Thursday, 5 July 2007

InclusiveChurch on covenant proposals etc.

press release from InclusiveChurch

Covenant proposals and extra-Provincial Bishops

5th July 2007

The growing number of bishops created by African provinces for “pastoral oversight” in North America (and potentially in other provinces), the attempts to create a Covenant that defines Anglican doctrine and ethics, and the apparent intention to organise an alternative to the Lambeth Conference in London next year all point towards one thing. The strategy to destabilise the Anglican Communion is moving into another phase.

The creation by the provinces of Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria of extra-provincial Bishops is against the expressed wish of the Windsor Report and the post Lambeth ’98 process of listening and reconciliation. It is more evidence that the Primates of those provinces and their supporters in the US and Britain profoundly misunderstand the nature of the Communion. We very much regret that the Chair of the Covenant Design Group, the Archbishop of the West Indies, has welcomed these appointments.

Inclusive Church’s aim is to support and celebrate the traditional breadth and generosity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it has been received and passed on through Anglican history and lived out in the Communion. This creates challenges when there are fundamental disagreements. But the way to respond to disagreements is not to walk apart, nor to create separate structures, nor to seek to impose one particular point of view on the Communion. It is to engage, to communicate, to speak, to listen and to learn.

Clearly there are outstanding issues over how the Communion should respond to the reality that many Provinces include lesbian and gay Christians who live with partners in loving, faithful relationships. But the extraordinary way in which this issue has been allowed to dominate the life of the Communion over the past ten years is not coincidence.

There can be little doubt that the issue is being used by some, mainly conservative, Christians as a lever to try to change the Communion into something it is not; from a conciliar church into a confessional one. From a praxis-based Communion where the bonds between us are the bonds of fellowship and love to a codified Communion where exclusions are legally determined and legally enforced, and where the Communion defines itself not by who it includes but by who it excludes.

The Covenant process has been moved, by this group, away from its original intention which was to affirm the bonds of fellowship which exist. The way in which the draft was received by some at the Primates meeting in Tanzania is indication that, whatever the intention, it will be used to enforce a particular interpretation of the Scriptures to the detriment of the life of the Communion. We do not need a Curia, and the process of drafting a Covenant is already giving more power to the Primates than is justified by our history, by our life and by some of their actions to date.

Hard cases make bad laws. We wish to see, urgently, greater understanding between provinces, and we can see the value of a Covenant which enables this to happen . But the proposed draft before us is likely to be an instrument of further division, not unification. Some of our structures may need reform – but it is already clear that this Covenant process is unlikely to help.

The suggestion of an alternative “not the Lambeth Conference” is, simply, sad. Those who suggest it are walking away from the possibility of dialogue. The suggestion has little to do with dealing with our post-imperial past, and little to do with ensuring that particular voices are heard. It has a great deal to do with power; and with the location of power in the Communion.

We call on those supporting these actions to recognise that there is more than one answer to the questions which face us. Resolution will be achieved only through mutual respect and communication, and an acknowledgement that different views are sincerely held by faithful and loyal members of the Communion.

Inclusive Church is deeply committed to continuing the debate over these questions. The Anglican Communon has faced problems before and moved through them. With God’s help, we will again.

Giles Goddard
Chair, IC

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 5 July 2007 at 6:00pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: General Synod | InclusiveChurch
Comments

"Hard cases make bad laws."

Hard cases can lead to good laws and principles.

Australia's previous Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies started his professional careers as a lawyer. His first ever court case ended up in Australi's High Court, and he won. In his reflections, he commented that his victory came about partly because he had no idea that he would actually succeed, but that it was the only principled way to play the case.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/5418 parallels some souls' concerns that what we are seeing is an attempt to say that there is only one viable world view. Well that world view needs some tweaking if we want our great grandchildren to be fed, clothed and living with anything like safety or beauty. Do not think you can quarantine suffering, when God sends souls into exile, both the wicked and the holy suffer equally. If you want things to go well for the holy, then pray for your captors and enemies too.

Sojourners reminded us this week of this part of America's Declaration of Independence published July 4, 1776. "But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Would God want us to create an ugly future of war, famine and suffering; or a beautiful future with peace, abundance and wellbeing? Which guard will love and protect ALL our children and their neighbours? That is the guardian I will be choosing.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Thursday, 5 July 2007 at 11:53pm BST

I only read one thing at once. So to add to the list of the subject above, Inclusive Church would have a Covenant if it affirmed a conciliar Church and the bonds of fellowship that exist. So this is somewhat more oppositional than Affirming Catholicism, but a similar dose of wishful thinking.

I mean, this is not what the Covenant has been introduced for, because this can be expressed anyway otherwise. I can see it as a post-split statement once Another Anglican Communion has been formed that is confessional and restrictive. I can't see anything like Inclusive Church's one happening, nor would it provide any process (would it?).

So lining up the pressure groups (at least) it does look like a dead duck. Inclusive Church is at least right about the chap coming to speak for it, having already backed appointments that undermine it.

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 6 July 2007 at 1:06am BST

"...once Another Anglican Communion has been formed that is confessional and restrictive."

Personally, my current preferred shorthand for "the *Other* Anglican Communion" (shades of U.S. adverts for "pork, the *other* white meat") is "the Shadow Anglican Communion (SAC)."

This phrasing works on several levels, including (but not limited to) in the sense of "those who don't legitimately hold authority but are waiting in the wings to try to take over," as in a "shadow government," "shadow foreign minister," etc.

The Tolkienesque connotations also seem apt.

Alas, sad SAC...

Posted by: Viriato da Silva on Friday, 6 July 2007 at 8:17pm BST

There are all sorts of possible names for Another Anglican Communion:

The International Communion for The Anglican Church (TIC TAC)

Trinitarian International Doctrinal Lord & Yahweh Worldwide International Communion Sojourners(TIDLYWINCS)

Communion of Anglican Restorationist Doctrinal Standards (CARDS)

Trinitarian International Communion of the Churches of Low Evangelicals (TICCLE)

Anglican Communion: The Orthodox Regulations (ACTORS)

We know how new Anglican societies love to make these up.

Posted by: Pluralist on Friday, 6 July 2007 at 11:26pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.