Presiding Bishop Wants To Stifle GC2009’s Consideration Of The Convenant

Read it all. It is a terribly good thing to note, however, that the PB has absolutely no control about what resolutions are presented to the convention. As a deputy, I have the right to propose three resolutions myself. My standing committee also would have the right to propose such a resolution before GC2009, and I think it is a safe bet that we would propose one. Will it get out of committee? Who knows, but the deputies can pass a resolution to recall a resolution from committee and bring it to the floor. Any such “nay” actions on the resolution will constitute a rejection of the covenant, then opening the door to Dioceses affirming the same.

It will be an interesting convention, to be sure.

10 Responses to “Presiding Bishop Wants To Stifle GC2009’s Consideration Of The Convenant”


  1. 1 Joe Roberts October 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    KJS’s response is no surprise. Her rationale for not addressing the expected March 2009 final draft – – that we will need more time for comprehensive study – – is absurd, however. The entire Communion, including TEC, has been studying the Covenant Drafts since the Nassau Draft was introduced at the time of The Windsor Report’s release. The final draft will not likely be substantially different from the St. Michael’s Draft. What KJS is not saying, but what is the truth, is that TEC’s current leadership will not sign on to any Covenant that contains any obligation of conformity to Communion wide decisions on theology and practice, or that includes provisions for disciplining those who fail to comply with Communion determinations of such matters. Absolute TEC autonomy is the holy grail for TEC’s leadership and their only interest in The Anglican Communion is to attempt to preserve the illusion of Anglican legitimacy.

    It is important for orthodox deputies to press the issue of Covenant approval at GC 2009 even though the effort with not get to first base. Ultimately though, what is important is that TEC leaders be forced to push away from a Covenant when other Provinces are signing onto it. By pushing away, TEC leaders will be demonstrating that it is they who are (and have been)”walking apart”.

    What is critically important though is for the ACC to include a provision that allows individual dioceses to adopt and commit to the Covenant and thereby achieve “full communion status” with the See of Canterbury, whether their Province does so or not.

    As you say, this is going to be an interesting convention.

    God’s peace.

  2. 2 Creighton+ October 22, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Brad,

    Certainly, you and your diocese can make resolutions, but you know that they are not likely to get out of committee. Also, let’s look at what is coming down the pike. The PB and company will do every thing they can to make it easier to depose anyone (bishop or priest) who does not accept the party line. Even criticism or a different theology will not be tolerated. There will be no place for those who hold to a traditional understanding of the catholic faith. Many already realize just how bad matters are. But there are still those who hope that it can hold together. GC09 will be a shocking blow for those. Their hopes will be dashed. But there will always be some hold out who will not accept the facts on the ground.

    Still, do what you can and prepare for the worse. The war as well as the battle is the Lord’s.

  3. 3 Mike October 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    “Absolute TEC autonomy is the holy grail for TEC’s leadership and their only interest in The Anglican Communion is to attempt to preserve the illusion of Anglican legitimacy.”

    Joe Allen hit the bullseye with this. I quintuple dawg dare absolutely any revisionist in TEO to refute this statement, which ought to be inscribed above the doors at 815 2nd Avenue.

  4. 4 Mike October 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    …er…. Joe Roberts for the above. Apologies.

  5. 5 Kenneth L. Jones October 22, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    It never ceases to amaze me that so many conservatives still remain in The Episcopal Church, trying to reform it from within. Sadly, and even though I praise their efforts, I’m afraid that those efforts are proving to be useless.

    Schori and Company will never agree to any covenant which provides procedures for disciplining a wayward province, and their stance proves that for all intents and purposes, they are clearly intent on going their separate way; even to the point of declaring that they are a separate communion.

  6. 6 robroy October 22, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Individual dioceses can sign on but the other measures that will be passed will make them absolutely moot. Expect the PB to have the power to excommunicate laity for thinking wrong thoughts (which is what they got Bp Duncan for). The Dennis Canon will be changed from all property is held for the diocese and the national church to just the national church.

  7. 7 Joe Roberts October 22, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    First a correction to my earlier post. The second draft of the proposed Anglican covenant is entitled “The St. Andrew’s Draft” and not St. Michael’s. I have St. Michael’s on my mind because I was re-reading a theological report of the Bishop’s of the Anglican Church of Canada entitled “The St. Michael’s Report” from 2006 that concluded that human sexuality was not a matter of “core doctrine” for Anglicans thereby clearing the way for that province to vote on sanctioning same sex blessings.

    Secondly, in response to Kenneth, though I believe that some conservatives would like to believe that TEC can be reformed from within, very few of us actually do believe that. For conservatives who believe that there is value to being “Anglican”, and Anglican in the historic sense, that is, tied most directly to the fountainhead of Anglicanism – – The Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the struggle to preserve that historic tie is worth the effort to see the Windsor Process to its conclusion. And, nothing would please me more than for the progressive leadership of TEC to be honest and admit that they have no desire to be a part of the world

  8. 8 Joe Roberts October 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Continuing my last post (I was interrupted and hit send prematurely)

    … wide Anglican Communion and that they were forthwith establishing a new “church”. But, for the reason that I stated in my earlier post, that is not going to happen. TEC desparately wants to be able claim the legitimacy that being the “Anglican brand” in the United States provides.

    So, for some conservatives (often referred to as “Communion conservatives”) the process to attempt to preserve the historic communion and the catholic order that goes with it, argues against adopting a “I’m taking my ball and going to play elsewhere” approach. For Communion conservatives, that the effort may ultimately fail is not the point, seeing the process through is the point. Only God knows the right path, and until He reveals that path to us, we each do our best.

    God’s peace.

  9. 9 BabyBlue October 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    That was then, Brad. She’s getting the Executive Council behind her. If she is unsuccessful in blocking the Covenant, then it will indicate to the rest of us that she has a power struggle on her hands.

    bb

  10. 10 Floridian October 22, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    The GenCon method of running a church makes my stomach turn…look at the results in both TEC and the UMC…all the politicking, etc. is too much like an election with deals, power-mongering and compromising things that shouldn’t be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: