For and against the Covenant

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

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

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

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

More here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celtic cross

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covenant defeated in Christchurch

From Lawrence Kimberley, No Anglican Covenant Convener in New Zealand

Part of Christchurch Cathedral after the earthquake
more pictures here.

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

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

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

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

Update: 
From Bosco Peters' blog:

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

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

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

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

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

Auckland adds a No to the Covenant

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

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

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


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

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

That this Te Runanganui,
1. noting that the General Synod/te Hinota Whanui has approved in principle Sections 1-3 of the proposed Anglican Covenant, and asked Episcopal Units to study the proposed Covenant and respond to its 2012 Session, resolves as follows:

(a) Sections 1 & 2 of the proposed Anglican Covenant may be considered to be a useful starting point for consideration of our Anglican understanding of the Church of Christ
(b) Section 3 of the proposed Covenant contains an acceptable description of the basis for relationships between the churches of the Anglican Communion, and suggests a series of commitments which provide a useful framework within which churches of the Communion could discuss differences between them.
(c) Clause 4.2 of the proposed Covenant contains provisions which are contrary to our understanding of Anglican ecclesiology, to our understanding of the way of Christ, and to justice, and is unacceptable to this Runanganui.

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

3. Te Runanganui resolves:

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

(i) If it rejects the proposed Covenant in part or as a whole, to commit itself by Standing Resolution to following processes similar to those set out in Section 3 of the proposed Covenant if another church of the Communion raises concerns about actions this Church takes or considers taking.
(ii) To request its representatives to the Anglican Consultative Council to bring a motion to the 2012 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council to affirm that full membership of the Anglican Communion is not conditional on adoption of the proposed Covenant.

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

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

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

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

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

Pro- and Anti- Covenant in Christchurch

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

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




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

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

White collar crime in New Zealand

st matthew-in-the-city, Aukland, petition

 

The Wardens, Vestry and Parishioners of St Matthew-in-the-City ask you to consider:

For many centuries gay and lesbian Christians have served the Anglican Church in positions of leadership. Most though have hidden their sexual orientation. In recent times however as Western society has become more accepting of difference many gay and lesbian Christians no longer wish to hide their orientation or their relationships. There are now a number of countries that provide sacred and legal opportunities for couples to commit themselves to each other for the long-term.

In 2004 the US Episcopal Church ordained as a bishop a priest in a same-sex relationship. Due to conservative opposition the Archbishop of Canterbury asked the American church and rest of the Anglican Communion to not ordain anyone bishop who was in a same-sex relationship until the entire Communion could find agreement.

As the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to impose such a moratorium on another bishop or jurisdiction it had to be complied with voluntarily. Initially it was. Vigorous debate ensued. Responding to these disputes many countries declared a state of impaired communion with the American Church. This was not surprising as most of those jurisdictions were in one of the 46 British Commonwealth countries that still criminalize same-sex relationships. In 2009 the Episcopal Church voted to resume ordaining as bishops candidates in committed same-sex relationships.

...

'the Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to impose such a moratorium' nor in all the history of the Anglican Communion has he ever had. That lack of central authority - and centralised power - had been seen as a strength on the Communion. Because of it different Communions in different cultures could rub along nicely. There were frequent disagreements and some of these on occasions these became destabilising. Yet at the same time there was a huge amount of communication across differences, plenty of mutual listening, learning and respect. Different culture and spiritual traditions may all enrich the whole.

But the desire for centralised authority and power stems from the perception that difference is the problem and narrower conformity is the answer. Hence the Covenant.

The Covenant is designed (a) to grant the Archbishop authority over the whole Communion (albeit through his overlapping roles in the Communion's consultative structures rather than directly) and (b) to reduce the degree of difference between Churches - and to do so at the bidding of the loudest and most implacable voices.

I don't doubt that the the war over the nature of the church and the substance of its teaching (not least on issues of sexuality) has caused a lot of anger, pain and distress. The answer is not to be found in greater uniformity - the answer is to be found in greater comprehension (in the older Anglican sense) and deeper listening to the varieties of the one Spirit.

And, when I looked, I saw 'God, New Zealand' had recently signed the petition.

Constitutional and common sense from New Zealand

Dr Tony Fitchett - a member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion - has told New Zealand's General Synod that Section 4.2 of the Covenant (here):

“ ... contains provisions that are punitive, controlling, and completely un-Anglican, and reflect the movement towards centralized, Curia-like control that was rejected by the Lambeth conference… over a century ago…”

He's happy about the first three sections: “mother’s milk – good for us all.”

Furthermore, as has been evident from the beginning, the pressure to get a Covenant has exceeded the need for it:

He said there’d long been pressure for an instant decision.

At the last ACC meeting, for example, “much was said about the need for this to happen immediately: that even delay in adoption, let alone rejection of it would lead to the breakup of the Communion.

“Well,” said Dr Fitchett, “somehow the Communion seems to have survived for another year, in a way no more broken than in the previous five years…”

The conviction in some quarters (though without any evidence) that the Covenant is the only way to avoid schism, has resulted in unprecedented secrecy. (As far as anyone out of the loop can tell.) As a consequence there has been, in those same quarters, a desire to circumvent discussion and short-circuit the ordinary decision making processes of the Provinces and Churches. This is bad enough in itself.

But if the Covenant is born in secret and silence and the avoidance of participatory decision making then it will most probably be put into practice in the same way. The 'Curia-like control' will operate, mafia-like, out of sight of most members of the Church.

Tony Fitchett also points out that the Covenant as it stands will give the SCAC powers to over-ride the ACC's structures:

“Though the language used has been moderated, and has become fuzzier in successive drafts, the general thrust of Section 4.2 remains as it began: that a Communion-wide body – now the Standing Committee rather than the Primates – can discipline a Province and recommend its exclusion from Communion structures.

“It can also recommend suspension while those disciplinary processes are
being worked through.

“Further, a new Clause 4.2.8 excludes all provinces which have not adopted the Covenant from decision-making about exclusion of provinces.

“This means that in the ACC, the only constitutional Instrument of Communion, the proposed Covenant purports to over-ride the ACC’s constitutional provisions about decision making – so that only those Provinces that have adopted the proposed Covenant are involved in the decisions regarding exclusion.

“My belief is that this Clause, which has not been previously put forward for discussion, is ultra vires, as well as being completely unjust, and is enough on its own to justify rejecting the proposed Covenant.”

Dr Fitchett's comments mean that 3 of the 15 elected members of the SCAC have publicly expressed their opposition to the Covenant as now drafted. Bishop Mouneer Anis (who resigned) and Bishop Henry Orombi (who doesn't attend) reject the Covenant on the grounds that the Primates collectively should be the locus over faith and order in the Communion. It's hard to see TEC's Presiding Bishop voting for it given the commitment to expel TEC through the mechanisms that the Covenant provides.

Where do the rest of the members stand?

All here.


The synod agreed to discuss the Covenant over 2 years and make a decision at the General Synod in 2012. Gisborne Herald report

In the meantime,

legal opinions will be sought on a controversial part of section 4 of the Covenant – regarding participation in the decision-making of the Communion Standing Committee (clause 4.2.8). (here)