Death Knell for the Covenant?

According to an Episcopal News Service report, Executive Council will submit a resolution to next year’s General Convention stating that the Church is “unable to adopt the Anglican Covenant in its present form.”  The unanimous decision to submit this resolution to General Convention came on Oct. 24th, the last day of council's four-day meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah.  If passed at General Convention, how would this resolution be received by the Diocese of Albany, which has passed its own resolution supporting the covenant?

Here is the text of the proposed resolution, as reported by The Rev. Mark Harris, a member of the task force that produced it:

Resolved, the House of _______ concurring, That this 77th General Convention express its profound gratitude to those who so faithfully worked at producing the Anglican Covenant; and be it further

Resolved, that The Episcopal Church commit itself to continued participation in the wider councils of the Anglican Communion and to continued dialogue with our brothers and sisters in other provinces to deepen understanding and to insure the continued integrity of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, that The Episcopal Church recommit itself to dialogue with the several provinces when adopting innovations which may be seen as threatening to the unity of the Communion; and be it further

Resolved, that The Episcopal Church is unable to adopt the Anglican Covenant in its present form.

The reasoning behind the resolution is not to reject our Communion, but (as PB Schori noted) that the covenant conflicts with The Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons.  The task force has said that to adopt the current version "would significantly alter our current understanding of what it means to be an autonomous province."  This is a clear reference to Section 4 of the covenant.  Our first priority must be, in the words of the Presiding Bishop, "that all people of this church might be included in the life of the church."

If this proposed resolution, or one similar to it, is passed by General Convention, the future prospect of the Anglican Covenant is doubtful.  This is the conclusion not only of progressive Episcopalians, but of more traditionalist members of our Church.  The Rev. Kendall Harmon, blogger of Titus One Nine, has already acknowledged “the death knell for Dr Rowan Williams’ plan for the Anglican Communion.”

Where, then, does this leave the Diocese of Albany?  A small but vocal minority of "conservatives" within The Episcopal Church, including the DOA, feel that the covenant provides a framework in which to be faithful to the "orthodoxy" of the Anglican Communion.  But traditionally, to be Anglican is to allow the greatest latitude of response to "the work of the Spirit," in the words of the task force report.

Rather than cling to the dead letter of a rejected covenant, we must “continue the dialogue to which we have pledged ourselves,” both within our Province and with the rest of the Anglican world, as the of House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson has said.   But, most importantly, The Episcopal Church must be faithful to the work of the Spirit as our Church collectively perceives it.  And, according to the report of the task force,

when the Church is faithful, the unity of the Church is reflective of the unity that is in God, divinely ordered and discernible on the earth.

Comments

[William F. Hammond]

1. While I agree that the ABC backed the Windsor Report's idea of a 'Covenant' and has recommended its adoption, I do not think it correct to see him as primarily responsible for the version on the table.

2. The version on the table is flawed if only because it has constitutional sway while the document denies that it has such sway.

3. TEC's Executive Council's statement is specifically directed to the version on the table. Its statement suggests a willingness to consider a better future version.

4. We still do not know whether the Church of England will adopt it.

[Christopher Brown+]

I agree with Bob Dodd that imposition of uniformity is not a desirable ecclesiology. I just don't think that this is what the Covenant is about. Anglicanism has classically distinguished between essentials and "adiophora" or inessentials. Essentials are things held in common -- without which there is no common life -- like a creed or a Prayer Book liturgy. Inessentials allow for more latitude.

We may disagree about the particulars even if we do agree that this is reasonable distinction to make.
The question is: what are the essentials and how are they determined.

The Anglican Covenant is an attempt to apply these principles. But I doubt, at this point, that much if anything will come of it. I am sorry about that; others are not.

But I wonder: if the Covenant were employed to advocate freedom from violence for gay people across the worldwide Angilican Communion (which I would support), I doubt there would be much concern about "uniformity."

[Robert T Dodd]

Fr. Brown suggests that rejection of the proposed Covenant by both liberals and conservatives indicates that it is a "moderate and reasonable proposal." It shows only that it is too restrictive for one side, not restrictive enough for the other.

I think history will judge that the Communion went off the rails with the study that produced the Windsor Report. It sought uniformity. In doing so, it lost unity.

Was the Covenant a fool's errand? Only in places where it was accepted or rejected without thorough discussion. Those provinces and dioceses that moved slowly and carefully learned from the process, whatever their decision. I wish the Diocese of Albany had been one of them.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

The “death knell” of the Anglican Covenant was when it was rejected by much of the Global South in the Communion. I am not sure anyone really expected the Episcopal Church to approve it – though I think it would have shown a real willingness to work with the rest of the communion.

Clearly the Covenant is yesterday’s news, and outstripped by subsequent developments. I still think it is immanently reasonable, and grossly misrepresented by theological progressives in TEC and elsewhere. The fact that the Covenant was proposed by Archbishop Rowan Williams (who has definite liberal leanings), but was rejected by the extremes on the right and the left of the Communion indicates what a moderate and reasonable proposal it is.

[Robert T Dodd]

"Where, then, does this leave the Diocese of Albany?"

Right where it has been for the eight years since it chose to tag along with the Duncan/Akinola crowd and stiff-arm the Episcopal Church.

GC 2012 is likely to be a game-changer. Will Bishop Love accept the fact that the DoA includes enthusiastic Episcopalians of many sexual and theological hues and strive to include us, or will he continue to pretend that we don't exist in his "conservative" diocese?

We who support the national Church can do many things to help ouselves, however Bp. Love decides to play it after General Convention. However, only the Bishop can take the steps needed to make our diocese whole.

Early in his tenure, I told +Bill, "You are the Bishop of the whole diocese. If you win, we all win. If you lose...."

That remains true.