Observations from the November General Synod

It is no exaggeration to say that the members of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition were shocked and saddened by the events of the November 2010 meeting of General Synod, and many of our supporters have expressed similar sentiments. In a spirit of trying to understand what is happening to the Anglican Communion, we have carefully read the Presidential Address and listened to those who spoke in the debate. Our considered thoughts and conclusions are below:

In his Presidential Address on 23 November 2010, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams presented a message of fear and gloom to the Church of England General Synod. He suggested that, if the Synod did not accept the Anglican Covenant, we could witness the “piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion.” The “risk and reality of such rupture [of some aspects of communion] is already there, make no mistake,” he said. “Historic allegiances cannot be taken for granted.” If we try to carry on as usual, he warned, there is a danger of creating “new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly.”

The Archbishop’s message was clear—be afraid of rejecting the Covenant. It is the only lifeboat in the troubled sea of Anglicanism, and doing nothing or being idealistic is not an option. It is particularly ironic that Dr. Williams painted a picture of a frightening Anglican dystopia should the Covenant fail, as he and other supporters of the Covenant have been quick to accuse Covenant sceptics of “scaremongering.” It is also surprising, both in this speech and in the subsequent debate, that concerns were raised about the decline of the role of the Church of England, as well as references to its being “the mother church” that needs to set an example, whereas Covenant sceptics have been accused of being “Little Englanders.”

The interpretation that most people put on the speech was that Dr. Williams saw the Covenant as the only way to keep the GAFCON Primates and their allies in the Anglican Communion. Ironically, even as the 24 November debate on the Covenant was going on, GAFCON issued its “Oxford Statement,” which rejected the Covenant as being “fatally flawed” and insisted on the more conservative Jerusalem Statement as the foundation of international Anglicanism. …

Our complete analysis is available on the Resources page of the No Anglican Covenant Web site. You can view “Observations on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address and the Anglican Covenant Debate in the Church of England General Synod, November 2010” directly by clicking here.

Tiers Upon Tiers

I have been thinking about how the “final draft covenant” might make the communion look if approved. It is an interesting if not pretty picture. Consider if you will.

• England if it makes the blunder its leaders want and signs the covenant will be in full communion with Mexico. It will be in something less with TEC and AC Canada which might be described as the second tier.
• Some of GafCon's ten churches will be in the second tier too because of “incursions.” Southern Cone already is.
• Now a problem arises in that they refuse to be in anything with TEC. So they will have to be in a different second tier which of course makes no sense. Call the North American tier 2a and part of GafCon 2b.
• But wait! AC-NA is in GafCon but not the Anglican Communion. It cannot by rule sign the covenant. So it is not able to be in tier 2b, presumably it is now tier 3.
• The balance of GafCon can be in another tier two because it cannot be tier one with Mexico and England. We can call that 2c.
• If New Zealand does nothing further its endorsement of only part of the covenant means it is another separate tier, in full communion with TEC and Canada, but not signed like England or Mexico. So it gets tier 4.
• The two provinces in India are combined churches with non-Anglican memberships. That makes the covenant impossible for them, yet they are in full communion as far as I know with everyone. That is tier 5.

Five tiers: day one and the juridical mechanics of the covenant have not even begun to throw out the bad folks. TEC's complaints against various incurssion minded churches have not been filed, Canada has not finished its new marriage canon, nor has TEC. Sydney has not begun lay consecration of Eucharist. Forward in Faith has not yet stalked out of Church of England to avoid girl cooties. Five tiers on DAY ONE!

Imagine the fun the communion protocolists will have arraigning seating at the next Lambeth conference or setting up all the meeting rooms for the Primate's meeting! Imagine the fun journalists can experience asking the archbishop about his stated fear that the communion might become a group of separated clusters without the covenant! Imagine if you dare the obtuse prose he will use to call this "unity."

I wonder what if we all tried to simply pray together and work out joint missions where they make sense? What if we all agreed that because we share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer, we won't try to harm each other but will try to get along? I bet that covenant could be written on a single sheet. of paper.

Bishop Saxbee on the Covenant

As an Episcopalian living on the western side of the Atlantic Ocean, the overwhelming vote in the Church of England General Synod to send the Anglican Covenant forward to the dioceses was perplexing. In particular, I know that not all CofE bishops are fond of the Covenant, yet none voted against the measure. Although, in one sense, the General Synod did nothing more than did The Episcopal Church General Convention in 2009—see Resolution D020—the passionate arguments for and against the Covenant in the weeks leading up the the 24 November 2010 vote and the very personal plea made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential Address the day before made the action of the Synod seem momentous, perhaps more important than it actually was. (In light of the Oxford Statement from the GAFCON Primates’ Council, of course, the vote looks completely irrelevant.)

Helping me put things in perspective is the speech given by Bishop John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln, in the Synod debate. The Rev. Dr. Lesley Fellows has conveniently transcribed this speech and posted it on her blog. Here is a sample of what Bishop Saxbee said:

In relation to the Anglican Covenant, I’m on record as saying in this synod that I entirely support the process, as long as it never ends. …

Anglicanism has been described as a fellowship of civilised disagreement. Well I leave you to judge whether a two-tier Communion with first and second division members answers to that description of civilised disagreement. It frankly feels like we will be sending sincere and faithful Anglicans to stand in the corner until they have seen the error of their ways and can return to the ranks of the pure and spotless.

You can read the entire speech here.

Dr. Joan Gundersen on the Covenant

Not surprisingly, the Houses of Bishops and Deputies email list has hosted a number of discussions about the Anglican Covenant among those who will make decisions related to it at the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church. Below is a post made by Dr. Joan R. Gundersen this morning. Dr. Gundersen, a church historian, is, among other things, director of administration for the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. I asked for permission to reproduce the post here because it raises some issues that have not been much discussed.

I have several problems with the Covenant.

First it is the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. It is a deliberate step on a path designed to turn a communion into a church. This is not the intent of all supporters, but if needed, I could give you actual citations to statements by original drafters and the ABC [Archbishop of Canterbury] that support this point. Turning the Anglican Communion into an Anglican Church would destroy the very essence of Anglicanism by replacing diversity with uniformity and affection with legalism.

Secondly it is twenty pages long. When the early Councils of the church met, they turned out documents that could be measured in paragraphs, not pages—witness the creeds. The ACC [Anglican Consultative Council] constitution is six pages long. The 1789 Constitution for the Episcopal Church was two pages (three if you add the signatures) and the first set of canons was eight including signatures. The Articles of Religion occupy nine pages of our current prayerbook. The Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral fits on two. The Catechism takes only 18. Eighteen pages is also the length of the original U.S. Constitution (at least that is what it fills in one of my Constitutional History texts. The amendments add another six pages.) So what do we have in 20 pages of the Covenant? Modern legislative bloat. It is all about putting up fences. Should it be adopted, it will be patched here and then there and slowly it will creep up in size beyond the original 20 pages.

Thirdly, a covenant should be something that people embrace positively, not reluctantly. Can you imagine trying to use this 20 page document as a tool for evangelism? Does it describe a faith in a way that is clear or inspiring? Hardly. Documents entered into with caveats and concerns, in a spirit of distrust and a sense of coercion, are dead on arrival.

—Joan Gundersen, Pittsburgh Lay 3 GC 2012 [third of four lay deputies to the 2012 General Convention]

Anglican Covenant – Perhaps I was Wrong

I have been trying valiantly (IMHO) to understand what the Anglican Covenant is FOR. You wouldn’t think that would be a troublesome task, but it really has been a problem. I thought that the Archbishop Rowan would spend a lot of time giving us the answers to some simple questions during his Presidential Address:

1. What is the Covenant FOR?
2. What alternatives have been considered?
3. What are the downsides?
4. How will this be managed?
5. What review processes will occur?
6. What if it doesn’t achieve the aims?

I listened intently to the Presidential Address, and was disappointed once again to hear loads of things that the Covenant is NOT:

• the first time we have discussed the Covenant in Synod or in the Church of England
• a tool of exclusion and tyranny
• possible that we can carry on as usual
• possible for the Church of England to derail the process
• tying our hands

When I had the radio debate with Bishop Gregory Cameron, Inclusive Church and Modern Church were accused of scaremongering, so I felt a bit cross that a lot of the focus of the Presidential Address seemed to be about DANGER (and some of that felt nationalistic too):

• the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion
• new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly
• risk and reality of rupture is already there, make no mistake
• historic allegiances cannot be taken for granted

But finally we got onto what the Covenant IS:

• a voluntary promise to consult
• about loyalty
• about catholicity

You see, I thought the Covenant was about unity, and that made no sense because we do all agree that the Covenant will produce a two-tier Anglican Communion. But perhaps the Covenant has nothing to do with unity – it is about Orthodoxy – about making sure everyone has common sets of beliefs, about a Narrowing of Anglicanism. For a wonderful reflection on this see Paul Bagshaw’s post.

The Druidic Covenant, chapter 2 – A Parable

(This follows on from here)

Anastasia did sign the contract that her father Archdruid Rowan sent to her. He said that it was a question of trust and loyalty and it was the only way of keeping the family together – to make forceful the bonds of affection. So she signed it. Her brothers Miles and Lucas refused as they said it wouldn’t punish Cassandra and Marcus for their ‘homosexual lifestyles’. Marcus and Cassandra also declined to sign it, because, more than anything, they felt abandoned and betrayed.

There were fewer people at the table, the following Christmas, and the atmosphere was one of mourning rather than celebration. Anastasia was the youngest child, she had just turned eighteen and she felt like crying. Things were about to get worse. Nadia spoke up and asked a question, ‘Anastasia, I have heard that you have a boyfriend, I think you should be honest with us, are you having sexual relations with him out of wedlock?’ Anastasia gasped and blushed, not daring to answer. ‘I think her reaction is evidence enough said Nadia, I will no longer eat with her at the table until she repents’.

Archdruid Rowan knew what to do and was relieved that they had both signed the contract. ‘You must go to mediation and try to resolve your differences’. Anastasia swallowed hard, she wasn’t at all sure she wanted to do that.

The next day, Anastasia found herself in a room with the mediator and Nadia. The mediator explained the process. She said 'You must talk to each other whether you like it or not, and then, when I have heard enough, and if you can't agree, I will decide who is right and who is wrong and recommend that one of you repents. Failure to do so will result in you being classed as a second tier Druid and you will not be able to eat at the main table until you repent'.

Anastasia put her head in her hands and wept bitterly.

Reflections on General Synod

I spent Tuesday and Wednesday watching the General Synod debate in London from the Public Gallery, the main item on the agenda was whether we were going to send the Anglican Covenant to the dioceses for them to consider or not. If the Dioceses approve the Covenant then it will come back to the General Synod for a final vote to make it legislation. These are my reflections on the two days.

1. Loyalty.
The Presidential Address from ++Rowan focussed heavily on loyalty. Those who opposed the Covenant were seen as disloyal to each other, to other countries, to the quest for unity, and by implication to ++Rowan. It became apparent over the two days that whether you liked the Covenant or not, a vote against it would be a vote of no confidence in Rowan. Ironically, during the debate GAFCON said they won't sign, so there will be at least eight Provinces in the second tier.

Giles Fraser, President of Inclusive Church seemed less than impressed, saying, "All the archbishop's hard work in getting it through and using up one of his lives, seems rather pointless."

2. Continuing the 'Discussion'.
Archbishop John Sentamu said that General Synod had voted for the Covenant four times already, so why not vote for it a fifth time. This surprised me because my understanding was that all the other times they were just voting to continue the discussion of the Covenant. ++John then went onto say that this vote wasn't about agreeing to the Covenant, it was merely to continue the discussion in the Dioceses. The problem is that the Dioceses do have a tendency to think that General Synod pass things down to be rubber stamped and we will need to work very hard to achieve good debates in the Dioceses. If it is passed by the Dioceses then I hope when it comes back to General Synod that ++John won't say that General Synod had now agreed to the Covenant five times already!

3. Depression and Joylessness
One speech reminded us that when people Covenant it should be a celebration. There was no joy in the hall, just much anxiety. The good people of General Synod were signing up to a document that would create a two-tier communion,  this had the feeling of divorce rather than marriage, and the seriousness and sadness associated with that.

4. Odd thinking
People were told by ++Rowan that they shouldn't come with their minds made up but one wondered whether that meant Rowan had came to the debate without his mind made up? Campaigning and leafleting was heavily criticised and seen as the worst sort of secular politics. I'm not sure that secular or politics are necessarily bad, in this case they gave information which informed the debate. Also, ++Rowan's speeches reminded me of secular politics - it reminded me of Margaret Thatcher's TINA (There Is No Alternative) and Tony Blair's speech telling us we had to go into Iraq.

5. Good debate
Most of the concerns that we have written about here were aired during the debate. It is fair to say that there were more voices of concern than voices in support of the Covenant. Someone tweeted that my blog was being quoted, and it did sometimes feel like that. I was amazed that the Bishops in general seemed concerned too. However, as ++Rowan had made it clear that it was a loyalty test, no Bishop voted against him.

I hope that as we take the debate to the Dioceses we will have a chance to consider what a church looks like when it is based on the radical and recklessly generous love and inclusiveness of Jesus Christ. We can ask the question of whether the Anglican Covenant takes us closer to this or further away, ask ourselves whether we are signing up to the Covenant because of love or fear.