture. Invite the ABC. Declare those in opposition heretics. See what happens. At least is certainly stops this pansy covenant that’s not really a covenant *wink* and *nod* garbage. What is so hard about Bishops acting with authority?

Well, #56. it could hardly be an “ecumenical” council if only Anglican bishops are there. The ancient councils were called “ecumenical” because all the Christian world was in attendance and agreement. And as to the Anglican world, the GAFCON event was close to what you’re calling for. As things deteriorate in the AC more of the believing bishops will gravitate in that direction, and/or the larger Global South gatherings, and fewer will follow Canterbury’s lead, at least until such time as we get a different Archbishop there.

The Covenant was a fine idea when proposed, if it had been enacted and followed effectively at the time. After these years and all the watering down it’s nothing that will help and should be ignored.

“Convene a council, call the errant member church to repent, lay down a deadline, ...”
But that was done at Dar es Sallam,
and the Rowan declared it wasn’t really a deadline. And the opportunity for repentance and correction was lost,perhaps forever.

Right, Tanzania was the way a healthy orthodox communion of churches might have handled the matter and we would, today, be done with it. But of course the AC is not a “healthy communion of churches”. And so Tanzania had no effect. The present covenant is simply a manifestation of its core dysfunction—rather like the family that allows the drunken, embittered aunt make all the decisions because no one wants to face her down.

Matt, In every dysfunctional family there is always someone who wants “peace at any cost” who smooths things over and persuades the offended not to
confront the abuser. Rowan plays the role well.

You are correct about what “ecumenical council means, which prompts the following questions:

(a) If a majority of Anglican Bishops were to call an “ecumenical council,” what method of communication would they use to make the call?

(b) If the answer to (a) is “the telephone,” do you think the call would be accepted? If “a letter,” would the envelope not be unopened but rather be marked “Return to Sender?” If an email, how many of them would be automatically directed into the recipient’s “Junk” folder?

I suppose the point I am attempting to get at is that the Catholics (and not just the ~23 different Catholic Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome) and Orthodox all believe that “the Church” has, and must, when necessary, exercise discipline against heterodoxy. I think it likely that it has become increasingly apparent to all parties that Anglicanism does not hold to the very concept of the authority of a council.

If my perception is incorrect, why is there a crisis in the Anglican Communion, and other mainline Protestant denominations, the outlines of which are only found among Catholics and Orthodox in the relatively rare cases of a small number of bishops who are almost universally recognized by their brother bishops as either heterodox or treading dangerously near the borders of heterodoxy? Why all this dithering over a Covenant? Why wasn’t this dealt with at the last Lambeth Conference, or earlier (as someone else mentioned above) at Dar es Salaam? Of what value is a written contract between two people if one of them persists in lying to the other when they are speaking “face to face (think Griswold to Rowan and KJS to the Primates)?” The answer is that such a contract (covenant) is nugatory.

Sorry to be such a “wet blanket,” but, barring some miraculous set of events, at some point reality must be faced.

Lest we get carried away into an area of discussion that is clearly off topic, we will not lapse into a protestant/catholic/orthodox debate about the nature and authority of a council.

When I used the word above, I did not mean “ecumenical council”. I meant simply that the primates could get together and take care of this business by applying biblical principles to it. That can happen in any denomination…and has. It is not something that only Catholics and Orthodox can do and to say such a thing is to belie a serious misunderstanding of orthodox protestantism.

That, friends, is the last word on the matter of councils for this thread. Please return to topic

#57 and onwards - Certainly I was thinking that the support of the Orthodox churches would be welcome. While appreciating the historical emphasis on Rome, I think the definition of an ecumenical council gradually lost its greater inclusivity in the early centuries, certainly after the reformation, and the idea of a greater Romanish influence on Anglican matters is impassable at the moment. I would envison, as I said, the Bishops deciding who is then outside the Anglican church. The best we can hope for is affirmed ecumenical relationships and marginalization of the heretics. With history as our guide, it doesn’t necessarily take years to accomplish.
With all respect to DES, it laid the ground work for discussion, and gutting by the ABC. That is why I said invite him - but I wouldn’t expect him to come.
We all need Bishops to act like Bishops and cut off the cancer in the Anglican communion. The covenant document will not do that.

1) TEC and its uber-liberal allies will never voluntarily agree to a Covenant. They won’t do it to gain a political advantage because they don’t have to do it to gain their political advantage. We need to understand very clearly the various motivations towards the Covenant by the various parties.
a. Rowan Williams and allied institutionalists - these people see the Covenant as a way to keep the process going for many more years without requiring any actual decisions to take place. Their goal is to make it sound like it could do something, but control the decision-making apparatuses to ensure that nothing is actually done other then to draw out the process yet longer.
b. Fulcrum/moderate institutionalist soft-conservatives - these people, I think, have a naive hope that if everyone just gave it a chance, it would work. They are the Charlie Browns of the Anglican Communion.
c. Realistic communion-conservatives - these folks, like the ACI and the non-GAFCON conservative primates like Mouneer Anis, Ian Earnest, and John Chew, believe very strongly in the basic concept of a Covenant, but realize that Rowan Williams has manipulated the process such that the current Covenant with the newly gerrymandered “Standing Committee” will no longer be effective. They believe that the current process could still work if the Global South provinces would simply “own their power” and pass the Covenant but reject Rowan Williams’ gerrymandered Standing Committee as the decision-making apparatus.
d. Uber-liberals such as TEC, ACoC - They will never willingly agree to a Covenant. It goes against every fiber in their being. They won’t do it to gain “legitimacy” or to pull a fast one on GAFCON, because they don’t need to do it. Thanks to Rowan Williams, their legitimacy has never been called into question. To an extent, the GAFCON decision makes it very easy for TEC and the ACoC - they will never need to seriously consider the Covenant, because without GAFCON’s participation, a Covenant is DOA as far as being any sort of Communion-wide instrument anyway. TEC and the ACoC will, however, seek to dominate the decision-making apparatus of any Covenant so as to ensure that no consequences ever would befall them. Rowan Williams seems quite content to permit them to do so because his political goals are also to neuter the decision-making apparatus.
e. GAFCON conservatives - believe that the current Covenant and its processes are so hopelessly compromised that there is no point in even trying to salvage anything from it.

2) A Covenant (nor any declaration or confessional statement)can NEVER be the guarantor of orthodoxy. If conservatives should have learned anything over the past 20 years it would be this - GAFCON could draw up the best, most orthodox, most brilliant confessional statement possible, but if you let TEC be the decision-makers as to consequences for violating it, you might as well not have bothered with the statement in the first place. Thus, I think that an effective Covenant will always have its primary focus being in its adjudication and enforcement procedures, and these procedures are necessarily procedural and not confessional. I don’t think that it is thus fair to criticize a procedure-focused Covenant for not being confessional enough. Rather, the criticisms should focus on the procedures.

I agree with several that whatever we call a council or meeting, in the West we have Anglican bishops who have consistently failed to act as Christian bishops. If they had all this talk of a “covenant” would be unnecessary.

#64, jamesw, you say “TEC and its uber-liberal allies will never voluntarily agree to a Covenant. They won’t do it to gain a political advantage because they don’t have to do it to gain their political advantage.” But then you add, “TEC and the ACoC will, however, seek to dominate the decision-making apparatus of any Covenant so as to ensure that no consequences ever would befall them.”

Isn’t this precisely why TEC WILL sign onto the Covenant—in order to dominate the apparatus? Surely the whole process is being set up specifically to accommodate their dominance. I can hardly believe that they will not sign up now (when they’re informed of this plan and the nature and role of the new “Standing Committee” of the Communion).

KingDavid: No, they won’t sign it, because they apparently don’t have to. Based on everything we have seen to date, TEC can continue to dominate the “Standing Committee” - irrespective of any by-laws that may be broken (see the Ian Douglas situation) - and yet will not be obligated to actually sign on to the Covenant (they can certainly claim to be in a period of “reception” for a good several years yet, but even if they outright reject the Covenant, it would apparently be very difficult to have TEC removed from the Standing Committee and other organs). Because the Covenant won’t ever get the necessary support so as to make it “mandatory” for members of the Anglican Communion, TEC will remain able to dominate the Standing Committee without ever signing up. By the time the “period of reception” ruse expires, the Covenant will largely be regarded in the same way as the “Panel of Reference”, the “Dar Es Salaam Communique”, etc.

If TEC does sign the Covenant, they receive no additional benefits, yet then give credence to something which is anathema to them.

And, in addition, the ABC said in an interview, it didn’t matter whether anyone signed it or not, so…
nothing would happen to them..
Grandmother

©2010 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.