Amen. I've posted a fairly long response to the UFO's assertions at my blog. She appears to take the most generous reading of the Covenant -- not a good idea when signing a legal document. It's always best to ask, "What's the worst that could happen" and not presume on everyone acting at their best.

Canon Dr. Alyson Barnett-Cowan, the author of the "rebuttal", seems to assume that one cannot be opposed to the Covenant if one has read it. How very patronizing of her. The more often I read it, the more I am opposed to it. The concept, let alone the document itself, is seriously flawed. One cannot legislate relationship. The document is full of English understatement which will be used in coercive ways if the Covenant is enacted. Perhaps Dr. Barnett-Cowan might open her ears and listen to the thoughtful opposition rather than merely assuming that others cannot make rational assessments which disagree with her own.

James A. Hammond
retired, Warrenton, VA, USA

Hmmm -

UFO says,

"The point of the processes outlined in the Covenant is precisely to encourage one part of the Communion, when seeking to respond responsibly in its own context in mission, to consider how that will affect other parts of the Communion It is not that one Province would exercise a veto over another, but that there would be collaborative discernment. In a globalised world, it is no longer possible (if it ever was) for one church to act entirely for itself; decisions have ramifications, and the intention is for these to be explored together."

In the dangerous world of most optimistic reading of legal texts, this could only mean that the African primates who seem so certain that LGBT inclusion is unfaithful to Scripture or culturally indulgent, skewed reading of the Bible, would, thanks to the Covenant welcome conversation in a listening process.

In addition to the danger of incautious reading of legal documents as an expression of underlying goodwill, our Anglican UFO seems to be ignoring how painfully any change has come to the church and with what conflict. What important change or innovation or what decisive clarification against change or innovation in the past two thousand years has the church EVER come to simply through genial, patient conversation?

As many have pointed out, this covenant is more a contract than a covenant. In a covenant there is no escape clause. In a contract, there is. I would encourage folks out there who have concerns about acceptance of this covenant by TEC to contact their GC deputation. Likewise, Executive Council's D020 Task Force is looking for responses to the covenant. There is a study guide (again!) and opportunity for groups — deputations, standing committees, diocesan councils, vestries — to submit their comments to the General Convention Office in New York. The deadline is Easter 2011 (24 April). We thought instead of asking for things to come in on Ash Wednesday or Good Friday as previous iterations of the covenant have appeared, we might choose our major feast day... maybe thinking toward resurrection of a new way of being church? The task force will then collate responses and write a report for the Blue Book as well as craft resolutions for GC 2012.

The Covenant will be a sepulcher for the Anglican Communion. We are now in the whitewashing stage...

Regarding the proposal for an 'Anglican Covenant, I recently witnessed a presentation by the Rev. Robert Pritchard of Virginia Theological Seminary. The presentation rightly noted that there was no such thing as the Anglican Communion, or even hints thereof, until the early to mid-twentieth century, since the Churches deriving from the Church of England were almost all colonial appendages of the Church of the Empire (C of E). Mr. Pritchard's presentation, though, was skewed toward presenting the history of the Episcopal Church as though our history has basically always assumed a world-wide 'Anglican Church.' In fact, Mr. Pritchard used the term frequently in his presentation, despite the fact that there is no such thing as 'the Anglican Church.'

His presentation did identify, unintentionally I think, a feeling of inadequacy among some 19th century Episcopalians in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe we are seeing this same size-envy at work again today helping to drive the illusory 'Anglican Covenant.' Particularly in North America many build the church on the model offered by commercial corporations where size, i.e. numerical affiliation or customer base, signifies importance. We see that this is true also in the remnants of colonial values at work in the Churches of the Communion that either fought for or were given their autonomy in the twentieth century. This is evident in the numerical rendering of membership in some of the African Churches where membership is equated to being native born, whether or not the person actually attends or identifies with the Anglican Church of that nation. Obviously the practice a hold-over from the Church of England's manner of equating citizenship with membership in the Church. In like fashion, it is dishonest and unrealistic. But it seems to make some people feel better about themselves in comparison to Rome, so the practice continues.

Mr. Pritchard's presentation leads the audience to the conclusion that adoption of the 'Anglican Covenant' is the next logical step for the Episcopal Church. His presentation implies that the idea was first an American one from back in the 1800's. Its conclusion is the suggestion that without the adoption of the 'Anglican Covenant' the American Church can have no relationships with the rest of the "Anglican Church,", i.e. the other Churches of the Anglican Communion. Again, the term 'Anglican Communion' is almost completely absent from this presentation. Instead, it references the mythical 'Anglican Church.'

Mr. Pritchard hesitatingly admitted to me in the Q&A that, since his presentation demonstrates that the Episcopal Church does in fact already have relationships with the other Churches of the Anglican Communion, then the suggestion that a 'Covenant' is requisite for such relationships is immediately contradicted. The audience was left wondering what was the basis, then,for his contention that that the 'Covenant' was a good thing. Surprisingly, some appear to believe that the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy is a good thing for the health of the Church, even if not for the spread of the Gospel. They are hard put, though, to explain how the reservation and centralization of power accomplishes this. In contrast, though, it is easy to challenge substantively the notion of an 'Anglican Covenant.'

First, while many strain to promote the concept of covenant as a legitimate one, it remains true that all the biblical examples of covenant are covenants between humanity and God. No covenants of any success are found in scripture between person and person, or people and people. I suggest that this is no small clue to overlook.

Second, while many suggest that the adoption of 'the Covenant' would help to atone for the sins of colonialism, they fail to recognize that the covenant is itself born of reactionary anti-colonialism. It is not a correction but simply a substitution, with autocratic power simply shifting from one party to another. I think this can hardly be viewed as spiritually healthy or as practically productive.

Third, while some fear 'the Covenant' would make the Episcopal Church and all the Churches of the Communion into confessional Churches , and while others laud such a thing, both are mistaken. A confessional Church is one that professes or confesses particular doctrines. The proposed 'Anglican Covenant' can hardly be compared with the Westminster Confession or the Lutheran Confessions of the Book of Concord. More accurately, the proposed 'Anglican Covenant' would make the Churches of the Communion not confessional ones, but would change them into what might be termed litigational Churches.

Under the proposed 'covenant' the Churches of the Communion would be governed and guided by litigation. Section Four of the proposal is the point and purpose of the 'Covenant;' to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Thus, the establishment of it's 'Standing Committee' as an extra-provincial body of jurisprudence is the practical way that this proposal would transform the autonomous and autocephalous Churches to being subject to these empaneled judges, to this regulatory body, who would dictate to all the Churches while remaining accountable to none.

The 'Covenant' is a misguided attempt to replace the difficulties of real relationship with the apparent expediency of litigation. I believe that, with the 'Standing Committee' as precedent, the idea would occur quickly in the minds of some to establish trans-provincial regulations that would seem all the more expedient in trying to head off disputation and litigation between the Churches. In other words, it would be a small step from this 'Covenant' to the creation of a trans-provincial Constitution and Canons. This which would be the final nail in the coffin of the autonomy and autocephaly of the Churches. Local contextualization of ministry would be dramatically reduced in favor of the new centralized definition of 'orthodoxy.' The unique and living gift to Christendom and to the world skeptical of organized religion that is to be found in Anglicanism's delicate if unwieldy blend of the virtues of both historic catholicism and suspicious protestantism would be dead.

One need only check in with the former Roman clergy in our midst. They tell me, as I think they would do well to tell us all: this bureaucratic quieting
of difference and dissent is what they left behind. If this court were created, it would be empaneled; it if were empaneled, it would most certainly be used. Ever after, the 'Standing Committee' would be the elephant in the room wherever the Church met. It would become the preoccupation of every General Convention, every diocesan convention, every meeting of the House of Bishops, every meeting of the Primates, every Lambeth Conference. The 'Standing Committee' and the growing bureaucracy that would emerge from it would come to dominate every Church of the Communion. Those suffering a sense of inadequacy before Rome would finally see accomplished what they already refer to as 'the Anglican Church.' One wonders how that would sit with the founding fathers and mothers of this Church. One wonders how this would sit with the next generation of people looking for a spiritual home where freedom of thought is encouraged and putting the gospel into action is primary.

I think it's important to note that the Episcopal Church is a theocratic democracy. As such, it serves as an encouraging lesson that a Church that held its first General Convention without a House of Bishops can grow to be a successful witness to the historic and fresh Christian faith. Wisely, our forebears chose to form as a theocratic democracy. Wisely, we have chosen to continues as such. Now, I think, we are being invited and pressured into surrendering this wisdom, and are being maneuvered and manipulated into becoming instead a subservient part of an oligarchic autocracy. I think we need to be scrupulously honest about this. We need then to ask ourselves point blank: is this really what we want? Is this really what God wants for us? Is this what God wants for the witness of this Church?

The Rev. James V. Stockton
The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection
2200 Justin Lane
Austin, Texas 78757
512-459-0027
512-496-1795 (cell)
512-451-2495 (fax)
ecraustin@ecraustin.org
jstoc@ecraustin.org
http://www.ignitingthesoul.blogspot.com/

So the ACO's story is that the covenant has no teeth. That should kill it amongst those were hoping it did. As Bishop Alan Wilson said in his essay in The Guardian yesterday,
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/will_the_covenant_kill_or_cure.html
"Selling section four requires a delicate balancing act. For Conservatives and Liberals both to sign up, the former have to believe the covenant will be a powerful weapon against innovation, while, simultaneously, the latter think the exact opposite. This is a tall order."

My only disagreement is that it is an indelicate balancing act.

Let's make sure that every primate in Gafcon gets a copy of this ACO news release. Many have already said they have no interest in this covenant. This should seal the deal.

And for the rest of us, if this document is as bland as the ACO asserts, what's the point of adding it to our Anglican heritage -- the baptismal covenant, the creeds, the prayer book, the articles....?

His presentation did identify, unintentionally I think, a feeling of inadequacy among some 19th century Episcopalians in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church. I believe we are seeing this same size-envy at work again today helping to drive the illusory 'Anglican Covenant.'

Yes, this is a good analysis, James S.

I think we may also be seeing the "Old Rules/No Rules/New Rules" trajectory at work.

Old Rules: "Our Church is TRUE, all others are false. Their members are heretics." (The viewpoint until the 20th century)

No Rules: "All churches are basically the same; their members are just like us. Why shouldn't we all get together?" (The Ecumenical Age, esp. Vat2 until the 1990s)

New Rules: "Our Church is True, as one can see by its size (Quick! Must get bigger!). Those with whom we disagree are false, as one can tell by their shrinking." (See the standard condemnation of TEC: "you're withering away! Look at how the African churches are growing!" In the UK, it's also "look how the ConEvs and Muslims are growing!")

What if Truth has nothing to do w/ size? O_o

JC Fisher

The really weird thing is the rhetoric of those who are favoring the Covenant: simultaneously saying it is absolutely vital but really brings about little substantial change.

...to encourage one part of the Communion, when seeking to respond responsibly in its own context in mission, to consider how that will affect other parts of the Communion..."

I was not at General Convention 2003, but I'm wondering if the above is, in fact, true of TEC. Did we really NOT consider how +Gene's election and consecration would affect other parts of the Communion? Or did we (in the representative democracy that is General Convention) consider those things and ultimately decide that we were unwilling to say that +Gene was not called to be a bishop for the sake of folks of other provinces who would object? When I was at General Convention 2009, I heard any number of discussion about how this or that resolution would affect our relationships with other provinces. Decsions were made with eyes open.

Asserting that TEC did not consider how its actions would affect other parts of the Communion would seem to indicate that TEC was or is either oblivious or self-centered. If that were the case, I would think we'd have officially authorized same sex blessings by now, for example. We wouldn't know or care what the reaction in other provinces would be to them. The fact that it took 6 years to even begin the official discussion of same-sex blessing liturgies makes me think that we're far more cautious than we are given credit for. In my experience, similar to that mentioned by Donald Schell, the church far more often moves too slowly than too quickly.

I simply think that the premise that we didn't take into consideration how our decisions would affect other provinces is faulty. Just because they don't LIKE the decision, doesn't mean we didn't consider them in making it.

I was at that General Convention and there was extensive discussion about the impact on others. The hearing was one of the largest ever. The vote in Deputies was preceded by prayer and silence. To say we did not take others into consideration is jut making up stories.

If I am not mistaken, Archbishop Josiah Fearon of Nigeria preached at a Convention Eucharist during the 2003 Convention. As Tom and Ann have made clear, all this disregarding the views of others business is silly.

All this talk about how it will affect others' mission is simply spurious. How would we determine that our actions reduced the number of conversions (or whatever). That the number was less than the previous year (if it was) might be due to any number of factors; that it was due to an action of a church several thousand miles away, of which people have never heard, seems unlikely at best. It would more likely be due some action by the church involved -- say propping up a crooked government or supporting oppressive new laws. Clearly the claim is all post hoc, if it has a basis at all. Perhaps we should consider the delicate sensibilities or our brother churches, but only to ease them through the shock, not to bow to their prejudice.

I took the good Canon's admonition and looked again at that Covenant as proposed. When I did, I realized that there is no automatic relationship between being a church of the Anglican Communion and a signatory church of the Covenant. It's not really two tiers, but two bodies, one new and one old, with some (perhaps a lot of) overlap.

One way or another, it's more confused than she suggests. that confusion should make it harder for any church, including the Episcopal Church or the Church of England, to sign on.

Marshall Scott

Marshall, this is one of the strangest identity crises in the Covenant. It makes no sense whatsoever except as providing a kind of special "club" or "inner circle" for those who want "enhanced communion" quite apart from the Anglican Communion. It is madness, and Pharisaic madness, at that!

On some level, one can deal with the Covenant as a contractual matter.

If, in fact, the Covenant would change nothing if adopted, then why enter into the agreement in the first place? Is not entering into an empty agreement a waste of time for all involved?

If on the other hand the Covenant is intended to effect change, then why would one agree to such patently obscure language? Or put in other terms, if one is not clear as to the outcome of the agreement, then by definition one ought not to sign.

Eric Bonetti