I suppose I ought to make some comment on recent doings in Anglican-land. Truth be told, I’ve come to find it rather tiresome. In December, the latest draft version of the Anglican Covenant appeared. Some of the background and the full text is available here. There has been considerable commentary on it. As always, one can keep abreast of the latest developments at Thinking Anglicans.
Among the saber-rattling is a statement from someone that any province that doesn’t sign on to the covenant by the end of 2011 will be excluded. Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church cannot sign on before General Convention 2012, and if canonical changes are necessary, until 2015. In other words, the lengthy process continues.
As the years have passed and the conflict within Anglicanism continues to boil, I am more and more inclined to say the Communion is simply not worth the hassle. One of my greatest concerns has always been the increasing centralization of power and the disenfranchisement of lay people in communion structures.
There have been enormous theological disagreements in Anglicanism for generations–deep fissures between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, for example–and now there are deep divisions on matters of sexuality. It really is hard to see what a church that elects Rev. Glasspool bishop has in common with a church that seems to be pushing for a law that would punish gays and lesbians with execution.
Unity for unity’s sake is meaningless and overcoming diversity by centralization of power will never succeed. It seems to me that the communication and media revolution of the last decades has brought us closer together but has also heightened awareness of our differences. What it has not done is led to increased understanding.
It may be that the idea of “national churches” which is at the heart of the traditional notion of Anglicanism no longer has any meaning. Certainly, to call the Church of England a national church is misleading. It is the church of a small portion of people in England, and in fact the various parties within it have stronger ties within themselves than to the national church.
In the US, with its long history of denominational diversity, it is relatively easy for like-minded people to break off and form their own church. That has happened repeatedly, and among Anglicans in the US, it continues to happen. But whether groups from different perspectives (Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical) can remain united in spite of their theological and liturgical differences remains to be seen.
One of the most perceptive comments on the Anglican Covenant was written by Scott Gunn.