ABOUT THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...

Recently, I read three excellent posts on the Anglican Covenant, which I believe warrant wide coverage. As many of you know, I am a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, and I make no effort to provide balanced coverage, since I hope very much that many churches in the Anglican Communion vote against adopting the covenant.

Canon Alan Perry of the Anglican Church of Canada says in his post titled 'Logs and Specks':

The proposed Covenant is about logs and specks. It's about being empowered, and possibly even obligated, to look for the specks in others' eyes, which will inevitably give rise to others pointing to logs in one's own eyes. The trouble, as Jesus suggests, is that it is often much more interesting to look for specks than to deal with one's own logs, and in fact it's human nature to be in denial about one's own logs.

I can see already the long procession of people claiming to see specks in the eyes of other churches in the communion. What are the rules for presenting claims against other churches (or your own church, for that matter!), and which bureaucracy will winnow the complaints and decide which warrant further investigation by the newly-endowed-with-great-powers Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion? Many questions; few answers.

Next up is a post by Paul Bagshaw, a priest in the Church of England, titled 'Seven constitutional questions on the Covenant'. Paul's post references constitutional questions that may arise in the Church of England if General Synod votes to adopt the covenant. Since a number of people from England read my blog, I link to Paul's post mainly for their benefit, but those of us from other churches should be mindful that the adoption of the covenant may pose constitutional questions for our own churches.

Paul says:

Now it may be that someone somewhere has drafted answers to all these questions and more. In which case it would be useful to have the proposals public so voters can see some of the ramifications of the options before they make their decision. But if no-one has addressed the constitutional implications then I'm even more worried.

Let's face it. The covenant is being rushed through General Synod of the Church of England in the hope of a vote in favor before too many people have an opportunity to take a close look at the document and consider the consequences for the church. It appears to me that those who are so very intent on pushing the covenant may not themselves have considered the consequences. If they have, then they're being very quiet about their deliberations.

At Lesley's Blog is the address by Perran Gay, Canon Precentor of Truro Cathedral, to the Diocese of Truro Synod titled 'The presentation against the Covenant in Truro'

Dreadful though all of this is, it might almost be worth putting up with it if there were any real indication that the covenant would work. But of course it won’t: although it is offered as a mechanism to achieve unity, its immediate effect is to create divisions. Churches that cannot or will not accept the Covenant automatically become second-class members of the Communion. The Orwellian implications of Section 4 will likely further distinguish between full and ‘less-than-full’ members of the Communion, making it harder to have the kind of discussions that family members ought to have together. And as we know, the more conservative Anglican churches who most want this kind of arrangement in place, who subscribe to a notion of a clear Anglican doctrinal identity that has never existed, have already started to boycott Anglican Communion affairs in any case, staying away from the Lambeth Conference, setting up a rival bishops’ meeting and working towards an alternative global fellowship. Even if adopted, the Covenant is set to fail.

I had a difficult time extracting a quote from Canon Perran Gay's address because of its excellence in its entirety. In the end, the Anglican Diocese of Truro voted against the adoption of the covenant.

Please, if you are at all interested or concerned about the Anglican Covenant, get a cup of coffee, a cup of tea, a glass of wine, or a good stiff drink, make yourself comfortable, and read the posts to which I've linked. C'mon. Just do it.

A THOUGHT FOR THANKSGIVING DAY

From The Reverend Canon F. Hugh Magee:

Here's a thought for Thanksgiving Day.

"I'm currently reading 'Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln". I recently came across a quotation that impressed me and it seems to me not unrelevant to our cause [Defeating the Anglican Covenant].

It comes, not from Lincoln, but from Frances Seward, the wife of William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State (who, incidentally, first proposed that the last Thursday of November be set aside as a Thanksgiving Day, to be nationally observed).

The background to this quotation, which belongs to the days leading up to the Civil War, is with reference to a proposal that a constitutional amendment be introduced that if adopted would uphold the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 -- it was felt by some that the adoption of such a constitutional amendment would placate the South and help to avoid a Civil War. Here's what she said:

"Compromises based on the idea that the preservation of the Union is more important than the liberty of nearly 4,000,000 human beings cannot be right. The alteration of the Constitution to perpetuate slavery -- the enforcement of a law to recapture the poor, suffering fugitive ... these compromises cannot be approved by God or supported by good men ...."

I invite you to reflect on this quotation and apply it to our present situation with regard to the proposed Anglican Covenant, which to my mind amounts to a similar attempt to preserve unity at the cost of liberty.

In that spirit I wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving Day.

HUGH

Unity at what cost? In this instance, I believe we must count the cost.

Hugh lives in Scotland and is a fellow member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. When I asked his permission to use his words as well as those of Frances Seward, I offered to say a Scotsman sent them to me if he did not want his name published. Hugh responded:

June --

By all means use the quotation and identify me as the source if you like.

Although I am indeed a Scotsman, I'm also English (I was born in London). As a matter of fact, I'm also a fifth generation Pittsburgher -- the Magees emigrated to Pittsburgh in the 18th century!

HUGH

There you have it. Hugh is Scottish, English, and a Pittsburgher.

TWO CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE THE ANGLICAN COVENANT DOWN

According to Simon at Thinking Anglicans, here and here, the Dioceses of Birmingham and Truro in the Church of England voted down the Anglican Covenant. The votes bring the total to four dioceses in England that have voted against the covenant. 23 dioceses, 50%, must vote FOR the covenant, or it dies.

Earlier, the Dioceses of Wakefield and St Edmundsbury & Ipswich voted against the covenant.

The Dioceses of Lichfield and Durham voted in favor of the covenant.

ABOUT THAT ANGLICAN COVENANT...

...the Tikanga Maori says:

The Anglican Covenant is all but dead in the water as far as this church is concerned. This follows a crucial vote by Tikanga Maori at its biennial runanganui in Ohinemutu today.

The Covenant will still come before General Synod in July, but a decision to accept it requires a majority vote in all three houses – lay, clergy and bishops – and by all three tikanga.

Today's runanganui decision effectively binds all Maori representatives on General Synod to say no.

Two of the five hui amorangi – Te Manawa o Te Wheke and Te Tairawhiti – have already rejected the Covenant, largely on the grounds that it could compromise Maori rangatiratanga (sovereignty).

Moving today's resolution, Archdeacon Turi Hollis noted that the Covenant applied at provincial level. "If one diocese makes a decision that another objects to – then the whole province will be held accountable," he said.

“We are being asked to conform to the standards of the rest of the world. Yet we have a constitution that the rest of the world does not understand.

“Would that have been agreed to had the Covenant been in force?

“The proposed Covenant is trying to impose on us something that should be based on relationship – on whanaungatanga or manaakitanga.”

Seconding the motion, the Rev Don Tamihere said the Covenant was not about homosexuality.

“It is about compliance and control.

“We are being asked to sign over our sovereignty, our rangatiratanga to an overseas group… To a standing committee over whom we have no choice or control. And they have the power to recommend punishment.

“The proposed Covenant offers us nothing new – or nothing we need as Anglicans, as Hahi Mihinare, or as disciples of Jesus Christ.

“We don’t need it to have faith in Jesus Christ: We already have a covenant that binds us to our saviour, Jesus Christ. And that is the only covenant we need.”

Philip Charles (Te Waipounamu) said: “Over the years, the practice has been: If you disagree with the church, you leave.

“And those groups who have left have often withered and died.

“The Covenant changes that. If you disagree with a group – you kick them out.

“I give it two thumbs down.”

The Rev Ngira Simmonds (Manawa o te Wheke) pointed out that to be Anglican means to be in relationship with people – even if you don’t like them.

“We want this church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia to focus, instead, on acting for the restoration of justice.”

No mincing of words there. I intended to emphasize my favorite words in the quote but then decided to put the entire quote in bold.

I'm not sure that the rest of the world understands the constitutions and canons of the Episcopal Church, either, and I expect that the constitutions of a good many of the churches in the Anglican Communion could be compromised by adopting the covenant.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TO US!

Statue of Richard Hooker in front of Exeter Cathedral.

O God of truth and peace, who raised up your servant Richard Hooker in a day of bitter controversy to defend with sound reasoning and great charity the catholic and reformed religion: Grant that we may maintain that middle way, not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen

From Lionel Deimel at Comprehensive Unity, The No Anglican Covenant Blog:

A year ago today, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition announced that it had come on the scene to defeat adoption of the Anglican Covenant. The date of November 3 was chosen because it is the day that Anglicans remember Richard Hooker, that quintessential Anglican theologian who, we believed, would be appalled at the direction the Anglican Communion seemed to be headed.

As the Coalition celebrates its first birthday, there is cause for both optimism and concern. The program to impose a repressive covenant on worldwide Anglicanism has lost momentum. Few churches have adopted it, and some of those that have have framed their actions in ways that undermine the intent of the proposed agreement. The GAFCON churches have largely rejected the Covenant as inadequate, and many Western churches are expected to reject it as too intrusive. The Covenant is not dead, but it is severely wounded.
....

Much has been accomplished in the past year, and there is reason to believe that the Anglican Covenant will never become the Anglican straightjacket that threatened to constrain Anglican thought and action. Defeating the Covenant is, nonetheless, an ongoing task. Re-imagining the Anglican Communion to allow it to move forward as an instrument of God’s grace and mercy in the twenty-first century will be an even more daunting enterprise. It is a task about which Anglicans everywhere should be thinking and praying.

Read the post in its entirety at the link above.

Photo of the Richard Hooker statue from Wikipedia.

ANGLICAN COVENANT - NOT A BIBLICAL IDEA

A Covenant for the Anglican Communion

Not a Biblical idea

Remind yourself of all the ways in which the word “Covenant” is used in the Bible. The dominant idea, seen from Noah and Abraham through to Jesus is of a God initiated plan to bring sinful human beings back into relationship with him. The prophets, speaking in God’s name, refer to “my covenant”.

Then think about the prophetic commentary on the content of those covenants, including the extensive legal commentaries or penal provisions, which indicates how easily human beings revert to the letter of the law, rather than honouring its spirit – and apply that law to others, rather than applying it to themselves. We say that we are saved by grace, not by law, and yet it is so easy to act as if the opposite is true. What did Jesus say about such things?

I am reminded of Tony Hancock’s reworking of the film “Twelve angry men” – “Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?” Is this document with which we are faced worthy of being put alongside the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, of which we remind ourselves at every eucharist?

If legislation or formal documentation had been sufficient to restore relationships, our Biblical narrative would be very different, and have a different trajectory. In fact our salvation in Jesus points us in a wholly different direction, and reminds us that we cannot legislate for good relationships, only to mediate the arguments which happen in bad ones.

Because the direction of this “covenant” does not match the Biblical plan for restoring relationships, it will not work, and in fact will draw us away from the true Biblical path which we need to follow if we are to follow Jesus.

Mark Bennet
22 October 2011

Amen! Mark makes an excellent case against the covenant from an evangelical view. I have nothing to add to Mark's wise words.

Mark Bennet is a priest in the Church of England, an open evangelical, and member of Fulcrum.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION - 'UNABLE TO ADOPT THE COVENANT'

From Episcopal News Service:

The Episcopal Church's Executive Council will submit a resolution to General Convention next year that would have it state that the church is "unable to adopt the Anglican Covenant in its present form."

The resolution also promises that the church will "recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening the unity of the communion" and commits to "continued participation in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion" and dialogue "with our brothers and sisters in other provinces to deepen understanding and to insure the continued integrity of the Anglican Communion."

The 77th meeting of General Convention July 5-12, 2012 will decide whether to pass, amend and pass, or reject the resolution. Convention is "the only body that can act on behalf of the whole church in this matter," Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said during a post-meeting press conference.

The unanimous decision to submit the resolution to convention came Oct. 24, on the last day of council's four-day meeting here.

A covenant task force, composed of six council members, based its recommendation to council in a report that is available in English here and Spanish here.

Excellent. There's more, much more at ENS, including a link to the text of the resolution.

The task force says:

The church's unity is "best expressed in our efforts to a church that fully welcomes those who have not always been welcomed," the report said.

"This understanding of who we are as a church does not allow the Executive Council to support any covenant that might jeopardize this vocation," the task force members said in the report.

"The covenant consistently ignores the importance of the role of the laity and their full expression of ministry in all spheres of the life of the church," the report said.

Amen! A church that extends full welcome to all, and an acknowledgement that the laity are not chopped liver.

COMMENTARY ON AN ESSAY IN FAVOR OF THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

The Living Church launched Our Unity in Christ, a series of essays supporting the proposed Anglican Covenant, in February 2011. An introduction and complete index to the series are available here.

I've read several of the essays published by TLC, and I find them far less than persuasive. I'd say the essays include some of best defenses of the covenant around, and I suspect that the text of the document itself is a major problem for those in favor of its adoption. Of course, those of you who have previously visited my blog know that I am strongly opposed to the covenant. See the emblem on the sidebar, and, in the interest of even fuller disclosure, I am a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.

My commentary on quoted excerpts from the essay by Bishop Victoria Matthews, Bishop of Christchurch, New Zealand, titled 'Greeting the Saints', in support of the Anglican Covenant follows. Of course, please read the essay in its entirety and make your own assessment.

Bp. Matthews says:

People are sometimes surprised that I support the proposed Anglican Covenant because there is a widespread belief that the crafters of the Covenant intend to stop new developments in the Communion. Similarly, many Anglicans believe that if there had been a Covenant 25 years ago, we would not have both sexes elected and consecrated to the episcopate. (“We would not have women bishops,” they say, without speaking of “men bishops.” Bishop is not a gender-exclusive noun, and women is not an adjective.)

I confess I am surprised. How would we have had women bishops with the covenant in place, unless the churches which decided to ordain women bishops moved forward in the face of objections by other churches who oppose the ordination of women as bishops and risk 'relational consequences' of some undefined sort? When would the churches of the Anglican Communion have come to one mind about women bishops? Who can say?

Also 'women' can indeed be an adjective. So says Merriam-Webster.

It is widely acknowledged that modern communication technologies, and especially the Internet, have complicated the life of the Anglican Communion.

Technology complicates many aspects of life today, not just that of the church. For good or for ill, communication is close to instantaneous, and we all need to adapt to the change. Isn't it about time to stop moaning about technology and start to adapt? The internet with its instant communication is not going away.

I have even heard that it is advisable not to attend certain events, as the coverage at home is always superior to what one learns by attending in person, and by staying at home you don’t have to meet the people who you know are wrong anyway.

I've heard that, too, but think of the logical consequences if everyone took the words to heart and stayed away: There would be no event. At the same time, technology opens up the possibility of meetings without all the participants having to be physically present. Of course, since I'm an incarnational type, I value highly face-to-face meetings, and they are, at times, quite necessary.

What would happen if the provinces of the Communion were equally dedicated to being in relationship one with another, no matter what? Archbishop Rowan commended this to the bishops at the 2008 Lambeth Conference’s opening retreat. The Indaba Group of the Lambeth Conference also attempted to foster it. What if the requirement of the Covenant actually enforced listening and being in relationship? I imagine you cringe at the word enforce, and so do I. But will it happen otherwise? Section 4 of the Covenant exists precisely to ensure the kind of listening, communication, and relationship that is presently missing in the Anglican Communion.

Those churches, Primates, and bishops who choose to boycott gatherings seem not very dedicated to being in relationship. Besides, to use Lambeth 2008 as any kind of model seems ludicrous to me, when the one person who most needed to be included in the Indaba, Bishop Gene Robinson, was not invited to Lambeth by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams because he was a partnered gay man.

Yes, I cringe at the word 'enforce'. To attempt to enforce listening is as futile as the Anglican Covenant's call to force the bonds of affection. You can put people in the same room, but you can't make them listen to each other.

It is my prayer that the Anglican Covenant will act as a midwife for the delivery of a new Anglican Communion, a Communion that has its gestation in relationship and deep listening.

What is the bishop's vision of the new Anglican Communion? I'd like a clearer picture. Whatever her vision, the choice of the Anglican Covenant as the midwife for the delivery seems to me disastrous.

Bishop Matthews serves on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order. I understand that for members appointed to committees by the Anglican Communion Office or the Archbishop of Canterbury the pressure to speak in favor of the covenant must be rather intense. Still, much of what Bishop Matthews says seems to me faint praise. I find it especially telling that so few quotes from the actual text of the covenant appear in the essays in favor of the covenant. Could it be because the covenant is badly written?

And, in passing, the name of the committee on which Bishop Matthews serves makes me cringe, because it reminds me of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which began life as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. As a former Roman Catholic, I know that the Congregation was often used to discipline 'dissidents'. The comparison may be unfair, but I wish the committee had another name.

UPDATE: I meant to link to Lionel's post on Victoria Matthews' essay at Lionel Diemel's Web Log, where I first posted parts of my commentary.

TWO QUESTIONS FOR THE DAY

1. Will Archbishop Rowan Williams come to rue the day that he rammed the Anglican Covenant through General Synod of the Church of England?

2. If the answer to the above question is, 'Yes', will the archbishop ever admit to his rue?

ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF AUCKLAND, NZ, OPPOSES ANGLICAN COVENANT

Bosco Peters at Liturgy informs us of the good news that the Anglican Diocese of Auckland, New Zealand, passed a motion opposing the Anglican Covenant. Read the text of the motion at Bosco's blog.

'WHY I OPPOSE THE ANGLICAN COVENANT' - CANON ALAN PERRY

Canon Alan Perry of the Anglican Church of Canada, who blogs at Insert Catchy Blog Title Here, dissected the Anglican Covenant, part by part, in a good many posts at his blog. At the link above Alan summarizes the reasons why he opposes the covenant. His entire post is excellent, but two statements in his summary jumped out at me.

Most of the member churches of the Anglican Communion seemed to find the first three sections of the covenant acceptable as a document to which they could attach their name, but Alan cautions us to think again. With regard to Section 3:

But, as I have said, “there is one fundamental problem with this whole section of the proposed Covenant, and that is that it seems to assume both that Churches will have a tendency to act in a manner which is irresponsible, or that their mechanisms for discernment and consultation are inadequate. And it seems to assume that relations among the churches of the Anglican Communion will normally be marked by conflict.” In fact, those assumptions underlie the entire proposed Covenant, which says much more about the context of our current conflict than about our aspirations for life as an Anglican Communion. (My emphasis)

That's a pretty sad assumption. What a crooked foundation upon which to build a community based on the New Covenant of Jesus Christ in which we are bid to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves!

Skipping to Alan's commentary on Section 4:

And what to say of the dispute-settling mechanism? It provides for a process by which “controversial actions” can be assessed and, if such actions are determined to be “incompatible with the Covenant,” impose “relational consequences” on a Church that refuses to withdraw the offending action. But this process has more holes than Swiss cheese. For starters, there is no definition of what might constitute a “controversial action.” You might imagine that it would be something that is contrary to the standards of faith, but since, as mentioned above, these standards are not clearly defined, we're really no further ahead. Nor are “relational consequences” clearly defined. So we don't really know what the rules are or what the punishment is for violating them. (My emphasis)

So. We are to sign on to play the Anglican Covenant game despite uncertainty about what will be required of us after we sign and what consequences will follow if we break the rules of the game, even though we don't know the rules. The words in bold actually made me burst out laughing, but it's not funny, because the people in high places who ask us to agree to such an absurd document are quite serious.

Alan has a Master's Degree in Canon Law from Cardiff University, but he wishes his words on the covenant to stand or fall on their own without reference to his credentialed expertise. Oh that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams would take a lesson from Alan! For his part, he seems determined to ram the adoption of the covenant through the Church of England General Synod, not on the basis of the soundness of the document itself, but on the basis of personal loyalty to him in his position as Archbishop of Canterbury. It's a shameful exercise to witness.

Read Alan's entire summary.

The complete text of the Anglican Covenant may be found here.

BISHOPS IN EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE PHILIPPINES 'NOT IN FAVOR' OF ANGLICAN COVENANT

According to John Chilton at The Lead, the Rt. Rev. Edward Malecdan, Prime Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the Philippines, stated in his address to General Synod in May that the bishops of the church are 'not in favor' of the Anglican Covenant.

[T]he Anglican Covenant which is supposedly a proposed document to help diffuse the tension in the Communion. The document is intended to be the final arbiter in the resolution of conflicts in the communion and that all member churches will have to adhere to its provisions. The ECP Council of Bishops noted that the document provides for the creation of a Standing Committee that will be the “Supreme Court” as it were, for the Anglican Communion to lord it over all Anglican Provinces. This, to the Council is very un-Anglican because of the autonomous nature of each Anglican Province. Hence, we are not in favor of the document. (My emphasis)

In the Primates’ Meeting I attended in Ireland, the unity and diversity of the Anglican Communion was clearly and strongly affirmed. We recognized that Anglicans have many disagreements as a Communion but we still can be agreeable to one another. We can still move towards reconciliation as sisters and brothers as a gift of God to us by persistently talking about our differences. This is the beauty of Anglicanism. Unity in diversity which is a recognized uniqueness of the Communion is preserved.

Good news, indeed, accompanied by excellent reasons for not favoring the covenant. Thank you bishops of our sister church in the Philippines for showing us the way! If the bishops are not in favor of the covenant, it cannot be adopted by General Synod.

AND THAT'S JUST THE INTRODUCTION!

From Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary of Modern Church in the UK:

When I debated the Covenant with Gregory Cameron in March he said nobody had disputed Sections 1-3, so they were acceptable. My take is that nobody debated them because they are not the sharp edge.

On my reading, the wording is poorly put together, and full of conservative evangelical stances which fly in the face of mainstream theological scholarship.

The Introduction centres round a string of biblical texts interpreted in a ‘conservative evangelical’ manner which no reputable biblical scholar would approve of. Just to take the first example, ‘God has called us into communion in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1.9).’ If you read the biblical text, it doesn’t mention you, me, the Archbishop of Canterbury or any Anglican. It was the Christian congregation at Corinth about 50 AD who were being called. The subsequent biblical references get no better: the only biblical scholars who would approve of the way these texts are used are the ones who repudiate mainstream scholarship in the interests of what some people call ‘literalist’ readings (i.e. readings interpreted according to a tradition that fantasises about taking the words literally).

Intro 3. ‘We humbly recognize that this calling and gift of communion entails responsibilities for our common life’…
Well, is it a gift or is it a calling? If it is a gift we’ve got it. If it is a calling we haven’t. Perhaps it was a gift, subsequently messed up? Yet church historians are quite clear that Christianity was a diverse movement from the start. In the New Testament ‘communion’ is about gathering together for the Eucharist, not international institutions to which local churches belong.

Intro 4. ‘In the providence of God, which holds sway even over our divisions caused by sin’. Are all divisions caused by sin? For example, are differences of opinion about gays and lesbians necessarily sinful? Isn’t this presupposing that all Christians ought to hold exactly the same opinions?

Intro 4. ‘We recognise the wonder, beauty and challenge of maintaining communion in this family of churches, and the need for mutual commitment and discipline as a witness to God’s promise in a world and time of instability, conflict, and fragmentation.’

Maintaining communion is not the same as maintaining unity, unless you define communion as unity; and if so, this is a very unbiblical account of communion. I haven’t come across anyone who thinks maintaining communion is wonderful or beautiful. The language of God’s promises, here and elsewhere, needs to be challenged: on what grounds can we claim that God has promised what, and to whom? Once again we are being invited to accept an anti-intellectual conservative evangelical interpretation of the Bible.

Intro 5. ‘To covenant together is not intended to change the character of this Anglican expression of Christian faith. Rather, we recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified.’

... Pompous cant. this text contradicts itself. The covenant is ‘not intended to change the character’ of Anglicanism, but it is intended to reaffirm and intensify the bonds of affection. Reaffirm okay, but intensify means change.

Intro 6. ‘We are a people who live, learn, and pray by and with the Scriptures as God’s Word.’ Another bit of conservative evangelical pompous cant. Sounds as though you can’t be an Anglican unless you spend a good chunk of your time reading the Bible and praying about it. I guess most Anglicans don’t. Want to exclude them? More importantly, what about ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us?’

So. The Anglican Covenant is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and the scholarship behind the Scripture citations is poor.

And that's just the introduction!

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA - LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES IN THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Canon Alan Perry, a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada at his blog Insert Cathchy Blog Title Here:

The Governance Working Group of the Anglican Church of Canada has released its report on the legal and constitutional implications of the proposed Anglican Covenant, as requested by the General Synod. In addition to the report, there is also an executive summary.

Definitional Concerns lists no fewer than nine key terms in the proposed Covenant that are left undefined. This is a concern because, as the report states, “the Covenant is more than a statement of belief or intention; it is a legal document.” Exactly. And as a legal document it requires clarity of definition. For without clarity, the report says, it is “difficult to know the full nature and extent of the obligations which would be undertaken by adopting the Covenant.” That being the case, it is difficult to understand how any Synod can responsibly vote to adopt the Covenant.

Under the rubric of Procedural Concerns, the report discusses seven difficulties with the dispute-settling process in the proposed Covenant. For example, the report raises concerns about the vagueness of the process in section 4.2. (See my comments in this vein here.) It also notes that the process fails to guarantee the principles of Natural Justice. I have also analysed this issue in two parts here and here. Furthermore, there is no right or mechanism to appeal a decision of the Standing Committee.

Even if you don't read the entire report, do have a look at the executive summary. It's well worth taking the time, because, as I see it, the document has implications beyond the Anglican Church of Canada.

Lionel Deimel, of the Diocese of Pittsburgh in the US, also comments on the Canadian church report.

Today, however, the Anglican Church of Canada released a document that, although it does not draw the obvious conclusion that the Covenant should be rejected because it is incompetently written, most definitely establishes that it is incompetently written. One cannot, in fact, read “Legal and Constitutional Issues Presented to the Canadian Church by the Proposed Anglican Covenant” without concluding that the text of the Covenant is a train wreck.

Lionel notes from a story in Episcopal News Service that the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church received a report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons, which will not be published until later because, as council member Rosalie Ballantine said, “We’re reluctant to have it out there” because some people may assume that decisions have already been made."

In the interest of transparency, I'd hope that the Executive Council will rethink withholding the report, unless there are very serious reasons for doing so. The decision in favor of secrecy following on the heels of the Anglican Church of Canada's quick release of their document invites unfavorable comparison.

As Jim Naughton says at The Lead, "Conversely, the Anglican Church of Canada, which apparently regards its members as adults, has released its report...along with an executive summary...."

Transparency is the best policy, except for the gravest of reasons, and what people may assume does have the ring of gravity sufficient for withholding release of the document until a later time.

ADOPT, ACCEDE, ENDORSE, OR SUBSCRIBE TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT?

The letter below is from Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary to Modern Church in England. The missive was sent to the Church Times but was not published in the newspaper. I thought the letter deserved wider readership, and, when I asked, Jonathan gave me permission to publish the letter here at Wounded Bird. My wee blog is not the Church Times, but the letter follows, unedited:

So neither Ireland nor South-East Asia decided to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant – but neither felt able to just say no. Ireland voted to ‘subscribe’ to it, South-East Asia to ‘accede’ to it. As both provinces know, these are meaningless expressions; the Covenant will only come into force if the provinces sign on the dotted line to adopt it. Why are they pussyfooting about?

There is a good reason. Provincial leaders are under immense pressure to sign the Covenant, but few of them like it. It was originally conceived as a way of threatening the USA with expulsion over gay bishops. The present text makes two changes to that aim. Firstly, instead of directly threatening to expel, it sets up an international system which could respond to complaints by expelling but could decide not to; we wouldn’t know the result until after it had been set up. So GAFCON have decided this is not discipline enough and have gone their own way, leaving the rest of us wondering who still wants it.

The second change is that the Covenant makes no mention of same-sex partnerships. It would be possible for one province to object to any initiative by another and demand a judgement from the newly empowered central authorities. Anglicanism would become a confessional sect where we were told what to believe.

So what do provinces do? If they refuse to sign, they may find themselves effectively expelled. If they do sign, they will no longer be able to run their own affairs without constantly checking whether someone in another part of the world objects. So they opt for a third alternative. There isn’t one, but they act as though there is. Whether ‘subscribe’ and ‘accede’ end up counting as ‘adopt’ will no doubt depend on which side has the cleverer political manipulators.


Jonathan Clatworthy
General Secretary
Modern Church
Liverpool, UK


gensec@modernchurch.org.uk

www.modernchurch.org.uk

www.clatworthy.org

Provinces who adopt the covenant could still be expelled, so whether to adopt or not puts a province in somewhat of a double bind situation. Jonathan makes an important point about any province being able to report any initiative by another province. What a tangle of tasks the new bureaucracy could be faced with in having to judge the complaints. I can't help but imagine the future operations of the standing committee, or whatever group will judge whether the complaints are worthy of consideration or action, as similar to a teacher having to deal with a stream of tattling children and finally saying, "Enough!"

My guess is that the Anglican Communion Office, or whichever body has decision-making power, will conclude that if the term used by a province remotely suggests adoption, the province will be considered to have adopted the Anglican Covenant.

EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF QUINCY SAYS NO TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy
Anglican Covenant Responses

We, the deputies of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, each having read the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant thoroughly and prayerfully and various documents in favor and not in favor of adopting the covenant, report our unanimous response (with one lay deputy absent due to serious illness):

1) We have grave reservations about the “instruments of the Communion,” the authority bestowed by the proposed covenant and the hierarchy it creates. The only hierarchy of the Communion has been a spiritual one, bonding all Anglicans to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Lambeth Conference is an important gathering of the Communion’s bishops, each now by invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It may issue recommendations or spiritual advice to the Communion, but has no binding authority.

The Anglican Consultative Council, created by the Lambeth Conference in 1968, is not widely recognized as an authoritative body in the Communion, nor does it appear to be clearly known to the average Anglican.

The Primates’ Meeting seems to have taken on a life of its own and again is not widely understood or seen as a source of authority.

While the present wording of the Covenant does not clearly establish these bodies as an authoritative hierarchy it is a move in that direction.

We only recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as our spiritual head, and no other earthly international authority. We see no reason to change this.

2) Despite protests to the contrary, it is clear that section 4 is punitive. It is a break with the history of the Communion, which has been a warm fellowship of churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and who share common sources of worship and tradition.

3) The need or desirability of a Covenant, with or without section 4, seems to us counterproductive, sewing seeds of conflict and endangering the great productivity with which God has blessed our Communion.

4) While manifold blessings are being given us as our global community draws closer together, we must recognize that the world in which we live is still very diverse. The customs, circumstances, growth and spiritual needs of people throughout our world share much in common and yet remain quite divergent as our histories, traditions and social interactions are not always the same. We recognize that the continents and countries of our world each have unusual, sometimes unique, needs to which God, through His Church, will respond in varying ways. We can only respect these needs and differences and recognize God’s grace showered on us all.

5) All of our deputies feels the language of the proposed Covenant is too vague, unclear and not concise. Specifically it was called “gobbledygook.” The average church person probably will have little idea what the covenant really says or means, if she or he can be induced somehow to read it. We doubt few have any real interest in a covenant.

6) We feel rather than binding the Communion together in closer fellowship, the proposed covenant, with or without Section 4, is an invitation to conflict and will lead to further stress and distrust that will endanger our future together.

7) We shall attend General Convention determined to listen carefully and be open to the Spirit. However, with the knowledge and urging of that Holy Spirit we have received up to this point, we shall will vote against adopting the Covenant.

Submitted by:

The lay and clergy deputies to the 2012 General Convention from the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, 24 April 2011.

Add another "no" vote by a diocese to endorsement of the proposed covenant. Keep them coming.

The response is not yet posted to the diocesan website.

DIOCESE OF MICHIGAN SAYS NO TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

Response to the Anglican Covenant

General Convention Deputation

Diocese of Michigan

The Deputies and Alternates to the 77th General Convention met on March 10 to consider the Anglican Covenant and the accompanying Study Guide. Our response to the proposed Covenant comes in seven parts:

Our first response to the Anglican Covenant is to affirm fellowship and communion.

Such unity as these words imply is our highest good and perhaps our greatest blessing. We uphold, stand for, honor and thank God for communion.

Our second response is to ask how we can newly enter into a relationship in which we already stand and have been enjoying for some time. Just as one would not ask people long married to enter into a newly-written contract of marriage, nor ask members of a family suddenly to enter into a contract of kinship, neither can we understand why or how we could suddenly attempt to do so among our sister and brother Anglicans around the world. We believe the effort is redundant, and indeed, perhaps even dishonors the reality in which we live.

Our third response is to question the appropriateness of “Covenant” as a model for eccelesial relations. To quote from materials prepared by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, “’Covenant” implies a superior who offers the covenant and a subordinate who accepts it. So God extends the covenant to Israel and Israel is bound to the terms of God's covenant. As applied to the relationship between God and Israel and between Christ and the Church this implication is foundational.” Because “Covenant” implies a hierarchical relationship, the term is inappropriate when used to describe the network of relationships between co-equal and autonomous national churches.

Our fourth response is to suggest that the Covenant document creates an international bureaucratic superstructure whose existence is at odds with the longstanding autonomy of national churches. To give juridical, disciplinary authority to super-national bodies contradicts the foundational impulses that led to the establishment of the Church of England in the sixteenth century. We believe that the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council already serves as a warrant for fellowship, communion, and ministry between the churches of the Anglican Communion.

Our fifth response is to affirm the vocation of the Episcopal Church in the full inclusion of all its members in all orders of ministry and the full access of all its members to its sacramental rites. Since 1979, the Episcopal Church’s baptismal covenant has included a promise to, among other things, “respect the dignity of every human being.”

Our sixth response is to express our fervent hope that the Anglican Covenant process may be an occasion to refocus our national and international energies on mission and ministry. The challenges facing us together and severally are profound. We believe that energy expended on the disciplinary processes outlined in section four would be better spent in proactive ministry to the poor, the oppressed, and those who have yet to hear the Gospel.

Our seventh and final response is to reaffirm that we are in relationship already with one another, quite apart from signing or not signing a document. Are we not the Body of Christ, and individually members of it? As the eye cannot say to the ear, "I have no need of you", nor the hand to the foot, neither can we deny what is our heritage, reality, hope, and destiny. The Covenant that binds us together is the mutuality of our ministry and accountability conferred in Baptism. The Baptismal Covenant that binds us together is no imperfect human creation. The Baptismal Covenant by which we are bound one to another is the one, perfect, eternal covenant given us by God in Christ. On that covenant we delight to stand; in that communion, second to none, we are proud to serve.

For these and other reasons, we recommend against adoption of the Anglican Covenant by the Episcopal Church.

Whoo-hoo! Keep them noes a-comin'. I especially like that the deputation called attention to the fact that relationships already exist and their analogies to asking married couples and family members to enter into a contract when bonds are already present. The proposed Anglican Covenant is daft in so many ways.

Note: As of today, the statement is not yet posted at the website of the Diocese of Michigan.

DIOCESE OF KANSAS SAYS NO TO SECTION 4 OF ANGLICAN COVENANT

April 24, 2011

To: Executive Council Task Force on the Anglican Covenant

From: Diocese of Kansas General Convention deputation

The deputies to the 2012 General Convention from the Diocese of Kansas met to discuss the proposed Anglican Covenant. Consistent with the principles set out in resolution D025 of the Episcopal Church General Convention in 2009, we reaffirm the abiding commitment of the Episcopal Church to live in fellowship with the churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and we seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible. We desire to have the Episcopal Church participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion.

With this in mind, we gave prayerful consideration to the proposed Covenant. There were no major issues raised by members of the deputation regarding the first three sections of the proposed covenant.

However, the deputation does not support Section Four of the covenant, which for the first time in the history of the Anglican Communion, imposes penalties or “relational consequences” against Churches in the Communion should they refuse to “defer a controversial action” deemed to be “incompatible with the Covenant.” Imposing penalties for actions or decisions deemed incompatible with the Covenant is inconsistent with our traditional understanding of covenants, as reflected in the marriage covenant or the baptismal covenant. These covenants do not include penalties or “relational consequences.” The deputation believes that the inclusion of such penalties would be antithetical to any covenantal relationship. The inclusion of penalties is consistent with a contractual or legal relationship in the secular world, not a covenantal relationship.

The Anglican Communion has grown and thrived without any need for a centralized authority or the imposition of penalties for controversial actions or decisions. The members of the Anglican Communion are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and our unity should not be imperiled because of a lack of uniformity in practices or beliefs. In the 1860s, the Episcopal Church refused to split despite strong disagreement about slavery which led to a bloody Civil War. By remaining one body during this very difficult time, we emerged a stronger, healthier, and more faithful church. As Bishop Alexander stated in his book This Far by Grace, living together in tension and disagreement is always preferable to schism. Furthermore, the areas of agreement that bind us together in the Anglican Communion far exceed those areas in which we are not of one mind.

We look forward to continuing to walk together with all our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion and give thanks for our fellowship.

Section 4 is certainly the most objectionable part of the proposed Anglican Covenant for reasons which the deputation from the diocese expresses well.

H/T to Jim Naughton at The Lead.

ST MARY'S MANHATTANVILLE SAYS NO TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Allen Mellon at Morningsider:

My parish, St. Mary's Manhattanville, came out unanimously against the Anglican Covenant at our Annual Meeting on the first Sunday in Lent. A drafting committee, of which as it turned out I was the principal drafter, came up with a statement for submission to national church by the stated Eater deadline. I apologize for a little awkwardness in the statement, especially for the fact the the scriptural quotations are somewhat loosely stuck in. I simply ran out of time and I wanted to include all the suggestions of all the members.

Here is the statement:

April 23, 2011

Resolution of the Annual Meeting
St. Mary's Manhattanville Episcopal Church
521 West 126th Street
New York, New York 10027

In response to the invitation extended to all parishes in The Episcopal Church to study and comment upon the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant, this parish of St. Mary's Manhattanville Episcopal Church in New York, New York recommends that the General Convention of The Episcopal Church not endorse the Covenant. Adopted unanimously, March 13, 2011....

Read the rest of the statement at Allen's blog.

A TEST DRIVE? NO THANK YOU

Canon Alan Perry, who blogs at Insert Catchy Blog Title Here, and is a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, has written a remarkable series of in-depth posts on the proposed Anglican Covenant. His latest is titled Test Driving the Anglican Covenant – Part 1. It is excellent.

I believe that I'd rather not test drive the proposed covenant. After reading Alan's recent post and his earlier posts parsing the document, I'll take Alan's word for it that the covenant will very likely solve nothing and will rather exacerbate the frustration and anger experienced by certain members of the churches in the Anglican Communion.

In Alan's next to last post, titled Yes, Virginia, There is an Alternative, he punches enough holes in the TINA ("There is no alternative.") excuse for adopting the covenant to turn it into a sieve. See for yourself.