An Unfortunate Draft: Making Heterodoxy Safe For Future Generations

Matt:  A few comments on your post.

1. Regarding time limits as stated in the Covenant.  I believe that the state of California has a constitutionally mandated annual date by which time the state’s budget MUST be agreed to each year.  But there are no sanctions for not meeting this date.  I don’t think that the date has ever been met (okay maybe once or twice).  The point is that the Covenant can declare “only 5 years” here, or “no more then 30 days” there, as much as it likes.  But these time limits are essentially meaningless and will most likely be ignored.

2. I seriously doubt that anything like the Second Draft Covenant would ever be adopted by the Anglican Communion.  What none of the Covenant-backers seriously address is the realpolitick needed to actually bring a Covenant into serious consideration for adoption.  Consider the following:

a)  IF (and I mean IF) the intention is to make a Covenant for the purposes stated by the Covenant-backers (i.e. as a means to unite the Communion and create a workable agreement to prevent any future divisions), then it is pretty clear that at a MINIMUM, any such Covenant would need to be acceptable to a majority of the GS GAFCON Provinces.
b) Although I think that TEC could and would sign on to a Covenant as a last resort, they would ONLY do so AS A LAST RESORT.  In other words, TEC is not going to rush to get its name on a Covenant.  It will only sign if it thinks it has no other option to keep the Canterbury franchise.
c) A simple political calculation thus follows.  Rowan Williams would never push a Covenant which he knew would never be signed by the big GS Provinces.  I further believe that TEC could and would hide behind this as an excuse not to sign any such Covenant, since they would know that by so doing, they could inflict a fatal wound on the idea of a Covenant.  Rowan would know this too, and so would never push such a Covenant.

3. Accordingly, any discussion of a Covenant is wishful thinking at best, unless Rowan Williams seriously deals first with the TEC issue.  Because without TEC being dealt with, there will never be any meaningful Anglican Covenant that will do what the Covenant-backers claim it will do.

So, I personally find this emphasis on the Covenant to be rather a waste of time.  By that I don’t mean that we shouldn’t discuss the idea of a Covenant - to do so is a very good idea, and I would even suggest that the GAFCON folks should begin discussion of their own form of Covenant.  Discussing a possible Covenant is very important, and conservatives should be outlining their views for Anglicanism’s future (i.e. let’s put forth our own ideas on Anglican governance).  What I mean by “waste of time” is to seriously think that an “Anglican Covenant” could realistically be adopted by the Communion prior to Rowan Williams dealing with the TEC issue.  It won’t happen.

4. Instead, for those who actually do want a realistic Anglican Covenant (as I do), the FIRST issue that needs addressing is TEC discipline.  Not more gabfests over what a hypothetical Covenant may or may not say, but TEC discipline.  Because the latter is a necessary precondition to the former.

Thanks, Fr. Matt for this thought provoking analysis.

In an angel investment group in which I participate, I urge entrepreneurs seeking to raise capital to vouch themselves in, give the investors a reason to listen, early in the process.  It is in that context that I state that I have been involved in corporate governance for some years and was a founder of a corporate governance institute.

That said, it is my opinion that the revised covenant document which I have seen on this site would not pass muster in the corporate world.  Perhaps that does not matter in a “communion” context, but I think it does.  Clear mechanisms for resolving disputes, consistently applied most of the time, are critical to the continuity of most entities and institutions, secular and sectarian.

The Church and England and the Anglican Communion have existed for some 500 years, counting from Henry VIII.  That is about one fourth of the life of The Church, and only about six times my own live span, so far.  Limited continuity, at this point.

The continuity of the Roman Catholic Church is much longer, primarily, in my opinion, because it has a clear cut decision making and enforcement process.  It is often wrong, but the institution, the RCC, has survived.

Many, if not most, of the Provinces have their own internal processes for resolving disputes.  The problem is that the Anglican Communion does not.  The ABC can presume such, but it would be just that, a presumption.  The same applies to the other “instruments”.  What is needed, in my opinion, is a governance document which unequivocally acknowledges the primacy of the Scriptures, followed by the Articles, Creeds and BCP without restating them and clearly provides for governance, resolution of disputes and enforcement.  Anything short of that is a feel good process which is as likely to produce negative as positive outcomes.

I hope I am wrong and continue to pray for a positive outcome.

Jamesw,

I agree with some of what you say, but not with your primary point. I think that the ABC has never intended to discipline TEC. Sometime before Tanzania, I believe he made his decision to do all in his power to see to it that TEC was recognized as compliant and to avoid discipline as expressed through invitations. He wanted to collapse the discipline process into the covenant creation process.

Second, I think when he made the decision not to discipline, he also recognised that this would likely mean the loss of a few of the larger Global South Provinces. He did not know how much he would lose until he pressed the subgroup report in Tanzania and the GS coalition largely collapsed along comcon and fedcon lines. After that he reasoned he could risk not disciplining and lose at most 6 provinces. I think he sees this as a sad necessity. To the ABC it would be far more grievous to lose TEC and canada than Nigeria and Uganda. Moreover, he could count on the comcon provinces remaining—further marginalizing the fedcons.

I don’t think he has any doubt that the covenant can be adopted. And I do not agree that he worries about Nigeria et al. He has already accepted their departure. The game now is to keep the covenant process going and to keep the comcons, TEC and Canada at the table until some sort of “process” or “structure” can be found and a covenant established. That will be victory for Rowan.

It can be done and, I think, it will be done.

“....while those provinces daring to establish missionary jurisdictions will have been expelled from the Covenant body.”

Matt, am I correct in thinking that ++Rowan and other revisionists do not distinguish between the direction of the establishment of missionary jurisdiction.  In other words,  there is no difference between +Schofield and DSJ saying to the Southern Cone and ++Venables:  “we need protection and support from ECUSA, please help us” versus ++Venables and the SC saying to +Schofield “Come join us, we’d love to have you join us?”
The same can be said of CANA and the Anglican District of Virginia.  Which came first: the request or the offer.  There is an important differentiation here.

To the ABC it would be far more grievous to lose TEC and canada than Nigeria and Uganda.

It should be grievous to lose any one individual, much less entire provinces.  If true that the ABC actually is operating with this in mind, he is a hard bargainer to say the least.

The second Covenant Draft itself is not much to look at.

I think The Church Society’s, “the whole thing still remains entirely inadequate to meet the needs of the hour,” has a tad more finesse to it, but basically the same point—which I’d agree.

Athanasius Returns:  rather than a ‘hard bargainer’, I would say that he (++Rowan) is selective in choosing which one of his flock he is interested in saving.

I concur with Matt.
I think Williams has always been a liberal and, as such, has always supported TEC.  You can see that from his writings on homosexuality prior to becoming the ABC and in how, whenever there was an absolute choice between supporting TEC and the orthodox he has always chosen TEC.  Even on the very few occasion when he said something that might be construed as positivity towards the orthodox he has always then issued a ‘clarification’ stating that the orthodox are subordinate to the liberals.

The guy has a 100% hit rate.  How can anyone doubt where his loyalties lie?

I also think the meeting in New Orleans was a catalyst for him.  I think Williams always intended to have a free pass but I think that ‘secret’ meeting with Schori made him cross the rubicon. I think Schori made it clear to him the TEC were going ahead with the revolution with or without him and Williams, seeing division was inevitable – Schori didn’t care - accepted his ‘destiny.’ He would see the birth of the new ‘inclusive’ Christianity through.  He would midwife it as Schori gave it birth.  At that point he had a total ‘conviction’ experience.  The fate of the gay community in the Western Church was in his hands.  He had to look after the gays, no matter the cost!

I think Williams is seeing to preserve just a rump Church of liberals centred around Western nations and the global south can go hang.  I also think he intends for the orthodox in the CoE to depart.  I really think he has bought into a Spongian “The Church must change or die” approach. I also think his sympathies with homosexual activitists is so great that is willing to sacrifice the communion for them.

Williams are Schori are much closer I reckon than people realise.  They are both social Marxists.  He thinks Schori is he voice of reason and he ‘secretly’ wishes the orthodox would shut up and go away.

The covenant is a means to preserve TEC and the rest of the Liberal rump in the West.

I think Williams is thinking, “If those Africans want to burn homosexuals that’s their affair but I cannot, in conscience, let those loving souls in committed relationships be denied their love on my watch! I must get the UK to accept homosexuals. I must!”

Williams does have a conscience. It lies with the homosexual agenda.  As Matt says, he’ll let the global south go.  We already know his allegiance.

Note also, Tony Blair appointed Williams and the gay agneda has been almost THE defining element of New Labour.  Blair may have changed his views as a Catholic but prior to his conversion, I have no doubt he was advised and picked the man most likely to further and protect the gay agenda.  I’m willing to bet Brown will defend Williams on the Sharia crisis to the hilt.  He knows an ally!

Matt:  What you say may be true, but my point is that even if it is, Rowan’s Covenant plans will still come to naught.  I would argue that the most you could argue is that Rowan Williams is a TEC-enabler, not that he is actively conspiring with TEC.  As such, I do not believe that TEC is on board with Rowan as regards the Covenant.  TEC will not sign a Covenant except as a matter of last resort.

So, let’s say that Rowan says “fine, we will lose Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, Southern Cone, and Rwanda, but we will pass this Covenant anyway.”  My point is that TEC will not - under those circumstances sign on to the Covenant.  Why not?  Because it would not further their objectives at all.  Or let me ask this “Why would TEC sign a Covenant under such circumstances?”

Under such a circumstances, TEC would see the following:
1) the ABC would have already had to have indicated that he is ready to leave the big GS provinces out of the loop in his desire to keep TEC;
2) the ComCon Provinces would also have agreed to sacrafice the GS for TEC.
It would be quite clear, at that point, to TEC that it need to absolutely nothing to maintain its communion status.  Why sign on to a Covenant?  They would know they would not have to, and that there would be NO CONSEQUENCES for not doing so.  And what’s more, not doing so would kill the Covenant idea, and TEC would have the Anglican Communion exactly where it wants it.

So, Matt, if we accept your argument of a “malicious Rowan”, then I think that his calls for a Covenant are a sham and smokescreen, simply a way to keep the CommCons busy with false hope while Rowan runs off the GS.  Result: no Covenant.

Or if we accept my argument of Rowan as a mere Ditherer, then the Covenant is yet another example of a process in place to delay the inevitable.  Result: no Covenant unless the Great Ditherer stops dithering and does something about TEC.

Matt - you are asking the covenant to accomplish something that everyone involved has said it is not designed to do. Everyone involved has said - including Dr Radner - that the covenant is not designed in any way to solve the current crisis. We are focused on this being resolved. There seems to be some hope that if we talk about other things - now being this covenant - that the other issues will go away. How many couples try getting married - enter a covenant relationship - because this is the only next step they can see - and hope that the issues they had before will disappear…..and what happens?? This is the reality of where we are.

It assumes a core theological consensus that does not, at present, exist. Without a core theological consensus or agreement, the Covenant will necessarily be used or manipulated to establish one by the dominant party.

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. Any covenant reached now will, if it is not pure unadulterated fudge, be a weapon in the hands of one party or the other. The liberals (rightly) thought that the last draft was crafted to be a conservative weapon. The conservatives (rightly) think that this latest draft is crafted to be a liberal weapon.

Really, this is no time for a covenant. A covenant only works where the parties basically agree on fundamentals. We don’t. In those circumstances, a covenant is impossible. It will become possible when, whether by schism or honest compromise, it can be made between those who are fundamentally at peace with each other.

Paul PA,

No, I am asking that a covenant be designed to help us through a crisis like the one we are currently embroiled in. If the covenant is adopted however, it is absurd to think that one of the first complaints will not be regarding ssbs and that it will be quickly followed by a complaint regarding interventions. Of course it is not designed to settle our current matters, but it better darn well be able to handle them or it cannot last and it will not work.

Matt,
We (from painful experience) also see the weaknesses and uselessness of this document. 

What do you believe should be done to save, revive and maintain) a strong, authentic, faithful Anglicanism or can it be done? 

After this week’s debacle, a powerful move of the Holy Spirit is needed.  After GAFCON, if TEC/ACoC/CoE, etc. have not repented and if the Global South has not cut ties with Canterbury, and they have not solved the need for consequences for heretics and rebels, and if they continue to recognize and affirm the extrabibilical sexual agenda terminology and concepts (LBGT, gender, identity, orientation, etc.) there will be no reason to remain Anglican.

Paul PA. Do you have any references prior to the release of this present (sorry excuse for a) second draft that the Covenant that said the Covenant was not intended to help with the current crisis. Quite the contrary, there was much talk by the com-cons. “Don’t do anything rash. The covenant will come to our rescue.” This was said any number of times in various threads with Radner, Seitz, etc., participating, and they never corrected the thought to my knowledge. Now we have, “The Covenant was not designed to solve the current crisis.” OK, what is going to solve the current crisis? The DeS Communique is dead felled by the early invitations and sham evaluation process.

Probably, the best take on this new information was given by Father Andrew Gross on a thread from T19 which I reproduce in its entirety because I thought it was funny:

Engine room to the Bridge: “Captain, we hit something big and we’re taking on water fast.  I dunno if it was an iceberg, another boat, or what, but we need you to make a decision here.”

Captain: “Initiate the Windsor Process.”

Engine Room: “Excellent.  What does the Windsor Process do?”

Captain: “It leads us to the Covenant Process.”

Engine Room: “Excellent.  What does the Covenant Process do?”

Captain: “It helps us avoid future icebergs.”

Engine Room: “Excellent.  Umm, one question the water’s pretty high now, should we abandon our posts or do you have further orders?...Hello?...Captain?  You still up there?”

(Tune in next time to hear a certain marine biologist [and I would add a certain hairy Welshman] on board say, “Crisis?  What crisis? There’s no crisis, only signs of abundant joy, and life, and togetherness.”)

In its most basic form:
Communion:
the act of sharing, or holding in common;
Since any form of Anglican covenant cannot embrace and truly be centered upon this criteria then a covenant bounds its members to its most adversarial elements. Why codify what we already have and do not want nor can we live with? Christ is not interested in form only heartfelt substance.
Intercessor

Athanasius Returns:  rather than a ‘hard bargainer’, I would say that he (++Rowan) is selective in choosing which one of his flock he is interested in saving.

Is this a euphemism for racist elitist said oh so politely? After all we are 50 years behind Rowans’ friends and cannot write letters without help?
Intercessor

Robroy and Paul PA

Robroy, I’m glad at least one person appreciates my sense of humor ; )

Paul PA
I believe that to say the Covenant Process wasn’t meant to deal with the current crisis is misleading.  The Windsor Process was supposed to resolve the crisis while the Covenant Process was supposed to keep future issues from hitting the ‘crisis’ level.  This assumed two things:

1) that there would be follow through with Windsor by the Primates and ABC regarding the current crisis and/or
2) that the Covenant would bring clarity about what we believe and how future disagreements would be handled.  Most importantly, this ‘clarity’ would give provinces the opportunity to voluntarily remove themself from the communion, if they could no longer in good concience affirm the Faith and accept a disciplined Communion.

Of course Windsor hasn’t been followed by the ABC and the Covenant merely puts into words Anglicanism’s current dysfunction.  I think Matt said it best:

“the framework, inexplicably, takes authority away from the one instrument that has managed to act effectively during the present crisis, the Primates, and invested it in the one, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has been the very model of dysfunction and sabotage.”

Even though the Windsor Process has been subverted by the ABC, if the Covenant had been clear about what we as Anglicans believe, and had invested authority in the Primates, then provinces like TEC would have opted out, and sanity could have been restored. 

The orthodox were encouraged to ‘stay tuned’ by those involved in the Covenant’s design and hints were dropped that it would be something promising.  Some of us have ‘stayed tuned’ to the Covenant process because we realized that it still could bring order to this disordered Communion.

Now that the ‘new and improved’ Covenant is out, it is clear that this will not resolve anything at all.  As many of us suspected (but had hoped to be wrong about) the Covenant Process is just the Windsor Process on steroids.  It’s the same shell game, but with more shells for the ABC to play games with.

The saddest part is that the Anglican Communion had a real shot to come of age: we could have solved the current crisis, been strengthened for the future, and invested authority in a globally diverse body of Primates.  Instead, one white westerner has retained the reigns of power, and the status quo (as dysfunctional and deadly as it is) will seemingly be maintained at all costs.  It’s too bad really.  It all could have been so different.

Father Gross and Kennedy: I have long said that the Covenant would not deliver the orthodox. No, matter what the final form, it would only take shape some four or more years in the future. By that time, if no discipline had been meted out, the AC would have exploded anyway. Still it is hard not to look at this second draft as a betrayal and ask, how did it happen? I have always admired ABp Drexel Gomez. I haven’t always agreed with my former rector, Ephraim, but will attest to his caring Christian nature. How did these two men let the orthodox down and give the Communion to the revisionists?

#8 Jedinovice,  This is exactly what I’ve seen from all the things I’ve read this past year or more!!!  Also, with the Islamic Law controversey,  he shares TEC’s “New Religion” and wants to reign over the “FaithS Once Delivered”.  You have pretty much ALL the points.

#8….....PS: Plus all he has been up to since becoming Archbishop!

Matt,
Your analysis sums up nicely the inadequacies of this covenant draft.  Not only would it fail to resolve the current crisis, but also any future crisis will only be resolved by the ejection from the communion of those who value received truth above Anglican bonhomie.

Jedinovice,
Your description of Williams and Schori as social marxists is spot on.  Rowan honors, but does not defend, the thesis and accepts the antithesis as an inevitable development that must be incorporated.  His actions indicate he sees his role as being midwife for the new synthesis.

By investing Canterbury with such discretionary authority, this draft leaves received truth at the mercy of whichever political party holds power in England each decade at the time the new ABC is nominated.  Were it to be accepted as the covenant, it would be reason enough to forego Canterbury based Anglicanism.

I’m kinda blushing at people’s comments on my analysis.

The trouble is, if I am right (ultimately) the CoE is gearing up - if not by design, by fact - to align itself with a secularist government hand in glove with Stonewall and the NSS.  Williams thinks by defending Faith, not ‘the faith’ and the gay agenda he can protect all religions from the secularists.  But he is playing into their hands! He is giving them the CoE on a plate as an eventual USSR style Church of the State.

I’m looking long term here.  The UK’s attitude at all levels towards religion, especially Christianity, is hardening.  I can see a future in which Williams’ actions have made the CoE both so weak as to be directly manipulated by Government, and merged enough with the zeitgeist to become the example Church of the UK with the state having to do anything.  Eventually, the legislation in the UK will be such that the Christian Churches will be coerced to emulate the CoE - or be closed down by the state.  The word will be “Well the CoE is Christian and they have gay marriages!  Why can’t you?”  Arguing the CoE is not Christian will go nowhere.

Williams does not register how much Stonewall, the NSS AND THE GOVERNMENT want to close down Christianity wholesale (unless it conforms to the gay agenda.)

The UK is legislating against Christians literally as fast as it can.  Williams, poor, misguided idiot, thinks his spongian “The Church must change or die” approach will save the CoE in rump form.  He’s right in a way.  It will preserved as a Church of the State with baptisms pledging allegiance to the state, confirmations pledging allegiance to the state and sermons and Sunday school all about inclusiveness and how wonderful Darwin is.  The CoE will become the Church of state atheism with robes and incense.  Lest you think I’m exaggerating just look at the legislation and further proposals Mr brown has lined up even down to state ‘baptism’ with vows to being the child up as a good citizen when birth certificates are given out.

In the US you have separation of Church and State.  In the UK we don’t.  So what do you do when your state Church is no longer Christian?  That’s by the break up of the Anglican Communion fascinates me as a Catholic.  It’s impact me as a British citizen (bringing my Indonesian wife here soon!)  Williams, in trying preserve all faiths (in a deist kind of fashion) is paving the road (with gold!) for the Marxian state imposed atheism our doctors, teachers, social workers, trade union members and all those who attended Marx and Darwin dominated Universities want!

So the irony is that Williams thinks he is midwife to the new, inclusive Christianity.  Fool that he is,  he is midwife to old school Marxian, state imposed atheism!  The wolves of the NSS, Stonewall, outrage, the Fabien society, all of whom have massive influence on this government and the media - thereby society as a whole - are ready to devour the CoE.  When it can’t defend its own beliefs it will have new beliefs imposed on it - and Williams is imposing a good fifty percent of those new beliefs for them!  Then the CoE becomes the model for all Churches to follow - or face arrest.  Then again, Williams is such a social Marxist who really figures that religion = “pie in the sky when you die” that he may actually welcome our new overlords.  We’ve already seen he’d rather defend Islam over Christianity.  The man has no conviction about Christianity at all.  I think Gordon Brown loves him.

Just as a note. I predict TEC WILL sign the covenant!  They’ll scream, they’ll cry, they’ll rip their clothes but they’ll sign it.  Why? Because Williams will make damn sure the orthodox can’t.

TEC will sign it to show “See, we made sacrifices.  We signed up to the covenant.  Look at Gene, how he was discriminated against for you orthodox (while he’s conducting interviews for every major newspaper in the UK during Lambeth.)”  The Orthodox don’t sign.  It becomes their fault.  The first one to walk away is the one at fault - it will be portrayed as.

In the media it will be Liberal Anglicans bent over backwards to work with the homophobic orthodox.  Bigots leave unable to compromise even when the majority of the communion were willing to make sacrifices.

The Covenant and Lambeth are the final stages of total liberal take over of a rump Western Communion conducted in a fashion to make it look good for the media come Lambeth.  That’s why he keeps referring to 70% of the bishops attending. It’s media spin for the media coverage in which it will be said “The majority of Anglicans accept the new covenant…”

For all of the reasons outlined, this covenant is worse than no covenant. The only issue clearly spelled out is the territorial rights of TEC. Everything else is up for revisionist interpretation. Once signed, this covenant will make it impossible for orthodox parishes and diocese to leave TEC for a theologically compatible Province.

In vague relation to my assertion that the covenant and Lambeth are media stagings, the BBC is showing it’s total liberal bias and painting Williams in the best possible light over the Sharia row.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7239786.stm

The lines below show how Williams will be portrayed when the covenant is rejected by the Orthodox and Lambeth takes place.

“There is a tradition in Christianity of holy men and women known as fools for Christ, innocents who often used unconventional or even shocking behaviour to challenge accepted norms. It seems an apt description of Rowan Williams.

His tongue sometimes stumbles, but his brain and his heart are among the church’s best, and probably better than it deserves.”

The covenant is media spin for the general public as well as a means of alienating the orthodox so they leave.

Brown, as well as the BBC, will back him all the way.

jedinovice,

Let’s please not steer into the topic of Sharia law. This thread is specifically related to the St. Andrew’s draft. Thank you

Sorry, I didn’t intent to make a real comment on Sharia, merely showing a foreshadowing of what I think Lambeth and the covenant will bring.  I was making a comment more on the BBC than the Sharia debankle.

I intended to make no more comment on Sharia.  I accept by including the link others ma have followed.  Thinking about it I should have made a more generic comment on the reporting of the BBC.

I hope that makes things clear!

Just to re-iterate, in general terms, we can see how the mainstream media and the BBC in particular will interpret and spin Lambeth and the eventual orthodox rejection of the covenant.

Howzat?
Cheers!

I have commented elsewhere on the failure of the Covenant as a theological document. Now let me add that the compliance clause also dooms the document to irrelevancy.

(3.2.5.e)      Any such request would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church.  However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion, that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.

At most this seems to mean one church might choose to walk apart of its own accord, or might be relegated to observer status for an unspecified period of time. What it does not say is that a heretical church would cease to be a member of the Communion.

Here was my proposed amendment to the first Draft, which was obviously not accepted.

9.  We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished membership in the Anglican Communion.

In 1996, the American Anglican Council made the same mistake (intentionally) in “A Place to Stand, A Call to Mission”:

When teachings and practices contrary to Scripture and to this orthodox Anglican perspective are permitted within the Church - or even authorized by conventions or synods- we, in obedience to God, will disassociate ourselves from those specific teachings and practices and will resist them in every way possible.

Note they pledge to resist the teachings not the teachers. There is no provision for excommunicating the offenders or for replacing them with a legitimate alternative authority. The AAC bishops knowingly kept the statement vague for fear they would be obligated to cross boundareis, and hence be excommunicated themselves by the HOB. In doing this, the AAC bishops set the stage for the rise of First Promise, AMiA, Global South boundary crossings, and the Common Cause Partnership.

As it stands the Covenant is simply a way of relating. It is a structure founded on a process that exists for the sake of the structure. There is no “there” there. The established, structured, process is its own reason for being.

When you boil it down to essentials, isn’t this precisely the same kind of reasoning and justification given by the “traditionalists” who argued (either now or at some point in the last 30 years) for staying in TEc?

Structure, process and “membership” have been trumping the importance of avoiding heresy and heterodoxy for decades now. Why the surprise that the Covenant is any different?

pax,
LP

If any of the readers have not read Dr. Noll’s covenant, I suggest the make haste to his website and do so. It may be found here. Unlike this second draft, Dr. Noll’s covenant would go a long way to solving the present mess. A suggestion: Why not the leaders at GAFCon simply state this is their covenant and start signing it.

Stephen Noll,
Thank you for your commentary.  The inadequacies of the Covenant become clearer and clearer when the verbiage used is placed side by side with suggestions such as the ones that you have made.  It draws out what could have been said but wasn’t.

Much talk about the Covenant.  I don’t think in the long run it will make much difference.  People vote with their feet and stay for reasons that are usually more personal than principal.  I am convinced that the current trajectory of TEC will make it culturally irrelevant as its membership and financial holdings dwindle and it will be relegated to a historic novelty, for a season if not permanently. 

Nevertheless, there will be orthodox who will remain for whatever reason.  And there will be a mission field that remains among heterodox TEC, both laity and clergy.  For those faithful who stay, they need to grasp this perspective and be willing to see TEC as a mission field and not pretend it bears a resemblance of being a Christian Church except in name only.  For those who leave, they need to get their skubalon together on the outside and be able to keep networks and conduits of mutual support in place with those who remain “in enemy territory.”  The hope would be to actually evangelize the revisionists, strengthen the orthodox, and reach out for new converts—making it possible to outlast the dwindling numbers that revisionism naturally brings and potentially reclaim the temporal heritage that was originally intended for those who upheld the faith once delivered to the saints, just as the temple furnishings were restored when the Jewish people returned from their Babylonian captivity.

A few comments from one who was party to the revision.

1.  Matt’s notion that that “essentially” the Covenant draft says that “We all think the bible is a fine thing and ought to be seriously considered before taking any action” sounds clever and cute, but is not an accurate summary.  Nor, for that matter, the notion that “our interpretation” of the Bible is all that holds us accountable.  The Bible is described as “God’s Word” on several occasions, the “rule and ultimate standard” of our faith, that to which we are “answerable”, within the context of the “catholic tradition”, so that are teachings are “consistent” with the Scriptures and with our “common standards of faith” (which are listed elsewhere).  This may all be inadequate, of course, but the summary does it injustice.

2.  The need for a theological foundation is one we all share.  The question, of course, is what kind and of what detail.  It is simply false that the Draft does not offer such a foundation;  only that some do not like it (there is a difference).  I have argued elsewhere as to why the 39 Articles, on their own for instance, have historically been inadequate, and will remain so, in such a role. 

3.  Is the Covenant “simply a way of relating”?  I suppose one could see it that way.  IN same way that Romans 12 and 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4 and Matt. 5 are all directed at “just relating”.  The point is, “just relating” when it comes to the Body of Christ, is not “just” at all, but encompasses the fullness of the Christian Gospel, if not explicated in a comprehensive way. 

4.  There is a rather serious misunderstanding about the (very tentative) procedural outline in the Appendix.  It is not meant to be exhaustive, but indicative of a process, should it wish to be followed (as per 3.2.5. b. and c.—in situations of evaluation and mediation—(and it is only for discussion in the Communion at this stage, via Lambeth).  A careful reading of Seciont 3.2.5.d and e. will show that the Archbishop of Canterbury need not be the only initiating or directing Instrument of Communion, nor the process in the appendix the only path to follow. 

5.  I do not consider it a valid objection against the Draft that it was composed of persons on the Design Group that someone either doesn’t like, doesn’t trust, or thinks is a heretic.  The group was chosen through accepted methods of representation and selection within the Communion and the Primates did not object to the group itself;  the group has functioned within parameters that are mutually acceptable and have been by the Primates;  the ability to come to some agreement within these parameters, although from the position of a broad Communion representation, indicates at the least the possibility of some shared wisdom that indeed might inform the Communion’s churches as a whole, and not some small portion of it.

Dr. Radner,

Thanks for your response.

You say:

“1.  Matt’s notion that that “essentially” the Covenant draft says that “We all think the bible is a fine thing and ought to be seriously considered before taking any action” sounds clever and cute, but is not an accurate summary.  Nor, for that matter, the notion that “our interpretation” of the Bible is all that holds us accountable.”

Dr. Radner, I think the summary apt given that those who approve of same sex blessings and promote them as consistent with scriptural revelation…indeed, those in the American Church who believe concepts like the Atonement and th Fall are passe…could and would agree with the theological position articulated in the Draft. What you and I mean by the phrase, “The bible is the Word of God” and “the Bible is the rule and standard of faith” and what +KJS and the leaders of the Episcopal Church who are advocating same sex blessings mean by the same are very very different.

So, it is quite true, if admittedly flippant, to suggest that the functional summary of the draft’s discussion of scripture is that “we will all act in ways that are consistent with our own understanding of the biblical text”.

“2.  The need for a theological foundation is one we all share.  The question, of course, is what kind and of what detail.”

Agreed.

“It is simply false that the Draft does not offer such a foundation; only that some do not like it (there is a difference).”

No, it does not offer any foundation at all. It offers certain theological platitudes that the presiding Bishop and others would have no trouble affirming because it lacks specificity and detail. There must be a catechism or confession that articulates, clearly and specifically, essential doctrinal foundations. The GS efforts in this direction are quite helpful.

Without such a foundation the Covenant is useless.

“3.  Is the Covenant “simply a way of relating”?  I suppose one could see it that way.  IN same way that Romans 12 and 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4 and Matt. 5 are all directed at “just relating”.  The point is, “just relating” when it comes to the Body of Christ, is not “just” at all, but encompasses the fullness of the Christian Gospel, if not explicated in a comprehensive way.”

Yes assuming that we all share the same Faith and that this faith is consistent with the Faith once delivered I would agree. But the core problem is that we cannot, at present, assume that this is so since the actions of act least two provinces cut directly against that assumption.

“4.  There is a rather serious misunderstanding about the (very tentative) procedural outline in the Appendix.  It is not meant to be exhaustive, but indicative of a process, should it wish to be followed (as per 3.2.5. b. and c.—in situations of evaluation and mediation—(and it is only for discussion in the Communion at this stage, via Lambeth).  A careful reading of Seciont 3.2.5.d and e. will show that the Archbishop of Canterbury need not be the only initiating or directing Instrument of Communion, nor the process in the appendix the only path to follow. “

I’m not sure what “misunderstanding” I betrayed in the article since your “corrections” do not seem to address a point that I made in the article. I both acknowledged that this is not the final form of the document and that the ABC, in section 3, certainly does not need to make the decision himself. My point was that according to section 3 as it stands, if the ABC wanted to let a matter drop he could do so and there could be no reversal or appeal.

“5.  I do not consider it a valid objection against the Draft that it was composed of persons on the Design Group that someone either doesn’t like, doesn’t trust, or thinks is a heretic.”

Who said anything about “like” or “trust”? I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Grieb and like her just fine. I have so much respect for her that I cannot imagine her consenting to or agreeing to a draft that would render her consciensciously held position on same sex blessings, or that of the province from which she hails, untenable.

“The group was chosen through accepted methods of representation and selection within the Communion and the Primates did not object to the group itself;”

I never argued otherwise.

“The group has functioned within parameters that are mutually acceptable and have been by the Primates; the ability to come to some agreement within these parameters, although from the position of a broad Communion representation, indicates at the least the possibility of some shared wisdom that indeed might inform the Communion’s churches as a whole, and not some small portion of it.”

All of this may be true, no dount it is, but it is also somewhat tangential to the argument. My point was that sans a common faith, the Covenant will not work.

Dr. Radner, the concern with the make up of the design team would have quickly evaporated if this version of the Covenant were adequate to hold together the Communion. 

The reason the design team’s members are a subject of conversation merely comes from trying to answer the question: “Why isn’t this Covenant more substantial?” 

The answer is: Given the make-up of the design team, a more substantial Covenant was highly unlikely.  Grieb, for one, has her commitments to TEC’s innovations to defend, and she wasn’t alone.  So as a committee you either had to seek compromise, or push for a stronger document at the expense of spawning a minority report (ala Grieb’s sudden change of heart prior to the HOB meeting) 

The fact is that the necessity of a truly disciplined communion, and the ABC’s desire for the Covenant to be signable by the overwhelming majority of the (western) communion are fundamentally at odds. 

As we look at this draft Covenant and ask, “How could Gomez and Radner have allowed this to happen?” Part of the answer should be obvious: you guys aren’t omnipotent.  You were stuck working with a mixed group of theologians and charged with accomplishing a set of tasks that are mutually exclusive (creating a disciplined common life, but one that will garner wide spread voluntary accpetance among the provinces).

We get that.  I suspect that you are recieving too much of the criticism for this flawed draft.  The truth is that the ABC set you up for failure first in his selection of the committee, and then in his unwillingness to follow through with Windsor.

I agree with Matt’s “header” prediction, and I never cease to be amazed at the fact that +++RW and co. have a cow over “border crossings” but could care less about major Anglican doctrinal violations, as evidenced by maintaining TEC “sodomy is blessed”(e.g., Shaw, Chane) bishops’ invitations to Lambeth. 

Any covenant the academics(I’m beginning to use that term loosely, too—an awful lot of “thinking” and “writing”, and “proposing”, ladies and gents; but not a whole lot of “doing” or “executing”) put together is absolutely worthless without a discipline process in place for VIOLATING said covenant. 

A wise friend of mine once said, “an organization that won’t discipline from within rots from within” and he’s right.  It’s my prayer that the AC doesn’t start stinking any more than it already does.  Besides whatever TEC is holding over +++RW’s head, it would not have been very hard to make short work of nipping TEC’s antics in the bud.  George Carey would have done it, and so would Bishop Nazir-Ali. 

When one jettisons so many opportunities to stand up for Christ, it is truly that person who “has abandoned the Cross”, not the GAFCON primates and bishops.

Matt thinks that the theological content of the Draft Covenant is just a bunch of “platitudes”.  Generalities, yes;  but “platitudes”?  I will leave aside the task of interpreting what exactly a platitude is in this context.  But he seems to think that something more robust—somehow, non-platitudinous— would thereby grant the signatories the assurance of a “common faith”. 

The key, in this hope, is that the Covenant draft should not be susceptible to “interpretation”, so that KSJ could never sign it.  I am not sure what he has in mind.  If the problem with calling the Scriptures the “Word of God”, and the “rule and ultimate standard” of our faith, and that against which all our teaching and discipline is measured and to which it is “answerable” and with which it must be “consistent”, within the framework of the “catholic tradition”, is that all of this is open to “interpretation” and therefore could mean anything and even KSJ could sign it (presumably in good conscience and not by deliberately lying) then we must work hard to find the right formula. 

The 39 Articles, as we all know, were susceptible of a range of interpretations such that mariologically-inclined catholics and Reformed Calvinists and liberal Broad Churchmen, including those who denied the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, could all sign it (there were even well-known interpretations by Roman Catholics themselves that gave them a meaning acceptable to their “conscience”, such as Richard Davenport’s, long before Newman’s notorious effort). 

But we could even take the sections on Scripture in the Westminster Confession, e.g.:  I.6 and 7:  “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”  I would guess that these are quite open to “interpretation” in a variety of ways, and that people like Katherine Grieb—perhaps even KSJ!—could sign this quite happily, or if not happily, at least without much scruple.  Indeed, the Westminster Confession has been the object of repeated interpreations, and conflicts over interpretations, such that those Reformed churches that originally and subsequently subscribed to this set of formulae, often separated over its appropriate meaning.  There is no end to to struggle of interpretation, whether it be of the Scriptures, a Creed, or a confession of faith, or I dare say, the platitudes of a Covenant. 

No, the problem is not “platitudes” and “interpretability” in the end; these are inevitable and never-ending in this world.  The problem is enforcement.  “Common faith” is either enforced, or it is, alas, uncertain, or at least something struggled after and repeatedly forged, often through agonistic means.  I think what many people would like—just as many people would dislike it—is some clear means of enforcement, so that, whether a faith is “common” or not in reality, there is at least one interpretation of it at any given time that is publicly articulated as authoritative in some formal way.  And, furthermore, there is a means by which those who do not accept this one interpretation at that given time can be disciplined on its basis. 

However, we are well aware that very few people in fact want this in the Communion.  Common Cause does not want this.  GAFCON—I would place bets on it, although this is always dangerous stuff amongst Christian churches—doesn’t want this.  Rome has it, up to a point (although hardly everyone wants it).  Eastern Orthodoxy doesn’t really want this and certainly doesn’t have it.  Smaller Protestant bodies have it, but they only have it for a while, because when exercised, such powers tend to lead to fragmentation.  And, in any case, the legalities of individual national/provincial churches in the Anglican Communion altering their respective constitutions so as to permit such a thing are so formidable that any proposed Covenant that would suggest such a thing, even if there were a real desire for it (and there isn’t, based on virtually ALL responses that we received), it could never be achieved practically.  While enforcement sounds efficient, in practice it never really has been nor is it likely to be:  this, I venture to say, is a historical fact.  It is all very well to say that the Roman Catholics have it;  but they also have a Reformation and a body of Christian believers outside of their Communion who surpass them in numbers all told.

And those who find the Covenant Draft inadequate on this score are right:  a Covenant is not about enforcement.  An Anglican Covenant, rather, IS about “relating” in the manner that Christ desires, yes according to the Scriptures.  To do this requires a certain set of desires and orientations of the will.  These require the grace of God at work among individuals and the councils of various churches separately and together and a set of faithful disciplines by to act in these settings. The Covenant can only show us this, make this outline clear before us, so that we know—if we want it—that for which we must pray and labor and repent of for the sake of.  All covenants are voluntary.  That is of their nature.  We believe that this represents the character of our vocation before God, that is, that we respond freely to His gifts and directions.  Articulating these gifts and directions within the framework of a voluntary response is the task involved in formulating a covenant text.  But it is not the same thing as devising an enforceable—executively oriented and judicially arbitrated—set of laws. 

Returning to some particular points.  My response to Matt’s concern over putting too much power of decision into the hands of the single holder of the archbishopric of Canterbury:  my main point is that this proposed procedure comes into play only where people want it to, within certain kinds of “dispute resolution”.  The draft Covenant makes it clear that one can bypass this procedure if it is desired.  The Primates, for instance, can initiate and conclude an admonition and direction if they desire.  So can the Lambeth Conference, and so on.  The detailed procedure holds only to one line of response, and therefore does not either straightjacket all responses or characterize them.  I am therefore uncertain as to why this particular instance is singled out as a powerful reason for the Draft’s inadequacy.

The point Fr. Goss argues—that the composition of the Design Group (given that it includes some liberals? ) means that anything it might possibly produce by consensus is necessarily tainted, because no liberal would agree to anything worth pursuing—is interesting.  Is this true in the real world?  Is it true in politics?  Is it true in discussions at church meetings or academic gatherings or what have you?  Perhaps it is.  But I doubt it.  In any case, it is only an assertion, not really an evidenced argument.  Further, to suggest that the Design Group was put together as it is by Canterbury SO THAT no Covenant could be designed that might push back against the innovations of TEC is—I need to say this as forcefully as possible—COMPLETELY FALSE.  How do I know this?  By having spoken to Canterbury himself, by listening to him address the Covenant Design Group personally and so on. 

Having said all this, I need also to say that I am not at all averse to hearing these kind of criticisms or questions.  For better or worse, the Covenant Design Group is NOT a legislative or an executive body, and it does not function according to someone’s fiat.  We are instructed by people’s responses.  Does that mean that all resposnes, criticisms, and suggestions are taken on?  Obviously not.  Some have noted, for instance, that Stephen Noll’s suggestions did find much literal play in the revised draft.  But (just to use this as an example), his suggestions were in fact taken very seriously, and had a real effect.  In the first place, they helped move the revision in a direction that expanded (however platitudinous) the discussion of Scripture;  second, they raised the question about the adequacy of the formally enumerated “five marks of mission”, which, although we decided to leave unchanged, we recognized may need some revision (see the commentary);  finally, they forced us to be conscious of the degree to which the Covenant, in our estimation, could be too clearly identified with either “evangelical” or “catholic” traditions within Anglicanism.  I could say more, but this is only to indicate that people’s reactions and responses do make a difference, although in a variety of ways.  And I, personally, welcome the kinds of discussions that Stand Firm is able to provide on this matter, even if the kinds of responses one hears on this site tend to be of a certain kind.  Thank you all, both for this and for previous engagements.

The goal is, indeed, to ensure the continued orthodoxy of the Communion and that necessarily means identifying heresy and articulating the Faith with clarity and specificity particularly in those areas that are in dispute.

I love the 39 articles and I would certainly hope that they would be included in any modern Anglican confession or catechism. I also love the WCF. However, I do not think that any of the classic Reformed catechisms by themselves, would be adequate for our present needs. You will note that I hvae been specific with regard to the sort of confession or catechism I have in mind. The GS Anglican Catechism, for example, a fine model and it is clear and strong enough that contemporary heretics would be unable to sign it. Set that alongside the Covenant and the Covenant becomes viable. There would then be a basic unity of faith grounding our Communion relationships.

As for the Appendix. Yes, I recognise that the Primates or Lambeth could choose to initiate action and then end it. That is very nice but also rather ineffectual. If the problem is not resolved to the satisfaction of one of the parties, then section three is very clear. The matter “must” come before the ABC:

“3.1. If informal conversation fails in the view of X, Y or Z, or if X Church itself considers that an action or proposed action might threaten Communion unity and mission, then X Church must consult the Archbishop of Canterbury on the matter.
3.2. Within one month of being consulted, the Archbishop of Canterbury must either (a) seek to resolve the matter personally through pastoral guidance or (b) refer the matter to three Assessors, appointed as appropriate by the Archbishop….”

The ABC stands at the center of this protocol. The ABC has the power to end a matter, by fiat, that another Instrument believes to be communion dividing simply by declaring his pastoral intervention “successful”. And this without review or appeal.

This is a problem. I am suprised that you do not see it

I guess I’m dense Matt.  But the procedural Appendix only applies (or has to apply) to those cases which are so noted in the main Covenant (and that is not all of them).  It does not need to apply to the other cases, e.g. where any Instrument of Communion takes the initiative. (These represent “fast-track” options.) The ball does not inevitably end up in the court of Canterbury.  It is not even clear that it ends up in the ACC.  This point was made by our legal consultant:  the “elements” listed in the Covenant per se are not sequential, and need not all be followed.  They are each entry points, which could stand on their own.  By entering into the Covenant, one accepts this fact. 

One of the problems with the GS Catechism (at least in the outline I saw—and we may not have the same documents in front of us) is precisely that it speaks of things like the 39 Articles not only in terms of a commonly accepted authority but as “unrevisable”.  There is something unworkable in the former, as I have already noted, and intrinsically unacceptable from a theological point of view in the latter.

Since we can safely assume that the Covenant will completely avoid addressing the “issues” plaguing the Anglican Communion, heaven forbid that anything concrete slip in, I guess those few remaining orthodox Anglicans believing the Covenant would resolve anything are yet again sadly mistaken…

Of course you are not dense Dr. Radner. What an odd thing for you to say?

But I do think you are missing my point.

section 3.2.5.e of the main covenant says:

“Any such request would not be binding on a Church unless recognised as such by that Church.  However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion, that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.”

This section seems to envision the employment of the appendix in “extreme circumstances” which seems to be defined as a circumstance in which a member church refuses the request of an IU. Is that true?

Or are you saying that any IU might make a request and then, in extreme circumstances, if refused, declare that a given member church has relinquished its participation in the covenant?

Dr. Radner,
I’m all for living in the real world, and since you bring up the subject of liberals and church meetings I’m happy to provide a real world example that might be amplified to the international level. 

When in my parish, I suggested that voting membership be limited to those who can affirm the Creeds, the liberals decided over and against their baptismal vows, that this “wasn’t worth pursuing.” 

Their decision in this regard led to their seeking our ecclesial unity around things like the MDG’s.  When the Vestry was unwilling to come to consensus with them (read: compromise), the liberals filed a minority report with the Bishop. 

Now let’s assume that during this disagreement, I as the Rector had commissioned a parish Covenant design group to try to hold everyone together in relationship, placed those from both ‘sides’ on the committee, and asked them to work under the consensus model.  Given the depth of theological disagreement and passion, either one side would have had to cave to the other, or we would have had to strike some sort of compromise. 

What I learned in this real world situation was that the parish had long been living out a quiet compromise under which the Creeds were optional.  Had I not suggested a different way of forming our identity (around the mystery of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ) we could have maintained the “unity” of our parish, and remained in relationship indefinitely. 

Now, returning to the international scene, should a basic creedal foundation for unity be articulated unequivocally at the international level, and should Communion membership be directly linked to this assent, then I think that the liberal-dominant provinces like TEC will quickly decide that this Covenant isn’t worth pursuing.  (However, as long as the theological statements in the Covenant remain “of a general nature,” and discipline looks unlikely, then the liberals will be happy to accompany you on any pursuit whatsoever.  Bishop Bruno will assure you that he is perfectly orthodox, and that SSB’s don’t happen in his diocese with his permission.)

For many of us, confidence in the Communion may begin to be restored when we see a non-general, “loophole resistant” document (I’d say “loop-hole free,” but such is not possible in the realm of man). 

Since we’ve seen many documents recently that were created specifically to accommodate loopholes (BO33 comes to mind), I think it is necessary for the very real Anglican world in which we are living to err on the side of tedious clarity. Since the design group is committed to consensus and has members who are at odds theologically, tedious clarity is impossible.

I will say that the current Covenant is certainly tedious, but not in a way that facilitate clarity.  Although the ABC and ACC are given an elevated role, the roles and relationships between the four Instruments are not at clear, and this lack of clarity spells “LOOPHOLES” in large bold letters.  How the different Instruments work to maintain unity, when their roles and relationships are not unified in any coherent way is anyone’s guess.

You say emphatically that in its composition, the Covenant design team wasn’t stacked against discipline.  You assure us that Williams didn’t do this.  Why?  Because Williams said he didn’t do this. 

I am glad that Canterbury said he was open to a Covenant that might possibly push back TEC’s innovations, but of course Canterbury has said any number of things over the last year, but then actually acted to insure that TEC’s innovations were not pushed back. 

This latest Covenant isn’t capable of holding the communion together, so if you and Gomez and the ABC are all for a disciplined communion, but the draft Covenant doesn’t ensure this discipline, then I’m left with only one conclusion: Dr. Grieb is the most persuasive and powerful woman in the world ; )

To me, it seems highly unlikely that Rowan Wms—as holder of the office of Archbishop of Canterbury—would agree to any Covenant that would single out his office as a final arbiter.  As I read it, much of his own personal effort has been invested in seeing to a broad base of Anglican Communion leadership, for the very purpose of ... well…. accountability by conciliar action.  That is, a judgment, sentence, decision, etc., to be leveled at a particular Communion problem (and all the player involved), would be able to be confirmed or upheld by all the conciliar partners.  If this is a Worldwide Communion, and there is no consistency from Province to Province of the legal nature of their relationship with the ARchbishop of Canterbury, then any final decision on his part alone - even as a final arbiter - would be immediately suspect and challenged.  Nope - the Covenant will be bulky and in some cases unwieldly, even in its final form. 
From the American perspective of a genetic character flaw (it seems) of impatience (“make a decision now, get it done and over with, and if you can’t then you ain’t much of a (read, my kind of) leader”). this kind of decision making process is way too slow, too awkward, and not immediately decisive—no matter whether you are talking about Bible standards, or world trade agreements. 

At the same time, we Americans so distrust the “one leader” who holds all the cards.

We are a frustrated and contentious lot, aren’t we?
This is the next draft.  By admission, voices have been heard, and revisions made.  This is not the last draft.  So, put something together that is constructive (which is what Noll did as a whole, rather than one paragraph or one line or one word fixes found here), post it for dialogue or send it off.
Analysis is good, but why be flippant at all, even if you admit that’s what you’re doing?  Does that make the flippancy acceptable?  No.
So don’t be.

(That reminds me of those who say at a church meeting, “Let me play the devil’s advocate here…”, and my response will always be immediately, “No, let’s not.  The devil doesn’t need any more advocates than he already has.”)

Rob+,

Thanks. The ABC is not the final arbiter, the ACC is. The ABC, however, should a matter become intractable seems to be the one through whom the matter must pass, according to the appendix at least, in order to resolve in a definitive way the membership of an intransigent church. Section three of the Covenant draft seems (and I asked Dr. Radner for clarification above) to imply that the dispute, if “extreme” would then be resolved via the Appendix. The Appendix gives the ABC something like triage power. He can pass a matter on to another IS, to a body of assessors etc…or he can simply say that the matter has been successfully resolved.

Dr. Radner has argued that there are many other avenues in the Covenant to resolve issues that do not involve the ABC. I do not dispute that. What I do not see is that the Covenant provides a way for actual discipline to take place that does not necessarily involve the ABC playing a central gatekeeping role…which given our current ABC means that no discipline will ever take place except perhaps with regard to cross jurisdictional interventions. I have no doubt that that matter would certainly pass directly through the ABC and on to the ACC where it will be decided that the province in question has relinquished her membership in the covenant.

As for flippancy Rob+, the theological portion of the Covenant is simply not adequate. As Fr. Gross aptly points out above. When Dr. Radner and one of the authors of To Set Our Hope On Christ can both sign a theological affirmation in good conscience there is a good chance that the theological statement is innocuous and vague.

Of course every heretic believes that he or she is measuring his or her doctrine by the measure of scripture. That is why historically when disputes arise, orthodox doctrine is articulated very specifically and carefully so that those who hold to a given heresy must either renounce the heresy or reject the affirmation.

The opposite effort seems to be in play here: Draft the theological component in such a way that both the Marcus Borgs and the NT Wrights of the communion can affirm it because the purpose is not primarily to ensure or safeguard orthodoxy but to preserve unity.

I have no regrets or remorse for flippancy in the face of such a thing.

Matt asks: “Or are you saying that any IU might make a request and then, in extreme circumstances, if refused, declare that a given member church has relinquished its participation in the covenant?”  That is what I am saying, given how the Covenant now stands, because thatis what it says. 

Fr. Goss points out to a central problem in all churches:  members do not in fact believe what it appears they (corporately, and even sometimes individually) say they believe, e.g. the Creeds.  (But I will add here that the possibly implied blanket accusation that “liberals do not believe the creeds” is a false one;  many do.) This goes back to the earlier issue:  what is necessary, in many people’s minds, is not so much a statement of belief, but a way to enforce belief, and in a certain way.  (By the way, Stephen Noll’s most recent paper on Global Orthodoxy is not at all what he sent to the Design Group as his “evangelical response”—this last was precisely a “piece-meal” set of suggestions (many of the them good).  And his current piece, quite frankly and to take the section on Scripture, is still one that many could sign in good conscience but not in fact “believe” in the way that, probably, he believes it.)  If that doesn’t work, then at least a way to enforce membership in a community of professed belief.  This last element is far more difficult than you might think.  The Primates’ Meeting itself has not proved able to to “kick people out” of its midst.  Why not?  Some have argued that it is all Rowan Williams’ doing that this has not happened;  others that it is the ACO’s manipulations, and so on.  I have argued, based on what I know about the dynamics of the Primates over the past few years, that it is more complicated than that by a long shot. 

I myself believe that the present Covenant will have to be clearer about “Communion membership”.  In this I agree with some criticisms already leveled at the draft.  But the mechanism for deciding such membership is not as straightforward as obviously many people would like to see.  Some have aruged for a Communion Tribunal, much as the first Lambeth suggested.  But the track record on such singular groups is not particularly good.  It all depends on who is a member, and what are the processes, and how they get along, and what are the dynamics at the time wtihin the larger church, and so on.  The Righter Trial didn’t get what some people wanted.  From a distance, it has always seemed to me that part of the reason was that the “prosecution”, as it were, mounted a very bad case.  These things happen. 

We have not yet figured this out, it seems.  I will grant that.  But I have yet to hear amid the complaints, much constructing grappling with the nettle here.

Dr. Radner, you said:

““Or are you saying that any IU might make a request and then, in extreme circumstances, if refused, declare that a given member church has relinquished its participation in the covenant?” That is what I am saying, given how the Covenant now stands, because thatis what it says.”

Amazing. So if the Covenant had been in place in 2004 and say the primates were to vote to accept GC2006 as a relinquishment of covenant membership, that would have been it?

Dr. Radner,

You said, “This goes back to the earlier issue: what is necessary, in many people’s minds, is not so much a statement of belief, but a way to enforce belief, and in a certain way.”

Setting aside for a moment the question about what an adequate statement of belief might look like, the question of enforcement is clearly the next most important element to many of us. 

If enforcement could happen via any of the current Instruments of Unity, then it puts them on a somewhat equal footing (only “somewhat” though as the ABC’s invitation is still requisite for a legitimate and binding meeting of Primates and Lambeth Bishops, thus elevating the ABC’s role on a practical level.)  But if I’m understanding this correctly, then this would give the Lambeth Conference teeth, and make its resolutions binding. 

Given the equal authority of the Instruments in determining communion membership, couldn’t this arrangement precipitate a possible showdown between Instruments of Unity should they come to different conclusions?

It is interesting, Fr. Gross, that Dr. Radner’s explanation very easily sets us right back where we have been for the last five years: One IU making decisions and plans and another IU refusing to carry them out…which is why I am somewhat incredulous. I believe, of course, Dr. Radner’s explanation but find it very strange given the developments that have brought us here.

A further observation.  Enforcement IS currently possible.  It could happen this very hour.  Under the current structure, the ABC can decided to not invite certain Primates to the Primates’ Meeting, or certain bishops to the Lambeth Conference.  It seems to me that following TEC’s defiance, some of the Primates (GS), aware that they did not have the authority on their own to regulate the internal life of the Primates Meeting, asked the ABC to follow through with his duties and not invite Schori to DES.  The Primates may not have a track record of disciplining themselves, but some surely have tried. 

So the current problem is not that the AC, cannot be disciplined, but that one Instrument of Unity (the ABC) has simply chosen not to enforce discipline. 

Perhaps the ABC feels that the burden and responsibilty of these decisions must be shared by other Instruments, but the Covenant doesn’t seem to do this.  Rather it keeps the ABC in the driver’s seat.

Fr. Matt, this potential Instrument of Unity showdown, then takes us back to your original statement (paraphrasing here) that the current Covenant merely codifies the Communion’s current dysfunction.

The major problem with the covenant is not enforcement. The major problem is what do we believe, that should be and needs to be enforced? Without clearly spelled out minimum beliefs, all the rest is subject to interpretation and is therefore meaningless.

The reappraisers believe that blessing SSR and same sex marriage is God doing a new thing, seeing with new eyes, etc. Reasserters believe that homosexual behavior is now and always has been sinful. How do we decide? The covenant does not tell us.

The only thing clearly defined is the autonomy of provinces, meaning that it will be impossible for orthodox parishes and diocese to leave TEC for an orthodox Province once the covenant is in place. For this reason alone, the covenant should be rejected.

But Bill, the Covenant as written thus far, DOES tell us how we decide:  we do so together, in a manner consistent with the Scritpures and the catholic tradition and common standards of our faith (among other ways of putting it), and in no other way.  The only reason this fashion of deciding has worked itself out “dysfunctionally” is that there has been no agreement that it really is the way we should decide things.  Signing on to the Covenant is precisely that agreement.  “Codifying dysfunction” is a nice sound-bite, but it is ostensibly irrelevant to the notion of a Covenant, including this one.  The Covenant does not “codify” obstreperousness, prevarication, self-regard, arrogance, malice and the like—which have been behind all the mess of the last few years.  These, among other sins, are what have gotten us to this place.  But they have done so and had a disintegrative power because people have been able to say that their actions have no agreed-upon limits and accountabilities.  The Covenant does in fact set limits and commit to accountability.  It can surely do so differently and no doubt better.  I have to say, however, that the whole-scale dismissals of what has been going on, both in terms of motivation, direction, and actual content with respect to the Covenant constitute a mischaracterization.  I don’t care about “flippancy” particularly—Anglicynicism has been, after all, the modus operandi of the vocal within the Communion for at least 5 years now—but I do care about accuracy of description.  To sign this Covenant will require a change of heart, for all churches and their leaders.  And the outcry against the current draft on liberal blogs demosntrates this as much as any outcry here.  No “law” can do this, as we know well from the teaching of our own Scriptures.  The shape of discipline derives from this acknowledgement and from the seeking of transformation in repentance before the Lord that the entering of any Covenant, especially this one, presupposes. It is not some structure that will save us;  it will, rather, reflect and uphold, at its best, the Holy Spirit’s work within the Body of Christ. I am as much a proponent as anyone of the essential place of discipline in the unified life of Christ’s body;  but the articulation of that place and of the shape it must take is secondary to something larger and deeper.  I continue to believe and argue that some kind of ad hoc discipline of TEC needs to happen before the meaning of entering into a Covenant can be properly grasped;  but so too must come some repentance from others around the Communion.  It seems to me that we are still dancing around this reality, which is why perhaps the notion of a Covenant itself seems so tenuous.

It should be noted, among all the pooh-poohing here, that the shape of the Covenant as now presented, derives directly from the Global South proposal, and includes virtually all of their theological commitments (and strengthens them in several regards).  Of course, that doesn’t mean they are adequate.  However, their proposed simplicity (indeed, their “generality”) was, we were told by Global South primates involved in the drafting of their proposal, quite deliberate.  Furthermore, the original GS document included NO “procedures” of discipline at all, such as we find in Section 3 (the previous section 6).  The hope, in the original GS proposal, was for a straightfoward set of commitments that would make explicit what had been implicit in the past, and had now become disputed with the development of a more diverse and diversely led global body.  Again, such motives may be inadequate, but they remain by and large the motivations according to which the Design Group has worked.

Dr. Radner, I suspect that the apparent dismissal of the Covenant proposal by so many is simply a lack of trust - not of the Covenant design group, but of what will happen if such a Covenant, any covenant, is put in place. We are fresh from seeing the PB agree to something in Dar es Salaam that she denied in the U.S. There is no Covenant in the world that can keep out such bad faith, and I suspect we are all too aware of this. I don’t know what the answer is to that.

“To sign this Covenant will require a change of heart, for all churches and their leaders”?  How, Ephraim Radner?  How?  Why will a change of heart be required any more than when a Presiding Bishop of ECUSA agreed with all of his worldwide colleagues that Gene Robinson’s consecration would rip the Communion apart, then led it?  Where is a change of heart required when Schori feels free to sign on to the DES communique, then disown it upon touching down on American soil?  When Rowan Williams signs on to administer a plan for a Pastoral Council to protect mainstream American Anglicans, and, a year later, none of us even remembers what that means, why would he feel he should change his heart when adopting a covenant?  When Lambeth overwhelmingly said this Communion is going to stick to the same teaching on marriage as the Catholic tradition you extol, but ECUSA sees no problem with spitting on that tradition and still demanding its bishops be invited to that same Lambeth Conference, why will it have to change its heart in how it relates to a covenant?

We have instruments of coordination now - instruments to which ECUSA and Canterbury have signed on - and yet both subvert those instruments with scarcely a second thought.  I’d like to hear the real-world explanation for why some covenant, negotiated over what might be twenty-odd years down to the lowest common denominator, is going to make all the difference.  I suspect we both know the answer.

Dr. Radner,

You said, “some kind of ad hoc discipline of TEC needs to happen before the meaning of entering into a Covenant can be properly grasped.”

This seems very true.  The level of mistrust is so great because of the lack of discipline over the past year(s) (decades) that the first step must be meaningful accountability.  I hope that the ABC or Windsor Continuation Group will do this.  As I said above.  There is nothing stopping the ABC from enforcing discipline.  I’m not holding my breath.

“Anglicynicism,” as you call it, will cease being a powerful modus operandi when it stops being such a darn accurate predictor of Anglican events. 

I, for one, look forward to being surprised one of these days.

Dr Radner,

Thank you for your well reasoned response. The main problem is that one cannot read the covenant and come away with any understanding of what it means to be a Christian in the Anglican Church.

It does not say in plain English that same sex behavior is sinful, period, and that same sex relationships will not be blessed, period, and that those openly engaging in same sex behavior are not eligible to be members or the clergy at any level, period.

Without this kind of clarity, the process will be politically manipulated by those who know how to do it best, primarily the left wing secular TEC.

The fact is that we disagree within the AC not only on whether same sex behavior is sinful or not, but also on the fundamentals of the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and whether Jesus is the only way to the Father. A simple declaration of faith in the fundamentals of the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and that Jesus is the only way to the Father could not pass at GC ‘06.

Given the depth of the disagreement, no mechanism will bring agreement. TEC has stated that they will never “move backwards” on SS blessing, or the consecration of Robinson, and likewise the Global South will not change its adherence to traditional understanding of the Bible.

Under the current status there is an escape mechanism, as imperfect as it is, in the US to join a theologically orthodox Province. Under the proposed covenant, this escape mechanism will be cut off.

Perhaps the way accommodate this divergence in beliefs, but yet keep the AC together, is to state clearly in the covenant that individual parishes and diocese have the recognized right to join whatever Province in the AC they want, and to explicitly recognize that the property moves with the parish or the Diocese. Only in the case of a parish leaving the AC entirely will property ownership be contested.

Did someone say, ‘discipline TEC’??? 

Read Anglo-Catholic’s posts (re: ‘Minions in MN’) here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2054/

What kind of discipline would Dr. Radner recommend for this bunch?

I am often inclined to look to first causes.  The term, “instruments of unity” has in your essay become a set of authorities. 

In fact, at least until a covenant or amendment to the ACC by-laws incorporates the term, we are talking about self-installed powers, with two exceptions.  The ABC as convening authority for Lambeth (itself not empowered to legislate) and the ACC which similarly exists without authority to create canon law.

For you to argue that the primates’ meeting has made part the Windsor report’s recommendations binding requires that you find some authority for the meeting to do so.  I submit it has none.  First, the various provinces have not all agreed that their primates have authority to attempt such an action, second the provinces have no agreed to system of empowerment for the primates collectively.  That is, at least part of what Windsor suggested be changed.  Neither Dr. Williams himself, nor the primates of most countries can commit their provinces as a matter of law or contract, to the covenant, ‘discipline’ or proposed canon.

The same can be said for the various Lambeth ressolutions.  They do not have the authority to compel anyone.  Given that this umbrella of non-authority arguably covers the intervening Southerners, I should think you would want its cover.

We can disagree or not, as to whether it is a good thing, but the simple fact is the ‘instruments’ are not empowered to either demand or decree.  That being so, I think your entire argument for some sort of Windsor based authority collapses. 

If the central African, Sydney, Southern American and scattered North American diocese want to form a legal entity, a hierarchical structure with canon authority over themselves, that is their business.  I am one who thinks TEC and ACCAnada should provide relatively simple ways to effect transfer of properties to such a body.  (I have liberal inflicted scars to prove it.)  But at the moment the authority you seek to invoke simply does not exist.  I suppose that this is what the gaffe is supposed to create.  But even then, it wont include most of the provinces.  I cannot imagine Parliament accepting it for the UK provinces, and the chances of GC doing so are less than nil.

FWIW
jimB