The Final Text of the Anglican Communion Covenant: Clear Consequences

The Final Text of the Anglican Communion Covenant:

Clear Consequences

copublished, with permission, with The Living Church, and Covenant, 22 December 2009

By Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon, Archbishop of the Province of Kaduna, Nigeria

The final text of the Covenant is the result of hard work by the various carefully selected sisters and brothers from several parts of our Communion. We appreciate and thank them for all the sacrifices made during the course of their assignments.

In the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Covenant “is not going to solve all our problems, it’s not going to be a constitution, and it’s certainly not a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply.”

Members of this Communion need to be reminded that the 1998 Lambeth Conference took a position on the question of human sexuality which was revisited at the 2008 conference and reaffirmed. That position has therefore not changed. For individual dioceses that have gone against this agreed parameter we drew for ourselves, sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.8 of this final text of the Covenant are very clear on the likely consequences of their decision.

What section 4.2.8 recommends is already operational, in an analogous way, in some parts of our Communion. In the Church of Nigeria, for example, polygamists and the divorced are not officially accepted as leaders at any level and not even allowed Holy Communion. In addition, all women who are not willing to accept the discipline of this Church in holy matrimony cannot be members of the Mothers’ Union. To give them a sense of belonging, they are provided with an alternative: the Women’s Guild.

The proposed role of the Standing Committee in the Covenant (section 4.2) is an improvement on the liaison officers suggested in the Windsor Report (article 25). I hope the Standing Committee will be given all the necessary freedom and assistance to function effectively.

The Covenant gives non-Anglicans an idea of who we are and how we agree to resolve our differences as a family. I hope that bishops in every province will encourage robust debates and discussions of this final text of the Covenant. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, “We hope to see people agreeing to these ways of resolving our conflicts.”

__________________________________________________________________

The Most Revd Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon is Archbishop of the Province of Kaduna, Nigeria.

The Final Text of the Anglican Communion Covenant: Four Key Questions

From Fulcrum:

The Final Text of the Anglican Communion Covenant:

Four Key Questions

copublished, with permission, with The Living Church, and Covenant, 22 December 2009

by Dr. Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne

Interdependence and mutual accountability have always been the key features of the earlier drafts of the Anglican Communion Covenant (Nassau, St Andrew’s, and Ridley). It is encouraging that these are still at the heart of the final text.

The working party charged with producing this text, especially focussing on section four, is to be commended. The final text is profoundly Anglican, consonant with the trajectory of the Windsor Process and, it seems to me, is likely to lead to the majority of Provinces of the Anglican Communion adopting the Covenant. In the light of recent developments, it may well be that not all Provinces will enter the Covenant. Tragically, that may be appropriate at this time.

Responses from around the Anglican Communion to the various earlier drafts have been published in full, including one from the Church of England, concerning section four of the Ridley draft. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion have introduced the final text.

The working party has explained their guiding principles as ‘minimal revision’ but with some ‘clearer definition’ and ‘change of tone in language’. I believe they have achieved their aim admirably.

Four key questions are now answered:

1. Can dioceses commit themselves to the Covenant? The Covenant is designed primarily for ‘Provinces of the Anglican Communion’ – these are the ‘Churches of the Anglican Communion’ referred to in the text. However, dioceses are included in the phrase ‘any ecclesial body’ and some dioceses, eg ‘Communion Partner’ dioceses in The Episcopal Church, which may wish to commit themselves to the Covenant if their Provinces do not, will be allowed to do so. The working party quote again the principles of ‘The Lambeth Commentary’ (September 2008):

“If, however, the canons and constitutions of a Province permit, there is no reason why a diocesan synod should not commit itself to the covenant, thus strengthening its commitment to the interdependent life of the Communion.”

2. Can Churches which are not yet current members of the Anglican Consultative Council affirm the Covenant (eg The Anglican Church of North America)? Yes, but this does not make them members of the ACC and future membership will be with due process (section 4.1.5).

3. What of Churches which choose not to enter into the Covenant? The text deliberately does not deal with that matter, but the working party states that the Instruments of Communion should determine an appropriate response. This may appear weak, but it seems to me to be appropriate: not being invited to conferences and commissions may be in mind.

4. Which group will be monitoring the implementation of the Covenant? In this final text, is the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’, which recently evolved from the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC (Ridley Draft).

So, after a long period of gestation the Covenant is born. Let us be encouraged and continue our support in prayer.

__________________________________________________________________

Dr Graham Kings is the Bishop of Sherborne and theological secretary of Fulcrum