Comment from Ohio on the proposed Anglican Covenant

Editor's Note: Shortly after the vote on November 24, 2010 by the General Synod of The Church of England to send the proposed Anglican Covenant to its dioceses for their consideration we read a statement about Episcopal Church consideration of the proposed Covenant in a non-public discussion by The Rev. Dr. R. William Carroll, Rector of The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd in Athens, Ohio, who previously served on the faculty of the School of Theology, The University of the South (Sewanee). We liked the statement so much that we asked for and received permission from Fr. Carroll to post it. It follows below.

It seems to me that the relevant actions of General Convention in 2009 and the consent to Bishop Glasspool, represent an emerging consensus that we value the relationships in the Anglican Communion but will not sacrifice the integrity of our discernment and witness to the Gospel as The Episcopal Church in order to belong.

Any covenant document that we could sign on to would not contain some of the enforcement and exclusion provisions of the current draft. Archbishop Rowan's denials notwithstanding, these provisions are essential to the support of the Covenant in some quarters and, whether intended that way or not, will be used that way. Moreover, the entire Covenant process has been aimed at appeasing voices within the Communion that should not be allowed to hold sway. I myself am grateful for the emergence of Southern voices but disturbed that they are attempting to turn the tables, rather than establishing true “mutual responsibility and interdependence” within the Communion. As Marilyn McCord Adams once pointed out, the answer to this has to be treating each other as adult brothers and sisters, rather than trying to grab Father's chair for ourselves and making the others conform.

I therefore believe that we should say a firm but humble “No, thanks.” If offered a second tier status, we should deliberate carefully about what that implies. I'd be inclined to accept any status consistent with the integrity of our own discipleship, but I would want to make a very clear statement that our marginalization was unjust and represented a repudiation of historic norms within the Anglican Communion, very clearly and repeatedly articulated by Lambeth itself.

The Body of Christ will survive because the Lord is faithful and has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. The Anglican Covenant has a lot more to do with human need for control. The Anglican Communion has never claimed to be coterminous with the Body of Christ. It is a fellowship within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, responsible for some amazingly faithful witness but also some sin. The way to build up our intercommunion is by simple acts of faith, hope, and love. We don't need the Covenant to practice these. We need to return to the reading of Scripture, Common Prayer, and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The entire approach of the Covenant process from Windsor forward has been wrongheaded from the start.

We need more Indaba and fewer ecclesiastical power grabs.

R. William Carroll
The Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd
Athens, Ohio