Comments on Anglican Covenant

Kendall Harmon at TitusOneNine links to a page of comments to two opinion pieces in Episcopal Life concerning the Anglican Covenant. This one is particularly good:

Christopher Ashmore • Jacksonville, Illinois

I do not believe I have seen an article which shows more ignorance of what the proposed Anglican covenant purports to accomplish, or which attempts to dismiss it and those who support it with such broad, vitriolic and unsupported strokes. To cite several examples: the attribution of "thoroughly mistaken" to any thought of re-affirming our Anglican roots via the essential doctrines of Christianity; the idea that the "so-called conservatives'" embrace of the covenant "is driven by hopes for punitive powers"; the relegating to mythical status of a "distinct Anglican theology or a singular Anglican ethos" just because it is not "singular" (used twice in the same sentence); and the accusations that certain primates (those "whose rancor disturbed Lambeth Palace as far back as 1998") "are now spinning further and further from anything that can be identified as Anglican"; and that they exhibit an "utter lack of interest in participating honestly and collegially with (some) fellow primates."

The writer seems to know what "Anglican" is; but he never lets us in on it. He speaks of distracting the Episcopal Church (and others) from "the genuine mission of the church," but he gives us no clue as to what that mission is or how that mission is discerned. He asks about the relevance of the covenant to the church's mission and ministry, apparently assuming that he knows what that is, to the exclusion of those he has ridiculed and dismissed (see above).

I would suggest that the writer step back for a moment, and realize that his facile and generalized volleys do little to promote advancement in mission and ministry, which is precisely what the proposed covenant attempts to do. His lack of connection with the story of Anglicanism through the years (yes, as haphazard and untidy as it has been), and his inability to see that mutual submission to one another just might bear a more godly discernment about mission and ministry than that which is myopically grounded in the so-called "freedom" of the Episcopal Church, does no service to anyone in the church.

There are some of us who are sincerely trying to see how we can move forward in what is "our" church too - the Episcopal Church. We are distressed by the blatant politicization which falls at the feet of such idols as "rights" and "social action and advocacy." We are dismayed that those who do not fall in step with the "progressive" and "revisionist" agenda are marginalized more and more as time goes on. We sit in utter wonder that those who have left the Episcopal Church are demonized, and yet we who have stayed are discounted, disparaged, and counted as ignorant among the all-knowing elite.

The proposed Anglican covenant seeks a way to get beyond this toxic culture of mistrust and misuse of power. If honored, it will call for deeper reflection and humility from all sides. It is not about "enforcing unity"; it is about seeking the mind of God in all its evangelical and catholic fullness.

I fear the writer has taken the extremes and thrown a large net over many who are seeking a way forward in these trying times. A more thoughtful approach would be helpful to us all.