Anglican Mainstream

Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, CEN November 18

Many primates have indicated that they cannot support the Covenant in its present form.  The African Primates said in Entebbe in August : “We realise the need for further improvement of the Covenant in order to be an effective tool for unity and mutual accountability.” 

In April the Global South meeting said: “We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.”

Why the reticence?

What is the basis for their reticence and what are the implications of the Covenant for the Church of England?

Further reading:  Response to Andrew Goddard and Is Mary Glasspool’s Consecration an Example of the Effectiveness of the Covenant?The Anglican Communion Covenant was devised by Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies at the request of the Global South meeting as part of the response to the consecration of Gene Robinson by ECUSA/TEC.  It was embraced and supported by the Primates Meeting in Dromantine.

There was every hope that the version of the Covenant that was brought to the 2009 ACC meeting in Jamaica would unite the Communion.

Archbishop Gomez was explicit there in personal conversation that the Covenant would be such that TEC could not sign up to it. Therefore, rather than anyone “expelling” TEC, TEC ( and similarly ACOC) would exclude themselves until wiser counsels among them might prevail.

With each succeeding draft the Covenant has “weakened” – to such an extent that now it is said that TEC can sign up to it.  A critical point in this weakening was reached at the ACC meeting in Jamaica.  An important intervention by the Archbishop of Canterbury interpreted the mind of the meeting in such a way that eventually a motion was passed which led to the revision of section 4 so that all mention of discipline was removed.

Why was this done?  For some, the issues were about theology and truth. For others the issue was to provide a mechanism to achieve consensus and stay together. 

How different would the Communion be if the Covenant in its current form were to apply?  Contradictory positions could still be lived with because what appears to be mutually incompatible is only apparent, but not finally so because they are all personal convictions even though espoused by groups.  More intense listening might reveal areas of overlap, convergence and possible co-existence between initially opposing positions.

The Covenant sets some of the credal statements of the Christian faith in a specific framework.  The premise of this framework is that the doctrinal and theological disagreements which have surfaced within the Communion are not about fundamentals but have arisen through problems in communication and understanding, as people have differing convictions.

Are the doctrinal and theological matters in current dispute matters of right and wrong, truth and error, or matters of personal conviction over which better communication will produce unity and harmony? The Covenant process is only capable of dealing with disagreements of the latter kind. Better communication in such a framework requires an attitude of openness, a process of listening and adequate time. So the Covenant puts in place such a decision-making process in the Communion.

Some people in leadership continue to assert that truth resides in different groups and is not the exclusive preserve of any one group. However the Bible never affirms that the church has proprietary rights to all truth. It does call the church to witness faithfully to truths that are fundamental and non-negotiable. Both the identity and the mission of the church depend on this. The leaders of the church are called to unambiguous and full commitment to such truths – exemplified in the oaths they are required to take. 

There are of course other matters on which there are ‘disagreements’, but these are matters of indifference on which Scripture allows disagreement.  They are not a cause for breaking fellowship/communion. The absence of discipline risks moving some of the fundamentals into the indifference category.

The Covenant puts a number of fully acceptable credal statements in the framework of communication and listening which renders them as convictions open to change.   It does this by the position it gives to the Standing Committee of the Communion.   Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, the director for Unity, Faith and Order in the Anglican Communion Office writes in the CEN for November 12:

“The point of the processes outlined in the Covenant is precisely to encourage one part of the Communion, when seeking to respond responsibly in its own context in mission, to consider how that will affect other parts of the Communion – not so that they can exercise a veto, but so that in communion discernment can take place collaboratively [on] how…Churches in communion distinguish between that which may further the Gospel and that which may impede it.”

We should remember how phraseology referring to those whose manner of life may be disruptive of communion in an earlier debate was interpreted. Though initially drafted to refer to those who transgressed Communion teaching on sexuality, it was also interpreted to refer to those whose insistence on a position of “truth” was disruptive of communion harmony and thus directed towards orthodox Anglicans in North America.

Similarly, the Covenant process is also seen as means by which sanctions could be taken against those of the Communion who insist that truth and error are not matters of poor communication, lack of openness and failure to listen but are matters of the law of non-contradiction.

The current Covenant process interminably delays judgement and leaves little hope of discipline and thus of consistency. We are left in a permanent state of dialogue and conversation. This has practical implications at parish level when churches have to decide how to relate to same-sex couples requesting blessing and bringing surrogate children for baptism.  If the covenant process in the Communion becomes the state of affairs in the Church of England, its practices could be so contradictory that chaos would result. Endless appeal could be made to conviction, openness, listening and time while practices and actions continue which go against the teaching of the church whether in a parish or whole diocese.

The above argument could therefore suggest abstention in the vote in General Synod next week for the following reasons:

The Communion needs recognition of orthodox teaching and for proper and appropriate boundaries. The Covenant does not achieve that purpose but substitutes conviction for truth. Some wish to travel further in the direction in which the Covenant is supposed to point, but do not wish to support the very weak approach of the current Covenant. Where the current Anglican Communion process is going today could be used to allow for English Dioceses to move in TEC’s direction tomorrow on the grounds that this is accepted Anglican practice.

Chris Sugden
Anglican Mainstream
www.anglican-mainstream.net

Read also:  The Anglican covenant is the only way forward  by Graham Kings

Read Response to Andrew Goddard here

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.