Archbishop Makgoba endorses a Covenant

Archbishops in unity - but it looks as though
others have been cropped out
from what was once a group.

The Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Rev. Thabo Makgoba, has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury to tell him that the Covenant is A Good Thing.

I strongly suspect that Thabo Makgoba was asked to write. I am sure that not every letter from a fellow Archbishop is put on Rowan Williams' own site so promptly. And I see the Anglican Communion News Service gives the letter a sub-head: 'A Necessary Covenant'.

I have a lot of time for the Archbishop of Cape Town from what I've read on his site and heard on the radio. I think the Covenant he is talking about (see an earlier post) is a Covenant he deeply believes in and would long to see enacted.

But it's not the Covenant that's on the table.

1) Archbishop Makgoba cites support for the Church in Zimbabwe and for the Church in South Africa in the days of apartheid. As case studies they make a very powerful case for the unified support of the Anglican Communion, in prayer and practical help.


But, unfortunately perhaps, the Covenant would have made no difference had it been in place. Kunonga has been expelled from the Anglican Church. Most churches stood in solidarity with the church in South Africa. What more could or would a Covenanted Communion achieve?

The reason the Covenant cannot help is because it is designed to fight the last war - a civil war within the Church. It sets out conflict resolution procedures between provinces.

The conflicts in Zimbabwe and in South Africa were, first, within the Church's concerned and, second, conflicts between the church and political forces. Nothing in the Covenant adds anything to the coherence currently in place when it comes to addressing either of these dimensions of conflict.

2) Despite the sub-head on the ACNS posting, in fact the Archbishop's support for the Covenant seems conditional:

Yet such mutuality cannot be taken for granted, and indeed, the way that our disagreements on human sexuality have played out suggests we had already begun to drift from that particular sense of belonging to God and to each other, within the wider body of Christ, which was so strong in Southern Africa’s great time of need. It seems to me that the Covenant is entirely necessary, in recalling us to ourselves. Only in this way can we continue to grow in bearing this rich fruit that comes from living the life which is both God’s gift and God’s calling.

Chad Gandiya
Bishop of Harare

Only if the Covenant recalls the Communion to mutuality, to a reinvigorated 'sense of belonging to God and to one another, within the wider body of Christ' will it meet the good Archbishop's aspirations for it.

Sadly, he has forgotten, or chosen to gloss over, or persuaded himself that it will never happen - that one significant purpose which led to the Covenant was the desire of Maurice Sinclair, Drexel Gomez and others to expel the North American churches from the Communion. Therefore the Archbishop does not comment on the power - which did not exist when the South African and Zimbabwean Churches received global support - to ostracise and exclude a part of the Communion.

Yet, for all the rhetoric of communion, unity and interdependence, the power to divide is built into the Covenant. It is not there by chance but because it embodies some people's desire to divide the Communion.

3) The Archbishop addresses the critics of the Covenant (I've split up his paragraph):

Arguments that the Covenant is ‘not fit for purpose’ (for example through ‘going too far’ or ‘not going far enough’) are too often predicated upon an inadequate model of ‘being church’ and what it means to live as members of the body of Christ.

Implicit, it seems to me, is a diminished view of God’s grace, God’s redemptive power and purposes, and God’s vision and calling upon his people and his Church, and so of Anglicanism’s place within these.

Our sense of who we are, and called to become, should not principally be conveyed through legal prisms, whether of some form of centralising authority, or of Provinces’ constitutions and canon law which must be ‘safeguarded’ from external ‘interference’. Nor should we primarily look to structural or legal solutions to our undeniable difficulties or for regulating our relationships.

I think it's the other way round. An inadequate model of 'being church' is articulated in the Covenant. Specifically, it reflects a model of 'being church' which is driven by the conviction that those who disagree with the majority should be subject to law-like processes with the ultimate sanction of expulsion. This is quite the contrary to the Archbishop's visions (see section 5 below).

The Covenant we have in front of us is not a spiritually or theologically rich tapestry of unity-in-difference. On the contrary, it exalts an ecclesiology of bureaucrats.

The Archbishop's experience, his passionate and spiritual commitment to real unity in God - neither denying our differences nor denying the validity of those who hold different views - is immensely appealing. I long for such a church.

From More in Heaven and Earth

But the fact is that 'structural or legal solutions to our undeniable difficulties [and] for regulating our relationships' is precisely what the Covenant contains. It's very nature is that of a document which sets out the skeleton of conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms.

And, yes, it is an utterly impoverished vision of what the church could and should be. And, yes, it does express a preference for the human preference for relying on their own planning than on God.

So I can't see that signing up to it in the hope that it's something else is a very good plan at all. I embrace the Archbishop's vision - I just can't see why he thinks this Covenant is even in the same line of sight.

And I note that he, like almost all advocates of the Covenant, argue for it in very general terms. I have no quibble with the generalities - but when I look at the detail, the actual words, of what we are being asked to sign up to, I despair.

4) Our failure, he says, as a communion, to fully accept our interdependence is a deeper malaise than the symptomatic conflict over sexuality (again, I've split his paragraph).

Therefore, to ask if the Covenant is ‘fit for purpose’ should be to ask whether it helps us address the foundational question of growing together in faithful obedience within the body of Christ. And it seems to me that, above all else, the Covenant does indeed do this, in the way it places God’s vision for God’s Church and God’s world centre-stage; and then invites us to live into this as our ultimate and overriding context and calling.

It does not create new structures or authorities, nor alters constitutions; and scope for individual action remains considerable (as your letter underlines).

The Covenant does indeed set out ways of 'growing together in faithful obedience within the body of Christ'. It also has ways of forcing some to walk apart. The former I endorse; the latter I repudiate.

The Covenant does create new structures in that 'Each Church undertake to put into place such mechanisms, agencies or institutions, ...' (4.2.9) ensure the Covenant is implemented in its own location and to liaise with the Instruments of Unity.

I also believe it will alter constitutions. In the first place there will be a need to change to the constitution of the Anglican Communion which does not, at present, mention the Covenant nor have any mechanism for excluding members. Scope for individual action does remain considerable.


5) (yes, my dividing up again)

Where we are apprehensive about our ability to ‘lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph 4:1-2), then it is reassuring to note that St Paul is under no illusions as to how difficult it can be to relate to those who are different within Christ’s body.

Members who are otherwise completely mutually incomprehensible (as seeing is to the ear, hearing to the eye – 1 Cor 12:17) can nonetheless hold together, if they can recognise that Christ lives in the other.

This is something we learnt in the past in Southern Africa, and continue to experience across vast ethnic, cultural, political and socio-economic differences. More than this, we have found that, even in painful difference, we are better able to discern God’s truth together than apart. 

All this is why we hold together in ongoing debate across the whole spectrum of views on human sexuality – we do not agree, and our differences are sharp and painful, but we will not turn our backs on brothers and sisters in Christ and instead will keep wrestling together. This is why we are proceeding towards adopting the Covenant.

Yes. But why then endorse a Covenant which does envisage turning 'our backs on brothers and sisters in Christ', a course of action propounded by the Chair of the Covenant Design Group?
==========

The Archbishop's letter is a powerful plea for the Covenant and I have no doubt that Rowan Williams was very pleased to receive it. It is a plea as much to the Churches of the Global South as to western liberal critics.

But it is all predicated on the Covenant being something that is not actually present in the text: a unity based on mutual love that transcends our differences, of a love of God greater than our grasp of God's truth.

If the the Archbishop of Cape Town can mould the Covenant in the image of his vision I'd be delighted. I'd vote for him to be Archbishop of Canterbury, if anyone asked. But I fear the reality is far from his generous, loving and wide embrace.

Jeffrey John to sue the Church of England

The Very Rev Jeffrey John,
Dean of St Albans

[Update here - a less straightforward story, it seems.]

I think the Sunday Times and the Mail both had this story but, except behind the paywall, the Mail got online first:

'I'll sue Church of England if it bars me from being bishop,' says gay dean

The Very Rev Jeffrey John, Dean of St Albans, has instructed an eminent employment lawyer to complain to Church officials after being rejected for the role of Bishop of Southwark.

It's a very interesting move and I'm happy to bet that the CofE will settle out of court rather than face a full hearing. 

The court will, I suspect, have regard to two issues. The first is that of discrimination. Second, the extent to which the Church has followed its own rules. 

Inevitably this touches on the clash between the desire of (some in) the Church to place its structural prejudices in front of human rights. 

However the view that there is no bar to the preferment of gay people who are celibate was recently set out in a formal legal opinion by William Fittal (Guardian article, the opinion - pdf). It will also do John's case no harm that a memo by Colin Slee was later prepared (and leaked) setting out the appalling manner in which the appointment committee was conducted.

Slee said of the meeting: "We had two very horrible days in which I would say both archbishops behaved very badly. The meeting was not a fair consideration at all; they were intent on wrecking both Jeffrey John and Nick Holtam equally, despite the fact that their CVs were startlingly in an entirely different and better league than the other two candidates …

I would guess that the CofE will be liable for considerable damages. 

Assuming John wins his case, whether in the tribunal or outside it, the question then will be: would the Church prefer to keep barring gay people from posts and keep paying compensation, or will it change its recruitment process to ensure that (at least celibate) gay people are not discriminated against?

We shall see.

(Pink News and the Guardian also picked up the story. And I nearly missed MadPriest.)

Secularism and Freedom of Conscience

The Rev. Dr. Michael Jinkins,
President of Louisville Presbyterian
Theological Seminary and
Professor of Theology. 

There is an interesting review of Jocelyn Maclure and Charles Taylor's essay, Secularism and Freedom of Conscience by Michael Jinkins on his blog Thinking Out Loud.

Jinkins applauds Maclure and Taylor and then makes a couple of points that sound (without having read the original) as though they quite undermine their thesis.

He points to a risk in the essayists' approach that their method could lead to "treating one another's differences of conviction and conscience as mere matters of individual taste and preference." This can only trivialise our real differences.

Instead he suggests two other starting points. First:

that the reason we are confronted with so many ways of accounting for ultimate meaning is not because of our finitude or ignorance, but because there really are a variety of ways to be faithfully and fully human.

And, second:

... as humans we do not disinterestedly choose from among a range of axiological options, but are formed in and through communities that that believe certain things in certain ways and value particular things and ideas in particular ways.

Therefore,

We must learn to speak from within our different cultural and religious communities—the very communities that divide us— if we are to learn and to be heard. The great challenge of our time is to live and flourish together though we are different in important respects, but similar in ways that are just as important. To succeed at this critical endeavor, we must acknowledge how the groups and communities that shape us value certain ends and not others. We will not convince one another of our mutual rights to live and practice our faith (or our right to claim no faith at all) as long as we regard one another merely as atomistic ideological or religious consumers.

Amen. But, as with all liberal-minded approaches, it is not sufficient. How can these starting points, which I would endorse, deal with those who reject Jinkins' tenets? How should we respond to organised groups which would use violence of any kind to destroy groups with whom they disagree? 

These are not questions antithetical to the starting points Jinkins lays out. They are questions as to how such liberal values can be taken into alien territory without losing their integrity.

Covenant, conflict and the idea of heresy

This post - one of a series of linked posts looking at the conflict prevention and conflict resolution aspects of the proposed Anglican Covenant - focuses on the underlying model 


A summary of the Covenant's conflict prevention and conflict resolution mechanisms is here.

~~~~~

The core problem with heresy is that it is not amenable to conflict resolution. Conceptually heresy cannot be negotiated with, merely rejected. Practically those engaged in combating heresy cannot, in good faith, debate with those they regard as heretics.

The heresy model
The model underlying the proposed Anglican Covenant - and the conflict the Covenant is supposed to help us all out of - is the perennial conflict between orthodoxy and heresy.

Historically, heresy may be seen as ideas once within the range of Christian expression which, in retrospect, were judged unacceptable (Alister McGrath, Heresy: A history of defending the truth).

But in the moment of conflict, and without the hindsight of the historian, it is essential for combatants to put the issue in binary and oppositional terms as starkly as possible.  The orthodox must be divided from the heretic with a deep gulf or high fences or both: Them or Us; In or Out.

orthodoxy has always sought to maintain
the deep tensions at the heart of the gospel
Michael Jinkins, quoted here

Thus conflicts over doctrine are necessarily presented in simple terms:

I, and those with whom I align myself, are orthodox, godly and good. You, and those you align yourself with, oppose and undermine me in my collective orthodoxy.

Consequently, and much worse, you set yourself up in opposition to God: you are heretics, your notions heretical and you are bad, ungodly, antiChrists.

Therefore I have a compelling duty to act against you: to expunge both heresy and heretic from the church. There is no room for compromise.

Accusation of heresy
An accusation of heresy does not mean that there is heresy. What an accusation does do is:

• First, to assert that those making the accusation have the theological competence to determine what is orthodox, whether or not they have the organizational standing to act.

• Second, to challenge church leaders to do something. Those making the accusation implicitly (and often explicitly) accuse bishops, theologians and anyone with perceived authority, of connivance with heresy by their inaction. There is seldom anything bishops can do - they are wrong if they act and wrong if they don't. This merely stokes the fire.

• Third, an accusation of heresy binds those making the accusation much more closely tightly together  with their allies. This is because they share a common enemy, because they must maintain the gulf between themselves and the heterodox, because they are on the side of God and good, and because theological wisdom, strength of argument or spiritual acuity are not enough: success comes from force and numbers.

An accusation of heresy is the most powerful of power plays in a church because it invokes God on one side of a debate and no structure and no-one, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, has authority to dismiss the accusation.

Heresy and governance
An accusation of heresy is not merely a theological matter. It is also inherently a matter of church governance. 'Success' in doctrinal conflict lies in two outcomes: the expulsion of the heresy and heretics and also the realignment of power structures within the church to the benefit of those who made the original accusation.

This is why bishops and church councils are so effectively trapped in the midst of doctrinal conflict. Their impotence is exposed as they fail to resolve irresolvable differences. Therefore, as they have evidently failed, their role they must be changed.

Shifting the focus from the issue in contention to organizational change itself sublimates an intractable issue into something practical and attainable.

The substance of organizational change is critical because it will answer the answer: where does power lie in the new arrangement of seats?

Heresy and Covenant
The Covenant is the outcome of an accusation of heresy. The alleged heresy is that some parts of the Anglican Church have accommodated to postmodernity when the whole Communion should have stood against modern times as critic and judge. The fundamental equality of persons embedded in human rights is the core heresy: it destroys structures of authority.

However this formulation is much too vague. To get the blood running a narrower focus is always needed. Sexuality (the place of women as well as homosexuality) is symbol and substitute for the larger issue. For example:

... it grieves us deeply to observe many Anglican churches in the west yielding to secular pressure to allow unacceptable practices in the name of human rights and equality. Beginning with the undermining of Scriptural authority and two millennia of church tradition, the erosion of orthodoxy has gone as far as the ordination and consecration of active gay and lesbian clergy and bishops, and the development of liturgies for same-sex marriage. (Communiqué of the Global South Primates during their visit to China in September 2011, para 12.)

The key organizational problem faced by those who regarded elements and areas of Anglicanism as heretical was that the Anglican Communion was not a Church. It was, and currently still is, a voluntary association of autonomous churches. Therefore an accusation of heresy by one part of the communion against another had nowhere to go.

Accordingly, first, some Provinces took arbitrary action by disregarding the convention which said that one member of the Communion should not intervene in the affairs of another. (A history of AMIA in its own words.)

Second, some proposed that the Primates meeting together should have effective power over the 'faith and order' of the Communion. But not enough of the Primates were happy with this responsibility.

The Covenant is thus a compromise. Superficially it proposes to leave the elements of the Anglican Communion (Provinces and the 'Instruments of Communion') untouched. But the conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms that it proposes will fundamentally change all the elements of the Communion and their relationships with one another.

The Covenant and excommunication
Apart from the terrible perversion of the Inquisition the sole effective penalty the Church has always had against heretics has been excommunication.

The offender is expelled from the community of the faithful. The church is thus cleansed and restored to holiness and the offender, in the divine economy, will suffer divine judgment.

Hence the central ironies of the Covenant:

• First, churches are asked to bind themselves to one another in order to create the capacity to expel one another. 

• Second, in order to determine orthodoxy a member a church must give up its existing capacity to determine orthodoxy. Anglicans are asked, as churches, to come together to become one Church.

How it all ends
Doctrinal disputes do not end when structures change. Changing structures won't change anyone's mind. Disputes end when people are fed up with them. Then the protagonists can't keep their supporters together, people find better things to talk about and campaign funds dry up.

There is, however, always a legacy of hurt and embittered people: those who participated in the conflict and those unwillingly caught up in it.


Heresy and conflict resolution
The whole conceptualisation and narrative of heresy excludes the basic notion of conflict resolution.

Practice, of course, is another matter. Heresy is about the timeless absolutes of Truth, God's Word, the One Faith. The reality is that fallible human beings in countless committees and councils make the decisions.


Two caveats

1. I know the proposers of the Covenant insist that there will be no loss of autonomy for participants (explicitly in paragraphs 4.1.2, 4.1.3). But it is a fiction: the engine at the heart of the Covenant works only in one direction - to steadily subordinate churches to world-wide central structures. There is no countervailing structure in the Covenant. The Covenant will usher in extensive change across the Communion the essence of which is that Provinces will not have the capacity to determine their own doctrine. Thus they will lose an essential element of ecclesiastical autonomy.
2. There are cynics, self-servers and manipulative people throughout the church. However I am not in any way questioning the personal integrity or the faith of those who instigated and pursued the road to a Covenant. On the contrary: I believe that the great majority of those involved in this process are doing so for the most honest and important of reasons - to bring the church back to what they regard as the right relationship with God. I think they are profoundly wrong, but I don't think they are bad.

~~~~~~~~~~

A summary of the Covenant's conflict prevention and conflict resolution mechanisms is here.

• Covenant and conflict: definitions

The Lady

I know this is outside the normal diet of this blog.  But I highly commend The Lady (Wiki). I found the film immensely powerful and moving.


It is a glimpse of how normal brutality is in so many parts of the world and how extraordinary is the sustained dignity of  Aung San Suu Kyi.

Primate watching

The veteran watcher of nature's marvels has produced another film with stunning graphics and insightful dialogue:

Truro Church, Fairfax, Virginia. One of the
churches restored to The Episcopal Church

By Associated Press, via the Washington Post

FAIRFAX, Va. — The Episcopal Church should be restored as the owner of several historic churches in Virginia, a judge has ruled, years after the denomination was essentially evicted by local congregations dismayed with Episcopal leadership’s liberal theology.

In a 113-page ruling issued Tuesday night, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge Randy Bellows reversed a ruling he made in 2008 giving custody to the conservative congregations. The Virginia Supreme Court overturned that ruling and ordered a new trial.

.....

It is unlikely, though, that the Episcopalians in Virginia will be able to return to their churches in the immediate future. The judge still has to construct a final order to put Tuesday’s ruling into effect, which will be complicated: It involves 42 separate deeds, as well as sorting out various personal property within the church. The one minor victory Bellows gave to the conservative congregations was that they could keep any donations and personal property associated with the churches that they acquired since the split.

It's the final chapter of this book, but it's not over yet. More here ...

Covenant and conflict: definitions?

This is the second post looking at the conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms of the proposed Anglican Covenant. It suggests that there is significant ambiguity over three key aspects of the Covenant: what constitutes an offence under its provisions, what a 'shared mind' is and how it is obtained, and the underlying purposes of the mechanisms it outlines.


A summary of the conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms of the proposed Anglican Covenant is here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Define: (1) an offence under the Covenant

One prior question is the nature of the potential offence under the Covenant. 

I am assuming on reasonable historical grounds that the issues which divide will be doctrinal. And even if the presenting issue is not necessarily doctrinal the arguments will be conducted on those grounds. (Because doctrine - the teaching of the church as both noun and verb - is what binds us together and what divides us.)

A quiz from the Magistrates Association - how many
offences can you see?

The only offence under the Covenant is 'that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”.' This would seem to cover offences against (a) doctrine: section 1, (b) ecclesiology: section 2, (c) unity: section 3, and (d) proper procedure: section 4. 

Thus, in effect, any sins of omission or commission in almost any aspect of the life of a church may potentially be “incompatible with the Covenant”.

It is true that no-one can predict where the next big doctrinal row will blow from. Nonetheless the phrasing of  the offence under the Covenant is immensely wide.

Define: (2) A shared mind

Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee. (4.2.4, see 3.2.4)

This concept has run through the various drafts of the Covenant but it has never been defined, nor has there been any suggestion as to how a definition should be arrived at. 

So:

• Whose minds have to be shared for the Communion to have a shared mind? 
• What degree of sharing constitutes sufficient sharing? Should their be a vote? In which case, who should vote? And should there be a super-majority - say 66% - as opposed to 50%+1 in order to establish that minds are shared? Or would there be multiple votes in the different Instruments of Communion?
• Would a majority vote of the members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion be sufficient politically even if it is legally?
• And, before any vote can happen, who formulates the question? What degree of precision is necessary? 
• What happens after the vote? Will failure to come to a shared mind be definitive - or will there be repeated votes till some agreement is reached?
• Who has a veto? Could the Archbishop of Canterbury, even in theory, veto something when other Instruments say they have a shared mind? Could the shared mind of the Primates be undone by the unshared minds of the ACC? 
• Or is the mind of the church sufficiently shared when someone - the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion or the  Archbishop of Canterbury or the Primates - declares that it's shared? Or that it's not.

Furthermore:

• how long should a matter be considered before anyone can or should say that the moment to determine that minds are shared has been reached? 



A shared mind map for eliminating stress

• What would be the test or trigger to move from debate to decision? 

The people who make this judgment on timing hold the key to the whole conflict resolution process - it will be a point of immense power in Anglicanism.

The mind of Christ?
There is also a slightly worrying touch of hubris in the Covenant:

we seek to affirm our common life through those Instruments of Communion by which our Churches are enabled to be conformed together to the mind of Christ. (3.1.2)

The implication is that Anglican convergence as envisaged by the Covenant may be equated with every closer conformity with the mind of Christ.

So it's both comforting and worrying that this sentence is immediately followed by:

Churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together “not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” and of the other instruments of Communion. (3.1.2)

It is comforting in its reaffirmation of a traditional understanding of Anglican relationships supported by a quote from the Lambeth Conference of 1930.

The worry lies in the apparent dissonance between this statement and the reality of the Covenant: that it will usher in a central legalistic structure, create a greatly strengthened global executive, replace loyalty by contractual relationships and marginalise the counsel of (almost all) bishops in conference.


Define: (3) The goals of Covenant processes - what is it really about?
There is a range of potential objectives for the conflict resolution processes envisaged in the Covenant and it would be foolish to limit them from the start. However some sense of what is envisaged - or what would not be included - might help assess the possible reach and consequences of the Covenant.

Doctrinal agreement
There are two possible formulations of doctrinal agreement:

• Either there is agreement on what Anglican doctrine is. 
• Or there is agreement as to what is unacceptable within Anglicanism.

The first is a maximal agreement delineating beliefs and demands a high degree of conformity.

Agreed doctrinal texts are common and often valuable. The extensive ecumenical agreement set out in Baptism, Ministry and Eucharist is a useful example. It is not prescriptive and also outlines those areas where member churches do not agree, sometimes with recommendations for directions of travel. But in its essence it is a voluntary agreement attained with no possibility of coercion.

The Covenant contains the instruments of determining doctrinal difference (conflict resolution). However any Covenant agreement is likely, given its origin in contention between groups with different views, to be used as the basis of coercion - even if it is the passive-aggressive form of coercion envisaged whereby every other member may turn its back on the offending Province.

The second form of agreement - setting out what is unacceptable - is an attempt to set a fence around what may be tolerated. Such an agreement would be more inclusive than the alternative. But the problem is that there is never any clear-cut place to draw any line across the spectrum of belief. Only in retrospect is is possible to say with any confidence what was, and was not, acceptable. Merely making and statement and drawing a line doesn't in fact change anyone's mind. Furthermore, because theology is not an exact science, it is very hard to patrol such a fence given differing emphases and formulations of the same issue.

In an earlier era, John Hapgood, Archbishop of York, argued against an attempt to put a fence round doctrine. Consider cattle farming in Australia, he said, they need no fences despite the vast open spaces - they simply maintain good water holes and the cattle don't stray far. I'm not comfortable with the correlation of Christians and cattle, but otherwise the analogy works for me.

Behavioural agreement
Because doctrine is so difficult to delineate with sufficient juridical precision prospective combatants turn to the behavioural expression of doctrine.

In nineteenth century England the Church Association stopped prosecuting Anglo-Catholics in the courts for their beliefs and turned instead to their ritual. Ritual was governed by law and breach of it was much easier to evidence. Ritual expressed belief and was thus seemed an acceptable substitute route to their main goal of eradicating ritualism and reasserting the unalloyed Protestant nature of the Church of England.

Caxton's printing press:
you can suppress ideas
but not stop them.

At first it worked. Courts declared certain ritualist practices illegal and 5 people were imprisoned. But coercion didn't work. Those imprisoned were regarded as martyrs and, eventually, the courts and bishops simply bent with the wind. The courts did not want to be associated with something that merely exposed their inability to enforce their decisions. Bishops began to veto prosecutions. The Church Association's last fling of the dice in prosecuting Bishop King provided an opportunity to bring prosecutions to an end. Thus the prosecutors achieved the opposite of their objective - the effective legalisation of ritualism within the Church of England.

The same has happened with sexuality. The doctrinal basis that conservatives wish to attack has been expressed in the organizational changes which accept all people as full members of the church - irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation. The attack on the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire was a substitute for a more general attack on the acceptance of modern mores within the Church.

I predict matters will eventually go the same way as the attack on ritualism, but we are not yet at the end of the pain.

Organizational agreement
Organizational change is the goal of the Covenant and will be its inevitable outcome.

If the goal of expelling the North American churches from the Communion is achieved there will be a tectonic shift in relations between provinces. If it is not achieved or only partly achieved (which is entirely possible) there will probably also be a tectonic shift, though in different directions, depending on the actions of the  provinces of the Global South.

Either way the next few decades is going to continue to be an Anglican mess. Out of it will, I predict, come a strengthened and reinvigorated church which will not embody what any of the combatants currently desire for it. Such will be the effect of either enforcing a resolution to conflict or of continuing to avoid a resolution in the face of powerful demands to do so.

In the end, it's all politics.

~~~~~~~

A summary of the conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

From Zimbabwe's News Day

Ex-bishop Kunonga

Excommunicated Anglican Church Bishop, Nolbert Kunonga, who is now running the independent Anglican province of Zimbabwe has assumed the role of a “Zanu PF commissar and is behaving like a party spokesman”, a political analyst and a Cabinet minister have said.

This follows Kunonga’s open declaration of his support for President Robert Mugabe and Zanu PF in the next elections before describing Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and MDC-T party as an “embodiment of evil”. more...

This will come as no surprise to anyone. 

Covenant, conflict prevention and resolution

This post is effectively a close re-writing of the relevant sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. I would encourage you to read the original. 


It is the background to a forthcoming series of posts offering a critique of the conflict prevention and resolution proposals. I plan to post these over the next two or three weeks.

~~~~~

Finding ways to resolve conflicts in the Anglican Communion without fracturing the communion in the process was a key objective of the proposed Anglican Covenant.

The Covenant outlines two strands to meet this goal.

First, conflict prevention, is designed to predispose provinces away from conflict by greater mutual engagement, entanglement and understanding. To sign the Covenant is to give a prior commitment to seek constructive and shared routes away from future conflict.

The second strand, conflict resolution, establishes a process to address conflict when it becomes intractable.

(The related issue of how some provinces within the Covenant and others outside it are supposed to operate is too complex to contemplate until all, or almost all, provinces have declared their hand.)

Strand 1: conflict prevention:

1. Adopting the Covenant itself.  Signatories declare their prior willingness to enter a non-destructive conciliation processes should potential conflicts arise (3.1.1 and 3.1.2).  In particular signatories' 'common life' will be 'conformed together to the mind of Christ' through the mediation of the 'Instruments of Communion' (3.1.2 and 3.1.4). By inference this would exclude setting up alternative structures in the Global South or anywhere else.
2. The 'central role of bishops as guardians and teachers of faith, as leaders in mission, and as a visible sign of unity,' is affirmed (3.1.3). This reasserts the episcopal character of Anglicanism and also disavows any super-guardianship of the faith for the Primates' Meeting, contrary to the will of some in the Global South.
3. Any one of the 'Instruments of Communion' - The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting - 'may initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches.' (3.1.4)
4. In the normal course of events, and in the absence of any particular point of conflict, signatory provinces will re-orientate their way of working to be much more integrated with the Communion as a whole.
5. Specifically, each Province agrees (a) to 'have regard for the common good' of the whole Communion in its internal decision making, (b) to support the Instruments of Communion with personnel and cash, (c) to take on board the 'work' and 'counsels' of the  Instruments of Communion, and (d) to have a presumption in favour of accepting its 'recommendations'. (3.2.1) At the same time each province will 'respect the constitutional autonomy' of every other province 3.2.2.
6. Clauses 3.2.3, 3.2.4  and  3.2.7 together are designed to reduce the occasions of potential conflict by creating Communion-wide processes of debate, reflection, prayer and study as the normal condition of the Communion. This is particularly important when innovations in one place or area may give other people elsewhere cause for anxiety (4.2.3). Where there are 'matters of common concern' Covenant signatories commit themselves to seek a 'shared mind' across the Communion according to the tests of Scripture, 'the common standards of faith', and canon law. 
7. If, however, despite all this communality conflict should arise then each signatory agrees, first, to move with care and caution (3.2.5) and, second, to engage in mediated conversations with a willingness on all sides to 'see the process through' (3.2.6).
8. The 'functioning of the Covenant' - centrally these conflict prevention and resolution functions - will be monitored by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion on behalf of the Instruments of Communion (4.2.2).
9. There will also be a mechanism, agency or institution in each signatory church  whose job is to  'oversee the maintenance of the affirmations and commitments of the Covenant in the life of that Church, and to relate to the Instruments of Communion on matters pertinent to the Covenant.' (4.2.9)

The underlying thesis is that greater integration will lead to greater harmony. But, when it doesn't ...

Strand 2: conflict resolution:

1. Key to the process is the 'question'. There is ambiguity around what exactly constitutes a question in this context but the scale seems to run from 'concern' at one end to complaint at the other. '...  questions may be raised by a Church itself, another covenanting Church or the Instruments of Communion.' (4.2.3)
2. A question (complaint) triggers a process (or, equally likely, leads to an intensification of a process already under way) to find a 'shared mind' across the Communion (3.2.3).
3. In the absence of a shared mind the matter is referred to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Despite the fact that the SCAC have already been monitoring the matter and, presumably, various of its international groups have already engaged with the issue, responsibility is passed to it directly for a further intensification of negotiations. Considerable discussion between the Instruments of Communion is also envisaged (4.2.4).
4. Yet the only power granted the SCAC is to ask a province to 'defer a controversial action.' (4.2.5).
5. Then, should the request to defer be refused, '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 ...'  (4.2.5).
6. When everything has failed, and no agreement may be found, the SCAC, with advice from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting, may declare that '... an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”.' (4.2.6) As the trustees of the Anglican Communion the members of SCAC cannot be instructed to make a particular decision. 
7. On the basis of the same advice the SCAC '...  shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant.' (4.2.7) This is the crunch. Recommendations are to be made to the Churches of the Communion or to the Instruments of Communion (apparently not both). The recommendations will reflect the impact of the action or decision that is deemed incompatible with the Covenant: specifically the extent to which communion is  impaired or limited, and the practical consequences which follow.

*   *   *

The outline given in the Covenant is clearly insufficient. A great deal more work on the detail will need to be done before anything like an adequate structure is created.

I think this will generate a whole new library of Communion-wide rules and procedures that will look increasingly like a unified canon law that will send its tendrils into every part of each Anglican Church. It is quite possible that this work is being done though not yet made public.

Support for Bishop Gandiya

The Most Revd Thabo Makgoba,
Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town
and Metropolitan of the Anglican
Church of Southern  Africa

Archbishop Makgoba has issued a public call for the police in Zimbabwe to stop persecuting Anglicans.

His press release says,

"I deplore the shocking action of the Zimbabwean police on Tuesday in preventing the clergy of the Diocese of Harare from holding their annual prayer retreat at Peterhouse School.

"I call on President Mugabe to ensure that the religious freedom of all Zimbabweans, and especially persecuted Anglicans, is respected, and to instruct the police to allow the churches freedom of assembly and worship.

"We affirm Bishop Chad Gandiya, his clergy and people at this time. As they share in the sufferings of Christ, may they gain strength from the experience and never give in to a cynical and sinister government. ...

"I also call on our ecumenical friends and our partners in the Anglican Communion to ask their governments to put pressure on Zimbabwe to end this persecution."

The police, of course, reject this interpretation of events,

Police spokesman, Oliver Mandipaka said the meeting had to be broken following concerns members of a splinter Anglican group led by Bishop Nolbert Kunonga, could have tried to meet in the same private school. 

“Judging from past experiences, these meetings have turned violent. It was on that basis that we advised them to disperse,” Oliver Mandipaka told the German news agency dpa.

“People must correctly interpret police actions. We were just being proactive.

Report here.

The Nigerian Sunday Tribune says,

Bishop Gandiya told VOA's Ntungamili Nkomo that he is encouraged by the support from the regional primate, adding the police should stop harassing his followers.

"We were told that we were supposed to seek permission for out retreat, and yet under POSA (Public Order and Security Act) that's not the case," Gandiya said.

Political commentator Brilliant Mhlanga of the University of Westminster in London said Mr. Mugabe can not stop Kunonga from harassing his rivals because ZANU-PF sees him as an asset.

What do we get if we get the Covenant?

Apologies that the papers under discussion here are somewhat dated. I am grateful to my colleague Leonardo Ricardo for drawing my attention to the paper from the Province of South Asia which (with so much else) I had missed.


I blog it now because it continues to be relevant: the terms of signing the Covenant seen from Singapore are not the terms seen from where I sit.

Michael Burrows, Bishop of Cashel and Ossory,
and promoter of the Covenant  in Ireland

Ireland subscribes
In May the Church of Ireland "subscribed" to the Covenant.

In doing so the Irish intended to subordinate the Covenant to the Church in Ireland; they were not willing to subordinate the Church to the Covenant (Press Release). Were they conning themselves? Mark Harris pointed out that they didn't really have the option: the only choice on the table was - take it or leave it.

But was something else going on? Did the Irish (or, at least, those in the know) believe that once the Covenant was in place all that would happen would be another round of negotiations?

To put it another way: what do we get if we get the Covenant?

Here the Church of South East Asia (wiki) has been very helpful.

A history of the Covenant
Their Preamble to the Letter of Accession (also May 2011) set out a history of how the Covenant was created. It stresses the significance of conservative Provinces in the creation of the document dating back to the Second South-to-South Encounter Kuala Lumpur Statement in 1997.

I find the historical narrative largely persuasive when seen through conservative glasses,  The story is predicated on the "unscriptural practices in some parts of the Church" and the providential way the 'crisis' enabled the diverse churches of the global south to create a shared identity and structures of consultation

It's not the whole story. (1) It omits contributions from England and other western sources. (2) The Archbishop of Canterbury is mentioned twice (outside quotations): to restate an instruction given to him by the Primates and, second, to disapprove a decision he made. It would seem that the future of Covenanted Anglicanism does not accord primacy to the Archbishop, his heirs and successors. (3) It ignores the listening process that was also agreed at Lambeth 1998. (4) It also leaves the impression that 'border crossing' followed, rather than preceded, the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson.

(l-r) Bishop Albert Vun, Diocese of Sabah)
Bishop John Chew, Diocese of Singapore
Bishop Bolly Lapok, Diocese of Kiching
 Bishop Ng Moon Heng, Diocese of West Malaysia

But for those global south churches which wish to remain within the Anglican Communion it is a persuasive and legitimating account.

The terms of accession

The Preamble "also outlines the raison d'être for the Church of the Province of South East Asia’s agreement to sign the Anglican Communion Covenant.":

Churches that accede to the Anglican Communion Covenant need to subject their common life to the reforming and transforming work of the Holy Spirit, so that the Communion may be built up until all “reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4: 13). The Anglican Communion should adopt more uniform processes in the election and appointment of bishops, to ensure that such processes are not held hostage to local politics and to parochial understandings of the episcopal office.

For the Province of South East Asia, therefore, it is perfectly clear that the Covenant does indeed subordinate provinces to its provisions. Local church order must be changed to fit the programme.

Furthermore:

our accession to the Anglican Communion Covenant is based on the following understanding:
(a) that those who accede to the Anglican Communion Covenant will unequivocally abide by Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its spirit and intent;
(b) that those Provinces and Dioceses whose actions violate Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as well as subsequent Primates Communiqué statements that have placed a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops and the authorization and implementation of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, are expected to rescind their actions, and bring their public doctrine and practice in line with Lambeth 1.10, before acceding to the Anglican Communion Covenant; and
(c) that Churches that accede to the Anglican Communion Covenant should bear authentic witness to the orthodox faith by an unequivocal commitment to the standards of moral and ethical holiness as set by Biblical norms in all aspects of their communal life. (Mt 19:4-6; Rom 1:21-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-26; Eph 5:3-14; Col 3:5-14; 1 Thess 4:3-12; 2 Tim 3:1-5; Heb 13:1-5; 1 Pet 4:1-11; 2 Pet 2:13-22; Jude v18-21; Rev 18:1-8).
(d) that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Anglican Communion Covenant in its implementation (Anglican Communion Covenant Section 3.1.4.IV and South-to-South Encounter, Fourth Trumpet, 21).

Thus they sign the Covenant with one pen and with another write: everyone else must meet the demands of South East Asia.

Martin Reynolds (last comment at TA) also noted that, as part of the National Council of Churches of Singapore, the Anglican Church sought to criminalise lesbianism for the first time in the country's history and to sustain harsh punishments for gay men. There is nothing irenic in this Provinces' Covenant.

So what does it mean to sign the Covenant?
Clearly the Church of Ireland either signed a different Covenant, or it must withdraw its decision if these are the terms, or it expects the Covenant to be merely a staging post to further negotiations.

What would the Church of England be signing up to if it voted in favour?

What is the point of a treaty if we all think we're signing up to different things?

Coalition celebrates success

  Lesley Crawley, Coalition Moderator  

No Anglican Covenant Coalition
Anglicans for Comprehensive Unity
noanglicancovenant.org
NEWS RELEASE
DECEMBER 6, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
COALITION CELEBRATES SUCCESSES, PLANS FOR THE FUTURE

LONDON – After slightly more than a year, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition can point to several  successes, according to Coalition Moderator, the Revd Dr Lesley Crawley.

Four dioceses of the Church of England have rejected the Covenant (Birmingham; St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich; Truro; Wakefield). Where synod members were provided with balanced background material (i.e., material that presented both the case for and the case against the Covenant), the synods have voted it down.

Four dioceses, where little or no material was presented other than officially sanctioned pro-Covenant material, have approved the Covenant (Lichfield; Durham; Europe; Bristol). A total of 23 diocesan synods must approve the Covenant for the matter to return to the General Synod.

• The Tikanga Maori defeated the Covenant at their biennial runanganui, virtually ensuring the defeat of the Covenant in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.
• The Philippine House of Bishops has indicated they will not support the Anglican Covenant, likely ensuring the defeat of the Covenant in the Episcopal Church in the Philippines.
• Individual dioceses in the Anglican Church of Australia (Newcastle; Sydney) and The Episcopal Church (California; Eastern Oregon; Michigan; East Carolina; and others) have indicated their opposition to adoption of the Covenant.

“In November 2010, we launched the Coalition to ensure that the case against the proposed Anglican Covenant would be given a fair hearing,” said Dr. Crawley. “Today we are seeing our efforts bear fruit. When fair debate has been allowed, the results have been gratifying.”

Critical to the success of the campaign, especially in the Church of England, has been the support of the Coalition’s Episcopal Patrons, Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby, who have encouraged diocesan bishops to allow for a full and open debate. In the coming months, 37 more English dioceses will vote on the Anglican Covenant. Only 18 additional no votes are needed for the Church of England to reject the Covenant.

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition continues to provide assistance to those researching the proposed Covenant. The Resources section of the Coalition website is regularly updated with new material and analysis.

In the coming year:

• The Episcopal Church will consider the Covenant at its General Convention in July in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Executive Council of the church has circulated a draft resolution to reject the Anglican Covenant.
• The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia will consider the Covenant in July at its General Synod/Te HinotaWhanui in Fiji. Given the rejection of the Anglican Covenant by Tikanga Maori, rejection of the Covenant by that church seems assured.
• The General Synod of the Church of England is scheduled to consider the Covenant at its July session. However, unless 19 more diocesan synods have approved the Anglican Covenant by that date, the matter will not return to General Synod.

“Anglican Communion Office officials have repeatedly responded to criticism of the Anglican Covenant by suggesting that critics have not read the document,” said the Coalition’s Canadian Convenor, the Revd Malcolm French. “Ironically, we find that the more familiar people are with the document, the more likely they are to reject it. The Coalition is committed to ensuring a proper and balanced debate in churches throughout the Anglican Communion.”


The No Anglican Covenant Coalition is an international group of Anglicans dedicated to protecting the Anglican Communion from the dramatic changes that would be effected by the Anglican Covenant.

Alan Perry points out in passing that nothing in the proposed Anglican Covenant is defined.

The implication of this is, that if it is ever passed, there will be immediate pressure from all sides to work out what the signatories have actually signed up for. Lawyers (and Alan's a lawyer) will set to work with forensic relish.

Consequently, rapidly, there will be 'expositions', 'explanations', 'clarifications' of the Covenant. On current practice it is unlikely that much of this will be made public. These documents will effectively change the reading of the Covenant and guide its implementation.

I suggest that the priorities will be:

• To clarify the procedures implicit or explicit in the Covenant. (A legal and bureaucratic process.)
• To monitor and record the procedures and their results. (A largely bureaucratic process.)
• To relate the development and consequences of Covenant procedures to non-signatory members of the Anglican Communion. (A primarily political process.)  
• To relate the Covenant procedures to the Instruments of Communion, not least to clarify the legal position of the Anglican Consultative Council in relation to decisions made under Covenant rules. (A legal and political process.)  

Taken together these will amount to a slow revolution in the Anglican Communion undertaken by the Anglican Communion Office with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

• 

  Norman Doe has contributed systematically to the Covenant

• The procedures to implement and monitor the Covenant procedures will effectively become a new set of constitutional laws - canons - governing Communion relations.
• The Communion will be reshaped: the difference of treatment of those inside and those outside the Covenant process will not lead to a two-speed Communion (except, possibly, in a transitional phase). Either all will eventually sign the Covenant or, more likely in my view, the Communion will split apart.  (This is setting aside the possibility that some bodies could sign the Covenant despite not being members of the ACC.)
• Over time the ACC will be destroyed or assimilated. This is because it is the only Anglican international body currently with a legal constitution and therefore clashes between ACC and Covenant processes cannot simply be finessed away.
• The record of consultative processes, and especially their results, will eventually lead to a single statement of the doctrine of the Anglican Communion. When an issue has been decided under the Covenant process no Province could subsequently act independently on that issue without risking eviction. As issues accumulate to the centre haphazardly, as decisions in one area have implications in others, and as anomalies proliferate there will be growing pressure to codify the whole. Doctrinal case law will become doctrinal statute law. 

You might have thought that these matters should have been thought through first. After all, signatories should have some idea of the consequences of signing.

But it's a matter of the politics of the possible.

When more detailed procedures were set out as an Appendix the the St Andrews draft of the Covenant they caused an outcry that threatened to derail the Covenant process. Therefore those pushing the Covenant decided to retreat into generalisations in order to get agreement first and set out the detail afterwards.   (My 2-page flow chart of the procedure - pdf)

Can you imagine a company or country working this way and surviving very long?

In practice, and if the Covenant is ever passed, the Anglican Communion Office and their lawyers will first go back to the earlier work on the St Andrew's Draft. I make this prediction with great confidence - after all, where else would you start?

That is to say: a procedure that very few people liked, which threatened to stop adoption when it was made public, will in fact (with further amendments and refinements) be the initial basis of Covenant procedures.

As my mother used to say, it'll end in tears.

Seven constitutional questions on the Covenant

Apologies that this is a one-off posting - and is much longer than is sensible. I blame 'changed circumstances' for an inability to post regularly.

1) The consequence of signing the Covenant
The Covenant will bring in significant changes to the way the Church of England is governed and there has been no public debate, to the best of my knowledge, about its consequences.

I believe that adopting the Covenant would entail constitutional change in the Church of England at least as great as the Synodical Government Measure of 1969 and the Enabling Act of 1919.  Both these steps opened the government of the Church to wider participation by its members. The adoption of the Covenant could - depending on the manner in which it is implemented - enable top-down, possibly unaccountable, decision making on key areas of the Church's life. It could preclude certain areas of discussion from General Synod's agenda. It could lead to a significant concentration of information and power in very few hands.

The Covenant and its defenders insist that signatories would not lose their autonomous status within the Communion.  However the Covenant clearly anticipates that Provinces will self-censure and it is not clear that this will be done openly and with full debate. I suggest that the way the Covenant has been introduced to date at the very least gives grounds for suspicion. See my Bouncing the Covenant through the Anglican Communion. It was written in 2004.

Unless strong safeguards are in place it is likely that General Synod will find it has inadvertently come to an agreement which will constrain and distort the conduct of its  business in ways it had neither anticipated no intended.

2) Where we are now
So far, if I've got this right, 2 Dioceses have voted in favour (Lichfield and Durham), and 4 against (St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Wakefield, Birmingham and Truro).

But there's a long way to go yet. So it seems worth raising at this stage a number of questions about the manner in which the Covenant would be implemented in England and, in particular, how it would relate to General Synod.

3)  Constitutional change
The two key elements of the Covenant which I believe will change the workings of the Church of England are,

1. the creation of a 'mechanism' - a person or office - 'to oversee the maintenance of the affirmations and commitments of the Covenant in the life of that Church, and to relate to the Instruments of Communion on matters pertinent to the Covenant.' (4.2.9), and   
2. the right of any signatory to the Covenant, or Instrument of Communion, to raise '... questions ... relating to the meaning of the Covenant, or about the compatibility of an action by a covenanting Church with the Covenant,'  (4.2.3)

I put them in this order because I think this will be the order in which the impact of the Covenant will make itself felt.

First an appointment will be made of a Covenant Compliance Officer (or some other less specific title). Undoubtedly the role will be as an intermediary or ambassador: to listen to all participants, to represent the views and concerns of the Church of England to other signatories of the Covenant and vice versa, and to communicate to the wider Communion any action or decision or, critically, proposed action  or decision that might cause concern. In all these actions timing will be critical.

Second, questions could be asked under Section 4 of the Covernant. And, when asked, action will need to be taken in response.

Third, between these two points there are two, equally important, stages. The first, implicit in the Covenant (4.2.3) is bilateral or multilateral talks to iron out any difficulties. This avoids reference to the Standing Committee unless no agreement 'shared mind' is reached.

But it is at least as likely that another Province (say) would raises a matter entirely informally, that is without invoking the Covenant procedures.

The massed ranks of Synod in session

In fact, I suspect that this will be the normal mode by which the signatories to the Covenant will work. The majority of Provinces the majority of the time will want to foster good working relations - and this cannot be done by rushing off to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Church on the faint whiff of something undesirable in a far-away land. But a quiet word at a meeting, a private letter or a request for information might well be the way to proceed.

And this may pose a bigger challenge to the constitutional government of the Church than formal proceedings.

4) Constitutional questions
So my questions are:

1) Where will power lie over the Covenant Compliance Officer or Office?

• Who will write their terms of reference and specify the boundaries and priorities of their work?
• Who will appoint, task and oversee them? 
• Who will hold them to account?
• Who may and who must be informed and consulted on day to day issues?
• Who may veto any proposed course of action?

The options, I guess are: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the House of Bishops or General Synod.  (Incidentally, I don't think an appointment can be made without further marginalising the elected members of the Anglican Consultative Council.)

2) How will the Covenant Compliance Officer or Office related to General Synod?

• Will Synod have any powers to direct the work, or to direct them not to pursue a particular line of work?
• How will communication between the Office and Synod be structured and maintained?
• Will Synod appoint a committee to over see the work? Or have a liaison committee? Or, at the other end of the scale, will it merely receive a report on past work and, if so, will there at least be an opportunity for informed questioning?

3) What will happen if there is a bilateral or multilateral expression of concern about any proposed or anticipated course of action which may come before General Synod?

• Where will primary responsibility lie for responding to such concerns?
• Who will be involved in discussions and negotiations?
• How will agreement (coming to a 'shared mind') be ratified? Will it bind General Synod? Will a simple majority suffice?

And, more generally,

• Are there areas of decision making which should not be subject to external scrutiny? If so, which areas?
• Should there be a means of voting (a Section 8 referral for example) by which the CofE as a whole could over-ride the concerns of the complainant and continue to pursue its own course?

Under the Covenant a single Province can lay a complaint and it is up the the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion to pursue it through further conciliation (4.2.4), by asking a Church to delay a decision (4.2.5), or by declaring the action or decision “incompatible with the Covenant” (4.2.6 - in inverted commas in the original). 'Relational consequences' may then follow.

4) What will happen if there is a formal expression of concern by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion about any proposed or anticipated course of action which may come before General Synod?

In addition to the previous questions: 

• Under what circumstances would it be appropriate for the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion to impose sanctions on the CofE (e.g. by requiring members of international consultative bodies to step down because the CofE as a whole is pursuing an unpopular course)?
• Who would be responsible for the CofE's response to such a measure?

5) And, much earlier in the process, what will happen if there is an informal expression of concern about any proposed or anticipated course of action which may come before General Synod?

I suspect this is the critical test. Given that the point of an informal expression of concern is to avoid making waves in public:

• Who may and who must be informed?
• At what point, and by what route, should Synod be consulted?  (E.g. would consulting the Standing Committee be sufficient? Will there be provision for the full Synod to debate an issue with press and public excluded?)
• Should the expression of concern be made solely to the House of Bishops?

Of course the exact details of the expression of concern will make a difference - my focus is on what constitutional mechanisms are envisaged or would be appropriate.  My fear is that the instinct of officers would be to restrict discussion and constrain debate. The consequence could be that accountability will be limited and the role of Synod in the government of the church will be undermined.

6) How would the CofE discharge its duties under the Covenant towards developments in other Provinces?

• What areas of concern should the Covenant Compliance Office monitor on behalf of the CofE? And, see (1) above, how will these be reported back, and to whom?
• Could any member of Synod initiate a debate expressing concern about actual or potential developments in other signatory Provinces? 
• If not, what other routes are available to raise an issue of concern? And how can trivial or vexatious complaints be avoided?
• Could Synod mandate its Covenant Compliance Office to initiate the proceedings envisaged by Section 4.2.3 of the Covenant? If not, who could?
• How will a judgement be made that the response has been satisfactory? Will a further debate be necessary? And who decides?



Times are hard enough already without
signing an open cheque.

• If Synod is not involved in this process how will it be possible to avoid damaging tensions within the CofE given the likelihood of a range of views on any issue?

And, last but not least, as I've asked before,

7) What will this all cost?

In the normal course of events Synod is not able to take a decision without examining the financial implications.

• Why is the Synod's procedure not being followed in this case?

Now it may be that someone somewhere has drafted answers to all these questions and more. In which case it would be useful to have the proposals public so voters can see some of the ramifications of the options before they make their decision.   But if no-one has addressed the constitutional implications then I'm even more worried.

A clear NO

The Presiding Bishop and Prime Bishop Edward Pacaya:

differences and continued dialogue

It seems that the Philippines is the first Province to reject the Covenant. They do so from a firmly conservative perspective but they are not proposing to turn their back on the rest of the Communion. .

The reported grounds for rejection are ecclesiological - it's unAnglican.

The Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines have rejected the proposed Anglican Covenant, saying the proposal to centralise authority in London was an “un-Anglican” attempt to “lord it over” the Communion’s national provinces.
...
Bishop Malecdan stated the Philippine Council of Bishops “noted that the document provides for the creation of a Standing Committee that will be the ‘Supreme Court’ as it were, for the Anglican Communion to lord it over all Anglican Provinces. This, to the Council is very un-Anglican because of the autonomous nature of each Anglican Province. Hence, we are not in favour of the document.”

Their way forward is not to follow GAFCON into schism. Rather, as evidenced at the Dublin Primates' meeting:

We recognised that Anglicans have many disagreements as a Communion but we still can be agreeable to one another. We can still move towards reconciliation as sisters and brothers as a gift of God to us by persistently talking about our differences. This is the beauty of Anglicanism.

“Unity in diversity which is a recognized uniqueness of the Communion is preserved,” the prime bishop said.

The logic being that, if the GAFCON churches are to go their own way then there is no need for the Covenant. Therefore the remaining churches are grown up enough to persist in their differences. 

It also means that other provinces uncomfortable with the Covenant no longer need to equivocate by finding a form of words which seek to avoid them 'adopting' the Covenant. They can just say no.

Also at The Lead.