From ANGLICAN COMMUNION NEWS SERVICE:
Posted On : November 16, 2010 10:36 AM
Many things have already been said in the public arena about the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant. As Provinces around the world continue to discuss this important document I think it worth clarifying some points about it. I am not arguing here for or against the Covenant, merely pointing out that it should be debated fairly, with an accurate reading of the text.
Having done that, let me then clear up some misconceptions that some people have about the document. The Standing Committee is not new; it is made up of elected Primates and elected members from the Anglican Consultative Council and it co-ordinates work in the Communion. Regarding the Covenant, it would have the role of monitoring developments and has no power other than proposing to the Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting) steps to be taken to encourage discussion and discernment about disputed questions among the Provinces, or, if processes of mediation have broken down, what the relational consequences might be.
The point of the processes outlined in the Covenant is precisely to encourage one part of the Communion, when seeking to respond responsibly in its own context in mission, to consider how that will affect other parts of the Communion It is not that one Province would exercise a veto over another, but that there would be collaborative discernment. In a globalised world, it is no longer possible (if it ever was) for one church to act entirely for itself; decisions have ramifications, and the intention is for these to be explored together.
Some critics in the Church of England have suggested that Provinces would become subordinate to the judgements of the Standing Committee. This is not true. The Covenant explicitly says in section (4.1.3): “Such mutual commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance. The Covenant does not grant to any one Church or any agency of the Communion control or direction over any Church of the Anglican Communion.” It is also not true that non-signatories would no longer count as part of the Communion. There will be Provinces which have adopted the Covenant, and there may be (though one hopes not) Provinces which have not. They are equally members of the Anglican Communion, according to the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council. The difference would be that signatories will have made a commitment to live in that communion in a particularly enhanced way, and to a process of consultation and common discernment.
The assertion is often made that the ordination of women could not have occurred if the Covenant were in place. It is not at all clear that this would have been the case. The consultative processes of the Anglican Communion actually resulted in the discernment that this was an issue about which Anglicans were free to differ. That is exactly the kind of discernment that is needed when any new matter emerges: how do churches in communion distinguish between that which may further the Gospel and that which may impede it? There are never simple answers, but the intent is that the Anglican Communion Covenant provides a way of doing this in a collaborative and committed manner.
Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan
Director for Unity Faith and Order
The Anglican Communion Office
COMMENT: They really do think we are stupid. It is obvious that as the majority will be able to veto the aspirations of minorities under the Anglican Covenant and police the Communion as they see fit (which Rowan Williams has already, unconstitutionally and immorally, done), the Anglican Covenant will hand over local, provincial authority to whoever happens to be able to swing the most votes at the worldwide communion level.
If the Covenant is only about discernment then the answer is very simple. If a province proposes a change within their own province that is vetoed by other provinces, then a fixed time should be set (three years would be appropriate) for conversation within the province proposing the changes and between provinces. If, at the end of the fixed period, the province proposing the changes still wishes to proceed it should be allowed to do so without further permissions being required and without punishment. That the Covenant does not contain such a sensible process for discernment is proof that it is about control and not discernment.
I now look forward to the ACNS circulating a press release stating the opposing view to that which is propounded by the Archbishop of Canterbury.