Sunday, April 26, 2009

A Resolution on the Anglican Covenant


TITLE: Provisional Acceptance of the Anglican Covenant

Resolved, the House of _____________ concurring, that this 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church make a provisional commitment to abide by the terms of the Anglican Covenant proposed in the most recent text of the Covenant Design Group (the “Cambridge-Ridley” draft); and be it further

Resolved, that the text of the proposed covenant be commended to the various dioceses of this church for study and comment during the coming triennium; and be it further

Resolved, that the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies appoint a Special Task Force to determine what constitutional and/or canonical measures may be necessary in order to make a permanent commitment to the Covenant; and be it further

Resolved, that this Special Task Force prepare a report to the 77th General Convention of the Episcopal Church that includes draft legislation that could be considered should the convention decide to make a permanent commitment to the Covenant.

More-

http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2009/04/resolution-on-anglican-covenant.html

8 comments:

Bruce Robison said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Robison said...

Sorry for the delete above. An error in the cut-and-paste dept. Some have asked what it would look like to follow the first Resolved of this resolution, and to me it really centers on this key section of the Ridley Cambridge draft of the Covenant:

3.2.5: to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.

3.2.6: in situations of conflict, to participate in mediated conversations, which involve face to face meetings, agreed parameters and a willingness to see such processes through.

3.2.7: to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.

Thanks,

BruceR

Andy Muhl said...

Bruce+,
I am struggling with a recent post on Dan Martins+'s blog. Following his publication of the resolution, his next entry, containing criticism that I largely agree with, features this stunning quote, "Of course, I know it's the faux Diocese of San Joaquin that is making this announcement."

The "faux" diocese?

Now I know his strong stated position on the San Joaquin position but given the similarities between the situations in Pittsburgh and SJ, I would have to believe that he considers you, and me, and Jim+, etc., to be members of the "faux" Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Are the situations different enough that we are not "faux" in his opinion? I know that you cannot answer for him, but for me and many other Episcopalians, it kills much of his credibility and raises interesting questions about his motivation for such a resolution.

My additional struggle is that the resolution asks "Episcopal Church make a provisional commitment to abide by the terms of the Anglican Covenant" which, in my opinion, sets it up to fail. Quotes I have read from individual members of the drafting committee show that even the authors are not in complete agreement with, or do not fully understand, the scope of the covenant. How then can convention agree to sign on?

I agree with your three key points above but there are many, many more that require careful consideration.

Andy Muhl

Celinda Scott said...

The fact that Jim Simons+ clearly said at the October 2008 diocesan convention that he was opposed to the diocese's departure from TEC, the appointment by him of 2 additional members of the Standing Committee, and that committee's recognition by The Episcopal Church as the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese put Pittsburgh's situation in a different light from San Joaquin's. Has Martin+ directly commented on that?

PseudoPiskie said...

I would be more supportive of the Covenant if the aforementioned applied to people who persecute LGBTs. The Nigerian and Ugandan churches, among others, are simply unChristian and need to be named as such. Following Jesus means more than "belief", adherence to long outdated opinions of the Bible, subjugation of women and the exclusion/condemnation of people we find repugnant. The Covenant also prevents prophesy - the ability of the Holy Spirit to teach us new things. When consensus is required, prophesy is stifled.

Daniel Martins said...

Re Andy Muhl's question: I think Celinda Scott basically gets it right. I see substantial differences in the situations between San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. In Pittsburgh there was Standing Committee continuity, with no outside interference from the Presiding Bishop. I see the TEC Diocese of Pittsburgh as fully legitimate. (For the record, I see the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh" headed by Bishop Duncan as also fully legitimate; they're bot hewn from the same rock.) The "Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin", by contrast, is in violation of constitution ad canons in too many ways to enumerate here (see back blogs on Anglican Curmudgeon for details). It is born entirely of the Presiding Bishop's illicit exercise of power.

Bruce Robison said...

I appreciate and agree with Dan's comment here, and I would note my own similar concerns with the San Joaquin situation. Here in Pittsburgh we worked with great care to assure that our transition "within" the Episcopal Church was conducted in accordance with both our diocesan and our national Constitution and Canons. The interventions and improvisations in San Joaquin I believe will be damaging to the long-term spirit of good order in our common life in the Episcopal Church--expedient though they may have seemed to many at the time.

Per "PseudoPiskie," I would just say that I believe it is absolutely essential for us to sit down with our brothers and sisters of the Nigerian Church. That won't be easy, as both sides will need to approach the table with some humility and restraint. Might we go first?

BruceR

PseudoPiskie said...

TEC has gone first. In most situations we have refused to bless relationships between LGBT people brought together by God. We have refused to allow LGBT people to act on God's call to ministry. Rather than act on Jesus's call to love all, we exclude those whose lifestyle causes us discomfort because we don't understand it. We don't seem to understand Jesus's message.

We could at least speak out against those who would punish LGBTs for being who God created them to be. We coddle them instead.

My brother's family attended church faithfully when they lived in Pittsburgh years ago. Now they all wonder how I can be part of an institution which denies the teachings of the person they claim to follow.