http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/19/nchurch19.xml
This link will take you to an article describing a purported plan to deal with the ongoing issue of division between various provinces in the Anglican community. This is of course, only one report, and may well be flawed. It may also be a classic leak balloon, a document that "accidentally" comes to the press. Said accident providing the opportunity to gauge reaction and deny the idea was ever in play.
The plan in brief, if it exists, describes a church composed of those provinces that sign on to an, as yet unwritten, “covenant.” This covenant would stand as the constitution for a world wide church. The article envisions another set of provinces, presumably, ECUSA, ACCanada, AC Wales, AC Scotland, AC Japan, and perhaps Church of England itself, that would still be in some sort of communion with Canterbury without signing it. So, the communion would self-schism into the “ins” and the “attached.” The covenant document would presumably, if the article is correct, incorporate some formal mechanism(s) to enforce what the report from the crypt (the “Windsor Report”) said, “what effects all must be decided by all.” That is, nothing in the document or practices of the signers could change unless all of them agreed.
How does this work in the real world?
People, even whole congregations, do not agree with the position of their bishop and dioceses do not always agree with their province, whatever issue may be the cause. So, will the covenant explicitly disavow the idea of provincial territory so that all provinces have world wide jurisdiction?
If the proposal means that there remains one Lambeth council, how will that work? For instance, will non-covenant provinces vote on changes to the covenant? Given the extreme hostility some African bishops express towards some ECUSA and ACCanada bishops, will there be one plenary or two sort-of-plenary meetings? Can anyone imagine a Eucahrist that will involve clergy from both groups celebrating and receiving together? Archbishop Akinola RAN from a room to avoid shaking Louie Crew’s hand, will he exchange a sign of peace with bishop Ingram?
I consider it likely that the issue of lay presidency, may divide Australia internally and may cause another internationals split. It is easy to visualize a four node church: those who accept the US and Canadian moves and lay presidency, those who reject one but not the other and those who reject both. This, of course, is today, the possibility of new issues and new sub-divisions appears endless.
For “covenanted” provinces, does this structure mean that primate council or ACC or Lambeth votes have the force of canon? It is relevant to remember that only the Anglican Consultative Council hears from voting laity and clerics other than primates. Will conservative African provinces want to give up that much authority? If they don’t, does the covenant have any meaning?
What of Canterbury? The archbishop is selected entirely by the Church of England and Her Majesty’s government. If a new structure is to be centered on the archbishop, who would seem to be the primary link for the un--covenanted provinces, wont they want a say? If they do, and if the archbishop is the center of the entire structure, certainly the provinces that are signing the covenant will also demand a voice. A change in the selection process would be a change in foundation, (what Americans call, “constitutional”) English law.
Moreover, what of Canterbury if the covenant comes to a General Synod that wont sign it? Do we then have the potentially illegal spectical of an archbishop who heads a communion in which his own province is a junior member? Is there anyone who thinks that archbishop Akinola will accept that?
A conservative might evaluate this idea in light of Machiavelli’s observation, “delay is the deadliest form of denial.” If the work on making a structure that all or at least most, can accept starts today, it will be Lambeth 2018 before anything happens. A decade or more of drafts, debates, discussions, and revisions, followed by a vote and then a ratification process in each province may be an optimistic timetable. Many provinces’ General Synod or General Convention meetings are bi-annual affairs; many are less frequent, ECUSA meets this year and next in 2009.
If this is really the archbishop’s staff and advisors best work, he needs to make some personnel decisions!
Profile Information
- JimB
- I am an Anglo-catholic Episcoplain layman, a lay contemplative, a musician, and a completely doting grandfather. New slogan for the election cycle: Vote for Cthulhu -- don't settle for the lesser evil!
10 comments:
Nice analysis here. When you think of the prospect of the Church of England possibly being a second-class Anglican province, the whole idea becomes absurd.
Jim --
Agree with first apostle -- very perceptive analysis -- this could go on for years -- can anybody stand it for that long?
We reading Diarmud McCullough's "The Reformation: a history" in refectory now -- we are now up to the separate section on Anglicanism -- it seems as if the Puritans who fought Elizabeth & Hooker & Laud & were driven out in 1662 have reappeared & seized control!
Thanks to both of you. I doubt it can go on for the 6 to 9 years the report seems to suggest. The "Global South" will be outraged if ECUSA and ACCAnada are at Lambeth. The idea of spending several years working out a covenant statement with both provinces involved is simply not something Nigeria or its allies will buy.
FWIW
jimB
Jim;
Thanks for the comments and I do hesitate from discussing this too much because I'm not sure that we know enough details to really comment. Yet, there is a central assumption in the article which you seem to reproduce. What seems to be proposed is merely a covenant that the provinces bind themselves not to act unilaterally in contentious issues. Given the actions of both sides in this dispute, I'm not sure I see the problem with such an undertaking. Both liberals and conservatives have acted precipitiously; liberals in ECUSA in elected and confirming Gene Robinson as bishop and the approval of same-sex partnerships in New Westminister; conservatives in ordaining clergy in dioceses not their own.
For myself, I would welcome such a voluntary pledge as a sign of compromise from both sides. We need a lot less smoke and heat in this dispute, if we stand any chance at avoid true schism.
The way I see it is that the province in the Anglican Communion have a choice of standing on their legitimate prerogatives and autonomy or actually trying to pull together as a Communion and a church.
I think both this article and Jim are making an assumption here which needs to be challenged. He is assuming that ECUSA, AC of Canada etc will refuse to sign this covenant and, as a result, will be condemned to second-class status in the Communion. Both are rightly indignant that such a status would be contemplated. Yet, why do we have to make this assumption? What would happen if restraint was chosen by both sides?
The choice we have right now is whether we actually want to try to solve our differences or whether we're willing to do that. Jim and this article are right, if things work out the way they assume. This would be schism through the back door, despite all this shadow dancing about limited communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it could.
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
I was analyzing the article, which suggested rather directly that the ECUSA and ACCanada were not likely signers. I have since found Ruth G's article in the Times. She quotes a bit from the actual document.
Reading her piece, I think the point about delay is perhaps the main one. The report suggests the process will take six to nine years! I think the idea that ++Akinola et al will sit for that long is silly.
I also think that it is simply true that the gulf is now so wide between the bullies (and some of them simply are)and those who actually are seeking community that anything one group (Nigeria, Southern Cone, Uganda for instance) could accept could not possibly be something ECUSA, ACCanada and a fair number of others will. Further, the docuement does not merely suggest that the provinces bind themselves to not act unilaterally. It appears to discuss the possible levels of authority to be ceeded to Canterbury or some other structure.
Over all, I think it is a non-starter simply on the time issue. The simple fact is that the ECUSA wont go 9 years without consecrating another gay person. I can name at least three who will be front runners in upcoming elections, with an outside shot at a forth. And I cannot imagine that sort of patience breaking out in CAP.
Thanks for the thoughts!
FWIW
jimB
Jim;
I'll grant you that this measure, as far as I've seen it, is a tough sell. Yet, given our situation and the blatent disregard for common ties on both sides, I'm not sure that some definition of what is and is not acceptable behavior in a controversy isn't a helpful measure. I really don't get the almost panicked reaction of liberals on this one because this makes sense ecclesially and I don't think necessarily is going to raise the ABC as a type of Pope, since this is not the only model in play.
The simple fact is that we've done a horrible job acting as a united church. There will always be theological and, yes, political differences in any church, but the kind of divisions (which you describe as almost unbridgeable, perhaps even rightly)we've seen over the last five years, or even ten years have led to astonishingly un-ecclesial behavior. That is not acceptable and I think the ABC is right to address it.
This will be a long process and it should be. This kind of change to the operation of the Communion will take a long time. I agree some won't want to wait, but I think patience is needed (as N.T. himself pointed out at the talk I was at last week).
Peace,
Phil
Phil,
Let's agree for a moment that this is a non-starter, because it wont sell to liberals afraid that it will define them out, and to conservatives who will not accept a 9 year (or more) process.
Some time ago we attended a very liberal conference. (Sue-z and I were, if you can credit the idea, the conservatives.
In one of the sessions, a leader expressed his dissapointment at his and his bishop's inability to get conservatives in his diocese involved in a "reconcilliation process." I said that for many conservatives, "reconcilliation" was a code word meaning, "we talk, they talk, and liberals do what they want." There was a long, embarrased silence, and then slow, painful nods.
That is, if the reaction to my article on VirtueOnline and what I am seeing of response to other's comments on the two Telegraph and other subsequent articles is any indication, exactly what many conservatives see: "For nine years, we talk, we debate, we edit, and they do what they want."
Liberals see it as a plan to exclude them, but keep their contributions, cash, people, whatever is handy and controled by the non-global South. Conservatives see it as a process of literally talking them to death. It aint gonna sell.
FWIW
jimB
I think I have to answer on two levels. On a personal level, I don't have a problem with a 6-9 year process because I honestly think that is a reasonable time frame and I doubt if anything up to and including a negotiated disintegration of our Communion will be done any faster (the more likely non-negotiated distintegration would take rather less time, but still a few years; followed by decades of litigation). So, personally, no problem with the time frame.
Second, most conservatives will not receive the time frame well for very much the same reasons you set out. And I really do understand it. I've gone to more than my share of let's 'hear' the conservatives kind of sessions in which participants work so hard to be tolerant to these offensive conservative types (me!) that they fail to hear what we're on about. Clearly, we need that kind of process (which all this could degenerate into)like we all need holes in our head. And it is a gigantic leap of faith that I fear most conservatives aren't willing to make to hope for a different process. I'm fairly optimistic and I don't expect it.
Yet, I still think this is worth a try. The only hope that we have as a communion is to work out a synthesis and this is about the only way we can set up the conditions to do it. Of course, there may be no synthesis to make (I personally am not holding my breath), but I do think we have to earn our way out of communion and this would convince me that we just can't stay united. At the very least, we'll learn about each other's committment to maintaining unity. At best, we might even manage it, by God grace and power alone. We'll see.
Peace ,
Phil
I like it a lot! Very nicely done. :-)..!
- essaysbyjim.blogspot.com 0
spaghetti alla carbonara
I considered myself as the professional in this theme, and did not think that I can find in the Internet something new. But having come on your site, I have understood, that I know nothing and it is necessary for me to study and study as much as possible.
- www.blogger.com k
spaghetti alla carbonara
Post a Comment