ad

Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant Blog

Monday, May 23, 2011

Section 4: A holy or unholy mess?

Episcopal Café is running a series of essays from The Chicago Consultation on the proposed Covenant. Chancellor Sally Johnson discusses Section 4 and raises some issues about the process and language that we need to heed:
The focus of this article is on the procedures and processes for handling disputes articulated in this final draft. Unfortunately, the deletion of the Appendix and its replacement with Section Four does not resolve any of the issues previously raised. In fact, it may have made matters worse instead of better. The Appendix attempted, if inadequately, to create a justice system in which the outcome could be respected based on the process used to reach it (often referred to as “the rule of law”). Section Four, however, proposes a justice system in which the outcome is supposed to be respected based on the nature of the group that makes the decision, rather than on how the decision is made. In doing so, the new system gives significant power and great discretion to a group that previously did not exist.

In the final draft of the proposed covenant, references to the “Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting” have been changed to the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.” While this might appear to be an insignificant change, it may be a highly significant one. The language itself suggests that there is a body, “the Anglican Communion,” that has a “Standing Committee” with independent authority and governance powers separate from the meetings (Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting), the office (Archbishop of Canterbury) and the body (Anglican Consultative Council) referred to in recent years as “Instruments of Communion.”

Read it all here.

Labels: , , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Jim said...

Ann: Good catch, I missed this one.

Section four makes two unwarranted assumptions.

First it assigns roles, goals and responsibilities to groups and individuals without the authority to take them on. The sharply critical response of the Primates' Meeting recently is a reaction to this error.

Second it makes a disciplinary decision. Any new idea, is either "Anglican" or out. That sort of schism oriented canon has never been a part of the communion.

I think the article does a good job of exposing the flaws.

FWIW
jimB

May 23, 2011 at 5:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]