NO TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT - YES TO THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION

Tomorrow six Church of England diocesan synods will meet to vote on whether to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The vote now stands at 13 dioceses against, and 8 dioceses for. Posted below are three videos which may be helpful to synod members who are as yet undecided as to how they will vote.



In the video, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams tells why he thinks the Anglican Covenant matters. I hope for a different outcome than the archbishop, that a majority of Church of England dioceses votes 'no' to the covenant.



Louie Crew, founder of Integrity, makes great good sense with a few, clear, well-chosen words as he cautions against probable punitive consequences of adopting the Anglican Covenant.

There are other ways forward, and I urge you if you have anything to do with this process, make sure that this Covenant is voted down.

Diarmaid MacCulloch is Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. He was knighted for his service to scholarship in January 2012.

I pray that God bestows the gift of wisdom on those who vote.

Note: The idea for the title of my post is from Kelvin Holdsworth at What's in Kelvin's Head?

PREY UNCEASINGLY

Alas, must Rowan make do with the floor, rather than a prie dieu, because he's not a 'real' archbishop in the eyes of the pope?

The proposed Anglican Covenant is, in part, an attempt by the Archbishop of Canterbury to gain the approval of Pope Benedict and ease the way into a closer relationship between the Vatican and Canterbury. You see, we Anglicans are, at present, a diverse lot, a messy communion of autonomous churches, and Rowan wants to gather us into a 'real' Anglican church vis-a-vis the church of Rome. He should know that the attempt is similar to the old cliché of trying to herd cats. Besides, no matter what Rowan does, the pope will not accept him as a 'real' archbishop, nor will he accept Anglican orders as valid. Even if the ABC joined the ordinariate or converted to the RCC, he could not be a bishop, much less an archbishop, because he is married.

Anglicans decided nearly 500 years ago that they preferred an autonomous church, the Church of England, which was not under the authority of Rome. Why is Rowan so anxious to curry favor with the RCC, especially after the recent shabby treatment of only very short notice by of the powers in the Vatican before the predatory RC ordinariates were set up in England to woo away disaffected Anglicans? Why try to foist the covenant on the churches in the Anglican Communion partly to 'relate' better to Rome? We (at least a good many of us) want to be in communion with other Anglican Churches, but we do not want to be a worldwide Anglican Church.

Clever and very funny photoshop from The MadPriest Internet Chop Shop.

'BISHOP YELLOW BELLY FIGHTS BACK'

Passage of the Anglican Communion Covenant was supposed to be an easy task in England. But then people started reading, marking, learning and inwardly digesting the document and found it gave them stomach cramps. And this has made Bishop Yellow Belly "very, very angry."

H/T to SCG at Wake up and Live.

I AM ADDICTED TO THE PAC

All right, I admit it: I am addicted to efforts to bring down the proposed Anglican Covenant (PAC) to a crushing defeat. I find the events in the Church of England quite exciting. Who would ever have thought there was a chance of defeating the covenant in the Archbishop of Canterbury's own church? I attribute no small part of the success in diocesan synods of the Church of England voting 'no' to the efforts of NACC, of which I am a part, though I make only the smallest of contributions. Please, even if you could not care less about the Anglican Covenant, bear with me through my craziness until I wear out or until we can say, 'Mission accomplished!'

You may be curious as to why I am intensely interested and involved in the PAC. What I foresee coming out of GC of the Episcopal Church in July is some type of resolution for 'further study' of the document, so why worry? (Not that we should take anyhing for granted!) A good many of our sisters and brothers in other churches in the communion do not favor adoption of the covenant. Especially now in England with diocesan synods voting, my intention with my numerous posts is to help my English friends and others around the communion as much as possible to achieve their goal. My poor efforts may not help at all, but I have to try to put out information to assist anyone involved in voting to make informed decisions about whether to vote for or against the PAC.

The heavy hitters amongst the proponents of the Anglican Covenant are fighting for the life of the covenant in the Church of England. The vote now stands at 13 diocesan synods voting against the covenant and 9 voting in favor. This coming Saturday, six diocesan synods will vote.

Ripon and Leeds

Bath and Wells

Southwark

Carlisle

Coventry

Worcester

The members of synods have a choice on how to vote, or there would be no vote, but only theoretically according to the Anglican Communion Office, which wants the members to believe that there's only one right way to vote: in favor of adopting the PAC. Thus the ACO provides only pro-PAC material

Below is a round-up of links to posts around and about the internet giving reasons why the covenant should be defeated.

Ann Fontaine at What the Tide Brings In responds to Gregory Cameron's defense of the covenant at Fulcrum.

Benny Hazlehurst at Benny's Blog:

For example, I live in an area of Salisbury diocese where our local Bishop, Graham Kings, is vociferously in favour of the Covenant. He has devoted much time and effort in writing, speaking and arguing for it - yet in this same diocese our new Diocesan Bishop voted against the Covenant in Diocesan Synod, as did Graham Kings predecessor, Bishop Tim Thornton in his diocese of Truro.

Laura at Lay Anglicana:

But I have another suggestion. The most exciting spectator sport on offer this Saturday, 10 March 2012, is the Pro Anglican Covenant v Anti Anglican Covenant encounter being played out in another six diocesan synods across the land. These are exceptional times we live in – it has been said (rather rudely) that a deanery synod is a collection of people waiting to go home, and I have not heard that diocesan synods are any more gripping. But, if you have any imagination at all, this contest should have you on the edge of your seats with excitement.

Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:

Kovenunty

with apologies to Lewis Carroll. I mean, serious apologies...

'Twas britigg, and the slithy coves
Did gyre and wimple in the nave;
All mimsy were the piscophobes
As the Pre-Lates misbehave.

You know you want to read the rest.

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website provides a wealth of material advocating for rejection of the PAC, but, for the sake of balance, provides quotes and links for material in favor of the PAC. which is more than I can say for the ACO.

My suggestions to any involved in the process are:

Read the text of the PAC.

Read both pro and con arguments.

Make up your own mind as to whether the covenant is the solution to the disagreements in the Anglican Communion.

Vote accordingly.

FURTHER ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT...PROF. DIARMAID MACCULLOUGH

There are other ways forward, and I urge you if you have anything to do with this process, make sure that this Covenant is voted down.

Diarmaid MacCulloch is Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford and Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford. He was knighted for his service to scholarship in January 2012.

"I was ordained Deacon [in the Church of England]. But, being a gay man, it was just impossible to proceed further, within the conditions of the Anglican set-up, because I was determined that I would make no bones about who I was; I was brought up to be truthful, and truth has always mattered to me. The Church couldn't cope and so we parted company. It was a miserable experience."

From Wikipedia.

MacCulloch's two latest books are Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years and The Reformation, both of which I've read. They are excellent, and I recommend the two publications highly.

LOUIE CREW RESPONDS TO ARCHBISHOP ROWAN

Louie Crew, founder of Integrity, makes great good sense with a few, clear, well-chosen words as he cautions against probable punitive consequences of adopting the Anglican Covenant. Geaux, Louie!

'INTERVENTION BEFORE SUPER SATURDAY'

You must read Adrian's post at Pluralist Speaks. He reveals to us the meaning behind the words of Archbishop Rowan Tree's speech on YouTube. Here's a sample:

Debate in the Church in England about the proposed Anglican Covenant is still going on and I admit I am getting worried, if not a little desperate. So I thought, I know, I'll go on You Tube and try to rescue the situation.

And so this is quite a desperate moment to repeat some of my points surrounding that debate and perhaps also to remind you little people of what I want.

The Covenant, as it sits, is a document that was drawn up over a period involving pretty well no one of unimportance in the Anglican Communion. The Church in England itself played virtually no part in successive drafts of the Covenant, other than the few high level contributions we up here have made over there.

This is why I have to keep saying what the Covenant is about, either me or through the UFO. Essentially, it's about going slow in the Communion. As in any argumentative family, what we do can annoy your mum, dad, sister, brother or grandparents. Well, Anglicanism has a lot of brothers and sisters and some wayward cousins. The Covenant is about not upsetting any of your brothers and sisters in terms of the Communion's life. Think about how all the arguments at bedtime could be avoided if we didn't use the bathroom, didn't go to bed or didn't stay up at night.

Now head on over there to read the rest and be enlightened.

WHY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THINKS THE COVENANT MATTERS

TRANSCRIPT

Debate in the Church of England about the proposed Anglican Covenant is still going on. And this is quite a good moment to take stock of some of the issues surrounding that debate and perhaps also to remind people of some of the concerns that lie behind the proposals affecting the Covenant.

The Covenant, as it stands, is a document that was drawn up over a long period of consultation involving pretty well everybody in the Anglican Communion. The Church of England itself played a very important part in contributing to successive drafts of the Covenant, and I think we can be rightly proud of some of the contributions we have made there.

But what is the Covenant really about? Essentially, it’s about being accountable to each other in the Communion. As in any family, what we do affects those with whom we are in a relationship. The Covenant is about thinking through those relationships, and what the consequences are of whatever we choose to do in our own particular bit of the Communion’s life.

But one of the greatest misunderstandings around concerning the Covenant is that it’s some sort of centralising proposal creating an absolute authority which has the right to punish people for stepping out of line. I have to say I think this is completely misleading and false.

The Covenant suggests a process of scrutiny. That is, when any particular bit of the Anglican Communion decides it wants to do something new, for whatever reason, then that particular bit of the Communion needs to look at what it is doing and think it through in terms of what its effects might be elsewhere in the Anglican family. And as that process of scrutiny goes on other provinces are drawn in, and the instruments of the Communion at large are drawn in. We look at what we’re doing in the light of its effects, not just for us, but for others.

It may be that at the end of the day there are real incompatible possibilities around. Choices have to be made, and relations may suffer as a result. They do already. And what the Covenant proposes is not a set of punishments, but a way of thinking through what the consequences are of decisions people freely and in good conscience make.

But who needs the Covenant, it might be said? There’s one very short answer to that. Some bits of our Communion represent needy and isolated parts of the Christian world. They need relationships. They need the assurance that we won’t drive them into difficult positions. They need to know that we take them seriously enough to engage in conversation with them. And that’s part of what keeps them going and what makes them strong. It’s very interesting that some of the parts of the Communion that have already said yes to the Covenant are exactly that kind of church.

And so, as we in our dioceses think about the Covenant, I believe it’s of the very first importance that we try and bear in mind how it’s going to impact, let’s say, on our companion dioceses in other parts of the Communion: we might want to ask them about it; we might want to think through what they have to say and how they might feel.

A lot of people have said that the first few sections of the Covenant, the first three bits of the Covenant, are uncontroversial. They set out a common ground on which we all agree and they, in general ways, urge us to think about these things – to think about the impact on other parts of the Communion and what we decide to do.

But then people say the difficulty comes with the fourth section. But that fourth section is not a disciplinary system. It’s about a process of discernment and discussion. Nobody has the power to do anything but recommend courses of action. Nobody is forced by that into doing anything.

And it’s worth remembering also that the sort of issues that may arise within the Communion that threaten deeply to divide us are not just the ones that have been most in focus in the last seven or eight years; issues especially around human sexuality. There could be many other developments: developments about how we understand our ordained ministry; how we understand our mission; the limits of diversity in our worship; even perhaps in the public language we use about our doctrine. If we don’t have any way of scrutinising, discerning and discussing, then I think we’re a great deal the poorer.

What’s more, it means that we come into our ecumenical discussions, our discussions with other churches, without any very clear sense of what holds us together. Many of our ecumenical partners are very interested in the Covenant and very enthusiastic about it. They like to think that they're dealing with a family of churches capable of talking to one another intelligently, sympathetically, and critically; a family of churches that has a common language, a common practice, a common set of standards about how to resolve conflicts when they arise. Not to endorse the Covenant does seem to me, in this context, once again an impoverishing sort of thing. It sets us rather on the back foot in our conversations with other churches.

The Covenant won’t solve all our problems, but it will express what a great many people in the Communion and outside need to hear: that we are answerable to one another; that we take each other fully seriously. And in terms of the Church of England, it means that we understand and accept that the Church of England is part of the Anglican family, not some special isolated little bit that doesn’t have to ask these questions.

What do we in the Church of England gain from it? What we gain from being part of a Communion: the wisdom, the challenge – sometimes acceptable, sometimes welcome, sometimes very difficult – of our sister churches. We gain a way of handling the sort of conflicts that otherwise threaten simply to fester. And I believe with all my heart that what’s offered to us in the Covenant is an adult, sensible, workable way of handling the conflicts that will inevitably arise in a spirit of real mutual respect.

We’re being invited not to sign away our freedom but to accept that in the body of Christ we are all obliged to one another. We’re all responsible to, and for, and with one another. If we can approach the Covenant in that spirit then I believe passionately that it’s worth voting for and worth supporting. And my prayers will be with all of those who are making decisions about this in the dioceses of the Church of England.

© Rowan Williams 2012

I hope for a different outcome than the archbishop, that the Church of England votes 'no' to the covenant. I pray that God bestows the gift of wisdom on those who vote.

MORE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE 'NO' TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT - (ONE DIOCESE VOTES 'YES')

DIOCESE OF CHELMSFORD:

Bishops - 2 For, 1 Against, 1 Abstain

Clergy - 27 For, 29 Against, 7 Abstain

Laity - 31 For, 30 Against, 3 Abstain


DIOCESE OF HEREFORD:

Bishops - 2 For

Clergy - 15 For, 15 Against, 1 Abstain

Laity - 21 For, 23 Against, 1 Abstain

Defeated in both dioceses.

UPDATE: DIOCESE OF BRADFORD

Bishops - 1 For, 0 Against

Clergy - 15 For, 9 Against, 2 Abstain

Laity - 16 For, 15 Against, 3 Abstain

Passed in the diocese.

The total is now 13 dioceses in the Church of England voting against the covenant and 8 in favor.

TO THE PROVINCES OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION:

"Sign on to the Anglican Covenant, and toe the line, or else."

"Where is the line?"

"We can't answer your question. You will know you've crossed the line when you suffer 'relational consequences'."

Cartoon by MadPriest.

IF WE PAY, WHY CAN'T WE PLAY?

As I understand, the Anglican Communion Office and the Anglican Communion News Service are funded by all of the churches of the communion. The churches have been tasked with deciding whether or not to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant. One presumes a choice here, whether to adopt or not. Why then do the ACO and ACNS provide only pro-covenant material? It seems to me that the proper and fair thing to do would be to provide both pro and con information, so that the dioceses and the various churches in the communion are better able to make informed decisions.

It's not as though well-reasoned statements against adopting the covenant are non-existent. The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website offers such material from voices of members of different churches throughout the communion, and, in addition, offers pro-covenant material, including a blatantly anti-American paper by Peter Doll, Canon Librarian of Norwich Cathedral, which was sent out to all Church of England bishops by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. Why can't those of us who have serious doubts that the covenant is the solution to the present troubles and disagreements in the communion have our voices heard through the ACO and ACNS? Publicizing only pro-covenant material prejudices the vote in favor of the covenant, and the actions of the ACO and ACNS are not right and not fair.

TWO CHURCH OF ENGLAND DIOCESES VOTE 'YES' TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

The Dioceses of Sheffield and Winchester voted to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The count is now 7 CofE dioceses voting in favor of the covenant and 10 voting against.

My dream is for the Church of England to kill off the covenant, and then the rest of us in the Anglican Communion can forget about the pernicious document and stop talking about it.

H/T to Simon Sarmiento at Thinking Anglicans.

Cartoon by MadPriest.

IS THE ANGLICAN COVENANT THE BEST WAY FORWARD? REALLY?

Mark Harris at Preludium directs our attention to the three videos from the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO) in defense of the Anglican Covenant. The first video is here. Links to the other two may be found at Preludium.

Below is the commentary that accompanies the video:

In this video, members of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO http://bit.ly/wIPVqK) reflect on the Sections of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The members include:
- The Revd Canon Dr Sarah Rowland Jones, Anglican Church of Southern Africa
- The Rt Revd Kumara Ilangasinghe, recently retired Bishop of Kurunagala, Church of Ceylon
- The Rt Revd William Mchombo, The Church of the Province of Central Africa
- The Rt Revd Dr Howard Gregory, Bishop of Jamaica & The Cayman Islands, The Church in the Province of the West Indies
- The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, The Episcopal Church

Mark points out the irony of Dr Katherine Grieb's presence in the video.

Professor Grieb is herself now a consultant to IASCUFO rather than a full member precisely because of the "consequences" of The Episcopal Church's actions, and was done in ways similar to that provided for in Section Four.It is quite interesting, perhaps ironic, that she is in this video at all, what with her relation to a church so questionable that she is reduced to consultant status simply because she belongs to that church.

So. Because of the naughtiness of the Episcopal Church in ordaining gay bishops, Dr Grieb is already sidelined in the committee by some authority or other in the Anglican Communion, and yet she tells us not to worry. The covenant will apply to the church 'just as we are'. But, as Mark says further:

The real question IS about the future. If we sign or not, "where do we go from here?" If we sign, we will surely be disciplined and / or politically pressured and we will fight against that and be called divisive. If we do not, we will surely be called divisive for not signing.

To me, adopting or not adopting the proposed Anglican Covenant looks more and more like a Catch-22 situation for the Episcopal Church.

A further irony is that the videos were produced by (IASCUFO), a committee which is under the authority of the Anglican Communion Office, which is funded by all of the provinces in the Communion. Why then are the reflections in the videos entirely pro-covenant? If each province must decide whether to adopt the covenant or not, there is the possibility that not all will decide to adopt. Wouldn't it be fairer to present both pro and con material on whether the proposed covenant is the proper solution to the present disagreements in the Anglican Communion? Is no one at all on the committee entertaining doubts about whether the best way forward is to draw provinces of the communion together by exclusion or reduction to a lower status of certain present member provinces?

Have I mentioned that the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order reminds me of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which began life as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition? I'm sure the resemblance is purely coincidental.

UPDATES FROM NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION

From the No Anglican Covenant Coalition:

Church of England

General Synod voted 24 November 2010 to send the Covenant to diocesan synods. If a majority of synods , the question will be brought back to General Synod for a final vote.

Diocesan votes in favor of adopting the Covenant:

Lichfield
Durham
Europe
Bristol
Canterbury

Diocesan votes against adopting the Covenant:

Truro
Birmingham
Wakefield
St Edmundsbury & Ipswich
Derby
Gloucester
(Added as per votes taken today)
Salisbury
Portsmouth
Rochester
Leicester

Since the Anglican Communion Office sends out only pro-Covenant material, our like-minded brothers and sisters in England (with a little help from their friends in other churches of the Communion) are working double time to assure that as many dioceses as possible receive material presenting the argument against the adoption of the Covenant. It seems that when the delegates to diocesan synods hear both sides of the argument, they are more likely to vote against adoption of the Covenant.

That the ACO uses its resources to present only one side of the matter in question seems not right, if the goal is a fair assessment of the sentiments of the church at large as to whether the adoption of the Covenant would be a good thing. The materials that go out to the churches of the Anglican Communion from the ACO demonstrate the same lack of balance.

"A Short Introduction” also attempts to give a more balanced view of the Covenant than is available elsewhere. As our Convenor for the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Revd. Canon Hugh Magee, has said, “Many people have complained that the official study material from the Anglican Communion Office has lacked balance and has failed to take seriously the concerns of Covenant critics.”

Further news from the NACC:

"PROFESSOR MARILYN McCORD ADAMS APPOINTED AS COALITION’S FOURTH PATRON LONDON – The Revd Dr Lesley Crawley, Moderator of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, and Dr Lionel Deimel, the Coalition’s Episcopal Church Convenor, have announced the appointment of Professor Marilyn McCord Adams as a Patron of the Coalition. Professor McCord Adams joins Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby, and Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch whose appointments were announced previously." (My emphases)
....

McCord Adams is Distinguished Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. From 2004 to 2009, she was Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University and Residentiary Canon at Christ Church, Oxford. She also served as a member of the Church of England General Synod at the time when the Anglican Covenant was being developed.

We win some, and we lose some. What happens if the results of the votes in diocesan synods in the Church of England come down with a majority against adoption?

UPDATE: Today four Church of England dioceses voted against adoption of the Covenant. My cup runneth over!

UPDATE 2: Thinking Anglicans posted the vote totals for the four dioceses.

AND THE DIOCESE OF CANTERBURY...

...(surprise, surprise!) voted to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Lionel Deimel reports at the No Anglican Covenant blog:

Unsurprisingly, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s own diocese has voted in favor of the Covenant and issued a press release to that effect. According to the diocese, the vote was as follows: bishops—1 for; clergy—26 for, 11 against; laity—26 for, 14 against. There were no abstentions.

Well, if we can't win 'em all, two out of three ain't bad.

GOOD NEWS! DIOCESES OF DERBY AND GLOUCESTER SAY NO TO ANGLICAN COVENANT

From Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction:

The Diocese of Derby in the Church of England voted against the adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Bishops: for 0; against 1 (bishop Humphrey not present)
Clergy: for 1, against 21, abstention 2
Laity. for 2, against 24, absention 1

Tobias says:

Derby has been an Indaba partner with New York and Delhi (India) and according to the Twitter feed comments on the debate the Indaba experience contributed to the negative vote. This is natural, because Indaba represents the ideals the Covenant lauds but paradoxically disables in its notorious Section 4.

Yes! May the vote in Derby inspire other dioceses in the UK to vote against the proposed covenant. The supporters of the document say that there is no alternative to the covenant, but Indaba is one better way forward for the Anglican Communion as opposed to threats of 'relational consequences' for provinces who do not toe the line, although where the line is drawn, who can say?

Update from Nicholas Knisely at The Lead:

We're also seeing reports on twitter from Lesley Crawley's stream that Gloucester has voted against the Covenant as well. We're hoping to find more information soon on that.

It is confirmed that the Diocese of Gloucester voted against the Anglican Covenant. The numbers are below.

House of Clergy YES: 16; NO: 28; 1 abstention
House of Laity YES: 14; NO: 28; 6 abstentions
House of Bishops YES: 1; 1 abstention

JONATHAN CLATWORTHY ON THE PAPER DOLL

At Modern Church, Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary to the organization, wrote an excellent response to Peter Doll's inaccurate and downright insulting essay on the Episcopal Church in the United States and its relationship to the Anglican Communion and to the proposed Anglican Covenant. Doll is originally from the US, but he has served in the Church of England since his ordination. Still, Doll claims to know the church which he says nurtured him well. Peter Doll is Canon Librarian at Norwich Cathedral in England, therefore one would expect the fruits of his personal knowledge and research to exhibit a result that paints an accurate and evenhanded picture of the Episcopal Church, rather than the biased views expressed in the essay.

Keep in mind that Clatworthy is English and that it is entirely possible to arrive at a more realistic and balanced view of the Episcopal Church from across the big pond in the Green and Pleasant Land. That Doll's paper was sent to all the bishops in the Church of England with the stamp of approval from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is astounding to me.

Wait! On second thought, as I remember certain of Rowan's statements about the Episcopal Church, I am not so surprised, because Doll and Rowan come to seem more like birds of a feather, which makes me even more grateful for Clatworthy's admirable rebuttal.

I met Jonathan when I was in England, and we had a wonderful, long, chatty lunch in London between his trains, and I speak from personal knowledge when I say that he's all right.

Disclosure: Jonathan and I are both members of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.

Jonathan Clatworthy lives in Liverpool and is Modern Church General Secretary. He has worked as a parish priest, university chaplain and lecturer in Ethics.

A GOOD LETTER TO THE CHURCH TIMES FROM TWO CHURCH OF ENGLAND BISHOPS

From the Church Times:

From the Rt Revd Dr John Saxbee and the Rt Revd Dr Peter Selby

Sir, — Whichever side of the argument you are on there are grounds for real concern about the way the debate about it is progressing. It cannot be good to learn, as we do, that many bishops who are against the Anglican Covenant don’t want to say for fear of seeming disloyal, that diocesan synods are “debating” the issue without hearing both sides of the argument equally presented, and that there is so much boredom and weariness about the whole issue.

This is a major proposal with potentially serious consequences for this and future generations of Anglican Christians, and for those ecumenical partners with whom we are in conversation. Nothing will be worse than for the Covenant to be yawned through at a July Synod preoccupied with debating the ordination of women as bishops, passed and then put in a drawer — only for us to discover that those who now brand it “toothless” then use it and propel the Communion into a litigious and factious future.

The Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear in his Advent letter that such is not his purpose. But the proposed Covenant cannot now escape the identity it has acquired as an instrument of exclusion. He also asks what is the alternative; we respond that the alternative to having a Covenant is not having one, and this is a time to hold fast to Anglicanism’s inherited culture of inclusion and respectful debate which is our way of dealing with difference rather than require assent to procedures and words that have already shown themselves to be divisive.

In short, if we can agree it we don’t need it and if we need it we won’t agree it. We believe that the Covenant is to be resisted. But, above all, our plea is for a debate that is candid, even-handed, and open. If it comes to the General Synod, it should do so as its seriousness deserves, as the principal business.

JOHN SAXBEE
PETER SELBY

The Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to railroad the Anglican Covenant through the Church of England General Synod quickly, before too many people in the church have a chance to study the document closely and note what harm may result for the Anglican Communion and for the Church of England if the covenant is adopted. The Anglican Communion Office sends out only pro-covenant materials, which is not right and not fair, because the members of Synod need to hear from both proponents and opponents of the document in order to vote wisely.

Thank you, Bishops Saxbee and Selby for speaking out. Isn't it time for the other bishops who doubt the wisdom of adopting the covenant to lend their voices to the debate? I like very much the answer the bishops give to Archbishop Rowan's statement that there is no alternative to the covenant:

...we respond that the alternative to having a covenant is not having one and this is the time to hold fast to Anglicanism's inherited culture of inclusion and respectful debate....

Amen and amen!

Thanks to my English friend, Neal Terry (aka themethatisme), who sent me the letter which can now be viewed on the website of the Church Times.

SOUTHERN CONE ADOPTS ANGLICAN COVENANT - WHERE IS ACNA?

Mark Harris at Preludium puts 1 + 1 together and has a question. The Anglican Communion Office announced that the Province of the Southern Cone adopted the Anglican Covenant. Surprise, surprise!

The news release at the ACO website states:

In response to these novel practices the Southern Cone had held churches in North America under its wing for some time while the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) was formed. However, the Province has not maintained jurisdiction over any local churches there for over a year. As a result, all so called ‘border crossings’ by any provincial members ceased (as of October, 2010) even though the Southern Cone still remains in impaired communion with US and Canadian Provinces. It is hoped that the Covenant can now provide Communion stability.

Mark Harris further:

In ACNA land the Archbishop, himself a deposed bishop in The Episcopal Church was given residence in the PSC... that was in September 2008.

The Living Church stated, "Immediately after his deposition from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan was welcomed into the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, according to Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables." But those days are over.

Mark is moved to ask:

If Duncan is not in the PSC, where is he?

A very good question. Apparently, that ACNA was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone for over a year was a rather well-kept secret until now. Is no one expected to note that ACNA is now free-floating? Unless, of course, there is more that we don't know, and another province is holding the ACNA 'fledgling Province' under its wing.

From Archbishop Robert Duncan of ACNA:

Recent events within the Anglican Mission in the Americas have challenged us all. This letter is a brief report to you all about those events and about our efforts to find a path forward. The present reality is brokenness. The vision, however, that governs our fledgling Province remains unchanged: a Biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America.

So. Brokenness. One thing leads to another. If you read on, you will see that some sort of negotiations will take place between the AMiA bishops who departed from the Church of Rwanda and ACNA which will include discussion of the complication of ACNA's relstionships with the bishops, clergy, and congregations who remain under the jurisdiction of the Church in Rwanda.

The resignation of nine Anglican Mission bishops, including the Bishop Chairman, from the House of Bishops of Rwanda, changed relationships with Rwanda, with fellow bishops and with the Anglican Church in North America. The resigned bishops lost their status in our College of Bishops as a result of their resignation from Rwanda. The Anglican Mission also lost its status as a Ministry Partner, since that status had been predicated on AMiA’s relationship with Rwanda. In addition, confusion and hurt has been created in Rwanda and in North America, and there is much serious work ahead of us.

Are you still with me? I'm not certain that I am still with me. My brain is much smaller than Mark's. The story gets more and more complicated with unexpected (at least to me) twists and turns. I am greatly indebted to Mark Harris and his brilliant thought processes as he made the connections for his post, and I hope I have not done him a disservice by my shameless picking of his brain for my post.

My question: Will this fledgling fly?

SATURDAY MORNING CARTOON

Cartoon by MadPriest.

Lifted from Leonardo at Eruptions at the Foot of the Volcano.