A Round Up: Commentary on the Anglican Covenant
Here are the early responses we have seen so far to the Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant:
Baby Blue:
Peter Ould
Inclusive Church
Stand Firm Comment Thread
Jim Naughton
Ruth Gledhill
Fulcrum Discussion Forum (see Graham Kings' early commentary: Monday 19 February 2007 - 06:13pm)
Update additional commentary:
Dan Martins
More from Peter Ould
Jan Nunley at Episcope
Dr. Peter Toon
A round up of many more links: Fr. Binky at the Webelf Report
Baby Blue:
Peter Ould
Inclusive Church
Stand Firm Comment Thread
Jim Naughton
Ruth Gledhill
Fulcrum Discussion Forum (see Graham Kings' early commentary: Monday 19 February 2007 - 06:13pm)
Update additional commentary:
Dan Martins
More from Peter Ould
Jan Nunley at Episcope
Dr. Peter Toon
A round up of many more links: Fr. Binky at the Webelf Report
posted by t19elves at 1:33 PM
3 Comments:
A covenenant has to be a mutual agreement; will there be provisions to enforce the call for churches in the communion to listen to the experience of gay and lesbian people, and will there be a sincere dialogue about interpreting Scriptural sources?
I regret that I am a bit of a literalist so I am hopeful some of you can enlighten me on the real meaning here. I am wondering about section 6(3): "Each Church commits itself" The terms: "Essential Concern," "Consistent with Scriptures" Common Standards of faith" and "the Canon law of the Churches" and how they are to be interpreted concern me. Although the document makes no pretense that the covenant” would be legally binding, it more than implies that it would be morally binding on the member churches. Should they not be willing to accept the recommendations of the Communion, they would not be considered members and would need to request readmission at a later date.
Coming from a democratic tradition, these are my concerns:
1. It appears that those charged with making the recommendations are first and foremost the primates. Although it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been restored to the position of “instrument of communion” from “focus” of communion (Dromantine), it is to the primates that those engaged in controversy will first look for a decision regarding section 6(3) matters above.
2. There appears to be no methodological provision to insure the involvement of the other instruments of communion or any provision to determine the “common mind” of the Communion. Would a majority vote of 51% of the primates determine the mind of the communion? If, for example, that were the case, would their decisions be open to the problem of all democracies…the tyranny of the majority?
3. There are no lay representatives in the primates group. Many of the churches who elect primates do not include women clergy. It would appear that the primates would be taking on roles most resembling the Roman curia and magisterium. Is this, in fact, desirable?
The bottom line is that a simple majority of the Primates can expel a member church from the Communion for whatever cause they see fit with no right of appeal. Clearly, this is the end of the experiment with "primitive bishops" who led rather than ruled, and a return to "lordly bishops" who have no real accountability to anyone but themselves. That marks a profound change in the Anglican theological doctrine of the episcopate, however understandable the move may be under the current circumstances. "Hard cases make bad law."
Post a Comment
<< Home