ABC defends Covenant, warns of consequences

by

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s opening speech to the Church of England General Synod defends the Anglican Covenant.

“The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America. It does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority, quite explicitly declaring that it does not seek to override any province’s canonical autonomy. After such a number of discussions and revisions, it is dispiriting to see the Covenant still being represented as a tool of exclusion and tyranny.”

“It is an illusion to think that without some changes the Communion will carry on as usual, and a greater illusion to think that the Church of England can somehow derail the entire process. The unpalatable fact is that certain decisions in any province affect all. We may think they shouldn’t, but they simply do. If we ignore this, we ignore what is already a real danger, the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion and the emergence of new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly. All very well, you may say; but among the potential casualties are all those areas of interaction and exchange that are part of the lifeblood of our church and of many often quite vulnerable churches elsewhere. These relations are remarkably robust, given the institutional tensions at the moment, and, as I’ve often said, many will survive further disruption. But they will be complicated and weakened by major fracture and realignment.”

“[The Covenant] also recognises that even after consultation there may still be disagreement, that such disagreement may result in rupture of some aspects of communion, and that this needs to be managed in a careful and orderly way. Now the risk and reality of such rupture is already there, make no mistake. The question is whether we are able to make an intelligent decision about how we deal with it. To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly.”

Audio is available here

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition has issued this press release in advance of the debate.

NEWS RELEASE

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NO ANGLICAN COVENANT COALITION GATHERS MOMENTUM

LONDON – As the Church of England General Synod prepares to debate the proposed Anglican Covenant, a group of unlikely campaigners are working hard to ensure that there is a serious debate about the potential risks involved.

Started just three weeks ago after online conversations among a small number of international Anglican bloggers, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition has built on the work of two English groups, Inclusive Church and Modern Church, to set the shape of the debate.

“A month ago, General Synod and the entire Communion were sleepwalking into approving the Covenant without a proper discussion of the issue,” according to Coalition Moderator, the Revd. Dr. Lesley Fellows. “In some places, the Covenant was being presented as a means to punish North American Anglicans. In Britain, the United States and Canada, it was being spun as nothing more than a dispute resolution mechanism. I’ve spoken to many Synod members who were only dimly aware of the Anglican Covenant. An astonishing number of people thought I was referring to the Covenant with the Methodists.”

The week preceding the General Synod debate has seen a flood of articles criticizing the Covenant, including:

an article by Canadian canon law expert the Revd. Canon Alan Perry, challenging the assertion that the Covenant would have no impact on the constitution and canons of member churches of the Communion;

an article by the former Chancellor of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Hon. Ronald Stevenson QC, a former judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench, critical of the lack of clarity regarding the disciplinary procedures in the Covenant; and

an article by the Bishop of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, the Rt. Revd. Pierre Whalon, challenging the idea of enhancing communion by excluding those who disagree with the majority.

“We are all strongly committed to the Anglican Communion, but we are not convinced that this proposed Covenant will do anything to keep the Communion together,” according to the Revd. Malcolm French, the Coalition’s Canadian Convenor. “Covenant supporters have hurt their case by being dismissive of critics while failing to make a compelling case for this proposed Anglican Covenant. And no one has been prepared to explain the initial and ongoing costs to implement the Covenant.”

Within the last three weeks momentum has gathered to encourage the Church of England to wake up. The first test will come tomorrow, when General Synod debates the Covenant and votes on a motion for initial approval, the first step towards final approval at a later session. Although significant decisions such as women in the episcopate normally require a two-thirds majority, questions should be asked about why the English House of Bishops has proposed only a simple majority for the Covenant.

noanglicancovenant.org

The articles referred to, and several others, can be found at: noanglicancovenant.org/resources.html

Revd. Dr. Lesley Fellows (England) +44 1844 239268

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

Revd. Hugh Magee +44 1334 470446

Full Text of the ABC’s Presidential Address can be found here

UPDATE: bloggers weigh in:

Mark Harris comments at Preludium

Tobias Haller comments at In a Godward Direction

Katie Sherrod comments at Desert’s Child

Mr. CatOLick reports live from Synod.

UPDATE 2: People who are writing in support of the Covenant are here and here and here.

Dislike (0)
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedinmail
Michael Russell
Guest
Michael Russell

I am sorry, but the principal drafters of the Covenant were Ephraim Radner and Drexel Gomez, the former set on hurting TEC and the latter doing it by jurisdiction jumping. The earliest drafts were done in conjunction with meetings of the Global South Primates who are certainly set on excluding TEC.

The iron fist is hidden in a somnolence producing glove of ambiguous and typically Radnerian prose. The original "final" draft allowed complainants to shop out their gripes to whichever fictitious Instrument of Communion they might think most receptive. The "improved" final draft centralizes power in a newly enfranchised Standing Committee that even the conservatives object too.

The reality is that Radner and his crew have already said that those who sign the Covenant have an initial task of rewriting it again. How amazing that we are being asked to sign a "final" document that is already up for revision!

The ++ABC's role in promoting this as some widely acceptable way forward is sad. More than any other factor his spineless appeasement policy and betrayal of Jeffrey Johns is responsible for the shape of this disaster.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Michael Lockaby
Guest
Michael Lockaby

A, ye olde legal solution to a people problem. It's like attacking a jellyfish with a mallet.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
tobias haller
Guest
tobias haller

This statement is more of the same, "we need this desperately but it won't really change that much" line of thinking. For all the fuss and bother, it is just not worth it. There are too many known unknowns in the list of ingredients to make it palatable.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Robert Martin
Guest
Robert Martin

These are pretty weak justifications for the Covenant. "If we don't sign this agreeing to new structures that aren't spelled out, there may be new structures. We are in crisis people!"

"We can't work together unless we sign on the line that we're working together. We are in crisis people!"

Anybody who has been paying even somewhat blind attention recognizes that the whole point of the Covenant is to institutionalize punishment, particularly for North America.

This was the genesis of the Covenant and has been its guiding principle ever since.

The rest is all fluff.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
John B. Chilton
Guest
John B. Chilton

The ABC is dispirited that he cannot rely on General Synod being a rubber stamp where people don't come having done their homework. And you gotta love this justification from the mouth of the ABC: "The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America." Like Ephraim Radner, a board member of the IRD at the time he was appointed to the Covenant drafting committee?

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
1 2 3 4