The Anglican Communion Institute, in this article, talks about the current difficulties in the proposed Anglican Covenant and its application as an instrument of Unity in the Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Community certainly needs something to bind it together after the disastrous events in the Episcopal Church. The actions of TEC beginning especially with the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire have critically strained the communion over a fault line of biblical authority.
But, is the Anglican Covenant as currently formulated the best way forward? We have discussed this issue previously, here.
There is a principle of logic which the current draft of the AC is at odds with. And this principle is called "Occam's Razor", which says, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one". Read here for more on this concept.
The means by which the AC will seek to impose "discipline" upon the Communion, contained in section 4 of the draft will make the average persons eyes cross with complexity. And it is that complexity and obtuse language that both weakens the AC and reveals its true purpose: to achieve institutional unity, not unity based on fidelity in faith to the faith delivered to the Fathers (Jude 3).
Will the Covenant become the standard of the Communion? Will it really mean anything if it does? Time will tell.
Showing posts with label Anglican Covenant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anglican Covenant. Show all posts
Monday, February 1, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
A Voice of Clarity on the Anglican Covenant
The Rt. Rev. Moses Tay, former Archbishop of the Anglican Churches of Southeast Asia and Nepal, lashed out in this Christian Post article against the Anglican Covenant process. Bishop Tay says at best, the Covenant is a means to "whitewash" the inability of the Anglican Communion to stand firm with Biblical conviction, instead opting to maintain unity at any cost.
His interview for the post sounds much like the stands he took as reported in the Thaddeus Barnum book called "Never Quiet", a historical chronology of events whereby third world missionaries started to bring the Gospel back to the US despite withering criticism from American bishops and many in the international Anglican Communion.
Bishop Tay went on to add "It’s (the success of the Anglican Covenant) dependent on their willingness to repent, but they (the leaders of the American Anglican Church) have no fear of God,” he said, comparing them to Eli, a priest in the Bible whose sons died because he failed to discipline them.
“None of the resolutions have worked. None of the committees have worked,” said archbishop Tay. He described the Anglican Consultative Council, a ‘major decider’ in the Anglican Communion, as ‘U.S.-controlled.’
The archbishop depicted the covenant as an attempt to “draw a bigger circle to include both the gays and the non-gays."
His interview for the post sounds much like the stands he took as reported in the Thaddeus Barnum book called "Never Quiet", a historical chronology of events whereby third world missionaries started to bring the Gospel back to the US despite withering criticism from American bishops and many in the international Anglican Communion.
Bishop Tay went on to add "It’s (the success of the Anglican Covenant) dependent on their willingness to repent, but they (the leaders of the American Anglican Church) have no fear of God,” he said, comparing them to Eli, a priest in the Bible whose sons died because he failed to discipline them.
“None of the resolutions have worked. None of the committees have worked,” said archbishop Tay. He described the Anglican Consultative Council, a ‘major decider’ in the Anglican Communion, as ‘U.S.-controlled.’
The archbishop depicted the covenant as an attempt to “draw a bigger circle to include both the gays and the non-gays."
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Anglican Covenant: Hope for the Communion?
For those associated with the Episcopal Church in the US (TEC) or the Anglican Communion world-wide, you are going to start hearing more and more about something called the Anglican Covenant. Briefly, the The Anglican Covenant is the final work product of the Windsor Process which was instituted after the Consecretion of Gene Robinson, a non-celibant openly gay priest, as bishop of New Hampshire. It is a document that lays out the meaning of Anglicanism and the requirements of the various provinces of the Anglican Communion. By signing onto the Covenant member provinces in essence promise to abide by the Covenant. If a province strays from the Covenant, then there are disciplinary steps the Communion might take to bring the errant province back into accord.
What kind of a Covenant is this? Well, it is not really a Biblical Covenant because God has not ordained the terms of the covenantial relationship. In such a Biblical Covenant the people who keep the Covenant fall under God's protection.
So really here we are talking more about a contract as in the sense of a Real Property Law type of covenant. Such Covenants contain mutually agreed upon terms and conditions.
This is all fine and well and the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant give a beautiful expression of what it means to be Anglican and what our shared agreements are to each other as a Communion.
Now a multi-party covenant or contract is not very useful if there is no way to enforce or demand performance to the contract or covenant. And this is where my difficulty with the Anglican Covenant comes in. Section 4.2 attempts to lay out a process by which straying provinces who have signed the covenant may be brought back into accord. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that any process as laid out in Section 4.2 will take years upon years to slog through and in all likelyhood will not draw any absolutes in terms of condemnation of any specific behaviors. In short, the thing has no teeth!
What this means is there is no up front pain for any province, such as TEC to the sign the thing, throw it in a drawer and then proceed on to ordain any number of openly homosexual non-celibant deacons, priests, bishops, wickens or whatever. So what if 20 years later there are some consequences?
How can we put some real teeth into such a document? Do we throw it away and start all over? No, we do not need to start all over. There is a simple way to fix this document but I guarantee you we will not see it. Here is how you do it:
1. Get rid of Section 4.2
2. For every point in sections 1, 2, 3, 4 have a signature line at the end of each statement.
3. The primate for each province which wants to execute the Covenant signs every signature line as an assent by the province to what is said in the document.
4. All the signature lines have to be signed for that province to be a member.
5. If a member is found to violate one or more of the signed statements, the Archbishop of Canturbury declares that membership void.
6. The membership remains void until such time as the offending province confesses its sin, repents, redresses the offending issue, and receives absolution from the Communion in the form of a vote by all members to reinstate the membership of the offending province.
Maybe not perfect, but some real teeth. No doubt someone will say that even this Covenant could be violated by TEC. Well probably. But if you enter into contracts with NO intention to be honorable, no contract can make you honorable. That has to come from each member.
What kind of a Covenant is this? Well, it is not really a Biblical Covenant because God has not ordained the terms of the covenantial relationship. In such a Biblical Covenant the people who keep the Covenant fall under God's protection.
So really here we are talking more about a contract as in the sense of a Real Property Law type of covenant. Such Covenants contain mutually agreed upon terms and conditions.
This is all fine and well and the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant give a beautiful expression of what it means to be Anglican and what our shared agreements are to each other as a Communion.
Now a multi-party covenant or contract is not very useful if there is no way to enforce or demand performance to the contract or covenant. And this is where my difficulty with the Anglican Covenant comes in. Section 4.2 attempts to lay out a process by which straying provinces who have signed the covenant may be brought back into accord. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that any process as laid out in Section 4.2 will take years upon years to slog through and in all likelyhood will not draw any absolutes in terms of condemnation of any specific behaviors. In short, the thing has no teeth!
What this means is there is no up front pain for any province, such as TEC to the sign the thing, throw it in a drawer and then proceed on to ordain any number of openly homosexual non-celibant deacons, priests, bishops, wickens or whatever. So what if 20 years later there are some consequences?
How can we put some real teeth into such a document? Do we throw it away and start all over? No, we do not need to start all over. There is a simple way to fix this document but I guarantee you we will not see it. Here is how you do it:
1. Get rid of Section 4.2
2. For every point in sections 1, 2, 3, 4 have a signature line at the end of each statement.
3. The primate for each province which wants to execute the Covenant signs every signature line as an assent by the province to what is said in the document.
4. All the signature lines have to be signed for that province to be a member.
5. If a member is found to violate one or more of the signed statements, the Archbishop of Canturbury declares that membership void.
6. The membership remains void until such time as the offending province confesses its sin, repents, redresses the offending issue, and receives absolution from the Communion in the form of a vote by all members to reinstate the membership of the offending province.
Maybe not perfect, but some real teeth. No doubt someone will say that even this Covenant could be violated by TEC. Well probably. But if you enter into contracts with NO intention to be honorable, no contract can make you honorable. That has to come from each member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
