The quarterly newsletter mailed to Modern Church members (subscription options).
Copies can be provided for distribution in churches and elsewhere - contact the office for details.
by Paul Bagshaw
from Signs of the Times, No. 30 - Jul 2008
Archbishop Drexel Gomez, chair of the Covenant Design Group, has posed three questions to the bishops assembling at Canterbury for the Lambeth Conference.
MCU has consistently opposed the Covenant. Nonetheless we have tried at each stage to set out a reasoned opposition, recognising that the Communion is in crisis and that, whatever happens, it faces extensive change. (See previous papers.)
No. We believe that the Covenant along the lines of the present draft will inevitably turn the Communion in a more illiberal and legalist direction. We believe there are alternative, conciliar and co-operative resources within Anglicanism which are strong enough to enable a way forwards through the present impasse, and strong enough to hold together almost all Anglican Provinces - all, that is, except those who refuse to belong unless the whole Communion conforms to their particular way of expressing faith.
Of course much of the Covenant accords with much of our Anglican inheritance: it was written by deeply convinced and faithful Anglicans, written to encapsulate much of the Anglican tradition, and written to legitimate itself through a strong claim to continuity with Anglican formularies and traditions.
It also reflects the centralising and legalising of the Anglican Communion which has been happening internationally over the last decade or two. But this development has shallow roots. If this grows it will take the Communion in an authoritarian direction alien to its inheritance.
Another question, what of our Anglican inheritance has been lost in the draft? might also have been asked. What is lost includes
MCU believes the bishops should go back to the drawing board.
As a matter of practical politics this would seem unlikely. Too many senior members of the Anglican Communion have invested too much in the Covenant simply to shrug their collective shoulders and say 'It seemed like a good idea at the time. What's next?'
But it is not unthinkable. The Covenant was intended to hold the Communion together. If schism came to the Communion there would be no need for a Covenant, and no wisdom in acting hastily.
However, if some sort of Covenant is to happen, much more work needs to be done:
Second, in some ways the Covenant has already become a mask to cover the deeper problems of Anglicanism. It may disguise the issues for a while, and implementation of the Covenant may distract the international Instruments of Unity (and the media), but deeper problems remain. Much more work still remains to be done on changing relationships within the Anglican Communion.
Globalisation (as shorthand for a range of intractable forces) is continuing to remake the Anglican Communion, as so much else, in ways that are hard to define or predict but are often painful.
Further work is needed, for example, on the integration of geographic and non-geographic dioceses, authority without authoritarianism, the positive and negative consequences of internet communications, Christian education at all levels which is both global and diverse, on conflict resolution and conciliation in ways which avoid creating winners and losers.
The manner in which this further reflection is done is also important. One lesson from the Covenant Design Group is that rapid work by a small group can produce a shared document and alienate many of the constituent Provinces.
Slow work is important with adequate time to explore deeper theological and ecclesiological issues and to enable wide participation. In a global communion it is important to value differing contributions and different answers. Timetables may be necessary, though these can be flexible, but prescribed outcomes are undesirable. The process itself should contribute to mutual understanding and greater integration of Communion partners.
MCU continues to oppose the Covenant. The draft is a weak document unable to address future, different, challenges. Its vision is of a Communion dominated by Primates, international institutions and legal processes at the cost of local autonomy and the diversity of worshipping communities. It is a distraction from the serious internal and external difficulties faced by the Communion. It is wholly inadequate to the task of mission: it would create a Communion with strong brakes and no engine.
The Covenant simply will not do.
Paul Bagshaw lives in Newcastle upon Tyne. He is a volunteer with the East Area Asylum Seekers Support Group.