Forums

A new Covenant

2012-01-24T18:59:22-05:00

Covenant, founded in August 2007 as a weblog community of “evangelical and catholic” Christians, begins a new life today. Covenant has attracted about 40 editorial contributors, including bishops, cathedral deans, priests, and theologians. Covenant will expand its family of contributors in the months ahead.

This page will be an archive of content from August 2007 to January 2012. Please visit Covenant’s thoroughly redesigned home at covenant.livingchurch.org and join the conversation.
View the original post

IASCUFO promotes Anglican Covenant

2011-12-12T12:35:52-05:00

Via Anglican Communion News Service

In the name of the Holy Trinity and grateful for the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order met in Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2 to 9 December 2011.

In preparation for the forthcoming meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-15) in 2012, the Commission devoted its third meeting to consolidating its work in the five areas initially identified as falling within its remit in 2009.

These areas of work involve:

1. reflecting critically on the Instruments of Communion and the relationships among them. Our discussions continue to develop the potential of these in the wider contexts of Anglican and ecumenical ecclesiological reflection;

2. studying the definition and recognition of churches;

3. providing a variety of materials to assist in the reception of the Anglican Communion Covenant. The guide which we produced during the past year is being augmented by a short video presentation which will be made available from the Anglican Communion website;

4. assisting the Communion in its engagement with the complex processes involved in reception. This includes receiving from one another and embracing the fruits of ecumenical dialogue and of Anglican theological reflection at all levels in the Communion. In our work as a Commission, we have become increasingly and acutely aware of the importance of this task in the life of our churches;

5. considering the question of transitivity, that is, the way in which regional ecumenical agreements between churches which are members of different global communions in one geographical area affect or extend to other parts of the Communions

Aware of our mandate to promote the deepening of communion between the churches of the Anglican Communion, we emphasized the importance of being a fully representative group, and we greatly regret that some of our members were not present. We reaffirmed the significance of the Anglican Communion Covenant for strengthening our common life.

In accordance with its mandate the Commission also reviewed ecumenical developments within the life of the Anglican Communion. We considered the Jerusalem Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Commission, “To Love and Serve the Lord,” and the report of the Anglican-Old Catholic International Coordinating Council, “Belonging together in Europe.” We expressed our support for a new phase of dialogue between the Anglican Communion and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. A draft of guidelines articulating expectations of Anglican participants in ecumenical dialogues was agreed for consideration by the Standing Committee. The Commission also confirmed the need for a continuing working group on ecumenical matters.

Bishop Paul Kim and the Anglican Church of Korea welcomed the Commission to Seoul. We were sustained throughout the meeting by sharing in the daily celebration of the Eucharist in the Cathedral, by the Cathedral community’s ministry of prayer, and by the hospitality of the Cathedral’s congregation and the Girls’ Friendly Society. During our visit, in particular through our introduction to the work of Towards Peace in Korea (TOPIK), we were made aware of the wide-ranging activities of the Korean churches in pursuit of social justice and reconciliation in the Korean peninsula, a concern that has been prominent at recent meetings of the ACC. Constructive conversations took place regarding the Anglican Church of Korea’s preparations to receive Anglican participants at the WCC Assembly in 2013. Throughout our time in Korea, we have shared with the Korean Church our common Advent hope.

In the course of our meeting, we visited the island of Ganghwa, where we prayed at the site of an early Anglican mission in Korea, the church of Sts. Peter and Paul. From the Peace Platform we looked across the sea to North Korea and heard an account of the history of Korean partition and the aspirations for reunification. We then went on to visit the church of St Andrew and the village of Urimaul, where the Anglican Church of Korea has established a Residential and Day Care Center for disabled adults. On our return to Seoul, we were welcomed at Sungkonghoe (Anglican) University, by the University’s President, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Yang, himself a member of the Commission.

The next meeting will take place in September 2012.

Present at the Seoul meeting

The Most Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi
Province of the Anglican Church of Burundi, and Chair of the Commission

The Rev. Canon Professor Paul Avis
Church of England

The Rev. Sonal Christian
Church of North India

The Rev. Canon Dr. John Gibaut
World Council of Churches

The Rt. Rev. Dr. Howard Gregory
The Church in the Province of the West Indies

The Rev. Professor Dr. Katherine Grieb
The Episcopal Church (USA)

The Rt. Rev. Kumara Illangasinghe
Church of Ceylon, Sri Lanka

The Rev. Canon Clement Janda
Episcopal Church of the Sudan

The Rt. Rev. William Mchombo
Church of the Province of Central Africa

The Rev. Canon Sarah Rowland Jones
Anglican Church of Southern Africa

The Rt. Rev. Victoria Matthews
Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

The Rev. Canon Dr. Charlotte Methuen
Scottish Episcopal Church/Church of England

The Rev. Canon Dr. Simon Oliver
Church in Wales/Church of England

The Rt. Rev. Dr. Stephen Pickard
Anglican Church of Australia

Dr. Andrew Pierce
Irish School of Ecumenics

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Guen Seok Yang
The Anglican Church of Korea

The Rev. Canon Joanna Udal
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs

The Rev. Canon Dr. Alyson Barnett-Cowan
Director for Unity, Faith and Order

Mr. Neil Vigers
Anglican Communion Office
View the original post

Anthony Baker on Relearning the Gospel

2011-12-10T20:08:30-05:00

Covenant contributor Anthony D. Baker writes in an essay for Christianity Today’s Global Gospel Project:

A few months ago, a graduate student in practical theology asked Stanley Hauerwas for his perspective on new church movements, especially emergent church movements. Disarming and epigrammatic as ever, the man whom Time once called “America’s Best Theologian” replied, “The future of the church is not found in things like this; the future is doing the same thing Sunday after Sunday.”

This may seem dismissive. The student certainly took it that way, and indicated as much on his blog. I want to suggest, though, that Hauerwas was essentially right. But first I would point to a legitimate layer of anxiety that underlies the student’s frustration.

Rest the rest.
View the original post

A Churchgoer’s Guide to the Covenant

2011-11-21T12:06:35-05:00

By Fulcrum

The whole Anglican Communion is considering whether to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant. All Church of England dioceses and many deaneries are discussing it in coming months before it returns to General Synod in 2012. Fulcrum has consistently supported the Covenant but is aware that there is little accessible material explaining it. As a result, many people are relatively uninformed or are being misinformed about it and its significance by some opponents. We have therefore produced this short briefing paper which answers some common questions and provides ten reasons to support the Covenant.

What is The Covenant?

• An agreement among Communion churches in the form of shared affirmations and mutual commitments.

• A nine-page document representing more than three years work by a diverse international committee in dialogue with Anglicans around the world.

• There is a Preamble, four substantive Sections, and a concluding Declaration. An Introduction expressing some of its theological rationale is not part of it but is required to be printed with it.

What prompted calls for a Covenant?

• The Communion has constantly evolved as it has grown in size and diversity and this proposal is in line with earlier developments.

• The Covenant was initially proposed in the 2004 Windsor Report. This responded to two facts. First, North American provinces had abandoned longstanding Anglican principles of consultation and interdependence (especially in relation to controversial issues) which had been upheld in relation to women’s ordination within the Communion. Second, some other Anglican churches accepted into their own provinces clergy and churches who left the American and Canadian churches and crossed provincial boundaries by consecrating bishops to serve in North America.

In what way were Anglican principles abandoned?

• In 1998 the Lambeth Conference overwhelmingly passed Resolution I.10. Among other things, the bishops declared homosexual practice “incompatible with Scripture”. This was a significant boundary in a communion of churches committed to the authority of Scripture and episcopal oversight. It also rejected blessing or ordaining those in same-sex unions.

• Despite this, without further consultation, some churches proceeded with these developments. In 2003, the Episcopal Church elected and confirmed a partnered gay bishop and the Canadian diocese of New Westminster approved a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. This disregard for the clearly expressed mind of the Anglican Communion represented an unprecedented rejection of its longstanding pattern of life together.

How did the Communion respond?

The Archbishop of Canterbury called an emergency meeting of the heads of the provinces. They all agreed

• To proceed with these actions in this way would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion at the deepest level’

• To establish the Lambeth Commission under Robin Eames to address the maintenance of communion among Anglican churches. This produced the Windsor Report which, through the Windsor Process, was well received by the wider Communion and the Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council) which are structures assisting the discernment and articulation of our Anglican common life.

After further consideration and consultation, in 2006 Rowan Williams appointed a Covenant Design Group. This was chaired by a senior Primate who was a moderate leader within the Global South and had served on the Lambeth Commission.

How did the Design Group work?

• It produced and consulted widely on three draft covenants.

• The Church of England made a significant positive contribution to this process.

• In December 2009 the churches of the Communion were asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury to adopt the “final text” of a Covenant.

What does the Covenant do?

• It articulates the shared beliefs and longstanding conventions of the Communion as a fellowship of autonomous churches

• It provides an agreed process of shared discernment which will strengthen both our life as a Communion and our ecumenical relationships as we discuss controversial issues together.

How has the content developed?

• As drafts developed the Covenant became less legal and punitive in tone.

• The expression of provincial autonomy has become clearer alongside our interdependence expressed through consultation and mutual accountability.

What is the key content?

• Section 1 draws on the Declaration of Assent and the Lambeth Quadrilateral to articulate our common Anglican faith.

• Section 2 reaffirms the Five Marks of Mission in its statement of our shared mission.

• Section 3 describes the structures that have evolved to enable consultation and discernment — the Instruments of Communion — and commits churches to work with one another through these.

• Section 4 addresses how conflicts about interpretation or alleged breach of the Covenant will be handled.

Does it override the rights of provinces?

• Churches are still free to make autonomous decisions. There is no un-Anglican ‘curial’ structure and no church by signing the Covenant empowers some extra-provincial body to overturn its own decisions.

• While upholding provincial autonomy, interdependence is supported by establishing procedures to enable a shared discernment on contentious issues. These include enabling the Communion to identify together any “relational consequences” if a province acts without consultation or in breach of the Covenant.

What happens to a province that does not adopt the Covenant?

It remains unclear what will happen within the Communion if some churches sign and others do not. Although not signing does not mean automatic exclusion there may develop some institutional expression of two levels of commitment to life in communion.

Is there substantial support for The Covenant?

• Already Mexico, Ireland, South East Asia and South Africa have responded positively.

• The Archbishop of Canterbury has been among the strongest advocates for adoption of the Anglican Covenant.

• It has had the consistent support of the Global South churches, representing the vast majority of Anglicans.

• Some Global South leaders now believe the Covenant is too little and too late to address the Communion crisis. They support a more confessional structure based on the Jerusalem Declaration and structured around the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and GAFCON Primates.

• There are two main alternative visions competing with the Covenant — GAFCON’s more narrowly defined confessional approach and the path of unaccountable independence through unilateral innovation. Despite their fundamental differences, these minority views may unite in rejecting the Covenant which is much more recognisably Anglican than both of them.

In Conclusion: Ten Reasons to Support the Anglican Communion Covenant

1. It has been consistently supported by the Church of England which significantly shaped its content through the years of its development and so we should not now reverse our positive and constructive response.

2. It is a development in line with the Communion’s evolving life and is faithful to Anglicanism’s theological and ecclesiological tradition and identity.

3. It gives form to a vision of ‘communion with autonomy and accountability’ that has been central to the Communion’s self-understanding and is a genuine Anglican via media avoiding the dangers of both a centralised, controlling Curia and a fragmenting, fractious federation.

4. It enables Anglicans across the world and Christians in other denominations to understand who we are as Anglicans and how we seek to live together and share in God’s mission together as part of the body of Christ.

5. It provides a clear agreed framework for debate, diversity and development through shared discernment within agreed affirmations and commitments.

6. It facilitates changes in continuity and dialogue with both our Anglican tradition and our fellow Anglicans around the world and thus serves our unity in Christ.

7. It preserves provincial autonomy but allows the clear articulation of the catholic consensus within the Communion and an ordered — rather than the recent chaotic — response within Anglicanism when provinces believe they need to act contrary to this.

8. It offers the best, perhaps the only, means of preventing further bitter fragmentation by enabling the highest degree of communion among Anglicans.

9. It does not explicitly address specific controversial issues but cultivates practices and provides processes for addressing whatever innovations — for example, lay presidency — might arise when some Anglicans may feel called to act in a way that others do not recognise as faithful developments.

10. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked the Church of England to support him and the other Instruments in working for the widest possible acceptance of the Covenant within the Communion.

Update: Comprehensive Unity, the No Anglican Covenant blog, provided this response, which Fulcrum participants have discussed further.
View the original post

Paul Avis on the Covenant

2011-11-16T08:32:36-05:00

From Fulcrum

The Anglican Covenant

By Paul Avis

Originally published in Ecclesiology 7.3 (2011) and reproduced with the permission of the author and of the publisher (BRILL).

The Anglican Communion is under stress because of disagreements about Christian morals and about what kind of mutual obligation is involved in membership of the Communion. The Windsor Report (2004)[i] tackled the problems raised by the consecration of a bishop in a same-gender partnership in The Episcopal Church in the USA, the liturgical blessing of same-gender partnerships in a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada, and the cross-jurisdiction interventions by Anglican churches from the Global South in response to this situation.

The single most significant proposal made by The Windsor Report (2004) was for a Covenant between the churches of the Anglican Communion. It proposed that they would covenant together to commit themselves to exercise restraint in contentious areas, to consult carefully about potential developments and to strengthen processes of mutual accountability. The Covenant has since gone through various drafts and the final ‘Ridley’ draft is now being considered by the member churches of the Anglican Communion. The Covenant proposal has generated considerable nervousness among some: it is seen as moving the Anglican Communion into unknown territory and compromising the hard-won autonomy of the member churches. On the other hand, some representatives of the Global South of the Anglican Communion have already written it off as lacking teeth and unable to remedy the situation. These two responses seem to cancel each other out. So how should we assess this proposal?

First, the Covenant is the only realistic option on the table. As others have said, it is the only game in town. The future of the Anglican Communion is in jeopardy at the present time and specific measures are needed. The Anglican Covenant, centering on mutual commitment, is intended to secure the future of the Communion as one body. The Covenant is the only credible proposal that I am aware of to help hold this family of churches together. The alternative to the Covenant is to allow the present sharp tensions to be worked out in the formal separation of some Churches of the Communion from others — and that means schism and the fracture and possible break up of the Anglican Communion.

Second, the Covenant is an embodiment of mutual commitment. The Covenant is not perfect and it is not completely clear to me how the ‘Consequences’ aspect of it will be worked out, if it comes to that. But I don’t think that that is the most important thing about the Covenant. The key, for me, is that by subscribing to the Covenant, Anglican Churches will signal in a serious way their intention to remain together. They will signal this to themselves, to all the other Anglican Churches throughout the world, and to other Christian world communions, who are watching anxiously and do not want to see the Anglican Communion fail as a world-wide fellowship of Churches. Such a failure would indicate a serious weakening of Christianity and its witness on the world stage. It would also bring grief and heartbreak to millions of Anglican Christians around the world.

Third, we need to consider the challenge that the Covenant is ‘un-Anglican’. Behind that accusation lies a concern that the Covenant asks too much of member Churches and fatally compromises the autonomy of the member churches? I don’t share that concern. ‘Autonomy’ cannot be the first thing that we have to say about ourselves as Anglican Churches. The attributes of the Church of Christ that we affirm in the Creed must surely come much higher up: unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. The very first thing that we want to say about our own church, whatever that church may be, is that it belongs to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. But if we belong, with others, to something much bigger than ourselves, then we belong together and not in autonomous isolation. So interdependence must be a key denominator of Anglican ecclesiology and polity. The Covenant seeks to flesh out in practical terms what interdependence might mean. Nevertheless, the Covenant can only be adopted by the free constitutional action of each member church of the Communion and any future consequences of the Covenant would need to be processed by each church in a similar way. Self-government is not threatened by the Covenant.

Fourth, the Covenant is orientated to the common good of the Communion. From mediaeval times, through the Reformation and right up to the present day, churches have used the language of the common good and applied it not only to the wider society, but to the Church as an institution[ii]. As Churches that exist in a relationship of interdependence, it seems not too much to ask of us that we consider the common good of the Christian Church as a whole and of the Anglican Communion as a part of that whole. This takes us to the heart of what is meant by catholicity. The word ‘catholic’ is from the Greek kat’ holon, ‘according to the whole’. To be catholic means to be deeply conscious of being part of a wider whole and to act accordingly. The virtues of forbearance, patience, restraint, willingness to consult and to accept a degree of accountability to others come into play here. As St Paul says, ‘Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ’ (Galatians 6.2).

Fifth, it is significant that the Covenant does not propose any additional doctrinal tests for the Anglican Communion. It contains doctrinal matter, but this is presented descriptively. The Covenant simply describes the existing doctrinal stance of Anglicanism in a broad and uncontroversial way. Nor does the Covenant advocate any particular ethical tests, with regard to Christian morals. It functions crucially in the realm of behaviour: how we should act towards one another when we are in a relationship of ecclesial communion. It is concerned with the virtues that belong to relationality. I think it is difficult to argue against the Covenant on this score, unless one thinks that the virtues of mutual forbearance and mutual responsibility are inappropriate for Christian churches.

Finally, we need to ask, ‘Does it matter?’ Is the Anglican Communion important enough to be worth saving? Is the Communion worth fighting for? My answer to that question is an unequivocal, ‘Yes’, and there is a profound theological reason for saying that. Communion (koinonia) is not something that is man-made. It is not a human construction and is not at our disposal to accept or reject. Communion — whether between individual Christians in the Body of Christ, or between particular churches within the universal Church — is something given in the realm of grace. It is intimately connected to the sacraments. In baptism we are brought into communion sacramentally with the Triune God and with one another; in the Eucharist — Holy Communion — we are continuously sustained and strengthened in that communion. Communion is God’s greatest gift to us in this life and it will be perfected and fulfilled in the next. Any expression of communion is to be treated with great respect and care. It is an imperative of Christian love to seek communion with our fellow Christians. We are called to seek, maintain and extend communion. To do that we are inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is often conceived as the bond of communion between the Father and the Son. Ultimately, then, the future of the Anglican Communion is not a merely political matter, but an essentially spiritual issue. I believe that Anglicans — and our ecumenical partners and friends — should look at the Covenant in that light.

[i] Published by the Anglican Communion Office, London, in 2004

[ii] See P. Avis, Beyond the Reformation? Authority, Primacy and Unity in the Conciliar Tradition (London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006).

The Rev. Dr. Paul Avis is the general secretary of the Council for Christian Unity and canon theologian of Exeter Cathedral. He is the editor of the journal Ecclesiology and the author of several books on Anglicanism, including The Identity of Anglicanism: Essentials of Anglican Ecclesiology (T&T Clark, 2008).
View the original post

Covenant FAQs

2011-11-16T08:13:42-05:00

From the Diocese of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich

Available here as a PDF

The Anglican Communion Covenant (A positive view): FAQs

Gregory K Cameron, Bishop of St Asaph, Secretary of the Covenant Design Group, 2006-2009 (Numbers in square brackets refer to sections of the covenant text.)

Where did the idea for a Covenant come from?

The Windsor Report (2004) recommended the idea in order to provide a brief statement of what should hold the Churches of the Communion together during a time of great debate and even division over sexuality questions. It recommended a “Covenant” because it is about relationships as Churches united in Christ rather than about legal or confessional formalities. The Primates unanimously adopted the idea in their meeting in 2005, and asked for a text to be drawn up.

How was the text developed?

The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a Design Group which met between 2006 and 2009. They decided that nothing new should be expressed in the Covenant — instead, agreed statements (such as the Lambeth Quadrilateral, the four fundamental points of Anglicanism agreed in 1888) and existing institutions should be the basis of the text. They deliberately avoided a long list of beliefs or new structures, but placed the emphasis on the resources that allow all Anglicans to understand their faith. Three versions of the text were developed in turn, and each one was sent out to all the Churches of the Communion for consultation, with much feedback and revision. The final text was adopted by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion at their meeting in December 2009, and sent out to the Churches for consideration.

Why is the covenant controversial?

Three fears have been expressed in particular: 1. That the Covenant defines Anglican faith too tightly. 2. That the Covenant centralises power in the Communion. 3. That the Covenant is designed to punish liberal Churches in the Communion, especially on questions of Sexuality.

Does the Covenant define Anglican Faith?

Section 1 of the Covenant sets out the relatively few fundamental ideas which have been accepted over the years as a description of Anglicanism — these are the historic formularies of 1662 as one authentic expression of faith [1.1.2]; the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist [1.1.5]; the prime authority of Scripture [1.1.3]; the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds [1.1.4], and the historic ordering of bishops (priests and deacons) [1.1.6]. It also sets out our shared inheritance of common prayer [1.1.7] and the method of using reason and tradition to understand the teaching of Scripture [1.2.2] as things which unite. None of these things have been considered controversial among Anglicans, but provide the resources from which we all develop our understanding of Christian faith and the life of the Church. There is no list of things that must be believed to be an Anglican.

Does the Covenant centralise power?

Recent years have seen a lot of squabbling in the Communion, and no agreed methods for discussion. Some bishops (about 20%) boycotted the Lambeth Conference, and there have been arguments about the appropriate powers of the other Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council [the ACC] and the Primates’ Meeting). Some people argue that these instruments have acted as if they had more power than they do, others as if they have abdicated their responsibility for the Communion. The Covenant sets out a brief understanding [Sections 3 & 4] about how the four Instruments of Communion work and what their powers are. Section 4 gives a special place to the Standing Committee (a committee made up of elected members of the ACC and the Primates) to co-ordinate processes of conflict resolution, but when the chips are down, it can only make recommendations about the way forward [4.2.7]. It is for each Church to make its own decisions on the recommendations. The covenant aims to increase the co-operation between churches, providing ways to consult and come to conclusions, but firmly states that, in Anglican thinking, each member Church is autonomous and can’t be told what to do [4.1.3].

Is the Covenant designed to punish?

Some conservative Churches in the Communion (mainly in the Global South) have said that they feel that The Episcopal Church (based in the USA) should be expelled from the Communion because of their moves to welcome lesbian and gay Christians into the life and ministry of their Church. Significantly, however, some of these voices have recently spoken against the Covenant as not being strong enough to deliver the goal they want. In truth, the Covenant does allow the Communion to voice whether any particular action disrupts the life of the Communion, and how this may have consequences, but (a) only after a long process of consultation [3.2.3], and (b) only by offering recommendations to the Churches. It is reserved to each General Synod (or equivalent) to decide what that Church wants to do [4.2.7]. The specific issue of sexuality is not addressed — instead a process for discussion and mediation is proposed in the Covenant.

Won’t the Covenant just create more conflict?

The conflicts already exist, and sadly, so do some examples of bad behaviour. Some Churches have already broken communion with others, others have tried to set up rival Churches to replace those with whom they disagree. Even the Instruments of Communion have occasionally overstepped the mark, and tried to run other instruments — the Primates interfering in the ACC and so on. We urgently need a statement of what Anglicans should be able to agree on, and on which our discussions can be based, with a commitment to work together. The Covenant provides just such a basis, calling us back to what matters. Sadly, without the Covenant there is not enough trust in the Communion now to keep us talking and working together.

Hasn’t the Covenant already been rejected?

Some of the global south primates said last year that they thought that the current text of the Covenant was inadequate, although in their most recent statement (09.09.11), they state that they are still working with it. Some bishops, two New Zealand dioceses & an English diocese have stated that they are opposed, but no national Synod of an Anglican Church has yet rejected the Covenant.

Why should anyone vote for the Covenant?

At a time when Anglicans are disagreeing, we need to be reminded of what holds us together and what we think is important — including Christian mission [Section 2]. We also need an agreed method to tackle disagreement, so that unilateral and more extreme actions are held in check by a commitment to work together. The covenant is a reasonably short text which seeks to do just this, and to take account of everyone’s concerns — it is the basis for working out how we can agree, and balances life as a Communion with the right of each Church to decide for itself.
View the original post

“Forceful” Fictions and the Anglican Covenant

2011-11-10T11:25:05-05:00

At its November 2011 Diocesan Synod, the Diocese of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich voted against the Anglican Covenant after considering two papers on it. The first was by the bishop of St. Asaph, Gregory K. Cameron, and the second was by the former bishop of Worcester, Peter Selby. Perusing the latter document, which consists of ten points, is a grating wake-up call. Selby, a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition (NACC), offered the diocese a paper that not only contained sloppy logic, but a rather curious mis-citation of the Covenant text. In what follows, we address this, noting both Selby’s mis-citation and his misinterpretation of the Covenant’s very vocabulary.

Mis-Citation

Point #8 of Selby’s text reads:

The notion that we need to make “forceful” the “bonds of affection” is fundamentally flawed. If we need force and coercion to maintain relationships between Communion churches, there is no true affection, and the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent.

Two points are worth noting.

Fact #1: The Anglican Covenant never uses the word “forceful” (which does not mean the same as “force” and “coercion”). However, the Covenant does speak twice of the “bonds of affection.”

First, in paragraph 5 of the Preamble, we read: “To covenant together is not intended to change the character of this Anglican expression of Christian faith. Rather, we recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified. We do this in order to reflect, in our relations with one another, God’s own faithfulness and promises towards us in Christ (2 Cor 1.20-22).”

We can only ask, what is wrong with re-affirming and intensifying that which has long defined Anglican relations? Selby does not tell us, although he implies that this something to be suspicious about. Perhaps his argument is merely rhetorical?

Second, in 3.2.7, we read that Anglicans are “to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.”

Again, we can only ask a question: since when did Anglicans deny that bonds of affection, which depend upon the love of Christ, allow us to reject the highest degree of communion possible? Are Anglicans no longer committed to dynamic ecumenism and its constant pursuit, against all odds, of being the common ground between Christian bodies who seem so dissimilar (e.g., Roman Catholics and Methodists)?

Fact #2: The Windsor Report uses the word “forceful” twice. But Selby and company apparently do not understand the meaning of the word. A quick look at Merriam-Webster.com offers the following synonyms for “forceful”: compelling, conclusive, convincing, decisive, effective, cogent, persuasive, satisfying, strong, telling. This is exactly how the word is used in WR paragraph 97, in which the authors write of being “struck forcefully” by provincial disregard for the Instruments of Communion. So too in paragraph 118, when a covenant is recommended, the authors write that such a document would “make explicit a forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion.” A word such as “explicit” meshes well with “convincing” and “persuasive,” and is thus well paired with “forceful.”

Selby seems to have a poor command of the English language. “Forceful” does not mean the same as “forced.” Here again, Merriam-Webster.com offers insight. Synonyms for “forced” are: compulsory, mandatory, imperative, incumbent, involuntary, necessary, nonelective, obligatory, peremptory, and required. These are rather different than the synonyms for “forceful,” such as “compelling” and “satisfying.”

Conclusion: Selby and NACC have only offered an argument against a fictitious version of the Covenant. They have not only mis-cited the text, but misinterpreted their own mis-citation. The diocese of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich should ask itself if it is content to retain a vote which is based upon misinformation. Selby and company claim that “the very foundation of the proposed Covenant is fraudulent.” In truth, it is their argument that is fraudulent. It is they who have mis-cited the Covenant, and it is they who have twisted the meaning of the Windsor Report by casting its words in an erroneous light. A vote made under false pretenses is like a marriage solemnized under false pretenses: justifiably annulled. The diocese should call for a re-vote.

In Part Two of this article I will discuss the NACC document by noting its contradictions. If Anglicans claim to value reason, how can they take such a document seriously?
View the original post

Council Releases Covenant-nixing Report

2011-10-25T09:27:57-05:00

Mary Frances Schjonberg of Episcopal News Service reports: “A covenant task force, composed of six council members, based its recommendation to council in a report that is available in English here and Spanish here.”

The report as released by Executive Council (watermark included) is available on Scribd.
View the original post

Council Nixes Covenant, Backs Peaceful Protests

2011-10-24T21:06:21-05:00

From The Living Church

One version of the lyrics to “Weave” is available here.

The music team at Home of Truth Spiritual Center, Alameda, Calif., performs the song in this video.

Via the Episcopal Church’s Office of Public Affairs

A Message from Executive Council
Salt Lake City, October 21-24, 2011

Weave, weave, weave …
Weave us together in unity and love.
[from the Weave song attributed to Rosemary Crow]

All day long on Thursday, October 20, the Executive Council gathered. Members came from Bogota in the Diocese of Colombia, from Seattle in the Diocese of Olympia, from the Standing Rock Reservation in the Diocese of North Dakota, from St. Thomas in the Diocese of the Virgin Islands, all ready for their seventh of nine meetings in this triennium. Some traveled only a little more than an hour by air while others spent 18 hours or more making connections and weathering flight delays. Steve Hutchinson of the Diocese of Utah was the only Council member able to sleep in his own bed in Salt Lake City each night as his colleagues came to meet in his home town.

Each was eager to greet colleagues and friends and dive into the full schedule of the meeting when it officially began on Friday morning. Council members had already become immersed in the papers and reports, budget and financial statements that have been posted to the online community known as the Extranet on a constant basis over the past month. A new norm for Council requests that documents be posted fourteen days in advance to allow for translation into Spanish, the native language of several Council members; simultaneous translators are present at Council meetings to facilitate participation. We are living into a new season of weaving our threads of interdependence together in the spirit of ubuntu — you in me and I in you, the theme of our last General Convention.

This Council meeting was one day longer than the typical meetings in the triennium because Council considered the draft proposed budget that Council will submit to the Joint Standing Committee on Program, Budget and Finance at General Convention. Council also approved the 2012 budget for the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS) and Council’s report to the 77th General Convention, commonly referred to as the “Blue Book.” Also on the agenda were reports to General Convention from the D020 Task Force, including a resolution responding to the Anglican Covenant, and the INC-055 Task Force, which was charged with studying the United Thank Offering’s current and future status.

We are many textures, we are many colors,
… we are entwined in one another in one great tapestry

The first morning of Council brought three distinctive yet interwoven narratives from the Presiding Bishop, the President of the House of Deputies and the Chief Operating Officer. Each made important statements about how the work of Executive Council relates to the larger narratives of the life of the Church. There were moments of conflict as values held passionately by the three speakers were openly expressed. There were admonitions to find Jesus among the poor, to honor the hard work and witness of the whole people of the Church in all orders, to express how we carry out God’s mission in the shaping of a budget.

The experience of conflict in church meetings where budgetary discussions and vision are mixed together often make us wary of even trying to connect the dots, of weaving a whole story from the threads. Rich insights by committed leadership, accompanied by a common commitment to hear one another out, resulted in the beginnings of new stronger cloth.

In 2009, General Convention closed with a strong emphasis on mission, mission, mission. … God is calling the church to meet Jesus in the marginalized — the poor, the lonely, the suffering, the lost. Weave, weave, weave. … Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in her opening remarks challenged Council to regard budgets as moral documents. The 76th General Convention’s adoption of the Five Marks of Mission of the Anglican Communion as mission priorities are the threads that are woven through all the parts of The Episcopal Church’s budget.

So yes, our work began with passionate narrative. But by 11:30 of the first day the work of Council was well under way. We went from being at separate tables to being at the Lord’s Table. We shared simple Eucharist from a Lutheran liturgy in Spanish, celebrated by Pastor Kathryn Tiede, our ecumenical partner from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the threads of bible study formed into a collective amen to the Gospel.

The remainder of the first day and the morning of the second were devoted to committee work. Much of our time in committee was devoted to preparation of Blue Book materials, reports on work done in this Triennium and preparation of a budget for 2012 and beyond. Always in the background was the concern to shape our structures in such a way as to serve God’s mission better, the knowledge that change is in the offing, and the awareness that we have a choice to meet it by reaction or by preparation.

On Saturday afternoon we met in plenary session to have an open conversation about the core principles and budgeting strategies to be used in developing the draft budget for the years 2012-2015. In keeping with the core principle that says, “The voices of all the baptized are valued in the governance and decision-making of this Church,” almost everyone on Council contributed to the discussion. Other key principles and strategies include being especially attentive to the poor and the marginalized, providing enabling grants to support or create experimental, new expressions of the Church; and the notion that new structures may provide new resources and opportunities for ministry.

Sunday morning members of the group headed off to church. The Presiding Bishop preached at the St. Mark’s Cathedral, and some attended with her. Others visited St. Paul’s, Salt Lake City. The gospel — Matthew 22:34-46 — on the Law, the Messiah and the silenced questioners — called us to the core of our faith, to silence and to joyful obedience. We returned to our committee work in the afternoon, and a few committee members continued to meet after dinner to finalize resolutions for the plenary sessions on the final day.

We are different instruments playing our own melodies …
But we are all playing in harmony in one great symphony.

Monday, the fourth day, began with Morning Prayer. As it ended and Council prepared to come into session, another slide came up on the screen. It showed Jesus on a park bench with a young man whose backpack is on the ground beside him. Jesus is leaning toward the young man, speaking intently. The caption says, “No, I’m not talking about Twitter. I literally want you to follow me.” The room erupted in laughter.

Council heard reports from its five standing committees and considered and voted on a large number of resolutions presented by those committees. Many of the resolutions perfected language of resolutions referred to General Convention as part of the Executive Council Blue Book report — the so-called “A” resolutions. Among the key resolutions passed by Council on this last meeting day were the following:

• Received the report of the INC-055 Ad Hoc Task Force on The United Thank Offering and commended it to the 77th General Convention and the Triennial Meeting of Episcopal Church Women in 2012, and approved the newly developed Bylaws for The United Thank Offering Board.

• Received the report of the Executive Council D020 Task Force for inclusion in the 77th General Convention Blue Book and submits a resolution to the 77th General Convention that expresses thanksgiving for those who worked at producing the Anglican Covenant, commits The Episcopal Church to continued participation in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion and to continued dialogue with the provinces of the Anglican Communion, and states that The Episcopal Church is unable to adopt the Anglican Covenant in its present form.

• Approved the 2012 budget of The Episcopal Church.

• Requested the House of Bishops to consider issuing a new Pastoral Letter on the Sin of Racism at their March 2012 meeting and submitting a resolution to the 77th General Convention to recommit and declare itself to be dedicated to continuing to work against the sin of racism.

• Affirms the growing movement of peaceful protests in public spaces in the United States and throughout the world in resistance to the exploitation of people for profit or power bears faithful witness in the tradition of Jesus to the sinful inequities in society, and calls upon Episcopalians to witness in the tradition of Jesus to inequities in society.

View the original post

South Carolina: The Need for Transparency

2011-10-20T18:48:35-05:00

From the Anglican Communion Institute

By the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Mark McCall, Esq.

We have considered carefully the available information related to the allegations against Bishop Mark Lawrence that are currently under review by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. That information discloses an extended and troubling sequence of events that raises serious questions about transparency in the church.

We note the following:

1. In January 2010, Thomas Tisdale sent nine letters to the Diocese of South Carolina requesting voluminous documents from the diocese and its parishes. He advised the diocese that he had been retained to act “as South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” by the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. This caused the diocese to conclude that “perhaps the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is seeking to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese (Bishop and Standing Committee) and some of our parishes.” The Presiding Bishop subsequently told the Executive Council that “I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church.”

2. In August/September 2010 the directors of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, a group that describes its mission as “primarily to promote The Episcopal Church, its vision and polity, within the Diocese,” wrote to the Executive Council and each member of the House of Bishops requesting an investigation by TEC “leadership” into allegations of “abandonment” by Bishop Lawrence that they attached to their letter. The attached allegations included matters previously raised by Tisdale on behalf of the Presiding Bishop’s office and allegations that were subsequently included, verbatim at points, in the “Addendum” of allegations filed with the Disciplinary Board for Bishops.

3. In October 2010 Canon Gregory Straub replied to the Forum on behalf of the Executive Council that: “the Presiding Bishop’s office is invested in responding in all the ways that are canonically and pastorally possible to the concerns you and others have raised”; “the realities of our church polity mean that there are canonical limits to how her office and the Executive Council can intervene”; “there are, however, other formal and informal ways in which the diocese is connected to the wider church”; and “we are aware that the Forum is making good use of some of these informal connections already.”

4. In March 2011, the President of the House of Deputies, Bonnie Anderson, and her chancellor met with the Forum and others in South Carolina. In response to questions, Ms. Anderson’s chancellor explained the abandonment procedures, including the role of the Presiding Bishop.

5. In April and May 2011 the allegations of abandonment in the “Addendum” that would later be filed with the Disciplinary Board appear to have been put in final form. The footers to the attachments show they were printed out during this period: none is dated after May 1, 2011. The Addendum does not refer to events after May 2011, including the action taken by the Executive Council in June 2011 (described below).

6. Some time prior to July 1, 2011, the lawyer advising the Title IV Review Committee, the predecessor under the former Title IV to the Disciplinary Board, began working on “the Bishop Lawrence information.” When he was again assigned to this matter in October 2011, he was described as “already more than familiar with that information and the task which is now [the Disciplinary Board’s].” This was not disclosed at the time but only in October 2011 when the President of the Disciplinary Board, Bishop Dorsey Henderson, wrote to Board members and made the communication public. Bishop Henderson has not said who initiated this prior investigation but he later said that the Board itself had not initiated such an inquiry “within memory, if ever.”

7. On May 25, 2011, Melinda Lucka, a lawyer and director of the Forum, wrote to the Presiding Bishop, Bonnie Anderson and Gregory Straub (as officers of the Executive Council) “on behalf of” five additional signatories consisting of the chair and four other directors and members of the Forum. This letter asked the Executive Council to nullify several resolutions passed at the 2010 and 2011 conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina. In support of this request, the letter accused the diocese of “disloyalty to and disassociation with” TEC and taking actions in violation of TEC’s Constitution. It also alleged that “the Diocese and its leadership” had rejected “any meaningful effort to uphold the … polity of The Episcopal Church.” Attached to the letter was a sixteen page “Addendum” of diocesan resolutions that is identical to Tab One of the Addendum that is now being considered by the Disciplinary Board. This letter has never been made public nor was it provided to the diocese until September, but we later learned that the Executive Council’s Joint Standing Committee on Governance & Administration “spent considerable time taking up the concerns raised” in this letter on June 16, 2011 at a regular meeting of the Executive Council without informing the diocese.

8. On June 16, 2011, the Joint Standing Committee concluded that a 2007 Executive Council resolution declaring certain actions of other dioceses (Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin) “null and void” also applied to recent actions by the Diocese of South Carolina. According to the draft minutes of the Joint Standing Committee, those present included the Presiding Bishop, her chancellor, Ms. Anderson and Canon Straub. The same day, June 16, 2011, Straub wrote Lucka and advised her of the above action and also advised her that “the Joint Standing Committee and Executive Council will continue to monitor the actions of the Annual Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina.” Straub’s letter was not copied to Bishop Lawrence or the diocese nor were they otherwise informed at the time of this Executive Council action. Lucka later stated that she was waiting for this letter to be sent to the diocese before informing others, but there is no instruction in the letter itself that she was to wait or any indication that it would ever be provided to the diocese. Nor is there any indication that Lucka ever considered providing the letter to the diocese herself.

9. On July 1, 2011, the new Title IV became effective and the Disciplinary Board was established. Several of its members had previously served on its predecessor, the Title IV Review Committee.

10. In late August 2011 the Diocese of South Carolina received by mail from Straub a copy of the June 16 letter from Straub to Lucka. The letter was postmarked August 26, 2011. Added to the copy in a different font were “cc’s” to Bishop Lawrence and the prior president of the Standing Committee. Straub later explained the delay by saying that he had sent the copy to the diocese at the request of Lucka, but there is no explanation as to why the Executive Council did not inform the diocese in a timely fashion as a matter of its own good order or why Lucka did not do so herself. Straub subsequently sent the diocese a copy of Lucka’s May 25 letter at the request of the diocese.

11. On September 22, 2011, two days after the conclusion of the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, Lucka formally advised the chair of the Forum (one of those on whose behalf the May 25 letter had been sent) of the Straub response of June 16. She stated that she had “waited to let EFSC and others know about this until the Diocese also was informed. I am told the Diocese has received word of the decision.” The Forum immediately made this letter public. Contradicting any implication that this letter was the means by which the Forum was in fact informed of the action by the Executive Council, one of the other signatories to the May 25 letter published this information on his website the day before this letter was sent.

12. One week later, on September 29, 2011, Bishop Henderson informed Bishop Lawrence that “serious charges” of abandonment were under investigation by the Disciplinary Board. Bishop Lawrence was also given a copy of the allegations under review, which were contained in an “Addendum” (described in #5 above), but was not given any other documents, including the letter or document to which the “Addendum” was attached, that might clarify the context of the allegations. The cover document could have been redacted to protect the identity of individuals. One of the signatories to the May 25 letter has stated on his website without citation of any other source that these allegations against Lawrence were submitted to the Disciplinary Board “during the summer.”

13. The next day, September 30, 2011, the attorney for the Disciplinary Board wrote the diocese requesting copies of certain records as part of the Board’s review of the matter.

14. On October 17, 2011, Bishop Henderson wrote fellow Disciplinary Board members that “because I believe that time is of an essence, I have made a command decision and today requested” that the lawyer who had formerly worked on “the Bishop Lawrence information” replace the attorney who had sent the September 30 letter only later to recuse herself on October 14.

In light of this sequence of events and the manifest importance of this matter for the church as a whole, we believe greater transparency is required than has thus far been displayed. In particular, we suggest the following questions are of sufficient importance to require prompt answers:

a. When was “the Bishop Lawrence information” first brought to the Title IV Review Committee and who initiated this process? When first submitted to that Committee was the information contained in the document entitled “Addendum” that was subsequently provided to Bishop Lawrence? Or was it initially submitted in another form or by other parties?

b. Why was the Lucka letter of May 25 to the Presiding Bishop, Bonnie Anderson and Executive Council, which prompted the Executive Council’s June action, not provided to the diocese at the time or ever made public? What is the relation between its “Addendum” and the (in part identical) “Addendum” now under review by the Disciplinary Board?

c. Why was the June “decision” by the Executive Council handled as it was? Why was the diocese not informed for over two months? How has the Executive Council continued “to monitor the actions” of the South Carolina convention? Who, if anyone, suggested to Lucka that she “wait” to inform others, including those on behalf of whom she had sent her original letter? Who later “told” her to do so on September 22? Was this timing connected in any way with Bishop Henderson’s call to Bishop Lawrence on September 29 and the renewed activity in the Board’s review?

d. To what extent have there been communications among the Presiding Bishop’s office, Bonnie Anderson and her chancellor, the Executive Council, the Title IV Review Committee/Disciplinary Board and the Forum and others in the Diocese of South Carolina about these issues? They have expressed public interest in these matters for some time and have been in communication about them. To what extent have they coordinated their actions?

e. After all this confusing delay and consideration of this matter at all levels of the church for several months, why is time now of the essence?

f. This matter has now been fast tracked into an abandonment procedure that has but two stops: the Disciplinary Board and the House of Bishops. As Bishop Henderson noted in contrasting abandonment with the normal hearing procedures of Title IV, “the abandonment canon makes no provision for the involvement of the Intake Officer, any of the panels, for appeal to a court of review, or for conciliation (short of retraction or satisfactory denial) for bishops, priests or deacons.”

The church is entitled to transparency about this process, abbreviated as it is.

In the interest of transparency, ACI notes that it supports and works with the Communion Partner dioceses on Title IV and other matters.
View the original post