This is a report on Andrew Goddard’s talk to the LichfieldDiocese about the Anglican Covenant. You can listen to it here. I just want to say a few things by way ofintroduction. The first is I wish to say thank-you to Andrew. I was not lookingforwards to listening to the talk, but I found it a pleasant experience. On anumber of occasions I have heard things said about the Covenant that areblatantly false or misleading or dreadfully fudged that have raised my bloodpressure. I have also heard plenty of people attack those who are critical ofthe Anglican Covenant rather than look at the document itself. Sometimes I heararguments that the Covenant looks unpleasant but what Rowan actually means is something quite nice. Finally,and worst of all, I have heard people try to get the Covenant through byemotional blackmail, either by appealing to our desire to please and supportRowan or by appealing to our desire not to upset people in Africa. I don’t wantto upset anyone and I desperately want unity. However, in our thoughts anddiscussions it must be the document that we consider and the implications ofthe document. I thought that Andrew did this, and he didn’t raise my bloodpressure at all!
However, his presentation was by no means balanced. This isnot a criticism of him – if I was invited to do a presentation then I would belike him – explain the reasoning of the other point of view and then explain whyit is wrong. The debate in Lichfield was therefore flawed because twentyminutes was given to one position and there was no opportunity to respond withtwenty minutes from the other position.
In addition to this, Andrew made a series of presuppositionsand assertions that I would like to challenge. In the text below, I summarisevery briefly his talk, and also the aspects that I do not agree with.
First of all Andrew starts with an anecdote explaining howdreadfully few people know much about the Anglican Covenant. I agree with himentirely, and I find it odd that it has been so poorly communicated. Comparethis with the Women Bishop’s legislation that everyone seems to know about.
Andrew then describes the positions that people in theChurch take with respect to the Covenant:
- enthusiastic – this is a greatidea!
- reluctant – we need to do this Isuppose.
- sceptics – this probably won’twork and I am seriously concerned about it
- critics – this is fatally flawed
He explained that the critics comeboth from the strongly evangelical wing and from the Liberal wing. I agree with his analysis here too. I supposethe question I would ask is whether we have the right solution if it seems likea bad idea to many. Furthermore, I thinkit is at best misleading to call it a ‘covenant’ when the vast majority ofpeople seem to either be reluctant or sceptical about signing up. One mightsign up to an agreement with a heavy heart because there is no alternative, buta Covenant should surely be signed in a spirit of joy?
Andrew mentioned the very positivevote approving it at General Synod. This was the only occasion when I thoughthe was misleading, and he was picked up on it at the end of his talk by theChair, which was very good. The truth is that at General Synod the people votedwholeheartedly to send the document to the Dioceses. They were toldspecifically that they were not being asked to commend it, just to allow othersto see it and have the opportunity to debate it.
Andrew then asked a few pertinentquestions. The first being ‘where did itcome from’. Now this is easy to fudge because the notion of a Covenant hasbeen around for some time and for various reasons. There is a draft of aCovenant for Mission that is going around and people also thought that we neededto identify ourselves a bit more so that when we engage with other churchesthey can know who they are dealing with. I have no issues with those ideas. However,Andrew didn’t fudge - he went straight to the true answer. This Covenant is about the tensions and divisions that havehappened after The Episcopal Church appointed Gene Robinson, and also becauseCanada put together some liturgy to bless same-sex unions. This is why we havethe Covenant and this is the thing it is meant to fix. Andrew blames the NorthAmericans entirely saying the familiar words from the Windsor report’ “theseactions threatened to tear fabric of communion”.
I would challenge Andrew here. Firstly,I am unhappy with the notion that when an argument ensues between two groups weshould paint one as black and the other white. I am also very unhappy with thenotion that we should blame the one that offends and exonerate the one that hastaken offense. If a more ‘live and let live’ approach had been taken by some ofthe Provinces then there would be no tear in the Anglican Communion. I am alsoextremely unconvinced that the Anglican Covenant is a logical response to thetensions and divisions in the Communion. The dispute is between group A andgroup B, the Church of England is not in either of these groups so involving usseems wrong, quite frankly. The dispute is about homosexuality and the AnglicanCovenant doesn’t mention homosexuality, so I can’t see how it helps. In fact, Ihave sympathy with the conservative folks who make the point that the Covenantis fatally flawed because it doesn’t mention homosexuality which is the verything it was meant to solve. More than this, the conservatives (who aremy ‘group B’) say they want nothing to do with the Covenant because the powersof discipline have been watered down too far. So what on earth is the point?
Andrew goes on to answer preciselythat question. He says in addition to solving the dispute we have to come toterms with developments in the Communion – greater numbers, a move away fromour colonial roots and the impact of globalisation. This is merely assertion.These things may or may not need us to change and the Covenant may or may nothelp.
The second question was ‘what is it doing?’ Broadly Andrew saysit is an expression of our vision of Communion containing within it bothautonomy and mutual accountability/interdependence. He says that the first fewsections are drawn heavily from other documents in the Anglican Communion andwhilst we may not exactly like the wording, it should broadly be acceptable. Heis right about this. It mystifies me why we can’t simply refer to other documents ratherthan incorporate them. A Covenant should never be this lengthy – a nine pagecovenant is ridiculous – much too long for your average bod to bother reading.The thesis of Andrew’s talk starts here – that the Covenant offers bothautonomy and interdependence. How could any reasonable person turn that down?Well the problem is that until now we have managed unity without uniformity. Wemay raise our eyebrows or disapprove – Sydney Diocese has approved (though notimplemented) lay presidency, The Episcopal Church has sexually active gaypriests, New Zealand has geographically overlapping Dioceses, Nigerian bishopssupport the death penalty for gay people. Different provinces have differentrules about divorced priests or women priests and bishops. Does interdependencemean that we all need to accept all that is going on elsewhere? For meinterdependence means that we support one another in prayer, we makerepresentation for each other where there is persecution and we listen to eachother’s stories of faith.
Andrew’s third question - ‘should we sign up?’ He explains it is agood idea because of the balance of autonomy and interdependence/mutualaccountability. He then says we all need each other, quoting St Paul. Thisslightly confused me because the Anglican Covenant will give us a mechanism bywhich the hand will say to the foot that they are unwanted and will berelegated to a different tier.
Andrew complained that there hadbeen some unfair criticisms of the Anglican Covenant. He said that it doesn'tcreate a new legislative body. That is technically true. However, if you take abody, change its name and give it new powers then one might see it as ‘new’.Andrew also complained that the Covenant doesn't infringe autonomy. Althoughthis is again technically true it is very misleading. If I tell my child that heis perfectly autonomous and is free to choose whether or not to eat his broccolibut if he doesn’t he won’t get pudding, has he still got full autonomy or hasthis been compromised? Let’s get real, it will significantly change the way wedo things if we are afraid of being relegated.
Andrew commends the document to usbecause it encourages interdependence, a regard for others and if disputeshappen there is compulsory mediation. Anyone who has been through a divorceknows that forcing two parties into mediation would never result in a good outcome.
Andrew’s fourth question is ‘what about section 4?’ He says that thissection is not about being punitive or picking fights, it is about the realityof broken commitments. The commitment he is referring to is the commitment notto do ‘controversial actions’. Can anyone tell me of a single New Testament orOld Testament hero who did not participate in ‘controversial actions’? Let’sstart with Jesus. Could he sign? I don’t think so.
He outlines that the Standingcommittee can ask Provinces not to proceed, make recommendations to other theother Instruments of Communion (eg the Primates meeting) and it can also recommendrelational consequences. Andrew doesn’t mention what these relationalconsequences are – they are likely to be disallowing representatives from misbehaving Provinces from participation inmeetings and decision making boards. This is a significant penalty – imagine ifno evangelicals were allowed to be part of any synods in the Church of England….
Andrew’s fifth question is ‘will it work?’ He says he doesn't know.Okay, but on the balance of probabilities, given that GAFCON have said no, itstands about the same chance as a small snowball on a hot day in Hell ofworking, doesn’t it? Andrew says that we will cause more problems if we opt out.This is an assertion that is unsubstantiated. He says there are no alternativesoffered. That is because all our energy has been consumed in this one idea. Weare a clever lot…. Between us we have to do better than this. Let’s brainstormsome alternatives.