A few months ago I submitted a paper in support of the Covenant to our General Synod office. It has now been distributed to GS members with a range of other papers - the range covering 'for' and 'against' the Covenant. You can read my whole paper here. A taster is reproduced below:
"Some questions have arisen about the Covenant. Is it punitive? Will it stifle new initiatives? Will it affect the tikanga life of the Anglican church in these islands? Questions such as these are fair questions to ask, but they beg some other questions which we should answer first.
Is there value in being part of a global Communion? If so, how would we describe our common life together as members of a global Communion? How would we arrange our common life together so that we celebrate our differences and resolve our disputes? If we answer ‘Yes’ to the first question, and answer ‘the Covenant’ to the next two questions, then we could answer as follows to the questions in the first paragraph above.
Is the Covenant punitive? No, it is not a criminal code; but it does prescribe what may happen where our common life together is no longer shared by a member church.
Will the Covenant stifle new initiatives? Many new initiatives are possible which cohere with the common life of global Anglicans; some new initiatives are possible which do not cohere with that common life, but even then, only those initiatives which are protested about would be examined in terms of the Covenant, and they would only be stifled if it was agreed through due process that they were not appropriate to our common life.
Will the Covenant affect the tikanga life of the Anglican church in these islands? Our tikanga life is ultimately governed by General Synod, in accordance with our constitution. In so far as our common life as three tikanga is soundly Anglican and theologically orthodox the Covenant should enhance that life not diminish it.
There is one final issue to attend to. Some are saying that the Covenant is an un-Anglican innovation: we have never had a Covenant before and we should not have one now. That is a mystifying line of argument to take: lots of innovations have taken place in Anglican history, beginning with Henry VIII’s great innovation of dispensing with papal authority over the Church of England. It is also a contradictory line of argument: the possibility of a Covenant has arisen precisely because of the innovation of an openly partnered gay man becoming a bishop. Are some innovations to be allowed by these critics of the Covenant but not others?"
3 comments:
Just a couple of quick comments in response to your taster:
Your statement without any explanation, reference, or qualification, “three tikanga is soundly Anglican and theologically orthodox” certainly leaps out as a surprise. As does the continuation of that sentence with, “the Covenant should enhance that life not diminish it”. Especially as the first ever motion of the Primates’ Meeting was to try and prevent your church from pursuing the three tikanga system.
“lots of innovations have taken place in Anglican history, beginning with Henry VIII’s great innovation of dispensing with papal authority over the Church of England.” This appears to be a revisionist version of history. Please explain: how was there papal authority over the Church of England when St Alban was martyred? How was there papal authority over the Church of England when bishops went from Britain to the Council at Arles? One would hope that your General Synod members know their church history a little better than this? What is the minimum standard of church history knowledge required to be a member of your house of clergy?
Hi Anonymous,
I actually wrote "In so far as our common life as three tikanga is soundly Anglican and theologically orthodox the Covenant should enhance that life not diminish it". I stand by that statement which is, contrary to what you say, qualified!
Yes, there is a sloppy sentence there for which I take responsibility. It would be more accurate to say, "lots of innovations have taken place in Anglican history since 1500, ..." (and, yes, they did take place before that too).
Clearly you would meet the minimum standard. Have you thought of standing? We would need a name, however, for the nomination paper.
Maybe my bad, Peter:
I hadn't read it as a qualified sentence. Without leading them, ask a number of General Synod type people to interpret it to you.
I read it as affirming the three tikanga as Anglican and theologically orthodox:
In so far as our common life as three tikanga IS soundly Anglican and theologically orthodox the Covenant should enhance that life not diminish it.
You read it conditionally:
In so FAR as our common life as three tikanga is soundly Anglican and theologically orthodox the Covenant should enhance that life not diminish it.
אף לא אחד
Post a Comment