Anglican cyberspace is abuzz this morning with the release of a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Central Florida Bishop John Howe, which is in response to a request from the leadership of that diocese for Dr Williams to more specifically outline a process by which dioceses may adopt the Anglican Covenant even if the provincial church of which they are a member fails to do so. The Archbishop commends Central Florida’s endorsement of the three sections of the covenant document that are presently actionable, and then adds that, technically, only provincial churches of the Anglican Communion can adopt the covenant. The reason is that, at present, it is the Anglican Consultative Council that “owns” the covenant, and that body is constitutionally capable of dealing only with its own members, which are the 38 provinces of the communion.

This news is being spun—on both the hard left and the hard right—as a setback to the initiative of the Communion Partners and the signers of the Anaheim Statement. It is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It’s not even news, since this is precisely what the Archbishop told the seven CP bishops who visited him a month ago. Dr Williams is just stating the facts, as dull as they may be.

He is also being utterly consistent with his previous words and actions. (Rowan is nothing if not consistent.) In order for the covenant process to have any integrity, the document must first be offered to the provincial churches. I believe a good case can be made that the Episcopal Church has already materially rejected the covenant in advance of its promulgation by General Convention’s adoption of B025 and C056; I have made that case myself. But it has obviously not yet done so formally, and it is on formalities that we must stand in situations such as this.

By rejecting the covenant, as I believe will happen in 2012, TEC will, per the Archbishop’s consistent schema, be relegating itself to the second Track/Tier of Anglicanism—that is, “associate” status. It is only when that happens that the actions of dioceses such as Central Florida (with others to follow, I have no doubt) enter the game. There will then be a solid basis on which Rowan and the other Instruments of Communion to recognize “endorsement” as de facto “adoption,” and maintain the fullest sacramental communion with endorsing dioceses (and, one hopes, parishes that are under the non-geographical oversight of bishops from endorsing dioceses). The Archbishop’s letter to Bishop Howe pretty well says as much. You don’t even have to dig between the lines; just moving a few leaves and twigs will suffice.

This letter is not a “development,” and is nothing for anyone to stress over.
View the original post

Amen Fr. Dan. This is my read of the response as well. The response is entirely consistent with ++RW traditional understanding of the importance of preserving the Church’s order for the sake of faithful reform and of renewal.

Dan,

  While ++RW’s remarks mean little for the CP Bishops they do contradict the ACI’s posture about adoption and implementation. There can be no implementation of whatever section 4 ends up saying until the Provinces act formally. And I doubt the ++ABC will allow Provinces that sign on early to initiate actions against Provinces that have not acted formally.  So the summer of 2012 is the earliest that TEC could be assigned to any “tier or track”, itself a totally meaningless thing.
  Thus the ACI stampede to have folks sign on is a Pyrrhic action.
  ACNA and other non Anglican groups are, however, cut off from the Ridley Draft now and left adrift to wonder what their relationship to Anglicanism is or might be.  Iker of Ft. Worth plans to sit in two camps ACNA and Southern Cone, “acceding” to ACNA (whatever that might mean to Jack Iker) but staying part of the SC cause it is actually part of the Anglican world.
  He also frustrates those Primates, I am sure, who were positioning things to invite Bob Duncan to be part of their body.  Should they do that they will create quite the mess.
  So I think it is quite an important statement and am pleased he has clarified who will be invited to sign on.

“Thus the ACI stampede to have folks sign on is a Pyrrhic action.” This is nonsense and is evidence that you misunderstand the work ACI undertakes. Michael, stop using these forums to articulate your personal vendetta against ACI; it clouds any substantive contribution you might make to these boards.

++RW’s statement is, as others have stated on both threads related to this topic, consistent with his concern for ecclesial order; that is, how we make decisions as individual members of a catholic Church. His statement first and foremost does not negate his earlier response to the pertinent GC Resolutions in which he made clear that TEC’s decision-making was in contradiction to the fundamental commitments of the Covenant Agreement. The clearly articulated facts on the ground at present indicate TEC’s position with respect to the Covenant: they do not wish to be bound to the relational commitments of communion.

ACI has articulated this reality and drawn out its implications in exhortatory fashion by analyzing and commending the potential responses afforded to dioceses given the reality of these facts-on-the-ground in the Episcopal Church. The desire expressed for bodies to begin signing on to the Covenant comes from a fundamental conviction to live within the bounds of interdependent life for the discernment of Scripture over time; a way of life seen implicitly in the tradition of our Church that now requires more explicit articulation to maintain an ordered life capable of facilitating a fruitful engagement of Scriptural discernment given our present historical context.

The arguments of the ACI are not undermined, nor in fact, has anything changed in light of ++RW recent response. It appears to me that both the ACI and ++RW are fundamentally concerned for maintaining the peace and order of the Church (precisely it seems to me, ++RW concern here) in order to create space for apprehending God’s will in the Church through time. Given their respective vocations and ministries in the Church, both both parties will of course use different means of articulating and acting on their perspectives; however, it seems both are consistent in their commitment to this traditional understanding of the Church’s vocation.

Sorry Katie, but my issue is the ACI Vendetta against TEC which, however unconvincingly, I have spoken about here.  One main flaw, perhaps the principal one, of the Anglican Covenant is its conception as a punitive payback measure against TEC and C of Canada.  That is all the ACI is about, to harm and humiliate TEC.  But I won’t touch that topic again.

Michael,

The Covenant is only setting out explicitly what has been the understanding of the Anglican Communion since its beginnings as a Communion. Take a look at Resolution 4 from 1867 as a starting point. The Covenant has in no way been designed for ‘punishment.’ It does set boundaries on what it means to be in relationship. But this is a necessity for any community to be sustained over time.

The Church of England was not established with an explicitly doctrinal ‘code of conduct.’ Rather it, often in ad hoc ways, has made the discernment of Scripture, in council/sel, to be its guiding ecclesiology. But in order that the discernment of Scripture does not merely become one’s own personal interpretation (subjecting its interpretation to our own still sinful, prideful conscience) out of which arises indifference and secularism, limits (though not rigid ones) must be in place to maintain an ecclesial order capable of sustaining the discernment and decision-making processes over time. This is what the Covenant Agreement is making explicit. Without such a framework of relationships in place, we lose both our ability to do mission (i.e. we become syncretistic and simply become absorbed into the surrounding culture) and our ability to seek reconciliation with the wider Christian Church (i.e. we have no structural mechanisms of authority by which to make decisions that order the life of our Church. This makes it impossible to enter into discussion with one another, let alone with other Churches).

“That is all the ACI is about, to harm and humiliate TEC”

Michael, ACI are a part of TEC. In fact, they have quite explicitly articulated a theology all three of them have lived out. A practice of staying within a Church that has humiliated itself by failing in its commitments to live faithfully in relationship with the member Churches of this Communion before God (I am NOT speaking explicitly here of a particular issue but rather of the violation of relationship in which we are bound before God). ACI speaks out of a place of submitting themselves to the humiliation their own Church, my own Church, has brought upon itself. That is a biblically faithful response to a Church that has erred in its love for its neighbors.

The harm, given each of their respective gifts, would be were they not to call our Church on its failures to first, live according to God’s will (again I am not pointing to a specific issue) and second, to face into God’s judgment and grace and to repent of that. There are however, realities expressed by TEC and the ACoC that have charted a particular course. As a result, the options for responding to this course must be explored. ACI has been incredibly patient, measured, wise, charitable, and incisive in their exploration of how we might faithfully respond. This is evidenced by the significant jabs they have taken from a good number of conservatives. One cannot rightfully accuse them of doing anything but responding to the realities presented by the decisions made by our various Churches.

I can respect the fact that you do not agree with their content, but only if your argument focuses explicitly on the substantive issues at hand, and offers a rigorous argument conducted with charity without the ‘personal’ jabs. The character of the one making an argument goes a long way toward having a positive rhetorical effect.

ACI has been incredibly patient, measured, wise, charitable, and incisive in their exploration of how we might faithfully respond. This is evidenced by the significant jabs they have taken from a good number of conservatives.

It is not a sure sign of correctness, but there is often a strong correlation to truth when being hit by both sides!

Charlie Clauss - 03 October 2009 04:12 PM

ACI has been incredibly patient, measured, wise, charitable, and incisive in their exploration of how we might faithfully respond. This is evidenced by the significant jabs they have taken from a good number of conservatives.

It is not a sure sign of correctness, but there is often a strong correlation to truth when being hit by both sides!

I wonder if the same could be said of the ABC. It seems like whenever he says anything, both reappraisers and reasserters accuse him of siding with “the other guys”. Maybe that means he’s on right track??

Does anyone know if the letter is available online?