never underestimate 815….......

Thus kicking the feet out from under the Communion Partner bishops and their intentions of both maintaining their membership in ECUSA and maintaining their adherence to the faith.  This is a sad statement.

(cross-posted from Stand Firm in Faith)
[Edited]  John wrote to a church that he had sent them a letter, but Diotrophes would not allow them to receive it because he always wanted to be first in all things, and he turned away John’s messengers from the door.  Rowan has long ago joined himself to [edited] TEC and made himself one flesh with her.  Should this now surprise us?

[Edited by Elf]

“The archbishop added that “I see no objection to a diocese resolving less formally on an ‘endorsement’ of the covenant.” Such an action would not have an “institutional effect” but “would be a clear declaration of intent to live within the agreed terms of the Communion’s life and so would undoubtedly positively affect a diocese’s pastoral and sacramental relations” with the wider communion, he said.”

This business of “positively affect… pastoral and sacramental relations” thing is meaningless drivel.

So.  Bp Lawrence and Bp Love have talked about the option of “endorsing” the covenant in order to insure that their dioceses remain viable members of the Anglican Communion, “in Communion with everybody.”

Is this enough to do the job?  Is this is enough to sustain us?

Endorsement essentially means that we “like” something—maybe even a whole lot.  As in:  “Wow! Those sneakers are peachy-keen.”  Endorsement implies NO mutual commitment or responsibility.  The ABC states quite clearly that such endorsement would have: “No institutional effect.”

It is about time that the Communion Partner bishops woke up out of their wishful thinking bubbles and took an actual look at Reality as it is.

A Diocese inside TEC IS a TEC Diocese.  You are part of TEC.  You live and breathe and have your being as an integral part of TEC.  You can’t really be “In but not of.”

That is nothing but pure sophistry.  A “Rationalization” is a psychological defense mechanism which appears on the surface to be a substantive argument, but is not.  It is a lie our brains concoct to allow us to live with our contradictions.  Such defense mechanisms are, to be sure, unconscious and not deliberate.  We really do believe them to be be true.  But we all need to check in with ourselves to locate them and turn away from them.

That process is a large factor in the necessity to “Repent and believe the Gospel.”  (Mark 1:15)

Please hear the voice of so many of us Faithful:  Simply “endorsing” a Covenant you cannot actually belong to is NOT enough to be faithful Christians.

TEC is an apostate ex-Christian institution.  This is NOT about “canons forcing people to take actions that violate their consciences.”  Just being an active member of such an apostate institution violates our consciences.

As the original hippies used to say:  “You are either ON the bus or you are OFF the bus.”

Get

Off

The

Bus

Or you go over the cliff with it.

And just to make something clear before Rowan Williams gets totally shredded.

His statement indicates that it is the Anglican Consultative Council that has decided that they: “can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces).”  So this is the decision of the ACC, not his own, and he is simply enunciating it. 

His fault lies in not having the ability to lead and manage the ACC in an effective way.  He also has not given any of the orthodox the concrete help and support we have needed.  But this current glitch lies with politicoes at the ACC.

Never underestimate the willingness of Rowan Williams to stuff his friends…and probably stuff his covenant at the same time.

He has done nothing since his reflections as usual save to wander off to Japan with PB Schori.  Fortunately we have been spared the usual pictures of them together with her grinning from ear to ear like a cheshire cat.

This is entirely consistent with his intervention in Jamaica to speak against moves to have the Covenant approved by dioceses and shortly before he then intervened several times with his cronies to overule the chairman who was doing his best and to effect the removal of Section 4 of the Covenant.

I have tried to think well of his actions and give him the benefit of the doubt.  However in his speech to Synod he made it clear that it was right to remove Section 4 which he has now given to a group expected to report in November, rather than back to the CDG to whom the Covenant was to be returned in the event of problems at ACC. 

My friend Dr Dr robroy thinks that Williams has given Section 4 to a small group of mainly revisionists from Canada and Ireland with the intention of removing all effectivene discipline; that he is nobbling it, like he has nobbled everything else.

Well we will see, but if Dr Dr RR is right then Williams will probably have nobbled his own Covenant as he did in Jamaica and many will know that the only hope of progress will be for the Primates to take charge in their meeting next year and remove Dr Williams’ ability to appoint, set agendas and call meetings and replace it with a more certain and representative process of the Primates and churches of the Communion.  Dr Williams only acts when he feels his own position is threatened and it is the only thing which Williams, Lambeth Palace and our establishment fears.  Their only interest is their own pre-eminence.  Understand that and you understand all - it absolutely terrifies them.

Dr Williams appears set to push it to the wire again.

I am glad to see that ++Rowan agrees with my analysis over the ACI’s analysis.  There was never a question that the right to sign belonged solely to a Province, but the Communion Partners and ACI held out false hope in their reading of Anglican (and TEC in particular) polity.

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/25238/#392935

+++ Rowan’s statement should not be surprising. His concern is (and should be) the CoE, not Central Florida and not ECUSA.  If Central Florida can adopt the covenant even if ECUSA does not, then what prevents a CoE diocese opting-out of the covenant even if +++Rowan signs on?

As #2 states, however, the statement does call into question the strategy of the Communion Partner bishops.

RE: “Please hear the voice of so many of us Faithful . . . “

Right—because that kind of “Faithful” is what we all want to hear and follow.  ; > )

RE: “Simply “endorsing” a Covenant you cannot actually belong to is NOT enough to be faithful Christians.”

Right—I can be a faithful Christian without doing any such thing, and while doing such a thing, too.

RE: “Just being an active member of such an apostate institution violates our consciences.”

Speak for yourself, Lumen.  It doesn’t mine—not one bit.

RE: “Or you go over the cliff with it.”

My salvation is firm through Jesus Christ and His work, and none other, and He is leading me to heaven through what He has done for me on the cross.

The Arch-Ditherer strikes again!  Notice how he flip-flops regularly after being around his side-kick Oven Miter?  Who really runs the Dynamic Duo?  Mr. Green.  It’s a secular trinity!

Sarah,  (# 9) I am not going to argue with you.  I will do only this: to correct your distortions of what I said.

I would never pretend to speak for you, however I am, indeed,  expressing the the thoughts of “Many of us Faithful.”  I and a great many of us do believe that remaining in an apostate TEC is not a viable option.

You are perfectly welcome to be as faithful a Christian as you want to be in any way you understand that and in any location you choose.

However, as for going over the cliff.  God holds us accountable for our decisions.  Collaborating with evil is in itself an evil act.  You don’t seem to like the word, “collaborate.”  OK.  If you are convinced, before God, that you are being faithful to His Call in your life, may He bless you.

However, that TEC is going over the cliff into extinction as an actual Christian “Church” is pretty clear at this point.  Belonging to it will be to experience that extinction first hand. This situation is not merely in reference to decisions concerning “gay” ordination adn marriage.  It has much more to do with the denial of Jesus Christ as eternal Son of God, crucified, died and truly Risen as THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life. 

I leave your eternal salvation to the Lord.

May I gently suggest that the anger you are expressing toward my posting represents your frustration with the untenable situation of remaining in the contradictions, not really at me.  I am pointing out how reality works here—that’s all.

Peace to you.

Well, it is the usual overthought response from the Archbishop, but as #7 indicates, it is what he said at Jamaica.  Only the ACI, I think, had any hope he meant otherwise.  (Of course, it is the reverse of what he had written to Howe a couple of years ago, but I think it long apparent that was just a lie to encourage Howe to act a certain way.  It seems the Archbishop did not foresee that anyone would throw it back at him.)

But I’m not sure this means as much as it might otherwise.  Pageantmaster has it right, but it is not apparent, I think, that the Archbishop understands how much he already damaged the communion and his office of Archbishop in Jamaica, and how little eminence he retains outside the borders of the UK.  It does not appear that he understands that no longer is this just him against the global south - there were many provinces that were trying to keep a low profile and work within the system, but their bishops are not so unaware as Lambeth may think.  They saw what he did, and he tripled the mistrust, losing much more of the middle than Lambeth seems to understand.  They may not have rung Williams up and said so to him, but it is apparent from many remarks.  His reliance on the ACC in this missive is for that reason almost funny, for the ACC no longer functions with respect to most of the communion after Jamaica.  In fact, of the four so-called instruments of unity or communion, or whatever they are called today, not one - not one - is supported in fact by the provinces representing the majority of Anglican lay people.  Not one. 

Some may observe that the global south seems quiet right now, but I think it is Lambeth’s mistake to assume any acquiescence.  It is more a function of simply moving forward on their own.  For example, I hardly think that the GAFCON provinces will approve a covenant that leaves diocese like South Carolina outside the fold.  For this reason, the ABC, the ACC and so forth, are simply irrelevant to a huge portion of the communion.  And the covenant now, too.  Not formally, but in fact.  That is just the way it is.

RE: “I am not going to argue with you.”

Good idea—but then why are you telling people what to do in regards to their decisions to stay or leave then?  Like I said . . . speak for yourself.

RE: “I and a great many of us do believe that remaining in an apostate TEC is not a viable option.”

Right—then why are you telling people what to do in regards to their decisions to stay or leave then?

RE: “Collaborating with evil is in itself an evil act.  You don’t seem to like the word, “collaborate.”

Oh I think the word “collaborate” is a lovely word.  But since people can stay in TEC without collaborating, I’m not certain how applies to either staying in or leaving TEC.

RE: “Belonging to it will be to experience that extinction first hand.”

Well duh.  If an organization dies, and one belongs to that organization, then one will experience that organization’s death first-hand.

RE: “I leave your eternal salvation to the Lord.”

That’s special, and sweet of course.  But then why are you telling people what to do in regards to their decisions to stay or leave then?

RE: “May I gently suggest that the anger you are expressing toward my posting represents your frustration with the untenable situation of remaining in the contradictions, not really at me.”

Well you can try—but as I don’t see the contradictions, it appears that *you* are the one who is frustrated with whatever contradictions you see. 
But I would say it only gently, of course . . . ; > )

P.S.  This also leave me wishing the Archbishop had tried a little harder to think about Dostoyevsky.

I am unclear what the commotion is about, on left (ACI is foiled!) and on right (we are doomed by +RDW the blackguard)
1. we do not have a completed covenant and the status of section 4 is—in spite of all progostication—not settled;
2. +RDW spoke of diocesan adoption in the context of a declining by TEC provincially to adopt; we do not know what TEC will do, as we do not know what the covenant will look like;
3. I agree with some that +RDW wants as many to sign as possible, and if that means CoE and GS, then a toothless covenant would not achieve that;
4. so at present he cannot say that dioceses could adopt, without preempting matters; instead, he has encouraged dioceses to endorse, and this is consistent with what CP has heard before.

Indeed, it is quite possible TEC will adopt the covenant.  If they do, they will undoubtedly treat it with all the respect they give to Scripture.

Pendennis 88 in #12 you wrote:  “In fact, of the four so-called instruments of unity or communion, or whatever they are called today, not one - not one - is supported in fact by the provinces representing the majority of Anglican lay people.  Not one.”

This really is simply a question:  I would appreciate it if you could help me understand what you mean by, “the provinces no longer support the instruments of communion”?  The 38 “national” churches are still participating in the Anglican Communion through the ACC, etc, although the GAFCon folks are clearly focusing their energies elsewhere.  GAFCon does represent the majority of lay people who are actually Anglican, but the final separation is not yet complete.

I am interested in getting a clearer understanding of what you mean here.

# 15 Dear Christopher, I apologize if my passionate expressions have offended you, but I would appreciate it if you could respond:

You say that you are “unclear what the commotion is about.”  Can you understand that there has been too much water under the bridge with changes of position and broken promises so that the orthodox do not have a strong sense of trust in the ABC & Co. at this point?

As you say, the Covenant is completely up in the air—and that is the biggest part of the problem.  The relentless tactics of TEC to delay or scuttle the Covenant (at least pulling its teeth) have been consistently successful.  The future is at best uncertain.  Archbp Orombi has expressed frustration with the way in which ++Rowan has tried to placate both sides with the result that the clear requests of the Primates e.g. Domantine, Dar es Salaam, etc., etc. have not been followed through upon.  You can put as good a spin on this as possible, but the results are the same—the mess lurches on interminably.

No one really wants to see “The ACI foiled.”  However, what I and others have been asking for is some sense that you guys really understand the hard cold realities of the politics involved.  TEC is playing dirty pool, is playing a “winner takes all” game and been allowed to succeed by Rowan’s inability to hold any line.

You can’t keep on asking people to just “hold on” blindly and *indefinitely* with the deep sense of betrayal that so many, on every level, have suffered.

If you could acknowledge these realities, a lot of us would be rooting for you with a little more enthusiasm.

Let’s make one thing crystal clear:  The Episcopal Church has no intention of signing onto the Covenant.  They have said so in the past, and KJS has repeatedly stated her opposition to it…..therefore, it is a “no-go” as far as General Convention is concerned.  Am I disappointed by ++Williams’ pronouncement?  No.  I expected it.

this is consistent with what CP has heard before.

And yet directly inconsistent with what ACI/CP argued in “Communion Partner Dioceses and The Anglican Covenant” and making the argument in several reflections on TEC polity moot.  Of course, the ACI argument that they can oust the ACC if they don’t like their decisions still stands, but good luck moving forward with that.

And how is ACC funded?

Follow the money.

As Jesus advised us,

But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. (Mark 13:14-16)

[Edited by Elf]

#20—consistent with what CP learned from +ABC when it met with him; consistent with the idea that if a province declines to adopt (+RDW’s language), then dioceses will become a critical reality to be taken into consideration (something Gregory Cameron said clearly); consistent with the view that a covenant acceptable to the vast majority of the Communion (CoE and GS) may well not be one an autonomy minded TEC majority will want to sign.
#18—no offense taken.

#17 - I simply meant that the global south primates - and now many others - have seen Williams attempt to manipulate primates meetings and then have their communiques disregarded by Williams (DES particularly), TEC invitations to Lambeth given which should not have been extended while bishops representing a majority of the lay members of the communion stayed away, and the ACC baldly halted and forced to reverse by Williams in Jamaica when it appeared to be moving to approve section 4 of the covenant (particularly embarrassing to have to do so out in the open, and after having to order Uganda around).  I do not think they intend to play the game any more.

I don’t mean that these instruments will cease to exist.  I just don’t think much of the global south cares any more.  It is becoming a charade.  Maybe they will send delegates, and maybe they won’t.  They certainly won’t care what these instruments do.  In fact, I wonder how many primates will even bother to show up at the next primates meeting after the way Williams acted after DES.  After all, what would it matter?  There is no unity or community to be found in them.  What happens in most of the “communion” will happen elsewhere.  It ends with a whimper, not a bang.

Better to join ACNA and be on with the mission of the church.
Delay is the deadlest form of denial.

#23 pendennis88
I fear you are right.  AB Williams is supposed to be a bright man and while I can see reasons why he might think he is doing the right thing, he does not seem to realise how much in each case of manipulation or betrayal the net effect is to make things worse, to undermine people and more importantly from his and our point of view to undermine himself and his office.    He has already pretty effectively undermined each of the other Instruments.  At the end what are we left with?  A vacuum of leadership?

“It ends with a whimper, not a bang.”
The vast majority of Anglicans have communion with each other and that is what is really important. It is curious to me why RW+ would concern himself with an American diocese…sort of like counting the paper clips on your desk…small potatoes.
Intercessor

# 22 Seitz:  Thank you for taking no offense.

May I repeat my request for a response RE # 18:

“You say that you are “unclear what the commotion is about.”  Can you understand that there has been too much water under the bridge with changes of position and broken promises so that the orthodox do not have a strong sense of trust in the ABC & Co. at this point?

As you say, the Covenant is completely up in the air—and that is the biggest part of the problem.  The relentless tactics of TEC to delay or scuttle the Covenant (at least pulling its teeth) have been consistently successful.  The future is at best uncertain.  Archbp Orombi has expressed frustration with the way in which ++Rowan has tried to placate both sides with the result that the clear requests of the Primates e.g. Domantine, Dar es Salaam, etc., etc. have not been followed through upon.  You can put as good a spin on this as possible, but the results are the same—the mess lurches on interminably.

No one really wants to see “The ACI foiled.”  However, what I and others have been asking for is some sense that you guys really understand the hard cold realities of the politics involved.  TEC is playing dirty pool, is playing a “winner takes all” game and been allowed to succeed by Rowan’s inability to hold any line.

You can’t keep on asking people to just “hold on” blindly and *indefinitely* with the deep sense of betrayal that so many, on every level, have suffered.

If you could acknowledge these realities, a lot of us would be rooting for you with a little more enthusiasm.”

Could you re-read # 23 and # 25 and give us all a clue.

We are not the “in crowd” with the inside scoop.  But neither are we unintelligent or beneath notice.

What do you make of the way the political aspects—the fundings by TEC, the political games—have fallen out so far.

You can’t just keep ignoring these issues.  It is not possible to stay “above it all”  and expect people to trust whatever strategies you are trying to use.

How about it.  A little dialogue never killed anyone.

#27—I’ve got a seminar this afternoon but will reply later, if that is OK with you.

I think that we need to face a couple of realities.
First, the Covenant does not yet exist.  Section 4 is being rewritten, and until it is reported out of committee and then approved by the JSC under KJS’s authority, there is nothing really to discuss.
Second, until such time, if any, that the Covenant is adopted by the Synod of the CoE, it has no real authority anyway- since virtually all definitions of Anglican Communion either denote or imply communion with Canterbury.  Without adoption by the CoE, the Covenant is has as much authority as the Windsor report.
Third, what ++Rowan said is entirely consistent with the discussions at Lambeth and at the ACC meeting, so this is not really news.  I don’t like it either, and it is not consistent with what he said in his letter of 2007. But on the other hand, by saying what he said in 2007, he trapped himself in a dilemma- if he allows +Lawrence to opt in in S. Carolina, he will also have to let +Southwark opt out in the CoE.  I doubt even Nigeria or Uganda is in favor of letting each diocese decide for itself whether to sign the Covenant or not, regardless of how much sympathy they have for US conservatives.

I think this is just another in a long line of the Archbishop’s failure to provide competent leadership and another example of how his ambiguities only placate conservatives and facilitate liberals in their agendas. 

The possibility that he seems to always ignore is what has been mentioned above that TEC will adopt the covenant and ignore it as its leadership does Scripture, Canons, BCP, Creeds, etc. Then what is left for CP dioceses to do?

In light of this prospect and the recent ruling in SC regarding parish property, I am hoping for the SC Diocese to amend the recent plan and initiate leaving now.  A significant emphasis in the recent clergy mtg was on avoiding lawsuits with TEC and hoping to sign on to the covenant by adopting not endorsing it as a diocese.  The landscape for both of these emphases has been altered, and I hope a plan will be amended accordingly.

#25 TJ
I think that the concerns about the CofE dioceses is somewhat over-egged.  We are as an established church in a slightly different position, but my understanding is that the process anticipated for ratification of the Covenant by the CofE will include approval by our General Synod and by our diocesan synods, so yes, our dioceses are part of the process but like most things we will probably act together consensually.

#31—thanks for your input.
#27—

Much of this I have already stated, so apologies for repetition:
1.  If +RDW wants a covenant that a majority of the Communion will sign, it will probably not be one TEC as a province will sign;
2.  I suspect the CoE will sign a strong covenant, and that GS provinces will adopt if this proves the outcome; this will turn on section 4 being intact;
3.  it would be premature, given this, for the ABC alone to say: “dioceses, adopt covenant now”; CP Bishops were told in London that ‘endorse’ was the proper language given where we are on the timeline;
4.  it has been said that this statement rules out diocesan adoption ever being the case; I disagree, and do not believe +RDW has changed his mind on this;
5.  as for #23, I believe we are witnessing a changing of the guard in terms of GS leadership; look for Abs Ian Ernest (new head of CAPA), John Chew, Mouneer Anis to be in that role, alongside a new primate in Kenya and in Nigeria; +Chew and +Anis have already committed themselves to the Ridley Draft, and +Chew is on the review panel;
6.  If the covenant is not acceptable to them, it will never function, and the communion will unravel yet further.

I’m not sure whether this covers the sorts of questions you believe I am able to answer, and I leave aside the various editorial opinions you have because I am unsure a response is in order. My point was only that I do not believe +RDW’s letter to CFL amounts to much of anything, and is consistent with where the process of covenanting is at this present moment. Those on left and right who believe covenant is infringement or subterfuge will likely not change their views, if at all, on the basis of this communication (which I have seen in its entirety and presumably all will in time). I actually thought the letter was pastoral and encouraging in what it said to +Howe. That’s it from me. I must attend to work. Please do not see anything untoward in that.

#32-
Thank you Dr. Seitz, that is a very complete summation, although I remain concerned about the monkey wrench being thrown into the works by the JSC- to whom the review committee is scheduled to report.  After her success in Jamaica, one can hardly expect KJS to hold back in the forum where she has the greatest influence, and where she may be able to sink the covenant once and for all.
#31-
PM, while I indeed grant your knowledge of the CoE to be greater than mine, my example was more to make the point that ++Rowan could not very well extend to bishops of another province rights and privileges he was unwilling to extend to his own bishops.  However, I think it would be premature to assume that CoE will support the Covenant.  Given the performance of the ABoC at ACC, there is no reason to presuppose he will not repeat that performance when the Covenant comes before Synod in a few years.  I would also point out that given delays in the Covenant, and movements of some within the British government to remove established status from the CoE, by the time the Covenant comes to a vote, it may no longer be the established church.

Thanks TJ
We may well have a different government before long.

While I have no confidence whatsoever in Rowan Williams, his leadership, or his desire, ability or competence to provide the Anglican Communion with the leadership it so badly needs at this time, I would comment that nobody in this thread has pointed out the following:

However, he stated, “as a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces).”

RW implies that it is the ACC which would offer the Covenant to its constituent bodies, and if this is so, then RW is quite correct.

The question that I think then becomes of greater import - which Instrument of Unity is the one that “owns” the Covenant and is responsible for “inviting” others to adopt it?  This to me then becomes the key question.

The Anglican CONSULTATIVE Council does not “own” the Covenant.  Under its constitution the ACC ‘advises’ other Instruments including the Primates.  It was Rowan Williams who passed the Covenant to the ACC and contributed to the fiasco in Jamaica.  It was also him who decided that the JSC with the PB and the small liberal provinces on it should receive Section 4 after it has been done over by the committee of liberals he appointed to it.    The Windsor report and subsequent meetings put the Primates in charge of the Covenant process, Dr Williams took them out.

George Conger has a slightly different emphasis:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/dioceses-‘can-adopt-covenant”-says-archbishop-of-canterbury-cen-10-01-09/

# 32 Thank you, Dr. Seitz for your response.

It is clear that things will have to move one step at a time.  Whether dioceses in provinces which fail to sign on to the Covenant will thereafter themselves be allowed to sign on individually remains to be seen.  The precise language used at any given step must be appropriate for that step.  So we can “endorse” and maybe possibly later “join” in some manner.

Congratulations on your most deft and debonair “leaving aside the various editorial opinions you have because I am unsure a response is in order.”

My editorial comments are the issue which you clearly do not wish to address.  Your effectiveness depends on not getting drawn in to the down-and-dirty politics.

However, this is just my point.  The down-and-dirty politics are the engine driving this train.  By leaving them out of the equation, an entire dynamic is left to have its effect to the detriment of all the noble efforts toward “Saving the Communion.”  Saving the Communion and keeping TEC intact are NOT at all the same, and the one may actually preclude the other.

At this point the Communion Partner bishops still in TEC are pressuring clergy and parishes to “keep their dioceses together” predicated on the strategy that somehow this will make it possible for them to remain in the Covenant in the long run.  If I read your response correctly (and you are quite clear), this is a big risk with small assurances.  The effect of this pressure is that those of us who cannot remain in TEC any longer on the strength of very thin promises and vague possibilities (within the background of previous betrayals) are faced with the same hard and discouraging consequences that have fallen upon those who left revisionist dioceses.

The lacunae as well as the contents in your answer tell me what I suspected in the first place and needed to know.

Many blessings on your work.

I would also say it is absolutely hopeless not having the full text of Dr Williams’ letter.

#37—you are quite wrong in your assessment of my avoidance. I do not regard the context stable and am anxious not to get distracted.  It sounds like you want your Bishop to undertake a direction you prefer—I do not have that responsibility. I have enough ‘down and dirty’ on my plate without adding any more. And without needing to expand it.  I am not trying to be deft. I am trying to be prudent.  That is enough of this kind of topic for me.

“First, the Covenant does not yet exist… there is nothing really to discuss.

I generally concur.  But why did the ABC simply say that - he could have said that response is premature.  But he did not.  He said much more.  One of the questions I asked on SF is: why did the ABC feel compelled to venture an unecessary opinon on the legality of such a proposal under the current constitution of a separate instrument?  Instead of deferring response until later, or proposing to refer it to the ACC, etc., he produced a legal opinion that it can’t be done.  There is a reason or motivation for such an odd approach.

“...if he allows +Lawrence to opt in in S. Carolina, he will also have to let +Southwark opt out in the CoE…”

I’m not convinced of this.  Aside from the technical details arising from dealing with a diocese, certainly the ACC could treat covenanted members differently from non-covenanted members.  A right for a diocese in a non-covenanting province to opt-in does not require or necessitate a right for a diocese in a covenanting province to opt-out. 

But I’m not so sure any of this matters very much.  As some have commented above, the instruments themselves have been devalued to a real question of whether it is good stewardship to keep them going - and there is very little trust.  Rules of order have been disregarded, circumstances misrepresented, and authority abused.  Second, as this statement reveals - even the ABC is treating institutional structures as different from “pastoral and sacramental relations,” so in his view, membership in one (or more?) of the instruments of unity does not define pastoral and sacramental relations.   

So, we have a bishop who won’t discipline, purporting to speak for an association that won’t discipline; the bishop represents that the association is unable to offer an agreement to a third party non-member of the association. The bishop makes this representation at a time when that agreement is not yet finished and, even when it is finished, many expect that the agreement is unlikely to do very much. 

And meanwhile?...

Correction: “But why did the ABC not simply say that?”

At this point, I question why anyone would want to remain in communion with Canterbury during the remainder of the present Archbishop’s term of office, given the fact that he has deliberately turned his back on faithful Anglican Christians who refuse to remain under the control of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.  There are those who say “It isn’t the money” by which TEC exerts such influence over the Anglican Consultative Council ergo Canterbury, yet what other evidence do we need in order to prove otherwise?  I say YES….it IS the money, and those who say otherwise need to come clean and admit it.  It is MONEY which controls the ACC and therefore the Communion.  Right now, I will be content to remain in the ACNA and under the protection of the Province of the Southern Cone, rather than having anything to do with Schori and Company.

# 39

Prudence is an important virtue.

I do not presume to advise my bishop,  he has a mind of his own and is accountable *only* to God.  He will certainly not do what I may—or may not wish—because I wish it.

I am assessing my own risk which has recently increased significantly.

By all means avoid as much down-an-dirty as you can.

Thanks for the response.  I understand that signing out is best.

Me too.

For what it’s worth, TLC has posted an updated version of the story which corrects the impression that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said anything new with respect to the formal statement of “constitutional fact” regarding the ACC’s internal process at present. In fact, the larger point of his communication with Bp Howe was to welcome the recent actions of Central Florida because he thinks that diocesan “endorsement” of the covenant is a helpful thing, not least as we look down the road to likely necessities if and as provinces decide to take a pass on “opting in” to the commitment to covenant (as +Howe rightly extrapolates, following the archbishop’s own making of this point in his “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” of last July). That is, again, in the archbishop’s own words from this latest letter to +Howe, diocesan endorsement of the covenant “would be a clear declaration of intent to live within the agreed terms of the Communion’s life and so would undoubtedly positively affect a diocese’s pastoral and sacramental relations” with the wider Communion.

In this light, the fundamental state of play remains the same as several weeks ago (when TLC ran this editorial: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/9/18/editorial-commitment-to-covenant), except that Central Florida has taken the lead as the first diocese to endorse the covenant—following the archbishop’s encouragement to do so, and now with his blessing ex post facto.

#40
Tired,
Somewhere over on SF I laid out my thinking in more detail.  At some time in the future, if TEC does not sign on to the Covenant (which assumes that KJS cannot sufficiently rewrite or torpedo it with the JSC under her control) then at some time in the future, after its official adoption or rejection by provinces.  However, given that ++Rowan delayed said adoption by 3-6 years at the ACC meeting, the earliest that I could figure a diocese being able to sign on would be 2025-
TEC meets in 2015 to take second vote on Covenant. Also elects new PB- negotiation process might start all over again, in which case, delay schedule an additional 3-6 years.
ACC meets in 2018 to vote that Covenant is now the ruling document of the Communion.  Appoints commission to study and report on whether non-Covenant provinces should maintain ACC representation.
ACC meets in 2021, and votes to implement distinctions between Covenant and non-Covenant provinces, per recommendations.  Appoints commission to determine question of accepting dioceses in non-Covenant provinces.
ACC meets in 2024 and votes on recommendations of commission.
2025- Invitation issued to dioceses to sign individually (by which time, +Lawrence- if not previously deposed- is last remaining CP bishop in TEC- others will have retired and been replaced)

Oh goody - ‘clarification’

If Lamy Paly has any sense they will release the full text of the letter pdq.  Maybe they will learn one of these days.

Not that I am sure that it will change any of the points I would have made about the background to what went on in Jamaica, when the ABC shot down the attempt to allow dioceses to ‘adopt’ the Covenant.

I believe the damage has already been done, and I see this amended article as an attempt at damage control.  +++Rowan Williams needs to issue a formal apology to those who’ve been working so hard for acceptance of not only the covenant, but for recognition of the ACNA.  I don’t think that that will be forthcoming.

Now, now, this is a re-assessment of the Arch-Ditherer’s same words, which remain dithering.  Just an attempt at positive spin instead of reality.  Even the ABC has no idea what it means because he has not yet been told what 815 wants precisely, hence, he dithereth yet and on.

Christopher,

The first article and the second article tell very different stories. Can you tell us which one is the accurate one?

Like a lot of other readers, I suspect, I am not sure what to make the latest reports from George Conger on Archbishop Williams’s letter to Central Florida.

In my opinion, the key question remains whether the Archbishop’s review committee and the JSC will try to change the language of clause 4.1.5. of the Ridley Cambridge Covenant in any substantive way.

Clause 4.1.5. reads as follows:

It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant. Adoption of this Covenant does not bring any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion. Such recognition and membership are dependent on the satisfaction of those conditions set out by each of the Instruments. However, adoption of the Covenant by a Church may be accompanied by a formal request to the Instruments for recognition and membership to be acted upon according to each Instrument’s procedures.

Let me briefly exposit the language of this clause. It uses the same word “adopt” and “Church” as clause 4.1.4., which reads:

(4.1.4.) Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, is invited to adopt this Covenant in its life according to its own constitutional procedures…

The difference between adoption by a “Church of the Anglican Communion” and “other Churches” seems to be issue of recognition in accordance with the Constitution of the ACC. According to its Constitution, the ACC can only recognize Provinces. So this part of Canterbury’s statement is formally correct.

The second sentence in clause 4.1.5. go on to specify that “adoption” by “other Churches” does not equal “recognition” by the Instruments. Again, I think all are agreed on this point.

The third sentence then suggests that a “Church” may apply for recognition by one or more Instruments “according to each Instrument’s procedures.” Presumably this could mean that a diocese could be recognized by Canterbury or by the Primates or the Lambeth Conference but not by the ACC. And of course, there is the possibility that the ACC might amend its Constitution.

The troubling aspect of the Rowan Williams’s words to Central Florida, in my view, is the shift from language of a diocese, i.e., an Other Church,” “adopting” the Covenant to language of its “endorsing” the Covenant. This shift may suggest his thinking that the phrase “adopt” in clause 4.1.5. should be softened to “endorse.” Any change of that kind, in my view, would undo the work of the Drafting Group and lose the support of the Global South coalition that came behind the Ridley Cambridge Covenant in Jamaica.

One further piece of exposition on RCD 4.1.4. and 4.1.5.

Some commenters imply that because an “other Church,” e.g., a diocese, could adopt the Covenant even if its Province did not do so, the converse holds true: that a diocese could opt out of the Covenant even if its Province adopted the Covenant.

I see nothing in these clauses that authorizes an “other Church” from “dis-adopting” the Covenant apart from its Province. Of course a diocese could probably “dis-endorse” the Covenant by some sort of Resolution. However, this action would have the same level of informality that I fear might happen to those “other Churches” if the language of “adopting” the Covenant in 4.1.5. were weakened to merely “endorsing” it.

Whatever the Archbishop is proposing, I am sure that the Communion Partners will find it just as effective and helpful as the Panel of Reference.

TJM -  While not having investigated the timing - I do not disagree with what you lay out in [45]. 

That said, the difference I had with your [29] relating to a diocese opting out, not timing - it is similar to the point made in [51].

And as for my question - i.e., why did the ABC respond with this unecessary legal opinion on behalf of the ACC? - I think it is unlikely that anyone who might be willing to comment would also be privvy to the information… Of course, the timing only reinforces the oddity of the ABC venturing forth in this way - but then, we do not have the benefit of the full communication to gauge context.

Stephen—our understanding is that the language has to do—not with efforts to change section 4, or changes in +RDW’s own stated views, but—with the time frame we are in. +RDW encourages diocesan review *at the present time*, that is, prior to a completed covenant. (He said the same thing to +Mouneer before the Jamaica meeting was over, and +Mouneer and +John Chew moved to have their provinces endorse the covenant right away, even as it stands).
That is, one cannot ‘adopt’ an un-finished covenant, in +RDW’s thinking. But one can endorse the covenant (CP Bishops do not coordinate their diocesan or special conventions, and so how they relate to the covenant depends on when they meet and what form it is in when they do). Such endorsing will signal to the wider communion a clear intention vis-a-vis a covenant and vis-a-vis life in the Communion (see the language +RDW uses in published accounts of his letter). One unfortunate effect of TLC headline is that it sent a message that +RDW was ruling out adoption, instead of his stipulating that until a covenant is completed, he is instead encouraging dioceses to endorse the covenant and in so doing, signal to the wider Communion their intention. It never seemed to us that +RDW had the authority simply to say ‘adopt the covenant, dioceses’ at this present time. Rather, we defended the principle that if provinces decline to adopt, when the covenant is completed, then section 4’s logic ought to be retained. At present, we have people insisting that only provinces can sign, and they can only do that in 2012. Let us see, rather, what kind of covenant and what kind of adoption follows from this in the wider Communion (esp GS and CoE). The idea of ruling out diocesan adoption (or endorsing, for that matter) as such is what we hear coming from TEC-autonomy people. +RDW has not said that in this most recent letter. He wants the covenant to be finalised. He sees that there is diocesan concern not to be left out. He therefore chose the language, appropriate at this time, of ‘endorsement.’ In my limited communication with CP bishops, none of them said this was a change from what they learned in their London meeting.

The full letter needs to be released shortly without being processed twice through The Living Church centrifuge.

Despite the exchange of comments between the Rev. Dr. Noll and the Rev. Dr. Seitz, above, I am beginning to wonder whether the present Abp. of Canterbury will not eventually be known as the Arpege™ Archbishop (for those of you old enough to recollect the marketing slogan for that perfume).

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

MA-
You are not really being fair to those of us who are old enough to have long forgotten the marketing slogan.

It seems curious to me that shortly after TEC got bad news about some court cases, ABC provides them with something to through a wrench in works for conservatives.

[57] tjmcmahon,

And as I typed I worried, it would seem needlessly, that I was “not really being fair” to those of you who were either (a) too young to have heard it, or (b) so old as no longer to be able to recall it.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[58] I agree, especially given the gratuitous appearance of the ABC’s opininon… (at least from the available reports)

Granted though, the relevance of the statement may limited by jurisdiction and circumstance.

I think Seitz has this one pretty well nailed down in terms of assessing its import. 

I am amazed at how Jefforts-Schori and the Arcbishop attract such extraordinary vituperation on a Christian website.  I would have thought No/. 3’s calling the Archbishop of Canterbury a “traitor” and “treacherous coward” would be certain Elf attractant.

[NoVA Scout - you are correct - thank you for drawing this to our attention - Elf]