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.
