The danger in the current situation is that arguments over the details of the covenant text or how the covenant might be used are distracting us from central theological and ecclesiological questions which lie at the heart of the vision of our life together articulated in the covenant. Those rejecting the covenant have not, in their critiques, set out any credible theological and practical alternative either of a vision of our life as a fellowship of churches or of what we should do now given the reality of our fractured but still much treasured communion. Indeed, Jonathan Clatworthy claims ”˜Those who oppose a change do not normally feel obliged to propose a different change’ while Chris Sugden and Vinay Samuel simply claim we need ”˜to recognise the role that the Jerusalem Declaration could play’. More seriously, although never clearly articulated or justified, behind their critiques are understandings on some key theological areas addressed by the covenant which are seriously flawed.
Jonathan Clatworthy ends his response by claiming that recent controversies and ethical and theological disagreement ”˜should be resolved by patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue, not by ecclesiastical power politics and threats of exclusion’. That will require scrutiny not only of the covenant but of the arguments and alternatives of those rejecting it from polar opposite and incompatible perspectives. We need to hear and weigh not just the criticisms of the proposed covenant but the alternative proposals of those who are currently challenging the covenant’s way forward.
The only way to allow the Church of England ”“ and perhaps the wider Communion – to engage in ”˜patient, informed ethical and theological dialogue’ about this crucial issue is to vote for the motion in Synod. This makes no binding commitment but allows diocesan synods and ongoing debate in other arenas to inform Synod’s final decision in 2012. To vote against or to abstain suddenly puts into reverse the general support given to the Windsor and covenant processes by the Church of England and its General Synod and makes the Archbishop of Canterbury’s already difficult calling well-nigh impossible. Anything but a ”˜yes’ vote is, in short, to engage in ”˜ecclesiastical power politics’ and, far from being inclusive, excludes much of the church from further informed discussion and discernment about how we should live together in future.
RE: “Their alternative – which appears to involve bringing together a self-selected sub-set of ‘like-minded’ people within the current Communion to set and police boundaries and to trust that it is sufficient to state ‘we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us’ (Jerusalem Declaration 12) – must address these concerns if it is to be credible and gain wider support.”
This is a bit rich — for the Covenant itself will be “bringing together a self-selected sub-set of ‘like-minded’ people within the current Communion”!
Granted, it may [or may not] be a *larger* sub-set of self-selected ‘like-minded’ people. But still . . . there we are.
I think, again, he vastly misreads conservative resistance to the Covenant. Even the Gafcon Primates might well have been brought to sign the Ridley draft of the Covenant — I think it was probable in fact.
But once some conservatives began recognizing that the current text leads people down *yet another dead end* and of course *also* does not address the issues confronting the Communion and in fact offers nothing in regards to anything changing [its conservative supporters are clear that everybody remains within the Anglican Communion no matter what a province does] the matter of “time” and “wasting time” came to the fore. Add to that the horrendous “Standing Committee” as its primary instrument and one can’t help but recognize that 1) we’re already dividing provinces into groups within the Anglican Communion and can do that quite well without the Covenant and ask ourselves 2) why would we submit ourselves to a document that establishes further the “Standing Committee” as a primary authority, just to divide provinces into groups within the Anglican Communion [the signers and the non-signers], all within a context of many more years of delay and conversation and turgid established Covenant processes?
I still can’t see one — not even [i]one[/i] — benefit to the current text of the Covenant that adds anything beyond what we already have now. But I can see *numerous* non-benefits with the establishment of 1) a process that delays decisions further and 2) a Standing Committee as the authority.
Though the Gafcon Primates bring up the Jerusalem Document [which is a non-starter for various reasons I won’t go into], I believe they would have signed a Covenant that did not so apparently [at least to many conservatives] lead the Communion down another dead end, not deal with the issues confronting us now, and establish a “Standing Committee” as its ruling body.
From what I’ve read, it feels very much like the recent comment by a political leader that ‘We can’t read what’s in the bill until we pass it so let’s pass it quickly so we can find out what’s in it.’