I am normally a patient person, but the waiting is getting to me!

Charlie:  I personally wouldn’t expect to hear very much any time soon.  There is no incentive for KJS or her liberal allies on the JSC to speed the process.  There are two few conservatives on the JSC to carry the process.  And Rowan Williams might be known for many things, but he is most certainly not decisive nor will he ever be nicknamed Rowan “Quick” Williams (I recall a Canadian Football League player nicknamed James “Quick” Parker back in the day).  Furthermore, he is increasingly ignored by other Anglican leaders.  Thus, it would appear that those inclined to move quickly on Section 4 are politically weak, while those inclined to kill Section 4 or delay it are in a much stronger position.

Consider the political interests of KJS.  Clearly, it would be her desire to kill Section 4.  I am not sure if she could do so or not, but if not, I think that she probably could succeed in delaying the reaffirmation of Section 4.  And that would manifestly be in her interests, at least until Glasspool receives her consents.  In fact, it would be very much in KJS’s interests to keep any serious discussion of the Covenant to a minimum until Glasspool gets her consents.

BTW, does anyone know the exact process which Section 4 is going through, and where in that process it is?  Might there be leaks along the way of how it is faring?

I understand the impatience, but it is worth remembering that the Covenant approval process is not a quick one, nor should it be. In TEC a decision would be made at the 2011 General Convention and there have been some questions raised about the ability of the Church of England to approve the Covenant given its status as the established Church. (Students of BCP history will recall that Parliament refused to approve a 1928 revision.) Given the willingness of the leaders of some Churches in the Communion to declare themselves to be out of communion with TEC or in communion with ACNA, it seems to me that the Covenant may be too late to hold the Communion together.

The Ridley Draft whenever it is issued will be stillborn.  If it has life at all it will be a divisive not a uniting force and I suspect the ++ABC will rue the day he began touting it as a way forward.  The push already underway to redefine the Instruments of Whatever is just one sign that the whole “Covenant” thrust is specious and inadequate.  Instruments continue to have no real authority to do anything more than co-ordinate and hold parties, well ok the ++ABC has some limited titular authority.

So Charlie once the wait is over, I suspect you will be disappointed by the underwhelming response the final draft gets.  Finally, our PB and others have every right to use the processes of the JSC to modify or scuttle the section entirely, no fouls there.

I wonder what the foundation is for the assertion that Abp Williams is ‘increasingly ignored?’ There is an underlying assumption, quite mistaken in my view, that he has some kind of juridical authority in the Anglican Communion. Similarly, the proposition that he is slow totally ignores his entirely consultative role and his total inability to determine what the TEC, in particular, does or does not do. It really is time to accept that the TEC situation is entirely a matter for Americans to organize to resolve and to stop apportioning blame to people outside the TEC community. The Abp of Canterbury no doubts talks privately to many Americans but it is not his place or position to go further and he should not be apportioned any blame or criticism for a situation outside his authority or control. We do not advance Anglican unity by casting aspersions on one of the key symbols of our mutual identity and I say that despite having a very strong personal view that such a role is now outmoded in the modern Anglican Communion. It might be worth reviewing the Lambeth Quadrilateral model of Anglican unity along with the Covenant process.

Moving on, I have expressed before very deep reservations about the success of the Anglican Covenant process not just in the TEC but more widely. It will take, I suggest, a minimum of a decade and probably much longer, at least beyond the next Lambeth Conference, even assuming that occurs on time, before the Covenant completes the many hurdles it has to jump. It is a classic ‘top-down’ model of trying to solve an issue that does not really affect Anglicans all that much outside North America.

Ian Welch, Canberra

I wonder what the foundation is for the assertion that Abp Williams is ‘increasingly ignored?’

Ian - Simple observation of the events of the last 7 years.  This is becoming true for both those on the conservative and liberal side of things.  Case in point - TEC.  Back in 2007, after Dar, Rowan Williams carried sufficient moral suasion to influence TEC’s HoB to agree to a moratorium, flawed though it was.  In 2009, Rowan Williams addressed TEC’s General Convention and was soundly ignored.  Whereas a couple of years ago, the views of Rowan Williams were given some lip service by TEC liberals, now he is simply ignored or attacked for interfering in areas where he has no business (though he is also castigated for not interfering in places in which the liberals want him to interfere).

On the other side of the aisle, it is well known that the GAFCON leaders acted when they did without regard to Rowan Williams.  GAFCON was largely the decision to move on in the Communion ABSENT Williams.  Then Lambeth was ignored.  But lately, there are suggestions that a wider coalition in the Global South is ready to move on without Rowan Williams.

It is becoming increasingly clear - and I think pretty much undeniable - that Rowan Williams is losing the “moderates”.  In TEC, the “moderate” bishops and dioceses have come under the sway of the radical liberals; whilst in the Global South, the “moderate” Provinces and Archbishops are reaching the end of their tether and seem poised to move forward with a real Covenant if Rowan Williams is unable to exercise leadership to advance the RCD.

And let me say this very clearly - I am not suggesting that in order for Rowan Williams to be a good leader, he must find and use the non-existent juridical “powers” that some believe his office holds.  Rather, I think that had Rowan Williams consistently prosecuted and applied decisions made by the Communion Instruments, and insisted on the application of the non-juridical discipline which had been so called for, that this would have been enough for the Communion moderates to have held the line.

In my opinion this is simply a slow motion train wreck and the Anglican Communion really is no more.  IMHO the wreck is the fault of TEC who “tore the fabric” of the Communion, but to this day will not acknowledge this.  Many outside TEC believed that TEC was being asked very nicely to repent.  The opposite has happened - in slow motion - because of the double speak coming from the mouths of TEC’s leaders.  The outright lies at Lambeth were horrifying.  In the face of this ++Williams has been polite and done whatever he could to keep people at the table.  Gafcon was proof positive to me of the failure of this tactic.  Then in Jamaica he scuttled the whole Covenant.  TEC knows that the Covenant is scuttled and will probably never effectively do what originally it had been hoped to do - that is to set standards and a process whereby this kind of division or polarization due to unilateralism on the part of one province could again so disrupt the Communion.  Since IMHO the Communion effectively no longer exists, the so called instruments are powerless and ignored, and the ABC has become a person about whom one politely titters and little more, what is there left to save?  At this point let people choose their side.  When they do then do not throw lawsuits at them and at least pretend to some kind of graceful behavior.  We are in need of a negotiated divorce, separation already exists.  The Covenant will - if it ever emerges be far to late to make a difference.
As for me and my house - we will serve the Lord.  In my case in Peru!

My sources tell me that the GS respects the ABC more than you all allow for. They have been very quiet for the last several months; even the election in LA solicited only a quiet rebuke. My spin is that they too are waiting to see what becomes of the Covenant.

Warning! Crystal ball gazing next:

If the West manages to scuttle section 4, two things will happen:

1) There will be a significant global movement to adopt the RD Covenant anyway;
2) There will be serious effort to form a *Canterbury recognized* alternative province in North America.

Ian might be right that the AC is dead - but this would not be the first time!

And I don’t think it is. But if it is dead, then that makes for a very hard choice. ACNA et al is not an option, nor any move towards a Protestant ecclesiology. But neither the Tiber nor the Bosborous is a river I want to cross.

A full adoption of the Covenant by the AC may be years away, but I think we will fully know TEC’s decision within the next roughly 120 days!

Charlie Clauss - 17 December 2009 10:15 PM

(snip)
A full adoption of the Covenant by the AC may be years away, but I think we will fully know TEC’s decision within the next roughly 120 days!

Is a tally of the consents (or lack thereof) being kept anywhere that you know of?

Karen

“Ask and it shall be given to thee.”

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/section_four_comparisons.pdf

And final text here: http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm

And ++Williams’s introduction (video and text) here: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2686

I am pleased with the final Covenant language. I am particularly pleased that it places the burden of living into communion on the Provinces and challenge them to demonstrate mutual interdependence by their actions and behavior. It will be the actions of a Province which determines its ecclesioogy and thus its participation in the mutual affection symbolized by its relationships with and into the Instruments of Communion. If a Province believes itself called by God to “unique” actions which compromise Communion coherence it will be for it to pursue its destiny in impaired formal relationships.