Why are church officials afraid of honest debate?

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition (NACC) has issued a challenge to church officials who support the proposed Anglican Covenant, especially leaders in the Church of England, accusing them of a pattern of bias and manipulation.

In a news release, Monday, February 28, NACC called for a fair process and honest debate about the proposed covenant. NACC calls for a process that allows opposing arguments to be circulated to all General Synod members.

LONDON - The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has criticized church officials for attempting to suppress honest discussion of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

"Instead of fostering a free and open discussion, church officials are trying to ensure that this radical document is endorsed without serious debate," according to Coalition Moderator, Dr Lesley Fellows. "Unfortunately, this is entirely consistent with what has been happening throughout the process."

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed officially in 2004 as a means of addressing divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft, which has been unilaterally designated as "final", has been referred to the Communion churches for adoption. The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms that would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion. The draft must be either accepted without amendment or rejected entirely; no other options are allowed.

A series of decisions demonstrate a pattern of bias and manipulation designed to facilitate Covenant adoption: ...

read the entire news release below:

NEWS RELEASE
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION CALLS FOR FAIR PROCESS AND HONEST DEBATE

LONDON —The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has criticized church officials for attempting to suppress honest discussion of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

"Instead of fostering a free and open discussion, church officials are trying to ensure that this radical document is endorsed without serious debate," according to Coalition Moderator, Dr Lesley Fellows. "Unfortunately, this is entirely consistent with what has been happening throughout the process."

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was first proposed officially in 2004 as a means of addressing divisions among the member churches of the Anglican Communion on matters ranging from human sexuality to the role of women. The current draft, which has been unilaterally designated as "final", has been referred to the Communion churches for adoption. The proposed Covenant establishes mechanisms that would have the effect of forcing member churches to conform to the demands and expectations of other churches or risk exclusion from the Communion. The draft must be either accepted without amendment or rejected entirely; no other options are allowed.

A series of decisions demonstrate a pattern of bias and manipulation designed to facilitate Covenant adoption:

November 2010 — When the Church of England debated the Anglican Covenant, official materials prepared for General Synod members made no reference to the concerns of critics or to the case against the Covenant. This was in marked contrast to what happened in 2007, when the House of Bishops agreed that an additional briefing document presenting opposing arguments should be circulated to all General Synod members in advance of the debate.

November 2010 — When Modern Church and Inclusive Church placed advertisements critical of the proposed Covenant in the church press, and when the No Anglican Covenant Coalition was launched, Covenant sceptics were criticized by senior church officials for going public and "campaigning" instead of remaining silent.

December 2010 — When the draft Covenant was formally referred to English dioceses, the referral document provided a random list of quotations from the last General Synod debate, with pro
‐ and anti‐Covenant remarks mixed up together, followed by a purely pro‐Covenant presentation.

January 2011 — A request by Covenant opponents to the Business Committee of General Synod to circulate material setting out the case against the Covenant was rejected.

February 2011 — The Anglican Communion Office issued an official study guide and list of questions and answers for international use that neither provide a balanced look at the issues nor fairly represent the views of those critical of the Covenant.
"In the history of General Synod, we know of no instance where such an important matter (designated as Article 8) has been referred to diocesan synods without the case for both sides being clearly set out," according to Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary of Modern Church and a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. "Both sides were represented regarding the most recent plans for unity with the Methodists. That was the case at every stage of the debate over the ordination of women as priests, and now, as bishops. The material concerning the Covenant falls far short of the ideals of justice, of the Anglican tradition. Even in the House of Commons, all sides of an issue are allowed to be heard."

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition website, noanglicancovenant.org, provides a wealth of resources for those seeking to understand the proposed Anglican Covenant. Material specifically designed for use by Church of England dioceses is also available from the Modern Church Web site at modernchurch.org.uk/resources/mc/cofe.

"Diocesan synods in the Church of England deserve to hear all sides of the debate," said Dr Fellows. "We are not afraid of an open, fair, and honest debate. If the supporters of the Covenant had a stronger case, perhaps they wouldn’t be either."

Revd Dr Lesley Fellows (England) +44 184 4239 268

Revd Canon Hugh Magee (Scotland) +44 133 4470 446

Dr Lionel Deimel (USA) +1 412 512 9087

Revd Malcolm French (Canada) +1 306 550 2277

Revd Lawrence Kimberley (New Zealand) +64 3 981 7384

Comments (3)

I've never been much of a fan of railroading, & it worries me in particular when I see repeated & energetic rhetoric about "how good [something] will be for ALL of us." It's the sort of thing that makes me want to take my wallet out of my back pocket & put it in the front, *&* keep my hand firmly on it.

I hate saying this. I really & honestly do. But the more I see people talking up the Covenant, the more I notice how many of those people are the same ones who have exhibited less than good faith in living up to promises in previous efforts toward unity, e.g. the Windsor Report. :(

Regarding the headline question, Jim, perhaps the answer is it's part of the CoE of culture.

Here's what the catechism says,

Quest. What is thy duty towards thy Neighbour ?
Anstv. My duty towards my Neighbour is to love him as myself, and to do to all men, as I would they should do unto me. ... To honour and obey the King, and all that are put in authority under him. To submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters. To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters. ... to do my duty in that state of life, unto which it shall please God to call me.

1771 BCP

Of course, the bit about "the King, and all that are put in authority under him" is a afterthought convenient for a pro-Covenant pro-authority agenda, since (as NAC points out) it permits those who would prefer to judge rather than *not* judge to ignore the gospel imperative of not doing so. }:)

[Of course, that part about "all that are put in authority under him" *is* sort of colonial, but that's just a minor point, so we can feel free to ignore that conflict too. :)]

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.

Advertising Space