This is easily the most devastating and surprising piece I have read from the ACI in well over a year.  It also points out a detail about the Covenant that I’m not confident I’ve heard expressed from anyone, even the most negative and naysaying regarding the Covenant.

You’ll need to plow through the whole piece—I’ll excerpt a couple of the sections, but you really must hasten to the ACI website and lower your head and begin driving your legs up the field, like the men in one of those strong-man contests. 

[Please note that my description of each excerpt does not use the words of the ACI—I am far more brutal and bludgeoning than they are as you’ll soon see.]

Here’s an excerpt that pertains to a detail that I’ve heard mentioned by no one, even those who really despise the Covenant and think it pointless—it’s a stunning point that I simply hadn’t noticed:

The new Section 4 reflects these fundamental principles in its provisions for adopting, maintaining and amending the Covenant. It assigns to a “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” a coordinating and monitoring role in carrying out these activities. Prior to the release of the Covenant, no such committee had been given that title or assigned the role of performing these functions.

Contrary to a widely shared assumption, Section 4 does not in fact explicitly identify this “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” with any pre-existing committee. It does, however, define the Committee’s responsibilities and thereby determines the qualifications for any committee that would fill this role. First, and most importantly, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is to be “responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.” Its primary role is to “monitor,” “take advice,” and “recommend.” Importantly, “[o]n the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be ‘incompatible with the Covenant’.” In other respects, however, its role is that of coordination and recommendation, all the while “responsible to” the two Instruments of Communion. For example, under 4.1.5, invitations to “other churches” to adopt the Covenant are issued by the Instruments, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Similarly, under 4.4.2, proposed amendments to the Covenant may be submitted either by the covenanting Churches or by the Instruments. They are submitted “through” the Standing Committee, but that Committee’s duties are mandatory, not discretionary: it “shall” send the proposal to the Instruments and Churches for advice, make a recommendation and then submit the proposal to the covenanting Churches for approval.

The working group that revised Section 4 seems to have assumed that the recently reorganized standing committee of the ACC would function as the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, and the ACC committee itself appears ready to assume the functions of the committee defined by Section 4 of the Covenant. But it is increasingly doubtful that this assumption, which has not yet been explicitly and publicly ratified by any of the Instruments, is consistent with the text of Section 4 or acceptable to a large part of the Communion.

Here’s an excerpt that points out just how duplicitous and Wormtongue-like Canon Kearon’s rhetoric has been—[no, they don’t say that—I’m saying it]:

And in what is probably the single most contentious paragraph in the Covenant, a change was made to Paragraph 4.1.5 to incorporate a reference to procedures for amending the ACC membership schedule. Canon Kearon’s cover letter disseminating the Covenant to the Communion Churches cited the unpublished Articles of Association to explain these procedures, but the procedures he quoted were different from those that were shown at the time in the published version of the ACC constitution on the Communion website. Canon Kearon subsequently amended his cover letter and the published version of the constitution was changed as well, but the constitution even as changed still does not match what Canon Kearon quoted from the Articles. We do not want to dwell on what might be minor discrepancies and administrative hiccups–although the differences in the procedures are substantive and when ACNA was formed a year ago a Communion spokesman described the procedures as “clear” and cited different ones than are now quoted by Canon Kearon. But transparency on such a contentious issue is essential, especially when more profound questions lie just beneath the surface.

Here’s an excerpt that deals not with legalities and procedures and processes, but rather with the untrustworthiness of the standing committee of the ACC:

Indeed, the urgency to consider these questions now arises because they point to a more profound flaw in the mechanisms currently contemplated for implementing the Covenant.  Whatever its legal status, the standing committee of the ACC does not enjoy the trust of a large part of the Communion. The degree of trust, already diminished, was further eroded by the public display of procedural chaos, never appropriately resolved, at the last ACC meeting, out of which the current committee’s make-up emerged. And to repeat a point made above by the Windsor Continuation Group about the ACC: “If the membership becomes polarised, it will lose its ability to act effectively on behalf of the whole Communion.”

This issue has been brought to a head by the election of a non-celibate lesbian as suffragan bishop in Los Angeles, which occurred after the Covenant working group finished its revision of Section Four. Confirmation of this election by TEC as a whole, following the removal of previous restraints at last summer’s General Convention, will be a clear repudiation of the discernment of the Communion on this issue and therefore a repudiation of the Covenant under which each covenanting Church undertakes “to endeavour to accommodate [the] recommendations” of the Communion’s Instruments and “to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy”. Should the bishop-elect receive the necessary consents for consecration TEC could not maintain in good faith any claim to be “still in the process of adopt[ing]” the Covenant as contemplated by paragraph 4.2.8.

I haven’t posted the recommendations and numerous other important points from this essay—much honey is awaiting the reader. 

I have posted a quick response to the ACI paper at http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28020/.

Fourth, it does not help that the ACC standing committee in purporting to fulfill the role of the committee specified in Section 4 of the Covenant has already assumed authority not in fact given to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

Do I understand this correctly? Is the ACC “Standing Committee” assuming power over the Covenant simply because it has been named “the Standing Committee”? This makes me wonder if others will also seek to control the covenant.
Scripture tells us that Jesus made a covenant with us and it seems to me that His covenant is sufficient.
Hebrews: 10:16
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

Very, very interesting—both the ACI’s disclosures and the points made by Fr Noll (thank you for the quick response).  I have to ask Fr Noll—wasn’t some sort of comment made at the 1998 Lambeth Conference to the effect that “the Global South does the praying, and the Americans do the paying, but the British make the rules?” It looks as though what we are seeing here is a British-engineered recasting of the rules to bring the Communion’s structures ever more firmly within the control of the ACO, under the overall (lack of) guidance of the ABC. Think: the top-down structuring of Lambeth 2008 applied to the rest of the Instruments of Unity.

And where is the ABC’s Chancellor, Canon John Rees, in all of this? Why cannot he give a straightforward statement about the process of amending the ACC Constitution and the status of the Articles under UK law?

Where do we go from here?
Good question.
My money is on something like this. In April, the Global South adopts the Anglican Covenant.  In one of two ways.  Either (a) exactly as it is, if they have 20 primates in attendance and then IMMEDIATELY (as in, before the press release is issued) amend it.  Or, (b) they rewrite the “Williams-Cameron draft” of last December into something legible and restore the various parts of the original Covenant proposed 3 years ago and gutted in the subsequent re-writes.  With 20 of the 38 provinces signed on, whatever Covenant they vote in is THE Covenant.  The Covenanted Churches of the Anglican Communion then appoint or elect a Standing Committee as called for in the Covenant and proceed with business.

A few other predictions:
1. Jim Naughton will never again act in any PR or other capacity for any meeting of the Anglican Communion. He will be lucky if the PR officer even lets him in the room.  His editorial is garnering condemnation from virtually everyone in the Communion who ever met Bishop Anis- liberal or conservative.
2. The Communion Partners are in a bigger bind than ever before.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Bishop Anis was one of the “CP Primates.”  Now that he and ++Chew (who officially recognized ACNA, as I recall) are on the 815 enemies list along with the likes of ++Greg Venables and ++Henri Orombi, one can expect the operation of the “Via Media” and other groups to go into high gear in an effort to undermine the remaining orthodox bishops and dioceses in TEC.
3. Events will begin to unfold at a pace that will overwhelm Anglican processes- specifically designed to be slow and plodding and intentionally ignorant of crises. The real question is- which way will the CoE go? Maintain communion with the vast majority of the Communion, or set up a boutique communion for 8-13 churches, mostly in the West, with a combined ASA of 6 million people.

Oh, and don’t forget the Dar communique.  The GS has not forgotten.

Folks, this is what happens when leadership at the top (AbC) fails or becomes absent.  Into the vacuum erupts CHAOS.  The covenant as currently constructed is a guarantee of LICENTIOUS CHAOS.  Plain and simple.

Orthodox leaders must call this to further attention, and, with a clarity ACI abjectly is incapable of producing, inform constituent laity.

A recast Anglican Communion awaits in the wings…

I have a story to share to make a point…

I once had a friend who was a beautiful and lovely young woman. As such, she attracted the wrong kind of men, and ended up marrying someone who was much like her father, who was self-centered and an abusive disciplinarian. I realized early on that he held a certain attractiveness, and that she was in “love”, and nothing I could say or do could dissuade her. I feared she was heading into a bad relationship and fears were realized about 14 months later when she showed up in Church with a black eye and bruises on her arm. I asked her to go to lunch. As we ate I waited her her to open up - and she did. She told me her husband was just like her father, and that although she realized that early on, she thought that once married he would change. I asked her what her plan was if he didn’t change. She really didn’t have one, beyond telling me that 1 Corinthians 7:14 was her hope. I told her I can respect that. But I asked her again, what is your plan if he doesn’t change? We looked again at 1 Corinthians 7:10 and discussed marriage and her worth in the eyes of God. I asked her to have a plan.
Two weeks later I saw an mutual acquaintance of our ours and really felt led to ask if she knew if “K” was doing ok? She told me she has been hospitalized for a fall at her house. I knew it wasn’t a fall. I got the info and then went and visited her in the hospital. It wasn’t pretty - skull fracture, broken nose, face swollen and bruised. I asked her how she was doing. She replied, “Hanging in there.” I asked her about her plan. She didn’t have one. She said she loved him. I told her that wasn’t the problem. We looked at Ephesians 5. She saw he didn’t love her to treat her as Christ loves her; instead of treating her as one without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, he was defacing her. Furthermore, instead of feeding and caring for her as his own body, he was abusing her.
To make a longer story short, she had a plan before leaving the hospital. She went to live with a friend and set conditions for her returning home to her husband. They remained separated for quite a while undergoing counseling, and reconciled about 18 months later.
And by the way, her husband now values her in a great way, loving her as Christ loves the Church.

So, what I think +Anis is asking how’s the abuse working for reconciliation? And I’ll ask what’s your plan? Hoping it will get better, despite repeated assaults is not a plan.

AR, #6, I think the ACI has exposed the contradictions, lies, and ambiguities regarding the Covenant as clearly as is possible, given that so much of the governance has been done behind closed doors and is not accessible.  They also have done exemplary work in elucidating the constiuent place of the diocese in Anglican ecclesiology.
A prayer for the ACI is found here.

OK, we have this from the great white north. All is finally well! Will Canada show the worldwide Anglican Communion a way forward?

Should Canadian Anglicans be able to break through the impasse on sexuality, “it could well become a vibrant model of the kind of renewed Christian community that has much to teach the wider church,” say two U.K. pastoral visitors…They called Archbishop Fred Hiltz one of the church’s “greatest assets” and said the Anglican Church of Canada “punches way above its numerical weight when it comes to involvement in affairs of the Communion,” a commitment that the visitors found “deeply moving.”

Whew. I am sure we can all now breath easier! (I hope these two visitors didn’t see articles like this.)

robroy:  To be fair, I think that the following excerpt

They noted “…a very positive approach to church growth

related to the story you linked to which focused on this story:

The report recommends closing 14 of its 52 churches, including 10 in Greater Victoria, to address declining attendance and an aging congregation.

Very positive approach to church growth = closing 14 of 52 churches due to declining attendance
With that kind of math, how could you go wrong?

Where do we go from here?
EASY

Round and round we go,
where we stop,
nobody knows.

Grannie Gloria

the standing committee of the ACC does not enjoy the trust of a large part of the Communion.

Exactly my point. Without some modicum of trust, the covenant is worthless. If the SC of the ACC is indeed a shill for the liberals, as may be inferred from +Anis’ comments, and it nonetheless ends up as the administrator for the covenant, then it is quite unwise to sign it. The GAFCON primates are no fools.

Time to go back to the Ridley draft?

This goes to show that the liberals (including +++Williams’ cronies) are as slippery as they ever were.

As well as the point raised by Sarah, I have a number of other concerns about the wording of the covenant. For example, the way in which a Primates’ Council can only be called by ABC - there is no mechanism for the Primates to call their own meeting if ABC is recalcitrant.

Could an ABC be completely out of touch with the vast majority of his primates? 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, no-one could have imagined such a scenario. But now, the orthodox could imagine it very well!

Under the “covenant”, the four Instruments of Communion may act on their own, without the others (or paying lip-service to co-operation). Three of the Instruments can be neutralised by +++Williams: the ACC is dominated by his cronies; we have already seen how he can neutralise a Lambeth conference; and he can simply decline to call a Primates Council (as he has conveniently “forgot” to call a Council in 2009 when it was due, and when he had promised it). That leaves the ABC as the only Instrument of Communion capable of taking effective action!

So far, the best defence of orthodoxy is provided by Primates with freedom to take their own action, and in council (NOT a council that can be stymied or dominated by ABC).

13, and his strategy has been to prevent any official action, which so far he has accomplished.  He knows that any official action will split the AC, therefore nothing must happen.

The Anglican Covenant process is all about institutional unity….....not about living in Communion in fidelity to the faith once delivered (Jude 3).

15-
You are correct in your assessment.  But is it not, then, our duty as Christians to get about the business of rectifying that situation?

And how would you suggest that we go about “rectifying that situation?”

16, tjmcmahon,

Yes, and I echo Cennydd’s follow-up.

Nonetheless, Christian parishioners rely on their parish leadership to influence the decision makers to rectify that situation.  The orthodox from the beginning have been categorically and summarily ignored by the power-brokers, who are hoping to recast at least the Western segment of the AC in their very own image.  As such, orthodox are necessarily in survival mode.  They have neither the political power nor the numbers to dictate that the Covenant really be one (a true, actual, and enforceable covenant) and not the messy mass of meaningless, jelly gibberish that the vaunted “Anglican Covenant” has become under the triumvirate of Williams, Kearon, and Jefferts Schori.

The orthodox in TEC are up that proverbial stream - sans political power paddle.

Taking a retrospective of all the goings-on over the last 7 years, anyone will come to know the fix was in all along.  Many of us sounded the alarms long ago, but strong leadership has mainly emigrated elsewhere, outside of TEC.

If the Covenant fails in any way whatsoever Western-oriented, culturally-captive Anglicanism est terminée.

I have a growing sense that the orthodox throughout the entire AC soon are going to answer this mess rather loudly…

And how would you suggest that we go about “rectifying that situation?”

My recommendation, in #4 above:

In April, the Global South adopts the Anglican Covenant.  In one of two ways.  Either (a) exactly as it is, if they have 20 primates in attendance and then IMMEDIATELY (as in, before the press release is issued) amend it.  Or, (b) they rewrite the “Williams-Cameron draft” of last December into something legible and restore the various parts of the original Covenant proposed 3 years ago and gutted in the subsequent re-writes.  With 20 of the 38 provinces signed on, whatever Covenant they vote in is THE Covenant.  The Covenanted Churches of the Anglican Communion then appoint or elect a Standing Committee as called for in the Covenant and proceed with business.

Granted, there is little you and I can do directly to accomplish something like this.  We can, however, pray for and support as best we can, the efforts of the Global South to restore the Christian Faith in the Anglican Communion.  The Global South reached out to us in our hour of need to provide leadership and pastoral support.  It seems to me the least they deserve is our prayers and whatever other assistance we can give as they wrestle with the powers that be of the Anglican Communion.  In April, the “Covenant process” will no longer be in the hands of ++Williams and +Cameron and Kearon, it will be in the hands of ++Akinola, ++Orombi and ++Mouneer Anis.  Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I anticipate some MAJOR changes to the process.

ACI raised an interesting point I hadn’t thought of.  In talking about the incorporation of the ACC as a UK Charity, they pointed out:

this committee will be subject to new Articles of Association, which are still to be approved by UK authorities, under which the committee members will be fiduciaries of and responsible to the ACC and will themselves be governed in the exercise of their fiduciary duty by UK law;

Then later ACI goes on to say:

as trustees or directors of a charitable company (the new ACC) governed by UK law, the members of the ACC standing committee (including the Primatial representatives) will have fiduciary duties to the ACC that are defined by UK law rather than Anglican doctrine at a time of increasingly aggressive secularization in that country.

I wonder if the plan to incorporate the ACC as a UK charity now (though the ACC has been in existence for decades already without feeling the need to do so) might have something to do with things like the equality bill.  This sought to prevent churches from discriminating against LGBT folks in hiring for church positions.  If the ACC is now subject to British law, I wonder if libs in the TEC are thinking they could no longer legally be barred from ACC membership, even if the communion decides to bar them.  TEC could mount a court challenge in the UK and claim they are being discriminated against because of their inclusion of gays and lesbians.

Also, Kearon+ is claiming every change to the articles must be secret. Smells fishy.  I wonder if this secrecy might be because UK law requires that the articles of its registered charities be sufficiently “inclusive”.  By keeping them secret now, later the changes could emerge as a “done deal”. When conservatives complain, he could claim deniability: “hey, it was the gov’t that put these changes in there, not me”.

Just a thought.

Stephen+

#20 SHSilverthorne - I don’t think so.  The ACC has been registered as an English Charity since around 1978 I think.  Originally the trustees had limited liability under a piece of Victorian legislation which was repealed in 1995.  You may find that this is the reason for the changes to turn the ACC into a company limited by guarantee or a new device, a charitable company.  The latter is not yet in force but expected to be available in the Spring.  The impetus for this may be to provide the trustees/directors with limited liability protection again.

To date no company has been registered and therefore no Articles are in force.  There is no restriction in UK law for publicising Articles, draft or otherwise, although if they had to be amended following discussion with the Charity Commission this might cause confusion.  In any event Canon Kearon has already quoted from the draft Articles in print, so the suggestion that he is restricted from publicising them keeps the safe distance he likes to maintain between himself and strict truth.

Under the Victorian legislation [can’t remember its name off hand] I think there were Articles which regulated arrangements between the trustees, calling of meetings, signing of documents etc.

However the issue is what is going on with the Articles being put in place for this new company.  The governing document of the current charity registered as the ACC is the Constitution of the ACC, published on its website.  In theory the Articles of the new company should be modelled on and dovetail with that Constitution, agreed over many years.

The suspicion remains that what is an administrative change of vehicle for the ACC is being used to make major changes to the relationships and internal workings of the ACC and this “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” secretly.  We won’t get to the bottom of this until we see the full text of the Articles and Kearon stops dissembling.

I am grateful to the ACI for this wonderful expose, which should be read thoroughly and with an open mind by people on all sides of the Communion for the light it spreads on what seems to be a secret and manipulative Putsch by Lambeth Palace and the ACO to grab power and enshrine the JSC with its built in bias as the controlling instrument of the Communion, rather than the servant of the Anglican CONSULTATIVE Council, with some element of Primates’ representation on it.
John 3:20

THere is a serious question over whether the ACC should in any event be registered as an English Charity.  Recent changes in charity legislation propose that the Charity Commission may become more proactive in requiring registered English Charities to provide public benefit and conform with secular political mores.  This has been a particular concern for religious charities, and it is part of a continuing attack on religiouns and their ethics entered into by the current government.  If this change in the ACC goes through one can certainly envisage the ACC becoming a hostage to fortune and future attempts at control of religious charities by the UK government.  This will be a particular worry if Labour return as the next government in the UK.

Thanks, Pageantmaster, for chiming in with a British perspective and memory.  Very helpful.

I have to hand it to the bright guys at ACI.  They’ve rendered a very valuable service by calling our attention to how very, very problematic is the role of the new SCAC, which I guess should really be called the SCACC, or Standing Committee of the ACC.  In any case, the ACI leaders are absolutely right that until the Instruments or the Covenanting Churches define who exactly the “Standing Committee of the AC” mentioned in the Covenant is, that it should by no means be conceded or assumed that the old Joint Standing Committee is that entity.

But will this typically eloquent, logical, and sound argument actually have any impact on the future of the AC?  Time will tell.  But I’m not optimistic.

But, as usual, I will vigorously dispute the ACI’s claim that the Covenant is “the only hope” for the salvaging of the AC.  Nonsense.  Of course, it’s not the only hope.  What I think they mean is that it’s the only hope they can foresee as having any practical chance of salvaging the AC in anything like its current form.

But therein lies the all important point where I differ so radically from them.  The old wineskins are beyond saving by patching.  New wine sometimes demands new wineskins.

And this is one of those times.  Attempts to patch the old institutional wineskins of the AC, however well intended, are sure to backfire, as the Master warned us.

The point is that Anglicanism is greater, much greater, than its current institutional structures.  They are the husk, and are dispensable and disposable.  The kernel is another story, and is well worth fighting for.

David Handy+

Also it needs spelling out, but the administrative arrangements including the Articles [the ‘secret’ constitution of the ACC/Communion] are an essential part of the Covenant and should be read together with and looked on as part of the Final Covanant.  One can’t understand what signing the Covenant entails with only the Covenant wording in front one one.  One needs to understand the Constitution of the bodies which are proposed to be an essential part of it.

Keeping this information on a “need to know” secretive basis is wholly unsatisfactory.

Thanks for the information on this, Pageantmaster.  It does seem like the issue of the status of the ACC as a charity in the UK needed to be dealt with in light of the changes to charity law which you mentioned.  However, as much as I understand the legitimate need to make changes to insure liability protection, I still wonder about the timing.  You say these changes came in 1995?  Why sit on the current structure for 15 years (presumably leaving yourself open to liability), then decide it needed a change just in time to coincide with the covenant’s debut?

Moreover, I understand that, ideally, the articles of the new charitable company will dovetail with the current constitution.  However, their being drafted in secrecy at a time when trust is at an all-time low, strikes me as very worrying.  The potential for quietly changing a few things in the articles seems pretty big.

Stephen+

This combined with Archbishop Anis’s public resignation makes me wonder if the Communion Conservatives might be drifting towards a less Covenenant centred approach.

#25 I rather think that although in 1995 the legislation was repealed, that there were transitional arrangements which may have meant that protection continued for a bit longer while other arrangements were made.  You may find that that is the reason why the new “charitable companies” are being brought in, so that trustees/directors can protect themselves.  After all if you become a director or trustee of a charity, you usually do it out of a sense of public duty, not necessarily intending that in doing so you expose yourself personally with all your and your families’ assets to liability for the actions of the charity.  Who would be mad enough to do that, or should be asked to do so?  However there is a question over whether at the moment the current trustees of the ACC are without any protection at all while this is all being sorted out.

The Articles should merely reflect the Constitution of the ACC, not the other way round.  If there is secrecy, manipulation etc. you can be pretty certain that something dodgy is afoot we have learned, and also that this is the trademark signature of Rowan Williams and the ACO.  I agree completely with your second paragraph.

#26 There is nothing wrong with a Covenant; it is all the Williams/Kearon dodgy hanky-panky that appears to be being pushed through with it that is the problem.

#26 There is nothing wrong with a Covenant

I never said there was, and I think it is safe to say that if the Covenenant process and result had been more what the ACI and the “Moderate” GS primates like Anis had in mind when the whole thing was proposed, we wouldn’t be seeing this level of discontent among those that have placed great stock in the idea.

I base what I said in #21-27 from what I gleaned from the Charity Commission website.  You can learn quite a bit from the links on the left.

If there is secrecy, manipulation etc. you can be pretty certain that something dodgy is afoot we have learned, and also that this is the trademark signature of Rowan Williams and the ACO.

Which is why the whole lot of them must be held to account!!!  We deserve answers!!!  NOW!!!

50 year old children “playing” church.  Bleh.  Where do we go from here?  Declining attendance, dissipation of energy, infighting, lack of funds, further irrelevance.

I am glad SFIF is recording all of this.  It’s pathetic.

Covenants, papers, ideas, meetings, petty politics, planning maneuvers for an increasingly meaningless group.
What we are witnessing is truly staggering when you think of it.  Think about the position the Ep. church held in America, just 20 years ago (1990), and think of its’ position now.  That is quite a slide.  Some would say that 20 years is a long time.  I say that the decline is quite a feat, but just goes to show you what can happen if you let a few determined people get control of an organization.

There is nothing wrong with a Covenant

Yes there is.  “Covenant” has now become a code word used by mendacious dissemblers, along with other words such as “inclusive” and “diversity” and “generous” and other categories that have been ruined by revisionists.  Here in the USA, back in the 1970’s the Episcopalians invented some bogus thing they call a “Baptismal Covenant” that is now used to exalt shameful abominations.  Beware anybody trying to sell you any new thing labeled “covenant”.  They are not your friend.

[28] Pageantmaster

[I]t is all the Williams/Kearon dodgy hanky-panky that appears to be being pushed through with it that is the problem.

Were it not for all the dodgy hanky-panky, there wouldn’t even be a proposed covenant.  Its whole purpose is to serve as a vehicle for the transmission of that dodgy hanky-panky. 

carl

#33 Chazaq and #34 Carl
I happen to think that a Covenant is a good idea, but I am seriously worried where this one is being led, which seems to be controlled by a very small and unrepresentative group of provinces, overwhelmingly tiny and declining, white and in many cases liberal to the point of being at serious risk of losing any Christian identity whatever.  Just look at it:
US [2] - Schori and Douglas,
Wales [1] - Morgan,
Australia [1] - Aspinall
New Zealand [1] - Fitchett
South Africa [1] - Trisk
and of course although not necessarily in the same boat as the other liberals:
England [2] - Williams and Paver
The majority is composed of what used to be called the White Dominions.  No representation from the huge Gafcon province of Nigeria.  Frankly it is a shameful disgrace.

And what has it done:
- Issued a report whitewashing TEC before Dar which was not accepted;
- Issued a report whitewashing TEC at New Orleans, without authority from the Primates who had issued the Dar Communique
- Excluded a global south representative from the ACC meeting in Jamaica without authority
- Rigged the resolutions at Jamaica
- One of its members [Aspinall] engaged in the most discraceful act of the distribution of a unauthorised and unapproved motion over lunch at Jamaica.
- Over-ruled the Chair at Jamaica, to claim that a motion which had not been voted on, had been, and pressuring him with the use of ‘canon lawyers’ to accept that.
- Met secretly and unaccountably and with the cooperation of Williams taken the Covenant approval process out of the hands of the Covenant Design Group into another group and issued a new draft without explanation of what changes it had finally approved.
- Taken new and unknown powers to itself through a “secret constitution” no one is allowed to know about.

Frankly this is no way to run a 58 million member Communion.  It is a shambles and a disgrace, and is likely to undermine any prospect of a Covenant.  +Orombi gave up on it a long time ago, and now even the most patient and reasonable +Anis has given up on it.

And Rowan is at the bottom of it all.

ACI’s Dr. Ephraim Radner has made a further comment here

(post edited link removed)

a self-serving one at that

#36, Mike Watson,

Thanks for the pickup.  Sadly, Dr. Radner continues to sit, lonely in his boat, paddling upstream against any, every, and all discernible currents, saying “Now let’s not do anything rash, because to do so would be very, very, very bad, and we just should not do anything very, very, very bad.”

Whatever happened to speaking truth, considering the current state of affairs, analyzing shortcomings and resolving them, you know…fixing a desperate situation?  Dr. Radner does not appear to desire resolution, but rather stasis and some sort of brokered peace.  Face it, sir, the entire AC is poised teetering at the brink of a great abyss.  That’s right, teetering.  There is no equilibrium at a brink.

Although Dr. Radner states he resists this:

One alternative is simply to sit back and watch things unfold according to whatever dynamics are now in play with the ACC’s Standing Committee having laid out an extended time frame for the adoption process, having restricted participation, and having claimed an authority to itself for overseeing all this.

he goes on to state his acquiescence to a “longer, more challenging, and difficult journey”.  So, Dr. Radner, we’re to look at at least seven or so more years of hemming and hawing, foot shuffling, aw shucksing tomfoolery?  In light of non-canonical dealings from every quarter of Western AC leadership, lawsuits, intentional harm of orthodox believers, shirking of the Gospel imperatives, non-Scriptural, a-theological, amoral, counter-missional crap?  I’m sorry for Dr. Radner.  He fails to discern the harm underlying his position.

Don’t think he subscribes to the SMART method of project management/problem resolution where resolutions to situation the AC finds itself in ought to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time bound.

Do not look to him to answer the “Where do we go from here?” question.  He can’t and won’t answer it.  He must relish uncertainty.  How post-modern.

Mike (#36),

Thanks for calling our attention to Dr. Radner’s additional comments over at the ACI website.  I’m not sure why the link was quickly removed by the SF editors, but I hope it’s because they plan on starting a new thread based on Ephraim’s latest foray into this whole debate.  Alas, Dr. Radner’s takes some swipes at the FCA leadership that I think are gratuitous and unwarranted.  But his stance is an important one that needs to be taken seriously, not least because so many in the CP movement seem to think along similar lines.

And Pageantmaster,
Thanks for your #35, which is clear, forceful, and convincing.  And if I might add, your criticisms of ++RW and Canon Kearon actually seem rather understated, in a typically British (and winsome) way.  But coming from you, that’s appropriate.

David Handy+

Oops, that should be, Dr. Radner takes some unnecessary swipes at the FCA leaders.

That’s not surprising, of course, since they’ve been so suspicious of the whole Covenant process, or supportive of it in only a lukewarm way at best.  His disappointment with the FCA leadership is quite palpable, and indeed natural and understandable given their clashing perspectives, but it’s still regrettable.

David Handy+

I largely agree with what Radner had to say in his latest piece except for this:

But add to this that much of the Gafcon leadership refused to be present at the two main places where the Covenant’s content and future were to be studied, debated, and decided in the Communion – the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and the ACC meeting of 2009.  Archbishop Mouneer has felt marginalized in the meetings of the Communion:  but that is not simply because liberal opponents outnumber him;  it is also because traditional friends abandoned him.  Those who claim that they have the best interest of the Communion and the Covenant at heart, yet who have done everything to sabotage the processes by which the Communion’s members have struggled, in the face of much difficulty and internal turmoil to be sure, to draw our churches into a renewed common faith and witness – such persons do not garner the trust of many Anglicans any more than do those in America who have dragged us into this turmoil in the first place, and because of which the Covenant’s promise was first extended as a ray of light.

I think that the evidence is mounting, and indeed irrefutable, that both Lambeth and ACC 2009 were manipulated by the AC bureaucracy which had no intention of actually listening to the Global South, but still wanted them there so that they could claim that the Communion was still together.  The wisest move at this point for all the Global South is to call Rowan Williams and the AC bureaucracy on this manipulation and let them know that the GS will no longer attend or participate in any process that is unrepresentative, dishonest or manipulated.  And if any process that the GS does begin to participate in becomes manipulated, they should immediately walk out.

This would make it clear to Rowan Williams that there is a real public problem that won’t go away.  The GS wouldn’t lose anything because their voices weren’t being listened to by attending anyway.  However, their voices would begin to be listened to even more as the ball would be very much in Rowan Williams’ court as the onus would be on HIM to actually DO something to save the Communion.  Having 5 GS representatives getting ignored by RW and the ACO is no better then having no GS representatives getting ignored.  Having no GS reps there is better because it makes a clear statement that the GS has lost confidence in the process and forces RW to begin to really listen.

To be fair to Dr Radner I think he is advocating that the GS sign up immediately to the Covenant and take over the reigns. 

Whether that is in fact possible, I do not know.  Once signed up, the provinces will be bound by it and its terms including the position and role of the “Standing Committee” with its new position under the secret constitution of the ACC no one is allowed to know about.  To me the Covenant has to be read together with the constitution which forms an integral part of it and its arrangements.

Plus why is there any reason to think that an Archbishop and ACO who ignore the Primates will take any notice of GS members who sign up?  They haven’t so far.

I would have thought the provinces and Global South would be wise to stand and make decisions together and only to sign up when there has been complete disclosure regarding the “Standing Committee” and they are completely happy with it. 

‘Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly.’

Well said, Pageantmaster - a lining up of the facts like that speaks loudly. I have read revisionist opinions claiming that orthodox Anglicans don’t want input from individuals and want to be ruled by a strict hierarchy. But which way is the strict hierarchy working here? And whose voices aren’t being heard?

Yes there is.  “Covenant” has now become a code word used by mendacious dissemblers, along with other words such as “inclusive” and “diversity” and “generous”...

Beware anybody trying to sell you any new thing labeled “covenant”...

So I should beware all republics, because of the tyranical behavoir of the Committee of Public Safety and the chaos of the last century of the Roman Republic?  I should beware all constitutions, because there have been some pretty bad consitutions in throughout history?  I should beware all laws, because many have been unjust?

No, I’m sorry.  Covenant remains a perfectly legitimate word, and a perfectly legitimate concept.  An Anglican Covenenant would not have been a bad thing, if it had been allowed to accomplish what the Archbishop Anis, the ACI and other have clearly hoped it would.

Correction to my #35 - although Janet Trisk of Southern Africa is listed on the Charity Commission website, she may have been replaced by Nomfundo Walaza for Southern Africa.

Wonder what Abp. Anis would have to say about “Where Do We Go from Here?” and Dr. Radner’s mush.

For some reason, Dr. Radner’s “mush” brought on almost a visceral reaction from me.  Sort of like a sudden extreme drop in altitude while a passenger in an airplane.

It seems to me that above all, it is “communion” with Canturbury at all costs. Look folks, the ACI has made NO bones about being against all but the most long-suffering, patience with what seems almost a corrupt “POLITICAL” organization. One can put all the whipped cream one wants on this lousy pie, it does NOT change the contents.

There is No room in the “inn” for the orthodox, the ‘inkeeper” says so.  Either join the team, stick your head in the sand and hope the storm weakens and pray for deliverence, but by no means, should you say anymore about the actions of the communion elite.  They know best, how dare you disagree.

Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Grannie Gloria

Once signed up, the provinces will be bound by it and its terms including the position and role of the “Standing Committee” with its new position under the secret constitution of the ACC no one is allowed to know about.

I do believe you are wrong here, at least in detail.  Clearly and unquestionably, the PB, ABC, Cameron and Kearon know ALL about the secret constitution.  You can be sure that the PB’s chancellor, who sits on the canon law commission (let’s not forget them in this discussion- that group of revisionist lawyers who have control over canon law as it applies to communion wide issues) had a major hand in WRITING the secret constitution, along with other people secretly working on it.  I do believe you could call any orthodox primate, and they could not name one person who they know who had a hand in the creation of this new constitution (other than ++Rowan, Kearon, etc), but by the same token, I would be very sure that any of the British Isles, North America or Austa-NZ primates could name several, and probably lunch with them on a regular basis.
  I suspect that Ephriam Radner is every bit as upset over the state of the Communion as Bishop Mouneer.  However, he had his opportunity to see to it that it came out as a strong document capable of dealing with TEC and ACoC.  I am sure he put forward his best effort, but it is now much to late for him to try to tweak the document or the process.  The difficulty that is becoming apparent has been there for years, and often pointed out.  And the difficulty is this.  TEC chose to abandon the communion of the Church by defying the bishops at Lambeth, the Primates at every meeting since 2003 (and at that one openly lied), the ACC and even ++Rowan’s much weakened recommendations derived from the first 3.  NO state of communion exists between TEC and the majority of the world’s Anglicans.  So how can a Covenant, that requires mutual recognition of Communion, exist between them. That issue MUST be dealt with before the Covenant means anything at all.  And, unless the ABoC himself is willing to make the open statement that churches can be fully Anglican without being in full communion with the See of Canterbury, the Covenant remains meaningless until such time as adopted by the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury himself.  It is starting to look like the “first tier” of provinces will be those who refuse to sign, and the second tier will be those who do sign, and are ruled by a Standing Committee 60% of whom are from the non-signing group.
  The Global South is quite correct, if you are not prepared to live by Lambeth 1.10, you should not be allowed to sign.  I don’t see how anyone can sign, so long as the rulers of the Communion- the junta of the standing committee that has overthrown the legitimate Instruments- are the very people who destroyed the fabric of the Communion in the first place.
  And please, will all the “moderates” look up the Greek for “tear the fabric?”  Remember that when the GS accepted the term “tear the fabric” they assumed it was just an English translation of the Greek.  When the Communion reported that TEC and ACoC “tore the fabric” of the Communion, the GS assumed the consequences would be those that the Church has imposed for 2 millenia on those who “tore the fabric”- and they were promised that was exactly what would happen.  After 7 years, I think they will now take matters into their own hands, whether they endorse the Standing Committee Covenant, the Ridley Cambridge Covenant, or the Jerusalem Declaration or no Covenant at all, I think ++Rowan has until mid April to put his house in order, or face the consequences of having ignored and manipulated 75% of the Communion for the last 7 years.

I would urge folks to read Dr. Radner’s latest comment carefully.  He set out two alternatives which he rejects.  For some reason, many commentators here seem to think he is actually advocating one of the alternatives which he rejected.  Radner is NOT suggesting that we just sit back and let RW and the Western liberals undermine the Covenant. 

What I think Radner is suggesting is that TEC and its liberal allies (with the intentional or unwitting support of Rowan Williams) have decided to undermine the Covenant not by scuttling the text, but rather by a clever manipulation of the underlying processes and implementation of the Covenant.  The Western liberals realized that it doesn’t really matter what the Covenant says if you control the processes of its interpretation and enforcement.

Radner is accordingly NOT calling for throwing out the Covenant, but rather he is calling for the specific countering of the attempted Western liberal coup de communion of creating a new Western liberal dominated Standing Committee and making the ABC and Western liberal-dominated ACC the pre-eminent Instruments of Unity which will together have complete control over the Covenant.  As Dr. Radner points out, the Covenant does not necessarily support the structure this attempted coup envisions.

Thus what he calls for is not throwing the whole Covenant out and starting afresh from the outside, but rather for the Global South to “seize the moment”, ratify the Covenant and then as Covenanted members of the Communion work to create Covenant-friendly structures to implement the Covenant.  This doesn’t mean ignore the ACC, but rather it means that we must resist the coup de communion of elevating it to a position it does not legitimately have.  Radner does not want to cede the Communion structures to Western liberal manipulation.

And I would also urge folks here to separate in your minds the office of Archbishop of Canterbury and its current incumbent.  I think that Radner (as am I) would like to remain connected to the See of Canterbury, but are highly critical of the See’s current incumbent.

JamesW-
I guess my question is- who is this latest essay addressed to?  Given it’s content, it cannot be addressed to those of us in ACNA or to the GS or to FCA members in CoE.  They only people who can change what is happening are those in power.  And does he honestly think that they will suddenly see the light and repent of all the subterfuge that has gone into making the bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson into the arbiters of the Covenant?

Serious question to Dr. Radner, which is REALLY confusing me having read both the latest two papers, a lot of the ACI debate seems to focus on the Standing Committee, which is more or less the joint standing committee, renamed.

Contrary to a widely shared assumption, Section 4 does not in fact explicitly identify this “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” with any pre-existing committee. It does, however, define the Committee’s responsibilities and thereby determines the qualifications for any committee that would fill this role. First, and most importantly, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is to be “responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.”

Well, OK, I don’t like the Standing Committee running things either.  But who selected the Standing Committee (formerly known as JSC) to do this?  The Covenant Design Group.  Here is the text from the Ridley Cambridge draft:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/ridley_cambridge/draft_text.cfm
4.2 The Maintenance of the Covenant and Dispute Resolution

(4.2.1) The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates’ Meeting, or any body that succeeds it, shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Committee may nominate or appoint another committee or commission to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.

(4.2.2) If a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, or of compatibility to the principles incorporated in it, should arise, the Joint Standing Committee may make a request to any covenanting Church to defer action until the processes set out below have been completed. It shall further take advice from such bodies as its feels appropriate on the nature and relational consequences of the matter and may make a recommendation to be referred for advice to both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.

(4.2.3) If a Church refuses to defer a controversial action, the Joint Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.

(4.2.4) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Joint Standing Committee may make a declaration concerning an action or decision of a covenanting Church that such an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”. A declaration of incompatibility with the Covenant shall not have any force in the Constitution and Canons of any covenanting Church unless or until it is received by the canonical procedures of the Church in question.

(4.2.5) On the basis of the advice received, the Joint Standing Committee may make recommendations as to relational consequences to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion. These recommendations may address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church to continue with an action or decision which has been found to be “incompatible with the Covenant” impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion. It may recommend whether such action or decision should have a consequence for participation in the life of the Communion and its Instruments. It shall be for each Church and each Instrument to determine its own response to such recommendations.

Now, if Dr. Radner has problems with the Standing Committee being in charge of everything pertaining to the Covenant, why did he not seem to have these problems when the Ridley draft was written (remember that he was on the team that wrote it)?  Membership of the JSC/SC has changed a little, revisionists still in the majority (especially given the ABoC’s tiebreak vote) but the GS arguably has more representation now than in the earlier rendition of the JSC.  To say that no one objected at the time would be to dismiss any number of people who raised questions when the Covenant Design Group rewrote the earlier draft, removed the Primates from the process, and gave power over the Covenant to KJS and the JSC.  And if anyone wanted to waste the time reading through my 3 or 4000 entries on StandFirm, I am pretty certain you could find some choice quotes from yours truly on that very point.  With a prediction or 2 that might still prove accurate.

tjmcmahon:  I think that the original ACI essay was aimed at both Rowan Williams and the Global South primates (both moderate and GAFCON).  I think that his second statement was aimed at the same group, but also to dispel the suggestion that he was now advocating starting the Covenant process again.

My guess is that Radner and the ACI have a similar view towards RW and Communion politics that many of us do.  That is, that RW is a weak leader who has witlessly played into the hands of the aggressive Western liberals.  I think that the ACI missive has two goals - first to provide a committed-Communion way forward for the moderate GS primates; and second to attempt to warn RW about what his continued dithering might mean for the Communion.

Have you noticed tj, that the ACI and Dr. Radner have moved slowly but surely away from counseling great faith in RW as being an honest broker, and towards counseling respect for RW but nevertheless treating him as an obstacle to be worked around?

tjmcmahon (#51) - Excellent question!!!!  Unless Radner realized the error of the RC Draft and quietly reworked the relevant passages to make the identity of the “Standing Committee” vague.

It’s still mush…

#51 TJ - isn’t your quote interesting - I hadn’t looked at the Ridley draft for a while:

(4.2.1) The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates’ Meeting, or any body that succeeds it, shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Committee may nominate or appoint another committee or commission to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.

Even that far back, someone had in mind some of the moves we have seen with the Standing Committee, and drafted language to cover it.  Language which on the face of it looks innocuous, but is laying the specific groundwork for the next move he or they had in mind.  Someone who is always two steps or more ahead in his game.

Of course the Ridley Draft was predicated on the Joint Standing Committee with its powers and make up which is transparently visible from the ACC constitution and resolutions, not the “Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” with its recently invented status and unknown powers, make up, authority and secret constitution.

Contrast the Ridley Draft with the final draft here:

(4.2.2)  The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, responsible to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, shall monitor the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion on behalf of the Instruments. In this regard, the Standing Committee shall be supported by such other committees or commissions as may be mandated to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.

No need to make provision for a successor to the JSC because the successor has already been put in place.

And there is still provision to appoint committees and commissions to assist it, but instead of being appointed by the JSC it is to be “mandated”, but it is not clear by whom, although one can probably guess.

I would be very interested to know if this provision and its purpose in the Ridley Draft were explained to Dr Radner and AB Chew when it was drafted and presented to them by presumably +Gregory Cameron?

DO NOT believe for one micro milli moment that Rowan Williams has either dithered or been witlessly played.

He is not a puppet at all, but a willing, devoted and skillful accomplice.

Floridian:  On the one hand, yes, RW has been skillful and has pulled the strings to ensure that what he wanted done was done.  However, I would suggest to you that he is not necessarily the accomplice to TEC that you might think.

RW has had two primary objectives all along:  1) centralize all policy-making control in the Anglican Communion under bodies which he thinks he can control; 2) keep the Communion together by stringing out process after process whilst at the same time preventing any real decisions from actually being made.

Had RW simply wanted to broker in TEC innovations, then he could have done that much more effectively.  What I think we see is that some Western liberals have made a temporary alliance with RW in his first goal, but ensured that they benefited from this centralization.  Meanwhile the liberals also allied themselves with RW in his second goal, to the effect that they have realized that RW will never allow any decision on TEC to ever be made unless he is absolutely forced to.

What is unknown right now, I would suggest, is if RW was actually faced with a clear and imminent choice of TEC or the rest of the Communion, what he would decide.

The idea of the global soutb primates signing on to the covenant and then trying to create covenant friendly structures is wishful thinking. The GS are no match for RW and his allies (aspinall, kearon etc)

James, I think that the root of the current Covenant problem comes down to 2 things:
In 2003 ++Rowan Williams (regardless of his personal theology- would be true for a conservative as well) was presented with an unsolvable problem.  The Episcopal Church chose to leave the Anglican Communion.  Only, he could not let it go.  And I do not mean this so much in terms of his personal emotions, but as the head of the Communion, he saw it as his job-the focus of unity- although TEC had already left, in reality, he had to maintain a structural fiction that it had not.  So, “impaired communion” was invented- so you could be in the Anglican Communion even when you were not in communion with the majority of its communicants.  At the same time, the majority of the other churches saw TEC’s actions as completely unacceptable, and will not be content until such time as TEC is separated from the Communion.  In order to keep them in the Communion, he had to lead them to believe that TEC would leave or be kicked out.  The man has been brilliant.  Had it been almost anyone else, the Communion would have ended at the 2006 ACC meeting.
  The problem now is that he has run out of time.  TEC is inventing its own religion and its own communion of churches.  The fact that it is no longer Anglican in any meaningful sense is becoming increasingly clear- sacramentally, ecclesiologically, liturgically, it is morphing into something else.
  Meanwhile, the GS churches are becoming more and more frustrated- to the point now that the most moderate primate has withdrawn from the standing committee.  One wonders if anyone else in the GS will accept the position if it is offered.
  In essence, we are now at the crisis moment, a decision must be made one way or the other- to remove TEC from the Communion, or to lose the GS.  One very much doubts, for instance, that IF the 2011 Primates meeting happens, it will be attended by both KJS and ++Henry Orombi. Or that many GS delegations will attend ACC 2012 unless they have assurances that their delegates will be seated regardless of what TEC thinks about it.  If the Jamaica travesty is repeated, I predict they will all walk.
  The second problem is this.  While the hand picked Revision Committee (boy was that a BAD choice of name) was reviewing section 4 of the Covenant, the majority of the Anglican Communion said it was happy with the Ridley draft.  In fact, the invitation to the GS Encounter coming in April specifically limits attendance to those churches a) upholding Lambeth 1.10 and b) prepared to sign the Ridley Cambridge draft.  That is to say, the Global South, essentially, pledged itself to signing the Ridley draft, THEN the revision committee, at the behest of a MINORITY of the Communion, rewrote the draft into something more pleasing to the revisionist churches, specifically, for instance, removing the ability of dioceses to sign on if their “national church” refused.  Clearly, the ONLY GS representative on the revision committee was ignored completely when the revisions were written.  As were the GS representatives on the Standing Committee when it reviewed the document.
  So, a majority of the Communion received the Ridley draft favorably, committed to signing it, then a committee stacked for the purpose, rewrote it taking into account only the minority western views.
  What happens in April, I don’t know.  Perhaps they will sign the “Williams-Cameron” draft, maybe Ridley, maybe something else entirely, maybe nothing at all.  But if 20 churches attend, whatever they sign IS the Covenant.  Or there will be 2 or more Anglican Communions.

#59 The Beat

The idea of the global soutb primates signing on to the covenant and then trying to create covenant friendly structures is wishful thinking. The GS are no match for RW and his allies (aspinall, kearon etc

Indeed.  It is probably not a skill set they have had to develop for use in their ministries, and just as well.  I know who I would rather have pastoring me.

Hi All,
Sinking sand comes to mind when I read of a new Covenant construction in The Church of England.

Time we all got back to Christian Dogma found in Holy Scripture rather than making the best of it with new or old alliances for that matter!

Where do we go from here, well it is going to be very interesting what happens when His Holiness sets foot on our shores, the shores of England!

Yours in Christ,

Colin2000.

All I know is that when I read this…and anytime I read something from the ACI(I know DioDallas and Incarnation well)...I start hearing what sounds like the teachers and adults in the Peanuts cartoons…WAHH WUHH WAH WAH WAH WHUHHH WHOO WHOO WAHHHH…then I fall asleep.

But to the wicked God says:
“Why do you recite my statutes,
and take my covenant upon your lips;
Since you refuse discipline,
and toss my words behind your back?
When you see a thief, you make him your friend,
and you cast in your lot with adulterers.
You have loosed your lips for evil,
and harnessed your tongue to a lie.” Ps. 50:16-19
If its signatories refuse discipline, toss God’s word aside and cast their lot with adulterers, of what use is reciting a covenant?

Radner suggests an ad hoc committee to replace the SCOTAC.  He invites tha ABC to give this ad hoc committee his imprimatur.  However, he appears to suggest using the existing covenant draft. 

ISTM that the covenant development process, while *somewhat* representative of the provinces, has itself been ad hoc.  There is no AC procedure book for creating or adopting covenants.  Among other things, the covenant that has been distributed is procedurally flawed in that (i) it relies procedurally on a non-representative body for maintenance of the terms, and (ii) those who do not accept the covenant may participate in the covenant maintenance. 

ISTM that if any version of the covenant is to be accepted by the GS - even in the form Radner suggest - then these flaws should be corrected.  In other words, edit the maintenance provision of the covenant to accurately describe what Radner suggests, then adopt it.  It only makes sense that those who adopt it should maintain it.  I would approach this by inserting along with the first reference to SCOTAC in 4.2, the following:

“...or, until adoption by every province of the Anglican Communion, some other such committee appointed by the adopting provinces in a representative meeting of such provinces (referred to hereinafter as ‘Standing Committee’,...”

...and leave the rest intact for the initial adoption.  After which, a province may propose amendments strengthening the covenant.

Here is the key section:

“(4.4.2) Any covenanting Church or Instrument of Communion may submit a proposal to amend the Covenant to the Instruments of Communion through the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall send the proposal to the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates’ Meeting, the covenanting Churches and any other body as it may consider appropriate for advice. The Standing Committee shall make a recommendation on the proposal in the light of advice offered, and submit the proposal with any revisions to the covenanting Churches. The amendment is operative when ratified by three quarters of such Churches. The Standing Committee shall adopt a procedure for promulgation of the amendment.

From that change, any other change may be made.

ISTM that the only alternative would be a separate agreement of equal dignity among the members defining such an approach.  There is no integration clause declaring the covenant to be the complete and final agreement among the adopting provinces.  In other words, the parties may agree to amend the maintenance provisions by separate agreement.  In such event, subsequent adopters would face the choice of whether to agree to version 1 or version 2.

Dealing with heresy and corrupt processes is not pretty.

RE: “Wonder what Abp. Anis would have to say about “Where Do We Go from Here?” and Dr. Radner’s mush.”

Great comments—most of them, that is.  How Radner’s comments are “mush” when so many disagree heartily with them, and others generally agree, and others add some good analysis and quotes from past documents is a mystery however.  The fact is, some people disagree with Dr. Radner’s ideas [particularly his commitment to staying within the Communion] and others don’t.  But regardless no definition of the word “mush” that I know of describes this essay.

I find myself as usual [heh] “in the middle” as the Moderate Affirming Inclusive Dolphin-Like Creature that I am. 

I don’t see throwing up the hands and saying “let’s give up on the Covenant and all do what’s really really been right all along and join ACNA” [any more than I’ve said “oh look at the terrible Constitution and Canons of ACNA that strips all meaningful power away from the laypeople—why don’t ya’ll all do what’s been really right all along and re-enter the Communion and join in with the Covenant Design Group!].

Nor do I see it as AT ALL LIKELY that if a bunch of GS primates get together and “write their own covenant and all sign it” the rest of the Anglican Communion “can’t help but” accept it.  It appears that Dr. Noll advocates something like that in another comment and states that “It may be irregular but not illegitimate.”  And others—usually folks who have already or desire to leave the Anglican Communion—say similar things.  No—as has been proven in spades in the past seven years—it would be “illegitimate” for Primates to do that outside of the “communion structures”—so the notion of GS Primates “doing their own covenant” is nothing more than a de facto formal split, as is desired by so many of the Leavers and just as the Network ended up being.

On the other other hand, I don’t at all think that Dr. Radner’s idea of “all signing on to the Covenant” and then trying to reform the process, including the actual ruling body of the JSC/SCAC, is a good idea.  My heavens—it’s as if none of the past 7 years of rank, crass, transparently obvious manipulation had occurred.  Obviously, none of our side can “play the game” as well as the folks who make the rules, hire the referees, own the playing field, and manufacture the ball. 

That’s why my constant and unceasing chant in blogland has been the wish that the orthodox Primates would withdraw themselves from the playing fields—that is, the JSC [yea!!!], the <strike>Lambeth Meeting</strike> The Royal Nonesuch, and other various committees/etc.

Here are a few quotes from past essays about the situation in the Anglican Communion and the game that Rowan Williams has played and is continuing to play—until a large group of Primates—[not five or six, mind you]—cease playing his game and move themselves away from his playing fields of various JSCs and Royal Nonesuch’s, they will continue losing.

From 2006:

Here it is clear that my essential pessimism about Rowan Williams runs very counter to Matt Kennedy’s optimism. Matt believes that Rowan is inclined to act to discipline ECUSA. I believe that Rowan is desperate for further delay and that delay was the focus, endpoint, and modus operandi from beginning to end, for the past three years. At the initial emergency Primates meeting, Rowan wanted to delay taking an action. At the ensuing ACC meetings, Rowan wanted to delay taking an action. At ensuing Primates meetings, Rowan wanted to delay taking an action, and brokered the Windsor Report. That bought more than a year of time while waiting on the report to be released. Then the Primates meeting to consider the Windsor Report bought another year of waiting for the General Convention and Canada’s Synod to accept or decline. With the ECUSA’s resounding decline of the Windsor Report’s requests, Rowan now turns his eyes to the covenant, which buys another two years.

You get the drift—delay is the point.

Of course, others within the communion continue to close off escape routes and narrow the options for both the communion as a whole and for the Archbishop of Canterbury in particular. But that’s the political game, isn’t it? One side narrowing options and revealing consequences for delay—that’s the shorthand for “pain”—and the other side brokering delay.

None of this is particularly profound or new—it’s a process that runs itself out in all organizations, whether “secular” or “sacred”. Eventually, the consequences for one or both sides will reach the level of what I like to call “Shrieking Pain”. And it is at the level of “Shrieking Pain” that one or both sides will finally act within the Communion.

We may decry all of this. But let’s face it—individuals also almost always only respond to the “Shrieking Pain” level when the moment arrives for change. It’s just the way life is, and those of us caught within all of this need to take the gift of time that God has offered us and use it well and faithfully.

From 2007:

4) One must now surmise why on earth Rowan Williams tortured us all by forcing us to slog through the “Windsor Process” over the past nearly four horrible years, all the while pretending that such things would make a difference in the life of the Communion with regards to order, catholicity, and discipline, when at the same time he had no intention of providing consequences for the direct defiance of the same report and the communiques issued concerning the report?

Here I can offer an answer. Quite simply, if the Lambeth invitation list remains the same as released, the point of the “Windsor Process” in Rowan’s perspective was to provide a “red herring” as a delaying tactic.

Let me offer a real-life example of this strategy in action [at least, in the minds of folks like Jim Naughton and Father Jake, a “real-life example”.]

It would be sort of like my calling up Greg Griffith and saying to him “say, I’d like to get that hefty IRD-fundamentalist-conspiracy check for my part in The Conspiracy by July 4, please” . . . and rather than Greg saying simply “no, it’s in my bank account and I’m not giving it up”, instead saying “ah, let’s have a meeting about that—what’s your May look like” and my going away happy that we’re having a meeting, feeling triumphant and victorious.

At the meeting in May—which involved convoluted travel plans on my part and a final destination in a swamp-laden house on stilts outside of New Orleans—Greg says “that’s cool, Sarah—certainly deserve that heft IRD-fundamentalist-conspiracy check for the part that you played—however, in order to hide the IRD conspiracy check from those wascally and clever ECUSA revisionists who are on to us, I’ll need to ship it to an unmarked PO Box—as soon as you get one of those, let me know and I’ll send it right out.” I again feel triumphant and victorious over this unexpectedly simple resolution.

I go away and slog through setting up an unmarked PO Box, and then email Greg to let him know.

His reply: “great—I’m out of town right now, working on a client project in Aruba, but I’ll be back on June 8 and I’ll make sure to get that right out to you.”

I wait eagerly for June 8. June 9 arrives and, wearing a blond wig, false nose, and big round eyeglasses I check my PO Box. No check.

But maybe the mail is delayed. I dress in the same getup every day for a week, and no check.

I call Greg—his voicemail says that he is serving a client in Barbados but he’ll be back by June 20.

On June 21 I capture him again, using my trusty Skype. . . . “where check” I type. He types back “large check—must go get cashier’s check from bank instead—give me a few days” . . .

June 26—I’m in the same getup again, checking my PO Box. No check.

I try to call and email and skype over the next week—no Greg.

I send him a carrier pigeon with a message asking him for my IRD-Right-Wing-Fundamentalist-Conspiracy check, and several days later—on July 4, as a matter of fact, I receive a carrier pigeon with a “return to sender” message . . . and a notice that Greg is now a citizen of Saudi Arabia, which incidentally has no extradition privilege for the U.S.

While on the one hand, the delays in my receiving the IRD conspiracy check might have been legitimate . . . the fact that Greg is now a citizen of Saudi Arabia as of July 4 seems to imply that Greg’s sole intention in his putting me through all of those contortions was in fact to delay any action by me prior to July 4.

One cannot help but think that, given that the Windsor Process has so far produced precisely nothing except for four long years of delay, that that was also exactly Rowan Williams’ intention. Keep the players in the game, until the next Lambeth conference.

I cannot see the purpose in the orthodox entering into a covenant, at the present time. What do we need, that it will give us?

As this recent episode has demonstrated, the covenant process carries significant risk that the liberals can subvert it in some way. There are times when such risks should be run, but only if there is some positive outcome to be achieved. I can’t see anything that we need from a covenant.

The Anglican Communion will not fall apart without a covenant. It is a reality for the majority of Anglicans in the world: We have fellowship through it with our otrthodox Anglican brethren. What more would a covenant give us?

We who are in orthodox provinces and dioceses are doing the things that churches should do: evangelising, discipling believers, planting new churches. We are also providing aid and comfort to those orthodox who remain within TEC, CofE etc, to the extent that is possible. Whereas the liberals in TEC, ACoC and CofE are spending their money, very fast. I say we let that process continue a while longer.

The orthodox should carry on as before – act as the Communion, give aid and comfort to the orthodox everywhere, and work to overturn liberal control of CofE, TEC and ACoC. Mind you, those orthodox leaders who have advocated engagement with the liberals in the past (e.g. ++Gomez, ++Anis, Dr Radner) need to consider whether they have actually ended up crossing the line into gullibility.

The orthodox leaders should also convey a clear threat to the CofE that if it persists in tolerating and assisting the liberals, the Communion may formally and publicly dispense with Canterbury’s leadership of the Communion (probably involving the Primates choosing a “Primate of the Anglican Communion” from among themselves). For reasons I have outlined elsewhere, I do believe such a threat will carry weight in influential parts of the British establishment.

Tjmcmahon at #60:

In 2003 ++Rowan Williams … was presented with an unsolvable problem.  The Episcopal Church chose to leave the Anglican Communion.  Only, he could not let it go.  … So, “impaired communion” was invented- so you could be in the Anglican Communion even when you were not in communion with the majority of its communicants.

I don’t think we can blame +++Williams for inventing the concept of “impaired communion”: The Forward in Faith Communion Statement from 1994 refers to “this inevitable impairment of communion” and “a degree of separation”.

“Impaired communion” is a concept that has been used for many years by those orthodox leaders in the Anglican church who wish to enforce a clear break between themselves and the liberals, but who also believe that in the long run the Anglican Communion should be saved, and can be saved. The leaders who carried the day at Gafcon would be a prime example.

Floridian at #57

DO NOT believe for one micro milli moment that Rowan Williams has either dithered or been witlessly played. He is not a puppet at all, but a willing, devoted and skillful accomplice.

Well said.

Sarah at #66

No—as has been proven in spades in the past seven years—it would be “illegitimate” for Primates to do that outside of the “communion structures”—so the notion of GS Primates “doing their own covenant” is nothing more than a de facto formal split, as is desired by so many of the Leavers and just as the Network ended up being.

There are hardly any “communion structures” worthy of the name. Nothing prevents the Primates from drafting a covenant if they wish, nor could it be termed
“illegitimate”.

The orthodox primates and bishops are leaders of their particular provinces/dioceses, each of which is autonomous. They are entitled to agree publicly on anything they wish, sign anything they wish, and attend (or not attend) any conference that they wish. Lambeth 2008 is a good example – the orthodox bishops who boycotted it are jsut as much members of the Anglican Communion as they ever were.

Nor would the orthodox primates drafting their own covenant involve a “de facto formal split”. At present, the orthodox remain within the Anglican Communion, but on an “impaired communion” basis with several provinces, notably TEC and Canada. Drafting their own covenant would not change that, even if say TEC or CofE declined to join. The position would only change if the orthodox announced that they were no longer in communion at all with a particular province.

But as noted above, I am not advocating that the orthodox bishops should draft a covenant at the present time, unless that would clearly serve some orthodox purpose – I think we are getting along fine without one.

Note some additional comments of interest by Ephraim Radner at T19 http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28071/#comments.

#66, Sarah,

Dr. Noll much, much better states what I tried to contract, however unpoetically, into the single word - mush:

Bp. Mouneer has been behind the curtain of the Lambeth bureaucracy and seen the wizard manipulating the bells and whistles, and he has concluded it is a sham. Ephraim Radner apparently wants us to redraw the curtain and continue talking with and putting our hopes in the image projected on the wall.

—from the T19 article he cites above.

An orthodox storm is a-rising…

[comment deleted—off topic; none of us really dare speculate why your mind is as it is]

RE: “Dr. Noll much, much better states what I tried to contract, however unpoetically, into the single word - mush . . . “

Actually he did quite the opposite of you, AR—he acknowledges that, in fact, it wasn’t mush, and needed a reasoned, methodical response.

RE: “I cannot see the purpose in the orthodox entering into a covenant, at the present time. What do we need, that it will give us?”

There isn’t much purpose for those outside of the Communion to enter into a covenant—they’re just fine with their bishops not being invited to Lambeth, not being recognized by Canterbury as within the Communion, and not having representatives on the ACC.  For those of us in the Anglican Communion there’s a whole lot of purpose.  For one thing, we don’t want to continue to have in the coming scores of years what we’ve had in the past seven years.  Now again, for those who have decided to leave TEC but are in the US with their alternate Anglican entities, they don’t bother with that.  But for those of us still in TEC, who know we won’t be going to ACNA, we still care about the Communion being structured for discipline and boundary-setting. 

RE: “The orthodox primates and bishops are leaders of their particular provinces/dioceses, each of which is autonomous. They are entitled to agree publicly on anything they wish, sign anything they wish, and attend (or not attend) any conference that they wish.”

Sure—just as the seven Gafcon Primates agreed to their Jerusalem Statement.  But it wouldn’t solve the larger Communion problem no matter how many little agreements the orthodox Primates signed.

It’d be basically treated with the same sorts of yawns and indifference that the vast majority of Anglicans have treated the Jerusalem Statement with.  It’s fine for whomever to agree with whomever about whatever.  But as far as actually having some sort of impact to resolve the problems within the larger Anglican Communion it’s fairly pointless.

I might, for instance, create my own statement and have all of my lay friends sign on to it.  And that’s all well and good.  In fact I’ve had statements of faith before that are the precursor to being allowed to attend meetings, etc.  But those statements don’t solve the larger Communion issues.  They merely bunker off the few who do sign them into their own enclave.  Which again, is all well and good for those guys.

#71, Sarah,

Let’s look at one word (from Dr. Noll’s response)

sham - It is a word that continues to come up describing what the upper crust leadership of the AC is perpetrating against all in the AC.

Dr. Radner’s well-worded essay, in defense of a process overseen by the shamsters, contains two essential pre-suppositions; 1)  the Covenant is the only viable means toward a resolution of the current state of affairs, and 2)  the Covenant process must continue to be handled and overseen by its progenitors, further presuposes there’s no other way.  Abp. Anis shows there IS one other way: a bold, well-reasoned, assertive vote of NO CONFIDENCE in the whole sham.  This, while throwing the proverbial wrench in the works, is just about the only way to deal with the powerbrokers.  1) Proclaim they are in the wrong. 2)  Step back. 3) Force them to act accordingly.  4)  Undergird all with fervent prayer.

Dr. Radner advocates an ecclesial simile to the Bataan Death March.  To no one’s surprise, there are fewer and fewer defenders of this point of view.

Oh, and something that defends a sham = mush…

[comment deleted—off topic;  commenter given a final warning]

RE: “Let’s look at one word (from Dr. Noll’s response) . . . “

Well no, let’s not.

I’m indifferent to your own attempts to back up your original “response” [heh] to Radner’s piece.

All I know are the facts.

You called Radner’s essay mush.

Stephen Noll responded substantively to Radner’s essay.

You’ve attempted to describe your own inability to respond substantively to Radner’s essay as similar to Noll’s substantive response.

I can understand why you’d want to compare the two, mmmm . . . responses.  Frankly, I would like to glom on to other people’s work and claim it as “similar” to my own lesser work as well.

But I prefer to contrast the two responses, as I have.

At any rate, it’s a rabbit trail, and off-topic, and the thread isn’t going to go down the path of whether AR’s response was similar to Noll’s, as I expect that commenters can privately make up their own minds about that—and have.

It’d be basically treated with the same sorts of yawns and indifference that the vast majority of Anglicans have treated the Jerusalem Statement with. 

Ummm… 

The “vast majority of Anglicans” are represented by those archbishops who signed the Jerusalem Statement. Are you saying that the rank and file Anglicans in Nigeria, Udanda, et al, are indifferent to the signatures of their leadership?

Or perhaps are you betraying a bias that you regard the true Anglicans are rightly those in Britain and their descendants in the colonies on the North American Continent?

Hi Brer Rabbit, my apologies.  I should have said “It’d be basically treated with the same sorts of yawns and indifference that the vast majority of Anglican leaders have treated the Jerusalem Statement with.”

And yes, I think that’s the case.

You’ve got two sets of leaders who have been interested in the Jerusalem Statement:
ACNA and provinces which support ACNA.

For the rest of us, it’s irrelevant and has no bearing on our lives or decisions.

That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant *for ACNA and ACNA’s supporters*.

But for the Anglican Communion as a whole, it’s irrelevant.

Now—my own statement of faith used for attending meetings is not “irrelevant” for the meeting attenders.  But it is irrelevant for the Anglican Communion and it solves NONE of the problems of the Anglican Communion as a whole.

No problem. If you can’t speak in hyperboles, what are blogs good for? That one gave me pause, however.

Sarah, I do think you overplay your hand a bit.  Given that the Jerusalem statement has been signed by the Primates, and adopted by the Synods, of provinces that between them are the majority of the membership and ASA of the Communion, I think we would have to say that the document has some import for a great many Anglicans- even those in western leadership positions.  And to say Anglican leaders are mostly ignoring it would seem at odds with the expressed concern of a number that a substantial number of GS churches may sign on in the near future, having become disenchanted with ACO politics, the overthrow of the Instruments by the standing committee, and similar problems.  Certainly, a number of those same ACO politicians (and some of the rest of us) will be watching the Global South encounter very closely.

RE: “Given that the Jerusalem statement has been signed by the Primates . . .”

Hey TJ—remind us again of how many Primates?

RE: “the expressed concern of a number that a substantial number of GS churches may sign on in the near future . . . “

And when a majority of the Primates sign on to the Jerusalem Statement than I will perforce need to state that the vast majority of Anglican Communion leaders have *not* treated it with indifference.

My bet though is that the Global South encounter won’t have much discussion of the Jerusalem Statement.

Yes, Sarah, I will stipulate that “only” 7 (6 originally and Tanzania, I believe, after a vote by their HoB) primates have signed the Jerusalem Declaration.  Which represent 40 million or more congregants.  But to suggest that even the western leadership is “indifferent” to it is I think to ignore the active opposition of TEC and a good part of the rest of the western provinces.  You will find it still a very hot topic in both England and Australia, and the opposition of TEC’s leadership is evident to any regular reader of the HoBD or any of a number of blogs.

TJ, I hear almost no discussion of the Jerusalem Statement by AC leaders.  The only discussion I hear is from blog comments who—every time it’s demonstrated that TEC won’t reform or the Covenant is flawed or the ABC is corrupt—loudly say “now is the time to sign on to the Jerusalem Statement and come home to ACNA.  Surely that is what they will decide now!”

But I don’t really consider that kind of talk as predictive.  Just a colossal and continuing lack of understanding of the deep chasm between the values and goals of the Stayers versus the Leavers.

Sarah,
I completely agree with you that loud speech on blogs, especially Anglican blogs, suggesting that “now is the time” are seldom, if ever, predictive. And I would not limit that statement to the Jerusalem Declaration.  We also “know” from SF alone, that “now is the time to give up Anglicanism and join the Catholic Church (Missouri Synod, Southern Baptist, PCA, Hari Krishna, TEC, Tea Party [insert name of religious or social organization here]). 

I do not see things, however, in the black and white that you apparently do, in terms of “stayers and leavers.”  Hopefully, each of us, is doing our best to listen to the Holy Spirit, and acting accordingly.  I was a “stayer”, fought at a few “little stone bridges” and one pretty big bridge.  But then came the depositions of several close friends, and in truth, I no longer had a confessor within TEC, no cleric I could trust with that, within 500 miles.  It was time to go.  And I think that is the story of most of the “leavers”. Not the couple hundred really loud ones, calling for new church structures often of their own invention, or ripping out stained glass windows, or re-writing the constitution of ACNA before the ink is dry- convinced that the church should follow them.  But most of us.  If there had been an orthodox priest, even one, in this TEC diocese, I might have stayed a while longer. But to stay as some sort of agent provocateur hardly seemed the Christ-like thing to do.  And I was not going to stay to be the pet Anglo Catholic either.

But for those of us still in TEC, who know we won’t be going to ACNA, we still care about the Communion being structured for discipline and boundary-setting.

Sarah, I can’t figure out if you believe that the Covenant “is being structured for discipline and boundary-setting” or not. I gather that you hope the final covenant will be structured that way but it seems to me that the covenant would not have come even this far, without revision, if it were not for the Gafcon statement and the formation of the ACNA. It seems to me that we who stay in TEC should recognize and be thankful for our Christian allies, wherever they may be.

TJ, please know that my statement saying that there is a “deep chasm [of goals and values] between the values and goals of the Stayers versus the Leavers” should have included the key word “some” which I usually remember to include but this time did not.

RE: “Sarah, I can’t figure out if you believe that the Covenant “is being structured for discipline and boundary-setting” or not.”

Hi Betty See, I don’t think it’s a great document at all.  But my indication that those within the Anglican Communion need something that will allow for discipline and boundary-setting was in response to MichaelA’s statement that could not “see the purpose in the orthodox entering into a covenant, at the present time. What do we need, that it will give us?”

I do indeed think that the Covenant would have occurred without the Gafcon statement and the formation of ACNA.  But I also understand the formation of ACNA and I’m very pleased that those who leave TEC but still wish to worship as Anglicans have a cohesive entity to join.

Sarah,
Please do not doubt that I know that you have the best of intentions and are doing the work our Lord has given you to do, even if we (on rare occasions) disagree over details or tactics.