tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post7618328184914082527..comments2024-03-07T17:08:03.583-05:00Comments on Lionel Deimel’s Web Log: A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant - Part 1Lionel Deimelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-75969662686613071522011-06-01T19:00:38.626-04:002011-06-01T19:00:38.626-04:00The Standing Committees gotta go-- it´s not ever b...The Standing Committees gotta go-- it´s not ever been up to them to vote yes or no.Leonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16667415590825321701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-71019391245744424222011-06-01T17:00:54.754-04:002011-06-01T17:00:54.754-04:00One hesitates to pile on here. Oh why not?!?
I s...One hesitates to pile on here. Oh why not?!?<br /><br />I suppose it is technically true that the archbishop can dismiss people from committees if the term of their appointment is the pleasure of the archbishop. If on the other hand the appointment is for the term of the committee I submit he does not have that power -- yet. <br /><br />In his amazingly unfair dismissal of both Northern and Southern theologians, the Archbishop undertook to do <i>identity injustice.</i> The people dismissed were, not because of what they did but because of which churches are their canonical homes.<br /><br />Even then however, he sought a rationale. It won't do to say "I am punishing TEC, Southern Cone inter alia because I am angry at them and can find members handy at which to strike." Thanks to Colin Slee we now know he is capable of that sort of bullying, and we know he did it. But it does not look good. <br /><br />Handing him and future bullies the so-called covenant is handing them cover. "Hey an <i>agreed to standing committee </i> said what they did is "un-anglican and deserves "relational consequences." <br /><br />Here then a good rule you seem to be missing, "never give a bully an excuse!"<br /><br />We are all of us, save apparently archbishops, called to oppose evil. The covenant destroys something precious, the Anglican communion. It also institutionalizes anti-Spirit rule making. Somewhere in England is a little girl who could grow up to be archbishop of Canterbury but won't because to make a woman archbishop will be 'un-anglican.' Letting that happen is in fact evil. Abetting the misogynists is evil. <br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-46664104185966530222011-06-01T16:13:27.835-04:002011-06-01T16:13:27.835-04:00I don’t have a strong preference as to what the co...I don’t have a strong preference as to what the comment form looks like, so I’m going to take Tobias’s suggestion. It is my hope that no one raises a question about this break with our tradition and demands imposition of relational consequences.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-58258095463252879532011-06-01T14:55:48.068-04:002011-06-01T14:55:48.068-04:00Lionel, I urge you to adopt the blogger floating w...Lionel, I urge you to adopt the blogger floating window comment option, as it allows one to comment while viewing the whole thread.<br /><br />I'll simply say that I do not agree with your sense that TEC saying no to the Covenant will kill it once for all. England yes, which is why I pressed so hard for England to say No. But I'm reliably informed that the possibility of a majority of English dioceses saying No is virtually a no go.<br /><br />Perhaps you are right and we should just ignore it. It won't go away, and the Communion will continue slowly to fall apart.<br /><br />My own personality rather prefers to stand up to the bullies. I see most of the woe of the last few years as due to the lily-livered giving in to the "recommendations" of folks like the ABoC. So I would rather be thrown out than walk away.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-7845113532089938092011-06-01T14:51:10.275-04:002011-06-01T14:51:10.275-04:00The final sentence of the first paragraph of my co...The final sentence of the first paragraph of my comment should read: "No one can predict with accuracy what the results will be if a majority of the provinces of the Anglican Communion adopt the covenant."June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-63442543960950214592011-06-01T14:46:00.050-04:002011-06-01T14:46:00.050-04:00Dear Mimi, this is hard for me too as I am not by ...Dear Mimi, this is hard for me too as I am not by nature a consequentialist in my ethics! Part of me would like to say, let's just can the whole thing, and if I had my druthers I'd follow your approach.<br /><br />The problem is that the other part of me wants to have a rationale for this rejection apart from my own dislike of the whole approach. This is why I'm drawn into the discussions from folks like Lionel and Alan, which are geared in terms of consequences; and I'm sorry, but as I've said, I don't see the situation becoming any worse with the AngCov adopted. It is true by the letter of the law within it that non-signatories are not subject to judgment or "recommendations" under its auspices, but I have no reason to believe that is a sure defense against such "consequences." The present anarchy is only partially constrained by the AngCov, and without it the anarchy will surely continue unabated.<br /><br />At this point I've suggested non-adoption with an appeal for more study across provincial boundaries. I would also push back against the ABoC who has presented this as the only game in town. Why can we, as free and autonomous churches of the Communion, make our own suggestions as to amendments, or craft our own document -- as the Gafcon have done? People keep talking about the needed improvements. So draft them and adopt them, out of a trans-provincial conversation.<br /><br />The fact Cantuar doesn't want to accept is that the old AngComm is dead. The AngCov will not, cannot, save it. That is why I am not proposing adoption, but further conversation -- which might possibly lead to a more acceptable document that actually holds the fragments together.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-2451416109980520382011-06-01T14:37:17.776-04:002011-06-01T14:37:17.776-04:00Tobias,
This is not an answer to all the points y...Tobias,<br /><br />This is not an answer to all the points you raised, but I do want to comment on your notion of adopting the Covenant with the intention of having an opportunity to change it.<br /><br />You wrote: “But it [the Covenant] is not simply going to go away, and it seems to me the best way to disarm it is for as many of the moderate to progressive churches of the communion to sign on to it as possible. It is those who sign who will have charge of its implementation.”<br /><br />One of the aspects of the Covenant I find most manipulative is that there is virtually no way to reject it. Since the Covenant becomes effective as soon as a church adopts it, even if every other church rejects it, it is still an albatross around the Communion’s neck. How do we get rid of it? In part, it is the perception that not adopting the Covenant puts one’s church in some sort of limbo that encourages churches to sign up.<br /><br />No, Tobias, the Covenant is not fixable because the very notion of a Covenant of the sort before us is anathema to Anglicanism as I understand and have known it. What is needed is for some significant Anglican church—TEC is the only candidate over which I have much influence, so it is my favorite candidate—to declare that the Covenant is the work of the devil, and that we will have no part of it.<br /><br />Remember that it only takes one church to “raise a question” about the actions of another church. As long as we have leaders in the Communion like Rowan Williams who will submit to intimidation rather than risk “disunity,” I have little faith in the procedures of Section 4 irrespective of who does or does not adopt the Covenant. What I do know, is that The Episcopal Church can better pursue Christ’s mission as we see it without taking on the burden of the Anglican Covenant.<br /><br />As for authority, who said that the ABC can remove members of committees or commissions (or convert them to consultants) for assumed infractions of their churches? The power to appoint does not imply a power to discharge.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-3667158061203646262011-06-01T14:32:33.287-04:002011-06-01T14:32:33.287-04:00the worst that could happen is more or less the st...<i>the worst that could happen is more or less the status quo, no?</i><br /><br />No. The COvenant gives the Standing Committee the power to determine that an action by a signatory Church is contrary to the Covenant. As suggested above, whether and to what extent a given action is compatible with the Covenant is going to be a matter of interpretation, given the ambiguity of the text. But only the interpretation of the Standing Committee will count. And there will be no mechanism to challenge or appeal that decision.<br /><br />Having decided that an action is incompatible with the Covenant, the Standing Committee is then empowered to determine the relational consequences which follow. Yes, the language is "recommend" but there is a clear expectation built into the Covenant that these recommendations will be followed. And, frankly, given the fact that the Standing Committee is anything but independent, consisting of 50% primates and 50% ACC members, plus the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is hard to see how either the Primates Meeting or the ACC or the Archbishop is likely to decide not to follow any recommendations.<br /><br />More of the status quo? No, signing on to the Covenant will legitimate the kinds of arbitrary actions that we have had, doubtless causing a proliferation of same, and if anyone complains the response will be that we signed up for it.<br /><br />The proposed Covenant will not, in my view, produce any good for the Communion. As you suggest, Tobias, that is reason enough to vote against it. But there is strong pressure to support it anyway, supported by the narrative that it won't produce any harm. I believe that it will produce harm - harm which is not outweighed by any good on the other side of the balance. That is another, and more compelling reason to vote against.Alan T Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-82394262789151820472011-06-01T13:36:22.269-04:002011-06-01T13:36:22.269-04:00It seems to me that whether to vote yea or nay on ...It seems to me that whether to vote yea or nay on the covenant comes down to whether you think the covenant is of value to the Anglican Communion in and of itself. No one can predict with accuracy what the results will be if a majority of the provinces of the Anglican Communion.<br /><br />So the matter returns to the question, "Is the document wise and good as it stands?" If I had a vote, I could not, in conscience, vote for the thing, because I think it is a sorry mess. It's badly written, badly reasoned, lacks clarity, and is only fit for the shredder.<br /><br />The political maneuvering to sign something that I believe is unworthy of putting our name to simply to have a place at the table to try to improve the document is unseemly for a Christian body, as I see it, and I could not cast my vote in favor.<br /><br />The phrase, "Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”, continues to come to mind.<br /><br />Tobias, it pains me to differ at such a basic level with you, whom I respect and admire a great deal, but on the matter of the covenant, I must.<br /><br />I won't answer you point by point on what will change with adoption or what has or has not already been done, because that does not matter to me, because I believe the covenant is not something I could vote for because it is such a mess.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-55787715659358797022011-06-01T13:00:09.980-04:002011-06-01T13:00:09.980-04:00Lionel, I'm not following your questions here....Lionel, I'm not following your questions here. All the things you say the ABoC can't do, he has done. The two things you mention, Lambeth and committees, are creations of his office, so he has sway over them, Covenant or no. That is what I mean when I say the Covenant grants no new powers. It doesn't even particularly legitimate them.<br /><br />It is all very well for you to say what the ABoC shouldn't do, but you are no more the boss of him than he is of you.<br /><br />It would be helpful to me if instead of saying, "nonsense" you provide at least one specific example of a power granted under the Covenant that doesn't already exist, or hasn't already been exercised without the Covenant.<br /><br />What is it you think can or will happen under the Covenant if we sign, that not signing can prevent? Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager -- thinking in those terms might clarify.<br /><br />None of this is to say that the AngCov is a Good Thing in my estimation. Frankly, I think it has become a token in the ongoing Anglican trials, rather than a solution. But it is not simply going to go away, and it seems to me the best way to disarm it is for as many of the moderate to progressive churches of the communion to sign on to it as possible. It is those who sign who will have charge of its implementation.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-12765313094954547192011-06-01T12:43:44.010-04:002011-06-01T12:43:44.010-04:00Tobias,
No, I do not believe that we will do no w...Tobias,<br /><br />No, I do <i>not</i> believe that we will do no worse under the Covenant than under the status quo. You have been saying that the Covenant does not give any power to the “Instruments” that they don’t already have. I believe that is nonsense.<br /><br />Who gives the ABC the power <i>not</i> to invite certain bishops to the Lambeth Conference or gives him the power to form committees at will or throw people off them? Who gives the primates any power at all outside their individual churches? Elements of the Anglican Communion are abusing power, and the proper response is not to legitimize their abuse but to put a stop to it.<br /><br />The ABC, a single unelected <i>English</i> bishop, should, as far as I’m concerned, be stripped of all power in the Communion. He should appoint no one, form no committees, and create no agendas. A single, unelected leader with unrestricted powers is a tyrant.<br /><br />Perhaps the powers I would take away from the ABC should be given to the ACC. Perhaps we just do not need most of them.<br /><br />If I ran the Anglican zoo, declaring your church out of communion with another Anglican church would be considered voluntary removal from the Communion. Instead, it merely gives the ABC an opportunity to grovel before you in the idolatrous name of unity.<br /><br />The Communion is a mess and an impediment to Christian mission. We should reform it, kill it, or simply get out of it. Do you seriously think that adopting the Covenant will, in any way, advance Christian mission or make the Communion any less contentious?Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-39234543383997264772011-06-01T11:35:09.771-04:002011-06-01T11:35:09.771-04:00All that being said, however, since the only "...All that being said, however, since the only "penalty" the Standing Committee could "recommend" is something that can happen now, or whether or not we adopt/accede/subscribe, it seems to me the angst level is too high.<br /><br />If the real concern is the mess of claims and counterclaims that will follow on the heels of adoption, that merely goes further to demonstrate the truth that the AngCov does not solve the problems for which it was designed. That may well be a reason to reject it, but if that is the case, I think it better simply to say that rather than to try to fisk the thing to death.<br /><br />The other option is to accept the wiggle room, adopt or affirm 1-3 "in general" and reject §4 as incompatible with the Covenant's goals and Preamble, and see what happens.<br /><br />As I say, the worst that could happen is more or less the status quo, no?Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-40227642290291392992011-06-01T11:10:38.390-04:002011-06-01T11:10:38.390-04:00Alan’s point is especially important. The “judicia...Alan’s point is especially important. The “judicial” measures of Section 4 are based on the “law” set out in the earlier sections. Ambiguity in Sections 1–3 introduces an intrinsic unfairness into the Communion, as no one ever knows in advance what is allowed and what is not. Anglican Communion “justice” thereby becomes arbitrary, the sort of thing we see in totalitarian states.<br /><br />In the U.S., we have a notion that laws should be clear enough so as to inform citizens as to what is lawful and what is not. A law can be invalidated by the courts for being “unconstitutionally vague.” Surely, the Anglican Covenant can be accused of the equivalent of being unconstitutional vague.<br /><br />The Anglican Communion under the Covenant could easily become a world in which what is not explicitly allowed is forbidden. I, for one, do not want to be a part of that world.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-16553919779221148982011-06-01T10:54:07.579-04:002011-06-01T10:54:07.579-04:00Tobias correctly suggests that ambiguity could be ...Tobias correctly suggests that ambiguity could be used as a defense: "we were acting well within what we understand the Covenant text to mean." The trouble is that this defense may not convince the Standing Committee if the majority of them or their advisors either interpret a critical section of the Covenant differently than the defendant Church, or if there seem to be extraneous factors which lead the Standing Committee to reject the defense.<br /><br />The ambiguity of sections 1-3 means that it is not possible in advance to know what action might lead to a complaint being lodged - re, "question raised". Combined with the arbitrariness of section 4.2, this is a recipe for more conflict.Alan T Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-700581747691751442011-06-01T10:41:11.044-04:002011-06-01T10:41:11.044-04:00Tobias,
Thanks for the information about Resoluti...Tobias,<br /><br />Thanks for the information about Resolution 1982-A047, of which I had been unaware. The title of that resolution is “Reaffirm the Principles of Unity in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral,” and it is best characterized as a substantial restatement of the Quadrilateral(s). The resolution can be found in its entirety <a href="http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_search.pl" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I have reproduce the main substance of it below:<br /><br /><i>1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God[,] as they are witness to God's action in Jesus Christ and the continuing presence of his Holy Spirit in the Church, that they are the authoritative norm for catholic faith in Jesus Christ and for the doctrinal and moral tradition of the Gospel, and that they contain all things necessary for salvation.<br /><br />2. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are the forms through which the Christian Church, early in its history under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, understood, interpreted and expressed its faith in the Triune God. The continuing doctrinal tradition is the form through which the Church seeks to understand, interpret and express its faith in continuity with these ancient creeds and in its awareness of the world to which the Word of God must be preached.<br /><br />3. The Church is the sacrament of God's presence in the world and the sign of the Kingdom for which we hope. That presence and hope are made active and real in the Church and in the individual lives of Christian men and women through the preaching of the Word of God, through the Gospel sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, as well as other sacramental rites, and through our apostolate to the world in order that it may become the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ.<br /><br />4. Apostolicity is evidenced in continuity with the teaching, the ministry, and the mission of the apostles. Apostolic teaching must, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, be founded upon the Holy Scriptures and the ancient fathers and creeds, making its proclamation of Jesus Christ and his Gospel for each new age consistent with those sources, not merely reproducing them in a transmission of verbal identity. Apostolic ministry exists to promote, safeguard and serve apostolic teaching. All Christians are called to this ministry by their Baptism. In order to serve, lead and enable this ministry, some are set apart and ordained in the historic orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. We understand the historic episcopate as central to this apostolic ministry and essential to the reunion of the Church, even as we acknowledge "the spiritual reality of the ministries of those Communions which do not possess the Episcopate" (Lambeth Appeal 1920, Section 7). Apostolic mission is itself a succession of apostolic teaching and ministry inherited from the past and carried into the present and future. Bishops in apostolic succession are, therefore, the focus and personal symbols of this inheritance and mission as they preach and teach the Gospel and summon the people of God to their mission of worship and service;<br /></i>Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-58692747021514214262011-06-01T10:33:29.284-04:002011-06-01T10:33:29.284-04:00Well done! It is a conversation that has not been...Well done! It is a conversation that has not been had and needs to be heard. Consider that along with the 39 Articles the Covenant affirms an ordinal that excludes women. <br /><br />FWIW<br />jimBJimBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17312606954135884910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-45551619255567322042011-06-01T10:18:04.010-04:002011-06-01T10:18:04.010-04:00Lionel, while I agree with some of your concerns a...Lionel, while I agree with some of your concerns as to imprecision, please note Resolution A47a of the 1982 General Convention, which finally got around to officially affirming the Lambeth Quadrilateral as it appears in the BCP, with some expanded explanation. The 1886 version was an action only of the House of Bishops.<br /><br />Alan is correct that the wide possible interpretation could lead to more dissension, but it also provides greater ambit for defense.<br /><br />I look forward to you comments on what I regard as the most pernicious article in sections 1-3, the assignment of the impossible task of "focus and means of unity" to the ABoC.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-70280952211284001202011-06-01T08:12:23.846-04:002011-06-01T08:12:23.846-04:00Thank you for this, Lionel. "Gobbledegook&quo...Thank you for this, Lionel. "Gobbledegook", indeed! It is dangerous, flat out, because we will all be defined by it.Elizabeth Kaetonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787552280232329081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-82685147611211677132011-06-01T07:50:56.258-04:002011-06-01T07:50:56.258-04:00I'm with Grandmere Mimi. Good work.I'm with Grandmere Mimi. Good work.jmhjr4https://www.blogger.com/profile/02008217145611619494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-68721145353306824712011-06-01T07:32:07.667-04:002011-06-01T07:32:07.667-04:00It seems to me that the first part of the proposed...It seems to me that the first part of the proposed Covenant has been written in a way which is deliberately ambiguous, allowing for the broadest possible interpretation as a strategy to allow for the greatest possible acceptance and buy-in of the text. This is common in theological statements, and indeed part of the genius of Anglicanism. We can agree on a text even if we don't agree on its interpretation.<br /><br />The trouble arises when the interpretation is being used for the purposes of setting the standard against which a Church's actions will be judged and "Relational Consequences" imposed. Will it be a defense to say that our interpretation of t he document allowed for the action? Here ambiguity will cease to be useful and becomes pernicious. Where ambiguity might be the friend of the theologian, it is anathema to the computer scientist or the lawyer.<br /><br />The ambiguity of the first three sections may be seen as a helpful mechanism to obtain the greatest possible buy-in to the Covenant, but once implemented, it will generate more conflict.Alan T Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3320087.post-51662786990353870742011-06-01T00:03:57.376-04:002011-06-01T00:03:57.376-04:00Good work, Lionel.
The Thirty-nine Articles? P...Good work, Lionel. <br /><br />The Thirty-nine Articles? Please! And hidden away in a footnote.June Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01723016934182800437noreply@blogger.com