The Lead

Archbishop of York John Sentamu kicked off debate about the Anglican Covenant with the comment that he doesn't feel the covenant is creating walls of exclusion but rather is "sails to empower the boat of Communion to sail again unafraid of the storms," according to a story in Episcopal Life Online. The story includes comments from several delegates to the synod, which reflect a wide range of reactions and emotions, including weariness, admiration, reservation, and excitement. Several offered specific criticisms they hoped would improve the document, but it is clear that there remain two distinct interpretations of what the covenant is meant to offer: one of achieving unity and the other of legitimizing exclusivity:

Sentamu told Synod February 13 that the covenant is not intended as "a new creed or Anglican-wide Canon law, nor an 11th commandment chiseled on Mount Kilamanjaro by the Anglican Primates."
"The whole intention of the covenant is 'to identify the fundamentals that we have in common and to state the common basis on which our mutual trust can be rebuilt,'" Sentamu said, citing the words of Gomez during his address to the Synod in July 2007.

The Rev. Brian Lewis of the Diocese of Chelmsford told Synod he disagrees with the idea of a covenant saying he feels it is "a mistake to introduce a formalized mechanism of exclusion into the life of the Communion. When you have an institutionalized method of division is it much more difficult to come back together again."

Lewis said he regrets that the Church of England was not more directly involved in the early stages of developing the covenant. "We might have got somewhere better," he said, questioning whether a covenant that "institutionalizes a method of exclusion" would receive the necessary two thirds majority from Synod.

The rest of the comments are definitely worth a read, and you can find them here.

Additional coverage from the Church of England General Synod ishere.

Comments (4)

"The whole intention of the covenant is 'to identify the fundamentals that we have in common and to state the common basis on which our mutual trust can be rebuilt,'" Sentamu said...

We already know which fundamentals we Anglicans have in common. They are laid out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and have been for more than a century. Trying to enforce something additional or new would only serve to exclude those who disagree on the nonessential elements some would like to introduce, like mechanisms to prevent indefinitely the future ordination of openly lesbian and gay bishops. So, yes, the covenant approach, as it stands, is ultimately about blocking or excluding.

Posted by Christopher Worthley | February 14, 2008 9:13 AM

The meat of the current draft of the covenant is in its appendix which is a wiring diagram for how disputes between provinces will handled. If less developed provinces are not contributing to the debate over the drafts one wonders whether they'd put much energy into using the wiring diagram. The answer, I think, is that the covenant will work this way: Dissidents within a province will identify allies in developing provinces and use the interprovince dispute process to prosecute their intraprovince dispute.

That's exactly what's going on now in a less structured way.

Posted by John B. Chilton | February 14, 2008 11:17 AM

"[The Rev. Canon Ann] Stevens [of the Diocese of Southwark] commended the May 2007 declaration of the Latin American and Caribbean bishops. 'They acknowledge their diversity but resolve unanimously to remain united and to come together at the Lord's table,' she said. 'Now that I would suggest is a covenant.'"

Amen! Amen! That's what we need, not some mechanism for central governance, or, in effect, for enabling some to hinder the efforts and ministry of others with whom they disagree on nonessentials.

If we really need a covenant at all, let's make it as simple and poignant as this. If we can't agree to respect our differences and always come together at the Lord's table, there's not much point in the rest of it anyway, is there?

Posted by Christopher Worthley | February 14, 2008 12:15 PM

"[The Rev. Canon Simon] Killwick [from the Diocese of Manchester] said he regrets the document lacks specific reference to 'the unity of the whole church.'

'Ecumenism should be a goal for the whole Anglican Communion and the covenant should include this as a key goal,' he said."

An excellent point. The Anglican Communion's vision - and standard - for Christian unity (i.e., full communion) is expressed in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. It's very, very hard to see how creating a new and different standard for unity among Anglican churches/provinces would contribute to our unity with other Christian churches. In fact, it's difficult to see how doing so would be theologically sound or make any sense at all.

Posted by Christopher Worthley | February 14, 2008 12:27 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations