The last bit of the Covenant text is the one thats perhaps been the most controversial, because that's where we spell out what happens if relationships fail or break down. It doesn't set out, as I've already said, a procedure for punishments and sanctions. It does try and sort out how we will discern the nature of our disagreement, how important is it? How divisive does it have to be? Is it a Communion breaking issue that's in question - or is it something we can learn to live with? And so in these sections of the covenant what we're trying to do is simply to give a practical, sensible and Christian way of dealing with our conflicts, recognising that they're always going to be there.So what happens next? This Covenant is being sent to all the member Churches of the Anglican Communion. Each church will, within its own processes, decide how to handle it, and by the next meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in three years time we hope that many provinces will already have said yes to this and adopted it into their own understanding and identity. Clearly the process won't all be over by then, but we're hoping to see some enthusiasm, some general adoption of the principles. We hope to see a new kind of relationship emerging. We hope to see people agreeing to these ways of resolving our conflicts.Beyond that, what's going to happen? It's hard to say as yet, but the Covenant text itself does make it clear that at some point it'll be open to other bodies, other Ecclesial bodies as they're called, other Churches and communities to adopt this Covenant, and be considered for incorporation into the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile, it's open to anybody that wishes to affirm the principles of the Covenant - to say that this is what they wish to live with.
Here is a video of the Archbishop's talk:
And here is the text of Section 4 of the Covenant as it relates to who may join it (the Standing Committee's analysis of the changes it made may be read here):
(4.1.4) Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, is invited to enter into this Covenant according to its own constitutional procedures.
(4.1.5) The Instruments of Communion may invite other Churches to adopt the Covenant using the same procedures as set out by the Anglican Consultative Council for the amendment of its schedule of membership. Adoption of this Covenant does not confer any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion, which shall be decided by those Instruments themselves.
(4.1.6) This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.
At the same time, the Covenant spells out that commitment to it does not "represent submission to any ecclesiastical jurisdiction":
(4.1.3) Such mutual commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance. The Covenant does not grant to any one Church or any agency of the Communion control or direction over any Church of the Anglican Communion.Nevertheless, the Standing Committee may make recommendations to the Instruments of Communion concerning the "relational consequences" for Churches who, having signed the Covenant, then carry out a "controversial act" against the declared wishes of the Standing Committee:
(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.
(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”.
(4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations.And this is the clincher: if you do not sign the Covenant, you do not participate in the deliberations of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion with respect to those "relational consequences":
(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.
The Statement previously released by the Standing Committee with respect to the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool may thus be seen as the first warning shot across the bow of ECUSA:
Resolved that, in the light of:
1. The recent episcopal nomination in the Diocese of Los Angeles of a partnered lesbian candidate
2. The decisions in a number of US and Canadian dioceses to proceed with formal ceremonies of same-sex blessings
3. Continuing cross-jurisdictional activity within the Communion
The Standing Committee strongly reaffirm Resolution 14.09 of ACC 14 supporting the three moratoria proposed by the Windsor Report and the associated request for gracious restraint in respect of actions that endanger the unity of the Anglican Communion by going against the declared view of the Instruments of Communion.
ECUSA will never sign on to the Covenant, because it would have to extend the moratoria recommended by the ACC, and it will never go back on what it decided at GC 2009 with regard to abandoning those moratoria when it felt like it, and not because the rest of the Communion pleaded with it not to do so. Also, by not signing the Covenant, it will not subject itself to a declaration by the Standing Committee that its confirmation of the Rev. Canon Glasspool to the episcopate would constitute an "act incompatible with the Covenant."
Nevertheless, the other Churches that do sign on to the Covenant can still take steps that will have "relational consequences" for ECUSA if it goes ahead. And by not signing on to the Covenant as a Church, ECUSA opens up two cans of worms: (1) as the ABC makes clear, the Instruments of Communion may well invite individual Dioceses to sign on to it (as I showed in this earlier post, the individual Dioceses will have to make the decision in any event); and (2) the way will then be clear for ACNA to sign on to it.
ECUSA is choosing its own path to walk apart. This will all play out in accordance with the path it is choosing for itself.
It's true, they won't sign on in good faith. However, history tells us that they will certainly sign on and ignore the consequences as usual.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't take any bets on which Churches will or will not agree to the Covenant and I continue to hope that there will be careful study and disussion of the text in each Church before official action is taken.
ReplyDeleteI was struck by a phrase from our host: "the rest of the Communion pleaded with it not to do so." I find it interesting how easily it is to translate requests from one of the Instruments into requests from the rest of the Communion. The Primates did request that TEC not move ahead with the consecration of Gene Robinson and the Primates and the ACC have made a similar request for gracious restraint - reaffirmed by the Standing Committee. But to characterize these as from the rest of the Communion is hyperbole. So far, in the matter of partnered gay or lesbian priests being elected to the episcopate, the only body not exercising restraint has been the convention of the Diocese of LA.
Father Weir, it is a comment such as that from one on the left whom I respect that shows just how wide is the gulf that already exists between ECUSA and "the rest of the Communion." Not only did the Primates request the moratoria in the Windsor Report, but so did the Windsor Continuation Group at Lambeth 2008, and ACC-14 as well -- the body most representative of the entire Communion. I don't know what else you could want to show the mind of "the rest of the Communion" over the past five years. They are calling for continued restraint, and the Diocese of LA has chosen to be the one to push ahead regardless of that call -- or as you say, "the only body not exercising restraint." But if a majority of diocesans and standing committees consent to the election, the lack of restraint shown by one Diocese will have expanded to ECUSA as a Church in the Communion.
ReplyDeleteIf ECUSA goes forward with the confirmation of Bishop-elect Glasspool, then it would be hypocrisy for it to agree to adopt the Covenant after trampling on the rest of the Communion's request for restraint. That is why I am confident it will stick to the path it has chosen for itself -- a path that leads straight out of the Anglican Communion.
Anglican Observer
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fr. Weir. I think the Anglican Communion has lots of room for diversity. This issue has been blown all out of proportion, and taken much energy away from mission and ministry. The narrowness of ACNA reminds me of the Puritans of England or the new world many centuries ago. In my own diocese same sex blessings are extremely unlikely for the forseeable future, but we have been the target of illegal interventions anyway.
I would think that more energy should be spent on letting the Church in Uganda know that imprisoning gay people is not acceptable for any believing Christian no matter what his stand on the issue.
I was ordained by a gay bishop--that is he came out after his wife died of cancer. Before that he had been in a gay-straight marriage and raised a family. There have always been gay bishops and clergy. The LA bishop is hardly the second.
As was pointed out by a commenter on T19, TEC can participate as long as they are "in the process" of adoption, something that could go on forever.
ReplyDelete(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.
"...or who are still in the process of adoption."
ReplyDeleteMuch has been made of this phrase as a possible loophole to remain in the decision loop while staying outside of the accountability loop. To me it would seem the height of hypocrisy, but after HOB New Orleans I am ready to believe anything.
True enough, UP and Rolin. However, unless General Convention 2012 enacts on first passage a Constitutional amendment authorizing the adoption of the Covenant, it will not be credible in claiming after that date that it is "in the process of adoption." Constitutional amendments must be passed by the vote of two successive General Conventions. So if the Covenant is DOA at GC 2012, the charade will be over, and ECUSA will not be able to participate in decisions relating to the Covenant after that.
ReplyDeleteShort of enacting a Constitutional amendment, I do not see how ECUSA as a Church could sign the Covenant -- there is simply no authority granted to General Convention to enter into Anglican-wide agreements. The House of Bishops ratified the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886; and compacts between ECUSA and other Churches, such as that between ECUSA and ELCA, required only canonical changes to allow the validation of orders in each Church. The proposed Covenant, however, is much more doctrinal in character, and is more akin to a revision in the BCP than to an inter-church compact to recognize orders.
Of course, we all know that ECUSA will do whatever the activists in General Convention want to do, regardless of constitutional or canonical impediments. But I just don't see them stringing out a lie for six years solely so they can say they have the Covenant under "consideration" -- all the while as they continue to elect and ordain partnered gays and lesbians to the episcopate.
I am truly sorry that neither Bob nor Father Weir can see the significance of what ECUSA is claiming the right to do and still remain in the Anglican Communion. To take an extreme example, it would be no different in degree if ECUSA were to proclaim its right to ordain as bishops people who had never been baptized. (Oh, I forgot -- they have already done that.) Or suppose ECUSA announced it would no longer ordain anyone who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming? Just what are the limits -- if any -- on whom ECUSA may and may not ordain and still claim to belong to the Anglican Communion?
ECUSA is nothing more than a "step-child" (no offense to any step children out there) who is the black sheep of the family but happens to have a few dollars. No one cares what they (ECUSA) has to say, they (we) all know they are a false church now, but ECUSA still has a large bank roll. The AC is like the UN when dealing with Iraq...more resolutions, one after the other, without enforcement. But one day someone (or group) will come along and enforce the resolutions.
ReplyDeleteJust my opinions.
Mr.Haley wrote,
ReplyDelete"I am truly sorry that neither Bob nor Father Weir can see the significance of what ECUSA is claiming the right to do and still remain in the Anglican Communion. To take an extreme example, it would be no different in degree if ECUSA were to proclaim its right to ordain as bishops people who had never been baptized. (Oh, I forgot -- they have already done that.)"
I am not blind to the significance of what we are doing in TEC. However, I apparently have not been seeing what Mr. Haley has and muct ask when it was that ECUSA asserted a right to ordain as bishops people who haven't been baptized,
Father Weir, I was referring to the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish as the Bishop of Utah despite the fact that she had never been baptized into the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church, but instead into the Mormon faith, in which she grew up. She could, of course, have been conditionally baptized, but whoever was her minister at the time of her confirmation decided that a Mormon baptism was perfectly valid -- even though the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize their validity, on the ground that the Godhead which Mormons worship is not the same as the God of Christ, nor is the Mormon Jesus the same as Christ.
ReplyDeleteNo, what qualified Carolyn Irish to be a bishop was that she was a member of an Episcopal congregation, graduated from the Virginia Theological Seminary, and was a woman. She was one of eight women bishops invited to attend Lambeth for the first time in 1998, and that apparently established the precedent.
"If the Archbishop of Canterbury accepts her, who are you to complain?" I hear you ask. To which my only answer is, "If the standards for baptism are such that we could accept Mormon baptism as valid, then we admittedly no longer care about being a part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. There is no need for any denominational boundaries after that. So why does the ABC pretend there is still anything to talk about with the Roman Catholic Church?"
Maybe you are right, Father Weir; maybe it just doesn't matter. We can just make things up as we go along, and in the end, nothing will be different.
Mr. Haley,
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying your earlier comment. Your origianl assertion was, however,incorrect. Bp Irish's baptism was vaild because the right formula was used, i.e. baptism in the Nameof the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. One can assert that person officiating held a theology which is heretical - as I believe it is - but such assertions have not invalidated baptisms in the past. The Church has held that baptisms performed by persons who are not Chritians are valid, if irregular, as long as water and the right formula were used.
My main problem with this "version" is that it elevates the Joint Standing Committee to the level of the "supreme" Instrument of Communion. That serves to elevate the power of the Anglican Consultative Council (which suits the agenda of the Secretary General of the Communion. The Communion Office is now running the show!
ReplyDeleteSad times for the Anglican Communion, in my humble opinion. Revisionists such as Canon Kearon and Gregory Cameron do not have the best interests of the Communion at heart.
But we will just have to wait and see what the results of the release of this latest version will be.
I tend to agree with our host, TEC(usa) will have a hard time signing on while continuing on its current path. But when has consistency ever stopped the TEO leadership?
Thank you for responding, Father Weir. You say that I am wrong, because Mormon baptism uses the "right formula", but the Catholic Church says it is not the right formula. I shall choose to be on the side of the Catholic Church. If you and your Bishop want to confirm Mormons into the Episcopal Church (USA) without re-baptizing them first, no one will stop you -- but do not claim to be furthering, in doing so, ecumenical talks with the RCC. (And please note: I am not contending that you have done so.)
ReplyDeleteMr.Haley,
ReplyDeleteI realize that the Roman Catholic Church has applied its own logic to the question of Mormon baptism, in much the same way it did to the question of Anglican orders. It is Rome's view on most matters of doctrine that one has to be in agreement with Rome's interpretation. So I am not at all surprised that Rome's view would be that Bp Irish wasn't validly baptized, nor was she validly ordained, but then neither were aby of us Anglicans validly ordained. I once had great hopes for our relationships with Rome, but decisions that both of us have been made have made me less optimistic. I think my disagreement with Rome on the validity of Bp Irish's baptism is rather less important than our disagreement about the Real Presence or the ordination of women. Having continued to have very good relationships with Roman Catholic priests in spite of our differences,I am not worried that this one will change that.
The conversation here with Fr. Weir reminds me of why I'm now Orthodox. Orthodox are extremely careful about the particulars of Baptism.
ReplyDeleteI don't see that the Covenant has any teeth. I imagine that TEC will sign it. It is a political organization and has more to gain by the appearance of being in covenant. With TEC its always about appearances.
Fr. Weir,
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but Mormans don't believe in Salvation like Protestants (or even Catholics do). I don't think I'm wrong because I recall having this conversation with a girl I dated in my youth, who was Morman. She replied to me, after I explained that I was a saved Christian, etc. that "you know, we don't believe in that". She was refering to believing that Jesus died, buried, rose again, for our salvation. So, how can, if not believing in that, can a Morman be truely Baptised the same as an Anglican or Catholic or a Baptist for that matter? I can understand the commonality b/t Mormons and TEC, the doubting of Salvation, etc. (thanks to Shori).
Father Weir,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: " Bp Irish's baptism was vaild because the right formula was used, i.e. baptism in the Nameof the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Your assertion ignores both a key portion of what Mr. Haley correctly stated and a key requirement pertaining to the intent of the baptizer, thereby leading you to the false conslusion just cited.
Mr. Haley stated [emphasis added]: " she had never been baptized into the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church, but instead into the Mormon faith, in which she grew up. She could, of course, have been conditionally baptized, but whoever was her minister at the time of her confirmation decided that a Mormon baptism was perfectly valid -- even though the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize their validity, on the ground that the Godhead which Mormons worship is not the same as the God of Christ, nor is the Mormon Jesus the same as Christ."
I base my conclusion on (a) the fact that the Catholic Church is indisputably part of the "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" and (b) on the totality of the requirements of that part of hte Body of Christ, which includes the intent of the baptizer. And it is in this latter particular that the theology of the person performing the baptism most assuredly does matter, albeit indirectly, your demurrer to the contrary notwithstanding.
¶ 1284 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following: "In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: 'I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'" It is always understood that "having the same intention as the Church" means that the baptizer intends to make the baptized "part of the Body of Christ." If the officiant, who need not be Christian, is not talking about the same Christ, then the officiant does not meet the test of intent.
Now, unless you intend to assert that the Catholic Church is not (at least a part of) the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church" of Christ, it appears to me that the question of the invalidity of the lady's baptism is established.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
I realize that there really is no point in continuing to discuss questions about the validity of someone's baptism with two brothers in Christ who insist that only the Roman Catholic Church's position is the only acceptable one. I will continue to value the Anglican freedom to hold that the proper words and water are sufficient.
ReplyDeleteRE: "I will continue to value the Anglican freedom to hold that the proper words and water are sufficient."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I mean -- if I say the words and use the water, my cat Chloe will be a great Christian in the Church.
And if the head of the Heaven's Gate cult -- right before he donned his purple robe, de-sexed himself, and committed suicide in preparation for that Great Spaceship Beyond the Hale-Bopp Comet to pick up he and his followers -- said the right words and used the water, then his baptismal act was entirely "valid" and "sufficient."
Simply. Incoherent.
It strains credulity to comprehend how some of our Episcopal clergy manage to navigate their way through a simple newspaper article given the deficiencies in logic and consistency in reason.
ChloeTheEpiscopalCat,
ReplyDeleteIt certainly has, in times past, strained myedulity. But those times are now, demonstrably, long past. Fr. Weir's comment is yet another sterling example of res ipso loquitur.
Which is, of course, one of the reasons why I am no longer a protestant Episcopal, but, rather, am in the process of seeking the full communion of the Catholic Church. And, on that front, his comment offers ample reassurance that what I understood to be the leading of the Holy Spirit was not a misunderstanding on my part.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Although I had left this discussion for a bit, I will add one more comment about baptism. It has long been a teaching of the Churches of the Anglican Communion that the validity of sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of the minister or, I would suggest, the minister having the correct theology. It has also been part of Anglican teaching that the minister of baptism need not be ordained, or even, if circumastances warrant it, a Christian. I appreciate the Roman Catholic position, but I fear that if Anglicans go down the road of judging the validity of a sacrament on the basis of whether or not the minister is theologically orthodox, we are in trouble. To paraphrase the words of Joseph, I believe that the Mormon who baptized Bp Irish intended one thing, but God intended something else.
ReplyDeleteAC, I am posting selected comments from another site.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit surprised to find the Curmudgeon so obliging in his assumption that individual Dioceses and then ACNA will eventually be allowed to adopt the Covenant?
To begin with, why did the (former Joint) Standing Committee change the language of art. 4.1.5. at all, which allowed churches to adopt the Covenant, even without a promise of being recognized? Surely the original wording was seen as an important opening for Communion Partners to differentiate themselves from TEC. Now they can only “affirm” the Covenant (who can’t?). Yes, the ABC hints that at some later date “other Ecclesial bodies” may adopt the Covenant, but his promises have not always been reliable. And yes, there may have been some question of “due process” lacking in the original 4.1.5. This is a door which will open only with the permission of the powers that be in the Communion (aka the Standing Committee), and IMHO they will not open it readily for individual TEC dioceses, much less for ACNA.
...
Thirdly, what are the criteria for amending the schedule of membership of the ACC? The old Constitution (art. 3b) assumes that non-coopted members must be appointed by “provincial, national or regional machinery.” So according to current criteria, it is hard to see that dioceses or alternative jurisdictions like ACNA would be accepted. Note that the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order in its recent meeting took up the task “to make a study of the definition and recognition of ‘Anglican Churches’ and develop guidelines for bishops in the Communion.” This might lead to a revision of the categories of “church” - or it might not.
Fourthly, we do not know what the “new constitution” says on all these matters. What we do know [from Canon Kearon's cover letter] is that decisions of admission of new “churches” will not be made by the ACC or by 2/3 of the provinces or primates but by the Standing Committee itself, which at present includes Katherine Schori and Ian Douglas. (Sec. 4.2.8 would not disqualify them from voting on admission to the Covenant, only to discipline within it.)
Finally, I do not share the Curmudgeon’s confidence that individual dioceses in ECUSA can, indeed must, sign on to the Covenant individually.
I think there may be a disconnect between theory and practice with regard to ECUSA’s “unique polity.” I can imagine the PB or the HOB “abandoning” a bishop whose diocese tried to adopt the Covenant independently, especially if TEC has passed some resolution or the PB issued some pastoral admonition to the contrary. Note that the CWP commentary on sec. 4.1. quotes from the Lambeth Commentary to the effect a diocesan synod might adopt the Covenant “if the canons and constitutions of a Province permit.” That’s a big “if” when it comes to TEC’s modus operandi.
Stephen, thank you for those comments. I think I shall address your main points in a separate post, because they echo a lot of what I have been reading lately. Let me point out only that people are generally wrong to think that General Convention will be the only body capable of acting on the Covenant for ECUSA. Such a statement is correct only on its surface.
ReplyDeleteGeneral Convention has no current authority under the Constitution to agree to bind the Church to a Covenant. If it went ahead nevertheless and purported to do so, it would be a meaningless act -- it might as well adopt a resolution affirming the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
ECUSA's Constitution will have to be amended to allow it to adopt the Covenant on a church-wide basis. To amend the Constitution requires the vote of two successive General Conventions, taken by orders with respect to each Diocese. And in the years between the General Conventions, the proposed amendment has to be taken up and considered by each of the individual dioceses.
So as a practical matter, ECUSA will be forced to have each individual Diocese vote on whether to adopt the Covenant. It cannot proceed in any other way -- and still have any adoption be meaningful. Of course, it and the ABC can continue to engage in meaningless acts; but then they will just be further debasing the currency of truth, as I discuss in my latest post. Such debasement is a strategy for the short term, and is an infallible sign of decay, rot and decline.