ANNEX 1 of GS 1661 THE ANGLICAN COVENANT PROPOSAL is reproduced below. For context read this.
Foreword
There has already been much discussion about the idea of an Anglican Covenant in recent months, including some preliminary discussion by the bishops of the Church of England. The House of Bishops welcomes this debate by the General Synod as part of a longer process of reflection across the Communion. No-one expects a definitive verdict at this stage; but it is important to think through whether the whole idea of a Covenant for the Communion is of value, and the papers circulated will greatly assist such thinking. The plans for the Lambeth Conference have made provision for a full discussion there in the light of responses from the Provinces.
As the papers collected here make plain, the Covenant is not meant to be a new creed or code, dictated by some authoritarian body divorced from the real life of the Communion’s member provinces. It is, of course, in some degree a response to a crisis – and we are all rightly cautious about creating lasting structures in reaction to temporary crises. But our present troubles in the Communion have raised the question, ‘What is the nature and extent of the responsibility we have to and for each other as Anglican provinces, and how is it grounded in the mutual responsibility of members of the Body of Christ?’ This entails deeper questions about our responsibility to and for the whole of our heritage of reading Scripture intelligently in the context of living tradition, and about how that is to be transmitted to those who follow us. And, arising from all that, there are issues about what sorts and levels of consultation and shared decision-making would be an appropriate expression of such responsibility. The Covenant is not an attempt to create an international executive; but if something like a Covenant does come into effect, it may be easier to express and explore the consequences of developments proposed in one province or another, so that decisions may be better informed, and more adequate strategies for dealing with conflict may be created.
Inevitably, this implies that we have to recognize that there are some limits to Anglican ‘diversity’. It is a simply a matter of fact that some questions – not only the debates over sexual ethics – are experienced as fundamentally Church-dividing issues. It could be that a well-structured Covenant would help us not to treat every divisive matter with the same seriousness and enable us to discern what was really – theologically and ecclesially – at stake when disagreements arose. It is not a tool for promoting schism or canonizing heightened intolerance, but an element in the continuing work of handling conflict without easy recourse to mutual condemnation.
And that is the point that we hope will be considered carefully. Whether or not a Covenant is adopted, the question of handling conflict will not go away. In the age of instant global communication, this question is likely to be sharper than ever. If we do not have a Covenant in the Communion, we shall not be absolved from the imperative to manage our conflicts and tensions better than we have been doing. Unless we can do better, the future of the Communion is going to be more and more fragile and uncertain, and we can’t just appeal to some imagined traditional Anglican way of handling things without fuss. That is why many of those who have been engaged in dealing with the fallout from recent conflicts – in particular the Primates of the Communion and the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council – have concluded that something like a Covenant is a constructive path for the future, and why the hope has been expressed that the bishops attending the Lambeth Conference will be ready to work with the concept and with the proposals already outlined. We hope the Synod will consider their arguments with sympathy.
+ Rowan Cantuar: + Sentamu Ebor:
People are indeed examining the idea of an Anglican Covenant, and increasingly thinking it is a bad idea, divisive in itself, because it will add to restrictions or not be restrictive enough and lead to more division on the usual lines. A verdict is rapidly forming. A new creed or code is what it will be: what is the difference (to repeat) between a Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and something like a Congregation for the Process of the Faith – assuming a covenant is regulative of process not doctrine? Do not set up permanent institutions based on… Read more »
Not exactly a hard sell. Rather, it is promoted by identifying the concerns of its critics:
“…the Covenant is not meant to be a new creed or code, dictated by some authoritarian body divorced from the real life of the Communion’s member provinces…
“The Covenant is not an attempt to create an international executive;…
“It is not a tool for promoting schism or canonizing heightened intolerance,…
Many of us would say that it is in fact all of these.
“It is, of course, in some degree a response to a crisis – and we are all rightly cautious about creating lasting structures in reaction to temporary crises.” My crisis would be if this was to be a temporary crisis. Temporary infers that the debate over how and when to give souls respect and dignity has ended. Temporary infers that there is a return to scholarly precedents and women are again submissive and quiet. Temporary infers that there is no longer any outside accountability and the priests don’t have to worry about explaining their collusion in aiding and abetting pedophiles… Read more »
Cheryl, do not perpetuate that reading of John 12.8. (John’s) Jesus was not talking about the future but only about the present circumstances of his disciples. “Pantote” should not be translated “always” as if some continuing temporal permanence of povery were being predicted, but something like “ready to hand”. Liberation theologians have often discussed this text, which is so often cited by their enemies.
“Ceci n’ést pas une pipe.”
Simon – I wonder if too many insults against GS bishops are allowed (eg referring to them as “pagan-rooted” in their views?) Pluralist – you say, “People are ….increasingly thinking it {a covenant} is a bad idea, divisive in itself….” —but when you say “people”, the truth is “a few liberals in the AC who do not want to have any restrictions on their actions” are against the idea of a covenant while it seems pretty common sense to most Anglicans, given the strife TEC has caused in the last 4 years, that there are some agreed “limits to diversity”… Read more »
NP
Pluralist did not refer to any GS bishops, or archbishops, in his comment to which you take such great exception.
Therefore I don’t find it objectionable, any more than I find your use of “200+ churches that left TEC” objectionable, even though the latter is unsubstantiated and seriously misleading as discussed at length in another article linked from http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002450.html
Simon – on nos, whichever nos people want to fix on, the fact is that thousands of people are leaving TEC….this is why we have lawsuits in the US etc
On Pluralist’s “pagan-rooted” comments – well, I am not sure who Pluralist was referring to if not to GS archbishops who have been part AC opposition to TEC’s innovations – who did you mean Pluralist?
It is interesting how situations are able to be changed by the constant use of words. We now commonly speak of the “provinces” of the AC. In fact, while Canterbury and York are Provinces of the CofE, the CofE is not a “province” of the AC but an autonomous CHURCH within the AC.
However, according to the Telegraph apparently, the piecemeal dis-Establishing of the CofE is to begin next month. The slippery slope to ‘provincial-dom’ has started.
Pluralist is quite correct that this amalgam of basic Christianity and paganism happens. To take a non-Anglican example, there was the affair of Archbishop Milingo of Zambia, who had a widespread healing and exorcism ministry in his diocese in the 80s. The Vatican (in this case one J Ratzinger) got very worried about the amount of tribal religion which seemed to be involved in this, and he was pulled out of his diocese, sent for corrective training, and ended up in a minor role in tourism in the Vatican. He later married a wife chosen for him by Sung Myung… Read more »
that guy clearly lost the plot, crypto
– I just don’t wanted respected Primates of the AC tainted by any suggestion of similar theological errors…..especially when so many Western (even American) Anglicans are against the innovations of TEC too
The various sections of the proposed covenant are preceded by citations of scripture. None of these include “The Sermon on the Mount” or the “Sermon on the Plain”. “Love your enemies” is missing. How can a church whether local, national, or international expect unity in doctrine in discipline when it does acknowledge that it’s members are taught by Jesus to refrain from the violence of war. You can’t kill enemies if you are loving them. If Christians will do violence to other Christians how can we ask the world to refrain from violence? If Christians exhibit national flags in processions… Read more »
Hi Pluralist
You say ‘Diversity gives people space to grow’. Anyone would think from this that the document and its writers were against diversity.
They are not. They simply recognise that there have to be limits to it. In that, they agree with everyone else in the world – bar none.
Given that everyone agrees that there have to be limits, it is more helpful to define what those limits are than not to do so.
Joseph Your warning about John 12:9 is appropriate, it has been a contemplation that has vexed me throughout today. You are right to point out that this passage has been used to justify ignoring the plights of the poor and our responsibility to help them (which includes identifying how “the systems” create poverty and postulating alternatives that might be more rational and compassionate). There is a parallel lesson that women will always be with us, and the complacency about their abuse should also have been challenged by liberation theology, for the same precepts. If that is an insight that has… Read more »
Two days back I wrote “I hope that I am wrong, but will Sugden’s “racism” charge be the first shot of an attack on TEC”. Today, dead on cue – “monkey see, monkey do”, in the words of Marge Simson – NP rides to the attack, asking of Pluralist “are you just making a racial slur on Global South Archbishops?” I am curious to know what insights NP has into Pluralist’s academic credentials that others of us lack, when he refers to “many of them [the GS primates] being your academic superior in theology” (Presiding Bishop Venables has a London… Read more »
The Anglican communion is inclusive, but it has never been tolerant. It is important that we take the time to understand the crucial difference. We include sinners of all kinds in the Church, but we do not tolerate sin of any degree by condoning it, in particular we have never tolerated deliberate sin (lifestyle sin).
The Covenant needs to underline this in that it must state “all are very welcome, but no allowances are made”
Re “pagan rooted” – read the transcript of Philip Jenkins’ May 17th “Global Schism” presentation to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
“You’re dealing with people who live in, in many ways, an Old Testament world. Many Africans may not know themselves a world that practices nomadism and polygamy and blood sacrifice, but their parents did. You don’t have to go far down the road to see people who are still doing these things. “
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=145
Lapin – you can go to Pluralist’s website to see his academic credentials As for Canon Dr Sugden’s comment – well, maybe he is onto something! How often do some liberals try to pretend it is only the GS or ++Akinola who are against TEC’s innovations? Quite obvious that people would rather talk about ++Akinola or “Africans” in terms of opposition to TEC’s innovations than the very strong opposition from people like +Durham, +Duncan in TEC and even the ABC! Despite the obvious attempt to pretend that opposition to TEC is from a small and narrow part of the AC… Read more »
Vincent, I posted the following observation yesterday, but posted it to what I later discovered to be a pretty old, little-visited thread. It’s relevant to what you say, so, with Simon’s indulgence, how ’bout we give it another spin:
“When I encounter an individual who will say “go and sin no more” as forcefully to those who are divorced and/or remarried, as he or she will say it to gays & lesbians, I will concede that that individual’s views, however mistaken, might be based in scriptural belief, rather than purely in personal prejudice.”
I am making shorthand religious typologies, with all the danger that involves, but as ever necessary to get across a basic point. We had a discussion the very same evening among a church group, someone asking if the African Christians are perhaps some decades behind the West and its (Anglican) Christianity. I said that you cannot say, because the question is whether they are like when we were pre-industrialisation, or perhaps nearer to when Christianity was absorbing paganism in this land. Does comparison work? I said that when I look into this book, alongside me (Bible), I see another world,… Read more »
“Simon – on nos, whichever nos people want to fix on, the fact is that thousands of people are leaving TEC….this is why we have lawsuits in the US etc”—NP
Yes, NP thousands are leaving—but millions are staying. Which is the point, isn’t it?
To answer Chrstopher Shell’s point, elsewhere I suggest that if unity cannot be described then an alternative is to describe the diversity. I admit, it worries a lot of people, but there is an honesty involved. Suppose a document was produced, non-binding (of course!) about all the positions in Anglicanism, then the next section would be how to relate them all together. That might be interesting. It might indeed suggest that some positions are more “legitimate” than others, or find that difficult, but even if it did it would still have to ask how to relate all the participants (and… Read more »
“We include sinners of all kinds in the Church, but we do not tolerate sin of any degree by condoning it, in particular we have never tolerated deliberate sin (lifestyle sin).”
We’re also quite reluctant to take on the responsibility of judging another’s sin. And I think that’s appropriate. It’s certainly a biblical attitude reflecting Gospel values.
Kurt – “leaving millions”??
– do you realise TEC says that it does not even have ONE million attending on a Sunday???
(in the US where 43% of people go to church!!)
Do you realise that one church leaving in Plano had more people attending than the whole of TEC’s Nevada diocese?
(Oh, now let’s see how many replies come to muddy the waters, deny the numbers and pretend that all is well)
Lambeth 1.10, TWR and the Tanzania Diktat
NP’s three-legged stool replaces the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
Lifestyle sin??!?
Oh, my, now I’ve heard it all.
LPR
“Inevitably, this implies that we have to recognize that there are some limits to Anglican ‘diversity’. It is a simply a matter of fact that some questions – not only the debates over sexual ethics – are experienced as fundamentally Church-dividing issues…” Notice how “Church-dividing” has now become the most important criterion by which issues are judged. If an issue is judged to be “Church dividing” (which basically happens because some hotheads are threatening schism over it), why, let’s put it on the back burner indefinitely, we wouldn’t want to divide the Church over it, would we. To paraphrase a… Read more »
“Kurt – “leaving millions”??” NP
More than two millions, actually. Whether or not we always go to church each week, well, that’s another matter.
Until NP’s heroes start to regard the whole of Lambeth 1.10, would it not be more honest of him to demand compliance with Lambeth 0.55?
Just trying to help.
“Lifestyle sin” might just be a useful category. After all lifestyle is not just sexual activity. And anyone posting on this board has access to resources unimaginable to most of the world’s population.
OK, mynsterpreost, you’ve lost me, and I’m probably making a fool of myself asking, but Lambeth 0.55?
Looks like there’s trilingual “trubble a’t mill” in a N. Lincs parallel ecclesiastical universe. What gives?
http://www.aicuk.org.uk/
The New Lambeth (1:10) Quadrilateral:
i) Windsor,
ii) Dromantine,
iii) Dar es Salaam,
iv) Covenant.
Fr. Rowett, sir. I have an answer of sorts to my question regarding the AIC. A blog named “The Continuum” quotes one Archbishop Norman Dutton as saying that Bishop Peachey has been deposed and excommunicated, adding “I have today received confirmation that he has lost his power base in Latin America. All the churches there have now pledged their support to me.” Bp. Peachey’s response, also quoted, is basically “Sez you!”. “Parallel Universe” to be sure. Read all about it at http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/search/label/Anglican%20Independent%20Communion One “Anglican Independent Communion” (probably not this one, but can’t be sure) sports lines of apostolic succession that… Read more »
“in the US where 43% of people go to church!!” NP, you DO realize that the majority of American Christians are GASP Roman Catholic, right? Funny how Rome can be the Whore of Babylon in everything else, but when it comes to the hommersexerals, you think they’re fine and dandy. The next largest group is the Southern Baptists. Nice crowd of Evolution/global warming denying, “God punished the Godless heathens in Asia with a tsunami” (in chorus with the Taliban, I hasten to add) people there! Do you really think it a cause for gloating that they are more numerous than… Read more »
Dear Lapinbizarre, Lambeth .55 = 1/2 of Lambeth 1.10, or, Lambeth 1.10, divided in half, = Lambeth .55
Mynsterpreost is repeating, in other words, the truth that only part of Lambeth 1.10 is authoritative for “NP’s heroes”.
Lois Keen
There are some souls who are simply argumentative. When they think they have the upper hand, the bravado and insults fly much thicker than when they think they might be held accountable for their indifference and contempt for others. This is an excellent Torah study which talks about the lead up to the swallowing of Korach and his rabble rousers. http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?ID=343 I shared it with a friend the other day and commented that even Moses had to deal with rednecks. (The next joke being are they red necks because they are always angry and thus their neck is always flushed?)… Read more »
I do realise that the discussion has changed topic to some extent. I wish only to add a small clarification upon what was intended by the the phrase ‘lifestyle sin’. I had tried to describe by those words sins which take place openly and one might be tempted to explain as being part of a given lifestyle. An example in my own case would be gluttony during family gatherings; whilst it may be explained as being a part of family life, it remains sinful. In so much as I don’t feel much compelled to cease and change my lifestyle, the… Read more »
Vincent, I don’t have sex “openly.” I don’t even talk about my sex life, as it’s private. Will I, for anybody’s comfort, deny that I have sex with a man — my partner? No.
As the row over J. John demonstrated so plainly, though, when push comes to shove, it’s not even about the sex. It’s about the fact that I won’t accept your interpretation of the Bible and won’t accept your conclusion that my being gay is a problem with God.
There’s not enough ‘lifestyle adjustment’ to please the anti-gay factions.
LPR
PS: Eat what you wish.
I’m just doing a stock taking audit on my “lifestyle sins”. This could take some time.
RudigerVT said
I don’t have sex “openly.”
I know someone who did. Their case comes up next week…..
“gluttony during family gatherings” Vincent, if your family is getting together two or three times a week to stuff themselves like hogs, you might have a point. Most families get together 2 or 3 times a year, and even then there’s usually someone missing. This is to renew the bonds of kinship, to talk and laugh, perhaps play some music, sing, and dance, perhaps fight and squabble. At such times, having that third potato is not gluttony. If God is gracious enough to allow your family to get together at Christmas to celebrate, and to give you an abundance of… Read more »
Malcolm Muggeridge – remember him? – said that too many people have sex on the brain, and it is the wrong place to have it. I asked my wife, yes, it was my wife, if we have sex openly, and she replied, “Yawn, snore”, stuck two fingers up and went back to sleep. It was during lunch. Then when she woke up I asked her what she thought of the Covenant and she replied that she was no longer a Methodist and had stopped fighting on the Scottish Borders. This is much more interesting isn’t it?