Snippets from the conference on the Anglican Covenant, Friday night

Other luminaries will have more astute comments but here are some snippets from the conference. I offer these without much commentary.

First off, Friday night — these are merely my notes from Archbishop Drexel Gomez's keynote.

The polity of Anglican Communion is one of a family of churches. We are not bound together by a central legislative executive authority but by mutual loyalty. We have autonomy in communion. ¶71-86 of Windsor Report (WR) mentions our diversity within communion. ¶76: a body is autonomous only in relations to others. The autonomous entity forms a part. It has a wider obligation to others. Freedom is held within interdependence. Autonomy lies within the context of the global communion. There are legitimate limits on substantive and procedure, the exercise of autonomy. Communion is the fundamental limit to autonomy. Each church and the exercise of its autonomy should consider, promote and respect the common good of Anglican Communion and maintain communion and avoid jeopardizing it by bringing potentially divisive issues before communal discernment.

The crisis continues because we understand that TEC refuses to accept that advice. The present crisis could have been avoided had TEC adopted ¶82 of WR. That course of action was not perceived and the entire Anglican Communion is being negatively impacted. Bonds of affection are strained or are broken. It is perceived that TEC is engaging in theological innovation, trying to impose a bold agenda on gay marriage and toleration of it across the communion. Others say the primates are imposing a papacy.

Positions have become polarized since publication of WR. Everyone claims to have real spirit of Anglicanism that is truthful, orthodox etc.

The covenant proposal to restore mutuality. It is not to define new Anglicanism or peddle a narrow or exclusive view of Anglicanism but to state the faith that we have all inherited together so that there can be a new confidence that we are all about the same mission. A covenant is the most appropriate mechanism of holding us together. Anglican Covenant proposal is to rebuild trust so that we will be able to reaffirm that we do believe the same thing and we can live in a trusted community.

WR would articulate the bonds of affection and would make explicit what is implicit.

The St Andrew's draft provides clarity on faith and the commitments that should accompany that faith. The covenant process provides Anglicans an opportunity to see covenants in the ecumenical realm.

A covenant is a visible foundation around which Anglicans can gather to protect their identity and mission and provide a resource for our ecumenical partners. A covenant reasserts our Anglican identity. It is impossible to say what Anglicanism is about right now. There is confusion on what we are meant to be. The present crisis has seriously damaged our relationship with Roman Catholic partners. The prresent draft covenant seeks to provide an answer.

A church [within the Anglican Communion] cannot proceed unilaterally. A covenant is opportunity not reaction. While other Christian world communions are growing together and turning to a model of interdependence, we in the Anglican Communion are being tempted to pursue a course of self-destruction. There is a choice between the catholic view of the church and a protestant model of the church. ‘We know what is right and we don’t care what other churches do.’ Do we want to be an Anglican Covenant or do we want to disintegrate? We have a choice between being a communion or a federation of churches. If we do not survive as a communion, there will not be the trust to survive as a federation. A covenant is the only mechanism capable of holding us together as a communion if the communion embraces the opportunity.

A covenant would symbolize the trust. Some parts would be susceptible to development. Parties can adjust the disputes. The proposed Anglican Covenant is not intended to calcify the church but to move away from disputes. The Anglican Communion has invested huge resources to address the presenting issue. These resources could have been available to mission.

Are you willing to engage with a process that seeks to find a common basis for the provinces of the Anglican Communion to move forward together as a communion? We covenant to walk in a shared faith in a shared hope in a communion that God intends us to be.

+

In the questions and answers, Christopher Seitz said he was unsure that any covenant in the context that it is currently being considered, no matter how well intentioned, would actually be able to be effective in managing our disagreements either currently or in the future or be able to give us adequate processes for mutual accountability. Why don’t we actually talk about inter-anglican canon law? I don’t know how the covenant can do what it wants to do.

There is the question that Susan Russell referenced in her posting [ Keynote #1: The Case for an Anglican Covenant], coming from a student at Toronto who signalled Ab Gomez's participation in the recent consecrations in Kenya: I need coherence and this action goes against it..

Ab Gomez answered: I preached at consecration and saw to fulfill a pastoral need and they could no longer be part of TEC and were seeking some part. I was not representing my province; I was preaching as friend. It was a public event. Q: That goes against WR.
A: I have never participated in any act of crossing boundaries. Several dioceses are seeking refuge in the Southern Cone. I have consistently opposed that.

Another question was: A sign of trust can be seen in a province’s willingness to participate in a covenant. Canada's General Synod has disagreements with parts in it. The questionner was puzzled by lack of response to draft 1. Why is there a lack of engagement from the Global South?

DG: I raised it with leadership of Global South. I chided them over their lack of engagement. At the Tigali meeting, I got a firm commitment to engaging with the process.

+

I think the line that got me the most was the one about TEC 'trying to impose a bold agenda on gay marriage' and the usual bit about not consulting with the rest of the communion about that which was never explicitly mentioned by name, the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, despite the fact that he was sitting in the very room where this conference was going on!

A propos of whom, I am now headed off to a clergy/spice/parish leader evening with Gene Robinson, sponsored by the Diocese of Vermont.

So more will come later.