Anglican Covenant, Round 3

Today the Anglican Communion Office released the third draft of the Anglican Covenant. [Note: At the bottom of that page, you'll need to scroll from page 1 (the introduction) to page 2 (the text of the covenant draft) to page 3 (which includes a list of the group members and links to the provinces' responses to the previous draft).]

Well ... I think I've already buried the lede.

This one is named the Ridley-Cambridge Covenant, because it was written during a meeting at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. The previous version was the St. Andrew's draft, because they all played golf instead of engaging in ecclesial dialogue. [Yeah, that's a joke.]

So far, a couple of my favorite blogs have offered some news and reflections about it:

Episcopal Café's The Lead has a story here. And several people are posting thoughtful comments.
Thinking Anglicans has it here.

More will surely weigh in soon, and I'll try to link to them.

I like MadPriest's simple analysis:

There is nothing controversial or limiting about most of it and this fact, of course, makes it completely unnecessary as those of us, no longer subject to the law, have said all along.

However, there is just one sentence, right towards the end of the lengthy document, that will change our lives forever. Basically it takes the church away from the people of the church and gives it to something called "The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates' Meeting." From now on this piece of primate controlled beurocracy [sic] will be our pope.

"If a Church refuses to defer a controversial action, the Joint Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below."

But does the covenant give us an option if we do not want to be told what to think, by this new dictator, on all matters that it deems controversial?

Of course, it does.

Evidently, we can lump it.

MadPriest nails it. The Anglican Communion is being asked to give short shrift to the creeds, the Quadrilateral, our historic ties to scripture, reason, and tradition ... and to bow down before the golden calf of the Anglican Covenant.

I am reminded of the quotation attributed to Archbishop Desmond Tutu. When asked what defines the Anglican Communion, it is reported that he said: "We meet."

I am mindful of Archbishop Akinola who is again supporting draconian legislation that targets gay men and lesbians in Nigeria and may have abetted the slaughter of Muslims in Nigeria. I am mindful of Bishop Kunonga in Rwanda, who is complicit in genocide with Mugabe's government. I am mindful of Archbishop Gomez, Chair of the covenant drafting group, who presides over Jamaica, which the U.S. State Department says has a terrifying record of hate crimes against LGBTs. No doubt, these men will all sign onto the covenant, claiming they are holding fast to the "faith once delivered to the saints." After all, the authors of the covenant have no problem with genocide; they simply hates queers.

Is there any real provision in the covenant under which we can say to them: You are failing to uphold the Word of God? See Mark Harris' reflections about whether a basic support for human rights might be a worthy prerequisite to any covenant.

Perhaps the Episcopal Church (U.S.) and some others will decline to sign on this bit of pottage.

The Anglican covenant as now conceived by the Windsor Continuation Group and the Ridley Cambridge drafters seems merely designed to shun those provinces that recognize LGBTs as members of the faith community. They're fine with genocide; they just don't want the queers to get uppity. Otherwise, why all the hullabaloo?