Mary Glasspool has just been consecrated as a bishop. As an openly practising gay woman her election, confirmation and consecration in the wake of the controversies of recent years is a clear rejection of collegiality by the American Episcopal Church.
Some reactions:
Anglican Mainstream: "Since that decision by TEC has to be respected, it should result in three consequences. First, TEC withdrawing, or being excluded from the Anglican Communion's representative bodies. Second, a way must be found to enable those orthodox Anglicans who remain within TEC to continue in fellowship with the Churches of the worldwide Communion. Third, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) should now be recognized an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion."
John Harrower, Bishop of Tasmania: "This is not just another cut in Anglicanism’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’ but the gathering pace of the self mutilation of TEC (The Episcopal Church – the Anglican Church in the USA plus its Affiliates). I suggest this is not just a cut, but a mortal wound."
Bp. John also quotes leaders of the Church of Ireland: "The Episcopal Church (TEC) has taken this provocative step despite knowing the division and difficulties created by Gene Robinson’s consecration in 2003. This shows a deliberate disregard for other members of the Anglican family and suggests that TEC does not greatly value unity within Anglicanism and indeed throughout the universal Church."Fulcrum interacts with a legal question about the Covenant and the role of the ill-defined "Standing Committee" raised by the Anglican Church in New Zealand. They consider a way forward in legal terms and conclude:
"Will the Communion survive? If it does, it will be as a communion with autonomy and accountability. The Anglican Covenant with a robust Section 4 establishes such a communion. A TEC that consecrates Mary Glasspool against the expressed mind of all four Communion Instruments is a body determined to see that no such communion will exist. We continue to believe that a communion with autonomy and accountability is not only desirable, but necessary."I say, bring on the Covenant. The confessional question was answered years ago. The relational question is completely settled now, if it wasn't before. It is only the institutional question that remains and the Covenant can help us resolve that - even by it's simple existence if TEC ignore it and the rest of the Communion (and others) adopt it.
Photo credit: http://flickr.com/photos/49968232@N00/3290181860
But Will, I've got this growing feeling the Covenant is too little too late, is there something more dramatic we can do as a Diocese this Synod?
ReplyDeleteToo little too late for what? You think the Covenant would pull TEC back into line? One can believe in miracles perhaps...
ReplyDeleteThe Covenant does not answer and does not need to answer the doctrinal question here. Yes, it affirms the authority of the Bible and the historic formularies (not as clearly as the Jerusalem Declaration, but nevertheless...). But, realistically, the doctrinal issue is no longer being asked. I think it was Greg Venables who left the Primates' Meeting of 2009 stating it was a great meeting because there was an honest recognition that two completely different beliefs were being held to. "Two religions within one church" or something along those lines. The Covenant doesn't answer, and doesn't need to answer the question of who was actually doctrinally right or wrong in this crisis. Because everyone knows who holds to the authority of the Bible here, and who has a relativistic view of Scripture.
Nor do I think we are asking the relational question any more. The Americans have shown by their actions that they simply don't want to be in Communion with the rest of us in any meaningful sense of the word. The rhetoric of this being an argument within the ordinary "breadth" of the church is simply not accepted by the vast majority - who have stated time and time again that this is a question about what is central. And have been ignored. If the Americans have failed to listen to their so-called brothers and sisters up until now do we really think a Covenant (or process acting from out of a Covenant) would make them start to listen. Again, the relational question has been decided and the Covenant will not change any hearts.
What then can it do? In my mind the Covenant can best speak to an institutional question. The only sense of "Communion" that is left revolves around institutional remnants and heritage. A Covenant can be an instrument where the institutional line is drawn in the sand: "Despite the fact that you followed your own procedures, that the letter of your canon law was followed, by this means we now formally, institutionally declare that you are walking apart from us."
It may be that all it can do is precipitate an "amicable divorce." Well, if that's the case, so be it. That has value.
As with all good "constitutional" documents the value of the Covenant lies not so much in the detail but in its very existence - which is why I'm keen for it to be adopted quickly. TEC is delaying their adoption of it- so let the rest of the Communion adopt it, and let ACNA adopt it as well... I think that would communicate something appropriate.
If you want some helpful drama, then the best way forward is to seek a formal recognition of ACNA as "true Anglicans." :-)