10 Reasons to Reject the Anglican Covenant

Ten Reasons Why the Proposed
Anglican Covenant Is a Bad Idea

1. The proposed Anglican Covenant would transform a vibrant, cooperative, fellowship of churches into a contentious, centralized aggregation of churches designed to reduce diversity and initiative. The Covenant would institutionalize the “Instruments of Unity” as never before and would give extraordinary power to the newly enhanced Standing Committee.
   
   
2. Under the Covenant, churches will be inhibited from undertaking new evangelical or mission initiatives for fear of offending other Communion churches and becoming embroiled in the disciplinary mechanisms set up by the Covenant.
   
   
3. The centralization of authority envisioned by the proposed Covenant is cumbersome, costly, and undemocratic. In an era in which power and authority are being distributed in many organizations in order to achieve greater efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability, what has been proposed for the Communion seems out of step with current thinking regarding large organizations.
   
   
4. Although the proposed Covenant is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not adopt the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The inevitable application of the disciplinary provisions of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between “full” members of the Communion and less-than-full members.
   
   
5. The proposed Covenant is dangerously vague. Sections 1–3 of the Covenant, which are seen by many as innocuous, leave much room for divergent interpretations. Section 4 makes it all too easy for any church to “ask questions” about the actions of another, which may then be subjected to unspecified “relational consequences.” There is no sure measure of what behaviour is likely to be acceptable, no checks provided against unreasonable complaints, and no guarantee that “consequences” (i.e., punishments) meted out will be commensurate with the alleged offence.
   
   
6. The proposed Covenant runs counter to the gospel imperative of not judging others. It is all too easy for Communion churches to complain about the sins of their sister churches while ignoring or diverting attention from their own failures to live out the Gospel.
   
   
7. The proposed Covenant encourages premature ending of debate. Rather than taking the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38–39) and seeing how controversial matters play out, the Covenant evidences an eagerness to “settle” them. This is an unfortunate temptation to which the Communion seems subject. It has too quickly concluded that “homosexual practice” is “incompatible with Scripture” and that adopting the Covenant is “the only way forward,” neither of which is either intuitively obvious or universally agreed upon.
   
   
8. The notion that we need to make “forceful” the “bonds of affection” is fundamentally flawed. If we need force and coercion to maintain relationships between Communion churches, there is no true affection, and the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent.
   
   
9. The proposed “Covenant” seems more like a treaty, contract, or instrument of surrender than a covenant. In the ecclesiastical context, a covenant is usually thought of as an agreement undertaken in joy and in an atmosphere of trust—baptismal and marriage covenants come to mind. The proposed Anglican Covenant, on the other hand, is advanced in an atmosphere of anger, fear, and distrust, and with the threat of dire consequences if it is not adopted.
   
   
10. The proposed Covenant is not the only way forward; there are better options. The Anglican Communion would be better served by remaining a single-tier fellowship of churches, allowing disaffected members to leave if they must, while keeping the door open for their return. Any alternative position cedes too much power to those willing to intimidate by threatening to walk away.
    

---

It may be helpful to think of the reasons given above in terms of one-word descriptions. The ten reasons describe the Covenant as

1. Radical
2. Reactionary
3. Impractical
4. Divisive
5. Vague
6. Judgemental
7. Impetuous
8. Insincere
9. Misnamed
10. Suboptimal

Copied from here.

Why not Rome?

The writer says there could be a bloodbath in the Church of England. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who can't deal with female clergy and want to give the Archbishop of Canterbury pope-like power don't just cross the Tiber. Do those dissatisfied Anglican clergy have ambitions on the office which might be possible in England but not in Rome? Do they believe they can perpetuate the patriarchy for their own benefit? Have they ever studied the Gospels?

I believe the men who preach against women and LGBTs do not understand Jesus at all. They are pretenders concerned with the interpretations of the "law" which benefit themselves and their peers. I seem to have read something about that this morning as I was the EM. They corrupt the people in their parishes by preaching that the Trinity must be worshipped. But to them the Holy Spirit died on Pentecost. Scripture contains the exact words we need to follow. (No matter who wrote whatever in whichever language in a setting which we can mostly only speculate about and has little relevance today.) Well, some scripture is no longer relevant but they get to choose.

No, I would not separate from those who believe they are right and righteous, who tell me I'm going to hell because I don't accept every jot and tittle of their beliefs. I can't and won't tell anyone that my faith is one they should accept. They might study it but they probably aren't interested. They don't care if it works for me. It is unforgivable sin and/or heresy and that is that. They don't want me in "their" church. I welcome them, however, to share the eucharist with me in whatever church. It is not my table.

Jesus told us to love Godde and love each other and be servants of each other and leave judgment to Godde. What else do we need? What is so difficult about that message?

Time to go fishing in England...

Seems to me that TEC needs to go fishing in England. Surely there are parishes hungry to hear the Gospel. Surely there are clergy who preach love and inclusion as taught by Jesus. Surely there are people who experience Godde's love and acceptance and seek a place to worship and be part of an inclusive community. Surely there are many who believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his way and are eager to reach out to the world and spread the real message of the Gospels. TEC has the hook - Godde loves all Godde's creation.

The Anglican Communion as currently visualized by the ABC has little if anything to do with its historical roots. It seems to have become a political organization responding only as dictated by certain conservative clergy and, perhaps, by Parliament. After all, some of the world's most needed resources are located in provinces once converted by CoE missionaries and now totally separated from Jesus by homophobia. While almost instant criticism results from the consecration of a partnered lesbian as bishop, nary a peep is heard when one of those countries presents legislation to kill people or advocates imprisoning people who love each other and those who are their friends.

Who knows who is pulling the strings at Lambeth? The ABC seems unaware that those strings seem to have no hooks with which to catch new Christians. They don't even have bait which might lure people back. Time for TEC to go fishing in England...

Who represents?

Do appointed bishops represent anyone?

Why do I think of this when the ABC comes to mind?

A new Archbishop of Canterbury

Bishop Clumber

Bishop Maya Pavlova, the theologian

Rowan, bishop of playing

I apologize to Bishop Airedale for whom I have no photo.

Abandonment

To my way of thinking, the Archbishop of Canterbury has abandoned Anglicanism and, perhaps, the Gospel. By reducing The Episcopal Church to "consultant" status because we choose to follow Jesus's teaching to love all and leave judgment to Godde, Rowan Williams has assumed the position of Anglican pope and abandoned the historical big tent. (Americans, at least, know what "assume" means.)

I don't know what their travel plans are but I wish Susan and Louise would cut the Paris trip short and do some evangelizing in England. Maybe they could begin with St. Paul's Cathedral? If it is ok to sign up our parishes and dioceses, it is ok to do likewise in the CoE. And what do we have to lose now?

Meanwhile we need to maintain the relationships we have around the world, especially financial assistance. We should revise the TEC budget to reflect our new status which should free up resources needed here and in more friendly places. And we need to bill the new Anglican Church for our time at their meetings. Aren't consultants paid quite well?

And Presiding Bishop Katherine responds...

Good on ++Katharine! No waffling. No exclusion. Just straight forward telling it like it is. Lots of places to read her letters to both the Archbishop of Canterbury and President Obama. First the very misled, misinformed, mistaken ABC's stuff.

His lecture is here.

Her response.

Some comments on her response, with her letter, are here -
The Episcopal Cafe
Thinking Anglicans
Preludium
Telling Secrets
among others. I will not link to the hate sites. I don't go there. They have little or nothing to do with Jesus.

A comment on the exchange is from Diana Butler Bass.

And she had words for President Obama on the Gaza situation as well. Her letter to him is posted on ENS.

How fortunate TEC is to have an articulate, firm but gentle follower of Jesus as our leader!

My opinion on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Pentecost, um, message

Invite everyone to the eucharist. Those who come and share are Anglicans in communion. Those who don't or won't are something else. That should settle the property disagreements too.

Once again the ABC talks about TEC

If ABC Rowan Williams thinks he is seeing clearly the future of the Anglican Communion, he may need new glasses.

I find it symbolic that the "Anglicans" in the Southern Hemisphere plus schismatics from the North are meeting between Easter and Pentecost. That way they minimize the possibility of the as-yet-not-present Holy Spirit influencing their opinions.

Lots of interesting comments on various blogs and Facebook have provided insight on the attempts to "wrest control" of the Anglican Communion from the heretics in the US and Canada. -They worship the institution rather than God. -He supports the quantity of Christians to the quality of Christians. -The bishops believe they should be the final word and have no need for input from the laity. -They want a magisterium without Rome.

The ELCA Lutherans and TEC Episcopalians have decided that Godde loves all Godde's creation and we should not stand in the way of anyone's call to ministry because of sexual preference. The possibility of merging is probably a pipe dream since most Lutherans seem to believe Anglicans have no theology at all. Nevertheless why can't we form a worldwide communion of Christians who may differ in theology but recognize each other as intelligent, sincere followers of Jesus? Porvoo? The concept that our Godde is a loving god who includes rather than one that excludes on manmade prejudice is probably foreign and needed in much of the world.

Dear ABC Rowan Williams,

I don't understand all the fuss over a covenant which has been proposed to hold the Anglican Communion together. It seems to me that there should be one and only one criterion by which anyone can be part of the AC.

If you would invite everyone to the eucharist, you would quickly learn who is and who is not in communion. Anyone who will share the meal with you and everyone else is a member. Those who discriminate are not.

Who needs anything written?

Sincerely,

Me

Evensong - updated Sun eve

Attended evensong at Christ Church Cathedral in Montreal this afternoon. All but one other person was from our group tho I couldn't see the people in the nave, if any. Church was HOT!!! For those who might be interested:

Prelude: Tierce en taille - de Grigny
Introit: O gladsome light - Bourgeois
P&R: Thomas Ebdon
Psalm: Cooper, Corfe
Hymn: 26 Te lucis, To Thee before the close of day
Mag & Nunc: Ridout
Anthem: Round me falls the night - Adam Drese
Hymn: 30 Ar Hyd Y Nos - God that madest earth and heaven
Postlude: P & F in a, BWV 543 - JSB

Sorry but I took no photos.

We have sung thru almost all Mendelssohn's Paulus (St. Paul) in 3 rehearsals. I still have some rough spots mainly due to the Deutsch. Julian Wachner has some second altos singing with the tenors now and then. Low Ds are fun. The president of Bach Choir of Pittsburgh knows the conductor and told me to say Hi for her.

Austria roommate Shelly finally got her suitcase this afternoon and is returning all my clothing. One of her friends bought a Mondsee shirt which is too small for her so Shelly gave it to me. It is too big for me but I don't care. Shelly is pretty meticulous. I'm not as you all know.

My roommate is from Singapore and is a pediatrician. She was at Vancouver with us last year and was surprised to see herself in my photos.

I'm sitting next to my favorite alto so all is well with me. So far.

Updated: Excitement! Shelly and I got VERY expensive tickets to Cirque du Soleil Thursday night. Can't wait. Neither of us has seen them live.

TEC and the AC

Some of my thoughts on the current problems within the Anglican Communion in no particular order. This may be updated...

Some bishops (and other clergy types) complain that TEC has shattered the communion because of following Jesus's commandment to love all. Those men, primarily, believe that loving, not judging and allowing LGBT people to answer Godde's call to ministry is so sinful that they cannot share the table or even be part of an organization with TEC. In My Not So Humble Opinion, TEC has done nothing to split the communion. TEC has continued to support foreign missions, participate in conferences and live into the love of Godde in Christ while tolerating as long as possible the bishops who vilify others, steal property, lie, refuse to consider there are valid opinions on scripture other than their own and show no signs of being followers of Jesus. The men who complain and withdraw are the ones harming the communion.

People who cling to the belief that LGBTs are not deserving of the same rights and privileges as the people in their circle do not understand the message of the Bible at all. In other words, they believe the hated/feared behavior of LGBTs - doing whatever straight people do - is so sinful that Godde cannot possibly love LGBTs. IMNSHO these prejudiced folks have created God in their own image. I want nothing to do with their God.

In the Bible, Satan gave Jesus the opportunity to be the ruler over all he could see. He declined. Sad that so many bishops and other clergy haven't taken that example to heart. I've always believed that the person who wants power is probably the worst person to give it to. Was it Plato who agreed?

There is a section of the most recent version of the "Covenant" which many are using to pound TEC into submission:
3.2.5: to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.
IMNSHO Nigeria and Uganda, among others, should be censored for their inhumane, unChristlike actions and rhetoric against LGBTs which can inspire violence. If anyone is breaking the communion it is these men who have very strange opinions of the message of the Bible. Why are their minions in the US not complaining about that evil? Does their silence mean they approve? Jesus would eat with them but what would he say? There is no credibility to either the parent provinces or their stepchildren.

3.2.6: in situations of conflict, to participate in mediated conversations, which involve face to face meetings, agreed parameters and a willingness to see such processes through.
This needs to apply to all. There is no excuse for Akinola or Orombi or Anis or anyone else to refuse to have an intelligent conversation with an LGBT person. Colin Coward writes that any attempt to discuss with "reporters" is met with a barrage of verbage. I believe that any concession to listen to the real LGBT experience is perceived as a threat to the prejudiced. If a crack appears in their wall against LGBTs, it might spread causing the entire house of cards to tumble. Then all they have said and written against LGBTs must be refuted. The embarrassment is too difficult to imagine.

3.2.7: to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible. To put it bluntly, heifer dust. There is no love of Christ among the legalists who can't conceive of the idea that Godde loves homosexuals. TEC tries to maintain bonds of affection but those who know God best keep breaking them.

Those who judge others unfit for whatever, especially responding to Godde's call to ministry, have put themselves above Godde. They may be sincere in their beliefs but they need to examine the beliefs they cling to tightly in the light of what Jesus taught. Just as the rich man could follow all the rules but not surrender all his wealth, the self-righteous can believe they are following the rules but cannot surrender the prejudice that separates them from others.

I'm not a Bible scholar but I believe there is something about an emmisary - the Holy Spirit - who will teach us what we are not yet prepared to learn. It seems to me that the Bible literalists who cherish the verses which, in their opinion, condemn homosexual relationships and which restrict the priesthood to people with penises refuse to hear the Holy Spirit. Could it be because traditionally the Holy Spirit has been considered feminine and women have nothing of value to add to the discussion? Or are those men simply denying the Trinity by believing that the Holy Spirit died with the council of Nicea?

It has been recommended that TEC withhold funding from the AC until the future of the AC is determined. The current movement seems to be toward the Roman model with a magisterium that dictates belief and has means of determining who is in and who is out. That is not the Anglican way. I have mixed feelings about withholding money but I would encourage using those funds to provide desperately needed support for our missionaries who barely survive on the pittance TEC now provides. The withheld resources could also be used to defend property rights when challenged by men who would impose their beliefs on TEC and remove the property illegally when TEC doesn't agree.

I don't much care for organized religion. I like our parish somewhat tho I came very close to leaving last summer because of what I perceived as an unhealthy environment. I perceive the environment preached by the schismatic priests and bishops in the AC to be extremely unhealthy, especially for people. That is all too true in many churches that preach about Jesus yet forget about loving all. Kinda dumb, eh?

The CoE furor

I assume most of you are unaware of the holy war going on in the Church of England. It is ok in certain parts for women to be priests/vicars/deacons/whatevers. It is impossible for some men to even imagine women as bishops. In my experience online, most of those who consider themselves "conservative" or "orthodox" have little or no sense of humor or irony. "Libruls" and atheists on the other hand seem far more worldly, literate and funny perhaps because of living in the real world rather than some "approved" ivory tower of right belief and practice. Anyhow, there is a great article in The Guardian's Comment is Free column by Judith Maltby. "Women bishops: Get over it" is worth reading. The best part for me, however, is the following from one of the comments:

The churches had indeed better get over it, unless Xtianity is to become no more than a few old men in frocks playing with their testaments.

"They are no longer Episcopalians"

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori has commented on the formation of a new denomination by anti-TEC, anti-homosexual, anti-female-clergy men who each have exclusive access to God and the correct opinions of what the Bible actually says.

"They are no longer Episcopalians," Jefferts Schori said of those who left. "They have made that very clear in their departures.

"Those who were formally bishops in the Episcopal Church are no longer understood to be bishops in the Episcopal Church," she added in a meeting with Times reporters. "They are free to associate with whom they wish."

Leaders of the new Anglican Church in North America have taken issue with what they view as the Episcopal Church's liberal policies on the role of gays in the church. They agreed, however, with Jefferts Schori on at least one point.

"We are not Episcopalians; we are Anglicans," said Bishop Martyn Minns, whose group, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, helped create the new Anglican church.

The Episcopal Church is the American arm of the 77-million-member Anglican Communion. The global body has 38 self-governing provinces and is led by the archbishop of Canterbury.

Read it all at the LA Times.

Meanwhile, Lambeth Palace (seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the titular head of the Anglican Communion) released the following:

"There are clear guidelines set out in the Anglican Consultative Council Reports, notably ACC 10 in 1996 (resolution 12), detailing the steps necessary for the amendments of existing provincial constitutions and the creation of new provinces," the spokesperson said. "Once begun, any of these processes will take years to complete. In relation to the recent announcement from the meeting of the Common Cause Partnership in Chicago, the process has not yet begun."

Read it all at ENS.

There are a variety of comments available on blogs. Katie Sherrod at Desert's Child has a Reality Check. Other articles are available at almost all of the links in the right column on this blog.

God's sense of humor

The Vatican wanted to exhume Cardinal John Henry Newman's body and rebury it alone in Birmingham, England. The good cardinal specified that he be buried with Ambrose St John. The Vatican will not be denied except by God. As reported by Ruth Gledhill, when they excavated the gravesite, they found nothing. Snicker. Yea, God!

A geography lesson - updated

A faithful reader of Dr. Christian Troll's blog GAFCON asked the difference between [sic] The Southern Cone, The Global South and GAFCON. Fr. Christian provides a most enlightening explanation of the geography involved here. I especially appreciate the comment that in Christ there is no East or West. That certainly makes it all much easier to understand.

Update: Fr. Christian has now addressed the East-West issue. Just read his entire blog. Be careful, however, to keep all liquids and other corrupting substances away from the computer keyboard when you do.

A nugget from our favorite GAFCON

"Real family members don’t boast about how they’ll be walking out any day now. Especially not ones who’ve been called into the family by God.

I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible."

Our favorite Troll tells it like it is. Well, at least at Stop it. Now. Good on him to remind some that we can't choose our relatives (tho Sylvia may disagree) and we need to choose to remain family despite our differences.

Control

A bunch of Episcopal/Anglican male clergy are unable to accept female clergy, lately especially female bishops. Many seem to be the same men who are unable to accept the idea that most LGBTQs are ordinary people with ordinary lives, loved by God and entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Why are so many males afflicted with control issues?

I find it easy to worship with these men, difficult to discuss religion with them and almost impossible to respect them. Why are they and their followers so afraid of change? Of questions? Of difference? Of God? They seem to have all the beliefs and none of the faith. The clergy types control the message as if the slightest variation will cause rebellion, rejection of their control. They know God personally and none of the rest of us do or can without their guidance.

Altho I can love a person and will do what I can in a given situation, I have trouble respecting someone who has unquestioned "faith" and insists that only their religion/church has the "Truth". Religion and church were created by men. The documents of the followers of Abraham were written by men who believed they were divinely inspired yet the later two disagree significantly even in each internally. The idea that any one of the belief systems is closest to God seems to me to be just plain silly. Presumptuous. Heretical?

So where do the Episcopal/Anglican clergy who reject segments of society as unworthy of responding to God's call get their authority? Not from the Gospels. Not from Jesus. Definitely not from the Holy Spirit whom they claim to include but restrict to those who wrote, translated, edited or otherwise affected their versions of the Bible.

The men who seek to exclude and divide seem to feel threatened by those they can't control. For good reason? God help them! And us!

My thoughts on Lambeth

ABC Rowan Williams had a good idea that built and renewed relationships which should be mutually advantageous despite differences. Very well done.

The GAFCON folks are probably already gone. That isn't all bad IMO. Those who remain seem to be the folks whose Bibles con/retain the Gospels, have actually read them and try to live as Jesus taught. Losing members can be healthy. When the dissension is gone, church is easier. That doesn't mean I think disagreement should be banished. But the destructive elements rarely decide to get along and are better off finding a more comfortable place.

Yes, LGBTs are once again told to wait till hell freezes over. I pray TEC and ACofC ignore the moratorium on sexual matters as the invaders will ignore the moratorium on stealing parishes and dioceses. Somebody has to lead. I don't see anything to lose by confirming that LGBTs are people too, entitled to the rights and privileges of all others. I don't believe the Anglican Communion is worth sacrificing each other in violation of Jesus's teaching to love all and judge none.

At the same time I believe the AC is a good idea which should be maintained. Perhaps a judicious self-pruning will return it to what it has always been - a home for many opinions of what the Bible actually says and a gracious willingness to share the eucharist with all who are trying to follow Jesus. That would be a positive result of Lambeth.

Of course who cares what this Lutheran thinks? Sunday I received a stern lecture about not transferring my membership already. I never seriously considered it until recently. If Christ Church gets some stability before I get discouraged, I will probably stay. If not, the next option is St. Clement's. If that is not a compatible match either, I will return to my home Lutheran parish which I still support. After all, church is a creation of men. I have no problem switching to find a comfortable home which usually means good music. bg