Where we stand now on the Covenant

On the Modern Church site Jean Mayland has summarised where matters are now with the Covenant.

In essence, those who haven't yet declared are likely to wait till after the ACC meeting in November in New Zealand.

Jean Mayland staffing the MCU stall at
the last Lambeth Conference

It's unlikely but just possible that a province or two might make an announcement just before the meeting to try to influence the discussion.

On past experience the press conferences, releases and information that will emerge from the meeting will tell us very little. We'll need the usual combination of leaks and Kremlinology to guess at the content of what is said, never mind its implications.

This is no way to govern a membership organization; but perhaps that's the flaw in my logic.

Squaring the circle

I've been mulling over one paragraph of a post by George Conger, first published in the Church of England Newspaper of June 17.  It comments on the ACNS press release after the last meeting of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion which I noted here earlier.

The must-have button for General Convention 

You can set aside the headline 'England allowed to discuss Anglican Covenant': it says nothing and is wholly unrelated to the text. It probably merely indicates the prejudices of some headline writer.

Conger says,

Under the terms of the Anglican Covenant, provinces that do not ratify the agreement would not be able to participate in decision-making about the covenant. While the Church of England cannot reconsider the covenant until 2015, the Standing Committee carved out an exception to this rule to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mrs. Paver, the Church of England’s lay representative to the ACC to remain part of the process – though not as a representatives of the Church of England.

The rule referred to is:

(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption. (The Anglican Covenant)

First, English representatives would currently have no problem with this clause because they may be regarded as 'still in the process of adoption'. So too will every Province which does not actually reject the Covenant (which is the Philippines and Scotland to date - and that's assuming they've informed the ACO officially).


Second, the SCAC determined that those who are members of the committee ex-officio are not present as representatives. Unfortunately for them this merely confirms that they cannot, under the rule, participate 'in the decision making ... in respect to section 4.2' [of the Covenant]. Bishop James Tengatenga, as chair of the ACC, and Mrs. Paver, as vice-chair, cannot participate in discussion of Covenant issues precisely because they are not 'representatives'. 

This might also pose a question for those Primates who are members of the SCAC. Para. 6 of the Schedule to the Constitution (pdf) of the Anglican Consultative Council, and §8.5, describes them as Ex-officio members of the ACC, their membership lasting only so long as they are members of the Standing Committee. While they self-evidently represent their respective Churches they are not members of the Standing Committee in a representative capacity.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is an Instrument of Communion in his own right and can presumably participate in that capacity, but not, by section 4.2.8, as a member of the SCAC. Presumably also Bishop James Tengatenga and Mrs. Paver can be involved in such Covenant decisions only when the matters are under consideration by the Anglican Consultative Council itself because there they are representatives. 

And, I would suppose, their absence from decision making will have to be explicitly recorded and the records subject to disclosure should any disgrumtled Church consider legal action.

Third, and almost incidentally really, the Covenant does not give the Standing Committee power to have 'carved out an exception to this rule', or any other. 

However,
Fourth, critically, I suggest that this section of the Covenant will, if put into practice, lead to actions which are not in accord with English charity law.


Members of the SCAC are trustees of the ACC. The Charity Commissioners' Essential Trustee (a summary, not the law itself) says:

(D) Trustees and their responsibilities
Charity trustees are the people who serve on the governing body of a charity. They may be known as trustees, directors, board members, governors or committee members. The principles and main duties are the same in all cases.

(1) Trustees have and must accept ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of a charity, and ensuring that it is solvent, well-run, and delivering the charitable outcomes for the benefit of the public for which it has been set up. 

... 

(E7) Trustees can generally delegate certain powers to agents or employees, but will and must always retain the ultimate responsibility for running the charity. (Emphases added.)

The Constitution of the charity (the Anglican Consultative Council) is the primary document for the charity and trustees must conform to it: neither the Covenant nor the trustees themselves can override it. 

The Constitution, as usual, grants the Standing Committee the power to order its own procedures, the Archbishop of Canterbury having a veto) (§27.1:2). It is this power, I suspect, which enabled the Standing Committee to try to sort out the mess this bit of the Covenant is already starting to create.


The Constitution, so far as I could see, makes no provision to exclude trustees from decision making except where there is a conflict of interest or loyalty (§10)). The Charity Commissioners say,

Trustees appointed by another organisation, such as by a local authority, (sometimes referred to as nominative or representative trustees) have exactly the same duties and responsibilities as other trustees. They must act independently of the organisation which appointed them and act only in the best interests of the charity. There may well be occasions where such trustees will have to act in a way which conflicts with the interests of the organisation appointing them. In such circumstances the best interests of the charity must come first; this duty overrides all other considerations. (A guide to conflicts of interest for charity trustees.) 

As I understand it, trustees may not recuse themselves from whole areas of the charity's decision making by policy. Covenant or no Covenant. There is no such power in the Constitution and to do so would be to cease to exercise their trusteeship.


I suggest that section 4.2.8 of the Covenant, if implemented, would almost inevitably be in conflict with English charity law and the application of it would certainly give lawyers grounds for an action against the  SCAC if a Church felt it had been unfairly penalised or disadvantaged.


Therefore something must give. It will be the Covenant.

=========
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, canonical nor secular. But I do work for a charity and need at least a rudimentary grasp of the principles. However, if you can point me to any misrepresentation or case law or anything authoritative at variance with my argument I will make whatever changes are necessary to this post and apologise at the earliest opportunity.


And, if you can do that, you might also be able to answer another, related, question. What's the legal standing of 'alternate' trustees? I can't see a reference in the Constitution to this practice of naming deputies, and I can't see how they can be trustees unless they're full members. The Charity Commission doesn't list them as trustees. I suppose they could merely have observer status. Either way, I think this is an example of the SCAC being too casual about trusteeship - and, as always, opaque.  

Brisbane defers the Covenant

Culled from an Australian Catholic discussion board:

Just came from the Brisbane synod vote [Saturday 23/June] on approving the Anglican Covenant. Rather than approve or reject it, they took the 'Welsh Option' and instead passed the following motion which acknowledges that the process has been somewhat overtaken by events.

That this Synod recommends to the General Synod that it:

Affirm the commitment of the Anglican Church of Australia to the Anglican Communion.

Affirm its readiness to engage with any ongoing process of consideration of the Anglican Communion Covenant

Request clarification from the 15th meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council as to the status and direction of the Covenant Process in the light of the position of the Church of England.

Urge upon the Instruments of Communion a course of action which continues to see reconciliation and the preservation of the Communion as a family of interdependent but autonomous Churches.

The Anglican Diocese of Brisbane and the Roman Catholic 

Archdiocese of Brisbane and Diocese of Toowoomba 

signed a Covenant on 29 May 2009

The author adds:

There are some real structural problems with the Australian Anglican Church and the covenant. Everyone has to agree otherwise no-one can, and there is absolutely no chance that all diocese will agree so its a moot point.

All we can do about it from this side of the world is to keep affirming our commitment to communion and ongoing dialogue. The covenant debate was a useful trigger for starting that sort of dialogue for those who actually considered it.

The Brisbane Diocesan website
doesn't seem to have the result yet. It has the speech to Synod by the Archbishop Phillip Aspinall in favour of the Covenant which concludes,

So I think Australia should enter into the Covenant. We have further contributions to make as the Covenant evolves. Indeed the unique shape of the Australian Church means we may have a very important contribution to make. We can only do that if we are on board.

I look forward to hearing what emerges from the group discussions this afternoon and to the debate in Synod. You now know what I think, but we Anglicans believe in dispersed authority, so I wait to see what you think!

Something strange in the woodshed

The picture is intriguingly entitled
Anglican_Communion_corrected. By whom?

Some funny things are going on in relation to the Covenant.  I guess they reflect divided attitudes amongst those who might regard themselves as 'players' in this particular game.

1) The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion
The first was the announcement by the SCAC that there was now "no timeframe" for the adoption of the Covenant:

The Standing Committee received an update on the progress of the Anglican Communion Covenant. It was noted that eight Provinces had endorsed the Covenant to date, in some cases with a degree of qualification. They were the only responses received so far by the Secretary General. The committee also noted that the President, Chair, and Vice-Chair all hold their offices other than as representatives of their Provinces. 

There was general agreement that no timeframe should yet be introduced for the process of adoption of the Covenant by Provinces. The Standing Committee will return to this question following ACC-15. Press Release

While it was entirely understandable that the Church of England should not yet have informed the  Secretary General of the result of its deliberations on the issue, has not the Province of the Philippines told him that they have rejected the Covenant, or did he just forget to mention it?

"No timeframe" and "following ACC-15" keep options open. Drexel Gomez' drumbeat of 'urgent, urgent' has clearly been ignored. Instead an open-ended process would allow the Anglican Consultative Council to kill the Covenant if enough members wished to do so. Alternatively it would allow one province after another to sign up till those who had initially declined to do so became overwhelmed by its popularity and conceded.

Conditional trusteeship of the Anglican Communion?

The reference to the standing of ex-officio members of the Standing Committee strongly suggests a worried conversation on the lines of 'what is the role of members of the Standing Committee who represent provinces which have not signed the covenant?' (Which could easily be 5 out of 11 elected members.)


My understanding of English charity law (which governs the Committee) is that it is pretty straightforward: as trustees they must all act in the best interests of the charity and not of any nominating or electing body; they cannot be excluded from decision making (except in cases of conflict of interest) nor delegate their responsibilities to others. Some could, of course, voluntarily step back from certain questions or decisions. 


But this would result in the farcical position of overlapping layers of decision making within the governing body of the Communion. Once again, the Covenant would be a source of visible disunity in the Anglican Church.


2) GS1878: report by the Business Committee on the reference [of the Covenant] to the dioceses


GS1878 is a masterclass in hints and insinuation in an objective report. Having noted the defeat of the Covenant under the rules, it says,

6) ... For the record, there is nothing in the Synod’s Constitution or Standing Orders that would preclude the process being started over again, whether in the lifetime of this Synod or subsequently, by another draft Instrument to the same effect being brought forward for consideration by the General Synod before being referred to the dioceses under Article 8. The Business Committee is not, however, aware of a proposal to re-start the process in this way.

General Synod in session

Now why would you comment on a matter which has not been proposed? 


I don't doubt the first sentence is factually correct but I wonder whether this paragraph was included in any earlier report on a defeated Article 8 business. It sounds like a snub to those who confidently stated that that the matter cannot be brought back to Synod before 2015. But even if this is not absolutely and constitutionally correct it is certainly politically impossible to bring the issue back in this Synod: so to whom is this hint directed?


More worrying is the extended discussion on the votes. While, again, I'm sure it's accurate in every detail it is completely irrelevant. Its sole purpose seems to be to obfuscate the result and imply that the vote is in some way unreliable. 


Whether by intent or not, the discussion is undermining of synodical government. In the 18 years' debate which led to the creation of General Synod the repeated refrain was: 'the Church is not a democracy'. Voting by houses and dioceses was an expression of the synodical character of the government of the Church of England. It deliberately avoided making individuals the constituent element of church government (as, for instance, did the refusal to give all lay members a vote for their representatives in General Synod).


Thus the CofE's governance does not ask, are a majority of members or their representatives content with a proposal, it asks: are a majority of local synods content? And they were not.


Yet now we are told that if a few individuals here or there changed their mind or their diocese the result could have been quite different (paras. 8&9). Correct, I'm sure, but so what? Members voted the way they voted, synods divided accordingly and the motion was lost. 


The only 'so what?' I can think of which might justify the Business Committee endorsing such a report is that they were thoroughly brassed off with the result. If this isn't an abuse of process it is certainly playing fast and loose with the interpretation of the result.

Final voting figures on the Covenant

Alan Perry has produced a final tally of the statistics on the Covenant vote (and I've added some comments). 

In all, 3588 people voted in the 44 diocesan synods, including 94 bishops, 1584 clergy and 1910 laity. (Bishops' votes did not count toward the results, but were nevertheless recorded.)

The proposal to endorse the Covenant was defeated by 26 Dioceses to 18. This is a significantly bigger margin than the difference in individual votes. 

It is important to remember that this voting system was devised as part of synodical government. It was never a system of individual votes where people happened to be gathered geographically. 

Matters referred to dioceses under Sections 7 & 8 of the Synodical Measure are proposals for significant change in church life. Therefore the bar which a proposal had to pass was set noticeably higher than 50%+1. The intention was to find a way of ensuring, so far as possible, that a positive vote really reflected sufficient support for change around the country and amongst both clergy and laity. 

Therefore one way of looking at the discrepancy between the votes of bishops and those of the laity and clergy is to suggest that synodical government structures have proved effective. Bishops may be out of step with their people but the synodical system provided an effective brake on their forward march.

Whether the lesson you draw is that diocesan voting should be circumvented or strengthened depends on deeper questions of how you perceive the nature of the church.

Percentages of the vote by houses:

All voters
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant	Abstained
49.25	46.29	4.46
Voters excluding bishops
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant	Abstained
48.43	47.14	4.44
Bishops only
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant	Abstained
79.79	14.89	5.32
Clergy only
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant	Abstained
46.65	49.49	3.85
Laity only
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant	Abstained
49.90	45.19	4.92

Number of dioceses voting for and against by houses:

Bishops only
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant
37	7
Clergy only
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant
18	26
Laity only
For the Covenant	Against the Covenant
22	22

It is clear overall that the Covenant was unable to secure majority support amongst either the clergy or the laity. The bishops voted overwhelmingly for the Covenant.

In 22 dioceses both clergy and laity voted against and only in 4 dioceses was the Covenant defeated in a single house (clergy).

Source here.

The final diocesan votes

Today sees the last two dioceses to vote on the Covenant. As the proposal has already been defeated the issue cannot return to General Synod until the summer of 2015 at the earliest.

Newcastle Against

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For:  8,  Against:  18,  Abstained: -
Laity        For: 14,  Against: 15,  Abstained: 0

York  For 

Bishops  For: 4,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 26,  Against: 5,  Abstained: 0
Laity        For: 38,  Against: 5,  Abstained: 1

Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 16

Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 26 

For and against the Covenant

A couple of pdf files arrived today - one, a speech to the Christchurch Diocese in favour of the Covenant (but not delivered), and the other a summary of the discussion about the Covenant in the diocesan synod of Argyll and the Isles.

Speech for Christchurch Diocese
Bryden Black's argument for the Covenant turns on two points: first, that it had largely been accepted by the New Zealand Church already. Its General Synod had accepted Sections 1-3 and, apart from a 'legal nicety' it could have been adopted already.

The legal nicety - to which no answer has yet been made public - concerned the interrelation of the Covenant, the Standing Committee and the constitution of the ACC. I would have thought this a fairly basic consideration.

The start of work to build Christchurch's Transitional Cathedral
was marked with a sod-turning ceremony on Sunday afternoon.

More here.

But his main argument is that, in the absence of a Covenant,

there is no means for churches to formally and properly and duly recognise each other as being indeed party to Anglicanism. 

[and later] What the Covenant achieves is to present to us all the clear means of mutual recognition across the world-wide Anglican Communion, one born of a suitable interdependence which then prompts an appropriate accountability.

Furthermore, the Covenant also enables other Churches to recognise formally who exactly is a member of the Anglican Tradition and who not. 

[and ends] In sum. Without the Covenant, how would current Anglican Provinces genuinely recognise each other? And without the Anglican Communion Covenant, how would other Churches be able to recognise those voices as Anglican who seek to speak and act into the global Church of the 21st C? Brothers and sisters; our very Christian identity as Anglicans, I suggest, is here at peril. 

(I've kept the emphases as in the original but, to be fair, it should be remembered that this was written as a speech.)

Celtic cross

Black obviously knows that Anglican Churches do currently recognise one another. I assume he knows that those Churches which are members of the ACC are listed, authoritatively, in an appendix to its constitution.

So what would be different that would comprise 'genuine' recognition? Theological agreement - to what degree of precision? Mutual recognition of orders - including those of women? What degree of uniformity would be deemed sufficient?  Would those churches which declined to sign the Covenant no longer be recognised as Anglican?

In the end what we are left with is a proposal for a different Communion: a single Church formed in part by dropping overboard any current member which didn't want to don the straitjacket: unity created by exclusion. Our Anglican identity would indeed be imperilled, though not in the way I guess Black intended.

Discussion in Scotland
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, discussion was phrased in different tones. It's always hard to read the notes of a discussion cold, with no sense of tone of voice or the mood of the meeting. However the conclusion from Argyll and the Isles was:

The overall feeling of the Diocesan Synod was that the Anglican Liturgy was valued but that the Anglican Covenant would not solve the cultural and theological tensions and was too restrictive.

There did not seem to have been any recorded comments positively in favour of the Covenant, though a couple in favour of the Communion (and a question about whether it mattered).

The Covenant was seen as divisive and no solution to existing divisions.

What do we make of Wales?

A little more clarity about what has happened in Wales over the Covenant comes with the publication of Highlights of the Church in Wales Governing Body April 2012 (pdf). (Previous press release.)

This makes clear that Gregory Cameron (wikipedia) proposed the substantive motion that the Church in Wales 'subscribe' to the Covenant.

The amendment - that the Church in Wales should delay any determinative decision until after the ACC meeting in November 2012 - was moved by Bishop John Davies of Swansea and Brecon. Furthermore Martin Reynolds reports (in Comments to a Thinking Anglicans item on April 18) that the Bishop of Monmouth, Dominic Walker, was preparing to propose that the motion should not be put to the meeting.

Church in Wales bishops at
Gregory Cameron's consecration (from wiki)

There are 6 diocesan bishops in the Church in Wales. Until recently the Church had been consistently opposed to the Covenant at a fundamental level but this appeared to have been swept aside at the previous meeting of the Governing Body. That meeting commended the Covenant to the Dioceses for consideration and endorsement. It may or may not be significant that Gregory Cameron, one of the key players in creating the Covenant, joined the bench of bishops in early 2009.

Two things happened which changed the landscape between the two Governing Body meetings. The Archbishop of Canterbury announced his retirement and the Church of England voted against the Covenant. The first meant that the natural desire not to undermine Rowan Williams was no longer a weighty consideration. The second showed that the Covenant was no longer 'the only game in town' - other futures were and are imaginable.

Thus, to avoid a public split in the bench of bishops, a positively worded motion was devised which put off a decision. If, as Martin Reynolds suggests, Gregory Cameron himself suspects the ACC will discard the Covenant then he has not lost face. And if the ACC should persist with the Covenant then those who continue to oppose it in Wales will have a further opportunity to defeat it in 2013.

Therefore, despite my earlier caution, I will move Wales from 'probably Yes' to 'probably No' on my table of how the provinces might vote.

Covenant defeated in Christchurch

From Lawrence Kimberley, No Anglican Covenant Convener in New Zealand

Part of Christchurch Cathedral after the earthquake
more pictures here.

Good news! The covenant was defeated in the synod of the Diocese of Christchurch which met today.

There was a long debate and a high quality one. Most speakers spoke against the motion. There was a vote by secret ballot.

It passed in the house of laity and was defeated in the house of clergy. The voting numbers were not released.

This will be bad news for their pro-Covenant Bishop, Victoria Matthews.

Update: 
From Bosco Peters' blog:

By those in-the-know I was told this was one of the highest-quality debates seen in the country. I think it was done respectfully and with a great deal of listening. I must say I am surprised and delighted by the outcome. We now join three other Pakeha dioceses (of the seven in our province) against the “Covenant” as well as joining with Tikanga Maori’s resolve against it. The debate now moves to General Synod/ te Hinota Whanui.

And from Peter Carroll (who proposed the motion and sets out his speech in his blog):

It was a good debate. We had plenty of time (too much really, as we ran short on other things later in the day). We voted in as decisive a manner as one can do (by houses) and the outcome was the motion did not pass, defeated in the house of clergy, although passed in the house of laity.

Lawrence added later, in a response to a question about Bishop Matthews' response:

+Victoria was gracious – a tone of graciousness had already been set in the debate anyway. Basically she simply announced the numbers with a little light humour.

Southwell & Chichester vote

Chichester  For 

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: -
Clergy     For: 29,  Against: 9,  Abstained: -
Laity        For: 39,  Against: 25,  Abstained: -

Southwell and Nottingham  For 

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 0,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 15,  Against: 5,  Abstained: 0
Laity        For: 31,  Against: 6,  Abstained: 1

Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 18

Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 25

There are 2 dioceses yet to vote: Newcastle and York next Saturday, 28 April.

Don't Just focus on Section 4

Part of the problem with debate on the Covenant is that so much attention has been focused on section 4.2.

This clause is the basis for the paradoxical enforcing of the bonds of amity which is the linchpin of the document:

(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.

But - just because this is widely unacceptable - it should not be allowed to make the earlier sections look tolerable.

I have in mind some people in the US and NZ (and probably elsewhere) who, with no doubt the best of motives, would be prepared to accept the first three sections of the Covenant, just not the last.

The Covenant is written as a single, integrated whole.  Sections 2 and 3 describe and thus prescribe the basis of our unity; Sections 3 and 4 elaborate particular implications for the expression of unity. In fact the logic which links the two parts is very weak, but it was never written as an intellectual exercise. It is a political document which only needs sufficient logic to be acceptable. Like all too many church (and other) policy documents the beginning was written to justify a priori conclusions.

Section 1 would establish an extensive credal and ecclesiological base for the Communion which has never hitherto been needed. If adopted it will set the battle-ground for future divisions. It is too detailed to be comprehensive and too vague for theologians. It will demand endless 'elaboration' and 'clarification'. The more it is clarified the more critical it will become for an ever-diminishing groups of people whilst being ignored by almost everyone else.

Section 2 I don't find inherently objectionable, though otiose. However the phrase,

"We affirm the ecumenical vocation of Anglicanism to the full visible unity of the Church in accordance with Christ’s prayer that “all may be one” ...." (2.1.5)

may read differently in the light of the demand by the Vatican for a single unitary Anglicanism as a precondition of further ecumenical talks. 

It is intriguing that the majority of explicit biblical references are in this section, perhaps on the principle of 'argument weak here, shout louder' (references in the Introduction, the other area of concentration, don't count).

Section 3 creates a conflict prevention/resolution structure which, if adopted, would inevitably lead to demands for enforcement. Some version of the current Section 4 would inevitably be necessary if this section was endorsed.

Therefore:

Vote against the Covenant. 

Just because Section 4 is worse does not make Sections 1 - 3 good.

Auckland adds a No to the Covenant

Bosco Peters (of Liturgy blog) posted on the No Anglican Covenant Facebook wall that

"Tai Tokerau Anglicans have rejected the proposed Anglican Covenant after a robust discussion at the Hui Amorangi (diocesan synod) at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Auckland."

I don't think this vote will change things as the Tikanga Maori rejected the Covenant last November, except to strengthen opposition to the Covenant.


Te Pihopatanga o Te Manawa o Te Wheke (the diocese which runs through the centre of the North Island) and Te Tairawhiti (on the East coast of the North Island) had already rejected the Covenant before the November debate.

The detail of the Tikanga Maori rejection is of interest, in particular 3(b). The full resolution is was follows:

That this Te Runanganui,
1. 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 study the proposed Covenant and 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 of Christ
(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 Runanganui.

2. Notes that Nga Hui Amorangi o Te Manawa-o-te-Wheke and Te Tairawhiti, as well as some of the other Episcopal Units of this Church, have rejected the proposed Covenant, and anticipates that a variety of views on the proposed Covenant will be expressed by the various Episcopal Units.

3. Te Runanganui resolves:

(a) To reject the Anglican Covenant.
(b) Asks General Synod/te Hinota Whanui,

(i) 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.
(ii) 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.

(c) Asks the General Manager to forward this Resolution to the General Secretary of this Church.

The chapel at Te Hepara Pai,
the Christchurch marae,
spiritual home of Maori Anglicans
in the South Island.

The Tikanga Maori is committed to remain part of the Communion in a full sense. Nonetheless its primary ground for rejection is that the Covenant would ride roughshod across both the autonomy and the character of the Tikanga Maori (which is much wider and deeper than merely a part of the Anglican Church).

This rejection does not deny the depth of the division nor the need to find ways by which the disparate elements of the Communion can, together, work through difficult issues. The conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms are good ideas in themselves.

Second there is a concern that full membership of the Communion will not, retrospectively, apply solely to provinces that have signed the Covenant. The idea of first and second class members of the Communion was always one of its least attractive aspects.

Pro- and Anti- Covenant in Christchurch

The Diocese of Christchurch, New Zealand, has put a page called Everything you wanted to know about the Covenant on its website. It has links to both pro- and anti- Covenant material.

Its first link is to youtube. It suggests you search for "Anglican communion covenant" which brings up mostly pro-Covenant material first. But if you search for "Anglican covenant" you get mostly anti-covenant material. Mr. CatOLick gets a good showing on both.




The main pro-Covenant argument suggested is that of Andrew Goddard on the Fulcrum site.

It is always good to find both sides of the argument being offered before debate, unlike a number of English dioceses, and particularly because the Bishop of Christ Church, Victoria Matthews, is known to be staunchly in favour of the Covenant.

How the Communion might vote

I've created a page with my guesses as to how the different provinces and member churches might vote on the Covenant.

It is prefaced with a pile of caveats. I don't have any insider knowledge and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the equivalent table at the ACO had many differences from mine.

So I'd very much appreciate any information, hints, even gut feelings that might add to the reliability of the guesses. Please let me know in the comments box - I'll attribute the contributions unless told not to. Thank you in advance.

The Covenant in (some) other Provinces

Wales

Archbishop Barry Morgan

The Covenant will almost certainly be endorsed in the coming Governing Body meeting in April (Agenda and papers). It went to Dioceses with the blessing of the previous Governing Body meeting and, to the best of my knowledge, has returned with no significant opposition.

The briefing paper (.doc) refers to advice received from the "Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Governing Body, and ... the Doctrinal Commission of the Church in Wales." and

... concludes that no new questions are raised for the doctrine or discipline of the Church in Wales in the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant, so that the adoption of the Covenant can be best addressed directly by a motion of the Governing Body rather than requiring a Bill.

This is despite the objections raised by the Church in Wales to the whole ethos and character of the Covenant in previous submissions. Few of its criticisms and suggestions have been answered, at least not publicly and not in the Covenant as promulgated.

Scotland

The Rt Rev David Chillingworth (second left) congratulated by the other
Scottish Episcopal Bishops on his election as Primus

In Scotland the mood is rather different. However some voices have been raised suggesting that Scotland might follow the Irish Church by "subscribing" to the Covenant rather than adopting it.

In my view this would be utterly foolish. The General Secretary of the Anglican Communion makes no such distinction. As far as he is concerned the Irish have signed on (as have South East Asia which made different reservations in their adoption of the Covenant).

The ACNS report of the decision says that in debate it was stressed that "this would leave the Covenant subordinate to the the Preamble and Declaration of the Church [of Ireland] and does not affect the sovereignty of the Church of Ireland or mean any change in doctrine." But what is said in debate is not necessarily the same as the terms of signing up to the document.

The US

At the last general Convention, 2009

As the General Convention approaches the dominant worry is how to manage shrinking budget. But the Covenant gets a look in too. Mark Harris compares and contrasts resolutions setting out the differing routes open to TEC.

Here in The Episcopal Church there are now three resolutions that have been publicized, one from Executive Council and two from members of the House of Bishops. The Executive Council resolution is perhaps the least supportive of the Anglican Covenant, although even that one is clear that it is not the Covenant as an idea that is a problem (although for some of us it is) but rather "its current form." The two other resolutions, one from Bishops Douglas, and others, and the other from Bishop Bauerschmidt and others, are more affirmational to varying degrees.

Ecumenically

And a point to which I had not given enough weight became clearer recently. John Milbank's article After Rowan: the Coherence and Future of Anglicanism, included the sentence:

It is important for Catholic readers to realise that Rowan Williams had sought this covenant, in part, for ecumenical reasons. The Vatican signalled to him at the start of his primacy that conversations leading to further unity could only be re-commenced if the Catholic Church could be sure that the Anglican Church was truly capable of acting as one body.

The Vatican: projecting Christian power in
a post-Christian world

That the deal had been so explicit was news to me. It has been evident that Rowan was particularly exercised about relations with Rome, sometimes to the apparent detriment of relations with other denominations. It has also become clear that what Rowan means by 'church' is more nearly realised in Catholic or Orthodox structures than in any other.

But the Covenant has not been argued for by direct reference to this precondition to negotiations (however gently expressed). It's been referred to in the general terms that it would make ecumenical discussion easier as our ecumenical partners want to know where we stand as a communion.

Furthermore this signal clearly also communicates that, if discussions were to recommence, they would do so on terms set by the Vatican. So the Covenant, and the reconstruction of Anglicanism as a single, centrally governed denomination, was to be  (in part) for the benefit of the Pope as much as for Anglicans.

I wonder whether many of the more Evangelical Anglican Churches would have been happy with this, and I'm pretty sure Henry VIII and Elizabeth would think we'd missed the point.

But it's always been about power. That's what makes Churches.

Manchester votes today

Manchester votes today

Manchester Against

Bishops  For: 1,  Against: 2,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 15,  Against:  25,  Abstained: 0
Laity        For: 12,  Against: 23,  Abstained: 7

Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 15

Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 25

There are 4 dioceses yet to vote 

Southwell and Nottingham 12 April (Thursday), Chichester on 21 April,  Newcastle and York 28 April.

Overall figures from the Ven Alan Perry

With Manchester's figures, we now have:

Bishops: 77.4% for, 16.7% against, 6.0% abstentions

Clergy:    45.0% for, 50.9% against, 4.1% abstentions

Laity:       48.1% for, 47.0% against, 4.9% abstentions

Overall:   47.5% for, 48.0% against, 4.5% abstentions

Overall (clergy and laity only): 46.7% for, 48.8% against, 4.5% abstentions

Total figures now show more against than for overall, even including bishops. Overall opposition has been strongest among the clergy.

Just for the record

London has voted against the Covenant

London Against

Bishops  For: 2,  Against: 1,  Abstained: 0
Clergy     For: 17,  Against:  32,  Abstained: 1
Laity        For: 26,  Against: 33,  Abstained: 2

The Bishop of Stepney voted against, London and Kensington were in favour.

Summary

Dioceses for the Covenant to date: 15

Dioceses against the Covenant to date: 24

There are 5 dioceses yet to vote

News reporting of the Covenant vote

The BBC:

The Church of England cannot sign up to a plan aimed at preventing the global Anglican Church from splitting up after half its dioceses voted against it.

...

The Church of England General Synod backed the covenant in November 2010, despite the misgivings of many liberals within the Church, and referred it to the dioceses.

But the covenant received a decisive setback immediately afterwards when it was rejected by the Gafcon Primates' Council - the very Church leaders that it was intended to placate.

The Council said: "While we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate."

Reuters

A proposed deal to hold the worldwide Anglican Communion together amid divisions over homosexuality and same-sex unions appeared to be in tatters on Saturday after the mother church, the Church of England, voted to reject it.

Analysts said the Church's decision effectively derailed the adoption of the pact throughout the Communion, a loose family of 38 national and regional churches, and raised questions about whether the Christian alliance could stay united.

....
The No Anglican Covenant Coalition said on Saturday it had gained the remaining two votes it needed from the Church of England's 44 dioceses to block the pact after a protracted voting process.

"The covenant is either buried or disabled," said Simon Barrow, co-director of the religious think-tank Ekklesia.

The Reuters story has been used in, of all places, the Daily Star in Lebanon, the Stabroek News (Georgetown, Guyana), and the Times Colonist (Canada, Victoria and Vancouver).

The Independent (the whole article:)

A proposed pact aimed at healing rifts in the Anglican church over issues such as same sex unions and gay bishops is in danger of collapse.

The Church of England voted against signing up to the "Anglican Covenant", despite support from the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The covenant called on members of the Anglican Communion not to upset colleagues in other countries. Critics said the move would undermine the indepedence of individual churches. A majority of the 44 dioceses in the CofE opposed the deal leading to fears the deal is "dead in the water".

Diarmaid McCulloch in The Guardian

Something very significant in the history of the Church of England happened on Saturday. An absolute majority of dioceses in the Church of England, debating diocese by diocese, voted down a pernicious scheme called the Anglican Covenant.

.... 

So now Anglicanism needs to move forward and forget this sorry diversion, into which many perfectly well-meaning people poured a huge amount of energy over a decade when they might have been doing something useful. Woe betide any attempt to revive it, though I notice that the secretary general of the Anglican communion (now there's an office that sounds ripe for culling) is clearly determined to keep it alive.

The Episcopal News Service, curiously slow off the mark. It includes:

In the U.S.-based Episcopal Church, the Executive Council agreed at its October 2011 meeting to submit a resolution to General Convention that would have it state that the church is “unable to adopt the Anglican Covenant in its present form.”

The resolution also promises that the church will “recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening the unity of the communion” and commits to “continued participation in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion” and dialogue “with our brothers and sisters in other provinces to deepen understanding and to insure the continued integrity of the Anglican Communion.”

The 77th meeting of General Convention will decide in July whether to pass, amend and pass, or reject the resolution. 

And from Bishop Yellow Belly

The votes are mounting against the Anglican Covenant. And yet somehow Bishop Yellow Belly seems to think that he is winning. Has he finally gone 'round the bend?

More reports as I trip over them

Statistical summary

The Ven Alan Perry
Executive Archdeacon of Edmonton

Alan Perry has once again worked the numbers through the spreadsheet. He says:


Oxford's confusion has made the update of the statistics difficult, because I had to decide how to include them. In the end, I chose to average the numbers, rounding. 


So, I have included for Oxford:

Clergy: 15 for, 37 against, 2 abstentions

Laity: 34 for, 27 against, 3 abstentions.

Bearing that in mind, total voting statistics now stand at:

Bishops: 79.5% for, 14.1% against, 6.4% abstentions

Clergy: 45.7% for, 50.1% against, 4.3% abstentions

Laity: 48.6% for, 46.4% against, 5.0% abstentions

Overall: 48.1% for, 47.2% against, 4.7% abstentions

Overall (clergy and laity only): 47.3% for, 48.1% against, 4.7% abstentions

The overwhelming support for the Covenant by the bishops pushes the total to a slim plurality of support for it, but when their votes are excluded from the counting (as their votes don't actually count in the diocesan totals) the reverse is true. Except amongst the bishops, it is clear that the members of the diocesan synods that have voted to date are almost exactly evenly divided as to whether the Covenant ought to be adopted by the Church of England, though there is a significant margin and a majority against adoption amongst the clergy.

Where the votes actually count, of the 38 dioceses voting to date, 23 have voted against the Covenant and 15 for. Thus, regardless how the remaining 6 dioceses vote, a majority of the 44 dioceses has already voted against the Covenant, and its consideration cannot return to the General Synod during the current quinquennium.