Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon, Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion sat down with with the Church of Ireland Gazette editor, Canon Ian Ellis recently for a wide-ranging interview. In it, he stated his belief that a revived Anglican Covenant is the best way forward for the future of the Anglican Covenant.
IG What is the future for the Windsor report and the Lambeth commission is it still a way forward, the idea for the covenant
JIF Oh yes, yes
IG You think it is still a way forward
but if the Church of England doesn’t accept it
JIF But the Church of England is not the communion, Church of England is one province
IG Well it’s pretty key
JIF Yes yes, very key
IG Well all provinces are key provinces
JIF Of course, that is the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury
However, I’m sorry the Church of England is not the communion but Canterbury is an essential part of the Communion
IG Could you see a covenant without the Church of England?
JIF Why not? Why not? You see the thing is, the last ACC, from the soundings we received from the Order Faith and Unity part here
the problematic section is section 4 (some call it section D). That is, the administration, that is the problematic thing. What we are trying to do now…
IG That would be the including, excluding piece?
JIF Right, yes. What we want to do now is to actually test within the Communion; if we all agree on sections 1, 2, and 3 that talk about
what it means to be a communion… if we agree on this description on what it means to be a Communion; we can move on to the second stage – how do we therefore relate together as a Communion?
IG Are you saying that section D, or part 4, might be renegotiated?
JIF Oh yes. Because the majority of those who’ve turned it down is based on that. And if…
IG So we could have another time, a Lambeth Commission part 2 looking at this section again?
JIF Yes! If we do that; I’m hoping between now and 2019 well be able to go around..
IG Is this part of the Anglican task force?
JIF Well, it’s been passed on…
The standing committee passed it on to the Archbishop of Canterbury and its part of what we expect the task force to do
IG And of course the archbishop of Armagh is part of the Task Force
JIF uhhh…
IG Archbishop Richard Clarke
JIF Oh yes
IG So that’s one of the things that the…
JIF We shouldn’t throw the baby away… You see, without the covenant there is no Communion the way things are going now. At
least, we need to agree, are we a Communion? If we all agree we are a Communion then how do we relate together?
There hasn’t been much enthusiasm for or action on the Covenant in several years. Idowu-Fearon suggested much the same at the most recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Commission in Zambia, where it apparently made little headway. It seems likely that it will continue going nowhere for the time being, while serious strains still affect the bonds of the Communion.
All Content © 2017 Episcopal Café
While it is true that the fourth section (4 or D - the section on "relational consequences") was the area of the most contention, it was not really the only area. To reopen the Covenant conversation (if it happens) at all will, I expect, reopen conversations again on defining what it means to be "a communion." That's not a reflection on "what should or shouldn't happen." There may well be less interest once it's reconsidered, or there may be so significant a difference in "consequences" as to change the interest of those who have signed. I'm more reflecting that human nature will lead some to say, "While we have this on the table, there are more areas than one we have thoughts about."
I know Josiah well and believe he wants a genuine communion because he believes in it as the Christian church's way. He comes from a very poor and troubled region of Nigeria. He was involved in the Windsor process. He does not believe national independent denominations is Anglicanism. Many agree with him and would happily covenant together. Others have said No and no one is faulting them. They have voted their mind.
Someone who would feel that way misunderstands how Anglicanism came about, a national Church telling Holy Mother Church to take a hike and going its own way.
If one truly wants conciliarity and subsidiarity then it may be best to follow the schismatic groups back into Holy Mother Church through the Ordinariates.
As for me and my house, we will take the Anglicanism that we have and the Communion that we have; a federation made of autonomous national/regional churches.
"You see, without the covenant there is no Communion the way things are going now."
It is Josiah who is proposing a covenant as a modus vivendi intended to clarify and to embrace the catholicity of Anglicanism. He isn't saying without influence from NA in Africa all would be well in a functional communion. If that was his position, there'd be no need of a covenant undertaking to proceed.
I find that the Communion that we have is plenty of Church Catholic. And it has worked fine, until as Josiah mentions, US conservatives started messing with the minds of authoritarian African bishops & primates.
Anglicanism isn't a moment frozen in time, stripped of missional expansion and the existence of a communion itself with 80M members. What Josiah continues to refer to as a church catholic.
TEC decided against the covenant and would likely always object to one of any kind -- but that is fine. "You and your house" would not be constrained. If a majority of provinces were to agree a covenant, as Josiah is envisioning one, you and your house could advocate for your own understanding of national denominations. That was always ingredient in the covenant process. The very fact that he speaks of the non-necessity of the CofE agreeing a covenant for one still to make sense and have force for the communion says a lot. Obviously there would be those in the CofE who would want a relationship with those covenanting. There could even be a few here and there in TEC! -- though not "you and your house."
Advent blessings.
Of course the Secretary-General of an organization might have a personal interest in making his organization more powerful.
Those who would view a covenant in this way ("bonds" and "dominion") would not want to join such a fellowship anyway. Others can be free to do so. That was always the case. Conciliarity and subsidiarity are true communion features.
Better not to create new "bonds" that will be strained from Day 1. We've been fine as a family of churches without dominion over one another.