Anglican Covenant: IMNSHO, It Will Not Solve Anything

The revised version of the much-ballyhooed Anglican Covenant has now been released, including revisions to Section 4, the purported "disciplinary" section of the Covenant.  It is very much as expected by this writer, i.e., so chock-full of Anglican-speak as to be virtually incomprehensible, and so full of loopholes as to make Swiss cheese appear rock-solid.

The blogosphere has been full of debates and opinions over what TEO and the Presiding Heretic will do with regard to the Covenant.  Will TEO end up signing it, or not?  Will TEO attempt to drag the approval process so far into the future as to make it largely irrelevant whether it eventually signs or not, as it proceeds with its "innovations"?  Will TEO use its myriad procedural dodges, all the while citing to its "unique polity", to avoid the question altogether?

In the long run and the bigger picture of whether TEO even remains a legitimate Christian denomination, the answers to these questions matter little at all.  TEO has set its course upon a brand of universalist, social-justice philosophy that has long since left the station on a journey away from traditional, Scripture-based Christianity. 

The sure bet is that TEO will avoid, for so long as it can, making any official decision on the Covenant.  Given that approval would take Constitutional amendments at two consecutive General Conventions, a minimum of six (6) years, to 2015, seems a sure bet for the least length of delay.  And, given that GenCon 2009 thumbed its nose at a direct appeal from Canterbury for restraint, there is no guarantee that any future GenCon would approve the Covenant.

Beyond the delay question, however, is the likewise sure bet that it will not matter what TEO does with regard to the Covenant.  Whether it approves the document or not, it is highly doubtful that TEO will do anything to change its course of revisionism.  How many times has TEO appeared to agree to this or that Anglican report or pronouncement, then continued on its own, demented way?  Just one example is the Presiding Heretic agreeing to the Dar Es Salaam Primates' Communique, then repudiating it as soon as her feet again touched American soil.

As for the revised Covenant Section 4, it seems to have only created more opportunities for Anglican Fudge.  With its procedures for referral of questions of compliance, and byzantine structures of whether or not any disciplinary action will take place, and if so, in what form, Section 4 is clearly a recipe for more dithering, "listening", and endless pseudo-theological blather, which is decidedly unlikely to result in any form of meaningful "discipline." 

Disciplinary provisions more in the form of a penal code - defined action = crime = defined punishment - are the only thing that will work to any realistic degree.  Given any chance to prevaricate and dither, Anglicans will do so until "discipline" becomes a meaningless morass, and the revisionists blithely go along their merry way, unscathed.

So, I fear that those who have placed much stock in an Anglican Covenant being the solution to this longstanding crisis now stand to be sorely disappointed.  The only realistic solutions to pursuing life as a Christian denomination are the hard ones - either (1) build an orthodox Anglican structure separate from the false teachings of TEO, such as ACNA, and support it as the real Anglican presence in North America, or (2) those who feel the need to stay within TEO and fight must shift to bolder action, and not simply stop at Ghandi-esque "visible differentiation", but take direct action to unseat current leadership and take back TEO from the revisionists.

The Covenant, INMSHO, should be consigned to the dead-letter box.

Comments

[TrueBeliever]

Why do you regard "innovation" as negative?

Christianity does not involve a single culture. It is possible to be Christian in many different cultures.

Anti-homosexual attitudes are not Biblical, but cultural prejudices.

We need to learn to move on from this debate... and I agree, the Covenent will solve nothing. Because nobody is going to repent just because people like you demand it and think you're better than everybody else or understand God better.

So there will be no satisfaction.

And yes, we should draw out the process so long as to make it meaningless because this whole debate is silly.

[Trimble]

TrueBeliever, you have fallen victim to the old problem of misrepresenting what I said to try to make a point. "Innovation" as a general concept is not a negative. As a theological position that is contrarty to the Bible, however, it is a major problem.

Of course it is possible to be a Christian in any different culture. To claim being a Christian, though, one must accede to a particular belief system and accept certain things such as that eternal salvation is only through Christ. Culture never should trump essential elements of Christian faith.

I do not demand repentance, nor do I think I am smarter than anyone else. What I would like is some basic honesty from TEO, that it no longer accepts a traditional Christian theology and has become, in essence, a Unitarian/Universalist organization. I would also like to see TEO stop playing power games and "let my people go", including their hard-earned and hard-maintained property. To that extent, the debate is silly, because it will not change the respective positions.