Covenant is a homophobic power grab
In a hyperlink-studded documentation of the "tawdry" history behind the Covenant, the Guardian's Savitri Hensman concludes,
In power-play of the type the Covenant encourages, global church politics will trump love, justice and even logic. This is a poor substitute for freedom in Christ.By "even logic" she explains,
Hensman gets right to the point in the first two paragraphs of her post:The Archbishop of Canterbury urged that breaching moratoria should be punished, and in June Anglican Communion Office secretary general Kenneth Kearon removed Episcopal Church members from some committees. Nigeria, despite blatant border-crossing, faced no such penalties. When questioned, Kearon claimed, "we are a voluntary communion and have no [ability] to act against a province"!
The Church of England's House of Bishops is urging it to accept [*] an Anglican Communion Covenant. This would give top leaders of overseas churches more power over the C of E and (strictly in theory) vice versa. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been a champion of greater centralism among Anglicans worldwide, supposedly to strengthen unity. But recent events have exposed the tawdry reality behind talk of "interdependence" and "bonds of affection".The Communion has long been a family of churches in different parts of the world, with a common heritage of faith but able to make their own decisions. The 1878 Lambeth Conference resolved that "the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches" and "no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof".
Those of us Anglicans on this side of the Atlantic will be forgiven for not understanding their polity anymore than they understand ours. But how can the C of E HOB recommend prompt passage of the Covenant on a simple majority vote? After all, without intending to make that point during debate over putting reform of the House of Lords up for majority vote, the Bishop of Leichester yesterday said, "the established place of the Church of England is deeply woven into the constitution and unpicking it at any one point will have numerous consequences in other areas of our national life."
How then could the Church of England approve a Covenant that makes it subject to the discipline of a non-UK body? In actual application to the C of E would the Covenant simply be null and void even though it approved it?
_______
[*] 1.On the Anglican Communion Covenant, the House agreed
(a) to commend it for adoption by the Church of England;
(b) to invite the Business Committee to schedule the beginning of the adoption process for the inaugural Synod in November 2010, with a view to final approval in February 2012;
(c) not to propose special majorities for its adoption; and
(d) to authorise the House’s Standing Committee to oversee the production of necessary material for the Synod.
My understanding is that adoption of the Anglican Covenant would be a "measure," rather than a "canon," and therefore would require not only endorsement of the Synod but also by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Which, of course, fat chance. English society is by and large not homophobic, which is part of the reason why the C of E is hemorrhaging membership.
Mike Lockaby
Posted by www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1505362![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 10:05 AM
This is a very powerful article. Thank you, Savitri. It should be attached to Jim Naughton's "Following the Money" as required reading.
It is time for +Rowan Williams to go back to Oxford, where he was really very good (remember the Peter Principle?) and for Kenneth Kearon to go back to Ireland, if they'll have him. I suggest +James Jones of Liverpool for ABC -- he's conservative, and an evangelical (it's their turn at Lambeth Palace), but has shown himself to be thoughtful and willing to listen.
Posted by Bill Moorhead![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 11:15 AM
As explained here
http://thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/GS1716.html
9. The decision whether the Church of England should enter a Covenant together with other Churches of the Anglican Communion would be for the General Synod to take. It is not envisaged that any such decision would require, or be given, legislative authority by means of a Measure or Canon: a resolution of the Synod would suffice.
10. Once the Synod had considered and passed the necessary resolution the expectation is, given the significance of the decision, that it would be invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury or York to solemnly affirm and proclaim the resolution as an ‘Act of Synod’. Once each Archbishop had then ratified and confirmed the Act of Synod for their respective provinces it would come into effect forthwith (or otherwise in accordance with its terms) and would represent “the will or opinion of the Church of England as expressed by the whole body of the Synod”.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 11:20 AM
Approving the Covenant appears tantamount to saying, the Episcopal Church and any other national church, is just one part of the real important international church, headed by a man appointed by Parliament in England.
Is this really what churches want to be?
I can't see our Church going back on its history and giving such authority.
Posted by Robert Martin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 1:39 PM
@simon — GS 1716 as I understand it is just a resolution of endorsement, which is different from an unqualified accession. I still think that in order for Article IV to become the law of England and trump Parliament, i.e., in order to repeal the Act of Supremacy, it needs to be adopted by Parliament and the Queen.
Mike Lockaby
Posted by www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1505362![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 3:26 PM
Robert Martin's point about having the head of the Anglican Church appointed by the Queen/King of England and that country's parliment is a problem for our church, founded so that we would not have to be subject to the ruler of a foreign state (England), especially in matters of religion. That must be in the canons of this church, if not it is implied.
So is this whole Covenant matter designed to push us out?
Posted by Peter Pearson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 5:20 PM
Mike
The authors of GS 1716 did not seem to think that there was any need for the Church of England to do any more than they described, in order for the CofE to have met the request of the ACC.
No doubt these questions will be asked in Synod when the subject is next debated there, likely it seems to be this November. There may be some Questions about the process asked at the synod in July: if so the answers may give some clues, but there will be no debate in July.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
June 30, 2010 5:23 PM