That Petre 'covenant' story

I blame The Da Vinci Code for the fact that I missed this story. You can read Jonathan Petre's story in the Telegraph that's been causing a bit of a stir in the Anglican world. I've been stirred into action myself after blogger Jim Naughton took my name in vain, assuming that neither I nor Stephen Bates have the document. Stephen's on sabbatical. Anglican Mainstream has a report here. The document is up now on the Anglican Communion website here. I' ve posted some of the key extracts below. And here is Gregory Cameron's response to Jonathan's story in the Telegraph.

The document of which Jonathan wrote is a report of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion which met in March. A brief report appeared in the latest Anglican World, which I guess is where JP first saw it. I'll have to start reading that magazine. The report is into the proposal in the Windsor Report that an Anglican Covenant be introduced as one way in which trust and cooperation could be rebuilt between the churches of the Anglican Communion. The report of the JSC proposes several different models be drafted of a covenant text, and that eventually an agreed covenant and text be established.

The report outlines the dangers of a covenant, that it 'might be seen to alter the nature of the communion towards that of a narrowly confessional family, with the attenandant danger that preparedness to sign up to the covenant becomes a test of authentic membership.' Other dangers were the potential of establishing a bureaucratic and legalistic foundation at the heart of the communion, threatening Anglican comprehensiveness.

However, on the plus side, a well-written covenant would clarify the identity and mission of the churches of 'or in association with' the Anglican Communion. I like the 'in association with'. Is there going to be a new category of associated membership, to which Ecusa might perhaps be attracted? A covenant would set out the 'house rules'. These would develop 'a disciplined and fulfilling life in communion.'

A covenant could be short or complex, it could restate a formula such as the Lambeth-Chicago Quadrilateral, which most provinces could accept, or it could have real teeth by ceding jurisdiction to the Archbishop of Canterbury, making him into a sort of Anglican Pope. This would create problems. Many provinces would not accept this.

Drafting and approving it, with every province, diocese and synod being consulted, will be a long process. Nine years, the JSC report suggests, but it will surely take longer. Most Anglican provinces would need to be able to adopt it through their canons for it to even have a hope of working.

The report says: 'It will not do to say there is one Anglican Covenant for this group and another Anglican Covenant for that group. For the covenant concept to work, there comes a point at which  provinces and churches will have to say that they will take it or leave it.'

Leaving the Anglican Communion would not necessarily be the result of failing to sign up. 'The marks of Anglican identity go deeper,' the report says. However, over time, 'stronger presumptions of mutual recognition and interchangeability of ministry and membership would arise between those churches and provinces that had signed up than amongst those who had chosen not to do so.'

The report says: 'What might emerge is a two (or more) tiered communion, with some level of permeability between churches signed up to the covenant, and those who are not.' TitusOneNine is running a debate here.

I have to confess I think it might work. But the question I cannot really answer is, if provinces don't accept the covenant, will that constitute schism or not? Two-tiered schism perhaps? Can anyone tell me?

ruth gledhill

religion Rowan Williams Anglican Christianity

Comments

[James]

Instead of clarifying Christian belief and morality - especially with regard to sexual matters, the attempt will be made to bind the Communion by regulations and provisos and rules. That cannot work (though it can take up a lot of time before it fails - a delicious thought to many).

Christians are bound by God's moral law, and the repentance for sins against it.

It is truly a sad day when the leader of the Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams, cannot and will not forthrightly say what Christian sexual morality is - yet while that issue destroys that Communion.

This is the leader of a major Christian denomination who cannot tell your child when it is moral to have sex, or if sodomy is moral. (Even though every day, our kids are bombarded by media which suggest that sodomy is good and normal and healthy to engage in, and while XXXX pornography (of every deviant sort) pours over their computers...)

It is no wonder so few members of the Church of England bother to attend church on Sunday with their families. Why bother?

James

[Jim Naughton]

Taking your name in vain? I was under the impression that I was complimenting you. Alas.

I think the Living Church story by Steve Waring is pretty solid.

It's here:

http://livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1998

[Gloria]

Dear Ruth, thank you for your insight and opinions. However,,,, and you knew there would be one.

By the end of nine years (more or less), there won't be enough members of ECUSA to worry about. What the AC will be left with will be a small remnant of liberals who may or may not sign on to any agreement.

Nine years may seem a short time in the days of the older church, but time is not on our side any more.

Sincerely,

[Prior Aelred]

"But the question I cannot really answer is, if provinces don't accept the covenant, will that constitute schism or not?"

I am puzzled as to how deciding not to join something constitutes schism.

I suppose it could work if there is sufficient good will on all sides, but that seems to be what is sadly lacking -- were there good will, this would not be necessary (& perhaps it is not) -- if there is not sufficient good will, it will not be workable.

[Brian McKinlay]

Such a covenant would be a dilemna for Australia, for instance, which has conservative and liberal mainstream dioceses. If the covenant was seen to change the constitution, it would need the consent of two once-in-four-years meetings of General Synod, and the consent of each of the five metropolitical archdioceses.

General Synod canons on some matters cannot come into force in a diocese unless specifically adopted by the synod diocese. Thus (as is the case with ordination of women), after a long a difficult process, Australia might find such a covenant to be in force in some dioceses but not others. The result? Chaos.

[Tim]

James writes: "It is truly a sad day when the leader of the Anglican Communion, Rowan Williams, cannot and will not forthrightly say what Christian sexual morality is - yet while that issue destroys that Communion."

On the contrary, it's a good day when a leader knows that sexuality is a mere subset of Christian morality which puts unity over imposing uniformity.

The issue is not destroying the communion at all; the attitude that says `oh look, they're doing something we wouldn't want to, they're wrong, let's disassociate from them', is.
I don't tell people how to live, and don't expect dictation from other provinces either.

[James]

Tim,

Our children, here in the United States, in many public schools, are being encouraged to try out homosexual acts -(like male anal sodomy, and lesbo acts) - and are being told such is good, normal, healthy, etc. etc.

Many of the girls in our local public school are into bisexualism. More and more boys are orally sodomizing each other (and they think that's OK).

Of course, all such leads to death, disease, confusion, emotional problems, the loss of notions of male and female, the falling into all sorts of sexual perversions, the use of friends to slake lust, the vastly increased chance of failed marriages, the inability to marry to begin with, the loss of faith, etc. etc. etc.

The attitude of many of our young ones today is: it is right and good to play with the sexual organs of your friends (either male or female).

Only Christianity will stop our descent into the Brave New World, where we all sit around and copulate with each other.

The embrace of homosexualism always leads to a collapse in society. It is already happening again.

You may not see that. A whole lot of others do.

James

[James]

The only thing which can save the Anglican Communion is:

A CATECHISM

An Anglican catechism would be a compendium of all the central beliefs of the denomination.

(The Catholic Church has one, and it's great [and one of the many super achievements of Pope John Paul II].)

90% or more of all the Anglican bishops could easily agree on one, and thus would Anglicanism be preserved (and thus would Anglicanism be preserved as an expression of Christianity).

Without something that we can all agree on IS Anglicanism, it is going to die (and rapidly) in a painful and disconsolate and disconcordanate whimper.

OR

One of those bishops in that 90% (like Bishop Akinola) is just going to pull traditional Anglicans to a new centrality (Alexandria?) - and let the rest of the Communion die in a painful and disconsolate and disconcordanate whimper.

James

[Frank Salmon]

Most of this is a big smokescreen that conveniently hides the reality that outside some financially endowed cathedrals most 'Christian' parishes & denominations are geriatric and dying out. This is not the case with Islam. However, all the banter here suggests the demise is providing a few hobby horses for those seeking an issue.

The key phrase is surely 'RIP'.

[James]

---

"The key phrase is surely 'RIP'."

---

The Church of England is dying (and rapidly), because it has become wholly irrelevant. Why go to church with our children to hear that divorce, abortion, fornication, sodomy, believin' whatever the hell we want, that kids don't need a mommy and a daddy, and that we won't be judged by God is fine and dandy? Why go to church when we are told that living for the self is just as 'right' as living for the good?

Might as well sit at home and watch MTV with our little ones. It's the same thing.

James

[Mike Homfray]

Its another compromise, and one which skirts around the reality - that views held are simply contradictory. I no longer attend a CofE church simply because I think they will never be the fully revisionist body I want them to be - whilst conservatives and evangelicals, holding views which I find frankly repulsive are there, it will remain wedded to risible superstitious nonsense.