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

New members & "old" member renewals are most welcome. We need all the help we can get to continue our work here in the Diocese of Albany.

AVM Members and Friends: The September issue of Open Minds should have reached you by now by either e- or paper mail. If you have not received it, it probably means that we lack a correct address for you. Please verify your address(es) by sending an e-mail to us at rdodd2@hotmail.com
 
If you prefer not to receive information from AVM, please tells us so and we shall remove your name from our distribution list. Thank you! Bob and Marya Dodd, Newsletter Editors