Are TEC already non-Covenant compliant?
OK. Firstly, Lambeth ’98 1.10 says:
2 – in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;
4 – while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture…
and the new draft covenant says:
5 – The Lambeth Conference, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressing episcopal collegiality worldwide, gathers the bishops for common counsel, consultation and encouragement and serves as an instrument in guarding the faith and unity of the Communion.
and also says:
3.1 – Each church commits itself to uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, biblically derived moral values and the vision of humanity received by and developed in the communion of member Churches
I think that pretty well says that the Lambeth Conference in 1998 has already ruled on what biblical morality is. Given the evidence that TEC has gone ahead in allowing same-sex blessings and consecrating a man who is in a homosexual relationship, doesn’t that make TEC already in the position of 6.6?
We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches
Does this means that TEC has already de facto thrown itself out until a process of restoration and renewal is in place? The ACC have already said that TEC were wrong (in 2005), the Primates did in their Dromantine statement (which the ACC picked up and endorsed) so if Canterbury gives them a hand-slap then they’re out surely?
OK, TEC have got to ratify the Covenant, but if they’re already in non-compliance they’re hardly likely to agree to it just to be thrown out. So if they don’t ratify it then they’re outside the Covenantal Communion even before they get kicked out.
Thoughts please…
Peter: Which is precisely why I say that the TEC revisionist party will NEVER agree to be bound by the Covenant as stated. They will not reject it until they have to reject it, so expect them to say for now “well, there are some things we are concerned with, but overall it seems workable”, while planning to cut out those parts they don’t like during the process.
But here’s the thing. This Covenant isn’t addressed to the immediate issues. For this Covenant to have any effect at all, there needs to be a Biblically based Anglican Communion in existence 2-3 years down the road. And that depends on how the Primates respond to the immediate situation. And that we won’t know for….another couple minutes unless there is another delay!
Peter,
My thoughts exactly.
We are definately seeing the ‘chess game’ moving to create a situation within TEC where those who are Lambeth 98 I. 10/Windsor Report/Covenant compliant will be ‘recognised’ as having remained within the historic, catholic and apostolic faith (which will vindicate their appeal against being labelled ‘schismatic’) and those who reject the Covenant (through refusing to sign up or ‘breaking’ it through actions) being ‘allowed’ to continue within their own ‘version’ of Church (which is probably what they want anyway).
As I posted on SF, I think it would read more clearly as follows:
6. We acknowledge that in circumstances where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant, as that substance is understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider, by simple majority decision of the primates, that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required by the primates to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.
Peter,
I would say yes reading this with the glasses of common sense. I would say no If I use TEC’s glasses of context. Those are the specs they will put on!
Peter
thankfully, this simply doesn’t matter any more.
To be honest there is a bit of confusion as always and contridiction. How can you have Katharine Jefferts Schori elected onto the all-important policy-making Standing Committee and yet at the same time herself and TEC to not be in compliance…let alone be able to sign up to the proposed covenant. I think Peter your choice of music videos were very apt in hindsight.
Read the schedule to the comminique
ECUSA has until 30 sep to confirm they neither consecrate or bless gays – or else they are out of the communion, don’t go to lambeth or primates meetings or anything.
Until then, ECUSA must facilitate the establishment of a separate provice with a “proto-primate” – legally within ECUSA until 30 sep – to which any ECUSA parish or diocese can transfer; any impediments whatsoever then ECUSA is out of the communion.
If ECUSA fails at either task, the separate structures are recognised as full provinces and the communion will support legal action for the separate structures to legally leave ECUSA
Whats more: similar provision MUST be made in all other revisionist provinces, including the CoE.
THE REALIGHMENT HAS BEGUN TODAY!
And if TEC says, “Oh, yes, but of course” and her bishops go on just as they are? Don’t doubt that it could happen. In the light ofTEC’s past history, why should any credence be given to their word?
This just spins things out further and further becsuse the Primates as a grioup are unwilling to recognize that TEC will do exactly as it wishes regardless of what is said by them or anyone else.
Meanwhile, the steady falling away of faithful US Anglicans to Rome. the Baptists, the Orthodox, or just plain despair continues. By the time the Primates finally get around to recognizing TEC for what it is, there will be no orthodox Christians left in that body at all.