I am not drunk as you suppose (it is 10:30 here)!

I was just wondering why any of the progressives care one way or the other about a Covenant. Surely one way or the other they intend on continuing in the direction they have mapped out, especially with regards to human sexuality, and I believe, with respect to an inclusive, pluralistic theology. A Covenant matters not - or does it?

What if:

The election in LA is consented to, and Mary Glasspool is consecrated bishop. This would be the last straw, both for the GS and for the ABC, who then sets in motion the recognition of an alternative, Canterbury centered AC province in North America. My parish, along with many others, would give serious consideration to joining such a province. Here is the kicker: what if courts recognized the right of such parishes to take property with them into such an alternative province? This would be really bad news for TEC. But a Covenant gives me some (faint) hope that such is possible. And it really explains why progressives care at all about a Covenant.

It seems to me that the inclusion of ACNA in the Communion would have no bearing on the outcome of civil litigation over property. What is at issue is the relationships between parishes and dioceses and the General Convention, and I think the courts would see the stats of TEC in the Communion as irrelevant.

Actually I do not care at all about the Ridley Draft and will urge GC not to sign on three years from now. Having people recognized by Canterbury will not have a wit of influence on property disputes because the courts are not going to decide what the effect of some words in the Preamble mean.

But to be honest, losing people to a church which will not stand up boldly and confront churches which are abetting violence against gays is no loss at all.  If it is your parish’s choice to join with foaming fundamentalists who wish to execute gays in Africa (and likely here too) then go for it.  If that is your more natural constituency, please help yourself.

I am prepared to abide with people who disagree about whether or not glbt folks should be ordained or allowed to marry.  I am prepared to abide with the possibility that TEC is wrong in this and eventually will come to discover it and even repent. I am not prepared, however, to sit quietly while the Bible is used as a justification for criminalizing pet bigotries in such a way that scapegoats a community and leads inexorably to violence against them. 

I know that many of the neo-puritan parishes have dumped the date they came to the dance with (Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria, Bolivia, Southern Cone) for the ACNA, but as far as I am concerned the ACNA is now an organization promoting the abuse of human rights internationally.  If the Instruments of Communion let them in to the WWAC, then I do not care what becomes of the WWAC.

So that is what this progressive thinks….and I am prepared to see us spend the money required to deny those who seek to alienate property the fruits of their efforts.

Betting on what courts will do is only for those who have money to lose - no one can say what courts will actually do.

But there is bite to the argument that if TEC has chosen to walk away from the AC, a parish or diocese which wishes to stay with the AC has a legitimate claim to keep their property.

Bringing up “...the Bible is used as a justification for criminalizing pet bigotries in such a way that scapegoats a community and leads inexorably to violence against them” I’m sure plays well in the progressive camp, but it has no value in the discussion of the Covenant here, and it certainly has no bearing on what courts will decide in the future about a Canterbury centered parish or diocese keeping property.

I dislike “foaming fundamentalists” too. But painting conservatives with that broad a brush will not work. How does your post avoid the label of “foaming liberal fundamentalist?”

So vilifying, imprisoning and killing people in the name of God is not a concern?  Where exactly in the Gospels is that passage?

I agree that the status of ACNA and the WWAC as supporting human rights violations will be irrelevant to the courts, just as irrelevant as the Preamble is. Remember it was not appended to the constitution until 1967, so it is hardly relevant and an indicator of our status.  Even then it was not universally loved.

Perhaps “putrefying progressives” would be more in tune with out eternal destiny.  *s*

Charlie Clauss - 19 December 2009 12:45 PM

I am not drunk as you suppose (it is 10:30 here)!

I was just wondering why any of the progressives care one way or the other about a Covenant. Surely one way or the other they intend on continuing in the direction they have mapped out, especially with regards to human sexuality, and I believe, with respect to an inclusive, pluralistic theology. A Covenant matters not - or does it?

What if:

The election in LA is consented to, and Mary Glasspool is consecrated bishop. This would be the last straw, both for the GS and for the ABC, who then sets in motion the recognition of an alternative, Canterbury centered AC province in North America. My parish, along with many others, would give serious consideration to joining such a province. Here is the kicker: what if courts recognized the right of such parishes to take property with them into such an alternative province? This would be really bad news for TEC. But a Covenant gives me some (faint) hope that such is possible. And it really explains why progressives care at all about a Covenant.

That would be bad news for TEC, but I am not sure it would be 100% good news for departing parishes. I sympathize with those who don’t want to lose the space in which they’ve been worshiping, perhaps for decades or even generations, but I would expect TEC to resist tooth and nail every single effort of re-affiliating parishes to retain ownership of those buildings. I wonder if the resulting battles won’t suck in all of a parish’s energy and money and cause everything else to be put on the back burner until the property issue is resolved.

My idea of a best case would be: TEC accepts Covenant and abides by its terms, but I have no expectation at all of that happening. Next best: TEC does not accept the Covenant, acknowledges that it is in fact “walking apart”, and negotiates property settlements with dioceses and parishes that intend to retain their connection with the WWAC. I think that is the best outcome that can realistically be hoped for, and I think the hope is a rather faint one. After that come the various permutations of TEC rejecting both the Covenant and negotiated property settlements and the infinite numbers of possible outcomes from rulings in favor of all who are remaining in the WWAC—which I am not sure would always be an unadulterated Good Thing for them—to an ecclesiastical Jarndyce vs Jarndyce, which ends up consuming both the litigants and the estate.

“Putrefying progressives” would work only if you don’t believe in a literal hell. If you do believe in a literal hell we would need something like “roasting rebellious recalcitrants.” 

Of course “vilifying, imprisoning and killing people in the name of God” is a concern, and I oppose it, and as far as I can tell, everyone who posts here is opposed - many of the “better known” here are probably doing something about it. Everyone, from the lowliest parishioner to the ABC, should be at least speaking out against such. Now that that is clear, you don’t have to bring it up again (unless it is a thread about that topic).

You hope that the courts take no notice of the preamble after TEC leaves the AC, and I hope they do - but we are both just wishing. Karen’s Next Best is maybe the real best case. Keeping the lawyers out would truly be a best case.

I tend to agree here with Michael and Daniel.  Given the way the courts have gone, I think it most likely that any preamble argument would be ignored.  That said, the courts haven’t really intelligently considered what it means that TEC is a “hierarchical church”, they have simply taken the PB’s claim at face value that she has papal powers.  I suppose that it might be possible to make a claim on the basis of the preamble that the PB no longer holds these powers, but I would doubt that would fly.  In any case, my guess is that at some point, the scales in TEC will tip virulently against the Communion, and then I expect that radical hardliner litigationists will seek to remove the relevant language from TEC’s preamble.

I think the more likely scenario is that there will be a flare-up in TEC’s internal civil war between institutonalist liberals and the independend-minded liberals as to whether the Covenant should be signed or whether the Anglican Communion should be repudiated.  This will likely be won by the latter, and will keep the flow of people and money out of TEC moving apace.  Gradually, TEC’s liberal hierarchy will collapse on itself as it realizes that it simply doesn’t have the income to support so many empty buildings and TEC’s administrative facade.  Then there will be a regime change, and out of the ruins probably a more gracious liberal leadership will emerge which will be amenable to some negotiated separation for any Communion-minded parishes and dioceses left in TEC.  That’s my best guess.