Monday, April 18, 2011 at 5:11PM 
An interesting reflection to read at the start of Holy Week -
"Sifting through this huge database of diplomatic documents, it was hard not to come away with a depressing view of human nature. Mankind, the world over, seemed revealed as a base, grasping species. Many political leaders showed remarkable greed and venality" (p 222).
Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 3:57PM Welcome To media.ctsfw.edu
Whether you're looking for journal articles, creative web links, videos, sermon audio or other resources, this is the place to look!
All of the materials here are free, and are provided for the good of Christ's Church. If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting the mission and ministry of CTS as we seek to teach the faithful, reach the lost and care for all.
This looks a useful site to return to eg searching for Hays showed a 2006 edition of CTQ with several articles engaging with his work. Also a 2008 article by Mark Seifrid responding to NT Wright on "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by faith". Sure there are other goodies as well...
Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 3:30PM I've started a separate blog on this site where I'll be posting a history I started writing some time ago of debates within ECUSA/TEC on sexuality since the early/mid 1970s.
I'm hoping it will produce comments, corrections, new insights and help us understand how this Anglican province got to the place it did in 2003 with the consecration of Gene Robinson and now has reaffirmed in 2010 with the consents to the election of a partnered lesbian as a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles.
If you have comments please do post them on the blog entries or email me with them. Thanks.
The work appears both as PDF chapters and as smaller blog entries.
I'm also posting some of the key primary documents from the period covered.
Information on the project here and from links on the left-hand sidebar under the new section "Anglican Communion Matters".
So far have posted
Chapter 1 - Louie Crew & Founding Integrity
Chapter 2 - General Convention 1976, Minneapolis
Andrew Goddard
Anglican, TEC, history, homosexuality | in Anglican | Email Article | Print Article Permalink Monday, January 11, 2010 at 8:15PM The first verson of an Anglican Covenant appeared as an appendix in the 2004 Windsor Report which recommended a covenant. Canon lawyer Professor Norman Doe, and member of the Lambeth Commission played a leading part in producing a draft which was adopted by the Commission as a guide to what a covenant might look like. As this draft is quite different from the versions that followed, it is not considered the first draft of the final covenant.
A further discussion of the covenant (but with no proposals about the text) was presented in Towards an Anglican Covenant, published in March 2006
The first draft - The Nassau Draft - appeared from the Covenant Design Group (CDG) in February 2007 (with a report). It had an introduction and 7 sections - an opening Preamble and closing declaration and 5 substantive sections of affirmations (sections 2 and 5) and commitments (sections 3 and 6) with a central section 4 that combined affirmations and commitments.
The second draft - The St Andrew's Draft - appeared from the CDG a year later in February 2008 (also with a report and a commentary and introduction). It also included a draft appendix relating to the resolution of disagreements (which became Section Four in subsequent drafts). It set the structure of 3 sections comprising both affirmations and commitments: Nassau's 2 and 3 combined into Section One on our inheritance of faith, Nassau 4 becoming Section Two on our mission (The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation) and Nassau 5 and 6 combined into Section Three on our unity and common life.
Following responses to this at the Lambeth Conference in summer 2008, a lengthy Lambeth Commentary was produced in September 2008.
The third draft - The Ridley (Cambridge) Draft - appeared in March 2009 with a report and commentary and revised introduction. This was presented to ACC-14 in May 2009 where the Introduction and Sections One to Three were approved but Section Four sent back for further work.
The final text was published in December 2009, with Sections One to Three as in Ridley but with a revised Section Four and a commentary on the changes.
Throughout the process there were various responses to the drafts from across the Communion.
The ACO has the key documents available as PDFs
This site contains all the texts and some additional materials in entries that can be accessed through their 'tags' either by section (Introduction, Preamble, Section One, Section Two, Section Three, Section Four, Declaration) or by draft (Nassau, St Andrew's, Ridley and Final).
It also has the text of all the CDG reports and CDG commentaries on the texts and links to provincial responses for each draft.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:45PM The following list provides links to the responses from 16 different provinces to the first Nassau draft (all are PDFs on ACO site)
Source: Covenant Resources
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:37PM The following list provides links to the responses to the St Andrew's Draft from 21 different provinces opening with a 3-page summary of responses to 3 questions (all are PDFs on ACO site)
Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia
Australia
Brazil
Burundi
Canada
England
Hong Kong
Indian Ocean
Ireland
Japan
Korea
Nigeria
North India
Scotland
South East Asia
Sudan
Uganda
USA
Wales
West Africa
West Indies
Source: Commentary on Ridley Draft
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:33PM Covenant Working Party Commentary on Revisions to Section 4
The Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Communion Covenant was considered at ACC-14 in May 2009. Resolution 14.11 included a request to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Secretary General, to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee.
The following members were subsequently appointed to the Covenant Working Group
The Most Revd Dr John Neill (Chair) (The Church of Ireland)
The Most Revd Dr John Chew (Church of the Province of South East Asia)
Dr Eileen Scully (Anglican Church of Canada)
The Rt Revd Dr Gregory Cameron (The Church in Wales)
Staff
The Revd Canon Dr Alyson Barnett-Cowan (ACO)
The Revd Canon Joanna Udal (Lambeth Palace)
Mr Neil Vigers (ACO)
The consultation with the Provinces of the Anglican Communion resulted in seventeen responses. These were circulated to members of the Working Group as they were received, and collated into a composite document prior to the meeting of the Working Group.
Principles
The guiding principle has been that of minimal revision. However, several areas of Section 4 have required clearer definition and a change of tone in language. In faithfulness to the provincial responses these changes have been incorporated, but with the definite intention to remain consistent with the work that had already achieved a wide measure of support. This support came across clearly in the majority of the responses received.
The Covenant Working Group gave serious attention to all the Provincial responses submitted, and reviewed them in detail. Where a point seemed to be particularly strongly and well made, or if it was made by a range of responses, the Group gave full consideration to how the text could be amended to meet that point. Not all points have been incorporated by changes in the text. The Covenant Working Group has set out its reasoning in this commentary.
Section 4.1
One of the key questions that arose at ACC-14 was the definition of ‘the Churches of the Communion’. The Working Group has drafted a new clause 4.1.1 to address this question.
In response to the question ‘who is being invited to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant?’, the Working Group reaffirmed the principles set out in the Lambeth Commentary of September 2008, in its definition of “Churches of the Communion” as those for whom adoption is intended.
“In Anglican ecclesiology, there is a creative tension between the understanding of “local Church”, which is that portion of God’s people gathered around their bishop, usually in the form of a territorial diocese, and “Church” as a term or description for a national or regional ecclesial community, which is bound together by a national character, and/or common liturgical life, governance and canon law. Traditionally, Anglicans have asserted the ecclesial character of the national Church as the privileged unit of ecclesiastical life. The Church of England’s very existence was predicated upon such an assumption at the time of the Reformation. Recognised in most cases as “Provinces”, these national or regional Churches are the historical bodies through which the life of the Anglican Communion has been expressed, and they are the primary parties for whom the covenant has been designed. 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.”[1]
The Group recognise that any ecclesial body may express commitment to the Covenant. Some may find that the affirmations and commitments of the Anglican Communion Covenant contain helpful guides for interdependent life at other levels and in other contexts than those specific to relations amongst the Member Churches of the Anglican Communion. This sort of endorsement is to be encouraged as contributing to the covenantal life of the Communion.
In response to the question, ‘what happens if Churches other than current member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council wish to adopt the Covenant?’ the Working Group was concerned that due process was needed. The procedures set out in the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council for amendment of its Schedule of Membership provide a suitable course of deliberation and consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting before an invitation to consider adoption of the Covenant by any such Church is agreed upon. The Working Group incorporated these principles in Section 4.1.5.
The question has also been raised about the status of Churches of the Anglican Communion who choose not to enter the Anglican Communion Covenant. The working Group considers that it is not appropriate to address this question within the text of the Covenant. Rather, there should be the flexibility for the Instruments of Communion to determine an appropriate response in the evolving situation that would accompany a process of reception and adoption of the Covenant.
Section 4.2
The most difficult part of the Covenant text has related to those sections which deal with any disruption in the life of Communion. There remains in some quarters a lingering feeling that being in communion requires only positive affirmation and encouragement. However, the fact is that not all developments aid and nurture deeper communion. From our recent history it is evident that some developments bring dispute, disruption and tension. The clear majority of responses demonstrated that a section of the Covenant which seeks to provide an ordered way for the Communion to approach disagreement remains a necessary feature of the Covenant.
The Covenant Working Group has taken very seriously the representations of a number of Provinces that this section should avoid a punitive or juridic tone, that it should emphasise relational and communion aspects, and defer to the dispersed model of authority, which places emphasis on the autonomy of the Churches as final arbiters of maintaining the Communion which their relations constitute. In particular, the Covenant Working Group has taken very seriously the concern that relational and conciliatory approaches should figure highly, but also acknowledges the point made, amongst others, by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission in their report “Communion, Conflict and Hope”, that mutual accountability is a fundamental Communion value which should draw the Churches into a common life. The links between the processes in Section 4 and the principles of interdependence in Section 3 are therefore made explicit (4.2.3), and the Standing Committee is called upon to “make every effort to facilitate agreement” (4.2.4).
The question ‘who should be responsible for the maintenance of the Covenant?’ proved to be one of the enduring problems with which the Covenant Design Group worked. The Nassau Draft sought to reflect the actual working of the Communion at the time, and gave the central role in discernment to the Primates’ Meeting. In response to extensive criticism, the Anglican Consultative Council was placed in this role in the St Andrew’s Draft. This also met with considerable criticism. However, the Covenant Design Group did not see its role as inventing new structures for the Communion, but rather explicating and strengthening existing structures. Hence, in the Ridley Cambridge April Draft, the Joint Standing Committee was placed in this role. Current responses have also questioned this, wondering whether the Covenant exalts the Joint Standing Committee into a fifth instrument of Communion.
In the meantime, the Joint Standing Committee as such has ceased to exist. By the constitutional changes which became active at ACC-14, following approval by two thirds of the Provinces, the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting has developed into “The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion”, in which membership is constituted by elections from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting.
The Ridley Cambridge November Text continues to accord the Standing Committee with the crucial role of monitoring the functioning of the Covenant. The Covenant Working Group considers that the Standing Committee with membership from all four Instruments of Communion, combining bishops, clergy and laity, is best placed for this role. What is made explicit in the current draft is that the Standing Committee derives its authority from its responsibility to the two Instruments of Communion which elect its membership, and on whose behalf it acts. It provides a co-ordinating function for matters to do with Covenant maintenance, supported by relevant expertise (cf 4.2.2) and in close communication with both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, on whose advice it acts. (cf 4.2.6 and 4.2.7)
A further question has concerned the “relational consequences” which may follow a declaration of “incompatibility with the covenant”. A reality which has to be acknowledged is that if there is autonomy of governance in the Churches of the Anglican Communion, then a necessary corollary of this is that the autonomy of a Church’s relationships of Communion also cannot be constrained. What the covenant seeks to do is to find an ecclesial framework by which a common response to tensions can be discerned and articulated. This contrasts with the present situation where no agreed mechanisms for action exist, and this lack has seriously threatened the integrity of the Communion. What the relational consequences might be were explored by the Covenant Design Group in their meeting in Singapore in September 2008, and were set out in the Lambeth Commentary at page 25. There they were deliberately listed in a range from the lightest “no action”, to the most serious “breaking of ecclesial communion and walking apart”.
The Covenant Working Group note that since Anglican Churches value autonomy over a central jurisdiction, the Communion can only ever guide - it must be left to the Churches to decide. (cf Ridley Cambridge Commentary, note on Section 3, page 3) However, in the face of certain fears being expressed by some Provinces that chaos could result as each Church decides to act in a different way, Churches are now invited to accept or reject specific recommendations from the Standing Committee.
The Covenant Working Group accepts the argument that it is only appropriate for the representatives of Churches which are participating in the life of the covenant to determine questions relating to the maintenance of the covenant (April text, 4.2.7; November text, 4.2.8)
4.3.1 – Withdrawing from the Covenant
There may be circumstances in which it might be appropriate for a Church to withdraw from the Covenant for a period of time in order for it to resolve a particular issue in its own life. For example, a Church entering into an ecumenical agreement which includes living with bearable anomalies in order to move toward the goal of full visible unity, may wish to withdraw until such time as the anomalies have been resolved (cf Lambeth 1998 Resolution IV.1). In such circumstances the Standing Committee may wish to give advice as to whether such withdrawal is appropriate or not.
The United Churches of South Asia
As full members of the Anglican Communion, the four United Churches in South Asia (the Church of South India, the Church of North India, the Church of Pakistan and the Church of Bangladesh) would be invited to adopt and to enter into the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant and fully participate in covenantal communion life and relationship when it is in effect. Given the diversity of their traditions there may be particular challenges regarding their capacity to adopt the Covenant.
So far, only the Church of North India has made response on Section IV of the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant to the Anglican Covenant Working Group. The response as to whether it would be constitutionally and legally possible for the Church of North India to sign onto the proposed Anglican Covenant was somewhat unclear. It is highly desirable for the structures of the Anglican Communion to engage as fully as possible with the four United Churches to ascertain the best way to enable their participation in the Covenant.
Footnotes
1. A Lambeth Commentary on the Saint Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant, question 11, page 11
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:32PM Section Four: Our Covenanted Life Together
This is a completely new section for the covenant text addressing the matter of joining, participating in and leaving the covenant, and resolving matters of dispute. The Nassau Draft provided that the Primates' Meeting should act as a body which could respond to controversy in the Communion. Matters of serious dispute could be submitted to them, and they would give guidance and direction (6.5). A provision was included that in extreme circumstances Churches would be recognised as having "relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the Covenant's purpose" (6.6), in a way which implied that such a relinquishment would be understood as fracturing or impairing communion, and leading into a period which would have to seek "restoration and renewal". The provisions of these sections were an attempt to describe how the Communion was actually living its life at the time, rather than to invent new ways forward, knowing that the draft would be tested in consultation.
These proposals in the Nassau Draft were widely criticised. There were two grounds. First, many responses indicated that there was great unhappiness with the idea that the Primates' Meeting should become formally the body within the Communion which could give final direction on a matter. The proposals appeared to create a centralised authority located with the Primates, which overrode Provincial autonomy, a much cherished concept. Secondly, it was felt to be too punitive in its construction, in that the provisions were oriented towards possible exclusion.
A further criticism was also voiced. It was felt that the procedures set out in Section 6 of the Nassau Draft were not sufficiently clear. Since any elaboration of principles would be likely to be lengthy and complicated, it was also felt that such language might be incompatible with the aspirational and relational language of the Covenant. It was therefore proposed (in the Primates' Meeting in Dar es Salaam) that it might be appropriate to develop a more detailed set of procedures in an appendix to the Covenant.
In the St. Andrew's Draft, there was an attempt to develop a more balanced and therefore complicated procedure. The relational processes of arbitration in the Nassau draft were repeated (3.2.1-3.2.5.c), but now the autonomy of the Churches was more explicitly respected. The Instruments of Communion could not give "direction", but they could make a "request". A refusal to accept the request might be understood, but not necessarily so, as a "relinquishment" of the Covenant. The CDG also developed an initial draft for an Appendix. This set out lengthy procedures for the handling of disputes, and, mindful of the criticism of the Nassau Draft that placed the Primates' Meeting in the role of arbitrator, the Appendix placed much more emphasis on the work of the Anglican Consultative Council. The Appendix sought to incorporate established principles of natural justice into the process.
The general feeling was that the St Andrew's Draft was an improvement. However, it still drew substantial criticism, both from Provincial responses, and at the Lambeth Conference. If the role of the Primates' Meeting in the Nassau Draft has been criticised as too curial, then the role now given to the ACC was considered beyond their capacity as a consultative body. The detailed rules of the Appendix were felt to be too juridical and complex in their approach. Within the St Andrew's Text, the concept of "relinquishment" and what it might mean was felt to be too unclear, and still too oriented towards punishment. The status of the Appendix was felt to be uncertain, and its relationship to the Covenant text unclear.
In the Lambeth Commentary, we set out some of our thinking in response to these criticisms. In the first place, we indicated that the CDG was inclined towards the development of a new Section Four of the Covenant which would include the sort of material needed. It would address questions of how to join as well as how to leave the Covenant. It could offer a system of dispute resolution, which respected the autonomy of the Churches. It could indicate who would be responsible for the maintenance of the Covenant, and even floated the idea of a "Covenant Commission" in the life of the Communion.
In Section Four of the RCD we have attempted to meet these criteria. However, there is one criterion which is even more fundamental. It is clear that one of the main fears attached to the idea of a Covenant is that it would limit Provincial autonomy. In the responses, this fear worked itself out in two directions. In the first place, there was substantial resistance to the idea that there should be any development of a body which could be seen to be exercising universal jurisdiction in Anglican polity. Anglicans wished to keep the autonomy of their Churches. Secondly, it became clear that the processes of adoption of the Covenant would be immensely complicated if the Covenant were seen to interfere with or to necessitate a change to the Constitution and Canons of any Province. The surrender of any legislative autonomy would in itself prove a stumbling block to the implementation of Covenant.
Section Four of the RCD is therefore constructed on the fundamental principle of the constitutional autonomy of each Church. The Covenant of itself cannot amend or override the Constitution and Canons of any Province. The Instruments of Communion cannot intervene in any jurisdictional way in the internal life of any of the Anglican Churches. The Covenant can only speak to the relationship between the Churches, and of the relational consequences of internal autonomous actions by a Church.
The draft text of Section Four therefore explicitly reaffirms that the Covenant and the Instruments of Communion of themselves do not impose or have any jurisdiction or authority to alter the internal governance of any Church of the Communion. Such a limitation on the Covenant undertakings is repeated in the latter parts of 4.1.1, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4. The Covenant is not intended to alter the Constitution and Canons of any of the Churches; it does not give any power to any Communion body to intervene in a Church's life.
However, the RCD also acknowledges that if any Church of the Communion chooses to exercise its autonomy in a way which lessens the basis on which communion is built - mutual recognition of faith and order, of vocation and a readiness to live in interdependence - then other Churches may wish to respond in a way which demonstrates how the bonds of affection and communion have been diminished by that action.
Section Four seeks to provide a way in which the response of the Communion may be evaluated, harmonised and regulated. It does not provide a system which undermines the autonomy of the Churches. There is no power to direct, either on the matter which may be causing offence, nor the nature of the response - that is left firmly within the sphere of a Church's autonomy. It does however provide a mechanism by which the response of the Communion to a controversial action may be considered, moderated, co-ordinated and handled with patience and care. Since there were objections to the Primates' Meeting and the ACC exercising this sort of role independently, the RCD gives it to them both, with the Joint Standing Committee acting in the role of co-ordinator, and as the body which is charged with overseeing the maintenance of covenanted life.
The concept of "relinquishment" has been replaced with the possibility of a determination that a controverted action is "incompatible with the Covenant". Both this determination and the recommendation of how this action may impair or limit the expression of communion and entail relational consequences is referred back to the Churches, or to any Instrument, so that it can make its own decision.
By offering this Section, the CDG seeks to address the responses which wished to preserve the autonomy of the Churches, and yet give real substance to the nature of the commitments made in the Covenant. Section Four explicitly leaves the Constitutions and Canons of the Provinces untouched, and acknowledges the autonomy of the Churches to govern the internal affairs of the Province. But while it respects the juridical category of "autonomy", it also emphasises the relational and theological category of "communion". It provides a robust system by which an action can be determined to have a destructive impact on the common life and witness of the Communion, and an ordered way to assess the relational consequences which such an action may have.
The CDG notes that there is a potential problem as the life of covenanting Churches develops, as more Churches adopt the Covenant. There may be members of the Instruments of Communion who represent a Church that has not adopted the Covenant, and there would be an increasingly anomalous situation as the Covenant becomes active and forceful in the life of the Churches which have adopted it. A short clause (4.2.7) limits participation in the arbitration processes of the Covenant to representatives of Churches who have either adopted or who are in the process of adopting the Covenant, but there will in time be a question of how both covenanting and non-covenanting Churches participate together in the life of the Instruments of Communion. At the moment, the Covenant text provides that these matters are uncoupled (see 4.1.5 and 4.3.1), but the CDG note that such matters may become the subject of agreed conventions alongside the Covenant.
Finally, the section also makes provision for the amendment of the Covenant. We felt that a fairly high threshold (the consent of three quarters of covenanting Churches) was required for any change, given the profoundly important nature of the affirmations and commitments involved.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:31PM Section 3: Our Unity and Common Life
Section 3 of the RCD has been substantially modified as a result of further deliberation concerning suggestions received from the Provinces and the Lambeth Conference. The affirmations are intended to set out the elements of the life of our Churches which relate to the interdependence generated by communion. The commitments have been reworked to emphasise the mutual obligations which arise from communion, while respecting the autonomy of individual Churches. The CDG commend a helpful summary here: "The Communion guides, each Churches decides."
3.1.1 has not been changed.
3.1.2. The phrase "episcopally led and synodically governed" has been replaced with "with its bishops in synod" for the sake of accuracy. The phrase "autonomous in communion" (from the Windsor Report, para.76) has been replaced with "in communion with autonomy and accountability" from "A Letter from Alexandria", the message from the Primates' Meeting in March 2009. This phrase adopts suggestions from the Windsor Continuation Group Report (Paragraphs 2 and 55), which were specifically noted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Press Briefing on behalf of the Primates at the conclusion of their meeting. The order of the last two sentences has been reversed for greater clarity.
3.1.3. The phrase "and the local Churches to one another" has been added to describe a deeper unity and catholicity signified by the bishops.
3.1.4 A new sentence has been added in the opening paragraph to locate the work of the Instruments of Communion within the larger apostolic authority of the whole people of God as it continually interprets and articulates the Christian faith. Following the descriptions of the Instruments of Communion, a final sentence has been appended, drawing on language from the IATDC's Report "Communion, Conflict, and Hope" (paragraph 113), to clarify the relationship of the Instruments to one another.
The descriptions of the Instruments of Communion have also been modified in some cases. With respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the RCD clarifies his significance "as the bishop of the See of Canterbury, with which Anglicans have historically been in communion." The Lambeth Conference description has been slightly revised for the sake of accuracy. The description of the Anglican Consultative Council is unchanged in this draft. A sentence has been added to the description of the Primates' Meeting to clarify the phrase "with its bishops in synod" used in 3.1.2 and elsewhere in the RCD.
3.2.1 The paragraph has been modified to express more clearly the support offered by the Churches for the Instruments of Communion and the reception of their work.
3.2.2 and 3.2.3 are substantially unchanged in this draft.
3.2.4 has been reworded and combined with earlier language (3.2.5.a of the St Andrew's Draft) to increase its accuracy and to clarify, by restating in other words, some of the terms which appeared unclear in the St Andrew's Draft.
3.2.5 was reworked substantially. In its present form, it is meant to provide a standard or test by which a Church could anticipate when it ought to act with caution, or avoid taking any action, in "gracious restraint" (cf Primates, Alexandria, 2009).
3.2.6 improves 3.2.5.c of the St Andrew's Draft by calling attention to the usefulness of mediated conversations, listing the basic components of effective mediation, and requiring Churches in situations of conflict to address one another directly.
3.2.7 is substantially unchanged from the older 3.2.6. It is placed last to emphasize the goal set out in the 1988 Lambeth Conference - "the highest degree of communion possible" as the aspiration that motivates all the commitments preceding it.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:30PM Section Two: The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation
This section elaborates the purpose of our communion together as being for God's mission in the world. It locates our Anglican inheritance and faith, traced back to the apostolic Church, reshaped by the Reformation and continually being renewed by the Holy Spirit. It enumerates the consequences of our missionary life, which although not perfect, have contributed significantly to the emergence of a diverse worldwide family of Churches and which continue to be shaped by different cultures and languages.
The CDG notes the comments that the St Andrew's Draft's treatment of Mission was lighter than the treatment of other sections, and sought to give the section greater weight and substance in the RCD.
The RCD includes a new section 2.1.3 which recognizes the need for humility and repentance where the actions of churches have undermined the credibility of the Church's mission and the integrity of the gospel.
The Five Marks of Mission, originally set out by ACC 6 and 8 and developed in the 1999 Missio Report, are elaborated in the RCD to acknowledge the transformative role of the Holy Spirit in initiating and sustaining the Great Commission.
New sections 2.2.3-2.2.4 incorporate the collective vocation to mission of the whole people of God and the need for humility and accountability in all these endeavours. 2.2.5 locates the Church's mission in its joyful and reverent worship of God and the vision for the unity of all God's people.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:28PM Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith
This section describes how "our faith embodies a coherent testimony to what we have received from God's Word and the Church's long-standing witness."[2] Everything which is contained in this Section is drawn from established Anglican texts and thinking.
The Affirmations and Commitments of each section have been refined, and, as each Church makes its commitments, it acknowledges its reliance on the Holy Spirit. Scriptural citations and allusions, when made directly, are not footnoted, but referenced within the body of the text. Footnotes, which are intended only to indicate source material, are given either for direct citations (as in the quotation of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) or for further reference (as in "Cf. The Preface to the Declaration of Assent…").
1.1.2. "historic formularies." The St Andrew's Text conflated texts from the Lambeth Quadrilateral and the Declaration of Assent of the Church of England. We have separated these texts out in the RCD for greater clarity. Reference is given to the historic formularies of the Church of England and their particular context, and new weight is given to the fact that the Book of Common Prayer 1662, the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Ordinal have been appropriated - that is, adapted, inculturated and treated - in different ways across the historical development of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, their authentic witness in the context of their original authorship and their guiding authority through history is acknowledged. The various ways in which authentic liturgical renewal and development of polity have related to their sources are also noted.
1.1.3- 1.1.6. Scripture, creeds, sacraments and the episcopate. The Lambeth Quadrilateral is now included here in full.
1.1.7.-1.1.8. Common prayer and liturgy, mission. The life of common worship is here given its proper emphasis in shaping our common life, alongside the affirmations of the Quadrilateral, all of which serve God's mission into which the whole people of God are called.
1.2 Scripture, theology, teaching, discipleship. The St. Andrew's Draft has been reworked to give clarity and to allow for a fuller treatment of Christian responsibility in relation to the Scriptures and the catholic tradition. This section addresses the roles of the whole people of God in Bible study, the work of scholars, and the teachings of bishops and synods. The guidance of the Holy Spirit has been emphasized in the discernment of truth. The contextual grounding, and the missional and transformative purpose of our engagement with Scripture has been emphasized. The imperative to nurture and sustain eucharistic communion extends into our ecumenical vocation.
Notes:
2. Introduction, paragraph 7
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:27PM The Preamble
The Preamble describes the spirit of our Covenant affirmations and commitments. The Preamble of the St Andrew's Draft is substantially unchanged.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:25PM Introduction to the Anglican Communion Covenant.
The CDG sees the Introduction as an invitation to readers to set the Covenant text within an understanding of the purpose of the Covenant and its theological foundations.
Questions were raised by some Provinces and bishops at the Lambeth Conference regarding the status of the Introduction: is it to be considered an inherent part of the Covenant itself? What status ought it to be accorded? Those requesting that it be included with the status of the Covenant argued that the Introduction provides a theological foundation for the Covenant. On the other hand, the text is discursive in nature, rather than the propositional form of the Covenant itself, and may provide challenges to some in the formal adoption or ratification processes. Within the RCD, section 4.4.1 clearly delineates what constitutes "The Anglican Communion Covenant," stating, in particular, that "the Introduction to the Covenant text, which all always be annexed to the Covenant text, is not part of the Covenant, but shall be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant."
The Introduction to the St Andrew's Draft has been revised only slightly to take account of comments submitted. Closer connections has been drawn among worship, humble service, mutual self-giving, and mission that are at the heart of the divine life into which we have been called.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:23PM Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life
Clause 3.1.3: The central role of bishops as a visible sign of unity was recognised in The Windsor Report (para. 64) where it was stated that, “Bishops represent the local to the universal and the universal to the local”. We note the significance of the Episcopal office for the Communion of the Church as set out in Appendix Two of the Report of the Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (IATDC), “The Anglican Way: The Significance of the Episcopal Office for the Communion of the Church”[2].
Clause 3.1.4: There are many and varied links which sustain our life together include: The Anglican Cycle of Prayer, the various commissions, the Mothers’ Union, companion dioceses and parish relationships, mission agencies and networks.
Some comments indicated that the Covenant was somehow “canonizing” four instruments of Communion that have evolved in a somewhat haphazard way. We have therefore amended the text to allow both for the evolution of the Instruments, and to acknowledge the existence of other informal instruments and links.
While the Covenant does not preclude or even seek to limit the possible development of these and other Instruments, we nonetheless believe that the Instruments as now working represent a special means of faithfully maintaining our common life, and ones that need to remain at the centre of our common commitments. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s place within this grouping is maintained, even while his character as a “focus” – according to the redefinition adopted from the Windsor Report by ACC-13 – is acknowledged. The Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his ministry in a collegial manner with his fellow primates.
The order of listing the Four Instruments has been changed to follow their more formal chronological development. Their ministries have been described according to various Communion documents including, in the case of the ACC, its formal constitution.
The history of the Primates’ Meeting is set out in Paragraph 104 of The Windsor Report which states that its purpose was “to initiate consideration of the way to relate together the international conferences, councils, and meetings within the Anglican Communion, so that the Anglican Communion may best serve God within the context of one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” It is noted that in Appendix 1(5) of the Windsor Report it was suggested that the Primates’ Meeting serve as a standing committee of the Lambeth Conference, but since this has not been received by the larger church, the Covenant Design Group decided not to include it in our description.
The Commitments in 3.2
This was the most contentious section of the Nassau draft, and the one which therefore required our greatest attention, and which has been considerably rewritten. In articulating a model for interdependent life, we have tried to be faithful to a few models developed in the Windsor Report. The section therefore begins with a commitment to a common life would also respects the proper autonomy of our Churches.
Clause 3.2.2
This statement of the autonomy of the Provinces is taken from that written by the primates in their meeting at Dar es Salaam, " directly from the schedule to their communique from that meeting.
Clause 3.2.5
Many commentators on the Nassau draft did not like the pattern of consultation as proposed in the draft, which placed the Primates Meeting in a significant co-ordinating position. The St Andrew’s Draft limits the commitments made by the Churches to ones of care and receptivity with respect to Communion relations. It is open to any Province or the instruments of Communion or indeed the national or regional Church itself to identify matters which threaten “the unity of the Communion” or “ the effectiveness or credibility of its mission”, and which therefore invoke a higher duty of care. The clause sets out four elements to that duty of care: consultation (3.2.5.a), Communion wide evaluation (3.2.5.b), mediation (3.2.5.c) and a readiness to consider a request on the controversial matter from the Instruments of Communion (3.2.5.d). The draft stresses that there is no intention to erect a centralised jurisdiction and that the Instruments of Communion cannot dictate with juridical force on the internal affairs of any Province. However, since Communion is founded on the mutual recognition that each Church sees in the other evidence of our Communion in Christ, we recognize that it cannot be sustained in extreme circumstances where a Church or Province acts in a way which rejects the interdependence of the Communion's life.
We recognize that the Communion may well require more detailed procedures which offer a way in which these principles and procedural elements may be lived out in its life. The group therefore attaches to the St Andrew's Draft a tentative draft for the possible shape such procedures might take. This procedural appendix will need much scrutiny and careful analysis. The CDG particularly welcomes comments and response on this appendix, while also recognizing its provisional nature in the St Andrew's Draft. It is important to note however that the elements set out in clause 3.2.5 are not intended to form a sequential process, but to be elements which can all be active and present at any stage in the process of common discernment and reconciliation.
Clause 3.2.6
The commitments close with the renewal of the commitment to seek to live into the fullness of Communion into which we are called by our Lord.
2. The Report, Communion, Conflict and Hope, is to be published by ACO later this year.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:22PM Section Two: The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation
Clause 2.1.3
The ecumenical dimensions of Anglican witness and mission are expressed more explicitly both here and in 1.1.6.
Clause 2.2.2
There was some discussion about the adequacy of the stated “Five Marks of Mission” and several attractive suggestions were received with respect to enlarging the outline. However, because these five marks have already emerged from inter-Anglican discussion and been given a real measure of reception around the Communion, this is one of several places where the CDG elected to honour the wording of the original text, in this case that of the MISSIO Report of 1999.
In spite of our own questions about the sufficiency of the list and ACC-8’s own questions about that sufficiency, we agreed to maintain this enumeration, cognizant (along with the original commission that proposed them) that they may not yet fully represent the summary shape of our missionary commitments. At the same time, we have tried to indicate the missionary essence of a range of elements dealt with in other sections. It remains an open question as to whether the commissions would want us to suggest revisions of their language that may occur to us?
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:21PM Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith
Clause 1.1.1
Some responses wondered if the first section on the “One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church” should be framed in terms of “recognition” relating to other Churches’ membership within it. We decided that, in this Covenant, the signatories needed to affirm their own self-understanding, and not their view of other churches, and therefore the covenant itself must be limited to simple affirmation.
The unity of the universal Church is the communion in faith, truth, love and common sacramental life of the several local churches. The catholic Church exists in each local church; and each local church is identified with the whole, expresses the whole and cannot exist apart from the whole.
Clause 1.1.2
Some Provinces do not formally recognise the 39 Articles within their canons and constitutions. We, however, accepted one suggestion that the realities of Scripture, Creed, and formularies be more closely linked, but in a way that did not transgress the particular canonical and historical diversity of Anglican churches with respect to the last element.
Clause 1.1.3
Some responses questioned whether the Covenant unduly limits the sacramental life of the Anglican churches to only two sacraments (Baptism and Eucharist). There are some different views held among Anglican churches regarding e.g. the “number of sacraments” and their meaning. This statement in clause 1.1.3 is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of sacramental theology or to resolve questions about the nature or number of the sacraments. The CDG decided, therefore, to stick to the express wording the Lambeth Quadrilateral in this respect, as articulating “constitutive” elements of the Church, without seeking to define further other sacramental realities.
Clause 1.1.4
The group have now incorporated (as several submissions suggested) all four elements of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral in this opening section.
Clause 1.1.5
The group have added a clause referring to the importance of Common Prayer as one of the defining characteristics of Anglicanism and of our common bonds.
Clause 1.2.2
One of the questions addressed to the Design Group was “Where in the Covenant does the lively and responsible role of human reason, so consistently important to Anglican practice, find a substantive mention?” Taking up one suggestion, the active and disciplined use of reason in theological and moral decision-making, bound to Scriptural authority, was used to replace a previous paragraph (3.3).
Clause 1.2.3
The CDG accepted that there is an obligation to work to sustain Eucharistic communion even where there is conscientious objection.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:20PM The Preamble
The Preamble uses the form, “the Churches of the Anglican Communion”. These are the churches recognised in the Schedule of Membership of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). At present they consist of 34 national or regional Provinces, the 4 United Churches of South Asia and 6 extra-provincial churches, dioceses or, in one case, a parish, duly recognised by ACC procedures.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:19PM The Introduction
Several comments expressed a desire for greater theological breadth in the Introduction, that might better reflect the relation between Trinity and communion, the forms of ecclesial life this represents, and the place of the Anglican Communion in particular within this reality. The section was expanded in this direction and has now sought to offer a fuller theological rationale.
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:16PM An Anglican Covenant - Commentary to the St Andrew's Draft
General Comments
The Covenant Design Group (CDG) received formal responses to the 2007 Draft Covenant from thirteen (13) Provinces. The Group were hopeful that the lack of formal discursive responses from other Provinces does not necessarily signal disapproval. The CDG is cognisant of mitigating factors (such as the lack of translations of the text available, other foci in the local lives of Provinces and lack of consultative resources, etc.). Of the formal responses we did receive, all signalled a willingness to move forward, despite various questions and concerns, and a clear mandate was given to this meeting of the CDG.
Originally, the 2007 Nassau draft cited a number of Biblical passages without showing clearly their relationship to the text of the covenant. Many Provincial Responses therefore questioned the scriptural references contained in the draft. The St. Andrew’s draft takes a different approach, showing its biblical framework primarily in the introduction and conclusion, and referencing scriptural passages throughout the draft. This present draft intentionally uses biblical language wherever possible and is rooted in Scripture, through phraseology, direct quotation in the text, through some explicit engagement with Scriptural passages in certain parts of the text (e.g. the Introduction) and through discussion and indication of the Scriptural base and soil of the Covenant.
Several comments pointed to the confusing numbering and divisions of the Nassau Draft. We have sought to make this clearer. Now, the Covenant is broadly divided into three main sections, offering first affirmations and then commitment dealing with shared faith, mission, and the maintenance of communion.
The Covenant Design Group noted that in some of the responses both the idea of covenant and the usefulness of the term “covenant” were questioned, both in terms of its use in the Old Testament and its historic connotations in some parts of the Anglican Communion. The idea of a covenant was first suggested in the Windsor Report and a sample covenant was put forward in Appendix 2 of that document. Subsequently, the desirability of a covenant has been reaffirmed by 3 out of the 4 Instruments of Communion.
As to the term “covenant”, the CDG discussed other suggested alternatives such as “concordat” or “common declaration,” each of which has its own difficulties, and finally returned to “covenant” as the best descriptor of the task ahead of us. Almost all of the responses received expressed a readiness to work with the idea of covenant.
The CDG was unanimous in believing that we cannot abandon the word and concept of ‘covenant’, and for several reasons: theologically, we believe that it is correct to say that covenant emerges out of communion, and also ‘serves’ communion, both in terms of God’s relations to us, but just as importantly in our mutual relations as reflective of God’s life that we share. It is related, in a concrete way, to the expression of ‘bonds of affection’ in their pneumatic, relational and responsible power. The distinction between ‘covenant’ and other possible concepts (‘concordat’, ‘compact’, etc.) is quite clear in these respects. Finally, the term now has an accepted currency within the Communion that commends its common usage.
We noted the historical use of ‘the bonds of affection’ and asked ourselves: What is the bare minimum of infrastructure that the communion needs? At a time of fragmentation, a covenant is a basis for mutual trust and reduced anxiety. Habits of civility and mutuality of respect have taken us a long way in the past. We are now in a place where our structures must provide a framework for the context of our belief.
Some have asked about the proposed covenant: What difference does it make in the life of the Communion? Does it simply make explicit what is already implicit, or is it a device for achieving something else? Some responses raised questions about the rationale for the Covenant: “what positive difference will it make?” Is it just about “conflict management” or discipline, so that the final section is the “real reason” for the Covenant? Questions have also been raised around the Communion as to why the Lambeth Quadrilateral is not enough. The present concern is to achieve sufficient accountability among Provinces to be able to work more corporately. That will mean creating some structures. The proposed draft Covenant is our answer to all of these questions.
We have sought to emphasize more obviously the missionary element constitutive to our valuing of unity. Finally, we also believe that our revisions in the final sections provide some greater clarity about what is at stake – a way of life “in communion” that is faithful to the form of our Gospel vocation.
We have sought, through the use of phraseology borrowed from the recent Anglican-Orthodox Cyprus Agreed Statement[1], to be faithful in describing the relationship of the Anglican Communion to the Universal Church. At the same time, despite the desires of some that the Covenant provide a more definitive statement of Anglican ecclesiology, we recognized the still-open-ended character of this task, and sought not to pre-empt its fruit and conclusion by too precise formulations in this way.
A key question which the group addressed was “Is the Draft ecclesiologically coherent?” Is, for instance, the final section at odds with previous affirmations regarding interdependence? We have reflected seriously on this matter, and believe that the character of ecclesial communion does not submerge the responsible choices that local churches must engage in order to be faithful to their calling by and under Christ. A model which empowers the Churches of the Anglican Communion to speak to one another and inform each others life, while respecting provincial autonomy does indeed embody the kind of “autonomy-in-communion” that informs the Draft.
Notes:
1. The Church of the Triune God, the Cyprus Agreed Statement of the International Commission for Anglican Orthodox Theological Dialogue, ACO, London, January 2007
Monday, January 11, 2010 at 6:34PM The Ridley Cambridge Report of the Covenant Design Group
The Covenant Design Group (CDG) met under the chairmanship of the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, former Primate of the Church in the Province of the West Indies, between 29th March and 2nd April, 2009, in Ridley Hall, Cambridge, at the invitation of the Principal, the Revd Canon Andrew Norman, former Representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Covenant Design Group. We are grateful for the warm welcome received.
The main work of the group was to prepare a revised draft for the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant which could be presented to the fourteenth Meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, and commended to the Provinces for adoption. The CDG now presents the third "Ridley Cambridge" draft for the Anglican Communion Covenant.
This text has been developed in the light of responses received in the twelve month consultation period requested by the Joint Standing Committee since the production of the Saint Andrew's Draft in February 2008. The CDG has worked with the twenty or so Provincial responses which have been received to the St Andrew's Draft, and which are listed in Appendix One of this Report. We also received a large number of responses from individuals, diocesan synods and other institutions, including ecumenical partners, which were also circulated among the group. All these responses are in the process of being published now on the Anglican Communion website.
The Ridley Cambridge Draft (RCD) of the Covenant text follows the pattern established in the St. Andrew's Draft, of an Introduction, a Preamble, three Sections (to which a fourth is now added), and a Declaration. "We recognise the importance of renewing in a solemn way our commitment to one another, and to the common understanding of faith and order we have received, so that the bonds of affection which hold us together may be re-affirmed and intensified."[1]
[Commentary]
Conclusion
The CDG are pleased to be able to commend their work to the Communion. We have laboured to produce the best possible draft which we can commend together to serve the needs of the Communion at this juncture in its life. We offer this work in the hope that it will strengthen the interdependent life of the Churches of the Communion, freeing them for more effective mission and witness to the gift of Christ in the gospel.
The Covenant Design Group
Members
Drexel Gomez, Chair
Victor Atta-Baffoe
John Chew
Katherine Grieb
Santosh Marray
John Neill
Rubie Nottage (unable to be at the Cambridge Meeting)
Ephraim Radner
Eileen Scully
Staff
Gregory Cameron, Secretary
Norman Doe, Consultant
Andrew Norman, Archbishop of Canterbury's Representative, 2007-2008
Joanna Udal, Archbishop of Canterbury's Representative, 2009
Administrative Support
Christine Codner, ACO
David Craig, ACO
Gill Harris-Hogarth, ACO
Cambridge, 2nd April, 2009
Notes:
1. Introduction, paragraph 5.