Albany Via Media

A (Limited) Show of Hands on the Covenant

An Anglican Covenant, proposed five years ago in the Windsor Report and touted by the Archbishop of Canterbury as “the way forward” for the Communion, has passed through three drafts and is ready for consideration by the 38 Anglican provinces. During the last six months of its evolution, the provinces were asked to comment on the most controversial part of the penultimate Ridley-Cambridge Draft: Section 4, which deals largely with endorsement of the Covenant and enforcement of its provisions. Twenty provinces responded. Eighteen did not, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda among them.

Two December 18 articles in Episcopal Life Online outline the history of the Covenant and provide links to the final version and provincial responses to Section 4. Reading those responses is instructive and much less of a chore than one might fear, given their episcopal authors. For the 13 provinces that support the Covenant contributed terse statements, most of which show no evidence of wide discussion and include few or no reservations or suggestions for improvement.

Responses from seven provinces that either oppose the Covenant or are ambivalent about it are, by contrast, long, detailed, and reflective, the products of wide discussion within their provinces — the kind of discussion that the Communion hoped to provoke by circulating drafts. Statements by Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, Brazil, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, and our Episcopal Church differ in detail and are worth reading in full, but two provinces have expressed a worry that is shared by all seven:

From Wales:

At a most general level, the Doctrinal Commission [of Wales] expressed concern that Section 4 of the Ridley Draft places in the hands of the Communion the formal means for dividing the Communion rather than a theological method for nurturing the unity of the Church.

From Scotland:

There is a general feeling that Section 4 as it currently stands is, in places, unclear and ambiguous and, indeed, could even lead to and enshrine schism.

Despite minor changes made since these cautionary words were written, Section 4 of the Anglican Covenant retains its potential to widen rather than heal fissures in the Communion. Inasmuch as one of those fissures runs straight through the Church of England (ambivalent now, rather than opposed), one might wish to ask Abp. Williams, in a quiet moment, “Is this really what you had in mind?”

Given the destructive potential of a poorly conceived Covenant, it is disturbing that Albany's Bishop and Standing Committee approved the Ridley-Cambridge draft before it took final form. It is more disturbing that in spite of repeated requests by the Covenant Design Group, there has been no effort by our leaders to engage Albany's clergy and laity in careful discussion of the Covenant's pros and cons.

Robert Dodd

Editor's Note: The October action of the Diocese on the Ridley-Cambridge draft was reported in Bishop Love's Update of October 20, 2009. For more on the status of the Anglican Covenant, including the December 2009 revisions of section 4, see the materials about the Anglican Covenant currently found on the front page of the Anglican Communion website http://www.anglicancommunion.org/.