ACNS - Debate on the Covenant

[Worldwide Faith News <wfn@igc.org>]

Posted On : November 16, 2010 10:36 AM | Posted By : Admin ACO

ACNS: 
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2010/11/16/ACNS4750

> Related Categories: ACO

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.

The first thing to say is that for any Anglican or Episcopalian to be
able to properly enter into a discussion about the Covenant it is
vital that they first read it for themselves here:
http://anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm

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