Sydney Opposes Covenant

Responding to a report by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Sydney, the diocesan Synod has gone on record as opposing adoption of the Anglican Covenant by the Anglican Church of Australia. The report objected that the Covenant is “fundamentally concerned with maintaining structural and institutional unity rather than biblical faithfulness.”

The motion opposing adoption of the Covenant was put forth by Dr. Mark Thompson, Head of the Department of Theology, Philosophy and Ethics at Moore College. According to Dr. Thompson, “Those who have created the problem [within the Anglican Communion] won’t sign it; and if they did without repenting of the departures from the teaching of Scripture it would only demonstrate the uselessness of the covenant itself.”

According to an October 13, 2011, report on the Sydney Web site by Russell Powell, Dr. Thompson advanced GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans as offering a better approach to resolving conflicts within the Communion.

Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen is the General Secretary of GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

A final decision on the adoption or rejection of the Anglican Covenant will be made by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia.

Enforcing Nice A Response

Peter Arnett, a legendary TV and print news reporter famously wrote

“It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,” a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town, regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong. [“Major Describes Move,” New York Times, February 8, 1968.]

It awakens my sense of irony to note that Mr. Arnett is a New Zealander. I have no idea if he is an Anglican, but his description of the US (failed, we now all know) strategy in Vietnam is apt for the defense of the Anglican Covenant mounted by Peter Carrell and his boss, Bishop Victoria Matthews. They stand willing destroy the communion to save  it. While Matthews’ defense of the Covenant achieved only incoherence, Carrell peels down the layers and give us clarity. The picture is really, really ugly.

Matthews intends the Covenant to do exactly what I have said in my posts it will do: destroy the Anglican Communion. The difference between us is that, as Carrell explains, he and Matthews anticipate a new Covenant-based Anglican Church that will take on the role of the Communion and exclude bad people, thoughts, originality—and this is key—pesky North Americans, with their liberal ideas, and annoying Africans who think they should have a say in Communion management. I see disaster, a church that replaces Anglican comprehensiveness with exclusion.

In his key paragraph, Carrell says

If I am correctly interpreting +Victoria’s argument, then the Covenant is a sheep-and-goats moment for global Anglicanism. To one side will be those member churches who choose to not commit in this new way, churches which will not stop listening to others, but which will always listen when it suits and not when it does not.

This new “Anglican Covenant Church,” a name that I think has just been invented by Carrell, will be all the things we who oppose the Covenant have been arguing against. It will impose a supra-church canon law, an utterly arbitrary decision process, a curial “Standing Committee,” uniform unyielding confessional standards, and above all, terminally bland niceness.

Somewhere in Section 4, Matthews and Carrell find an enforceable requirement that the churches listen to each other. If I understand their somewhat opaque reasoning, “listening” means limiting progress to the least common denominator.

Carrell describes the “new way” the Covenant will, he thinks, create.

... that way is to force those who claim to be in Communion to actually listen to one another and thus to be in relationship with one another (that is, an actual working relationship).

Somehow, forcing someone to listen creates “relationship,” although Carrell does not say how.

My sense of irony is also awakened as I consider Dr. Williams, who would not let +Robinson, or any LGBT voice, be heard at Lambeth, and who will not treat our presiding bishop as a bishop, enforcing this “listening” they describe.

But force may not be required. Both Matthews and Carrell seem quite content to visualize this new bland-leading-the-bland replacement as a small, but nice, church. Indeed, excluding most of the Global South, most of North America, and parts of the UK (Scotland, Wales, and perhaps Ireland) won’t leave much. And, in case England finally wakes up and declines to adopt the Covenant, Carrell is even willing to consider a new, small church without fellowship with Canterbury! Lest anyone forget, fellowship with Canterbury is the standard definition of membership in the Anglican Communion. Not so, it appears for the new “Anglican Covenant Church.”

If this vision actually prevails, will some of those who have said they are in stay in? I can imagine Mexico reconsidering. Did the Mexican church really sign up for the “Anglican Covenant Church?” Do its members, recently independent from TEC, really want an international Curia (sorry, “Standing Committee”) forcing them do things? Are their bright, educated, and pastoral bishops really prepared to submit themselves to required niceness?

Paul called us to curtail our liberty in God to support the weak among us. Many in TEC, Anglican Church of Canada and other churches have been willing to do that. They also, however, hear Jesus calling them to do justice. It is all a delicate balance. But it not in Matthews’ and Carrell’s anticipated   new church: one is told what is nice and one had best do it.

The thing is, I agree with Carrell and Matthews. Section Four, indeed the entire Covenant if adopted, will kill the Anglican Communion. Despite my doubts, it may give birth to an, “Anglican Covenant Church.” And that new body will be a church, not a communion, with canon law, a Curia, a ruling archbishop, and homogenized, bland, and static theology.

I predict that if this vision turns into reality, at least initially, it won’t be all that nice. For a shrunken church without most of the Canadian and American money that now sustains the Communion, I can only see politics—politics that determine, eventually, what Section Four means, how much of the Anglican Communion Office staff is retained, and who is in and who is out. In short, I predict the new “Anglican Covenant Church” will be a copy of the ever fragmenting, ever schism-ridden “Continuum.^*”

What is amazing is that anyone thinks this is a good idea!

FWIW
jimB



* The “Continuum” is the collective name for the pseudo-Anglican churches that emerged from the “St. Louis Declaration, ” crafted after TEC began to ordain women. That document pledged unity, and failed utterly. The most current listing I know of the many churches in the Continuum is in the “Not In Communion” section of Anglicans Online.

More News from New Zealand

Our friend Bosco Peters has posted more news from the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia. In his September 19, 2011, post, he says, in part:

The Dunedin diocesan synod also strongly strongly rejected the proposed Covenant as it stands, and passed a motion identical [I think] to the Auckland one:  that is, that Sections 1-3, are useful statements and commitments and a process for dealing with disagreement; Clause 4.2 is unacceptable; the rest of 4 is acceptable.

Wellington diocesan synod accepted clauses 1-3 of the Covenant but went for a division (a vote in houses bishop/clergy/laity) for clause 4. The voting on that section was: Clergy: 63 for; 41 against. Laity: 52 for; 44 against. One synod member said he counted up to 25 abstentions.

Our best understanding of where things stand regarding Anglican Covenant adoption can be found here on the No Anglican Covenant Web site.

Don't Panic

In his recent defence of the controversial fourth section of the proposed Anglican Covenant, Andrew Goddard said that there were some reforms of the Instruments of Communion in process:

Numerous resignations from the standing committee, concerns about the ACC’s new constitution, and the principled refusal of many to attend both Lambeth 2008 and the Primates’ Meeting in Dublin indicate that major reforms of the instruments are now urgent, not just for their own sake but for the sake of the Covenant. The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission for Unity, Faith and Order is considering such reforms. Unless these reforms come soon there is the real danger that Section 4 will simply plant this new promising seed of the Covenant in shallow soil or among thorns.

Mark Harris, a thoughtful and reliable Episcopalian blogger took this to imply that there were some changes to the Covenant being considered. This is a reasonable inference if Goddard is correct. Naturally, we at No Anglican Covenant Central were concerned, so we decided to check at the source.

Here is the response from the Revd Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, the Anglican Communion's Unity Faith and Order Officer.

ACC 14 gave the following task to IASCUFO:

Resolution 14.08 (g) "IASCUFO to undertake a study of the role and responsibilities in the Communion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting; the ecclesiological rationale of each, and the relationships between them, in line with the Windsor Continuation Group Report, and to report back to ACC-15".

This work is being taken forward by a working group of IASCUFO which is looking at the history of the Instruments and writings about them, consulting within the Communion, and developing a discussion paper.

The mandate for IASCUFO taking this on came before most of the the concerns listed in the Living Church article occured, and they are not (so far as I can tell) part of IASCUFO's consideration. The work is primarily one of ecclesiology - not, of course, without political ramifications, but politics are not the focus of the task.

The Covenant simply lists the Instruments and does not speak to their interrelationship. Thus there is work to be done here, not least because many Anglicans have different ideas as to how they should best be interconnected to strengthen the Communion. It is not envisaged that this work would lead to amendments to the Covenant.

IASCUFO has no power of its own. Any recommendations it would make would go to the Instruments themselves. Were there to be any concrete proposals for substantial changes that touched the Constitution they would have to go to the Provinces for consideration. But I doubt we'll be very far down that road soon. There will be a progress report, and probably some questions for discussion, at ACC-15.

In other words, Don't Panic. Yes, there's some work being done on the Instruments of Communion, but not for the reasons cited by Goddard. And there are no foreseen implications for the proposed Anglican Covenant.

We are grateful to Canon Barnett-Cowan for her rapid response to our enquiry and for her permission to post it publicly.

We are not quite as sanguine as Canon Barnett-Cowan that there will be no implications for the Covenant, because ecclesiology comes before its encoding in canon law. It's impossible to predict what recommended changes might emerge from the work being done, or whether there would be any implications for the Covenant text. But we do accept that no changes are contemplated currently.

For further comments about Goddard's analysis, see here.

An Independent Voice Analyzes the Oxford “Introduction”

At his site William F. Hammond has published an analysis of Canon Rees’s “Introduction to the Anglican Covenant Debate.”

Hammond’s analysis is spot on and I recommend you read it if you are in a position to vote on the Covenant at any diocese or deanery event in any church. In a very short and logical paper he shreds what Fr. Malcolm French has dubbed the “babbling points” now being advanced by Lambeth staff. The idea that nothing much is happening here and you should simply vote yes and smile is contemptuous of your intellect and position. Hammond shreds the idea quite effectively, and I think he should be read.

For the record, I do not know Mr. Hammond, have never met or talked to him as far as I know. He is not a member of the Coalition, but he is certainly someone I hope to know down the road.

jimB

Another New Zealand Diocese Rejects Covenant

Apparently it’s diocesan synod time in New Zealand Our friend Bosco Peters has posted another summary of actions of synods in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia. At the end of his report is the news that the Diocese of Waiapu passed the following resolution by a virtually unanimous vote:

The Diocese of Waiapu affirms its desire to remain a member of the Anglican Communion, valuing highly our common faith, mission, tradition and liturgy. We do not believe that the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant will enhance the life of the Communion and request that the General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui declines to sign the Covenant.

Auckland Diocese Passes on Covenant

I learned earlier today from our New Zealand convenor, the Ven. Lawrence Kimberley, that the Diocesan Synod of the Auckland Diocese had rejected the Anglican Covenant, but Kimberley could offer no details. (Note that I am writing from Pittsburgh, but time stamps on this blog are given in London time.) This afternoon I became aware of a helpful post from the Rev. Bosco Peters.that offers the actual resolution that was passed. According to Peters, the resolved adopted said

That this Synod,

• noting that the General Synod/te Hinota Whanui has approved in principle Sections 1-3 of the proposed Anglican Covenant, and asked Episcopal Units to respond to its 2012 Session, resolves as follows:

• (a) Sections 1 & 2 of the proposed Anglican Covenant may be considered to be a useful starting point for consideration of our Anglican understanding of the Church
  
  
• (b) Section 3 of the proposed Covenant contains an acceptable description of the basis for relationships between the churches of the Anglican Communion, and suggests a series of commitments which provide a useful framework within which churches of the Communion could discuss differences between them.
  
  
• (c) Clause 4.2 of the proposed Covenant contains provisions which are contrary to our understanding of Anglican ecclesiology, to our understanding of the way of Christ, and to justice, and is unacceptable to this Synod.
  
  
• (d) The other parts of Section 4 contain technical provisions that are acceptable to this diocese if Clause 4.2 is rejected
  
  
• Notes that some other Episcopal Units have rejected the proposed Covenant, and anticipates that a variety of views on the proposed Covenant will be expressed by the various Episcopal Units.
  
  
• Asks General Synod/te Hinota Whanui, if it rejects the proposed Covenant in part or as a whole, to commit itself by Standing Resolution to following processes similar to those set out in Section 3 of the proposed Covenant if another church of the Communion raises concerns about actions this Church takes or considers taking.
  
  
• Asks General Synod/te Hinota Whanui to request its representatives to the Anglican Consultative Council to bring a motion to the 2012 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council to affirm that full membership of the Anglican Communion is not conditional on adoption of the proposed Covenant.

We are beginning to see a healthy trend in New Zealand. Three dioceses have said no to the Covenant, and, as best as I can tell, no diocese has said yes.