And always keep a-hold of Nurse ...

 I wrote this for another context but it seemed worth repeating here, with a few corrections and some footnotes.


--------------------------------.

Church and State: the Church of England's capacity to determine its own worship and doctrine.

Until 1965 the CofE had no legal power to alter its own worship [Note 1].  There was a revised Prayer Book in 1928/29. Parliament refused to authorise it and after a major row Church-and-State row the bishops issued a statement that they would never sanction prosecution of clergy who conducted worship within the parameters of the revised book and no-one tested it legally [Note 2].  A revised book (again, technically illegal) was published in 1945 on the personal authority of Archbishop Fisher.

In 1961 the New English Bible was published and enthusiastically welcomed by clergy. However, legally, they could not use it in the Eucharist as the reading were printed in the BCP which could not be changed. A Measure (Church law authorised by Parliament) was prepared to allow the New English Bible to be used as an alternative to that printed in the BCP. [Note 3]

However, while this was in preparation, negotiation between the Church and the government of the day suggested that the Government would allow 'delegated legislation' i.e. Parliament delegated to the Church the power to determine its own worship - but only for a limited, experimental period of 2 to 7 years - in the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure.

That experimental period (taking 14 years) produced Series 1, 2, 3 styles of worship.  In 1974 the Doctrine and Worship Measure gave the Church further powers which led to the Alternative Service Book 1980 (to give it its full title - the date showed it was meant to be temporary).  This was valid for a decade and then a second decade's life was added.  The original intention had been to produce a single New Book of Common Prayer which Parliament would have been asked to authorise and which would have been set in legal stone.

But the Church had pulled off a coup: the temporary delegation of powers was finessed into a permanent delegation. The Church acquired - for the first time in its history - the power to determine its own worship.

The Doctrine and Worship Measure also gave the CofE power over its own doctrine. Thus was tested in law in 1994 and again in 1996 [Note 4] over the question of the ordination of women.  The court determined that, so long as the Church followed its own rules in making doctrinal decisions (explicitly or implicitly), there was no legal power to interfere in the substance of those decisions.

This autonomy was gained, critically, without the Church ceasing to be the Established Church. It was an invisibly amazing achievement: the goal had first been articulated in 1840 or 50 and it had been pursued for 120+ years.

And the relevance of this to a Covenant is:

(a) because the CofE is a State Church it has no ecclesiology - it has had no capacity to think for itself what kind of church it is and should and could be, 

(b) the CofE has had centuries of training in the arts of being subordinate and acting as though it was autonomous - it exists through a sophisticated systemic exercise of willful blindness and realpolitik.

(c) The point at which it acquired the power to determine its own doctrine was too late for it to exercise such power.  From the mid-1980s ecumenical agreements and the changing shape of the Anglican Communion meant that in practice it could only make definitive doctrinal statements in concert (if not uniformly) with other churches and the rest of the Communion - see, for example, the statement on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry.

So to adopt the Covenant for the CofE would simply be to accept a new overlordship while continuing to pretend it is superior to it. It will make sure its officers are embedded in the operation of the Covenant so that nothing potentially embarrassing comes to the light of public debate. And thus it will ensure it still doesn't have to think about its ecclesiology - what principles - actually and ideally - underlie, predispose and can be used to judge the words, structures and action of the Church of England?

========================
Notes:
1. ‘... a clerk has no right in performing divine service to alter, omit, or add anything to the prescribed form, including the lessons to be read.’ Ecclesiastical Law, reprinted from Halsbury’s Laws of England, Third Edition, (London, Butterworth & Co., 1957)

2. "... the Upper House of the two Convocations, with the acquiescent cognisance of the Lower Houses, recommended, with only four dissentients, that the bishops should not, in their administration, feel bound to interfere with clergy whose deviations from the Book of Common Prayer were within the limits of the deviations which the Prayer Book Measure of 1928 would have sanctioned."  Church & State: Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Relations between Church and State, 1935 (London, The Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1935) [The Cecil Report], p. 39.

3. In the first version of the Prayer Book (Versions of the Bible) Measure no other version of Scripture was to have been permitted.  But, on a steer from the Government, the Measure was redafted to permit any versions which Church Assembly (General Synod's precursor) might approve.  It became law in 1965.

4. The case (in fact a series of cases) was brought by a Rev. Williamson whose persistence led to him being formally barred from further action as a 'vexatious litigant' in 1997.  The nineteenth century had several examples of the same process: convinced litigants brought cases which only strengthened the causes they were arguing against.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Service_Book

Utterly negative

Mark Harris, amongst others, comments on the self-authorised action of the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion in demoting Bishop Tito Zavala of the Southern Cone from his place on the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO).


He comments, in particular, of the weasel words 'gracious restraint' and the use of 'request' to mean command.  When those with power use language in this way something more than ordinary Anglican circumlocution is going on.  It is the use of language to attempt to shape reality, to create a obfuscatory cloud which gloves force in sweeter terms, and it pervades the thinking which informs the Covenant.


But there is another important point.  Bishop Tito Zavala is not (nominally, in any case) being demoted because of the intrusion of the Southern Cone into the jurisdiction of its northern neighbours.  He is being demoted because the Secretary General has not had an answer to his letter.  In other words the punishment for a substantive offence (e.g. consecrating a partnered lesbian) is identical to procedural offences.

What this reveals is the poverty of the Secretary General's toolbox.  All he can do is to demote or sack.  He has no mechanism for constructive engagement, nor for graduated punitive responses. All he can do is to threaten and, if the Province fails to be impressed, he excludes.  There is nothing here for building up the Communion.

Thus the Covenant. The one element of constructive engagement is the requirement to seek agreement (twice - 3.2.4, 4.2.4), which is all very well but things have presumably only got into the hands of the Standing Committee because the parties can't agree.  After that the only options are exclusion or steps on the way to exclusion.  Utterly negative.

High time we started a different discussion: how can we build a truly international, diverse, cantankerous and holy communion in which its differences are strengths, not occasions for pushing people out of the boat.  See previous post.

A richer Covenant

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

 The Province of South Africa has partly endorsed the Anglican Covenant - it has passed the first stage of the constitutional process and will be brought to the next Provincial Synod for ratification.

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority, although some speakers who supported it expressed reservations. The Revd Drake Tshenkeng of the Diocese of Kimberley and Kuruman asked whether the Church was not giving “centralizing power” to the communion's Standing Committee. The Dean of Grahamstown, the Very Rev Andrew Hunter said the covenant raised the questions: “How far does diversity stretch, who defines diversity and who sets the boundaries?”

The sadness from my perspective is that Archbishop Thabo Makgoba has a rich understanding of covenant and its potential, a vision I would delight in - but unfortunately it's a vision I don't see in the Anglican Covenant on offer today.



Covenant and South Africa

Thabo Makgoba discusses the idea of Covenant in relation to the South African State and its Constitution.  There is too much to set out here in full - I recommend the Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture: ‘Constitution and Covenant’ and 'Moral State of the Nation Address'. 

In the Harold Wolpe lecture he addressed the current state of South Africa.  

In South Africa, we have to learn how to become a democracy, and all of us who stood together in the past, are still feeling our ways into the new relationships appropriate to constitutional democracy. Government, political parties, the private sector, academia, the media, civil society, faith communities and so forth, now each have our distinctive and separate contributions to make to the life of the nation as a whole. We are still learning where we should stand in solidarity, and where we should be critical. We are still learning what it means to hold and to exchange legitimately diverse perspectives. We are still learning both how to deliver and how to receive criticism that is constructive. The way to pursue such maturing democracy is to abide by – or, in the words of St Paul, be subject to – our Constitution.

There is a clear parallel with the Anglican Communion (setting aside the democracy bit).  Just how Anglicans stand together and criticise one another, how we hold and exchange legitimate and legitimately diverse perspectives, is the driving issue behind the Anglican Covenant.


He sets the question in scripture and in Noah's Covenant with God:

This is a covenant for all of humanity, and for all of creation. It is a covenant about the sanctity of human life, about the integrity of the created world, and about the dignity of difference, symbolised by the rainbow. God says that people matter. God cares that his beloved children should have adequate food, clothing, shelter and so forth. God cares that everyone should be treated with complete respect by everyone else, with no-one marginalised, excluded, voiceless in the ordering of our common lives (which is, of course what democracy is all about).

Amen. Amen.  Again, the contrast of the Church with a democracy is significant.


The Archbishop draws on Chief Rabbi Sacks' speech to the Lambeth Conference which contrasted Covenant and Contract. He summarised the contrast as:

Contracts concern our interests, while covenants concern our identities. · Contracts deal in transactions, while covenants deal in relationships. · Contracts benefit, while covenants transform. · Contracts are about competition – if I win, you lose; while covenants are about cooperation – if I win, you also win.

He then talks about the right and need of the government to govern - and, vitally, the duty to listen. The government, he argues, has a duty to create and sustain a space for free public debate - and to accept criticism as well as praise. He calls for 'the effective participation of all, at every level.'  This is not easy and (he doesn't say this, I do) the experience in so much of Africa directly contradicts this vision.


The Archbishop says:

But, whatever the limitations of experience, mature democracy requires mutual acknowledgement that political opponents seek the good of the country and its people, however great the policy disagreement on the best means for achieving this. We must accord everyone freedom of speech: freedom to debate issues, to put differing arguments, to propose alternative policies, and to persuade – but never to coerce. Anyone who threatens, or intimidates – or stands by while their supporters do so – is not worthy to be a leader. Anyone who incites violence, or advocates harm to their political opponents – or allows others to do so – is a disgrace to democracy and deserves only our contempt. Anyone who pursues power to further their own interests, or the interests of those around them, is unfit to hold office.

In fact, he says,

Let me put this in other words. Effective democracy needs ubuntu. Ubuntu says, ‘I am because we are.’ Ubuntu says ‘My full humanity is dependent on your full humanity.’ Ubuntu is shared covenantal living – living through loving and caring, honesty and respect, compassion and trust. Ubuntu is upholding good morals. Ubuntu is helping those in need. Ubuntu is saying that if any other person is diminished, then I too am diminished.

And, from 'Moral State of the Nation Address'

Covenant is entirely ubuntu-shaped – we find our humanity through the humanity of others – we flourish through promoting the flourishing of others. SePedi has a proverb for this: Mphiri o tee ga o lle – one bangle makes no sound. But working in harmony can create a beautiful symphony!

The Anglican Covenant
The South African initial adoption of the Covenant may have been overwhelming but it was not enthusiastic.  

As I said in my Charge, this is not a perfect document, but it certainly offers a way of affirming our desire to live together as Provinces, within our global family;  a means of getting the balance right through an autonomy that is neither imposed uniformity, nor unbounded independence.  My prayer is that we will now be able to share our unique experiences of letting Christ hold us together in difference, within the life of the Covenant, and help it to work as well as possible. (Here)

The earlier Synod of Bishops had supported the Covenant with the observation 'It can be a tool for healing and for helping the Communion move forward.'


This is a vote for a hope.  And if such hope is realised I will happily welcome it.  


But, in my view, all the signs point in the opposite direction.  Fundamentally there is no democracy, nor any desire for effective participation, nor any valuing of the ideals of democracy.  There is no evident desire of the international leaders of the Communion to create and sustain a public space for diversity and difference, criticism and praise.


The Covenant grew from a desire to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion - an exercise of force, not the recognition that opponents seek the good of the community - and who started it is the politics of the playground, not of an adult community.


The process by which the Covenant has come about is deeply anti-participatory.


The Covenant we are presented with is a contract - a mutually binding deal by which we all focus on the things we distrust and dislike in one another.


It is not ubuntu.  

English and Welsh Bishops

The gorgeous Grandmère Mimi

Grandmère Mimi says (comment, here):

I have the sense, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the bishops in the Church of England who do not like the Covenant will not speak against it, for they are too polite to - what? - hurt the ABC's feelings? The Welsh bishops won't cross him either. 

Sadly I think she's right.


It may be a little more complex than simple politeness, though. There is a mix of loyalty (and not wanting to seem publicly disloyal) with a generation of bishops trained into the collective mould (both senses) by having individuality trained out of them: mini-princes in their own domains and courtiers on the larger stage.  I'm not sure that government by nineteenth-century unaccountable autocrats was any better (and there was a different structure of checks and balances in place). However, the result today is that the bishops have become like a one-party state: divisions are kept within the club, the public face must be united. (Unless, of course, you retire to Rome, but that's a different story.)


However that's assuming there has been structured debate in which differences of episcopal opinion have even been aired.  There was, of course, discussion at the Lambeth Conference.  I'm not at all sure what debate has been had within the English college of bishops - not that I would know, you understand, one way or the other.  But I am led to believe that the new Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council - the other half of implementing the Covenant - went through on the nod.


The Welsh bishops are a different kettle of fish, so to speak.  There are only 6 diocesans, after all, and one of them is Gregory Cameron.  And, yes, they do feel a loyalty to one of their own - after all, how many welshmen have ever been Pope? I have no feel for the way the wind is blowing there but I would be very surprised if they all leaned the same way.  It's a relatively small Province but there is a noticeable difference in culture between north and south Wales.


And, in dealing with the episcopacy never forget the old joke that the bishop's symbol is a crook and the sign of an archbishop is a double-cross.

A dishonest Covenant

In July 2007 I wrote a paper called Bouncing the Covenant through the Anglican Communion (here) which looked at the way the Covenant was to be pushed through.

In retrospect I was wrong about one thing - I had calculated that the majority of Provinces would have endorsed the Covenant by this year, 2010, so that the Church of England would be faced with a fait accompli. In fact the majority of Provinces still have to decide whether or not to accept the Covenant.

In addition, the timetable outlined by the Covenant Design Group in February 2007 has been followed, albeit with a delay of 6 months when the ACC referred the critical Section 4 to a different committee in May 2009.

But I think the rest remains accurate. The initial judgement was that a Covenant would be a hard sell. Therefore the decision was taken to avoid as much public debate as possible but to contain debate within the smallest possible inner circles of each Province.  The rest has followed: public debate has deliberately been muted and it's hard to see how much, if any, difference it made to the shaping of the Covenant.

(There is some, indirect, evidence of an impact in that those defending the Covenant were occasionally forced, or chose, to address public criticism.  One instance, of which I'm quite proud, is Norman Doe's book An Anglican Covenant in which Modern Church's arguments and papers were frequently quoted in order to be countered.  But I don't think we made any difference.)

The only thing that made any difference was private opposition from Primates and their representatives.  And then only in relation to the terms of the Covenant. Public and official statements that stated opposition to the Covenant were apparently ignored.

In England the 2007 debate was half hearted.  The presence of Archbishop Drexel Gomez as guest speaker was intended to bolster support.  The main structural element which led to a favourable result was the decision to focus on the principle of a covenant - and to sideline comment on the wording of the actual draft. The business managers had served their masters well.

The same will be true on November 23rd with the next Covenant debate in the English General Synod.  A new Synod, having had limited time to work together, with a background of sparse discussion and even less knowledge, will be asked to endorse the Covenant. They will then send it to the Dioceses - who will pass it on the nod.  After all, the Covenant will be mixed up with discussion on women bishops - and more people will be more agitated about the gender of bishops than about a document which, they will be told, won't make any difference.

Another victory for the business managers.

I think this is fundamentally dishonest.  I think it is deeply undermining of the idea that the church is comprised of all its members.  I think it is autocratic, arrogant and disdainful of the great majority of Anglican people. I think the message that all church leaders can rightly take from this exercise is that they can ignore the membership with impunity.

The medium - or, in this case, the strategy - is message.

Justice at last for men falsely accused of poisoning the late Canon Rodney Hunter

There were no fantasies or false accusations about Patricia Nkhoma's sad demise

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reports: In a significant judgement handed down today in Nkhota-kota, Diocese of Lake Malawi, a judge has acquitted Leonard Mondoma of murdering the late Canon Rodney Hunter.

Hunter had been a British missionary who had died in 2006 from natural causes due to cancer. His death had been claimed as a ‘poisoning’ and ‘murder’ by a twice suspended priest the Revd’ Dennis Kayamba. Kayamba had managed to persuade the local chief of police to arrest two men, Bernard Mlota (since deceased) and Leonard Mondoma, Hunter’s faithful cook.

Mlota was released on bail quite quickly but Leonard Mondoma languished in prison for eighteen months, most of the time without charge, before finally being rescued from life-threatening conditions and being allowed out on bail. Nevertheless, charges brought by Dennis Kayamba remained outstanding.

One British newspaper journalist reported immediately after Dennis Kayamba’s original accusation, without any evidence, that the late Canon Hunter ‘was fatally poisoned’. The same journalist later published the names of three so-called ‘poisons’ found in Hunter’s blood samples as analysed in South Africa. These turned out to be prescription drugs. This irresponsible reporting, including attempts to suggest that others had been poisoned too, led to a frenzy of accusation amongst conservative religious websites and African newspapers, all of which took the journalist’s articles as fact.

Reports about these events as they occurred were covered by us at the time and can be found on our website at:
www.anglican-information-archive.org

The tragic false accusations, backed up by scurrilous press reports pillorying an innocent victim, have at last been addressed by the court judgement released today. The judge cited the following as reasons for Mondoma’s acquittal:

· The prosecution failed to provide true evidence that Mondoma murdered Canon Hunter
· The police officers’ statement given to the court in the early days of the case lacked substance and was based solely on circumstantial evidence (i.e. Dennis Kayamba’s word alone)
· The pathologist’s report and claimed evidence of ‘poisons’ in Hunter’s blood in fact showed medicaments that were prescribed for Hunter by the local St Anne’s Hospital at his request
· Other forms of evidence (such as ‘Mondoma was in possession of Hunter’s house keys’, as incidentally was Dennis Kayamba) were pure speculation without support

The acquittal means that Leonard Mondoma now walks as a free man and the late Bernard Mlota has his name cleared for posterity.

So ends a disgraceful saga stoked up in particular by one British journalist and enthusiastically followed by conservative websites. It’s a sad world for small people but justice has prevailed – at a high price.

Postscript: Following Mondoma’s acquittal it is reported that crowds danced and sang him back to his home in celebration!

........END.......

Want to have your say? Comment below or
visit our companion blogsite: http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

The Covenant: Antarctic Study Guide

A happy Macaroni in a bridal veil

From the Office of the Primate of Antarctica

First, may I congratulate the Executive Archdeacon on the birth of his most recent chick: a small, perfectly formed and timely book entitled The Anglican Covenant: how we can make it work for us (Chilly Publishing, 2010).

I am also delighted to say that it was deep blessing for the whole Province and for me personally to be able to confirm some thirteen thousand young albatross at the Mission of the Archangel Gabriel, Disappointment Island, our most recent mission church plant.  At this rate of growth we will soon be entitled to an additional place on the ACC.

Discussion with the Diocese of Christchurch over territorial jurisdiction have been entirely cordial, despite media reports.  There has definitely been no question of any breach of any moratoria.

=========================================

To all members of the Church of Antarctica.

It has been decided by the Provincial Synod of Antarctica that the proposed Anglican Covenant shall be sent to all members of the Church for study and comment.


Please note: There is no opportunity to amend the Covenant.


The Anglican Covenant has been sent to each Province to be accepted according to the decision making mechanisms in each Province. In the case of Antartica the Covenant has been deemed 'Section 8 business'.  This means that it must be sent to all congregations for comment and their comments will be weighed carefully and prayerfully.  The final decision will be made by the Provincial Synod's Executive Committee - currently (following the recent resignation of Revds. Chillblain and Pinnacle) comprising the Executive Archdeacon, The Primate and the Primate's Chaplain.


Therefore you are asked to give the Covenant many hours of prayer, study and considered reflection, and to submit your views in full-winter-length papers, to support the Executive Committee's decision.


The closing date for submissions is St Wolfgang's Day, 2011.

==========================================
Study Questions


1. General questions

• Why?
• What difference will it make to my parish or deanery?
• How much will it cost?  [some observations on cost]

2. We are a united church

• How will the Covenant, with its capacity to excluded a member adjudged to have acted in ways 'incompatible with the Covenant', help unity?
• Who will say what constitutes 'unity'?

3. We are a holy church

• How will the Covenant serve the sanctity of the church?
• How will contractual relationships (in place of 'bonds of affection') help churches evoke its holiness in practice?

4. We are a catholic church

• Will the Covenant tend to a wider catholicism or is it likely to lead to a narrower church?
• What will be the impact on existing ecumenical relationships of restating the basis of Anglicanism in revised terms?

5. We are an apostolic church

• It what ways will the Covenant enable the church to fulfill its mission to all the world?
• If we have to go out, how long will we be?

6. We are a biblical church

• It may be argued that the archetypal covenant is that of the 10 commandments in which God spoke from the mountaintop and the people did (or should have done) what they were told. Compare.

Or: 

• Scripture gives us examples of successive covenants culminating in God's covenant with us through Jesus Christ. Each covenant was necessary because the people hadn't done what were told. Discuss.

Note: attempt only one of these questions. Under no circumstances attempt both.

7. We are an episcopal church

• To what degree will central, global, decision making strengthen the authority of bishops?
• Once a central decision has been made on a particular issue, how may any bishop - or province - be able to re-open it?

For example: 
As is well known, in our own Province the blessing of the partnership between Emperor and Macaroni penguins was frowned on, formally condemned in 1961, permitted in 1987 and the official liturgy was finally authorized ten years later in 1997. Our debates were often rancorous and the scars they have left behind are still painful for many. Nonetheless, in the end, it was our prayerful honesty with one another which led us forward together in the discovery of God's greater truth.  The Church of the Southern Cone undertook a similar conversation and came to a different conclusion. They do not accept such relationships as acceptable before God.  

• How might this issue now be addressed under the Covenant?

=========================


May God bless you all in your discussion and debate on this issue.


+++ Primate of Antarctica


The Province of the True South

=========================================================

Incompatible with the Covenant ~ One ~ Two ~ Three ~ Four

=========================================================

Another questionable Court of Confirmation - renewed claims of rape by an episcopal candidate – Diocese of Northern Malawi

Bishop Albert Chama, acting Dean of the Central African Province

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reports controversy and unrest in the Northern Malawi diocese. Provincial Bishops at a Court of Confirmation, chaired by acting Dean Bishop Albert Chama, have managed to declare that the latest Bishop–elect, Father Fanwell Magangani, is sound of faith and worthy of consecration.

This comes despite strong accusations made against him by Hilda Chirwa who alleged that six years ago Magangani raped her and then provided her with money for an abortion.

In a Court of Confirmation held in St Peter’s Church, Lilongwe, Diocese of Lake Malawi (held outside the Diocese of Northern Malawi to avoid any protestors) Magangani was cleared by the Provincial Bishops of rape charges.

The Malawi Daily Times 9th September reports that Hilda Chirwa faced ‘a barrage of questions hurled at her accusing her of hiding information’. The prospect and potential embarrassment of a second election nullified by rape allegations against the candidate appears to have galvanised the Provincial Bishops into determination to ensure that Magangani was confirmed.

The Malawi Daily Times in the same report filed that ‘at the Court of Confirmation, presided over by acting Dean Bishop Albert Chama, Ms Chirwa faced eight intimidating primates’. “Fr Magangani raped me, I screamed but there was no help”, she said. “Later I missed my periods and I told him. When I did he told me to go for an abortion”, testified Chirwa. This happened, she told the Court, when she was working for St Agnes Guild and at St Peter’s Cathedral in Likoma where Magangani had served as a priest. “When I arrived they arranged for a room for me to sleep in the priest’s house. At night he came and raped me.” She also said that Magangani gave her 5000 Kwacha to procure an abortion in May 2004.

Angry people in Northern Malawi in Nkata Bay are reported to have sealed off the offices of St George’s Parish where Fr Hannock Utongawakang’oma is a supporter of Fanwell Magangani. During Sunday service (12th September) worshippers at the parish barred the reading of the confirmation.

According to St George’s parish lay leader, Vincent Matengeni, as reported by Zodiak Online, who attended Magangani’s confirmation, ‘procedures to reach the decision have been flouted adding that double standards have been applied to the whole process’. ‘The previously elected Bishop Father Leslie Mtekateka was rejected for similar reasons of alleged immorality, he wondered why him and not Mangangani’?

Overall it is true to say that of the three recent elections of Brighton Malasa in Upper Shire Diocese, Francis Kaulanda in Lake Malawi and now Fanwell Magangani in Northern Malawi, none of them have had the full confidence of their priests and people. In each case strong objections of a serious nature have been submitted and subsequently overruled by Courts of Confirmation, without explanation.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION comments: The fact that two successive candidates for Bishop of Northern Malawi have been accused of rape is particularly disturbing. Apart from announcing that they have confirmed Fanwell Magangani the Provincial Bishops have again failed to clarify how or why they have reached their conclusions and why his case has had a different outcome to that of Leslie Mtekateka.

It is wrong that a new Bishop be consecrated under such a cloud of allegations. It is essential for the good name and credibility of the Anglican Church in Central Africa that the Provincial Bishops explain publically how and why they consider that they are able to do so with integrity. It is insufficient simply to pronounce that they wish to accept Manangani.

Acting Dean Albert Chama intends to become Archbishop of the Province after Fr Magangani’s consecration. He should now issue a satisfactory public explanation concerning these latest events, lest his own credibility and candidacy be at stake.

……….END……..

Want to have your say?

Comment below or
visit our companion blogsite:

http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

Central African and South African Bishops speak out against Anglican Church of North American (ACNA) domination

Now listen here, I'm in charge of Africa!

'Archbishop' Robert Duncan of ACNA makes his position clear to Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION reports: Some good news at last of courageous action on the part of the Bishops of the Central African Anglican Province.

This follows on last week’s meeting in Entebbe, Uganda, of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), the second all Africa Bishops’ Conference*.

A widely leaked letter from the Provinces of Central Africa and South Africa has bravely resisted the schismatic tendencies encouraged at the Conference by breakaway Anglican groups in the United States for a disassociation with the official American Episcopal Church (TEC).

The letter reads: ‘We are mindful that the Anglican Communion is under severe strain because of certain actions taken by the Episcopal Church (TEC)…we are therefore sympathetic to the deep hurt and pain and indeed anger that some Province in Africa have expressed … [but] we do not support ACNA’s (the Anglican Church of North America, a schismatic breakaway grouping in dubious relationship with some Provinces) position for legitimacy through the elimination of TEC.’

‘The majority of African Provinces at this Conference (the Conference was dominated numerically by Nigeria and Uganda) are being ambushed … we have come to the Conference to share ideas on critical issues in the development of our continent and provide spiritual leadership for our people … CAPA must not be sued as a pawn in battles it is not party to.’

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION observes that the Central African Bishops have stood up to what was an underlying intimidatory environment in Entebbe where dissident American factions sought to export their North American wars and fight them in proxy form on African soil.

The letter represents a significant and bold step that could at last result in a re-emergence of some common sense where the Anglican tradition of dialogue between Provinces reasserts itself in the whole Anglican Communion. This is a welcome development.

The Central and South African letter appeals for traditional communion and conversation amongst Anglicans. This instead of the exported mutual anathematising that has been characteristic of the so-called Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).

Unmistakably the ACNA agenda is for the breakup of the Anglican Communion and the surreptitious gathering up of African Provinces under their (the ACNA’s)effective oversight and control. This is neither an attractive nor a Christian project and it is certainly not Anglican.

ANGLICAN-INFORMATION says: Thank God some Africans have at last had the courage to stand up to what is effectively a new imperialism conducted by opportunist and schismatic Americans.

*For a general overview of the Conference see an article by Jan Butter, Anglican Communion Office, Director of Communications: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2010/8/29/ACNS4729

The full text of the letter thanks to: Episcopal Café and The Lead

See: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/an_end_to_the_myth_of_a_monoli.html#more

We are gathered here for the All Africa Bishops Conference, Entebbe, Uganda 23 -29 August 2010; at a critical time in the life of the Anglican Church in Africa and the wider Anglican Communion. We hold dear the gift of the Anglican Communion and its Institutions with the Archbishop of Canterbury as our head. We seek to preserve its traditions.

We are grateful to God for the theme of this Conference: Securing the Future: Unlocking our Potential (Hebrew 12: 1-2). The purpose of which is to be pro-active in addressing the ills that beset Africa such as poverty, wars, bad governance, HIV and AIDS, and, environmental issues. The focus of this Conference is therefore about making the Anglican Church in Africa relevant in this context.

We are mindful that the Anglican Communion is under severe strain because of certain actions taken by the Episcopal Church, TEC by their ordination of openly gay bishops.

TEC’s recent action of consecrating an openly lesbian person as a bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles against a moratorium in the Communion of consecrating openly gay bishops reflected a gross insensitivity to the feelings of the rest of the Communion.

We are therefore sympathetic to the deep hurt and pain and indeed anger that some Provinces in Africa have expressed. Notwithstanding, the impression being created at the Conference that all Provinces in Africa are of one mind to abandon our relationship with TEC is wrong. Painful as the action is it should not become the presenting issue to lead to the break- up of our legacy and this gift of God- the world wide Anglican Communion.

We recognize that all the Provinces and dioceses in Africa do not condone TEC’s action. However, Provinces differ in their relationships with TEC in light of their actions. Some Provinces continue to value their historical partnerships with TEC and its organs. To discard these relationships would be tantamount to abandoning our call of the gospel to struggle with each other’s failure as we journey with Christ in the spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation as we were passionately reminded by the President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, of the virtue of tolerance and to live with our rich diversity.

In pursuit of its objective to form a new “province” in North America, ACNA has been successful in bringing together most of the splinter groups within the Anglican tradition.

We recognize that the common factor that holds all the coalition partners of ACNA is TEC. We do not support ACNA’s position for legitimacy through the elimination of TEC.

Three of the Instruments of Unity have already stated their position on the matter and we believe they represent the mind of the vast majority of the Communion including CAPA.

The majority of the African Provinces at this Conference are being ambushed by an agenda that is contrary to the beliefs and practices of our various Provinces. We have come to this Conference to share ideas on critical issues in the development of our continent and provide spiritual and moral leadership for our people.

Any thought of abandoning our Communion with any member of the body will hurt; for when one part of the body is injured the whole suffers. CAPA must not be used as a pawn in battles it is not party too. CAPA as you all know is not an organ of the Anglican Communion but a fellowship of Provinces of Africa. Therefore, issues of doctrine are better addressed as it has always been by individual provinces.

………..END……….

Want to have your say?

Comment below or visit

our companion blogsite: http://anglican-information.blogspot.com

Incompatible with the Covenant 4

An early shrine with the locally popular dedication 'To Our Lady of the Vacant Spaces', Deception Island. This is a possible site for the new Cathedral, construction of which has yet to begin.

=========================================================

Incompatible with the Covenant ~ One ~ Two ~ Three ~ Four

=========================================================

Briefing Paper for the Primate of the Province of Antarctica, Archbishop of Deception

Prepared by PB

Private and Confidential

======================================================

The adoption of the Covenant will mean that 'bonds of affection' will be replaced by covenanted bonds.

The Covenant is one part of more extensive change in the Communion in which power will be reallocated and the existing structures of the Communion will continue to be reformed. It is far from clear what the new arrangement will look like - nor what the place of the True South Churches will be in the new dispensation.

My brief was to examine what 'incompatible with the Covenant' (§§ 4.2.6, 4.2.7) might mean in the context of (a) possible adoption of the Anglican Covenant, (b) revised Anglican structures and (c) the shared conviction of the Church of the Antarctic that

the Church of England is (a) complicit in church blessings of same-sex marriage and (b) dishonest in that the highest levels of the Church deliberately fail to acknowledge and/or regulate the reality on the ground. (previously reported here)

1) The quality of Covenanted Communion

(The Introduction is not considered in this paper because of its uncertain status. See reflections here.)

a) as verb

To covenant is a matter of 'affirmations and commitments' (Preamble). It is to be moving 'into a more fully developed communion life' (§2.1.2) in which we are called to 'pursue all things that make for peace and build up our common life' (§3.1.1; see also, §4.1.1). It is done cheerfully (Declaration).

The basic consequence of signing is:

In adopting the Covenant for itself, each Church recognises in the preceding sections a statement of faith, mission and interdependence of life which is consistent with its own life and with the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith as it has received them. It recognises these elements as foundational for the life of the Anglican Communion and therefore for the relationships among the covenanting Churches. (§4.1.2)

b) our present communion

Communion lies in: membership of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under one God (§1.1.1). Within that wide ocean, Anglicans to share a particular current of common historic inheritance in the articulation and expression of faith and church order (§1.1.2-1.1.8). [And/Or] our unity lies in our 'participation in Baptism and Eucharist' (§3.1.1).

Communion is purposeful: we are a communion in order to declare and enact God's sovereignty and redemption (§2.1.1). Thankful for what we have received we are also repentant at our falling-short (§2.1.2-3). We are a missionary church engaged with Christ in 'establishing Christ's reign.' (§2.1.4) - and ecumenical in both senses (§2.1.5).

Communion is a fact: we are 'a world-wide family of interdependent churches' (§2.1.4), a 'Communion of Churches' (§3.1.2; also §4.1.1).

c) the means of communion

Communion is retained and enacted through the Instruments of Communion, mutual loyalty and the wise advice of bishops in council (§§3.1.2, 3.1.4). Bishops locally embody unity, facing towards both the global and the local church, exercising that episcopacy personally, collegially within the eucharistic community (§3.1.3).

In particular: the Instruments of Communion are important in assisting our 'discernment, articulation and exercise of our shared faith and common life and mission.' Indeed, 'Each Instrument may initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches.' (§3.1.4)

Our communion together is complex and multi-layered and the Instruments 'express' 'co-operative service in the life of the communion.' (§3.1.4).

d) our present differences

We are drawn from “every nation, tribe, people and language” (Rev 7.9) (Preamble; 2.1.1) and each Church is autonomous (§§3.1.2, 3.2.1, 4.1.3).

Covenanting together and being a member of the Instruments of Communion are not inherently the same (§4.1.5, 4.3.1).

e) disCovenanting

Any signatory may leave voluntarily, but there may be consequences (§4.3).

2) The commitments of Covenanting

Approximately half of the Covenant text expresses the commitments which signatories accept as they sign.

a) commitment to continue as at present

§1.2.1 - §1.2.6 commits each Church to continue its faithful existence with a proper balance of tradition and renewal, conservatism and prophecy, similarly §2.2.1 - §2.2.5 commits each Church to continue its evangelization and mission.

§3.2.2 restates the continuing nub of the problem. Churches, as now, commit themselves:

to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole.

b) commitment to change

Signatories commit themselves to remain in communion 'in accordance with existing canonical disciplines' [meaning and implication uncertain to me] towards ecumenical unity, whilst also seeking what is new within Christian truth (§§2.1.7, 2.1.8).

The manner in which autonomy and mutual responsibility are to be expressed (§§3.2.3-3.2.7) is the core of the Covenant. Some statements reiterate existing presuppositions (even if honoured in the breach) whilst others are new.

Differences should be explored with shared 'prayer, study and debate' marked by 'openness' and 'patience' and innovations tested by 'shared discernment' (§3.2.3). The goal is to find 'a shared mind' which will be based on received faith and canon law and which will be found through 'wide consultation' with other Churches and with the Instruments of Communion [as though the Instruments were additional to and distinct from the Churches] (§3.2.4).

On anything potentially threatening to the unity of the Communion Churches are to act with 'diligence, care and caution' (§3.2.5). Where such circumspection fails and conflict ensues Churches are to engaged in structured mediation (§3.2.6). At all times the goal is the 'highest degree of communion possible.' (§3.2.7).

Finally, the biggest changes are outlined in §4.2 on maintaining the Covenant and resolving disputes.

§4.2.1 replaces the 'bonds of affection' with the bonds of the covenant-contract. [The relationship with membership of the ACC as constitutional membership of the Communion is not addressed here.]

In §4.2.2 responsibility for monitoring the working of the Covenant (and thus the Communion) is accorded to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (SCAC), described as 'responsible to' the ACC and Primates' Meeting, which may draw on other assistance as it requires.

§4.2.3 refers churches back to §3.2. When goodwill and mediation fail and a 'shared mind' has not been attained the matter is referred back to the SCAC. It shall also seek agreement, seeking help for elsewhere as appropriate and, if it wishes, seeking advice from the ACC and Primates' Meeting.

§4.2.5 enables the SCAC to request a deferral of a contested action (or, presumably, decision). However,

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.

By §4.2.6 The SCAC, on advice from the ACC and Primates' Meeting, may declare that an action or decision 'is or would be "incompatible with the Covenant".' (inverted commas in original) [note: it is not the Church that is declared incompatible].

Thereafter (§4.2.7) 'relational consequences' may follow. The SCAC may recommend certain consequences either to Churches or to Instruments of Communion [apparently not to both groups]. It is up to those Churches or Instruments of Communion to take such action as they see fit.

§4.2.8 & §4.2.9 are procedural clauses. §4.2.8 limits who on the SCAC may adjudge incompatibility with the Covenant [of questionable legality] and §4.2.9 sets up an office in each Church responsible for Covenant matters [under Archdeacon Penguin in our case].

3) Critique of Covenanted Communion

The author has made extensive and sustain criticisms of the Covenant and its predecessors (see here) Re-reading has not altered his views but has, if anything, suggested further layers of difficulty.

However the key question for this briefing paper is:

What would constitute 'incompatible with the Covenant'?

This narrower question has no easy answer. No specific grounds for incompatibility are spelled out in the Covenant itself. Probable incompatibility would arise where:

• A Church refuses to defer a controversial action (§4.2.5)
• A Church has not respected the constitutional autonomy of another Church in the Communion (§3.2.2) [The offended Church does not appear to be limited to those Churches which have themselves signed the Covenant.]
• A Church has acted secretly and without proper prayer and reflection (§3.2.3), recklessly, precipitately or in a manner careless of its impact on others (§3.2.5) and/or without wide consultation (§3.2.4).
• A Church refuses to engage in mediation (§3.2.6)

Incompatibility is determined when the SCAC, on advice from the ACC and Primates' Meeting, says there is incompatibility.

Therefore the issue dissolves into one of politics: if there is a sufficient majority (and no special majorities have been suggested in public) than an action or decision may be judged incompatible with the Covenant - and that may or may not be followed by action depending on the consequent decisions of Instruments of Communion and other member Churches.

Conversely, by §4.2.5, action against a Church may be taken before there has been a formal finding of incompatibility. Recent actions (here 'recent developments in the Communion') against TEC and possibly other Churches by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Secretary suggest that the SCAC do not need to assent to, or even be consulted on, such action.

The presence of the Covenant will in some ways compound the political process:

• The Covenant is largely procedural - procedures used to sustain unity can be (will be) the procedures used to challenge and disrupt unity.
• Clarifying (albeit insufficiently) some of the process by which sanctions may be applied to errant or offending churches also identifies the locations where those decisions are made. The politics to control those locations will be intensified. The resilience of the Communion stemming from its distributed centres of power and authority is reduced to the extent that decision making is centralised: mechanisms intended to unify the Communion will make it easier to split the Communion.
• Conversely the autonomy of member churches means (as is the case now) that some Churches may decide to implement recommended sanctions and others not. The likely consequences are (a) that the Instruments of Communion, not Churches, are much more likely to be asked to impose sanctions, or (b) that the threshold for applying sanctions is almost complete unanimity of member Churches and thus almost unattainable, or (c) autonomous Churches make their own different decisions and the covenanted communion crumbles.

The Covenant is generalised and key concepts are vague. This is deliberate and necessary in order that the Covenant be accepted by as many Churches as possible. However it opens the door to considerable refinement and elaboration once the Covenant is adopted. This will mean, first, that the direction of travel will be towards ever more law-like governance of the Communion and second that those asked to draw up such statements will be disproportionately influential.

Most fundamentally, what does 'a shared mind' mean? Who decides what's shared? By what mechanism is a shared mind determined - by a majority vote of the Primates, by three-quarters of the ACC, by the Archbishop of Canterbury and General Secretary acting in concert? In the context of disagreement and self-evident lack of shared mind this question is pivotal.

Finally, the Covenant is almost wholly focused on retaining unity by tipping the balance of relationships between Provinces towards greater central co-ordination. In so doing it vindicates the charge of those who accuse the Anglican Church of making unity a greater value than truth or justice. Serious, Communion-splitting disputes, invariably entail the promotion of (perceived) truth over unity. The Covenant may enable the Communion to take retrospective action against participants in the current dispute; it will not protect it against the next one.

Conclusion

What is 'incompatible with the Covenant' is (a) what key people say is incompatible or (b) what a sufficient vote says is incompatible.

It is not the Covenant alone but the combination of the Covenant with the strengthened SCAC and the (so far unspecified) future changes to the ACC's committee structure (reported here: 'General Secretary's Report') which is critical.

Recommendations

1. That Archdeacon Penguin, in his capacity as Covenant Link Penguin, keep a careful record of all reported statements and formal documents which detail, explain, modulate or clarify the meaning of words, concepts and procedures of the Covenant - they will steadily accumulate into persuasive case law.
2. That the Province of Antarctica adopt a political approach to the Church of England's apparent lack of honesty concerning same-sex relationships within the Church.
3. That more of our Penguins be trained and enabled to participate in the decision making nodes of the Anglican Communion and its regional bodies with a clear mission of implementing the decisions and programme of the Province of Antarctica. We will need more lawyers.

It is time that the voice of the True South Anglican Church is heard all the way from Deception to Lambeth Palace.

======================================================

Donations to the Archbishop's Appeal to build and endow a beautiful Cathedral on Deception Island may be made through PayPenguin or by cash or fishing vouchers. We are very grateful to our ecumenical partners for their offers of help and other suggestions.

The Cathedral will be dedicated to Saints Jude and Thomas More.

=========================================================

Incompatible with the Covenant ~ One ~ Two ~ Three ~ Four

=========================================================