Canadian Anglicans took a step forward in considering the Anglican Covenant with the passing of resolution A137: Anglican Communion Covenant at General Synod 2010 on Thursday, June 10.
Bishop George Bruce, chair of the Anglican Committee Working Group provided an introduction to the work of the committee, which has participated in the process of reviewing and providing feedback to the draft. A General Synod 2007 decision affirms the Anglican Church’s involvement in the process of drafting “A Covenant for the Anglican Communion”.
“There have been lots of changes since the Nassau document,” said Bishop Bruce, referring to a previous version of the covenant that was met with concern. “The text is a significant approval over that drafts. Virtually all Canadian concerns have been addressed.”
So in effect, GS failed- or deliberately neglected- to do anything of substance on the covenant, just as on the S-S issue. A wet-noodle synod afraid to make a stand on anything of consequence, and thus to fly under the radar. Meanwhile, dioceses are free to carry on down the wide road with impunity.
And which the ABC can ignore since it is not official!
#1, Ian,
This is in fact a very good thing. Canada could not, in good conscience, sign onto the Covenant given that 6 of its dioceses are in violation of the moratoria. The point is not that they are in violation per se – as the Covenant does not specifically address the issue of SSB. Rather the point is that the Canadian Church has, and continues to undermine the relationships with other Churches of the Communion. Since the Covenant is a framework laying out and providing means for sustaining relationships of mutual accountability between Churches, it will rely upon trust for Churches entering into and being members of such a body. It is trust founded upon and ‘given weight’ by a moral or spiritual authority. Certainly Canada has not shown itself to be trust worthy in its actions. Because the Covenant is based upon a moral/ spiritual authority and thus based upon a willingness of mutual submission to common decision-making for the common-good, we should be quite pleased that they have not signed on at this point.
The Covenant is not a tool to be wielded to bring anyone into line. To enter into it, and for it to work requires willing discipline of life for the sake of Scriptural discernment over time (the basis of Anglicanism). That discernment requires common discernment and limit and a willingness to engage and submit to this reality of life. Canada is not willing to do this yet and so should not sign on.
I did not expect our General Synod to sign the covenant. What I suspect our leadership wants to do, but is afraid to for fear of alarming the silent majority, is openly reject the covenant. We have a handful of solid bishops- 3 or 4- and one very bold one- the revisionist Ingham- but most are weak and very poor teachers of the faith.
#4 Ian,
I was in fact somewhat concerned that they would look at signing on as certain individuals spun the Covenant to make it appear quite palatable for those either uninformed about the Covenant, or about the implications of our actions on the wider Communion (a much larger percent of our church than I would like to admit).
I think you are spot on in your thoughts concerning where we’re at episcopally. It would seem ‘keeping the peace’ at the HOB takes precedence over the pastoral/teaching ministry of the episcopal office.