Sunday, March 11, 2012

BBC RADIO 4 - DISCUSSION OF ANGLICAN COVENANT

Transcript of the program from the Diocese of Salisbury, with Edward Stourton discussing the Anglican Covenant with Bishop Graham Kings and Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Stourton - The Anglican Covenant was Rowan Williams’s big idea for securing unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion after the row over the American church’s decision to appoint a gay Bishop. It lays out a set of basic principles to which all churches in the communion would be required to subscribe. In the Church of England the Covenant needs to be endorsed by a majority of the church’s 44 Dioceses. 10 [sic 6] of them have been voting this weekend and the running total stands at 17 against and only 10 for the Covenant. Dr Graham Kings is the Bishop of Sherborne and Diarmaid MacCulloch is the Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford.

Stourton - Good morning to you both. Bishop you are going to have to make up a good deal of ground if you are going to get this through. How do you persuade people to vote for the Covenant?

Kings - Yes, the momentum is against the Covenant at the moment but there are still 17 Dioceses to vote. I think we can look at the image of a bunch of grapes or a bag of marbles. A bunch of grapes is what the communion is at the moment and we want to keep it like that. It is to do with personal interdependence. A bag of marbles is about isolated autonomy that don’t actually meet together. The interesting thing about today is that I am in Bournemouth in a studio, Diarmaid is in Oxford and you’re in Manchester and we are connected. And I think that is interdependence. The danger is if we get cut off from each other we have isolated autonomy.

Stourton - Diarmaid you’re more of a marbles man.

MacCulloch - I don’t understand those images very much, I just don’t think they are very useful images at all. What is very interesting, is the way the figures have consistently built up as people have understood the arguments for the Covenant and they realise just how incoherent they are.

Stourton - Right, what is the argument that you think swings it?

MacCulloch - Well, what swings the argument against is that people realise that this is a sort of centralisation, proposed for the Anglican Communion, which has never been Anglican, which is against Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion is not an Anglican church it’s a family of churches and you don’t need some punitive, centralising, disciplining sort of process to make the churches work together. That’s not the Anglican way, and I’m delighted at the way that the Dioceses have recognised that. This is a great thing for the Church of England.

Stourton - Let me put that to Graham Kings, because it is a very serious charge that the idea that this runs against the fundamental spirit of what Anglicanism is?

Kings - I thinks it’s worth watching the Archbishop of Canterbury’s video which was put on Youtube on Monday this week. He specifically says, quote “Some people say there’s a misunderstanding that it is some sort of centralising proposal creating an absolute authority which has the right to punish people for stepping out of line!”, that’s what Dairmaid has just said, and the Archbishop says, “I have to say, that I think this is completely misleading and false”. In the introduction you said they would be required to sign the Covenant. No, this is an ‘opt in’ Covenant; nobody is required to sign it at all.

MacCulloch - Yes, but what happens Bishop, if you ‘opt in’, what if you ‘opt out’? You are not opting out you are forced out. If you will not sign up to a set of arguments, a set of propositions, which have been drawn up by one body and they have decided what Anglicanism is. Then you have to say, am I going to agree to something, which someone else has decided on Anglicanism

Stourton - Let’s just be clear Dr Kings is that right in formal terms? If you don’t sign up to this you are not a member of the Anglican Communion?

Kings - No. That’s not right. You are still a member of the Anglican Communion. It may be some particular committees that you cannot take part. Yes, you are still fully a member of the Anglican Communion but not in the central committees. Nobody is forced to do anything. These are recommended courses of actions. It is not one central committee that has drawn up this, it has been discussed all over the Communion and the Church of England had a huge input into it.

Stourton - Professor MacCulloch?

MacCulloch - Well, it has been discussed by those who want to discuss it. There is a curious sense in which this lunatic proposal has gone down a path. Once you start you don’t see the alternatives. Watching it happen has been like a rather slow motion version of the Gadarene Swine.

Stourton - A quick final word Dr Kings. On a practical point doesn’t this or won’t this, if it goes against the Covenant, as it appears to be doing, very much damage Archbishop Rowan Williams’ authority in the church because he set enormous store by this idea?

Kings - I think we need to look at the Provinces. Provinces have voted worldwide. So far, six in favour and only one against. A liberal province, Mexico, has voted for it, Southern .......

Stourton - But, the Church of England is the Mother church in a way ...........

Kings - In some ways yes, we will see. The business committee have to report in July and we will see what their report is.

Stourton - Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne and Diarmaid MacCulloch Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford, thank you both very much indeed.

Listen here. The segment begins at approximately 13:27 minutes into the broadcast.

14 comments:

  1. ". . . a slow-motion version of the Gadarene swine" - oh my!

    ReplyDelete
  2. MacCulloch is no mincer of words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think I got stuck at the grapes and marbles metaphor. Seriously: I listened to it twice and it left me scratching my head. So I was pleased when MacCullough said the imagery wasn't useful. Definitely not! The slo-mo Gadarene swine on the other hand....

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a completely pointless interview! With that short amount of time given no party is able to anything other than fling assertions into the room.For anyone to get anything out of this you'd need to have considerable previous knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I notice that the process by which we get bishops is still that they are "appointed." It seems the word and concept of "election" is absolutely foreign.

    Professor McCullough's statement that "The Anglican Communion is not an Anglican church it’s a family of churches and you don’t need some punitive, centralising, disciplining sort of process to make the churches work together" nails it for me. No grapes and marbles, just plain simple truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. SCG, I have no idea why Kings brought up the silly analogy of grapes and marbles, but MacCulloch deftly swatted aside the suggestion by Stourton that he play the game.

    Erika, Kings and MacCulloch were not given enough time to dig deep, but I don't see the interview as pointless at all. I would score it heavily in favor of MacCulloch making excellent points against adoption of the covenant. The bishop appeared to be floundering. Kings says churches who don't opt in can still be in the Anglican Communion, but its members can't be part of the central committees. I believe he will regret those words, because one of the main themes in defense of the covenant is that it will not lead to further centralization.

    Linda, that the Church of England has not moved to a more democratic method of choosing bishops is puzzling to us here in the US.

    To me the statement you quote from MacCulloch is brilliant and concise in its characterization of what the Anglican Communion is or should be at its best.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Appointing bishops is part of Her Majesty's prerogative as Head of the Church, though in fact exercised by the Prime Minister; when you have a state church like the CofE, changing to elected bishops would mean a consitutional change, and I suppose nobody wants to rock the boat that hard.

    But another question is, do the laity feel strongly it should be changed over there? I've never read anything about that, either way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The majority of the laity don't think about it at all never mind feel strongly about it.

    Grapes and marbles...Organisational culture theory, inappropriately used, (one church rather than many churches) but a sneaky little biblical reference all the same, fruit of the vine, grapes=good, covenant=good. MacCulloch was perfectly correct in stating the imagery wasn't useful. In the light of the pro-lobby rhetoric of not creating anything new with the covenant, the bunch of grapes would have a common stem with the pedicels holding them together as opposed to being just a bag (?) of individual grapes. It works for part of their argument but not entrirely so as it would be something 'new'. Marbles as totaly inorganic material could not be joined thus and therefore those of us who wish to maintain the status quo are just hard spherical objects, uninterested in the other hard spherical objects. Not a pleasing analogy but hardly a comparison that brings much meaning or depth to any of this. Bored yet?

    slo-mo Gadarene swine is priceless..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Plus with both grapes and marbles other meanings come to mind....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Russ, theme may correct me, but I believe not a few of the English like the connection between the monarchy and the church, although the reality is that the Queen does not actually decide on the appointments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not personally a great fan; she's never offered me and OBE or even invited me for tea. But a bureaucratic anachronim leftover from the establishment of the C of E, and one of those things that people will throw their arms up in horror at the suggestion of changing anything.

    Might be more interesting when Liz shuffles off this mortal coil, Charles has ideas and a monarch with ideas is not generally well received. Perhaps its something to with being called Charles?

    ReplyDelete
  12. theme, what a pity that the Queen does not recognize your great gifts. Liz may be immortal. Her mother nearly was.

    Perhaps its something to with being called Charles?

    Could be. Charles will very likely be well up in age if he takes the throne.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Curiously Charles is about the only member of the royal family who I think quite well of.

    I don't think people here necessarily care all that deeply for the link between the monarchy and the CofE and not a few who I know are actively against. That may have more to do with the growing indifference/distaste towards the CofE rather than the monarchy though. Also, I speak as a Londoner - attitudes here might be slightly different to the rest of the country.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cathy, Charles seems to be trying to be useful and make the best of his rather awkward position.

    The two archbishops in England surely don't help to raise the esteem of the Church of England in the eyes of the people.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.