The Lead

The Church of England's General Synod has endorsed the concept of a covenant for the Anglican Communion. This is being treated among many of the left as a setback. But it isn't clear that much has been lost. The covenant process has not been derailed, but its contents are far from set.

The key paragraph in Stephen Bates' story in the Guardian is this one:

The move - described by one speaker as "the most important development in the church since the Reformation" - was carried after bishops headed off concerns of some lay and clergy members by giving assurances that nothing will ultimately be adopted until it has been agreed by the synod, which is the church's parliament. Even so, approximately a third of the synod voted against the plan.

Look again at the resolution, which says that the synod:

(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;
(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and

(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.

It may be premature to assume that the Synod's vote inidcates its attitude on homosexuality (which is no where mentioned), or its willingness to concentrate authority in the hands of the Primates--several of whom are in the process of discrediting themselves, by consecrating bishops whom the Archbishop of Canterbury won't recognize.

Comments (6)

It's worth worrying about in the sense that in the current environment a covenant is a bad idea. Ignoring it may not be the best way to make sure it doesn't come to pass.

Posted by John B. Chilton | July 9, 2007 10:45 AM

Hi John,

I am not in favor of ignoring it. I am opposed to catastrophizing. We don't even know, at this point, who will still be in the Communion by the time the covenant is voted on. We haven't heard from a number of the provinces likely to have problems with the covenant as currently worded, and we have no clear sense at the moment of how the English vote would have shaken out if the Synod were voting on this draft of the covenant, rather than on the concept of a covenant.

I think there is some danger in letting the "idea" of the coveant continue to gain momentum, when it is this particular covenant that is on the table, but I also think there will be opportunities to amend the current document to make it something that might have a hope of holding the Communion together.

Posted by Jim Naughton | July 9, 2007 10:56 AM

Ignoring it would be a bad idea as would be handwringing that this is the end of Anglicanism as we know it. I hope that there will be more consideration of the Mission centered covenant found here

Posted by Ann Fontaine | July 9, 2007 11:02 AM

Important to note that even with reassurance that the GS was not committing to specific language or a covenant itself - 1/3 voted against even considering the concept. Seems as though it will have heavy sledding in the end. And what will happen in the discussions at Lambeth 2008 if those who are most for it - don't show up?

Posted by Ann Fontaine | July 9, 2007 11:28 AM

1/3 opposed to concept is gratifying. I agree that contributing to a cacophony of urgent voices is not helpful.

Vigilance is what is called for. The sky is not falling.

Posted by John B. Chilton | July 9, 2007 2:02 PM

The resolution has, in its essentials, not really gone much farther than resolution A166 in the last General Convention. They have committed to supporting "a process," without endorsing this or any other draft. There is to be "a considered response," but there has been too much discord over the concept and this Draft to expect a considered response to result in an endorsement.

The most important aspect, I think, is the statement that no covenant could be established except by "the synodical processes of the provinces." This strongly counters the presumptions of the Primates Meetings that they or some combination of the "Instruments of Communion" could adopt and require a Covenant.

All in all, I agree with Jim that we need not catastrophize. Considering how vitriolic is religious argument in the Church of England (outside perhaps the calm deliberations of the Synod itself), I would be really surprised if England could endorse any Covenant without years of talking. And in all that time, other events may well supersede these concerns.

Marshall Scott

Posted by mscottsail | July 9, 2007 2:04 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