Pope Rowan.

Pope Rowan? http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/06/someone-should-remove-him.html You might very well think so. This is precisely the Curial tendency that many of us on the Scottish Synod were wary of in discussions on the Covenant. The fact that the ABC has authorised action of a disciplinary nature BEFORE anyone has signed up to the Covenant will (I hope and trust) lead to it's vehement rejection by the SEC.

In response: I bake brownies and bread and pray for our Synod which meets tomorrow.

The Anglican Covenant - at least we know what we're going to be voting on.

No comment from me on the actual text at this time, but it is worth reading what Rowan Williams said in his video message that came with it. My own comments are in bold!

"The covenant text sets out the basis on which the Anglican family works and prays and lives and hopes. The bulk of the text identifies what we hold in common, the ground on which we stand as Anglicans. It’s about the gift we’ve been given as a Church and the gift we’ve been given specifically as the Anglican Communion. All those things we give thanks for, we affirm together, and we resolve together to safeguard and to honour. (it's bland and unexceptionable, so no problems with sections 1-3)

The last bit of the Covenant text is the one that's perhaps been the most controversial, because that’s where we spell out what happens if relationships fail or break down. It doesn’t set out, as I’ve already said, a procedure for punishments and sanctions. (Really?) It does try and sort out how we will discern the nature of our disagreement, how important is it? How divisive does it have to be? Is it a Communion breaking issue that’s in question - or is it something we can learn to live with? And so in these sections of the covenant what we’re trying to do is simply to give a practical, sensible and Christian way of dealing with our conflicts, recognising that they’re always going to be there. (If it doesn't actually DO anything, WTF have we been wasting the last few years drafting? And why bother signing up to it?)

So what happens next? This Covenant is being sent to all the member Churches of the Anglican Communion. Each church will, within its own processes, decide how to handle it, and by the next meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in three years time (ANOTHER 3 YEARS OF ANGST! NOOOOO!!) we hope that many provinces will already have said yes to this and adopted it into their own understanding and identity. Clearly the process won’t all be over by then, but we’re hoping to see some enthusiasm, (dream on!) some general adoption of the principles. We hope to see a new kind of relationship emerging. (Oh, it already is!!) We hope to see people agreeing to these ways of resolving our conflicts .(I rather doubt it mush!)

Beyond that, what’s going to happen? It’s hard to say as yet, but the Covenant text itself does make it clear that at some point it’ll be open to other bodies, other Ecclesial bodies as they’re called, other Churches and communities to adopt this Covenant, and be considered for incorporation into the Anglican Communion. (So we can reabsorb all those Conservative Yanks and their pals who legged it in Continuing Anglicanism over women in Orders, the Prayer Book and gays - why am I ever so slightly underwhelmed by this idea?) Meanwhile, it’s open to anybody that wishes to affirm the principles of the Covenant - to say that this is what they wish to live with.

So in the next few years we expect to see quite a bit of activity around this. (No s**t Sherlock?) We hope, as I’ve said, that many provinces will feel able to adopt this. We hope that many other bodies will affirm the vision that’s set out here, and that in the long run this will actually help us to become more of a communion - more responsible for each other, presenting to the world a face of mutual understanding, patience, charity and gratitude for one another. In other words, we hope and pray that the Covenant for the Anglican Communion will be a truly effective tool for witness and mission in our world."

I really wonder if anyone with half a brain is actually going to vote for this. Of course some will, especially if they're told it's the only show in town for keeping in Communion with the Global South (liberal guilt is a serious motivator). I'm not impressed. The SEC had strong and historic links with the US, India and South Africa before the 1st Lambeth Conference. Those can and will be maintained. I suspect it won't fly in Scotland because we let a wider proportion of the laity discuss and debate these issues than in the C of E. The threat of an effect on our relationship with the English Church might sway some. But the question is this: if we don't sign ,will the free traffic of clergy between Scotland and England be affected? If not, then it has zero practical impact and ought to be ignored. If it does, then we face a tricky problem about recruiting clergy to staff charges and that might be a factor to consider. But personally I suspect we 'll find plenty of Yanks and Cannucks to replace the English, so we could live with that in an age of global communication.

Lambeth gets back to us!

This little nugget tickled my fancy when I saw it on an American Episcopal priest's blog site:

V - "I hear that the ++ABofC will speak on Human Rights at the Tutu center in NYC Jan 26th."

R - "I would as soon listen to Tiger Woods speaking on Family Values."

Oh dear, one fears the ABC's voice on matters of human rights might be rather ignored across the Communion for the rest of his tenure. The email sent in reply to those of us who contacted Lambeth Palace is so-so.

Thank you for your message and for taking the trouble to write about this deeply painful issue.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is very clear that the Private Member’s Bill being discussed in Uganda as drafted is entirely unacceptable from a pastoral, moral and legal point of view. It is a cause of deep concern, fear and, to many, outrage. The Archbishop has publicly stated that “the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it can be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades”.

For its part the Church of Uganda has clearly restated its opposition to the death penalty. As the Ugandan Church continues to formulate its position on the bill as a whole, the Archbishop has been working intensively behind the scenes (over the past weeks) to ensure that there is clarity on how the proposed bill is contrary to Anglican teaching.

Comments I think are due: "this deeply painful issue" - actually, there were two - did my email get read by anyone?

Para 1: He is indeed very clear- but it took him weeks to say anything and when he did, it wasn't a statement, it was an indirect comment via a favoured journalist. It's not the lack of clarity that was the problem, it was the delay.

Para 2: "continues to formulate it's position" This Bill has been extant for 3 months. Just exactly how long does it take the CoU to work out its position? Their official spokesman spoke out in favour of the bill if the death penalty was withdrawn. It's position is pretty clear - or was until they back pedalled to a "still studying" position (which quite possibly came about due to pressure from the ABC). And that position, my dear Archbishop, was never jumped on within 12 hours as the American election was. This e-mail is a politicians reply - answering half the question and ignoring the bit that bites. Not really satisfactory.

It looks to me as if the Covenant is kaput because the very Instruments that will decide who is good and who is bad (Lambeth Conference, Primates, ACC and ABC) are inherently skewed to favour the Global South and its Bishops over anything that smacks of liberalism. And that I do not think should rule the SEC. As far as the Covenant goes, Include Me Out.

The Anglican Covenant critiqued.

Check this article out:


http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2009/11/brazil-on-anglican-covenant.html

Who says only nuts come from Brazil? This is an excellent analysis of the Covenant and its deficiencies. The 1st 3 sections are so unexceptionable that they are pointless and section 4 is a new and not very Anglican kind of Church. Well done the Brazzies! You are not just footballing geniuses!

A good week-end.

Indeed it was. Saturday night was spent munching asparagus risotto and tarte au chocolate whilst watching "Strictly Come Dancing". Remembrance Sunday went OK with the amusement factor of somebody asking if we could take a retiring collection for the Earl Grey Fund! That is just soo Diocese of Edinburgh! I'm thinking of renaming the Coffee Fund.

Monday was hardly a thrill, with the office Internet not working and then the evening spent discussing the proposed Covenant at St Peter's Lutton Place. Frankly, there appears to be no real enthusiasm for it and most of the folks who had gathered wondered if there is any point in it. Its judicial leanings do not commend it to the mind of the majority in Edinburgh and I suspect that, whilst we will engage with the process, the General Synod will not vote to accept it.

The Tuesday Vestry meeting went well enough, with all business sorted in 2hrs. The trip to the chip shop beforehand was more fun though. And today? Well, prayers for Unity in St Francis Xavier's went well, although only 8 came. and it's confirmation class tonight. Life goes on.

Covenant week approaching.

Now the diocese is getting serious about discussing the proposed Anglican Covenant. The post this morning had all the bumf for the clergy conference - which means we will spend Monday - Wednesday next week talking about it (groan!). That's all very well, but it will only work if there is a turn out from all the different viewpoints. We will do little good if only the liberals turn out: we need the evangelicals to make this discussion worthwhile. Luckily they aren't bad at that in Edinburgh diocese. There is little sense of anyone wanting to split off or hold back - which is positive.

Then on the 10th we gather in St Peter's Lutton Place for an open discussion for anyone who is interested. Again the variety of viewpoints is vital. As is an irenic spirit of willingness to listen. Not the same thing as hearing the words and then catapulting your own point of view at the other side. That's no nearer to dialogue than a meeting of the Zimbabwean parliament!

So my bed time reading will be very Lambeth-ish for the next few days! Ora pro nobis!