Anglican Covenant now published

The Anglican Covenant can now be read at ACNS, along with the report of the design group. I've also done a story for Times Online.

The key paragraph of the Covenant comes at the end:

'We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.'

See previous stories on the Primates' meeting at our newly-revivified Faith Page.

Reaction is already beginning. At StandFirm, where Kendall Harmon has posted the entire document with links to all the relevant Bible passages, the conservative response is one of disappointment.

But others, including, unsurprisingly, the liberals over at Inclusive Church, are a lot happier. "Things are looking good," writes Scott Gunn. Episcope can barely contain its delight - putting on a little fizzle of spin of its own while warning against the inevitable spin in the other direction to come.

Graham Kings, responding on Fulcrum, says:

"The text of the draft Covenant is encouraging and, it seems to me at least, fits many of the concerns Fulcrum has been expressing.

In particular, it seems to me that the aspects to appreciate include:

The 'dual track' approach of a longer term provision and a short term commitment to its shape (para 2 Urgency): The definitive text of any proposed Covenant which could command the long term confidence of the Communion would need extensive consultation and refining...At the same time, there needed to be a commitment now to the fundamental shape of the covenant in order to address the concerns of those who feared that the very credibility of the commitment of the Anglican Churches to one another and to the Gospel itself was in doubt.

The section on biblically derived moral values (para 3.1)  uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, biblically derived moral values and the vision of humanity received by and developed in the communion of member Churches;

The references to biblical texts together with the use of responsible scholarship for interpretation (see para 3.3):  ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods, and building on our best scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures and ways of thinking;

The stress on interdependence amongst provinces (para 4)  As the Communion continues to develop into a worldwide family of interdependent churches...

The continued importance of the Four Instruments of Unity (para 5):  We affirm the place of four Instruments of Communion which serve to discern our common mind in communion issues, and to foster our interdependence and mutual accountability in Christ.

The section on 'non fulfilment of the covenant' in the paragraph about the Unity of the Church (para 6)
We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.

So, there is much to be encouraged about in this draft Covenant. Let's continue to pray for the publication of Communique at the final press conference which is now rescheduled to be at 8.00pm GMT."

The Church Times has reported the end of the Primates' Meeting. And thanks as usual to Dave Walker for the cartoon.

Comments

[Alan Marsh]

It's not the ABC, JPearce, it's the primates of the Anglican Communion who produced and signed the Communique. And you might care to note that this is the first time a date has been fixed for compliance with the requests made by the primates. One can safely assume that they did so for a reason.

[J Pearce]

Alan.

This'll be the notoriously strict disciplinarian ABC, then, will it? A man feared for his zero-tolerance approach to enforcing his absolute, unbending will upon his flock?

Hmm. We'll see. I'd wager a pint that this issue will drag on well after September. I mean, it wouldn't be Anglicanism if somebody actually did something decisive, would it?

[Alan Marsh]

what standing in law or in theology does a communiqué have?

It communicates the judgement of those who are competent to make decisions about membership of the Anglican Communion.

Both ECUSA and its leadership - including especially its new PB -have set themselves apart from the theological principles on which the rest of the Communion bases its church life. And in doing so they have marginalised and excluded those within their own midst who remain faithful Anglicans.

The verdict of the world-wide primates' meeting is that TEC must repair the damage, or lose its place at the Conference.

[Alan Marsh]

I have come to that conclusion, JPearce, because it appears in the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments at the press conference where the Communique was delivered.

[J Pearce]

"TEC is on its final notice. Six months to make up its mind. Free to choose, but choose it must. The Anglican Communion decides what is Anglican, not TEC. TEC can choose to be Anglican, or it can walk away."

I'm having great difficulty in understanding how you've come to that conclusion, Alan. One of the key lines in this document appears to be:

"...a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches."

"Process"? Where is that process defined? Who defines it? How long will it take? Given the glacial progress of Church beauracracy, can you see it happening anytime soon? And what is the criteria for measuring whether a Church has "re-established their covenant relationship"?

I think this whole document is a classic fudge (or a classic example of the art of spin doctoring). It’s like the kind of press release they distribute after a G8 summit - much mellifluous prose, but nothing of any substance whatsoever. There is nothing concrete enough in it to worry TEC about the 6 month deadline - they can wilfully ignore it, knowing full well that they have agreed to a "covenant" where the sanctions and processes are so loosely defined, that they are essentially meaningless.

There are enough holes in this to keep various vested interests arguing for years - which one suspects is exactly what the plan was in the first place. Rather than bite the bullet, it seems the Anglican hierarchy are relying on its members to initiate a split of their own volition, rather than put the structures in place such that it can be forced it upon them. Which, I think, is essentially what Frank was getting at.

[Frank Schnittger]

Alan - I was merely parsing the Covenant document to understand its internal logic and without having seen the communiqué.

It does seem that the communiqué takes a much more hard line approach, but what standing in law or in theology does a communiqué have? Are we going to have Government by press release?

Schori's position will, however, become very difficult if TEC convention does not endorse her agreement to the process outlined in the communiqué. In that case all the Primates will have achieved is destroyed the leadership of a very good woman. I'm sure you'll be pleased.

[Alan Marsh]

Essentially what has happened is that the Primates have acknowledged that they do not have the power to tell TEC what it can and can’t do. TEC is part of the Communion because it wants to be, they have no power to expel.

The exact opposite is what has happened, Frank, and you can't spin it like Humpty Dumpty to mean what you would like it to mean.

The primates have asserted their power to require TEC to conform, or to to face expulsion. TEC is required to give categorical assurances about its future actions, and to provide for those within its midst whom it has hitherto been persecuting.

In case there is any doubt, a September 2007 deadline has been set. TEC can not invite itself to Lambeth 2008, and if it rejects the requirements set out in the Communique, it will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference. If it is not invited to the Lambeth Conference, it is no longer an Anglican Communion body.

It already thinks of itself as The Episcopal Church rather than an Anglican church and now it has to decide whether it wants to accept the privileges and limitations of living in Communion, or go its own way, free but on its own.

Watch out for the predictable shrill cries, "That's not how our polity works!" and "Only General Convention can decide!". But General Convention had its chance last summer, and threw it away.

TEC is on its final notice. Six months to make up its mind. Free to choose, but choose it must. The Anglican Communion decides what is Anglican, not TEC. TEC can choose to be Anglican, or it can walk away.

[Frank Schnittger]

It looks like Akinola's bluff has been called and the status quo has been restored to what it was before Gene Robinson was elected. Katherine Schori's position has been consolidated, and another fairly woolly compromise text has been agreed.

The fervent hope must be that TEC doesn't elect another practicing gay Bishop any time soon. But what happens if they do?

The Covenant says that the “Instruments of Communion” can deem that “that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.”

In other words, their covenant relationship with other member Churches will have been relinquished – not their place in the Anglican Communion.

This is a tautology: It says that the covenant is broken if the “Instruments of Communion” say it is, and then the errant Province will have to go through a process of restoration and renewal to fix it..

Yes…but what if the errant Province decides not to bother? Then covenant is broken. So what? It’s only a document invented in the last few months. It is not the Communion itself.

So the covenant is only of valid for so long as everybody is happy to observe it, and when they don’t, it is the covenant which is broken, not the Communion.

We could end up with two tiers of Anglican Communion membership – those Provinces which have both a Communion and covenant relationship with each other, and those which are part of the Communion but not the covenant.

Essentially what has happened is that the Primates have acknowledged that they do not have the power to tell TEC what it can and can’t do. TEC is part of the Communion because it wants to be, they have no power to expel.

TEC can however be deemed to be outside the covenant which at the moment means almost nothing. Whether it will come to mean more in the future only time can tell.

[Deb]

I think it is good that more time is given if the end in sight is the episcopal church coming into line with church teaching and the communion. However having witnessed how they work it may just give them more time to undermine everything with more words,deals, unreported blessings etc. the mantra at the moment is change things from the inside out so whilst they may be preaching a sort of gospel they will also be working on changing the teaching still. I dont know how RW will keep checks on these. Our call is to preach the faith not slowly change it from within.

[Stephen Marsden]

Interesting, Ruth, that all the conservative blogs are up in arms, saying 'it's a fudge' amd that the revisionists/liberals are saying that it goes far too far by concentrating power in the hands of the primates. Pissing everyone off is a real art form!

[Ellie in T.O.]

Sounds like it will be business as usual for the US church. Sign agreement; go home and break agreement; deny that you ever broke agreement; issue an insincere pseudo-apology and go right on breaking agreement.

[Frog]

Thanks for your swift reporting, Ruth, I suppose the fallout will become obvious in the next few weeks as the agreed words start to unravel. Sounds like a triumph of US diplomacy.