Comment to Mark Harris, re: Preludium Post of 4 August 2009

On the matter of ACI authorship, first ACI statements entail input from several authors, in the US, UK and Canada. Fr Matthew Olver is a Priest at Church of the Incarnation in Dallas and a contributor to the covenant-communion website. On that site, individuals can submit material available on the web, and he forwarded the essay to that readership. As for your citing Section 3.2.5.of the Covenant Text Since the request was made by the Communion, it will be the Communion which will interpret compliance/rejection. ACI does not believe that "caution" was exercised in accordance with the logic of 3.2.5, and it furthermore does not believe that those who embrace these innovations understand that they need to exercise caution at all. The time for that, we understand from them, is over; restraint was not really appropriate anyway, and now that time is past. Is this really in doubt? So what if your main point is, as we believe, wrong? What if the move forward (C056 and D025) has been undertaken regardless of the threat to Communion and its unity, out of a sense of justice and rights? What if proponents of the new sexual ethic truly want to be a church on its own and fully reject the logic of a Covenant or Windsor? Interdependence in a Communion, as is intimated by 3.2.5, is precisely what is being rejected in favor of autonomy and a federal association. The nominations in LA and MN make that abundantly clear. So again, we hold that your main point is wrong and that TEC is moving clearly and resolutely in the opposite direction of the approved covenant text. It is because of this that ACI speaks of provisional rejection. What we do not understand is why supposedly liberal Christians wish to hold hostage to their way of thinking those who prefer interdependence in Communion. On logical terms, why must all be bound to go the way of autonomy and a national denomination? Why do you not see that some truly wish to belong to a catholic church and an Anglican Communion via a covenant, instead of being lumped with those whose understanding and hopes are very different? Moreover, most of us believe that in so doing we are upholding the constitution of this church. No one is contesting that your way of being an Episcopalian is winning out in General Convention voting. What we do not understand is why you don't declare that this entails an autonomous church, and a way of being Anglican the proposed covenant does not embrace, and then let those who wish to embrace this do so? Surely that is congruent with a liberal position and mindset. What remains terribly confused for those wishing to embrace a covenant of interdependence is your insistence on saying nothing has changed, that there has been no rejection, that we are studying the covenant, etc., but insisting at the same time that the American Episcopal way is a way of autonomy and independent action. If this be so, why not declare it and concede that those who wish to be Episcopalians in Communion ought to do so? In putting it this way, we leave to the side whether dioceses have the right to sign a covenant anyway, and believe there is no constitutional let or hindrance against this. What remains unclear is your failure simply to embrace the position you hold, with integrity, and acknowledge that the life in Communion envisioned by a covenant would be an infringement of goals and hopes central to your way of being a Christian? To many your objection that requirements of the covenant have not been rejected just seems to be temporizing, or strategy, or prevarication. Certainly to people in Integrity a covenant way of living in Communion is a false way and to be rejected as unjust. Requirements like 3.2.5 are wrong, and ought not to be part of the Christian way of justice. They are not to be complied with or defended, and indeed their very logic is to be rejected. It is confusing how you could read this in any other way. Consents And on the matter of consents, referred to in the comments - the consent process is exactly a process entailing bishops (with standing committees), and that is how the determination is made. General Convention or 'the national church 'does not vote. We are an Episcopal Church in an Anglican Communion, not a General Convention Church, or a national hierarchical denomination, like the United Methodist Church, in a global federation, like the Lutheran World Federation. Though that is what some are trying to create. Conclusion In sum, the liberal position apparently seeks to constrain those who want to be Episcopal Anglicans, in a Communion, from doing so. It asks that a rejection of the spirit and letter of the covenant requirements, agreed to in Jamaica, be for all, even for those who would willingly and gladly sign on and support the life and mission of the Anglican Communion, on the Communion's terms. It is hard to see that as a liberal position. It is for that reason that we have urged Dioceses to move forward, and understand that this is also consistent with the message of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Sections 1"”3 have been approved, and nothing prevents Dioceses from resolving to live within their letter and spirit. Let others have the courage of their convictions, declare that a covenant way is against the logic of autonomy and a national denomination, and not continue to cloud the issue. That would be a courageous liberalism. (N.B., an earlier version of this was submitted to Preludium but it was not posted).