The most significant feature of the Covenant is that while claiming not to enforce an overarching juridical system, it does just that.

The Primates are elevated to a position of supreme authority whose decisions are final and binding and if they decide you have gone your own way this entails your departure from the Covenant group.

There IS a new order and there IS a penalty if you do not comply.

The other significant feature is that if my church were to accept this then the position of the Instruments of Communion becomes part of our Law and polity. Rather striking considering they presently have absolutely no standing at all.

Only the ACC has any standing here and that is rather nebulous. The existence yet alone the authoritative power of the others have come into being without any approval of our Constitutional body.

Many commentators assume that because these bodies exist they have power. They have none hitherto. They are the creation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and another of his historical creations –The Lambeth Conference.

If this project moves forward then the project under the leadership of Professor Norman Doe now nearly complete becomes even more significant. Doe has been collating all the Canon Law in common amongst the 38 Provinces, the Primates intend to elevate this common law into a Common Canon Law for the new Anglican Church.

Again, this takes away the right, presently enjoyed, for a single Province to thus amend any of those Common Canons without the permission of all. This becomes the legal base of the new Church.

This Covenant and the Doe proposals only opens the door to even greater changes to come, it is a major development in the creation of an Anglican Church and all that goes with it.

We're rounding up links to commentary on the Draft Covenant on the Titusonenine backup site.

http://t19backup.blogspot.com/2007/02/commentary-on-anglican-covenant.html

"The Primates are elevated to a position of supreme authority whose decisions are final and binding and if they decide you have gone your own way this entails your departure from the Covenant group."

My (hasty) reading concurs. They will become a Curia of sorts, and that may be fine with Provinces which give little or no decision-making beyon the local to priests and laity. I cannot see this sitting well with TEC for that reason.

The notion of common canons is anathama to what the Anglican Communion has been in its short life.

"6.5. to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:

by submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction."

=:-O

Uh-uh, buckaroo. SUBMIT to the Primates Meeting {*}, the *newest* of the 4 Instruments of Unity?

Fuhgeddaboutit!

{*} Don't like, either, how---after the ABC is listed first as the "primus inter pares"---the list proceeds Lambeth, Primates Meeting, and ACC.

***The ACC is older than the Primates Meeting*** and should be listed AHEAD of it! Enough w/ this creeping Curia-lism, and diminishment of priests, deacons and LAITY!!! >:-(

I regret that I am a bit of a literalist so I am hopeful some of you can enlighten me on the real meaning here. I am wondering about section 6(3): "Each Church commits itself" The terms: "Essential Concern," "Consistent with Scriptures" Common Standards of faith" and "the Canon law of the Churches" and how they are to be interpreted concern me. Although the document makes no pretense that the covenant” would be legally binding, it more than implies that it would be morally binding on the member churches. Should they not be willing to accept the recommendations of the Communion, they would not be considered members and would need to request readmission at a later date.

Coming from a democratic tradition, these are my concerns:

1. It appears that those charged with making the recommendations are first and foremost the primates. Although it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been restored to the position of “instrument of communion” from “focus” of communion (Dromantine), it is to the primates that those engaged in controversy will first look for a decision regarding section 6(3) matters above.
2. There appears to be no methodological provision to insure the involvement of the other instruments of communion or any provision to determine the “common mind” of the Communion. Would a majority vote of 51% of the primates determine the mind of the communion? If, for example, that were the case, would their decisions be open to the problem of all democracies…the tyranny of the majority?
3. There are no lay representatives in the primates group. Many of the churches who elect primates do not include women clergy. It would appear that the primates would be taking on roles most resembling the Roman curia and magisterium. Is this, in fact, desirable?

Martin wrote: The Primates are elevated to a position of supreme authority whose decisions are final and binding and if they decide you have gone your own way this entails your departure from the Covenant group.

I think that's a slightly innaccurate reading of paragraph 6 (though it's what some would want it to mean). 6(5) clearly constrains the Primates to seek a common mind with "the other instruments and their councils". Then, crucially, 6(6) gives to the somewhat nebulously phrased "Councils of the Instruments of Communion" the right to interpret when a church has walked away. At the very least this includes the ACC and arguably also the Lambeth Conference.

I regret that I am a bit of a literalist so I am hopeful some of you can enlighten me on the real meaning here. I am wondering about section 6(3): "Each Church commits itself" The terms: "Essential Concern," "Consistent with Scriptures" Common Standards of faith" and "the Canon law of the Churches" and how they are to be interpreted concern me. Although the document makes no pretense that the covenant would be legally binding, it more than implies that it would be morally binding on the member churches. Should they not be willing to accept the recommendations of the Communion, they would not be considered members and would need to request readmission at a later date.

Coming from a democratic tradition, these are my concerns:

1. It appears that those charged with making the recommendations are first and foremost the primates. Although it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been restored to the position of “instrument of communion” from “focus of communion" (Dromantine), it is to the primates that those engaged in controversy will first look for a decision regarding section 6(3) matters above.
2. There appears to be no methodological provision to insure the involvement of the other instruments of communion or any provision to determine the “common mind” of the Communion. Would a majority vote of 51% of the primates determine the mind of the communion? If, for example, that were the case, would their decisions be open to the problem of all democracies…the tyranny of the majority?
3. There are no lay representatives in the primates group. Many of the churches who elect primates do not include women clergy. It would appear that the primates would be taking on roles most resembling the Roman curia and magisterium. Is this, in fact, desirable?

Martin Reynolds' points are telling.
I want no part in any of it.

Just a few thoughts - a first posting - from Scotland.

To my surprise and delight, a quick canter through the draft suggests there is a great deal to which we could all sign up. As a draft, I'm sure it's something we can all work on; if it's non-negotiable, the good will have to be binned with the unacceptable.

The sting, as Martin Reynolds has spotted, is in section 6.
6(4), while paying lip service to Provincial autonomy, effectively dismisses it;
6(5) hands curial authority to the Primates (How I wish they'd call themselves something else!) and must be resisted to the last breath;
6(6) has evidently been the victim of late redrafting and doesn't even flow grammatically from the heading "Each Church commits itself......." It places interpretation of the Covenant solely in the hands of "the Councils of the Instruments of Communion" ( an unknown term that I assume has to be read as a synonym for "Primates"), and must be the soggiest instrument of excommunication ever drafted.

Much re-working of these sections is required - especially to put the hems on the Higher Apes.

On the whole, though, I've gone from being deeply dispirited to rather encouraged. It begins to look as if the Holy Spirit may have managed to sneak into the meeting when they weren't looking. Mind you, we haven't seen the communique yet...

A different reading: it seems to me that section 6 does in fact leave provincial autonomy intact - in that nowhere is any body given legal authority to instruct a province as to what to do. Section 6.6 is the breaker of course, and one has to assume the primates mean themselves, but I'd want to hear spelled out who 'we' are in 'we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose' etc. - and how they would go about doing so

Martin --

You may well be right, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just how the primates will exercise their new found authority (if everyone signs on to a Covenant that includes this) remains unclear. How long will due process take? (In Rome it can take decades).

One thing remains unclear to me -- just why is such a covenant desirable? It certainly would not prevent change from occurring (although it would doubtless slow things down). Does someone want to accomplish this? Again, why?

Given that it is a "work-in-progress" I think it is encouraging. Yes - it does restrict the freedom of individual provinces to do their own thing but this is in the interests of maintaining communion. I think that there is something deeply spiritual and scriptural about reining-in ones own freedom in order to prevent causing unnecessary offence in "weaker" fellow Christians.

Of course, such restrictions will be frustrating to those who want to dash ahead, but perhaps being forced to reduce your pace may not be such a bad thing.

And it offers the hope of a proper, structured way of handling disputes, rather than the present mess where factions take umbrage and make threats unless they get their way. Where there is a dispute, there will be a considered process of handling it, with time and opportunity for the "erring" province to take stock and be fully aware of the consequences of its actions.

No-one is going to get 100% of what they want from this. But as the draft covenant stands at the moment, I could easily live with it.

The key question for those who would reject this is:

"What would you put in its place that would still offer hope of keeping the Anglican Communion together?"

(Doing nothing is not an option - for that would just lead to more conflict and to a violent splintering of the Anglican Communion.)

I have to read more fully and cogitate on this, but it strikes me that this is not very Anglican, much less Catholic. One of the big issues in our break with Rome was the nature of the bishop and episcopal authority. No bishop can make himself king. I'm unsure if a small cabal of bishops functioning as some sort of ruling elite is all that different. Does this constitute the setting up of a small body of men who will function as some sort of quasi-papacy? I want no part of this, any more than my Anglican ancestors wanted any part of it 500 years ago. They broke with Rome, and were a small Church in a weak nation, the latter threatened by the most powerful nations in the world, and look at where Anglicanism is now. Maybe NP and Mike are right and we need to split off. This is what comes of flirting with Fundamentalism, indeed, in some instances, not merely flirting, but consummating the relationship

I think there is much here to work with and reflect upon.

Ford, I do think it is Anglican, if we understand Anglicanism not as static (immutably determined as of 1549 or 1662 or 1867 or whenever) but as dynamic and constantly evolving. Certainly it is very consistent with Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.

But, like many here, I am disturbed at both the characterization of (Section 5) and intended role for the primates (Section 6). David Walker, your points are valid given the language, but coupled with the Primates' bid to make themselves members ex officio of ACC (the constitutional amendments adopted at ACC-13), there is a concern on how much an independent voice the ACC will be in the future.

The other glaring omission is what happens when the Communion is not of a common mind? There is no provision for a minority opinion to be tolerated until such time as a consensus emerges. There is very much a "majority rules" subtext here.

If this sparks serious discussion, it is a good effort. If some parties start crying for immediate adoption, it deserves to die a quick death.