From Comprehensive Unity, the No Anglican Covenant blog:
TEN REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED ANGLICAN COVENANT IS A BAD IDEA
1. The proposed Anglican Covenant would transform a vibrant, cooperative, fellowship of churches into a contentious, centralized aggregation of churches designed to reduce diversity and initiative. The Covenant would institutionalize the “Instruments of Unity” as never before and would give extraordinary power to the newly enhanced Standing Committee.
2. Under the Covenant, churches will be inhibited from undertaking new evangelical or mission initiatives for fear of offending other Communion churches and becoming embroiled in the disciplinary mechanisms set up by the Covenant.
3. The centralization of authority envisioned by the proposed Covenant is cumbersome, costly, and undemocratic. In an era in which power and authority are being distributed in many organizations in order to achieve greater efficiency, responsiveness, and accountability, what has been proposed for the Communion seems out of step with current thinking regarding large organizations.
4. Although the proposed Covenant is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not adopt the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The inevitable application of the disciplinary provisions of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between “full” members of the Communion and less-than-full members.
5. The proposed Covenant is dangerously vague. Sections 1–3 of the Covenant, which are seen by many as innocuous, leave much room for divergent interpretations. Section 4 makes it all too easy for any church to “ask questions” about the actions of another, which may then be subjected to unspecified “relational consequences.” There is no sure measure of what behaviour is likely to be acceptable, no checks provided against unreasonable complaints, and no guarantee that “consequences” (i.e., punishments) meted out will be commensurate with the alleged offence.
6. The proposed Covenant runs counter to the gospel imperative of not judging others. It is all too easy for Communion churches to complain about the sins of their sister churches while ignoring or diverting attention from their own failures to live out the Gospel.
7. The proposed Covenant encourages premature ending of debate. Rather than taking the advice of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38–39) and seeing how controversial matters play out, the Covenant evidences an eagerness to “settle” them. This is an unfortunate temptation to which the Communion seems subject. It has too quickly concluded that “homosexual practice” is “incompatible with Scripture” and that adopting the Covenant is “the only way forward,” neither of which is either intuitively obvious or universally agreed upon.
8. The notion that we need to make “forceful” the “bonds of affection” is fundamentally flawed. If we need force and coercion to maintain relationships between Communion churches, there is no true affection, and the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent.
9. The proposed “Covenant” seems more like a treaty, contract, or instrument of surrender than a covenant. In the ecclesiastical context, a covenant is usually thought of as an agreement undertaken in joy and in an atmosphere of trust—baptismal and marriage covenants come to mind. The proposed Anglican Covenant, on the other hand, is advanced in an atmosphere of anger, fear, and distrust, and with the threat of dire consequences if it is not adopted.
10. The proposed Covenant is not the only way forward; there are better options. The Anglican Communion would be better served by remaining a single-tier fellowship of churches, allowing disaffected members to leave if they must, while keeping the door open for their return. Any alternative position cedes too much power to those willing to intimidate by threatening to walk away.
________________________________________
It may be helpful to think of the reasons given above in terms of one-word descriptions. The ten reasons describe the Covenant as
Radical
Reactionary
Impractical
Divisive
Vague
Judgemental
Impetuous
Insincere
Misnamed
Suboptimal
The text of the Anglican Communion Covenant may be found here.
This is very good.
ReplyDeleteI'm stealing it for my blog.
Take it, Counterlight. The more the 10 Reasons get around, the better.
ReplyDeleteGrandmère.
ReplyDeleteI saw these posted on Thinking Anglicans and Counterlight, and I'm not as enchanted with them as you are. We know we're against the covenant; these are the standard reasons. Mainly the thing gets off to a bad start: The covenant "would transform a vibrant, cooperative, fellowship of churches into a contentious, centralized aggregation of churches" Hasn't this already happened? We may not be centralized yet, but the Archbishop and Primates act as though we were, and the old comfortable sense of belonging to a co-operative group of national churches is no more. I want to see the covenant fail, and the movement to make Anglican primates into a curia lapse big-time; but afterward we are not going to be a big, oblivious family again.
[verification word: catho]
My objection, then, is that these ten points just rehash the standard talking points, and they don't seem to acknowledge the actual situation we find ourselves in. Namely, the bitter war of the Dominionists and plutocrats against all independent voices. Defeating the covenant won't save the old system. We're stumbling into a new reality.
ReplyDeleteMy objection, then, is that these ten points just rehash the standard talking points, and they don't seem to acknowledge the actual situation we find ourselves in.
ReplyDeleteMurdoch, the great majority of Episcopalians know little to nothing about the covenant, and surprisingly a good many know little of the story of the disputes within the Anglican Communion. The points may be a rehash for those of us who have been following the story of the covenant and how it came to be, but the points will be new to those who have not.
You might think of the 10 Reasons as a sort of introduction to why the covenant will be bad for the Anglican Communion for those who are unfamiliar with its contents and background. Trust me. When I ask certain Episcopalians about the Anglican Covenant, I get a blank look.
Even in hip, with-it, up-to-date-and-in-touch-with-everything New York I too get blank stares when I ask if anyone knows anything about the Covenant.
ReplyDeleteRemarkably few people are following this issue. If they know anything about it at all, it's from the talking points put out by Lambeth Palace in the most vague and anodyne language possible with appeals to Anglican loyalty and solidarity.
I agree with Matthew Murdoch's basic take on this issue, however the whole point of the No Anglican Covenant campaign is to get an alternative view out there to get people at least curious enough to look closely at this thing and think about it before they sign off on it.
Counterlight, thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe delegates to General Convention 2012 will vote on the daft covenant, and I'd hope they'd know that there are two sides, pro and con, and not vote with little or no knowledge of consequences which could follow from signing on to the covenant.
Murdoch, as I said in my email in response to your note on your commentary at Thinking Anglicnas that there was no such thing as the following:
ReplyDelete"The proposed Anglican Covenant would transform a vibrant, cooperative, fellowship of churches...."
Between dioceses in different Anglican churches, relationships like that actually do exist. Even when the members of the dioceses disagree, the dioceses cooperate in mission.