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.

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.

An update from Scotland

Hugh Magee, the No Anglican Covenant Co-ordinator in Scotland, sent this summary of the progress, or otherwise, of the Covenant in Scotland.  It comes with the caveat "subject to verification" - see below.

If you are at all familiar with the Scottish Episcopal Church, you will know that we have seven dioceses in this Province: Aberdeen, Argyll, Brechin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Moray and St. Andrews.  At this stage, all but the first two of these diocese have held their Synods and all have rejected the Covenant, and a prevailing view (though perhaps not the only one) is that Aberdeen and Argyll will follow suit.

The only fly in the ointment at this stage is the possibility that the Provincial Synod will be asked to make assent to the Covenant a canonical matter, in which case the normal two-year ratification process would be set in motion (assuming such a canon were initially accepted).  At this stage, it seems more credible to assume that the Covenant is dead in the water in Scotland.

Bear in mind that the Scottish Episcopal Church has close historical and liturgical ties with the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and is perhaps therefore predisposed to be supportive of its American counterpart, which is seen as a presumed culprit in the present debate.  After all, it could be argued that the Anglican Communion itself was born in Aberdeen in 1784, with the consecration of Samuel Seabury to be the first American bishop. 

Added later by Hugh:

I've checked out the information I posted yesterday and all is OK - with one exception: the Diocese of St. Andrews "was not permitted to vote", though I'm told that "the feel of the meeting was generally opposed to the Covenant."

Hugh also sent a link to a post from last October by the Venerable M. Edward Simonton OGS, who blogs at Whitterings. It is entitled The Anglican Covenant and the Experience of The Scottish Episcopal Church: Rewriting History for Expediency's Sake and begins,

In this short paper I contend that the disestablished, non-juring history of the Scottish Episcopal Church and her ecclesiology and sacramental theology establishes a valid historical model of Anglicanism which is at odds with the example set by the Church of England. Thus the Anglican Covenant’s insistence on a historic commonality within the Communion, whether out of ignorance or design, effectively rewrites history and reduces historic diversity to an historical fiction for the sake of ecclesiastical expedience.

And it ends,

An argument that the Scottish and American Church are the odd ones out and that most of the rest of the Provinces do share a commonality with the Church of England may be made. However, a system that seeks to forge a new community out of thirty-eight members by pretending that two of them are ‘just like us’ is playing loose with historical and cultural respect. This approach disregards who they are, their unique history and culture, and builds the new relationship on a false understanding. Any marriage that starts this way is sure to fail, or at least leave one party dominated. The Scottish Church has been through this before. The almost three hundred year relationship between the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the Church of England from 1689 to 1977 is a deeply troubling one. To have the Anglican Covenant gloss over it and rewrite history is even more so.

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.


.

Meanwhile, in Scotland

Rev Scott Rennie

The Church of Scotland prepares to ordain an partnered gay man.



There is, of course, opposition, and here. Nonetheless Rev Rennie has strong support from his prospective congregation - more than 80% of whom voted for him - and from the presbytery in Aberdeen.

The Aberdeen case requires a decision. The big problem for the Kirk is how to deal with this matter justly, without provoking a damaging split. I think it can be done. Here's how. The congregation of Queen's Cross want Scott Rennie as their minister, backed by the Presbytery of Aberdeen. The General Assembly should support them. The Assembly should also promote a process of further study, dialogue and discernment.

In the midst of all the current problems of the world, the sight of the Church of Scotland getting its theological knickers in a twist over a couple of people in a committed relationship is not a pretty one. Scott Rennie is a fine minister, and a good and brave man. Future Kirk generations will look back on this - as this generation does with regard to the abolition of slavery and the ordination of women - and wonder what the fuss was all about.

And behind the reckless talk about a new Disruption, there lies a profound irony. Why did the ministers walk out of the Auld Kirk? It was because they wanted congregations to have the right to choose their own ministers.

(Last January the Scottish Sun's headline read: Churchmen fight to dump gay Rev)

Covenant matters

Anglican Provinces struggling to steer in the same direction in Cambridge.

[Photo: Guner Dincer Celik]

The Covenant Design Group will meet March 29-April 2 in Cambridge, England. Come to think of it I'm going to Cambridge some time in the next week or two. Perhaps I'll call in and listen to one of the design Group's open session. I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall.

The group will report to the ACC meeting in May in Jamaica. When the next draft of the Covenant will be released is not clear but my guess would be when the papers go out for that meeting. It's too large a group to keep everything quiet.

A two-thirds majority is required for ratification, but since the Primates inserted themselves into the ACC that's less of a hurdle than it should be.

Living Church reported that

As the Covenant Design Group readies its handiwork for deliberation by the Anglican Consultative Council, the group’s chairman acknowledges that selling a unity document to a divided communion will be neither automatic nor easy.

Retired West Indies’ Archbishop Drexel Wellington Gomez identified current Episcopal Church attitudes as a danger to ratification of the proposed Covenant.

Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori already has said General Convention this summer should decline to take up for consideration the design group’s yet-to-be perfected recommendations for measures aimed at respecting local autonomy while providing accountability for divisive actions.

“The Episcopal Church has its own agenda,” Archbishop Gomez said in Dallas March 22, “and that agenda does not have much accommodation with the rest of the Communion.”

...

Archbishop Gomez said a new fourth section of the now-three-section covenant will address the question of “how we get agreement on how we stay together and work together.” He noted that many Anglicans are “not fond of being told they are wrong.

“That’s our biggest fight, and that fight is not over,” he said. Nonetheless, he said in answer to a question, “The bigger body has to take precedence over the lesser.”

========

The Scottish Episcopal Church has published its formal response to the St Andrew's Draft (pdf), just before the Design Group meets. (Oddly this is not on the SEC site yet but has come to Thinking Anglicans via Kelvin Holdsworth's blog. Just shows the difficulties of managing information release in a wired aged.) We can expect a number of these reponses which the group have had for some time to be made public in the next couple of weeks.

I'm pleased to say that the Covenant Design Group ordered copies of my own booklet Who Steers the Ship? The poverty of the Draft Anglican Covenant, for distrubution to its members as part of their preparatory reading. (Available from this page, or directly as a pdf here.)

Pluralist, who has been playing with new software, thinks the Scottish document is a holding document. It is cautious.

They reiterate their uncertainty about not only the wording but also the very idea of a covenant.
While they don't think there are any extensive changes necessary to enable the process of adoption (a little too broad brush in my opinion, given their later comments) they do point to possible legal difficulties.

As a general principle, however, the more a proposed Covenant moves into considerations of proscription and sanction, the harder it will be to reconcile it with existing canonical structures (and, possibly, with the requirements of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, for which the Code of Canons is the Constitution of the Scottish Episcopal Church).

It does not suggest that these are insuperable, just a matter of the time the process will take.

They raise again concerns which have been raised repeatedly before:

• The term 'Covenant' (raised and dismissed in the Introduction to the St Andrew's Draft).


• Concentration of powers and consequences for representation and the manner of appointment.


• The meaning of 'common mind' and 'matters understood to be of essential concern'.


• The efficacy of a Covenant: will it really stop cross-border intrusions?


• Unseemly haste at the cost of consultation.

These are not peripheral issues. They go to the heart of what the Covenant is, its conceptual frame, and its application. But they are expressed in Anglican-speak. Perhaps because, as Gomez said, many Anglicans are “not fond of being told they are wrong."

The Scots have also issued a Response to the Anglican Primates' Letter of February 2009 (pdf).

MadPriest is very annoyed with them:

What is the point of being Scottish if all you are going to do is behave like the English?

The paper is leery of the idea of moratoria - it's not clear how and when the moratoria will end, and suggests a suspension of a practice that was previously acceptable. Nonetheless they almost say they will not consecrate as bishop someone in a same-sex partnership, but not quite. They say they are internally divided over the issue with the strong implication (as MadPriest observes) that when a sufficient majority of Scottish Anglicans think such an appointment would be acceptable they could they get on with it.

This is normal. Churches have always followed public opinion (while simultaneously clinging to a fond belief in their own counter-cultural qualities).

Equally they say it would be 'premature' to formally authorise a liturgy for blessing same sex unions, with the implication that, when they are mature, the Scots will take this step. In the meantime 'informal pastoral responses to individual situations' will carry on: don't ask, don't tell - This Is Not A Policy.

Finally, like everyone else excpet those doing it, they deprecate cross-border incursions. It's not them.



.

Primates' Meeting: the view from Scotland

The Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church has also posted his comments here.

They don't say a lot. But he does indicate the influence of the Windsor Continuation Group in setting the agenda for the development of the Communion:

The Primates supported the recommendations made to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Windsor Continuation Group to take action to bring the Communion to a clearer understanding of how it might, as a whole, focus more on mission in the world as we live in it today.

And this is the gloss on the command and centralisation ecclesiology:

The Communion is moving towards a new appreciation of how our bonds create opportunity for deep sharing and support and which sometimes also call us to order our life with ‘generous restraint’ in order to sustain Communion.

.