From The Living Church via Fr. Dick Kim:
Posted on: December 22, 2009
Four Key Questions
By Graham Kings
Interdependence and mutual accountability have always been the key features of the earlier drafts (Nassau, St Andrew’s, and Ridley) of the Covenant. It is encouraging that these are still at the heart of the final text.
The working party charged with producing this text, especially focusing on section 4, is to be commended. The final text is profoundly Anglican, consonant with the trajectory of the Windsor Process and, it seems to me, is likely to lead to the majority of provinces of the Anglican Communion adopting the Covenant. In the light of recent developments, it may well be that not all provinces will enter the Covenant. Tragically, that may be appropriate at this time.
The working party has explained their guiding principles as “minimal revision” but with some “clearer definition” and “change of tone in language.” I believe they have achieved their aim admirably.
Four key questions are now answered:
Can dioceses commit themselves to the Covenant?
The Covenant is designed primarily for “Provinces of the Anglican Communion” — these are the “Churches of the Anglican Communion” referred to in the text. However, dioceses are included in the phrase “any ecclesial body” and some dioceses, for instance Communion Partner dioceses in the Episcopal Church, which may wish to commit themselves to the Covenant if their provinces do not, will be allowed to do so. The working party quote again the principles of “The Lambeth Commentary” (September 2008):
If, however, the canons and constitutions of a Province permit, there is no reason why a diocesan synod should not commit itself to the covenant, thus strengthening its commitment to the interdependent life of the Communion.
Can Churches which are not yet current members of the Anglican Consultative Council affirm the Covenant (e.g. the Anglican Church in North America)?
Yes, but this does not make them members of the ACC and future membership will follow due process (section 4.1.5).
What of Churches which choose not to enter into the Covenant?
The text deliberately does not deal with this matter, but the working party states that the Instruments of Communion should determine an appropriate response. This may appear weak, but it seems to me to be appropriate: not being invited to conferences and commissions may be in mind.
Which group will be monitoring the implementation of the Covenant?
In this final text, it is the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion,” which recently evolved from the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC (Ridley Draft).
So, after a long period of gestation the Covenant is born. Let us be encouraged and continue our support in prayer.
The Rt. Rev. Graham Kings is Bishop of Sherborne in the Church of England.
Clear Consequences
By Josiah Idowu-Fearon
The final text of the Covenant is the result of hard work by the various carefully selected sisters and brothers from several parts of our Communion. We appreciate and thank them for all the sacrifices made during the course of their assignments.
In the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Covenant “is not going to solve all our problems, it’s not going to be a constitution, and it’s certainly not a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply.”
Members of this Communion need to be reminded that the 1998 Lambeth Conference took a position on the question of human sexuality which was revisited at the 2008 conference and reaffirmed. That position has therefore not changed. For individual dioceses that have gone against this agreed parameter we drew for ourselves, sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.8 of this final text of the Covenant are very clear on the likely consequences of their decision.
What section 4.2.8 recommends is already operational, in an analogous way, in some parts of our Communion. In the Church of Nigeria, for example, polygamists and the divorced are not officially accepted as leaders at any level and not even allowed Holy Communion. In addition, all women who are not willing to accept the discipline of this Church in holy matrimony cannot be members of the Mothers’ Union. To give them a sense of belonging, they are provided with an alternative: the Women’s Guild.
The proposed role of the Standing Committee in the Covenant (section 4.2) is an improvement on the liaison officers suggested in the Windsor Report (article 25). I hope the Standing Committee will be given all the necessary freedom and assistance to function effectively.
The Covenant gives non-Anglicans an idea of who we are and how we agree to resolve our differences as a family. I hope that bishops in every province will encourage robust debates and discussions of this final text of the Covenant. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, “We hope to see people agreeing to these ways of resolving our conflicts.”
The Most Rev. Josiah Idowu-Fearon is Archbishop of the Province of Kaduna, Nigeria.
Living Interdependently
By Tony Clavier
It seems to me that the draft Covenant calls us all to a more robust biblical doctrine of the church. If indeed it puts provincial autonomy in its right place ... so much the better.
In that the onus is placed on the provinces to live into interdependence, it is both biblical and Anglican. The Covenant acknowledges that there will be differences, points to Christian means of resolving conflict and realistically acknowledges that individual provinces may be so sure of a unique revelation from God that they feel called to walk apart from the fellowship by their own volition.
I am also delighted that approving the Covenant is a right open not only to the provinces but to all who see in it something akin, in fleshed out terms, to that which was offered to Christendom in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. I see the text as a formidable gift to ecumenism and hope that it will be read and considered in that wider context.
Some opposed to the Covenant, obsessed with their own narrow vision, seem threatened that the Covenant is being offered to Christendom. A reactive Covenant narrowly focused on contemporary Communion discord would have been unworthy. The draft now before us, I believe, is a wonderful example of something entirely virtuous emerging from something temporarily necessary.
The Rev. Tony Clavier is the rector of St. Paul’s Church, LaPorte, Ind.
Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence
By Richard Kew
The Anglican Communion Covenant seems to be a modest revision of the text that was developed here at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, in April. The provisions in Section 4 that have been under dispute make a lot of sense, but it hardly surprises me that those who cannot buy into the Covenant’s substance are making noises that sound distinctly like “walking apart.” Many of them have been on this pathway for some time now. The Covenant text is a very fair document and eminently reflective of the root and branches of historic Anglicanism.
The statement in 4.2.1 is key: “the Covenant operates to express the common commitments and mutual accountability which hold each Church in the relationship of communion with one another. Recognition of, and fidelity to, this Covenant, enable mutual recognition and communion.”
These words and those that follow strongly echo the whole case for mutual responsibility and interdependence (MRI) that came out of the Toronto Anglican Congress of 1963, and which was being discussed by parishes, dioceses, and provinces in the following couple of years, during which time I was responding to God’s call to the priesthood. That was my first encounter with the Anglican Communion, and as a result of the discussion of those principles I came to realize just how significant these are to faithful communion with one another.
Those in the Episcopal Church who assert independence for provinces ignore the overriding responsibility to be mutually responsible and interdependent. Those Anglicans of the historic faith who have chosen to stand outside the mainstream of Communion for the moment would do well to take seriously the MRI principles, because they do mean being together with those with whom they disagree, while those considering “walking apart” should assess what they lose if they choose independence over interdependence.
Independence sounds much like the personal autonomy that is demanded by postmodern people. It is so uncomfortable with absolutes that the doctrinal and ecclesiological principles of Anglicanism can only be negated by demands for independence. Living in the community of communion requires Catholic faithfulness, but also flexibility and the ability to live with differences. Those claiming independence for their province are, in effect, putting themselves before the whole community.
The Covenant is an exercise in attempting to live with diversity within the context of being a truthful community. If a province cannot live with the theological and behavioral clarity that exemplifies historic Anglicanism rooted within the wider Catholic faith, then it would do better to step back from the table, while not hindering those in their midst for whom being part of the larger whole is important. However, I suspect this is asking too much in the way of toleration of diversity.
The Rev. Richard Kew is development director at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment