Download it and read it all.

Check it out.

The claim of those who organized this is:

We are evangelical and catholic Anglicans, and fellow travelers from the wider household of God, assembled and summoned to a common labor in the ecumenical Church of Christ, not least through the present struggles and gifts of our communities.

We recognize that the Anglican Communion””the first instance of ecclesiality with which we, in this particular online assembly, wrestle for a blessing””is incomplete by itself, because we have seen with our eyes and touched with our hands the wounds of our Lord’s body: the countless factions and disputes that do not bring Him glory, leaving us all together far short of our call to “share,” as sisters and brothers visibly united, in the “partnership” of His offering (I Cor 10.14ff.).

In a sense it has ever been so. We recall St Paul’s outrage with the Corinthians, who “came together (synerchesthai) ”¦not for the better but for the worse,” a sobering point too-little reflected upon in our day by those, on all sides, who find the Church’s unity and orthodoxy uncomplicated””either simply given, or obviously taken away. Against both of these views, Paul insists that “there have to be factions (hairesis) among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine” (I Cor 11.17-19). And yet the Apostle does not on that account “commend” the Corinthians for showing “contempt for the Church of God and humiliat[ing] those who have nothing” (I Cor 11:22). Rather, Paul’s argument devolves to his prior exhortation to learn from the “example” of “Israel,” “written down to instruct us,” “so that we might not desire evil” but instead the singular “blessing that we bless.” Only upon this, objective basis: the blood and body of Christ unveiled, will the Corinthians learn to “do everything for the glory of God,” that is, to “give no offense to Jews or Greeks or to the Church,” to “please everyone in everything,” and not seek their “own advantage,” so that “many”¦ may be saved” (I Cor 10).

If the purpose of an Anglican Covenant is to maintain unity, it should forthrightly commit the entire Communion to it by forswearing schism. Our unity rests on a common belief in a creedal communion of churches, catholic and reformed, in which reason, scholarship, inquiring minds and discerning hearts are welcomed. The covenant should describe this charismatic nature of the Communion, and commit its members to maintain it. The covenant should dedicate the churches to the mission handed down by the apostles ”” to bring to all the world the saving benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. It should provide for the widest expression of koinonia among Anglicans and other sacramental Christians. Its new feature should be a commitment to debate disagreements until a solution appears that gains the acceptance of the Communion.

If the Anglican Communion remains true to its past, whatever mechanism is adopted for resolution of interchurch disputes will be administrative only, not adjudicatory. It will convene parties and facilitate discussion that continues until an accommodation is worked out. One acceptable outcome would be agreement that the issue partakes of permissible Anglican diversity and not essential catholicity. Above all, a covenant would exclude schism as a means of terminating debate. Serious engagement must continue until a matter is resolved. One side cannot say “We have no need of you” and leave, or expel the other.

In the long view, the covenant should declare that the Anglican Communion, along with the Eastern and Roman communions, is an integral part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It should point out the value of the Anglican Communion’s special and reformed understanding of the church, the scriptures, the historic ministry, and the sacraments; an understanding that in God’s time could form the basis for the reunion of catholic and protestant Christendom. And, as said above, it should forswear schism and anathema, opening a forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes without resort to an adjudicative curia, where debate would continue until it arrives at a “mind of the Communion,” compatible with the mind of Christ.

Read it all.

Read it all.

There were points where the group would be asked to look at its work again. Reservations centred largely on section 6, which sought to articulate the sort of commitments that arose out of an affirmation of the Instruments of Communion.

The task of the Design Group would be to produce at least two more drafts in a process designed to listen to all the points made around the Communion.

For decades, Anglicans had been wondering whether increasing diversity might force the provinces apart, and had asked what held them together. The days of undefined affection were sadly over; “yet this is also not a time when proposals which are brand new could win a broad consensus across the Communion. . .

Read it all..

From here:

The Standing Committee [of Alabama] and Bishop Parsley hosted a Diocesan Forum on “Communion Matters: A Study Document for the Episcopal Church”, at All Saints’ Church in Homewood, on July 24th, 2007. Here are the comments offered by Mr. George Elliott, our Senior Warden:

“Bishop Parsley, Mr. President, I am George Elliott, Senior Warden of the Cathedral Church of the Advent. I am joined by our Junior Warden and the members of the Vestry who stand here with me. I speak on behalf of this Vestry and have good reason to believe that I also speak for at least 70% of our 3,800+ member parish. As a friend in Christ, I am here to speak to you in love and with all due respect about the document, ‘Communion Matters’.

“We at the Advent are disappointed with the document because it does not lead us even to consider repentance and compliance with the clear advice and requests of the Primates; actually, it leads us down the path of attempting to justify the current direction of the Episcopal Church. We do not believe this is the course that God intends for us as Christians to follow. We humbly and respectfully implore the leadership of the Diocese of Alabama to stand up and do the right thing. Tell the leaders of the Episcopal Church to turn back from their current direction and comply with the recent demands of the Primates of the Anglican Communion.

“Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you.”

From Christian Today:

The Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, the Most Rev Alan Harper, has spoken out on the “sin” of division plaguing what he calls the “tortured” Anglican Communion.

Speaking in his address on the Feast Day of St Mary Magdalene, he said he had come to believe that “division is a greater sin even than heresy”.

He appealed to fellow Anglicans to remember Paul’s call for patient forbearance in his letter to the Ephesians, warning that disunity and “open rupture” were a “sign that the full stature of Christ remains absent from the Body”.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez warned the General Synod of the Church of England earlier in the month that, “Unless we can make a fresh statement clearly and basically of what holds us together we are destined to grow apart”.

Archbishop Harper referred to his comments by adding that “a spirit of arrogance on both sides is causing people of genuine faith and undoubted love for the Lord Jesus to bypass the requirement for patience and for making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”.

Read it all.

In the following ten sections I argue for a remaking of Anglicanism around a renewal of our understanding of the relationship between covenant, mission and Scripture. In part A. Some Ecumenical and Missional Reflections on the Windsor Report (sections 1-3) I explore how we can learn what this looks like in another tradition (the Baptist one) and then reflect on what implications this has for the Anglican Communion in relation to the Windsor process. I argue that this will require a remaking of Anglicanism around a new understanding of covenant, mission and scripture that will address the unresolved question of authority in Anglicanism.

In part B. A Covenant for Communion in Mission (sections 4-7) I suggest that this remaking can itself be rooted in a pattern of covenant found in Scripture which is shown to be missional. Specifically this is the pattern of the Sinai Covenant. I then explore how such an understanding must then rest on theology of a Covenantal, Missional and Scriptural God. This highlights the connection between the process of developing an Anglican Covenant and the need to provide a theological framework that will entail an adequate form of Anglican Theological Education to inform and explore its significance in mission practice.

In part C. Covenant as Generative Centre for Mission (sections 8-10) I consider an approach to Covenant, which sees it as a resource for generating missional capital. This is modelled on the an interpretation of the-Great-Commission-as-Covenant. I then briefly outline how mission capital has been developed and expended in the planting and nurturing of Anglican Churches worldwide. And how it is essential that any Anglican Covenant in remaking Anglicanism resonate, sustain and shape the Communion in a way that does not deny the mission origins of the Church in the British Isles and then more widely in the Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

In sum, covenants are deeply personal, relational, missional, reconciliatory expressions of the will of the One God to save, to bring into fellowship, and to oblige. This ”˜obliging’ is crucial, not because God delights in commands, but because commands are given in order for grateful response to be possible. But at the very same time, commands never replace the Holy and Living God, who in his character is the desisting and forbearing Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If the gracious ”˜obliging’ is cast aside, God has made provision for renewal and reconciliation, as part of the very act of covenanting in the first place.

It is not the task of those who undertake to compose a covenant, and those who obligate themselves, in Christ, to do what it asks, to imitate some precise form or event from within scripture’s panoramic account. This would be an odd kind of Biblicism, and may explain in part why the New Testament can refer reflexively to a new covenant with all high seriousness, without getting caught up in the provision of inventive new forms. The same holds true for the Anglican Communion in our day. To do this would be to undercut the dynamic and personal character of covenanting.

In the case of Anglicanism, it is the divine initiative in spreading the Gospel through the world to which we make response. We have never truly faced this moment with the kind of seriousness now required””due precisely to the success of missional expansion and the rapid character of communication and personal communion””and so it is not surprising that our time calls for a recognition, solemn and joyful, of God’s work, and of our concern to acknowledge and live within its gracious provision. That is why an Anglican Covenant is proposed by the Windsor Report and why we should undertake its relational, missional and reconciliatory calling in this present season.

Read it all.

The events of the past decade in the Communion have made clear, in a way not seen since the 16th century, the need of a strong statement of doctrine and discipline among Christians in our tradition. The question, in my view, is not about the need for a Covenant but about its adequacy to meet the theological, spiritual and missional challenges facing the Christian Church in general, and the Anglican Communion in particular, from within and without.

I offer the comments below to articulate an Evangelical perspective and corrective. I believe that the great debates and events of the Reformation remain foundational for our Christian heritage. In a world where Evangelical Christians are spreading rapidly, including those in many Anglican Provinces, it is important that our convictions be represented in an all-Communion document.

The Draft Covenant is, in my opinion, an orthodox statement of the Christian faith; it is less characteristically Evangelical. I propose that with relatively minor amendment, this document can express more fully the Anglican Evangelical perspective.

All church statements emerge from particular contexts, indeed particular controversies. Likewise, this Covenant should address forthrightly the theological errors that have torn the fabric of the Communion. It is not clear at this moment in time whether the Covenant Design Group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury has the cohesiveness to do this. Like the Windsor Report, it is difficult for a group of people who hold not only diverse but divergent views to come up with a clear and relevant statement. The Covenant Design Group has made a good start, building on proposals from a prior Global South working group. It is hard to imagine, however, that the Lambeth Conference, if it includes Canterbury’s current invitees, will be able to come behind any formulary that is not hopelessly muddled. And any muddled statement will negate the original purpose behind the Covenant proposal, which is for the Anglican Communion to return to its foundation in the biblical Gospel and apostolic faith and practice.

Read it all.

In this paper I examine theologically the nature of the Instruments of Communion and the proposal made about them in section 6 of the draft Anglican Covenant.

I begin by looking at what we mean by communion with the help of Andrei Rublev’s icon ”˜The Old Testament Trinity,’ before going on to look at how the word and the dominical sacraments are the primary means by which we enter into communion with God and each other.

I then argue that alongside these primary instruments of communion there are also secondary instruments of communion given to the Church by God in order to ensure that the word is rightly preached and the sacraments duly administered and that God’s people respond to Him in a life of unified obedience. In the Anglican tradition these secondary instruments take the form of an episcopal form of church government with personal, collegial and communal aspects.

I further argue that the four ”˜Instruments of Communion’ represent the development of this Anglican form of Church government at the international level and that they have a necessary function in allowing the Communion to operate according to is true nature as a manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ. The proposals made about them in section 6 of the draft Covenant are entirely sensible and the criticisms of them ill founded.

Finally I note that while the Instruments of Communion have a proper God given authority that needs to be respected, this authority is based on their fidelity to God’s self-revelation in word and sacrament and their authority creases when and if they take decisions that transgress this limit. I also contend that this point needs to be made explicit in section 5 of the draft Covenant.

Read it all.

Similar issues arise with the claim that the integrity of TEC is assured by the continuing authority of the historic creeds. However, the progressive clergy who now hold the levers of power within TEC insist vehemently that the creeds are not to be used as binding confessions that exclude from fellowship people whose experience of God or whose beliefs about God are different from or even contradictory to those normally associated with the creeds as tokens of Christian identity and sufficient statements of Christian belief. The progressive position in respect to the creeds is that Christians in the U.S. now live in a pluralistic society; and, in response to this fact, its advocates agree with our former Presiding Bishop who is fond of saying we should tolerate the contradictions because they will find a final reconciliation within the pleroma of divine truth. The prevalence of this view recently received vivid illustration when a Priest of TEC announced that she is now both and Muslim and a Christian. The response of her bishop was that he welcomed her decision because it would do wonders for interfaith relations!

A more fundamental problem arises when one looks hard at the meaning and use of the two sacraments on the part of TEC’s clerical leadership. It is no secret that in a significant number of dioceses and parishes Baptism is no longer thought to be a necessary precondition for participation in the Supper of the Lord. To be sure, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are sacraments found throughout the dioceses and parishes of TEC. However, use is changing the meaning of both in ways most Christians within the Anglican Communion and within the other churches would not recognize as faithful to Christ’s intention. How is one to understand this remarkable novelty? One can come the Supper of the Lord without Baptism because one does not have to die and rise with Christ in order to come to the Father. As a consequence, Baptism is not an effective sign of dying and rising with Christ and the Supper of the Lord is not a participation in that death and resurrection. Both sacraments are simply ways of offering hospitality to a diverse humankind and so manifesting the welcoming love of God to all.

Read it all.

Here is an alternate link to the full paper..

From here:

Held at a critical time in the life of Anglicanism this private consultation included over 20 bishops, theological educators, leaders of mission agencies, parochial ministers and evangelists. They came from Anglican provinces including Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East including Egypt and Palestine, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, South America, Sudan and the United States. The purpose of the gathering was two-fold: reflection on the challenges and opportunities posed by Mission in the North and examination of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant.

Delegates were assigned to one of these two ‘tracks’ but came together for two daily plenary sessions where both issues were aired and discussed. Delegates took part in daily worship, prayer and Bible study and worked in small groups. The interplay between these two themes proved very important. Those engaged in mission initiatives were reminded of the need to move forward together in one Church, while those considering the Covenant were reminded that it should be a way to strengthen the Communion’s mission.

The Covenant track, convened by the Bishop of Winchester (Michael Scott-Joynt), took place at what participants acknowledged is a critical time in the life of the Anglican Communion and immediately before the Church of England General Synod is due to debate the proposal for an Anglican Covenant. Speakers included Canon Gregory Cameron (Anglican Communion Office), Archbishop Drexel Gomez (West Indies; Chair of the Covenant Design Group), Joseph Galgalo (Kenya), Ephraim Radner (Member of the Covenant Design Group), Christopher Seitz (Anglican Communion Institute), Martin Davie (Council for Christian Unity), Tim Dakin (Church Mission Society), Philip Turner (ACI) and Professor Norman Doe (Cardiff University).

The mission track (convened by the Bishop of Maidstone, Graham Cray) focused on mission within contemporary western culture in a context of social disintegration and decline church attendance. The consultation heard insights from John Drane (formerly University of Aberdeen) and Sara Savage (University of Cambridge), and people working in UK-based local mission and from people involved in developing new forms of church.

There were first-hand accounts from Continental Europe (Rosie Dymond, the Netherlands), UK inner-urban areas (Cyprian Yobera, from Kenya working in inner Manchester) as well as North America (Michael Green). This was enriched by input from people doing mission in parts of Africa (Bishop Ben Kwashi, Nigeria), Latin America (Bishop Bill Godfery, Peru) and the Muslim world (Bishop Mouneer Anis, Egypt). Bishop Cray, Stephen Croft (Fresh Expressions) and Richard Sudworth (Faith to Faith network) addressed questions of Christian lifestyle (discipleship) and how to equip Christians to engage confidently in a consumerist, post-modern culture.

It is hoped that some of their ideas be of value to the Lambeth Design Group and the Lambeth Conference itself.

Daily scripture readings (given by Chris Wright, Margaret Sentamu and Adrian Chatfield) focused on Ephesians 1-3 and the call for “unity within the bonds of peace.”

Consultation papers will be posted on the websites of the conference hosts within the next 10 days (addresses above). Summaries of the small group discussions will be posted no later than Monday 3rd September.

Throughout the gathering there has been a keen sense of privilege at hearing of God at work throughout the world, of being part of a worldwide family that spans so many cultures, and of the joy of being able to form good friendships and relationships where: “in Christ we are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit” (Eph. 2:22).

[Episcopal News Service] Nine members of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council have been appointed to draft the Church’s response to the first version of an Anglican covenant.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson made the appointments as called for in Executive Council Resolution INC021, passed at the council’s June meeting in Parsippany, New Jersey.

The group is charged with writing a proposed response of the Executive Council to the draft Anglican covenant for the council, to be considered at its October 2007 meeting in Dearborn, Michigan.

Part of the material the members of the Covenant Response Drafting Group will consider as they work are the more than 400 comments the council received by way of a covenant study guide it published in mid-April. Although the deadline for comments based on the Council’s covenant study guide has passed, the group’s chair, Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine of the Diocese of the Virgin Islands, said responses are still coming into the General Convention office and will be considered. While the group is not actively soliciting more comment, she said “we would still be open to receiving [any additional comments].”

“I am grateful to the members of the drafting group for their willingness to continue this challenging work,” Jefferts Schori said July 11. “Together we look for a thoughtful and well-reasoned response that reflects the diversity of opinion in the Episcopal Church.”

Anderson said that the drafting group will also “design a process for continuing to gather input from the entire Episcopal Church to aid the Executive Council in its response to subsequent covenant drafts.”

Ballentine said the drafting group members reflect “quite a cross section of our Church as represented on the Executive Council.” Because of the church’s diversity, she said, the group will do all it can to ensure that all voices are heard.

[…]

The members of the Covenant Response Drafting Group are:
Chair: Rosalie Simmonds Ballentine (Virgin Islands),
Kim Byham (Newark),
the Rev. Dr. Lee Alison Crawford (Vermont),
the Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas (Massachusetts),
Canon Victoria L. Garvey (Chicago),
the Rev. Canon Mark Harris (Delaware),
the Rev. Winnie S. Varghese (New York),
Ted M. Yumoto (San Joaquin) and
Belton T. Zeigler (Upper South Carolina).

Full article here.

St. Paul, in relation to just such a divine grace, ties the “richly indwelling Word” (Col 3:16) to the relational virtues of peace, harmony, forgiveness, and love. But also, because what is involved here is a coming to one mind, a learning, what is required is a discipline within the church, where “admonishment”, of the kind he himself was willing to offer, is a necessary and essential aspect of the Scripture’s power to bring minds together. “Discipline”, after all, is a word cognate with “disciple”, the “student” who learns through following and standing ever near. The “teacher” points to the Scriptures and holds the student ”“ the disciple ”“ close to its formative demands. And “discipline” represents that framework of order through which this teaching or Scriptural indication is permanently applied.

If the councils of the church in the Communion exercise a magisterium, it is in just this way. And it is a way that, arguably, the Communion is currently engaging.

The goal of any Covenant for the Communion, then, would further the one-mindedness of Anglican churches through the discipline of Scriptural listening. Does the conciliar model of the current proposal do this? It would appear, at least, that this is exactly what is happening in the present ”“ we are, through the interplay and adjudication of our councils, being taken close to the Scriptures and made to hear them, often in contested ways to be sure, but ultimately in “symphonic” or agreed upon ways, even if not all are convinced at once. And thus it would seem that the proposal itself is in general congruent with the goal. If anything, the Proposed Covenant could be strengthened through a greater Scriptural focus that linked conciliar discernment with Scriptural conformity and “non-repugnance”, to use the Articles’ own phraseology. This is a point that underlines the fact that Anglican identity need not be sacrificed by stepping to the side of full-fledged confessionalism. Rather, as John Webster has noted, confessions “bind only as [they] present the Gospel’s claim” (Nicene Christianity, p. 131). Agreeing in the truth of God’s holy Word is the act that receives that claim as God’s, and hence makes confession ”“ the “one-speaking” (1 Tim. 6:12f.) that comes from “one-mindedness” — possible. To this act, the Communion is now called to give itself.

This was but one of the papers presented at last week’s Conference in Oxford that I was privilieged to attend–read it all.

This elf just finished reading the most-recent post by Chuck Blanchard, aka “A Guy in the Pew.” Chuck and some others on the “reappraising side” show some signs of reassessing strategy and musing whether TEC needs to “do what it takes” to ensure they remain a full member of the Anglican Communion.

Some of the “Next Steps” which Blanchard proposes for TEC are the following:

…what should the Episcopal Church do? I offer the following thoughts:

First, another response by the House of Bishops that speaks of polity and the independence of the Episcopal Church will not be helpful. We have made our points about polity and independence. It is time to offer a way ahead to reconciliation within the Communion.

Second, we need to end our obsession with Archbishop Akinola and the most vocal Global South Primates. They are not the audience for our response. I doubt even defrocking of all gay priests would be enough for them. Instead, our audience includes Anglicans across the world who want to preserve the Communion, members of our own Church for whom the issues of the day are of no import, and yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the majority of the Primates. This audience will not demand capitulation, but it will expect a respectful (and yes, compromising) response.

Third, we need to stop talking about the issues of same sex unions as if they were political issues that can be decided by majority votes. These are theological issues, that deserve theological attention.

You can read Chuck’s post (with quite a few links to other reappraising / progressive bloggers) here. (link is fixed)

(hat tip Nick Knisely)

It’s quite interesting to this elf to note how this soul-searching follows the CoE debate and vote on the Anglican Covenant. Perhaps there is actually much more listening going on than say, in 2003? I have no idea if Kendall would have posted this blog entry, or what he thinks of it. But I do think that it’s helpful to read some of the discussion among bloggers who have generally up until now been supportive of TEC’s decisions and actions at and in the wake of the 2003 General Convention.

Here’s how the Living Church reports the debate and outcome of the CoE General Synod resolution on the Anglican Covenant.

I speak to you as the Primate of a separate and autonomous Province of the Anglican Communion; it is one which takes great pride in its distinctiveness, and yet also in being part of the Catholic Church, finding its particular expression through the Anglican inheritance which it received from the Church of England. So I speak to you as someone who both sees and upholds a proper independence for my Province, but one which is rooted also in connectedness; which could not survive in isolation, and which would never wish to do so.

There can be little doubt that I am speaking to you at a time of great tension within the Anglican Communion. The “bonds of affection” which once held our fellowship together are strained; indeed some would say broken. A state which has been described as “broken or impaired” already is declared between some of our Provinces. Suspicion is rife, as well as accusations of heresy, bad faith and of theological and ecclesiological innovation. Rumours abound that there are plots to carry forward in some provinces a bold agenda on gay marriage, and to require toleration of it across the Communion. Other rumours inform us that the primates are plotting to impose a “collective papacy” on the Anglican Communion. Bishops and archbishops are taking over the care of churches outside their own provinces; new jurisdictions are being erected and bishops are being consecrated and set up in a spirit of competition. People are taking up more and more extreme positions and then defending them; no matter how well founded or sincere the objections.

In the three years since the Windsor Report was published, positions across the Communion have, if anything, polarised and there is less trust now between different parties and between different provinces that there has been for a long time. Everyone claims to be the defender of the true spirit of Anglicanism, and to describe that spirit as orthodox, mainstream, comprehensive or inclusive. The language has become more strident, and quite frankly, scaremongering is commonplace.

In a situation which is becoming increasingly overheated, we need to hear a voice of calm. We need to identify the fundamentals that we share in common, and to state the common basis on which our mutual trust can be rebuilt.

This is essentially all that the covenant proposal is ”“ no more and no less. It is not intended to define some sort of new Anglicanism, or to invent some new model of authority, nor to peddle a narrow or exclusive view of what Anglicanism is. It is intended to state concisely and clearly the faith that we have all inherited together, so that there can be a new confidence that we are about the same mission.

The initial draft covenant text which has been prepared by the Design Group which I chair represents a first attempt to describe Anglicanism in a way which we intend to be true to the best and highest of all the Church of England and the other 37 provinces of the Anglican Communion, wish, under God, to be. But this first draft is the beginning of a process, and not its end: the text which exists now is only at the beginning of a long period of analysis and testing.

The draft which has been developed by the Covenant Design Group looks like this. In spite of some idiosyncratic numbering the draft falls into three main sections: first, a description of the common Anglican inheritance ( numbered section 2); second, a description of our common Anglican Mission ( numbered section 4); and third, a description of our Communion life ( numbered section 5). In each of these three sections the Design Group has sought to draft an affirmation of what is already inherited and agreed in the life of our Communion.

So Section 2 states the historic basis of Anglicanism, and draws largely for its words on either the Lambeth Quadrilateral or the Declaration of Assent used here in the Church of England.

Section 4 describes our Anglican vocation, using the Five Marks of Mission developed in the Communion by an Anglican commission on evangelism and mission building on the work of the Anglican Consultative Council and widely recognised across all Provinces.

Section 5 offers a description of the instruments of Communion which have developed over time in our common life, and sets out straightforwardly the way in which they function to support the life of the Communion.

In the Design Group, we hoped that we had done this task of description accurately and clearly. We believe that all Anglicans reading these affirmations should be able to recognise a statement in these sections of the Anglicanism which they have already been practising and living out in our 38 provinces.

From the basis of these affirmations, however, the text goes on to articulate three sets of commitments, which flow from the affirmations. These say basically:

Ӣ If this is the faith we have inherited, then we as Anglican churches commit ourselves to living out this faith together in a particular context of mutual respect and shared exploration (Section 3)
Ӣ If this is the mission with which we are charged, then this is the way we will engage in mission together (Section 4b)
Ӣ If these are the instruments of our common life, then this is the way we will use them in developing the Anglican Communion, and for each church to live up to its commitment of interdependence with the others.

I personally stand by the draft we have developed. But I already know from discussions at Dar-Es-Salaam in the Joint Standing Committee and amongst the primates themselves that there are points where we will be asked to look at our work again. Reservations centre largely on section 6 of the current draft, where the Design Group seeks to articulate the sort of commitments which arise out of an affirmation of the instruments of Communion.

The feeling amongst the primates for example, was that the role of the primates in this draft has been overemphasised and the voice of the laity under-represented. The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates felt similarly. It is a section that will clearly have to be revisited in detail.

And the intention is to take a very critical look at the draft in the light of comments received from the process of reflection and debate going on around the Communion. The task of the Design Group shall be to produce at least two more drafts in a process which is designed to listen to all the points made and which will finally meet the criteria that I set out earlier: that is to describe the Anglicanism that we already hold in common, as a basis for greater trust and less suspicion in the future. It is fundamentally based upon a vision where all 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion can meet as autonomous but independent equals, offering mutual accountability to our Anglican sisters and brothers on the clearly articulated basis of common expectations.

The need for such a common basis is pressing. I have no doubt that it would be lovely to go back to a day when we relied on no more than the affection generated by our mutual inheritance and care. But I’m afraid that those days have gone: at present, Anglican leaders are seriously wondering whether they can recognise in each other the faithfulness to Christ that is the cornerstone of our common life and co-operation. While some feel that there will be inevitable separation, others are trying to deny that there is a crisis at all. This is hardly a meeting of minds. Unless we can make a fresh statement clearly and basically of what holds us together, we are destined to grow apart. Do we Anglicans have a clear and shared identity? It is a question that our ecumenical partners are increasingly asking of us?

For decades, Anglicans have been wondering whether increasing diversity might force the Provinces apart, and asked what holds us together. The days of undefined affection are sadly over, yet this is also not a time when proposals which are brand new would win a broad consensus across the Communion. I believe that the Covenant can only succeed if it can accurately describe a sufficient basis to hold us together, and for us to want to stay together, based upon what we already hold and believe. This stresses the importance of getting the text of the covenant right.

I dismiss the idea that this represents somehow an attempt to chain any Province into submission before a powerful centralisation as a chimera: every Province I know, every Primate I know, values autonomy. But there is a real question as articulated by Archbishop Rowan: Can we recognise sufficient of our Anglican inheritance in each other to lead us to want to renew our commitment to live as a world communion?

Now I have also heard the opinion expressed that the idea of a covenant is alien to Anglicanism. I would not accept that charge.

First of all, we are a Covenant people. In his first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 11, Paul wrote: “ For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.” In so many ways, these words at the centre of our faith not only speak to us of the sacrifice of our Lord, and the celebration of the Eucharist which stands at the heart of every Christian community, but they also speak to us of God’s covenant with us.

That covenant is an unbreakable covenant, founded in God’s gracious attitude towards us. It is God who has called us to him: it is God who has made us his people. As it is written in the first epistle of Saint Peter: “Once you were no people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” When we talk about covenant in the Anglican Communion today, some people speak of it as if the concept is strange to our life. But I have to say that if we are Christians, Christian life is born in covenant, is nurtured in covenant, and finds its destiny in God’s covenant that he will bring us to eternal life. We are a covenant people.

We celebrate covenants in many contexts of our Christian life already ”“ in Holy Communion, in the baptismal covenant, and the covenant whenever two persons are joined in Holy Matrimony. We live and breathe as Christians in the context of covenant. In all these cases, covenant is the joyful embracing of a common life ”“ as members of the Church, as man and wife, as participants in the Body of Christ. Are we as Anglicans not able to be joyful any more about our interdependence in Christ?

Many Anglican churches have already covenanted with their ecumenical partners. The Church of England- Methodist covenant will be the subject of debate at this synod. If we can covenant with our ecumenical partners, and find enough in common to recognise a shared faith with them, it seems to me to be a pretty pass indeed if we Anglicans decide we cannot covenant with each other. (It may be said here that a clear statement of our Anglican identity would reassure our ecumenical partners that we know ourselves what our identity is!)

And if truth be told, there is some sense that we have been living by an implicit covenant together already; loosely based upon the Lambeth Quadrilateral. But these limits have never been quite so agreed and recognised. Even so, it was said in the 1920 Lambeth Conference:

“The Churches represented (in the Communion) are indeed independent, but independent within the Christian freedom which recognises the restraints of truth and love. They are not free to deny the truth. They are not free to ignore the fellowship.”

Today we are not being asked to commit the Church of England to any specific clauses of a covenant, nor to mortgage yourselves to any particular aspects that may appear in the current draft. We are still a long way from a definitive text, in a process which will need the sustained wisdom and feedback of all the Provinces and all the Instruments of Communion before it is mature. What I understand you are on this occasion to consider is this: Are you willing to engage in principle with a process which seeks to find a common basis for the Provinces of the Anglican Communion to move forward together?

I said at the beginning of this address that in the West Indies we are proud of our autonomy lived in communion. This is as it should be. It is true of every Province of the Anglican Communion, even if some of those Provinces struggle with poverty, illness and injustice. But we also value our relationship with you, our first Province, the Church of England. I very much hope that you will be able to express your care for us, and your valuing of us by saying that we have a future together; by affirming “Yes, let us explore what holds us together. Yes ”“ let us covenant to walk in a shared faith and shared hope ”“ in Communion, as surely God intends us to be.” After all, did not the Apostle Paul write that no-one can say of another member of the body: “I have no need of you”? (cf 1 Corinthians 12.21-23).

(From Anglican Mainstream)

I know Kendall already posted the link to this speech in his post on the passage of the Covenant resolution (2 entries below), but now having read Bp. Michael Nazir-Ali’s speech, I wanted to post it in full to ensure wide readership. The text is from Anglican Mainstream:

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali’s (Rochester) speech to synod on the Anglican Covenant.

I speak as the Chair of the House of Bishops Theological Group which has the task of preparing the response to the Draft Covenant sent out by the Primates.

I shall vote for this motion when the time comes. It seems to have some rules for living together and if a Covenant is to embody them, then so be it, even if the nature and extent of it have still to be determined. But a Covenant “imposed from above” will not answer every question we have about our Church and Communion.

The Church becomes ”˜church’ by the working out of the Faith ”˜once and for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Our common mindedness has to do with having the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5) and the Spirit, leading us into all truth, continually reminds us of the words and things of Jesus and glorifies him (John 15.26, 16: 12-15). The ministry of truth and unity is grounded squarely on the word of God (”˜Consecrate them in the truth, your word is truth’ John 17.17) said Jesus and such a ministry makes sure that the Apostolic Teaching is passed on from person to person, community to community and down the ages.

The self-organising power of the Gospel produces a truly evangelical church. Those who are called to preaching and teaching have the positive task of bringing the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) to their people. But they also have a negative task which is to maintain the Church in its indefectibility, so that the gates of hell do not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). They must make sure that the Church does not lose the core of the Gospel.

We have to ask, whether this ”˜self-organising power of the Gospel’ has ever been allowed full expression in the Anglican tradition. Philip Turner and Ephraim Radner, two American theologians, have said that Anglicans have always been compromised by ”˜unsanctified council’. Their Erastian tendencies have allowed the State and the culture to constrain the freedom of the Gospel in forming the Church. The tendency to capitulate to culture has been exported to other parts of the world. Both here and elsewhere the idea of the national Church has obscured the primacy of the local and the universal. But the logic of catholicity has also been retained and the question is now whether it will be allowed full expression in its own integrity.

Will the instruments of Communion be effective and united in their gathering and working? Will decisions made by the Primates be upheld or repudiated immediately afterwards? If the Lambeth Conference is not a council or synod of Bishops, what is it and why should anyone come to it? What kind of authority does it have? We are looking here not so much for juridical or legislative authority but for spiritual, doctrinal and moral. We should want our leaders to lead and for spiritual leaders to lead spiritually.

It may be that Anglicanism is not a confessional body but it certainly should be a confessing one: upholding, proclaiming and living the Apostolic Faith. Its weaknesses need to be recognised and it should be strengthened in its vocation. We are looking then for a covenant which will express the Apostolic Faith, enable us to come a common mind which is that of Christ, and free us to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. The Covenant may be the first step in recovering our integrity, but it cannot be the last word.

The Church Society website has this report on today’s debate on the Anglican Covenant at the Church of England General Synod:

Sunday 8 July 2007

First business was the proposed Anglican Covenant. This presented some particular problems in that the Covenant could potentially mark a significant change in the nature of the Church of England and many people are concerned about where decisions are being taken. In addition there is a distrust of the process with many believing that conservative Primates will hijack the process and use it to exclude others. Matters were complicated by the presence of a draft covenant whilst people were saying that it is the process not the draft that is important.

Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies and chairman of the Covenant Design Group introduced the Draft and the process. He spent some time explaining the draft whilst stating that it would go through at least two more drafts.

Gomez described the covenant as being based on historical principles – in particular the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the Church of England Declaration of Assent. However, both these things have proved entirely ineffective in preventing the present problems and he offered no suggestion as to how they would prove more effective in the future.

The Bishop of Chichester introduced the motion and debate. He highlighted that the covenant is not a confession, that it is going to take some time to put it in place. He characterised the Covenant being a way of saying we don’t have to agree on everything but we will commit ourselves to one another.

Tim Cox moved an amendment which highlighted the danger of the prolonged structural approach envisaged by the Covenant. He called for decisive action now and the use of a clear affirmation of the Scriptures and the historic formularies. A number of Synod members were apparently in agreement with this sentiment but felt it was better to support the Covenant and seek to have it strengthened elsewhere.

Two other amendments also failed. One was intended to ensure the Covenant was not as effective as it could be, the other to give the Synod the chance to consider the response to be drafted by the two Archbishops before it is made.

The Synod voted in favour of the motion but with wildly differing views as to what the purpose of the Covenant was going to be.

[source: http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/synod/iss_synod_latest.asp]

================

John Owen’s report at Thinking Anglicans gives further details of all three failed amendments:

Three amendments were moved. Mr Tim Cox (a council member of Church Society) moved:

Leave out everything after “That this Synod” and insert:

(a) note the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007;

(b) believe that the Covenant process will prove inadequate to address the problems presently dividing the Communion; and

(c) urge all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion to declare themselves in communion only with those Provinces, dioceses and congregations that:
(i) assert whole-heartedly that the Scriptures are the Word of God;
(ii) uphold the historic Anglican formularies (the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, 1662 Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal); and
(iii) on the current presenting cause of division, uphold the Biblical teaching that sexual intercourse belongs solely within the lifelong commitment of a man and woman in marriage.

Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) moved:

In paragraph (a) leave out the words “affirm its willingness to engage positively with” and insert “note”.

The Revd Jonathan Clark (London) moved:

In paragraph (c) leave out all the words after “the Archbishops’ Council” and insert “to bring back to the next group of sessions of Synod for approval a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office”.

Each of the three amendments was defeated on a show of hands. Finally the Bishop of Chichester’s unamended motion was put to the vote and carried on a show of hands.

==================

We’ll keep an eye out for Abp. Drexel Gomez’ speech (either text or audio) and post any further news we find later.

The Bishop of Rochester’s Speech is here.

Update: Simon Sarmiento has the text of the carried motion:

‘That this Synod:

(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;

(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and

(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’

The Church of England is to consider possible rules for settling disputes in the Anglican Church, amid divisions over the ordination of gay priests.
Its general synod, meeting in York, is to hear from the Most Reverend Drexel Gomez, chairman of the group designing the possible “covenant” agreement.

Anglican divisions over issues such as the 2003 US ordination of a gay bishop prompted the idea of a set of rules.

The row has brought Anglicans near to schism, says the BBC’s Robert Pigott.

Read it all.

Tomorrow the general synod of the Church of England will be asked to pass a resolution from the House of Bishops that hands a blank cheque to the archbishops in negotiations with the rest of the Anglican communion for a “covenant”.

The Church of England arose from the Elizabethan settlement of 1559, which settled half a century of vicious religious bigotry by virtue of a broad-based generous church with porous edges, shrewd intentional vagueness about doctrinal certainty and governance that included bishops, priests and people (laity). If the synod passes the motion unamended, the nature of the Church of England will change dramatically; first, because the way will be open for bishops to agree a document without recourse to the clergy and the laity. This looks curiously like a form of governance that the English Reformation abolished, a Curia, rule by the bishops. Secondly, the way will be paved for the “covenant” between provinces of the Anglican communion worldwide and, however widely drawn that is, some decision-making power will be ceded overseas, exporting some of its historic inheritance.

Read it all.

A kind reader tipped us off to BBC Radio 4’s program this morning. He says it featured a good discussion of the Anglican Covenant and the issues facing the Church of England.

Here’s the link to listen in.

The Church of England segment is 5 minutes long, beginning at 39 minutes into the program and has background and comment from across the spectrum including Marilyn McCord Adams (a well-known reappraiser), an ACI Conference participant from Wycliffe, Dr Graham Kings (Fulcrum), Christopher Hill (Bishop of Guildford), Colin Slee (Dean of Southwark).

Over at Stand Firm, Matt Kennedy has now posted two entries in a series of essays on the Articles of Religion.

On the First Article of Religion

Who is the Son?: Essays on the Articles of Religion part 2

It has become apparent recently through reading responses to the proposed Covenant Draft, that many reappraisers within TEC reject the truth and authority of the Articles of Religion. This elf is thinking especially of SE Florida’s response which stated:

The statement “led by the Holy Spirit, it [i.e. each member Church, and the Communion] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons,” is factually untrue and inappropriate for a Communion-wide Covenant. […] Moreover, the “truthfulness” of several of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion is debatable (e.g. Articles VII, XIII, XVII, XVIII, XX, XXIX, and XXXIII). The validity of several of the Articles has been a subject of debate and doubt in The Episcopal Church since its inception.

Obviously the question of a Covenant raises the question of the Formularies. Thus this elf really welcomes and appreciates Matt’s effort to help us examine the Articles afresh. Go read his essays!

From a July 5th entry on the Inclusive Church blog

The growing number of bishops created by African provinces for “pastoral oversight” in North America (and potentially in other provinces), the attempts to create a Covenant that defines Anglican doctrine and ethics, and the apparent intention to organise an alternative to the Lambeth Conference in London next year all point towards one thing. The strategy to destabilise the Anglican Communion is moving into another phase.

The creation by the provinces of Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria of extra-provincial Bishops is against the expressed wish of the Windsor Report and the post Lambeth ’98 process of listening and reconciliation. It is more evidence that the Primates of those provinces and their supporters in the US and Britain profoundly misunderstand the nature of the Communion. We very much regret that the Chair of the Covenant Design Group, the Archbishop of the West Indies, has welcomed these appointments.

Inclusive Church’s aim is to support and celebrate the traditional breadth and generosity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it has been received and passed on through Anglican history and lived out in the Communion. This creates challenges when there are fundamental disagreements. But the way to respond to disagreements is not to walk apart, nor to create separate structures, nor to seek to impose one particular point of view on the Communion. It is to engage, to communicate, to speak, to listen and to learn.

Clearly there are outstanding issues over how the Communion should respond to the reality that many Provinces include lesbian and gay Christians who live with partners in loving, faithful relationships. But the extraordinary way in which this issue has been allowed to dominate the life of the Communion over the past ten years is not coincidence.

There can be little doubt that the issue is being used by some, mainly conservative, Christians as a lever to try to change the Communion into something it is not; from a conciliar church into a confessional one. From a praxis-based Communion where the bonds between us are the bonds of fellowship and love to a codified Communion where exclusions are legally determined and legally enforced, and where the Communion defines itself not by who it includes but by who it excludes.

The Covenant process has been moved, by this group, away from its original intention which was to affirm the bonds of fellowship which exist. The way in which the draft was received by some at the Primates meeting in Tanzania is indication that, whatever the intention, it will be used to enforce a particular interpretation of the Scriptures to the detriment of the life of the Communion. We do not need a Curia, and the process of drafting a Covenant is already giving more power to the Primates than is justified by our history, by our life and by some of their actions to date.

The full text is here.

Justin Brett, a lay member from the diocese of Oxford, wants the Synod to “note” rather than “affirm” the Primates’ recommendation. On Wednesday, he described as “dubious” the idea that Synod should, as he put it, effectively write a blank cheque. He also expressed concern that the timetable for drawing up the Covenant was already well advanced.

This was not a wrecking amendment, he said. “It’s trying to make sure that when we do vote on the motion, we do so with a sizeable majority.” There was too much uncertainty surrounding the process, Mr Brett said. The various views expressing doubts about the Covenant “all hang on whether we’re absolutely sure we are doing the right thing, and have been talking long enough”.

Another amendment, tabled by the Revd Jonathan Clark, a member of Affirming Catholicism, reflects concern about the power of the Primates. It seeks to ensure that the Synod gets the chance to endorse the Church’s official response to the current draft Covenant.

The amended section (c) would read: “invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to bring back to the next group of sessions of Synod for approval a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office”.

Read it all.

The Church of England General Synod begins tomorrow. One of the central items on the agenda is the proposed draft of the Anglican Covenant. Below is a roundup of links to various background papers and Covenant responses we’ve seen on various blogs and websites (from various sides of the spectrum) in recent days. We very much welcome input from our CoE readers with additions, corrections, clarifications. Thanks!
I. Simon Sarmiento’s Thinking Anglicans blog (reappraising side of the aisle) has been posting quite a number of background papers and responses from different leaders, groups and organizations within the CoE in recent days. You can keep up with Thinking Anglicans CoE General Synod coverage here.

In addition to posting the Fulcrum paper we posted here earlier this week, Simon has also recently posted two entries with statements from Affirming Catholicism here and here.

The first entry from Affirming Catholicism reveals that they are backtracking on support for the Covenant:

Alarm raised over draft Covenant

In the week before the General Synod of the Church of England will be asked to endorse the process to create an Anglican Covenant, Affirming Catholicism has sounded alarm over the current proposed draft. In a commentary on the Covenant design group’s proposal to give the final say on Anglican doctrine to the meeting of the leaders of national churches, the Primates, The Rev’d Dr Mark Chapman, editor of a forthcoming Affirming Catholicism publication on the Anglican Covenant, and Vice-Principal of the Ripon College, Cuddesdon, said:

The emphasis given in the current proposals to the Primates’ Meeting (composed of 38 men and one woman) downplays the importance of synods. There is something disingenuous about giving power to determine membership of the Communion and to decide what constitutes the ”˜common mind’ of the Churches to a group who at the moment refuse even to share Eucharistic communion with each other.

=========================

II. Also in the lead up to General Synod, Andrew Goddard has published various materials on Fulcrum’s site:

In The Anglican Covenant: A Briefing Paper for the Evangelical Group on General Synod, Goddard reaches this conclusion:

There are no solid reasons – either in principle or pragmatically in the current political context – for evangelicals or anyone else to object to Synod making a commitment to positive participation in the covenant process. There are many reasons – theological and political – why evangelicals and others who share our commitments to world mission, to learning from Anglicans around the globe, to safeguarding biblical faith and to facilitating harmony among Anglicans should wish the Church of England wholeheartedly to support the covenant process. Indeed, in terms of our life together as a Communion, the covenant process is – like the Windsor Report in which it originated – now ‘the only poker game in town’. If the Communion is to have a future together then the form of this will be discerned in and through this covenant process. For the Church of England to abandon that process through non-participation, or destructive participation, would therefore be for the eye to say to the hand ‘I don’t need you’ and for us as a province to embrace a vision of Anglicanism in which every one does what is right in their own eyes.

Also at Fulcrum is Goddard’s The Anglican Covenant: Background and Resources

Anglican Mainstream has also been tracking various responses to the Anglican Covenant. Last week they published a link to the Modern Churchpeople’s Union’s (MCU) rejection of the covenant draft.

All the MCU materials related to the Anglican Covenant are here. Their 2 page summary of their longer response paper is here.

Here are some of MCU’s justifications for rejecting the Draft Covenant:

Communal and theological consequences
The MCU anticipates that the centralisation and authoritarian character of the proposed polity will have a deleterious effect on the life of the Communion. In particular it is likely, over time, to discard much of the richness of the Anglican inheritance, to narrow theological and spiritual life, and to reduce both the diversity of the Communion and the positive valuation of difference. As power moves from synods to Primates it is also likely to diminish further the role of the laity.

We also anticipate that the desire for an ever more centralised and uniform Church is likely to result in greater structural inflexibility and thus to generate more division and schism.

Justification
No innovative change of this magnitude should be embarked upon unless it is clear that the proposals are both in accord with the inheritance of faith and will also (to the best of prayerful judgement) positively serve to build up all aspects of the body of the Church. The Draft does not address how its proposed changes will lead to these wider benefits.

Alternatives
The MCU recognises that there are strong reasons for looking again at the future of Anglicanism. However we believe that there is much in the storehouse of classical Anglicanism with which to build hope for a new and vibrant future. We value the existing polity of the Anglican Communion characterised by dispersed authority, responsibility and wisdom. In the absence of adequate reasons for change we would wish to continue to work within and to build on this framework.

We look towards a Communion characterised by diversity and mutual respect, accountability and hospitality. We would value and include all members of the church in decision making. We would refuse the use of power to limit the faithful life of the Church.

For all these reasons the MCU believes that the proposed Draft Anglican Covenant is not appropriate as a foundation for the future of the Anglican Church. The MCU urges its rejection.

——-

Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream’s personal response on the Covenant is online here. Sugden concludes:

So we must have our eyes open when discussing this matter.

The issue is not about agreement and disagreement, but conformity to the standard of teaching of the faith, expressed in a text ”“ the Covenant – that is accepted by the Communion as a family of churches rather than by individuals.

The issue is about the clarity of what the Communion is committed to which is public and accessible

It is also about what the Communion is committed to being accessible to all, not kept unwritten, vague and therefore only to be interpreted by those in power.

=================================

IV. Finally in terms of sites to follow what is happening at the CoE Synod, the Church Society (an Evangelical group) has an excellent and helpful Synod page:

July 2007 Synod Issues

Here is their issue page on the Anglican Covenant. Here’s how the Church Society frames the issue of the Anglican Covenant:

On Sunday 8 July the General Synod will be asked to endorse the following resolution.

18. ”˜That this Synod:
(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;
(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and
(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’

The last item refers to the draft covenant drawn up by the Covenant Design Group and circulated to members of the General Synod.

There are three main areas of concern with this motion.

* First, the text of the draft covenant.
* Second, whether the Presidents (Archbishops) and Bishops are capable of addressing the real issues.
* Third, whether the concept of the Covenant, which originally surfaced in the Windsor Report, will really solve the problems in the Anglican Communion, or potentially make them worse.

The full agenda of the CoE Synod is published here.

While Synod is sitting, the Church Society will be posting news here.

===================================

Whew. That’s a lot of material to try and cover. This elf confesses to feeling in over our head in trying to follow this. We would very much welcome comments, clarification and links from our British readers. Thanks in advance!

============

UPDATE

The Inclusive Church blog has a commentary posted today linking the Covenant Process to the situation with extra-provincial bishops in North America. We may post this as a top level entry. But in the meantime, here’s the beginning of the blog entry:

The growing number of bishops created by African provinces for “pastoral oversight” in North America (and potentially in other provinces), the attempts to create a Covenant that defines Anglican doctrine and ethics, and the apparent intention to organise an alternative to the Lambeth Conference in London next year all point towards one thing. The strategy to destabilise the Anglican Communion is moving into another phase.

I think Kendall may have previously posted an Inclusive Church Covenant response. We’ll check and may update this with more links later.

The upcoming Church of England General Synod will have a fairly significant focus on the Anglican Covenant process. As part of a contribution to that debate, Graham Kings of Fulcrum and Jonathan Clark of Affirming Catholicism have posted a commentary on the Fulcrum website. Here’s an excerpt:

The Anglican Covenant – Stretching a Point

We believe that we are being called beyond the comfort of our own convictions – that the Spirit is stretching us into embracing ‘interdependence’ as the principle of our life together. This need not undermine the ‘autonomy’ of provinces, but it places the focus clearly on ‘interdependence’, rather than ‘independence’, as the starting point for the life of our Communion.

To make this commitment will be demanding and sacrificial and there may well be parts of the Communion for whom this sacrifice is too great. Opting out may lead to ‘associate status’ at Communion meetings rather than ‘constitutive status’.

We believe that we need a Covenant which is evangelical, reasonable and catholic. Such a Covenant will sustain our communion with one another, will encourage our shared study of the Bible, will promote our Anglican pattern of synodical governance and episcopal leadership. It will enhance our co-operation with ecumenical partners and our participation in God’s mission to his world.

Rowan Williams, who will be on study leave during the General Synod debate, has written perceptively of Augustine of Hippo:

Augustine is unmistakeably working with the real questions of an earlier period, but implying that their fully theological resolution will need some new disturbing turns in the argument; and in that sense he is doing something very like the prelates at the Council of Nicaea who reluctantly adopted a fresh terminology in order to hold on intelligibly to a threatened belief.’ (Rowan Williams, Why Study the Past? The Quest for the Historical Church, London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2005, p50)

Sometimes indeed ‘some new disturbing turns in the argument’ and ‘fresh terminology’ are needed.

Robert Runcie, in his opening sermon at the Lambeth Conference of 1988 asked prophetically:

Are we being called through events and their theological interpretation to move from independence to interdependence? If we answer yes, then we cannot dodge the question of how this is to be given ‘flesh’: how is our interdependence articulated and made effective; how is it to be structured? Without losing a proper – but perhaps modified – provincial autonomy, this will probably mean a critical examination of the notion of ‘dispersed authority’. We need to have confidence that authority is not dispersed to the point of dissolution and ineffectiveness… Let me put it in starkly simple terms: do we really want unity within the Anglican Communion? Is our worldwide family of Christians worth bonding together? Or is our paramount concern the preservation or promotion of that particular expression of Anglicanism which has developed within the culture of our own province?… I believe we still need the Anglican Communion. (Adrian Hastings, Robert Runcie, London: Mowbray, 1991, pp154-5)

So do we. In the midst of this current crisis, the pattern of our friendship and collaboration in London has been encouraging and we are committed to worshipping, learning and proclaiming the gospel together. As our Communion is being stretched by the Spirit, a similar commitment to an Anglican Covenant, realistically and theologically, is the constructive way forward.

The full commentary is here. (h/t Thinking Anglicans)

Read it all.