The Anglican constitutional and canon law tradition is a minimalist tradition. I remember studying at Boston College, a Jesuit university, during my doctoral work and always being able to find a chair and table in the library’s canon law room which had shelves and shelves of books on Roman Catholic canon law. There was one whole wall devoted to canon law for the various religious societies. In contrast the canon law of The Episcopal Church or any of its dioceses is one smallish book. Our tradition is the minimum of ecclesiastical jurisprudence that is needed to maintain the order of the church. This covenant is in that tradition. I wish that it were more robust in places but I think it adequate to be the basis of an ongoing life of mutual submission and growth in unity and mission for the Anglican Communion but much will depend on the integrity of the individuals who will be because of their office the stewards of this covenant.
When I was a young man and entering into a business contract for the first time, I asked my father for some advice about the enforceability of a particular contract. He told me that if a man’s word wasn’t any good, his paper wasn’t any good either. In many cases the current chaos that we are experiencing in the Churches of the Anglican Communion is not a result of a lack of articulated rules and procedures of church discipline, but is the result of an unwillingness by those charged with the stewardship of the order of the church to enforce such discipline as has already been established. This version of the Anglican Covenant is a minimalist document. It does clarify issues of communion life and order and provide an agreed-upon process for handling disputes. It can be a real instrument for growth in truth, unity and mission, but only if those to whom the responsibility has been given to be stewards of the church’s order have the necessary moral courage to fulfill their office.
“I asked my father for some advice about the enforceability of a particular contract. He told me that if a man’s word wasn’t any good, his paper wasn’t any good either.”
Ms Schori doesn’t seem to have any qualms about lying to the entire Anglican Communion which is why this document will most likely be yet another impotent document in a long line. Lest people object to the word “lying”:
Example 1: her statement that she didn’t “sign anything” in regards to the DeS accord and that she only agreed to only be a messenger for it – a statement that was entirely refuted by ABp Drexel Gomez and the mendacity was corroborated by statements by none other than the obsequious Andrew Hutchinson, predecessor to Fred Hilz. See the article [url=http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/100/article/archbishop-hutchison-discouraged-by-primates-communique/ ]here[/url] where Hutchinson even uses the term “sign” when technically the document was affirmed verbally by unanimous individual verbal assent by each primate:
[blockquote] [Hutchinson said] ‘It’s all about you. If you decide not to sign, I won’t sign. I’ll be there with you.’†He added that Bishop Jefferts Schori had told him that not signing the communiqué would send a message to the church and to the world “that at great expense and effort, we have accomplished nothing and we have nothing to say.†[/blockquote]
Example 2: The letter with Ms Anderson which stated that the actions of GC09 didn’t repeal B033. Sure, one can argue in a Clintonesque manner that B033 wasn’t overturned if one questions the definition of “is”, etc. Bill Clinton sets the bar pretty low for truthtelling in politicians. But in religious leaders, Clinton’s standards only pass muster for lackies of those leaders.
As usual, I heartily agree with robroy (#1). The American PB is utterly untrustworthy. So is the rather devious Kenneth Kearon, not to mention liberal primates like ++Barry Morgan of Wales, or ++Alan Harper of Ireland, or any number of other prominent leaders in the AC. And that’s why this kind of attempted solution to our Anglican ills is no real solution at all.
But there is much else of value in this brief, incisive analysis by Dr. Harding of TSM, besides that strong final paragraph. I particularly appreciate the fact that he didn’t limit himself just to evaluating controversial section 4, but pointed out potential other problems in sections 1 and 3, where there are loopholes that the blind, stubbornly defiant liberals in the AC could conceivably exploit, if allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, I’m glad that section 4 wasn’t gutted during this revision process, as many of us feared it would be.
David Handy+
Section 4 enforcement (is there any Anglican equivalent to enforcement?) was gutted. Same difference.