|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/681
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Windsor Process / Anglicanism, Church of England Other articles by Andrew Goddard are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 12 comments on this article Anglican Communion Covenant: Ten Reasons for Voting Positivelyby Andrew Goddardco-published with the Church of England Newspaper 23 December 2011
1. It has been consistently supported by the Church of England which significantly shaped its content through the years of its development and so we should not now reverse our positive and constructive response 2. It is a development in line with the Communion’s evolving life and is faithful to Anglicanism’s theological and ecclesiological tradition and identity. 3. It gives form to a vision of ‘communion with autonomy and accountability’ that has been central to the Communion’s self-understanding and is a genuine Anglican via media avoiding the dangers of both a centralised, controlling Curia and a fragmenting, fractious federation 4. It enables Anglicans across the world and Christians in other denominations to understand who we are as Anglicans and how we seek to live together and share in God’s mission together as part of the body of Christ. 5. It provides a clear agreed framework for debate, diversity and development through shared discernment within agreed affirmations and commitments. 6. It facilitates changes in continuity and dialogue with both our Anglican tradition and our fellow Anglicans around the world and thus serves our unity in Christ 7. It preserves provincial autonomy but allows the clear articulation of the catholic consensus within the Communion and an ordered – rather than the recent chaotic – response within Anglicanism when provinces believe they need to act contrary to this. 8. It offers the best, perhaps the only, means of preventing further bitter fragmentation by enabling the highest degree of communion among Anglicans. 9. It does not explicitly address specific controversial issues but cultivates practices and provides processes for addressing whatever innovations – for example, lay presidency – might arise when some Anglicans may feel called to act in a way that others do not recognise as faithful developments. 10. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked the Church of England to support him and the other Instruments in working for the widest possible acceptance of the covenant within the Communion. Given these, and many other reasons, why has the Church of England so far appeared half-hearted? There are various factors. For some, the covenant has appeared from nowhere and is tainted by recent Communion divisions. For others, opposition may reflect an inherent natural conservatism suspicious of new developments or even a sub-Christian nationalism that fails to recognise the importance of living within a global communion of churches. In addition, relatively little has been done until now to explain the covenant simply and show its importance and value – hence Fulcrum’s recent guide. In contrast, there has been a vociferous organised international campaign against it. The No Anglican Covenant Coalition is driven by various commitments. It has an alternative, incompatible vision of life in communion whose theory and practice are rarely explained or scrutinised. This is centred on a minimalist Anglican identity (sometimes almost reduced to a principle of celebrating unbounded diversity) which rejects interdependence and mutual accountability so provinces can unilaterally act however they wish without reference to Anglicans elsewhere. This vision lay behind the actions of North American dioceses and provinces which in 2003 tore the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level. Despite the rhetoric of inclusive diversity, it has divided the church and established liberal dominance in the Episcopal Church in America (TEC). It also justifies their continued refusal to heed repeated requests to stop, wait, consult and persuade for the good of the wider church. A covenant that could help repair the tear by re-affirming provinces’ commitment to longstanding Anglican patterns of life in communion is something this vision’s supporters are determined to resist. Sadly, despite appealing to reason and tolerance, their campaign has at times misrepresented the covenant and painted extreme scenarios based on such distortions to engender anxiety and fear. Evangelicals won’t be attracted by this alternative vision but some seem tempted to form an unholy alliance with it by opposing the covenant or abstaining. Their concern is the mirror-opposite: the covenant is too weak and should be abandoned for the GAFCON vision of confessional Anglicanism. That vision, however, whatever its strengths, lacks the covenant’s commitments to cultivate ecclesial virtues and institutions which nourish communion. It isn't clear how it will reform and strengthen the Communion rather than facilitate its fragmentation and demise. In fact, much in the covenant should delight and encourage evangelicals. There is nothing to which we fundamentally object. That’s why it has been consistently supported by the Global South leadership. There can also be little doubt its defeat in the Church of England would be claimed – and widely seen – as a triumph for those who have supported TEC. Archbishop Rowan’s recent Advent letter continued “to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can”, arguing it will enable us “to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity”. For those reasons and the others outlined by Fulcrum, in 2012 evangelicals from across evangelicalism should be well-informed, enthusiastic and committed supporters of the covenant, speaking and voting for it in deanery and diocesan synods and then in General Synod. The Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Tutor in Christian Ethics at Trinity College, Bristol and on the Leadership Team of Fulcrum (www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk) Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Tuesday 27 December 2011 - 03:15am I would make a revision (joke?) that liberal religion is not parasitic, as it can stand alone. Liberal Christianity may be, if it relies on something to exist to disagree with. Some Christian Unitarians would deny that they are parasitic, in that Jesus is originally a rabbi and they are following his ethical teachings and life example as supreme or sufficient. My point would be they cannot be supreme because you can't measure it, nor is it clear who else has produced teachings or lived the better life. It comes down to doctrines in the end: you might do the biblical criticism and come to a view that is is all myth (even positive myth) but one test of being Christian is whether you are continuous with the early Christian communities. That turns into a more complex question than first appears. The question then is whether Christianity has always been in disagreement with itself in every age. In the end I think you have to respond in the positive to some key events like resurrection and Pentecost, and not doing so means the label wears thin - and why do you want the label? There's nothing wrong with liberal religion as individualistic and mixtures of things, but some liberal Christians can be confusing. Many liberal Christians do affirm the Incarnation, resurrection and so on; those that don't or so bend the concepts ought not to confuse others. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 22 December 2011 - 11:06am The AC has split already....no point denying it....the ABC going against Windsor re the councils of the Communion with his 08 Lambeth invitations decision caused the split....the current covenant process tries to maintain his failed attempt to force fellowship when differences are irreconcilable and that's why it's not working......now the choice is whether we in the CofE go for the myth that Anglicanism was always postmodern regarding its attitude to belief, which I'm not persuaded Cranmer would recognise, in order to keep in tiny nos of revisionists (including in the CofE) who, with unitarians, on their current trends will be extinct in not many years, or as Carl rightly points out, we accept the split which has happened, stop pretending a house divided can stand and unite with most Anglicans in the world who haven't deviated from the teaching of the church with repeated unilateral actions tearing the fabric of the communion....but what the CofE needs to get is that its blessing ain't essential for the ongoing Christian work of Anglicans around the world who do not believe we must be in fellowship with those who promote anything incompatible with scripture, in line with 1cor5-7. Time for a reality check... Posted by: carl Thursday 22 December 2011 - 04:57am Pluralist <i>The problem is, Carl, that you would set the belief bar in the Church of England at a point where many simply don't believe it and won't accept it.</i> You are correct. But that's a feature, and not a bug. In fact, that's the whole point. The division is a doctrinal division. It can't be avoided. This is why I said division is not just desireable but essential. The 'belief bar' is currently set below the essental doctrinal content of the Christian faith. It must be restored to its proper location. <i>[Lesley Crawley] ... represents a kind of liberal Anglicanism that is quite widespread. You can't shut the stable door on these folks because there are too many horses in the stable, and they are not bolting.</i> It is widespread among intellectuals who wish to occupy positions of leadership in the church. But a religion based upon the twin pillars of 1) the presumed moral goodness of man and 2) epistemological doubt is never going to have much purchase among ordinary people. Liberal religion is a parasitic organism. It cannot reproduce itself because it has no meaningful message. But again your basic point is correct. Even more so in a church dominated by liberal leadership. I care not which side remains in possession of the riches of history. I care that the Christian church still extant in the AC be separated from its counterfeit. If that means exile to the wilderness then so be it. Either way, it is a certain outcome that the liberal leadership will be quickly deprived of its laity. There is no liberal evangelism. The liberal laity is growing old and will soon pass from the scene. Division will mean the liberal heirarchy will be starved of money and wither. So, yes, you are correct that liberal religon isn't going anywhere and will likely prove itself institutionally dominant. But the financial foundation upon which it rests is made of sand. It will quickly crumble to dust if left to its own devices. The only reason TEC is still viable is that it possesses bank accounts full of dead men's money. Except for that it would have collapsed long ago. carl Posted by: Bowman Thursday 22 December 2011 - 01:12am In 2011 and thereafter, it will be a blessed thing for those Anglicans who agree amongst themselves to enjoy the closer ties that the Anglican Covenant facilitates. Likewise, it will be a good thing for them to have a more justly proportioned closeness to those who have freely decided never to agree with them. Anglicanism has never intentionally stood for communion without substance, and as time, reflection, and dialogue have closed many of the once-bitter fights of the past. That is why parties of opinion who disagreed in the 20th century now find that they have the mutual respect to want closer ties. It is time to mark this progress with an appropriate deepening of ties that corresponds to the increase of theological trust. A deeper relationship in which churches say what they believe and believe what they say would do the world some good. It is regrettable that the discovery of consensus was occasioned by a sharp disagreement over TEC's treatment of the rest of the Communion. But then, the Lord's will for Anglicans has emerged in ironic ways from the beginning. Naturally, there are controversies in the future of the covenanted Anglicans as well. But, by definition, those will be controversies among Christians who agree on the eccesial way of handling them. Those are disagreements worth having. Even on merely secular grounds of free association, it is hard to see why one would object to the closer association of those who are in fact closer. Do pluralists in fact believe in freedom of conscience as they say they do? We shall see. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 07:23pm An alternative approach to that of the Covenant is given here: on my reading, the thrust of the conclusion there doesn't necessarily follow the sources of the argument, but the Covenant as a process is not relevant. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Wednesday 21 December 2011 - 07:06pm The problem is, Carl, that you would set the belief bar in the Church of England at a point where many simply don't believe it and won't accept it. They still believe - or claim to believe - in the Trinity and all that follows, but you are adding extra confessions. There is no requirement now, for example, for anyone to believe other than in the intentional direction of the Thirty-nine Articles, a battle once fought for and lost by Theophilus Lindsey, a once Vicar of Catterick (though he may not have believed in the Trinity; the Feathers Tavern Petition may have been his excuse to get out). For example, Lesley Crawley's blog is closing down (I wanted to mention her here as she has co-ordinated with some success attempts to derail the Anglican Communion Covenant), and she represents a kind of liberal Anglicanism that is quite widespread. You can't shut the stable door on these folks because there are too many horses in the stable, and they are not bolting. Some of us, though, comment from a different stable. Posted by: carl Monday 19 December 2011 - 08:06pm Their concern is the mirror-opposite: the covenant is too weak and should be abandoned for the GAFCON vision of confessional Anglicanism. Yes, heaven forfend that the churches in the Anglican Communion should actually share a common belief that is .. you know ... fixed and coherent. Far better it should be an amorphous mist of concensus that however slowly follows the tides of culture. That vision, however, whatever its strengths, lacks the covenant’s commitments to cultivate ecclesial virtues and institutions which nourish communion. Of what value is 'ecclesial virtue' when it is founded upon theological confusion? How do you 'nourish communion' between the two fundamentally incompatible religions that currently occupy the Anglican Communion? TEC for example can no longer be classifed as a Christain church unless 1) the definition of first 'Christian' is stripped of its essential theological content or 2) TEC is judged not by its functional theology but by its formal theology. This is not a family fight. It is a war over the very definiton of the Christian faith, and only one side can win. There is no 'ecclesial virtue' that can possibly supercede the necessity of fighting and winning this war. It isn't clear how it will reform and strengthen the Communion rather than facilitate its fragmentation and demise. It would strengthen the Communion by providing a coherent theological foundation for it. The lack of coherence it what is driving the conflict. Indeed, the liberals understand this. They also desire to impose coherence on the Communion. They simply wish to provide a different theology for the foundation. The implicit assumption in this argument is that it would be a bad outcome for the AC to divide into its two warring religions. No, it wouldn't. Division along this fault line is an essential outcome. It is a destructive witness for a Christain church to legitimize TEC and its ecclesial minions as a credible form of Christianity. carl Posted by: Bowman Friday 16 December 2011 - 09:20pm The Covenant itself seems to be a fait accompli. Where two or more Anglican churches gather there the inner Communion will be, and they will advance together in ecumenical conversations with other communions. That is good for ecumenism, which will benefit from having a stable Anglican partner for dialogue and progress. Other Anglican churches will belong, by choice, to an Anglican Fringe that have preserved their freedom to ignore other Anglicans, but will themselves be ignored by the other great communions. And that is also good for ecumenism. It is not a failure if it takes some Anglican churches a while to find the center. The Covenant sets a reasonable open gate between the two. In short, it allows churches to be as close or as distant as they want to be. Rogelio grasps this. Other comments seem to see coercion in the possibility that a church might lose the chance to hear and influence other Anglicans, and other Christians beyond, if it demonstrates that it prefers to ignore them. What can one say to those see expectations of good faith and reciprocity as coercion? Posted by: Rogelio Thursday 15 December 2011 - 07:19pm If the Covenant were not to be approved, the CofE is in danger of ending up as isolated in the Anglican Communion -or the remains thereof- as the UK in the European Union. Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 15 December 2011 - 07:07pm Is that the best he can do? The arguments against follow on very easily. Posted by: Dave Thursday 15 December 2011 - 06:17pm What does "1. It has been consistently supported by the Church of England" mean? If this is the case, why is this despirate campaingn now necessary? Who is the CofE in this context? Perhaps the ABC? How has it been supported? Dave 
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 15 December 2011 - 05:06pm
Dear Friends we have just published 'Anglican Communion Covenant: Ten Reasons for Voting Positively' by Andrew Goddard please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
Life is always more interesting when things don’t go as planned. That alone should make the Anglican Communion Covenant interesting in 2012. General Synod rarely refers matters to dioceses. When it does, it often seems – as with women bishops – a procedural necessity with a foregone positive conclusion. As 2011 closes, the covenant has departed from that script. It has the support of four dioceses but been rejected by four dioceses. At least 23 of the 44 dioceses must support it for it to return to General Synod for final approval. The 2012 diocesan synod debates are therefore crucial. To resource these, Fulcrum has recently collated various articles and produced a short “Churchgoer’s Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant”. This concludes with the following ten reasons to support the covenant.