Saturday's meeting of Worcester Diocesan Synod discussed the Anglican Covenant.This is a response to all the argy bargy over recent years trying to find a way of keeping the widely different parts of the world-wide Anglican Communion vaguely together without it all depending on the skill of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The first 3 sections simply say that the churches of the Anglican communion share a common inheritance.... & that while all are autonomous they have never reckoned that the autonomy gave them licence to do whatever they liked without concern for the other churches of the communion. Nobody is particularly steamed up about sections 1-3.
Section 4 then sets up a mechanism for keeping different churches of the communion round the table when one has done something to upset another part. It’s this section that has been criticised by the extremes on both sides of the church. The ultra liberals think it restricts them too much and the ultra conservatives think that it isn’t restrictive enough! What it does is give to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) a role where if different parts of the communion are at odds with each the ACC sets up a process of dialogue between the two parts and the ACC can make recommendations as to what either part of the Church should or should not do – but they’re only recommendations which carry no legal weight. They can be ignored.
Perhaps the most important thing about the covenant is that it provides a safety valve to release the tension when there are differences. That role has been done by Archbishop Rowan but at significant personal cost and there is no guarantee that his successor will have the skills & gifts necessary to do so. And indeed the role of Archbishop of Canterbury should not be entirely taken up in dealing with disagreements!
Diocesan synod was bizarre with all sorts of wild claims being made, we don’t need a structure we should work on trust; if the covenant is brought in we could end up with the Methodist Church signing up to it and the Church of England being expelled; it could stop us ordaining women bishops; it could be the catalyst that brings about the disestablishment of the CofE..... All sorts of stuff that can’t be justified from what the text actually says!
I can’t work out why people have got so steamed up about it. It feels like the ultra liberals really don’t like it & have got their knives out for the covenant. It also felt like there was a “you can’t tell me what to do attitude.” Bishop John had personally endorsed the Covenant in his presidential address (I heard mutterings that this was an improper use of a presidential address to synod) & we’d been shown a video of the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsing it. Too strong a "steer"?
What I found particularly bizarre was that having voted against the Covenant, synod then voted for a motion expressing our appreciation of the Anglican Communion and asking the House of Bishops to bring forward a means of keeping the Communion together. As most of the House of Bishops have already said they think the covenant is a good way of doing just that then I do wonder what else they're supposed to dream up as a way of keeping it all together. Also bizarrely arrogant in a worldwide context. Why should the House of Bishops of the Church of England be coming up with a mechanism that will be acceptable to the Anglican Communion internationally? It was an international process that led to the Covenant.
Glad that Coventry diocese voted in favour even if Worcester voted against
No comments:
Post a Comment