The
Modern Churchpeople's Union
Contact Us:
An Anglican Covenant?
The next stage - MCU's response to the Covenant Design Group's Draft Anglican Covenant is here (May 2007)
Comments on the Church of England's Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant here (January 2008)
The Story so far:
One of the proposals of the Windsor Report was for an Anglican Covenant to help bind the Communion together.
This was endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion and a subsequent clarifying speech to the General Synod.
Jonathan Clatworthy wrote an initial response in Signs of the Times: A two-tier Anglicanism?
To pursue the Covenant proposal a small group met in London and produced a Consultation paper Towards an Anglican Covenant (pdf download). Responses were invited but no timetable was given.
Since then the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, (Wikipedia entry) has been named as Chair of a 'Covenant Design Group'. We still wait for further details on the membership, process and timetable of this group.
Meanwhile an unnamed group from the conservative Global South alliance of Anglican Churches were said (in the Kigali Communiqué of September 2006) to then have been working on a Covenant proposal for at least a year.
This is MCU's response.
MCU's Submission (November 2006)
The full MCU response to the consultation paper is available here in Word, rtf, and pdf.
We sent the response to all English Diocesan Bishops; and we sent a press release (.rtf) to the religious media. An article, published in the Church Times (December 1 2006), is here (and .rtf)
The response is in two parts: Covenant and Theology by Jonathan Clatworthy, and Covenant and Government by Paul Bagshaw.
So far no specific wording of a Covenant has been published for consultation. Therefore this paper addresses the issues in principle and structural terms.
Summary:
The MCU would strongly prefer that there be no Covenant.
Theology
We recognise the depth of theological division within the Anglican Communion and the difficulty of achieving any resolution of present conflicts.
Nonetheless we believe Anglicanism can find sufficient strength to retain its unity by drawing on its traditional, tolerant approach to theological difference and its instinct to include rather than exclude.
We fear that a Covenant will discard this inheritance and be a significant step towards a narrower, more centrally organized, and increasingly exclusive Anglicanism.
Anglican flexibility has been its great strength: it has allowed differences of opinion to be expressed within the church. A Covenant would make theological change and development more difficult. Instead of creating unity a Covenant will tend to make the Communion more rigid and liable to fracture: where unanimity is expected those who in all conscience cannot agree will be obliged to leave.
Governance
The proposed Covenant involves a new development in Anglicanism. It will tend to replace voluntary association and consensual relations with contractual relations regulated by international institutions.
We do not wish to have a Covenant. However, if there is to be one,
• it should be declaratory of Anglicanism, not a test of membership nor a constitution for the Anglican Communion.
• It should have the least possible content; and
• there should be clear criteria to sift out inappropriate material.
Conflict resolution should be by non-binding arbitration. Mechanisms should be developed outside the Covenant.
Consultation on the Covenant proposals should be as extensive as possible. We strongly oppose any proposal for indirect assent to a Covenant.
Unity will not be served by a Covenant. Its primary consequence is likely to be the exclusion or expulsion of those who do not sign unconditionally. In future a Covenant would become a focus for division.
Any gains from a Covenant will be outweighed by losses. Gains may include greater clarity of Anglican identity and working relationships and, possibly, improvement in conflict resolution. Losses would include:
• The conciliar nature and ideal of Anglican unity would be replaced by a constitutional and contractual ideal.
• Innovation in theology and church order, and contemporary restatements of doctrine will become more difficult.
• The interdependence and autonomy of Churches in the Anglican Communion will be diminished. Legalistic considerations will displace bonds of affection and mutual regard. Power will be centralised and central budgets will grow. Accountability to the local church will shrink.
Conclusion
We believe that the Anglican theological tradition, grounded in Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, has sufficient strength to enable the Communion to accommodate development whilst remaining united and faithful to the Gospel.
We believe that the conciliar nature of the Anglican Communion should be reinforced. Conciliarity, not a Covenant, should be the basis for mutual recognition and working relationships.
MCU would like to see the Church become more egalitarian, democratic and decentralized, inclusive of all faithful Christians, more open to diversity and change.
November 2006