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.

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.

EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF COLORADO SAYS NO TO THE COVENANT

Members of the Diocese of Colorado’s General Convention Deputation have accepted and faithfully engaged Executive Council’s invitation to study, pray and discuss with members of our diocese the proposed Anglican Covenant. In addition to our own conversations as a deputation, we listened to others in congregations and in other contexts throughout the diocese, and these conversations also inform our understanding of the proposed covenant and this response. Our fellowship with each other and our desire to be in relationship with sisters and brothers in Christ in other parts of the Anglican Communion have been strengthened by our study and discussions. We give thanks for the collaborative work of the committees and writing teams who have created the successive drafts of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Based on our engagement with the text and with each other, our deputation (with one exception) has concluded that adoption of the proposed covenant would not strengthen our relationships within the Anglican Communion or foster our witness to God’s transforming love in the world. We, therefore, recommend to Executive Council that The Episcopal Church encourage members of the Anglican Communion to persevere in strengthening relationships through ongoing conversation and living into those covenants that already bind us in missio dei – the Baptismal Covenant, the Five Marks of Mission and the Millennium Development Goals - while refraining from adoption of the final draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

Our concerns with the final draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant
include the following:

· The idea for a covenant arose out of the Windsor Report in response to the actions of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada regarding consecration of a partnered gay bishop and same gender blessings. However, the proposed covenant provides no means of reconciling the relationships broken by responses to those actions. Instead it offers a punitive Section 4 that proposes relational consequences that formalize separation and suspension from participation in the life of the Communion. One member of our deputation suggests that this is an example of proffering a legalistic solution to remedy a relationship problem. Another deputy asks, “How would the events of 2003 have turned out differently had such an Anglican Covenant been in place then?”

· The Preamble acknowledges that signatories adopt the covenant “in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God.” However, Section 4 directly contravenes the Preamble by promulgating disciplinary procedures that do not respect those different contexts. The polity of the provinces in the Anglican Communion varies widely, and Section 4.1.3 affirms the “autonomy of governance” of each province.

· Section 3.1.3 elevates “the historic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, ordained for service in the Church of God” into ministry leadership above the laity, which is contradictory to The Episcopal Church’s theological understanding of the ministry of all the baptized, including the laity who share in the governance and leadership of the Church.

· Section 3.1.4 codifies The Four Instruments of Communion and their powers in a new way that is not in alignment with how they are perceived, received and understood by all provinces of the Anglican Communion.

· Some experience the proposed self-description of Anglicanism (Sections 1-3) as "too Anglican" while others experience it as "too generically Christian." This confusion about how a particularly Anglican understanding of Christianity fits within a general understanding of Christianity may undermine the integrity of
ecumenical relationships. Moreover, if the proposed covenant accurately describes Anglicanism's self-understanding, why is it necessary? If, on the other hand, it does not accurately describe our self-understanding, then how is it helpful? And does it not then fundamentally change who we are?

· The broad authority proposed for the Standing Committee of the covenant suggests the “covenant” is really a “contract.” The grace and beauty of the Anglican Communion has always been the voluntary fellowship of provinces bound together by affection. Covenants in the biblical tradition are about relationship, identity, and
transformation, and are rooted in models of shared abundance (Eucharistic fellowship). On the other hand, contracts are merely transactions or exchanges for mutual benefit. Contractual arrangements fall short of our vocation to love one another as we have been loved by God.

The Colorado deputation affirms the need to maintain and deepen fellowship within the Anglican Communion as well as within The Episcopal Church. Our relationships are troubled and the members of the Anglican Communion are not of one mind about how to reconcile and restore our relationships. Some would even diagnose the Anglican Communion as a global entity as being profoundly fractured, our relationships ruptured, and our attention to missio dei compromised. Precisely for these reasons, we must work to intensify our relationships across the communion through engagement with the promises we have already made to care for one another.

All of us must continue to seek ways to connect our Anglican identity and relationships to God’s mission for the Church. Some believe it is incumbent upon those opposed to this version of the covenant to propose alternative, clear, realistic and definitive strategies by which this global family can weather and address the divergent theological and ecclesial realities in the Anglican Communion.

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

General Convention Deputation of the Diocese of Colorado

DIOCESE OF CALIFORNIA SAYS NO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

From the summary of the Anglican Covenant conversation in the Diocese of California:

The California deputation concluded from conversations that included more than 200 lay and clergy members of the diocese that the proposed covenant "would alter Anglicanism at [its] basic level, and not for the better." The deputation also held up the "Indaba process," a Zulu word that refers to conferences where all participants have an equal voice. This process was introduced at the Lambeth Conference of 2008 as a way to bring bishops from around the communion together in small groups to discuss matters of importance in their own context. The California deputation's summary stated that the Indaba example and other expressions of mutuality "are far more life-giving in the Gospel and Spirit-filled than pursuing the formal structures offered by the proposed Anglican Covenant." (My emphasis)

Indaba! Indaba!

From the letter to Dr. Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies and The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop and Primate from the General Convention Deputation of the Episcopal Diocese of California:

We note our deep value of the Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church's constituent part in it, and our ongoing desire to participate in its common life. We cherish our developing diocesan companion relationships and the inter-provincial relationships in shared mission a number of our congregations enjoy. Many of these relationships already transcend cultural and theological differences, witness to our unity in Christ, and reflect the diversity that has been part of our Christian heritage all the way back to the first apostolic Council of Jerusalem.

It IS possible to value the Anglican Communion, while at the same time viewing the Anglican Covenant as detrimental to furthering the bonds of unity in Christ amongst the churches of the communion. Thanks to the deputation at the diocesan for making the concept crystal clear.

Read the entire letter at the diocesan website or at the link to The Lead below.

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.

Keep those noes a-comin'! Indaba! Indaba!

ST LUKE'S IN THE DIOCESE OF ALBANY VOTES NO TO THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

From the comments:

Ann said...

Following the lead of St. Andrew's in Albany, the Vestry of the Church of St. Luke the Beloved Physician in Saranac Lake, New York (diocese of Albany) unanimously voted last night on a resolution not to endorse the Anglican Covenant and will send that resolution to the national Church. There are plenty of "black sheep" in the DoA!

Chalk up another "black sheep" parish in the Diocese of Albany, which voted at convention to endorse the Anglican Covenant. Obviously, not all the parishes agree. Go "Black Sheep"!

Image above shows stained glass windows depicting Faith, Hope, and Charity in the Church of St Luke's.