Anglican Mainstream

By Canon Gary L’Hommedieu, Virtueonline

Bishop John W. Howe has been diligent in reporting to his clergy in Central Florida on the day to day events at Lambeth, sometimes detached and dispassionate, sometimes scarcely restraining his own sarcasm at the overtly political nature of this "conference".

Bishop Howe has lived up to his commitment to be fair in his own positions and administrative actions, in marked contrast to many of his episcopal peers who use "fairness" as an ideological weapon. In one of his recent reports he commented on a hearing of the "Windsor Continuation Group" and its "effort to produce an ‘Anglican Covenant.’" He offered the following personal reflection on the proceedings: "If anyone thought we might be close to completing that task at this Lambeth Conference, I think s/he was quickly disabused of the notion."

No surprise there. While Bishop Howe didn’t say it, it seems pretty obvious that the Lambeth Conference, along with the various Covenant task force meetings before and after, is designed to fix the Anglican Covenant in the limbo of unending "conversation".

One of the Bishop’s comments was striking to say the least, in spite of the matter-of-fact tone of his reporting: "One of the predominant themes [of the Covenant hearing] from many (both TEC and others) was that we do not want a Covenant that can be used ‘juridically’ to expel, discipline, or exclude."

This sentiment of the "many" comes as no surprise. Many of us on the sidelines have assumed the Covenant was dead in the water, that it would never become anything more than a pro forma exercise, and that "signing" would never take place in a setting that was other than purely ceremonial, should such a Covenant even be completed. Certainly no Covenant would see the light of day that would challenge the Windsor non-compliant Provinces to adjust their behaviors and policies, even though precisely this challenge is the sole reason for both Windsor and the Covenant.

Windsor has been successfully domesticated. It cannot be permitted to offend the offending Provinces that made Windsor necessary to begin with.

The notion of an Anglican "covenant" has been laden with irony, if not outright absurdity, from the beginning. Only now do we come to see that absurdity is its sole function.

The word "covenant" is a legal term, as is the word "juridical". "Covenant" is another word for "contract". A contract is a document containing terms of agreement whereby two or more parties can be judged–that is, juridically determined–to be in relationship with each other in accordance with the terms of the contract.

Given the plain meaning of the words, "non-juridical covenant" is a contradiction in terms. A covenant has no use that is not juridical, unless it be purely ceremonial. Perhaps now we have clarity on the intended use of the long awaited and hotly debated Anglican Covenant: pure ceremony. Or, to substitute almost identical language: pure symbolism.

The remainder of Bishop Howe’s paraphrased reporting only adds depth to this interpretation: "We do not want a Covenant that can be used ‘juridically’ to expel, discipline, or exclude…." A covenant, as mentioned above, has no use that is not juridical. Indeed, to "use" any covenant can only be juridically to interpret its meaning and apply it to actual circumstances. If there were no foreseeable circumstance whereby a party might be expelled, disciplined, or excluded from the covenantal relationship, then there is no need whatever for the protective guarantees of the contract.

Let’s expand the implications of the terms "expel, discipline, and exclude" in reverse order.

The prohibition against "exclusion" is the dumbed-down Decalogue, the only surviving "thou shalt not" that today’s Christian society has the nerve to stand behind. Actually Christian leaders don’t so much stand behind as hide behind it. Their intention, as in all politically correct posturing, is not to take a stand but to avoid taking one by parroting pre-approved slogans. Political correctness is, if anything, a cover for moral cowardice, the abdication in principle of "taking a stand".

The modern taboo attached to "exclusion" reduces to meaninglessness anything to do with relationships. No one has a relationship with everyone, only with a limited number at the exclusion of others. Everyone excludes the huge majority of persons from active relationship based upon some criterion, which can admittedly be just or unjust. But to preclude "exclusion" unilaterally in advance is meaningless. It is a calculated ploy against an ideological enemy–in the present case, the "exclusive" and "schismatic" Global South.

To mandate unconditional "inclusion" is to pretend at relationships without boundaries. No one in fact has such relationships, except for abuse victims who are powerless to resist the violation of the most fundamental boundaries–that of their own persons. To demand of our contractual arrangements that they preclude personal boundaries is to make them not only meaningless but dangerous. It is yet another contradiction in terms papering over the failure of moral nerve.

Furthermore, the Anglican Covenant cannot be used to "discipline" an errant member. We now know for sure on whose behalf the deck is being stacked: only the spoiled brat Ugly American would equate discipline with injustice. This is taking Dr. Spock’s failed philosophy of parenting that ruined the Baby Boomer generation and the generations following and equating it with biblical prophecy.

It is noteworthy that politically correct religion equates discipline with "hatred", whereas the Bible–notably the book of Proverbs–equates the neglect of discipline with hatred and the life that shuns discipline as suicidal. The biblical position is based not on anything symbolic or sentimental but upon the known quantity of ruined lives. The proof of the teaching is the terrible reality that is modern Western society with its casting off of all restraints and its utter inability to uphold fundamental boundaries. Biblically speaking, to refuse discipline in advance is to declare one’s hatred toward others and to abandon them to their lethal behaviors–anything to avoid speaking the word when it comes out of season.

Finally, the Anglican Covenant must not be used to "expel" anyone. Now it’s obvious that we’re talking about the American Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada, the ones who have caused the crisis that holds the entire Communion hostage and that necessitates the redefinition of Christian doctrine and discipline to accommodate them. They know that they have "excluded" themselves from historic Christianity. Since they have most of the money, they have the power to impose their agenda on everyone else. It is this agenda that is taking shape at Lambeth, and certainly in the preliminary "hearing" on the Covenant.

We now know there can be no "covenant", not if the word is to have any meaning. Except as a pretext for posturing and hiding from the sort of stand that might include taking up a cross, the Anglican Covenant has been effectively neutered, safely added to that list of redundancies called "instruments of communion". It is already reduced to pure symbolism, a future staging ground for empty gestures by which church officials nervously endear themselves to a society that is perishing.

Love, when reduced to symbolism, is more like hatred.
 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.