An Anglican Covenant - St Andrew's Draft

The suggested wording in the Church of England's Response and the wording of The St Andrew's Draft represent considerable improvements on earlier drafts.

Amongst other improvements both have more integrated reflection on the biblical context, more positive valuation of scholarly theological approaches, and both redress the imbalance in the descriptions of the Instruments of Communion in the earlier drafts.

MCU still has many concerns about the details. However the root of our objection to the Draft Covenant is the proposal to embed coercion and the threat of expulsion at the heart of Anglicanism as the key means of resolving disputes.

Coercion is not appropriate to a voluntary association. The proposed mechanisms (in the Appendix to the St Andrew's Draft ) would give each Province and Instrument of Communion an effective veto over developments elsewhere. The consequence is likely to be a more centralized, authoritarian and timorous Communion.

The worst consequence may be that, by substituting juridical structures in place of the search for consensus, the likelihood of schism becomes much greater.

Some questions

• How will the Covenant attain its stated aim of promoting corporate work? What would this look like? Are there no better ways?
• How much are the new structures likely to cost? Where is the money to come from?
• How can the issues which divide the Communion – the conflicting interpretations of faithful Christian expression – be resolved by juridical processes working to tight timetables?
• How will the Instruments of Communion be changed by the responsibilities for judicial action that is proposed for them?
• Does the definitive step of the proposed conflict resolution process – the ‘request' to act or refrain for acting in certain ways – amount to a ‘direction' to the Province concerned? And if it does can the Church of England legally sign up to it?
• How will the autonomy of each Province be limited by this Covenant?
• What will happen in relation to those Provinces which have already intruded into the jurisdictions of other Provinces?
• Given the very small number of official responses to the Covenant Design Group will a full consultation be launched so that such major changes to the Anglican Communion are not built on such meagre foundations?

MCU responses to an earlier proposals: November 2006 ~ May 2007

MCU Press Release (February 7 2008)

The new proposed Anglican Covenant ( The St Andrew's Draft) would only make the church more autocratic and outdated, says the Modern Churchpeople's Union (MCU).

‘It takes the Anglican out of Anglicanism and there wouldn't be much left', says the MCU General Secretary, Jonathan Clatworthy. ‘Until now we have lived together respecting differences of opinion. This Covenant would mean every time there's an objection someone will lay down the law'.

The wording of the Covenant itself is a clear improvement on previous drafts. But the sting is in the tail. An Appendix to the Draft Covenant sets out ways in which members of the Communion could be disciplined.

Members of the Anglican Communion would be asked to commit themselves to accept a ‘request' from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the global Primate's Meeting. If they refused the request they could ultimately be expelled from the Communion.

MCU objects to the Covenant because it would centralize decision-making and reduce the traditional autonomy of Anglican Provinces. Just one Anglican Province could object to developments elsewhere and so changes could only be made at the speed of the slowest. Churches would become increasingly out of date.

MCU believes that the threat of expulsion will impoverish Anglican church life. The short timescales envisaged are likely to stunt discussion and suppress the search for consensus. The character of the international ‘Instruments of Communion' which currently bind the Communion together would be changed as they take on semi-judicial roles.

The practical result of the St Andrew's Draft Covenant would be a much more centralized, authoritarian and unadventurous Communion. It is likely to magnify disputes and to turn them into judicial processes. It is likely to leave the Church less able to face the challenges of the modern world.

MCU replies the to Church of England's Response to the Proposed Anglican Covenant

The official response of the Church of England to the Proposed Anglican Covenant has been made public (January 2008). It can be found here (rtf ~ pdf).

The MCU reply in full is here: Word ~ .pdf

Summary:

MCU welcomes a number of suggested improvements to the wording of the draft covenant.

Nonetheless we continue to have serious concerns with the Draft Anglican Covenant and would still question the need for a covenant at all. A number of the published official responses (see panel, left) also share these concerns.

MCU would ask a number of questions of the Covenant Design Group:

• Who are members of the Anglican Communion?

  (This question is prompted by discussion of the possibility that Dioceses, rather than Provinces, may be the constituent members of the Communion in paragraph (5) of the Response of the Church of England.)

• Will the inevitable tendency of Covenant agreement be towards global uniformity? For example, will the status of women become consistent across the Communion? How will innovation in theology, liturgy, social practice and ethical reflection be fostered? Will Provinces be able to derogate from particular decisions of the Primates? What place is envisaged for the reception of decisions by the whole Church, clergy and laity alike? What will ‘autonomy' come to mean?

• What organization will be necessary to implement the Covenant? What will it cost? Who will pay? How will costs be controlled?

• What will be the place of the laity in the polity and government of a communion held together by a Covenant as currently envisaged?

• What will the relationship between a Primate and their Province be, in practice and in theory? How will that relationship alter if the Primates are granted greater juridical powers?

  (These questions are prompted by the apparent contradiction between the assent given to the Draft Covenant process by the Primates' meeting in Dar es Salaam in February 2007 and the subsequent rejection or strong qualification of the Draft Covenant by some of those Provinces which have published responses to date.)

• Under what conditions could intrusion by one Church into the jurisdiction of another be licensed? Will the assent of the Church intruded upon be required? By what authority will an Instrument of Communion permit such disruption of communion which amounts to schismatic action?

• If the Primates become the final court of arbitration in the Anglican Communion, how will its jurisdiction be defined? Will their jurisdiction be defined in practice by those who are in dispute with other members of the Communion, or will the boundaries of their jurisdiction be determined separate from specific disputes?

• Will the Primates claim jurisdiction over ethical and liturgical as well as doctrinal issues? If so, what commitment will they make to ensure that their judgements are informed by and in keeping with current theological scholarship? Will their judgements be reviewed regularly in the light of new research?

• How will determinations of the Primates interact with local legislative systems?

• If the Covenant is to be juridically enforceable in any degree, what mechanisms will be established to adjudicate on the interpretation of its clauses?

• How is the Covenant to be amended over time?

Earlier MCU responses can be found here:

May 2007 - for General Synod - The MCU opposes the Draft Anglican Covenant and urges its rejection

November 2006 - Submission in response to the initial proposal for a Covenant

Each page also has a brief account of the development of the Covenant proposals and related links.

The Covenant Design Group has met to consider all Provincial responses and the next draft is awaited.

A ‘take note' debate on the Church of England response to the Anglican Covenant is planned for the General Synod in February 2008.

(Thanks to Thinking Anglicans)