Anglican Covenant

I have received the following comment:

"I have been surprised (and somewhat concerned) to see, in the various election addresses that we have all now received, that you and xxx are the only two candidates to refer specifically to the Anglican Covenant in our addresses. It seems to me to be one of the most important issues facing the Church of England today; it comes before General Synod in November.

Whilst I share your views that it would be very good to see the church of England able to turn its attention outwards rather than inwards, I am very concerned that we do not sleepwalk into a covenant that will (as currently drafted), in my view gravely restrict our ability to carry out that mission effectively. I cannot share your view that most people in this Diocese would find little in the covenant to object to, - not, that is, if they fully understand it - and I do fear that if not stopped it will indeed fulfil the expectations of those who are arguing for it.

Whilst the covenant does state that the constitutional autonomy of member churches shall be respected (section 3.2.2) it then proceeds to specify very clearly (section 4.2) the means by which one Province of the Anglican Communion may call into question (and de facto effectively prevent) any innovation that may be decided upon , quite legitimately, by any other Province. As far as I can see, no member church will be able to proceed with any kind of change (certainly no major change, such as the introduction of women priests or bishops, say) unless all other member churches are in agreement. To me, this seems to be a recipe for stagnation and would have the effect of preventing the local cultural adaptations that are so much needed if our churches (all of those in the Anglican Communion) are to witness effectively to the societies in which we are set.

I would be most interested to know in more detail how you arrived at your rather more relaxed reading of the covenant text than I have managed to do. Do you think I am making a mountain out of a molehill?"

I have replied:

I doubt whether our positions on the Covenant are that far apart: my election address initially refers to the fact that the overt definition of what it is that we are expected to affirm is little different from what every clergy person affirms at each licensing except that I think it does not actually mention the 39 Articles (now that could be an interesting debate!) We lay folk are allowed slightly greater freedom but each time we meet together for worship and prayer, recite the creeds and celebrate together in Holy Communion, we are effectively attesting to Section 1.1. Section 1.2 is arguably significant only in its differences from the Catholic Church by making Hooker's Scripture, Tradition and Reason the determinants of what we avow.


Hitherto, the Anglican Communion has held together despite following different paths on some matters which are seen by others as rather significant. In particular, the issue of Women Bishops - which so exercises some sections of the Church of England - is not seen as a reason to violate our communion nor to invoke the Dispute Resolution process of Section 4. In fact, as far as I am aware, it is only the matter of the theology of same-sex relationships which has really endangered that communion. It is, I suspect, very unlikely that the existence of the Covenant will affect the way in which various Churches (in the sense of Section 4.2) move forward on that matter. Even the debate on Lay Presidency in some provinces has not (yet) been elevated to a Section 4 matter.

If Section 4 were to be interpreted as requiring universal consent to any major change in a Church's practice then we would become so moribund that we would rapidly decline into insignificance. I do not subscribe to the view that only by adhering to Orthodoxy will the church survive. In many respects it is the 'nuclear option' of 'mutually assured destruction' (known as MAD in in the 1960's!)

There is a general assumption that these procedures would be used by those Churches that incline more to orthodoxy against those that incline to change. I suspect that some places might feel differently if it were used seriously in the converse direction to coerce reluctant churches into a change to which the others were committed. Such an action is entirely feasible in the terms in which the Covenant is drafted.

This then is my fear: it is generally true that well-intentioned legislation - and, like it or not, that is what the Covenant is - sooner or later becomes used for purposes which its founders never considered. The Human Rights Act is a prime example. The nightmare scenario is theological lawyers crawling all over every dot and comma in search of never imagined interpretations.
 
My election address was intended to convey the opinion that I do not really see the necessity for the Covenant and that it may well become a stumbling block to discovering the kingdom. The Church of England, on its own is perhaps not in a strong position to block the move towards its general adoption, but we might be able to warn its supporters of inherent 'unintended consequences' and thus cause people to think again before finally taking this step.