tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post8528341354691530198..comments2024-02-15T03:32:25.686-05:00Comments on Preludium, Anglican and Episcopal futures: The Anglican Covenant: One Flamingo out of Five (redux -again)Mark Harrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-39345314525483089972011-06-13T14:26:25.866-04:002011-06-13T14:26:25.866-04:00Point--
Re: Two step. The covenant is not a new d...Point--<br /><br />Re: Two step. The covenant is not a new document in the sense you imply. It describes what the Communion has understood itself to be based upon its own formal statements. Fully in the public record and part of a social discourse that can be consulted and sifted and given proportion.<br /><br />What is new is attempting to state this in summary form at a time when the Communion is broken and trying to determine whether its has a future public form.<br /><br />Re: what would be withheld. I suspect for many like Mr Brunson nothing whatsoever. A great many American Episcopalians would reflexively describe themselves as belong to a denomination. They believe this is both true and desirable. With this understanding, nothing is withheld and everything is to be gained by autonomous life.<br /><br />If one wants to belong to a Communion (where orders, communion itself, missionary work, and esp ecumenical progress is part of that) then the covenant offers a modus vivendi those in Anglicanism and ecumenical partners want and need. <br /><br />But one can easily decide that these are not important things or not high priorities or can be pursued in other, better ways. <br /><br />So, e.g., if one believes that there are TEC priorities that give it a special identity (e.g., open communion; a unique baptismal covenant notion; SSBs; BCP revision) then this could be worked out together with likeminded friends throughout the world and in likeminded ecumenical discussions. The covenant would probably be too slow and constraining--or even roadblocking--if such is ones understanding of the goals of a TEC denomination.<br /><br />A true liberalism would accept that change is being called for and allow those dioceses which wish to covenant on the terms of the present document to do so.<br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-84881699321971264352011-06-13T11:46:52.665-04:002011-06-13T11:46:52.665-04:00Franklin,
I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear....Franklin,<br /><br />I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear. I’m not looking for the definition of “communion life” found in the proposed covenant, I’m trying to understand what would be withheld if a province declines to sign on.<br /><br />I think, regardless of ones view on this document, a covenant IS a new idea in Anglican thought and should be given the most serious consideration. But, I think that what should be two steps (consideration of a covenanted relationship, followed by a proposed covenant) has been conflated into one step (approve this covenant). <br /><br />I don't think the "Windsor Process" was the kind of consideration of a new idea I have in mind. In any event, they didn't think very long about it and certainly didn’t include the variety of views such an idea would merit.<br /><br />Anglican tradition would suggest a two step approach to permit scripture, tradition and reason a chance to find voice. The process to date has felt hurried (hustled?) without adequate consideration to the voices that suggest a change this significant requires restraint, rather than haste.<br /><br />I accept that some of these terms are indefinite, but that’s no reason (there’s that word again) to adopt such a radical change in what feels very much like a one step process.Point of Orderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11197275383322593717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-20838120935589577602011-06-11T15:30:33.339-04:002011-06-11T15:30:33.339-04:00Bless your heart, you do live in a funny world of ...Bless your heart, you do live in a funny world of your own making!<br /><br />I am in a thriving diocese. Big churches and growth. A diocese which will not accept SSBs or a BCP which mainstreams them. This is also the position of the vast majority of the Communion (you know, that fake reality). The diocese is not going anywhere, and neither am I. <br /><br />So it will have to be excised, thrown out. Good luck.<br /><br />Angry? Not in the least. Grateful.<br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-4876584307539000462011-06-11T02:42:34.204-04:002011-06-11T02:42:34.204-04:00I hear your anger and hostility.
It's mispla...I hear your anger and hostility. <br /><br />It's misplaced. <br /><br />Whether you wish it or not, the Episcopal Church you knew, or believed to be, is no longer. You simply are not an Episcopalian. TEC has not always held to this view, and to say otherwise is simple misunderstanding. There was no Anglican Communion when the Episcopal Church started. There has never been a world-wide Anglican church. <br /><br />You may continue to remain in the Episcopal Church, but you are going to continue to be unhappy and angry and feel betrayed. There are denominations that believe what you espouse who would welcome you. <br /><br />You have to realize for yourself what it means that you refuse to go to one of them and stay here declaiming your anger and pain. I understand - for the years that TEC held to the understanding that homosexuality was disordered, I - and many others - accepted that burden and shouldered it with great pain and regret, but did so willingly, without trying to whip up a church-within-a-church to accomodate me. I was not one of those active in changing that view, though I welcomed the change and saw that it reflected my own understanding, thought deviated from it in many particulars, as well. Still, I stay. Not to demand a pocket of "my way," but because I chose and will it. Not to agitate or revolutionize, but to bear witness. If I am right, the general mood will bear me out, if not, I will either stay and accept the changes or lack thereof, or leave if it becomes unbearable to my conscience. <br /><br />I also bear the pain, as most of us do, of being accused of apostasy, or heresy, or betrayal. That's something that <i>you</i> are doing, right now, whether you mean to or not. I bear the pain of hearing you and those like you declare that you will stay and continue to berate and humiliate and belittle us, which you do, whether you mean to or not. I could turn my back on the whole mess - no one needs to be Episcopalian or even a church-goer to belong to God. Yet, I feel that God still calls me here and so makes me better off, spiritually.<br /><br />You are worse off, you and your conscience suffering and no return for it, apparently. So ask yourself why you really are staying - is it devotion, or merely pride?MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-89329821776743637242011-06-10T10:54:03.268-04:002011-06-10T10:54:03.268-04:00"I don't care if we are in an Anglican Co..."I don't care if we are in an Anglican Communion or not - it's a completely made-up, man-made thing that has no meaning anymore."<br /><br />I do and so will hold to the view that TEC always has as well, until recently. <br /><br />I am not going anywhere. <br /><br />You are, as you clearly state above.<br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-28116604878101657452011-06-10T00:56:36.947-04:002011-06-10T00:56:36.947-04:00Franklin,
It's like talking to a recording.
...Franklin,<br /><br />It's like talking to a recording.<br /><br />Seriously.<br /><br />You <i>do</i> realize that simply repeating pat phrases and unexplained beliefs is not conversation, yes?<br /><br />Again, in love, I tell you, you'd be better off elsewhere. I don't care if we are in an Anglican Communion or not - it's a completely made-up, man-made thing that has no meaning anymore, if it ever did. It does nothing practical that a social service organization couldn't do more efficiently and with broader appeal, and, at present, blocks the ability to work with others in seeking Christ and working out our own salvation. <br /><br />Now, I understand that you don't feel that way - so, you're really not an Episcopalian, are you? You may be Anglican, if the ABC-in-office chooses to call you such, but you're not part of <i>this</i> church. Why stay? You hurt yourself, you hurt us. There's no good in it. No God in it. Go. Call yourself Anglican. Walk through the snow and sit outside Canossa, or Lambeth or wherever. I bless you! Really, I do! <br /><br />But this communion has no power we don't give it, and we choose not to give it that power. This isn't love that holds us in ransom to others' desires, mere legalism, and, thus, not of God. We want no part of that. Why would we, when actual communion through Christ is hampered by giving it that power? <br /><br /><i>We</i> will always be in communion with you, regardless of your decisions to exclude us or this allegedly-new thing (a tired and facetious expression I wish you folks would examine before continuing to use). You can't block us from Christ, you can't claim the copyrights on the Holy Spirit, you can't take blessings away from us, and <b>those</b> things are all that matter. <br /><br />A powerless church is a full blessing to all of us, because then it truly takes on the nature of Christ, the Incarnation of God Who chose powerlessness. It is a blessing because then it can't make change by mere fiat, but must earn that respect and obedience, speaking - as our savior did - as one with authority, not simply assuming it's own authority. I praise God for a church that can no longer demand secular law to intervene against those it judges wrong. I praise God for a church that cannot deny a legal burial or marriage, or birth!<br /><br />Now, we must <i>earn</i> peoples' attention and goodwill, as our savior did. We must <i>prove</i> our wisdom, as our savior did. And, not being God ourselves, we must admit when we are wrong and those traditions and words in which we placed our all-too-fallible hope and faith in are wrong. <br /><br />That is a blessing, not a sign of decadence, weakness and failure. Any weak fool can survive surrounded by power, but the powerless must have real strength and wisdom to survive.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-48983268080990009682011-06-09T17:50:04.691-04:002011-06-09T17:50:04.691-04:00Sorry, POO does not look like a polite way to shor...Sorry, POO does not look like a polite way to shorten 'Point of Order.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-80319443939936457152011-06-09T13:46:47.469-04:002011-06-09T13:46:47.469-04:00POO--with all respect, please read the covenant it...POO--with all respect, please read the covenant itself. It describes communion life. This consists of mutual submission in Christ. It also enables recognizibility for ecumenical work. Communion life means life in communion with one another in an 80 M member body. At present that is incapacitated. <br /><br />Does this help at all? <br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-10502105896018842222011-06-09T11:34:24.083-04:002011-06-09T11:34:24.083-04:00Franklin,
I think I understand some of what you s...Franklin,<br /><br />I think I understand some of what you say regarding liberalism, and I find soemthing new to think about in your words. Thank you.<br /><br />However, I am still unclear about the "communion life" that would be witheld without adoption of the covenant in this form.Point of Orderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11197275383322593717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-77219938466645016462011-06-09T09:44:20.849-04:002011-06-09T09:44:20.849-04:00Some believe the covenant protects the anglicanism...Some believe the covenant protects the anglicanism that has heretofore been tacit. It conserves what is.<br /><br />Others believe the covenant creates a new thing.<br /><br />The first group believes that TEC has created a new thing, precisely because they themslves say so!<br /><br />So the first group simply does not wish to join in the new thing experiment of TEC, and prefers a covenant which conserves the status quo ante, now giving it proper form. Indeed that is why it was requested.<br /><br />So, a genuine liberalism would grant that because it seeks to do a new thing, it also wishes to guard the consciences of those who want to preserve the anglican communion via a covenant. I simply doubt such a genuine liberalism exists.<br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-89366657728424035292011-06-09T00:25:58.581-04:002011-06-09T00:25:58.581-04:00I'm not sure that libertarianism is, in fact, ...I'm not sure that libertarianism <i>is</i>, in fact, condemned in the NT - perhaps you mean libertinism? <br /><br />If you wish such a tight-knit, legally-parsed communion, again, the RCC and EO faiths do it better and already have it in place without having to hammer away at and upset the majority of others quite settled in the loose confederation model. <br /><br />Do keep in mind, Franklin, that the Great Commission was to Christians, not Anglicans, so, if you are going to take the view that all must be doing the same thing with the same understanding to do that Commission, then you have little hope, as all the various Christian denominations are never going to be one legally-distinct entity again. It is the nature of a living thing to grow and divide; this is why I can tell you, in love, you'd be better off elsewhere - I can't say to the foot or the hand "I don't need you," but I can tell a foot trying to type a novel it's not where it needs to be. I believe we are in Communion, no matter where you go, or which denomination you join, as that Communion is through Christ, not Canterbury, Rome, New York, Constantinople, or Atlanta, GA! In the meantime, this is a meaningless and unnecessary fight. I can speak as one who submitted to the perceived majority without demanding a special dispensation for my sexuality or theology in TEC. There are still things I disagree with, but I don't demand to be allowed a pocket church which still calls itself Episcopal.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-39931973802455145812011-06-08T14:11:11.936-04:002011-06-08T14:11:11.936-04:00The Communion life as described in the Covenant. P...The Communion life as described in the Covenant. Probably 12-15 Dioceses in TEC have no problem with that and indeed believe it is as Christ would have them, as consistent with this church in its BCP identity. It also means recognisibility as a communion, instead of a 'World Federation' of national chuches as in Lutheranism (or Calvinism).<br /><br />What others see as some radical new thing, others accept as a clarification of where anglicanism finds its identity s a world-wide missional Communion.<br /><br />Liberalism is the term I intended. Not libertarianism (condemned in the NT).<br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-7879350875022793362011-06-08T08:17:55.428-04:002011-06-08T08:17:55.428-04:00Franklin,
Could you elaborate on the "commun...Franklin,<br /><br />Could you elaborate on the "communion life" that would be witheld without adoption of the covenant in this form?<br /><br />And just for the record, What you describe as "liberalism," allowing individual dioceses to agree to the covenant, is a bit more like "libertarianism." The latter value is, I believe, foreign to churches which follow our model of governance.Point of Orderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11197275383322593717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-85433063929788180822011-06-08T05:36:42.945-04:002011-06-08T05:36:42.945-04:00Sorry about the length of the last post, but these...Sorry about the length of the last post, but these are things that need airing out.<br /><br />I'm sorry, too, but I just am not convince by being told how <i>hard</i> it is to leave TEC - of course it's hard; it's a matter of conscience and religious belief. If you thought following Christ would be easy, you chose the wrong God. Believe me, it's not <i>easy</i> for us to be rejected, reviled - however subtly or what face of "brotherly concern" is put on it. It's not <i>easy</i> for us to be slapped down and denied by the Archbishop we have tried to help maintain this communion. It's not <i>easy</i> for us to see the absolutely vile things said about us from the global south and - when they think they're in safe company - by our own conservative "brothers" and "sisters" here and in the UK. We really are suffering for what we believe, too, though I can't expect you to understand or believe that.<br /><br />Ah, for the good old days when the strongest, loudest and most violent could just knock a few heretical heads together, bloody a few noses, burn a few opponents and there'd be God's Peace again, huh?MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-78860809851443288172011-06-08T05:12:40.489-04:002011-06-08T05:12:40.489-04:00Franklin,
The answer is for them to find someplac...Franklin,<br /><br />The answer is for them to find someplace . . . someplace else . . . that accommodates this traditionalist view.<br /><br />It isn't terribly convincing to cry out about consciences being oppressed, being forced to give up this, that or the other, when others have done it before. I don't see that there is any crisis of conscience is switching to the Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Baptist or conservative Lutheran, or ACNA or what-have-you. Go with God. If there is an equitable settlement to be made, repayment of your paid tithes, whatever, that I heartily support - a gift given with stipulations is not a gift. <br /><br />Now, I will undoubtedly be told I don't care about you, I'm telling you get out, all this - fine, believe it if you like. I will say that the conservatives have absolutely no difficulty telling the <i>majority</i> in TEC that we are not wanted and to get out. I will also point out that it is not the progressive side of the church who is demanding uniformity or isolation to escape the taint of perceived heresy - we can live with you, but not you with us. <br /><br />As for "conciliar," this proposed covenant is only "conciliar" if you have a purple shirt or good reason to expect one. If that is your notion of good governance, again - the Roman Catholics and Orthodox do it already, have done it long enough to have it down pat, and didn't <i>just start</i> doing it within the last century. No foreign prelate hath jurisdiction in this land is pretty much a founding statement of Anglicanism, so we needn't apologize for being the innovators in <i>not</i> wanting a bishops' council making decisions for all of us, the world over, especially when they are so very, very fallible. It's no good arguing the Holy-Spirit-put-them-there-yadda-yadda, because the Holy Spirit, through Baptism, put <i>us</i> here to guide and be part of the Body, too. Colors'n'collars don't get you a special pass, just more responsibilities - that's the cross of those who claim the privilege of episcopacy - and priesthood and baptized ministry, for that matter.<br /><br />As for "catholic," if you mean a centralized authority all under one praxis and dogma - nope! That's just government, that's all. If you mean a universality in which we recognize that we worship the same God and persist in actual bonds <b>of affection</b> rather than law - even when we say "I hate you!" and refuse to talk to each other - that is, indeed, catholicity and is, indeed, Church. The rest is the same tired attempts to exercise temporal power.MarkBrunsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16971990948866488080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-14625535915551590522011-06-07T10:32:40.693-04:002011-06-07T10:32:40.693-04:00Answer: So that the covenant life cannot be withhe...Answer: So that the covenant life cannot be withheld due to geography. Some dioceses wish to belong to a communion on the terms of the covenant; they value communion of accountability and believe in conciliar relationship. They also believe it is what TEC has always been.<br /><br />Those who reject the covenant will say they are wrong, naturally. They will say TEC is on the forefront of a new understanding of many things (baptismal covenant; communion without baptism; same-sex blessing liturgies). Dioceses that do not wish to accept these new understandings -- what will happen to them? The covenant would at least help clarify to the clergy and laity where their identity remains.<br /><br />(The alternative for others has been to form an alternative anglicanism, ACNA, etc.) <br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-27528288971332415492011-06-06T20:34:57.168-04:002011-06-06T20:34:57.168-04:00Franklin,
The document as a whole seems to apply ...Franklin,<br /><br />The document as a whole seems to apply to provinces. Dioceses in TEC are not subject to the kind of "accountability" the covenant suggests. <br /><br />Respectfully, what is the value of a diocese adoptting the covenant in this form without the acoption by the province in which it resides?Point of Orderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11197275383322593717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-5864062500361891852011-06-06T18:53:52.772-04:002011-06-06T18:53:52.772-04:00One sees many diocese in TEC saying firmly No. But...One sees many diocese in TEC saying firmly No. But others, a smaller group, saying Yes. <br />A true liberalism would allow both positions to be represented. If GenConv is determined to be the means for Yea or Nay, one would hope that allowance would be made for those who wish to covenant to do so, at the diocesan level. But every trend suggests: autonomy and independence for provinces/regions, but not for dioceses within them.<br /><br />FranklinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-91512740676984205182011-06-06T16:43:21.262-04:002011-06-06T16:43:21.262-04:00Thanks for the analysis, Mark.
I've been doin...Thanks for the analysis, Mark.<br /><br />I've been doing a series of posts (20-odd to date) analysing the Covenant from the perspective of Canon Law. My blog should be linked from my name here.<br /><br />Bottom line: the definitions of the faith and mission in sections 1-3 are ambiguous enough that we actually don't need to agree to sign on. This, then, becomes the standard to judge actions of a church in section 4.2, which is an arbitrary and vague process which does not respect the basic requirements of Natural Justice.<br /><br />See my blog for more.<br /><br />Alan T Perry, LLM (Canon Law)Alan T Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11700037716579004059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-43123332763771383482011-06-06T10:29:04.077-04:002011-06-06T10:29:04.077-04:00Mike, Mike, Mike....sigh. You are right. More, I d...Mike, Mike, Mike....sigh. You are right. More, I did a search through the whole document and "reason" as a word does not appear except in 1.2.2 and 1.2.3, and in neither of those cases is this "reason" as in scripture, reason and tradition. So I've done a revamp. Section one gets a 1 flamingo.<br /><br />Thanks for the correction.Mark Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06871096746243771489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-45927921390008408662011-06-06T01:47:35.476-04:002011-06-06T01:47:35.476-04:00This kind of denominational dithering is a signifi...This kind of denominational dithering is a significant factor in rendering Christian faith merely absurd and irrelevant to ethically concerned contemporary humans. How dare we be engaging with this?janinsanfranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07548452260456734928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-55908882386956350322011-06-05T23:08:44.659-04:002011-06-05T23:08:44.659-04:00Mark,
Thanks for this post. Your previous analysi...Mark,<br /><br />Thanks for this post. Your previous analysis was one of the inspirations for my own recent posts.<br /><br />You are too kind for crediting the present draft for being an improvement over previous drafts. Only its absolute value in its present form really matters.<br /><br />I was particularly gratified that you pointed out the silliness of the adoption process. I was also happy to see you point out the political stupidity of giving power to the “Instruments” but not having them co-ordinate their exercise of it. It is a supreme irony that this document intended to enforce unity within the Communion institutionalizes a polity that could result in each of the “Instruments” going its own way.Lionel Deimelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363018512775944659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-68864301136853606302011-06-05T21:17:00.965-04:002011-06-05T21:17:00.965-04:00The covenant brings to mind one of my favorite phr...The covenant brings to mind one of my favorite phrases from the years when I worked with mental health agencies that were trying to build community residences: BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing At or Near Anything. Are we willing to be part of a Communion whose operating principal is "Don't offend any of the other members"? I am not willing to live in a culture of complaint.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-79427126368609622062011-06-05T20:51:25.100-04:002011-06-05T20:51:25.100-04:00Fr. Mark,
Any document born out of hatred, no matt...Fr. Mark,<br />Any document born out of hatred, no matter how "good" it may look, is still born out of hatred. We should ignore this nonsense and get on with that which the Lord has charged us to do, perhaps starting in Florida.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”https://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10326675.post-86509415062276156582011-06-05T20:28:29.407-04:002011-06-05T20:28:29.407-04:00Poor flamingo! Does this mean we get to reference ...Poor flamingo! Does this mean we get to reference the flamingo test in the Blue Book report?Caminantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16610142955176992982noreply@blogger.com