The Covenant in (some) other Provinces

Wales

Archbishop Barry Morgan

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

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

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

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

Scotland

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

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

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

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

The US

At the last general Convention, 2009

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

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

Ecumenically

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

IDAHO - May 17

I've been wondering whether to give up blogging - I have become very busy with the East Area Asylum Seekers Support Group, known much more easily as Common Ground after it's premises. (I'm doing much more of the business side of things there, but not its website.)

I was further encouraged to give up by the latest offerings from the Church of England's Office of Cheapening Spirituality in the Name of Relevance:

• Church publishes swine flu prayers
• Church uploads 'crammer's prayer' as exam period looms

And I'm afraid I've got bored with the Covenant and matters Anglican (not least because I'm now much more peripheral the the CofE). I have made a commitment to reflect on the Covenant so I will do so when the ACC has pronounced. So far as I can see the Covenant will arrive when it will make little or no difference which, I suppose, is the second to least bad outcome.

On the other hand there's a follow up to an earlier story about Scott Rennie. The FOCAs are trying to make a campaign issue of his ministry, leaping on the issue which Church of Scotland conservatives were perfectly capable of stoking up without any help.

Last night, an organisation called The Fellowship of Confessing Churches announced that it had collected a petition of 5,000 signatures to “defend Christian Orthodoxy”, and called on the Kirk to refuse to “condone homosexual practice in general and among its leaders in particular”.

...

The Rev Rennie said that the process of coming to terms with his sexuality had been painful. “As a young man growing up in a conservative church, it felt impossible to deal with issues around my own sexuality.

“It did not feel like a safe environment, and certainly not one in which I could have found support and understanding. So, I came to believe that I had to ignore it and do what I thought was the right thing at the time - live a heterosexual life.

“At school, I witnessed first-hand homophobic bullying, and the menace that anyone who even seemed gay was subjected to. It was not a pretty sight, and I wasn't brave enough to risk facing the bullies.”

He said the row over his appointment had left him feeling strong, but battered by speculation about his private life. He was also deeply moved by hundreds of messages of support.

“Although the present discussion centres around my own response to God's call, all the correspondence over the last few months has reminded me that there is a large body of people, like me, in a similar situation, in the Kirk,” the Rev Rennie said.

And, in Ireland, there's a storm in a "celebrate diversity" teacup.

The Sunday morning Holy Communion service, to be held on May 10 at St Patrick's Cathedral in Armagh, was to involve prayers said by representatives of the Orange Order, Royal Black Preceptory, Freemasons and GAA.

But it was the involvement of Changing Attitude, a group which lobbies for the full involvement of gay and lesbian people in church life, which has led to the Loyal Orders' angry withdrawal and the subsequent decision not to go ahead with the event as it had been planned.

The Loyal Orders are withdrawing because (a) they weren't consulted, (b) they didn't want to get drawn into an internal Anglican dispute (which is wise), and (c)

"It is the view of the Loyal Orange Institution that any official representation by it at this service would contradict the principles and beliefs that we hold and would in particular lend credence to theological beliefs contrary to that of biblical Protestantism,"

Details of IDAHO (International Day Against Homophobia) services in Ireland on May 17, organized by Changing Attitude Ireland, are here.

So I'll continue for a while, at least until too many things overwhelm me.


.

Synod, suffering and glory

Bishop Michael Jackson

The Bishop of Clogher, the Rt Revd Dr Michael Jackson's Presidential Address to Clogher Diocesan Synod 2008





(Bishop Jackson's talk at last year's MCU conference 'Anglicanism, blessing or curse - the Irish experience' is here.)





Extracts:

Synodical life generally is fundamental to the life of the Church of
Ireland in a way which is consultative, progressive, proactive and courageous.
When, as indeed we experience for ourselves, the synodical principle is used to
good effect, it is a tremendous force for cohesion, friendship, solidarity and
good sense focused on the future. ... But I also have to say this: when,
however, the synodical principle is distorted by any wilful pushing of sectional
agendas, by the opportunistic defiance of the spirit of openness, and the
downright human discourtesy of content, we are, ladies and gentlemen Members of
Synod, in a different world. And we want to stay away from that different
world.
...
The Statement and Vision [of the Bishops of the Church of Ireland] break down into three parts: - Worship and Spiritual Growth- Unity and Dialogue- Living God’s Kingdom and Serving the World ... The wider stated purpose is one of developing growing – that is, actively changing, not static or resisting – communities of faith where the Kingdom of God is discerned, experienced, shared and made known. Maybe I have missed something, but did Jesus Christ not come, was Jesus Christ not designedly sent by the Father to bring in the Kingdom of God, to give to the human body and soul a healing and an enlivening touch of divine reality?
...

of John14:6: 'I am the way, the truth and the life'. ... The fundamental
point made by Jesus is that it is not possible to bypass either (a) this way of
suffering or (b) the person of Jesus Christ who is the earthly embodiment in
human form of God.
...
There are, of course, from earliest days many reasons for disunity and it
is from these early days of the first five centuries that we derive the language
of division and malfunction among Christians. I mean words such as: heretical,
schismatic, heterodoxy over against orthodoxy, and many other technical terms
which had largely passed into the mists of history. Words like these are again
doing the rounds. They are used rather loosely, rather too readily, in my
opinion, and with a degree of superficiality and destructiveness probably not
even recognized by those who give them voice but they corrode the morale, the
trust and the loyalty of church members.
...
Any of us committed to or involved in this field of church life realize
that unity in Christ is not an ‘add-on’ but is an urgent imperative embedded in
being a Christian. At the same time, we sense that dialogue is essential.
...
This linking of suffering and glory is not ... something confined to the
pages of Holy Scripture. It is written deep in the hearts of everyone here and
of everyone in the parishes which we represent. Whether it be a fireside chair
once occupied but now no longer; whether it be a place at the kitchen table once
buzzing with eager conversation, but now no longer; whether it be someone with
whom we worked all our lives, no longer now sharing with us a few words in the
evening before we both head for home – in our own individual lives, one by one,
we know both the suffering and the glory. And this is precisely why the human
experience of Jesus Christ, the child of God and the child of Bethlehem, is so
precious and so powerful for us. It connects heaven and earth. It holds together
life and death. It gives voice to both glory and suffering. And it does so
because, under God, it unites cross and resurrection. And this is why we, in our
day, must respond to that call to follow, and in following, to be sent where we
never expected to have to go – in service and in mission to individuals like
ourselves to whom we belong in community.