Saturday, 23 October 2010

Anglican Covenant: more criticism

The General Synod of the Church of England will debate the proposed Anglican Covenant on Wednesday 24 November.

Paul Bagshaw has recently written several articles about this on his blog, Not the same stream.

First, there was A dishonest Covenant.

In July 2007 I wrote a paper called Bouncing the Covenant through the Anglican Communion (here) which looked at the way the Covenant was to be pushed through.

In retrospect I was wrong about one thing - I had calculated that the majority of Provinces would have endorsed the Covenant by this year, 2010, so that the Church of England would be faced with a fait accompli. In fact the majority of Provinces still have to decide whether or not to accept the Covenant…

That was followed by English and Welsh Bishops.

About the English ones, he writes:

…There is a mix of loyalty (and not wanting to seem publicly disloyal) with a generation of bishops trained into the collective mould (both senses) by having individuality trained out of them: mini-princes in their own domains and courtiers on the larger stage. I’m not sure that government by nineteenth-century unaccountable autocrats was any better (and there was a different structure of checks and balances in place). However, the result today is that the bishops have become like a one-party state: divisions are kept within the club, the public face must be united. (Unless, of course, you retire to Rome, but that’s a different story.)

However that’s assuming there has been structured debate in which differences of episcopal opinion have even been aired. There was, of course, discussion at the Lambeth Conference. I’m not at all sure what debate has been had within the English college of bishops - not that I would know, you understand, one way or the other. But I am led to believe that the new Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council - the other half of implementing the Covenant - went through on the nod.

In A richer Covenant, he discusses in detail the South African approach to the subject. He says:

The sadness from my perspective is that Archbishop Thabo Makgoba has a rich understanding of covenant and its potential, a vision I would delight in - but unfortunately it’s a vision I don’t see in the Anglican Covenant on offer today.

And finally (for the moment) he is critical of Kenneth Kearon’s action in disciplining the Southern Cone. See Utterly negative.

For background, see these pages, starting with A very un-Anglican Covenant.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Saturday, 23 October 2010 at 9:29am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion | Church of England
Comments

"The Covenant grew from a desire to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion - an exercise of force, not the recognition that opponents seek the good of the community - and 'who started it' is the politics of the playground, not of an adult community. The process by which the covenant has come about is deeply anti-participatory."

- Paul Bagshaw, on 'A Richer Covenant'.

When one looks into the origins of the Covenant idea, one need look no further than those who have not been able to live with the prophetic call of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, which provinces have already overturned the despotic culture of homophobia and misogyny in their inclusive attitude towards women and gays in the Churches and communities of their areas of responsibility.

This hostility towards prophetic action in the Church, which seeks to encourage an honesty and openness towards both women and the minority of God's children who happen to have been born with sexual difference - through no fault of their own - is nothing less than social and moral irresponsibility.

The irony here is that, although Lambeth has already pronounced homosexuality as morally neutral, it says too little about the immorality of homosphobia and sexism in the Church. While TEC and the A.C.of C. are deemed 'too quick' to affirm women and gays; they are precisely the provinces that would be threatened by the terms of Section 4 of the Covenant document which is specifically written to exclude them from full membership of the Communion - unless they *repent* of their promotion of same-sex blessings and the ordination of gays into ministry.

The Anglican Covenant, therefore, cannot be said to be indiscriminate in it's treatement of all the prospective partners - including TEC and the A.C.of C., and is, as such, hardly acceptable to all parties. Any vote for the Covenant as it is will surely side-line the Provinces mentioned. Thus it deserves to be rejected by all who seek to do justice.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 at 1:03am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.