This page will be an archive of content from August 2007 to January 2012. Please visit Covenant’s thoroughly redesigned home at covenant.livingchurch.org and join the conversation.
View the original post

This page will be an archive of content from August 2007 to January 2012. Please visit Covenant’s thoroughly redesigned home at covenant.livingchurch.org and join the conversation.
View the original post

The report addresses three questions and provides answers.  Briefly here are the questions along with the answers:

First Question:

What is the range of relationship with other Christian churches that is possible for the Church of England?

Basic answer is it is for General Synod to decide (see para. 6).

Second Question:

How does a particular local Church become accepted as part of the Anglican Communion?

Answer is not straightforward (para. 8).  Two things to think about.  First is that traditionally, those churches who bishops get invited to Lambeth Conference are part of Anglican Communion (para. 9).  Second is membership in the ACC which requires assent of 2/3 of primates of churches already members (para. 10)

Third Question:

In what circumstances can the orders of another Church be recognised and accepted by the Church of England so that someone ordained in that church can be given archiepiscopal authorisation for ministry here?

Since ACNA clergy are ordained by the historic episcopate, they may be authorized to minister in the CofE, but are not automatically so authorized (para. 13).  Will be decided on a case by case basis by the Archbishops of York and Canterbury (para. 14).

The report then asks in para. 15:

Where then do matters currently stand concerning ACNA on each of these three issues, namely relations with the Church of England, relations with the Anglican Communion and the ability of ACNA clergy to be authorised to minister in the Church of England?

But answers to these questions are not really given.  Instead, the Archbishops call for the North American situation not to be inflamed (isn’t that horse out of the barn already??) (para. 17); call for an “open-ended engagement with ACNA on the part of the Church of England and the Communion, while recognising that the outcome is unlikely to be clear for some time yet” (para. 18); state that the CofE wants to be “in communion” with both ACoC and TEC (para. 19) and somewhat awkwardly state that the CofD affirms “the desire of ACNA to remain in some sense within the Anglican family” (para. 19).

Finally, para. 20 calls for apparent continuing dialogue between the CofE and ACNA on specified issues:

Among issues that will need to be explored in direct discussions between the Church of England and ACNA are the canonical situation of the latter, its relationship to other Churches of the Communion outside North America and its attitude towards existing Anglican ecumenical agreements.

All in all, a very interesting report that appears to fairly outline what needs to be addressed as a relationship between the CofE and ACNA moves forward.

In the name of the Holy Trinity and grateful for the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order met in Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2 to 9 December 2011.

In preparation for the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-15) in 2012, the Commission devoted its third meeting to consolidating its work in the five areas initially identified as falling within its remit in 2009.

These areas of work involve:

1. reflecting critically on the Instruments of Communion and the relationships among them. Our discussions continue to develop the potential of these in the wider contexts of Anglican and ecumenical ecclesiological reflection;

2. studying the definition and recognition of churches;

3. providing a variety of materials to assist in the reception of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The guide which we produced during the past year is being augmented by a short video presentation which will be made available from the Anglican Communion website;

4. assisting the Communion in its engagement with the complex processes involved in reception. This includes receiving from one another and embracing the fruits of ecumenical dialogue and of Anglican theological reflection at all levels in the Communion. In our work as a Commission, we have become increasingly and acutely aware of the importance of this task in the life of our churches;

5. considering the question of transitivity, that is, the way in which regional ecumenical agreements between churches which are members of different global communions in one geographical area affect or extend to other parts of the Communions

Aware of our mandate to promote the deepening of communion between the churches of the Anglican Communion, we emphasized the importance of being a fully representative group, and we greatly regret that some of our members were not present. We reaffirmed the significance of the Anglican Communion Covenant for strengthening our common life.

In accordance with its mandate the Commission also reviewed ecumenical developments within the life of the Anglican Communion. We considered the Jerusalem Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Commission, “To Love and Serve the Lord,” and the report of the Anglican-Old Catholic International Coordinating Council, “Belonging together in Europe.” We expressed our support for a new phase of dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. A draft of guidelines articulating expectations of Anglican participants in ecumenical dialogues was agreed for consideration by the Standing Committee. The Commission also confirmed the need for a continuing working group on ecumenical matters.

Bishop Paul Kim and the Anglican Church of Korea welcomed the Commission to Seoul. We were sustained throughout the meeting by sharing in the daily celebration of the Eucharist in the Cathedral, by the Cathedral community’s ministry of prayer, and by the hospitality of the Cathedral’s congregation and the Girls’ Friendly Society. During our visit, in particular through our introduction to the work of Towards Peace in Korea (TOPIK), we were made aware of the wide-ranging activities of the Korean churches in pursuit of social justice and reconciliation in the Korean peninsula, a concern that has been prominent at recent meetings of the ACC. Constructive conversations took place regarding the Anglican Church of Korea’s preparations to receive Anglican participants at the WCC Assembly in 2013. Throughout our time in Korea, we have shared with the Korean Church our common Advent hope.

In the course of our meeting, we visited the island of Ganghwa, where we prayed at the site of an early Anglican mission in Korea, the church of Sts. Peter and Paul. From the Peace Platform we looked across the sea to North Korea and heard an account of the history of Korean partition and the aspirations for reunification. We then went on to visit the church of St Andrew and the village of Urimaul, where the Anglican Church of Korea has established a Residential and Day Care Center for disabled adults. On our return to Seoul, we were welcomed at Sungkonghoe (Anglican) University, by the University’s President, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Yang, himself a member of the Commission.

The next meeting will take place in September 2012.

Present at the Seoul meeting

The Most Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi
Province of the Anglican Church of Burundi, and Chair of the Commission

The Rev. Canon Professor Paul Avis
Church of England

The Rev. Sonal Christian
Church of North India

The Rev. Canon Dr. John Gibaut
World Council of Churches

The Rt. Rev. Dr. Howard Gregory
The Church in the Province of the West Indies

The Rev. Professor Dr. Katherine Grieb
The Episcopal Church (USA)

The Rt. Rev. Kumara Illangasinghe
Church of Ceylon, Sri Lanka

The Rev. Canon Clement Janda
Episcopal Church of the Sudan

The Rt. Rev. William Mchombo
Church of the Province of Central Africa

The Rev. Canon Sarah Rowland Jones
Anglican Church of Southern Africa

The Rt. Rev. Victoria Matthews
Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

The Rev. Canon Dr. Charlotte Methuen
Scottish Episcopal Church/Church of England

The Rev. Canon Dr. Simon Oliver
Church in Wales/Church of England

The Rt. Rev. Dr. Stephen Pickard
Anglican Church of Australia

Dr. Andrew Pierce
Irish School of Ecumenics

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Guen Seok Yang
The Anglican Church of Korea

The Rev. Canon Joanna Udal
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs

The Rev. Canon Dr. Alyson Barnett-Cowan
Director for Unity, Faith and Order

Mr. Neil Vigers
Anglican Communion Office
View the original post

A few months ago, a graduate student in practical theology asked Stanley Hauerwas for his perspective on new church movements, especially emergent church movements. Disarming and epigrammatic as ever, the man whom Time once called “America’s Best Theologian” replied, “The future of the church is not found in things like this; the future is doing the same thing Sunday after Sunday.”

This may seem dismissive. The student certainly took it that way, and indicated as much on his blog. I want to suggest, though, that Hauerwas was essentially right. But first I would point to a legitimate layer of anxiety that underlies the student’s frustration.

Rest the rest.
View the original post

The ongoing argument about whether the Internet is a boon or a bust to civilization usually centers on the Web’s abundance. With so much data and so many voices, we each have knowledge formerly hard-won by decades of specialization. With some new fact or temptation perpetually beckoning, we may be the superficial avatars of an A.D.D. culture.

David Weinberger, one of the earliest and most perceptive analysts of the Internet, thinks we are looking at the wrong thing. It is not the content itself, but the structure of the Internet, that is the important thing. At least, as far as the destruction of a millennia-long human project is concerned.

Rest the rest.
View the original post

The whole Anglican Communion is considering whether to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. All Church of England dioceses and many deaneries are discussing it in coming months before it returns to General Synod in 2012. Fulcrum has consistently supported the Covenant but is aware that there is little accessible material explaining it. As a result, many people are relatively uninformed or are being misinformed about it and its significance by some opponents. We have therefore produced this short briefing paper which answers some common questions and provides ten reasons to support the Covenant.

What is The Covenant?

• An agreement among Communion churches in the form of shared affirmations and mutual commitments.

• A nine-page document representing more than three years work by a diverse international committee in dialogue with Anglicans around the world.

• There is a Preamble, four substantive Sections, and a concluding Declaration. An Introduction expressing some of its theological rationale is not part of it but is required to be printed with it.

What prompted calls for a Covenant?

• The Communion has constantly evolved as it has grown in size and diversity and this proposal is in line with earlier developments.

• The Covenant was initially proposed in the 2004 Windsor Report. This responded to two facts. First, North American provinces had abandoned longstanding Anglican principles of consultation and interdependence (especially in relation to controversial issues) which had been upheld in relation to women’s ordination within the Communion. Second, some other Anglican churches accepted into their own provinces clergy and churches who left the American and Canadian churches and crossed provincial boundaries by consecrating bishops to serve in North America.

In what way were Anglican principles abandoned?

• In 1998 the Lambeth Conference overwhelmingly passed Resolution I.10. Among other things, the bishops declared homosexual practice “incompatible with Scripture”. This was a significant boundary in a communion of churches committed to the authority of Scripture and episcopal oversight. It also rejected blessing or ordaining those in same-sex unions.

• Despite this, without further consultation, some churches proceeded with these developments. In 2003, the Episcopal Church elected and confirmed a partnered gay bishop and the Canadian diocese of New Westminster approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. This disregard for the clearly expressed mind of the Anglican Communion represented an unprecedented rejection of its longstanding pattern of life together.

How did the Communion respond?

The Archbishop of Canterbury called an emergency meeting of the heads of the provinces. They all agreed

• To proceed with these actions in this way would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion at the deepest level’

• To establish the Lambeth Commission under Robin Eames to address the maintenance of communion among Anglican churches. This produced the Windsor Report which, through the Windsor Process, was well received by the wider Communion and the Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council) which are structures assisting the discernment and articulation of our Anglican common life.

After further consideration and consultation, in 2006 Rowan Williams appointed a Covenant Design Group. This was chaired by a senior Primate who was a moderate leader within the Global South and had served on the Lambeth Commission.

How did the Design Group work?

• It produced and consulted widely on three draft covenants.

• The Church of England made a significant positive contribution to this process.

• In December 2009 the churches of the Communion were asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury to adopt the “final text” of a Covenant.

What does the Covenant do?

• It articulates the shared beliefs and longstanding conventions of the Communion as a fellowship of autonomous churches

• It provides an agreed process of shared discernment which will strengthen both our life as a Communion and our ecumenical relationships as we discuss controversial issues together.

How has the content developed?

• As drafts developed the Covenant became less legal and punitive in tone.

• The expression of provincial autonomy has become clearer alongside our interdependence expressed through consultation and mutual accountability.

What is the key content?

• Section 1 draws on the Declaration of Assent and the Lambeth Quadrilateral to articulate our common Anglican faith.

• Section 2 reaffirms the Five Marks of Mission in its statement of our shared mission.

• Section 3 describes the structures that have evolved to enable consultation and discernment — the Instruments of Communion — and commits churches to work with one another through these.

• Section 4 addresses how conflicts about interpretation or alleged breach of the Covenant will be handled.

Does it override the rights of provinces?

• Churches are still free to make autonomous decisions. There is no un-Anglican ‘curial’ structure and no church by signing the Covenant empowers some extra-provincial body to overturn its own decisions.

• While upholding provincial autonomy, interdependence is supported by establishing procedures to enable a shared discernment on contentious issues. These include enabling the Communion to identify together any “relational consequences” if a province acts without consultation or in breach of the Covenant.

What happens to a province that does not adopt the Covenant?

It remains unclear what will happen within the Communion if some churches sign and others do not. Although not signing does not mean automatic exclusion there may develop some institutional expression of two levels of commitment to life in communion.

Is there substantial support for The Covenant?

• Already Mexico, Ireland, South East Asia and South Africa have responded positively.

• The Archbishop of Canterbury has been among the strongest advocates for adoption of the Anglican Covenant.

• It has had the consistent support of the Global South churches, representing the vast majority of Anglicans.

• Some Global South leaders now believe the Covenant is too little and too late to address the Communion crisis. They support a more confessional structure based on the Jerusalem Declaration and structured around the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and GAFCON Primates.

• There are two main alternative visions competing with the Covenant — GAFCON’s more narrowly defined confessional approach and the path of unaccountable independence through unilateral innovation. Despite their fundamental differences, these minority views may unite in rejecting the Covenant which is much more recognisably Anglican than both of them.

In Conclusion: Ten Reasons to Support the Anglican Communion Covenant

1. It has been consistently supported by the Church of England which significantly shaped its content through the years of its development and so we should not now reverse our positive and constructive response.

2. It is a development in line with the Communion’s evolving life and is faithful to Anglicanism’s theological and ecclesiological tradition and identity.

3. It gives form to a vision of ‘communion with autonomy and accountability’ that has been central to the Communion’s self-understanding and is a genuine Anglican via media avoiding the dangers of both a centralised, controlling Curia and a fragmenting, fractious federation.

4. It enables Anglicans across the world and Christians in other denominations to understand who we are as Anglicans and how we seek to live together and share in God’s mission together as part of the body of Christ.

5. It provides a clear agreed framework for debate, diversity and development through shared discernment within agreed affirmations and commitments.

6. It facilitates changes in continuity and dialogue with both our Anglican tradition and our fellow Anglicans around the world and thus serves our unity in Christ.

7. It preserves provincial autonomy but allows the clear articulation of the catholic consensus within the Communion and an ordered — rather than the recent chaotic — response within Anglicanism when provinces believe they need to act contrary to this.

8. It offers the best, perhaps the only, means of preventing further bitter fragmentation by enabling the highest degree of communion among Anglicans.

9. It does not explicitly address specific controversial issues but cultivates practices and provides processes for addressing whatever innovations — for example, lay presidency — might arise when some Anglicans may feel called to act in a way that others do not recognise as faithful developments.

10. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked the Church of England to support him and the other Instruments in working for the widest possible acceptance of the Covenant within the Communion.

Update: Comprehensive Unity, the No Anglican Covenant blog, provided this response, which Fulcrum participants have discussed further.
View the original post

The Anglican Covenant

By Paul Avis

Originally published in Ecclesiology 7.3 (2011) and reproduced with the permission of the author and of the publisher (BRILL).

The Anglican Communion is under stress because of disagreements about Christian morals and about what kind of mutual obligation is involved in membership of the Communion. The Windsor Report (2004)[i] tackled the problems raised by the consecration of a bishop in a same-gender partnership in The Episcopal Church in the USA, the liturgical blessing of same-gender partnerships in a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada, and the cross-jurisdiction interventions by Anglican churches from the Global South in response to this situation.

The single most significant proposal made by The Windsor Report (2004) was for a Covenant between the churches of the Anglican Communion. It proposed that they would covenant together to commit themselves to exercise restraint in contentious areas, to consult carefully about potential developments and to strengthen processes of mutual accountability. The Covenant has since gone through various drafts and the final ‘Ridley’ draft is now being considered by the member churches of the Anglican Communion. The Covenant proposal has generated considerable nervousness among some: it is seen as moving the Anglican Communion into unknown territory and compromising the hard-won autonomy of the member churches. On the other hand, some representatives of the Global South of the Anglican Communion have already written it off as lacking teeth and unable to remedy the situation. These two responses seem to cancel each other out. So how should we assess this proposal?

First, the Covenant is the only realistic option on the table. As others have said, it is the only game in town. The future of the Anglican Communion is in jeopardy at the present time and specific measures are needed. The Anglican Covenant, centering on mutual commitment, is intended to secure the future of the Communion as one body. The Covenant is the only credible proposal that I am aware of to help hold this family of churches together. The alternative to the Covenant is to allow the present sharp tensions to be worked out in the formal separation of some Churches of the Communion from others — and that means schism and the fracture and possible break up of the Anglican Communion.

Second, the Covenant is an embodiment of mutual commitment. The Covenant is not perfect and it is not completely clear to me how the ‘Consequences’ aspect of it will be worked out, if it comes to that. But I don’t think that that is the most important thing about the Covenant. The key, for me, is that by subscribing to the Covenant, Anglican Churches will signal in a serious way their intention to remain together. They will signal this to themselves, to all the other Anglican Churches throughout the world, and to other Christian world communions, who are watching anxiously and do not want to see the Anglican Communion fail as a world-wide fellowship of Churches. Such a failure would indicate a serious weakening of Christianity and its witness on the world stage. It would also bring grief and heartbreak to millions of Anglican Christians around the world.

Third, we need to consider the challenge that the Covenant is ‘un-Anglican’. Behind that accusation lies a concern that the Covenant asks too much of member Churches and fatally compromises the autonomy of the member churches? I don’t share that concern. ‘Autonomy’ cannot be the first thing that we have to say about ourselves as Anglican Churches. The attributes of the Church of Christ that we affirm in the Creed must surely come much higher up: unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. The very first thing that we want to say about our own church, whatever that church may be, is that it belongs to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. But if we belong, with others, to something much bigger than ourselves, then we belong together and not in autonomous isolation. So interdependence must be a key denominator of Anglican ecclesiology and polity. The Covenant seeks to flesh out in practical terms what interdependence might mean. Nevertheless, the Covenant can only be adopted by the free constitutional action of each member church of the Communion and any future consequences of the Covenant would need to be processed by each church in a similar way. Self-government is not threatened by the Covenant.

Fourth, the Covenant is orientated to the common good of the Communion. From mediaeval times, through the Reformation and right up to the present day, churches have used the language of the common good and applied it not only to the wider society, but to the Church as an institution[ii]. As Churches that exist in a relationship of interdependence, it seems not too much to ask of us that we consider the common good of the Christian Church as a whole and of the Anglican Communion as a part of that whole. This takes us to the heart of what is meant by catholicity. The word ‘catholic’ is from the Greek kat’ holon, ‘according to the whole’. To be catholic means to be deeply conscious of being part of a wider whole and to act accordingly. The virtues of forbearance, patience, restraint, willingness to consult and to accept a degree of accountability to others come into play here. As St Paul says, ‘Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ’ (Galatians 6.2).

Fifth, it is significant that the Covenant does not propose any additional doctrinal tests for the Anglican Communion. It contains doctrinal matter, but this is presented descriptively. The Covenant simply describes the existing doctrinal stance of Anglicanism in a broad and uncontroversial way. Nor does the Covenant advocate any particular ethical tests, with regard to Christian morals. It functions crucially in the realm of behaviour: how we should act towards one another when we are in a relationship of ecclesial communion. It is concerned with the virtues that belong to relationality. I think it is difficult to argue against the Covenant on this score, unless one thinks that the virtues of mutual forbearance and mutual responsibility are inappropriate for Christian churches.

Finally, we need to ask, ‘Does it matter?’ Is the Anglican Communion important enough to be worth saving? Is the Communion worth fighting for? My answer to that question is an unequivocal, ‘Yes’, and there is a profound theological reason for saying that. Communion (koinonia) is not something that is man-made. It is not a human construction and is not at our disposal to accept or reject. Communion — whether between individual Christians in the Body of Christ, or between particular churches within the universal Church — is something given in the realm of grace. It is intimately connected to the sacraments. In baptism we are brought into communion sacramentally with the Triune God and with one another; in the Eucharist — Holy Communion — we are continuously sustained and strengthened in that communion. Communion is God’s greatest gift to us in this life and it will be perfected and fulfilled in the next. Any expression of communion is to be treated with great respect and care. It is an imperative of Christian love to seek communion with our fellow Christians. We are called to seek, maintain and extend communion. To do that we are inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is often conceived as the bond of communion between the Father and the Son. Ultimately, then, the future of the Anglican Communion is not a merely political matter, but an essentially spiritual issue. I believe that Anglicans — and our ecumenical partners and friends — should look at the Covenant in that light.

[i] Published by the Anglican Communion Office, London, in 2004

[ii] See P. Avis, Beyond the Reformation? Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006).

The Rev. Dr. Paul Avis is the general secretary of the Council for Christian Unity and canon theologian of Exeter Cathedral. He is the editor of the journal Ecclesiology and the author of several books on Anglicanism, including The Identity of Anglicanism: Essentials of Anglican Ecclesiology (T&T Clark, 2008).
View the original post

Available here as a PDF

The Anglican Communion Covenant (A positive view): FAQs

Gregory K Cameron, Bishop of St Asaph, Secretary of the Covenant Design Group, 2006-2009 (Numbers in square brackets refer to sections of the covenant text.)

Where did the idea for a Covenant come from?

The Windsor Report (2004) recommended the idea in order to provide a brief statement of what should hold the Churches of the Communion together during a time of great debate and even division over sexuality questions. It recommended a “Covenant” because it is about relationships as Churches united in Christ rather than about legal or confessional formalities. The Primates unanimously adopted the idea in their meeting in 2005, and asked for a text to be drawn up.

How was the text developed?

The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a Design Group which met between 2006 and 2009. They decided that nothing new should be expressed in the Covenant — instead, agreed statements (such as the Lambeth Quadrilateral, the four fundamental points of Anglicanism agreed in 1888) and existing institutions should be the basis of the text. They deliberately avoided a long list of beliefs or new structures, but placed the emphasis on the resources that allow all Anglicans to understand their faith. Three versions of the text were developed in turn, and each one was sent out to all the Churches of the Communion for consultation, with much feedback and revision. The final text was adopted by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion at their meeting in December 2009, and sent out to the Churches for consideration.

Why is the covenant controversial?

Three fears have been expressed in particular: 1. That the Covenant defines Anglican faith too tightly. 2. That the Covenant centralises power in the Communion. 3. That the Covenant is designed to punish liberal Churches in the Communion, especially on questions of Sexuality.

Does the Covenant define Anglican Faith?

Section 1 of the Covenant sets out the relatively few fundamental ideas which have been accepted over the years as a description of Anglicanism — these are the historic formularies of 1662 as one authentic expression of faith [1.1.2]; the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist [1.1.5]; the prime authority of Scripture [1.1.3]; the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds [1.1.4], and the historic ordering of bishops (priests and deacons) [1.1.6]. It also sets out our shared inheritance of common prayer [1.1.7] and the method of using reason and tradition to understand the teaching of Scripture [1.2.2] as things which unite. None of these things have been considered controversial among Anglicans, but provide the resources from which we all develop our understanding of Christian faith and the life of the Church. There is no list of things that must be believed to be an Anglican.

Does the Covenant centralise power?

Recent years have seen a lot of squabbling in the Communion, and no agreed methods for discussion. Some bishops (about 20%) boycotted the Lambeth Conference, and there have been arguments about the appropriate powers of the other Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council [the ACC] and the Primates’ Meeting). Some people argue that these instruments have acted as if they had more power than they do, others as if they have abdicated their responsibility for the Communion. The Covenant sets out a brief understanding [Sections 3 & 4] about how the four Instruments of Communion work and what their powers are. Section 4 gives a special place to the Standing Committee (a committee made up of elected members of the ACC and the Primates) to co-ordinate processes of conflict resolution, but when the chips are down, it can only make recommendations about the way forward [4.2.7]. It is for each Church to make its own decisions on the recommendations. The covenant aims to increase the co-operation between churches, providing ways to consult and come to conclusions, but firmly states that, in Anglican thinking, each member Church is autonomous and can’t be told what to do [4.1.3].

Is the Covenant designed to punish?

Some conservative Churches in the Communion (mainly in the Global South) have said that they feel that The Episcopal Church (based in the USA) should be expelled from the Communion because of their moves to welcome lesbian and gay Christians into the life and ministry of their Church. Significantly, however, some of these voices have recently spoken against the Covenant as not being strong enough to deliver the goal they want. In truth, the Covenant does allow the Communion to voice whether any particular action disrupts the life of the Communion, and how this may have consequences, but (a) only after a long process of consultation [3.2.3], and (b) only by offering recommendations to the Churches. It is reserved to each General Synod (or equivalent) to decide what that Church wants to do [4.2.7]. The specific issue of sexuality is not addressed — instead a process for discussion and mediation is proposed in the Covenant.

Won’t the Covenant just create more conflict?

The conflicts already exist, and sadly, so do some examples of bad behaviour. Some Churches have already broken communion with others, others have tried to set up rival Churches to replace those with whom they disagree. Even the Instruments of Communion have occasionally overstepped the mark, and tried to run other instruments — the Primates interfering in the ACC and so on. We urgently need a statement of what Anglicans should be able to agree on, and on which our discussions can be based, with a commitment to work together. The Covenant provides just such a basis, calling us back to what matters. Sadly, without the Covenant there is not enough trust in the Communion now to keep us talking and working together.

Hasn’t the Covenant already been rejected?

Some of the global south primates said last year that they thought that the current text of the Covenant was inadequate, although in their most recent statement (09.09.11), they state that they are still working with it. Some bishops, two New Zealand dioceses & an English diocese have stated that they are opposed, but no national Synod of an Anglican Church has yet rejected the Covenant.

Why should anyone vote for the Covenant?

At a time when Anglicans are disagreeing, we need to be reminded of what holds us together and what we think is important — including Christian mission [Section 2]. We also need an agreed method to tackle disagreement, so that unilateral and more extreme actions are held in check by a commitment to work together. The covenant is a reasonably short text which seeks to do just this, and to take account of everyone’s concerns — it is the basis for working out how we can agree, and balances life as a Communion with the right of each Church to decide for itself.
View the original post