Canadian bishops recommend Covenant ‘for consideration’

The Canadian House of Bishops has approved a resolution recommending that the final text of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant be presented for consideration to the General Synod meeting in June.

It stopped short, however, of recommending the adoption of the Covenant, after some members expressed the view that it was up to General Synod to make that determination.

Read it all in the Anglican Journal.

The article makes a point that will be familiar to readers of The Lead:

The final draft now makes it “absolutely clear” that it is the “family of national churches and provinces, not dioceses” that can sign on to the Covenant, said the diocesan bishop of Ontario, George Bruce. Bishop Bruce chairs the Anglican Communion Working Group of the Anglican Church of Canada. Earlier there were concerns that the Covenant’s Section 4 was too ambiguous on the nature of church that it could include entities other than those who are members of the Anglican Communion.

Posted by
Category : The Lead

Comment Policy
Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted. We also ask that you limit your comments to no more than four comments per story per day.

  1. susan s.

    Is ACNA a member of any stripe of the AC?

    Susan Hedges

  2. John B. Chilton

    “Is ACNA a member of any stripe of the AC? Susan Hedges”

    Answer: NO.

  3. For goodness sakes, John, don’t shout. It’s inhospitable.

    Susan, there has been ample clarification since the publication of the last draft that the primary initial criterion for membership is membership and recognition by the Anglican Consultative Council. Some members of ACC (notably, Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda) argued that, since they were members, their North American lackeys (is that too strong a word? Collaborators, then) were as well. However, consistently Archbishop Williams and/or the Anglican Communion Office have said no, by withholding invitations, etc. (Well,as consistently as they’ve done anything.)

    So, with the cited vagueness in the previous draft of the Covenant, there were concerns that ACNA and/or others (AMiA separately, for example) might sign the Covenant to seek acceptance. This draft clarifies that it’s not going to be possible – at least for now.

    Marshall Scott

  4. Rod Gillis

    Those of us in Canada who oppose the covenant are cheered it is going to General Synod without the recommendation from the bishops here that it be adopted. Clearly some (who knows how many) members of the Canadian House of bishops are not in favor of the covenant. Same gender marriage is legal throughout the entire country here. Some urban dioceses, with the permission of their bishop permit the blessing of same sex marriages solemnized civilly. Other dioceses have made alternative liturgical provisions for married same sex couples. It is difficult to predict what will be the fate of the covenant when it reaches the floor of General Synod here. However, those observing Canadian Anglicanism from outside the country can count on one outcome. No covenant is going to roll back the momentum here on same sex unions. The covenant is the product of an internationally male dominated hierarchy who are obsessed with the “is and the ought” of human intimacy. Communion wide machinations around the covenant are best described with words like tedious, manipulative, and even “pythonesque”. I suspect these are among the reasons that the Canadian bishops, while they feel obligated to do the reasonable thing and have the covenant considered, are sending it to General Synod while being silent as a group on the issue of adoption. Besides, when in doubt, defer to synod.

    –Rod Gillis, Nova Scotia

  5. susan s.

    Thanks, Marshall. I thought that was the meaning of the last sentence of John’s post. I do not believe for a minute John was shouting at me. And if I had been typing your answer I would have typed ‘lackeys’ in all caps! Sometimes shouting is good for the shouter. 😉

Comments are closed.