The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion has just issued this press release.
The Secretary General on the Anglican Communion Covenant
Posted On : March 24, 2012 3:58 PM | Posted By : Admin ACO
ACNS: ACNS5076
Related Categories: ACO
In the light of today’s news about the decisions of the dioceses of the Church of England about the Covenant I wanted to clarify the current situation across the Anglican Communion.
In December 2009, as requested by the Standing Committee, I sent the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant to all the Member Churches of the Anglican Communion asking that they consider it for adoption according to their own internal procedures.
I have received notifications from eight Provinces that they have approved, or subscribed, the Covenant or, in the case of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, have approved pending ratification at the next synod which is usual procedure in that Province.
These Provinces are:
The Church of Ireland
The Anglican Church of Mexico
The Church of the Province of Myanmar
The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
The Church of the Province of South East Asia
The Anglican Church of Southern Africa
The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America
The Church in the Province of the West Indies
What next steps are taken by the Church of England is up to that Province. Consideration of the Covenant continues across the Anglican Communion and this was always expected to be a lengthy process. I look forward to all the reports of progress to date at the ACC-15 in New Zealand in November.
Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Canon Kenneth Kearon
Nothing going on there; move along….
No guidance from Ken Kearon on the implications of what rejection might mean for Canterbury or even, what at least “a very long delay” for England would will mean in the new “two tier” communion. But, to be frank, few could have expected clarity at this time. I suppose that the English General Synod could try and finesse this by passing a “mind of the Synod” resolution approving of the Covenant – if not THE Covenant – or some other wheeze. I can’t imagine their bench of bishops being too keen at such a brutal humiliation going unchallenged. Judging by… Read more »
Much going on here, the covenant process continues with its own integrity. We have seven months to see how the covenant fares, and how many join the 8 who have adopted thus far.
Canon Kearon: John 11:39b.
I suspect Mr Kearon has a much bigger headache coming up – GAFCON are to meet in April, in London. I guess their decisions will be much more significant for the future of the Communion than England’s decision on the Covenant.
Why no mention that the Philippines has said no in his list of responses? Surely until the ACC becomes a body of only covenanted members the Secretary General of the ACC should be a neutral civil servant not a supporter of one side or the other. (And is he really now the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion not the ACC?).
Lemons -> Lemonade, eh CanonKK?
Some explicit recognition that the Covenant has been rejected in England was absolutely required here. But instead this statement attempts to convey inevitability – you cannot reject the Covenant even when you have rejected it. I think this will be highly counterproductive. To persuade someone who disagrees with you, you must engage with that person. Pretending they have not spoken will more likely alienate them further. I also wonder if now the Church of England has rejected the Covenant, many others will be emboldened to reject it too. The tally of those agreeing is very small. There was not much… Read more »
Until a new Archbishop comes in and closes it down, this juggernaut of the Covenant will keep its engine running. It does not have an off switch built into it so even in the ditch its wheels continue to turn. Ecclesiastical civil servants, like Kenneth Kearon, are only doing what they are told to do, that is selling the Covenant as a good idea and doing so with a bit of ‘spin’. It’s what he’s paid for and whether his heart is really in it is anyone’s guess? Apart from the Church of England’s unwillingness to endorse the ill-fated scheme,… Read more »
“There was not much momentum” — how could there be when 30 provinces have yet to consider the covenant formally? Hence, the ACO statement.
“Until a new Archbishop comes in and closes it down” — I take it this is a wish. The covenant is not reliant on the CofE and/or a ‘new Archbishop.’
Again, hence the ACO statement.
I agree with Paul Bagshaw. Canon Kearon will have much more to contend with than the problem of the Church of England not signing up to the covenant. Already extant, but under the radar in England, is the love-child of GAFCON, called ‘AMiE’ (Angican Mission in England) which, under the nose of the Established Church of England, is trying to subvert her mission under the guise of ‘Anglican Orthodoxy’ – a title claimed by the GAFCON Provinces. Next month, GAFCON will be meeting with 200 paid-up members in the U.K., and leading them, under his subsidiary title of ‘Chair of… Read more »
South East Asia neither approved, nor subscribed to the Covenant. They “acceded”, on the understanding “that those who accede will unequivocally abide by Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its spirit and intent,” and would honour the moratorium on gay bishops and blessings.
In other words, they approved the covenant on condition that everyone else who approved shared their opinion regarding sexuality.
I’m sorry, Dr. Seitz. Yes, the Covenant process has its own integrity, and other provinces will take action (some one way and some the other). However, I don’t understand the reference to “7 months.” I don’t recall, either in the document or in any directions, a time limit.
Perhaps the next shoe to drop will be that individual dioceses can adopt the covenant. That’s one of the lines your Rowan was peddling to his fellow right-wingers over here in the US… Something tells me Rowan would love to have the Church of England divided against itself. I know he doesn’t TALK that way, but if his Archepiscopacy had been anything like the way he talked before it, we wouldn’t be in this fix. It was his weakness before the radical right that convinced them that he didn’t believe in anything hence he could be pushed around in any… Read more »
We have created a monster in the ACC, divorcing the
Anglican Communion from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I know the argument is that he/she will have proper influence through the ‘instruments’ but isn’t there a way to repeal the notion of ‘a communion’ expressed as a bureaucracy?
Geoffrey Hoare
We have seven months to see how the covenant fares, and how many join the 8 who have adopted thus far.”
– cseitz –
And will ACI try to join the Covenant group – as an independent ecclesial entity – even if TEC says No?
I’m sure that Williams floated “divide & rule” solely as a US strategy, Wade.
You’re probably right Lapin, and look where it’s got him. Perhaps some English Dioceses will join what now appears to be The Anglicanless Communion? I remember when he tried to peddle that Diocese by Diocese nonsense over here. I wish Trinity Wall Street would stop bringing him over here.
Very good point, Marshall. Many here were suggesting the Nov ACC meeting as determinative in some clear way (suggesting even a meeting to call the covenant of, etc). But you are correct to speak of the covenant’s own integrity. I suspect that by Nov ACC we shall likely know how that looks.
When I read the ACO statement, I thought, “The Iraqi Information Minister has not yet left the building.” Pretending that what has happened in the English diocesan synods is not important does not make it unimportant, nor does pretending that the Covenant process has not been holed below the waterline mean that we are still steaming at full speed towards the introduction of the Covenant. Is the Archbishop of Canterbury, as an ‘Instrument of Unity’ going to use the Covenant, another ‘Instrument of Unity’ to declare himself and his Church to be in impaired communion with the rest of Anglicanism?… Read more »
I think that I have difficulty in speaking of the Covenant’s “integrity”. It exists as a document and a process. But that process is born simply of a desire to coerce Provinces into an anti-gay stance. Now that the dioceses of the Church of England have rejected that document and process, will we be allowed the time, space, and freedom of thought to address the issues in being in communion with all the interdependence and mutuality that calls for? Will we be allowed to address the context of each Province and the best ways in which they can present the… Read more »
Can someone define the expression “Covenant’s Integrity”? Suspect we might be encountering it quite often in the near future, as it manifests a significance not presently obvious and rises to the status of cliché.
Right now, Trinity, Wall Street has bigger problems than R Williiams’ fee, Wade.
Indeed, I cannot figure out how the Archbishop of Canterbury, as primate of a province that has rejected the covenant, can be primus inter pares of a group of bishops who have accepted the covenant.
“Indeed, I cannot figure out how the Archbishop of Canterbury, as primate of a province that has rejected the covenant, can be primus inter pares of a group of bishops who have accepted the covenant.”
Perhaps Canon Kearon intends that role for himself?
I think it safe to say that no-one, literally no-one (literal in the sense of ‘not one person’) would have foreseen that the Covenant would not gain a considerable majority of dioceses and General Synod. It’s a bit like having a plane take off but with no pilot – and yet the plane is in the skies. The whole game thus far has been to manufacture consent for the Covenant. This has now failed spectacularly. Efforts to artificially ressucitate will not work. I think only starting again after a period of deep reflection and new leadership will work. Having said… Read more »
Start again ? Duh!
I was under the impression that the United Churches of South and North India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were not in a position to adopt the Covenant because of their mixed roots. Can someone advise?
Yes Perry, the very first reactions to the Covenant were as you identify. It immediately divided the Communion. Note how Andrew Goddard too finesses the matter above, while paying minute attention to the procedure of the Philippines he ignores completely these Asian members.