The Anglican
Covenant: How We Got Here
The Anglican Covenant is a proposed solution to
the public conflicts and threats of schism over the
last few years. Such a document was first suggested
in the 2004 Windsor Report, which responded
sympathetically to the complaints of those variously
described as conservative, traditionalist, or
orthodox, and who were dissatisfied with
developments in the churches of the West. The Report
also
addressed concerns of cross-border interventions by
bishops from the so-called Global South into The
Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The Covenant went through a number of drafts and
comment periods before a “final” text was codified
in December 2009. The 38 provinces of the Anglican
Communion are now being asked to adopt this text. In
June 2010, the Anglican Church of Mexico became the
first church to do so. The Covenant is immediately
effective for churches that adopt it. Non-signatory
churches that are in the process of adoption may be
allowed to participate in certain Covenant-defined
activities, though their status is not
completely clear.
Churches adopting the Covenant will commit
themselves to a new relationship with other Anglican
churches. At the center of the new arrangement lies
the Standing Committee (formerly the Standing
Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and
Primates Meeting). When conflicts arise, the
Standing Committee will look for consensus. If no
consensus is to be found, the Committee may ask an
“offending” church to delay or stop a controversial
action. If that is ineffective, the Committee can
recommend “relational consequences.” In practice,
enacting “relational consequences” means demoting or
excluding a church from participation in certain
bodies. Or it could mean asking other provinces
effectively to shun the intransigent church,
banishing it from the Anglican family. Even if such
extreme actions are never taken, the damage will
have been done. At the heart of the new covenanted
relationship among our churches, there will always
be the threat of exclusion.
The presenting issue that ultimately led us to
where we are now was the election of the gay
partnered priest Gene Robinson to be a bishop in The
Episcopal Church (TEC). When his election was
approved, dissident bishops, who had long opposed
innovations in their church, appealed to the
Archbishop of Canterbury for an emergency meeting of
the Primates to deal with the resulting “crisis.”
Archbishop
 Rowan Williams quickly agreed to call
such a meeting in October 2003, at which the
Primates called for a report about how the greatest
degree of communion could be maintained among member
churches. That request was fulfilled by the Windsor
Report.
Over the last 30 years or so, certain groups in
the Communion have become increasingly concerned
about the growing acceptance of homosexuality in
Western society and in some provinces of the
Anglican Communion. A
succession of events in 2003 focused attention on
gays in the church and provided an opportunity to
develop a major campaign against it. First, Jeffrey
John, a gay but celibate priest, was appointed
Bishop of Reading in England, but the Archbishop of
Canterbury, under pressure from those who viewed
homosexuality as a sin, persuaded John to withdraw.
Later that year, the Canadian Diocese of New
Westminster authorized a liturgy for same-sex
blessings. The selection of the openly gay Gene
Robinson to become Bishop of New Hampshire seemed,
to some, the final straw.
The issue underlying the conflicts in the
Anglican Communion is one of authority. Who decides
what is acceptable and on what basis do they do so?
Concern about homosexuality resulted in a powerful
alliance of some Evangelicals and some Anglo-Catholics
opposing the “innovations” of more liberal and
tolerant Anglicans. The Evangelicals objected to
homosexuality on the basis of reputed biblical
prohibitions, and Anglo-Catholics objected to the
alleged rejection of Church tradition. Classic
Anglican theology, of course, stems from the
writings of the sixteenth-century theologian Richard
Hooker, who argued that, in addition to scripture
and tradition, we have reason to guide us. With
these three sources of authority, change becomes
possible and proper as conditions and understandings
change. Allowing a diversity of opinion allows us to
explore new possibilities.
The Windsor report recommend three moratoria as
issues are explored in the Communion: moratoria on
the consecration of partnered gay bishops, on the
blessing of same-sex unions, and on the crossing of
diocesan boundaries by bishops of one church to
“protect” like-minded members of another church. The
third moratorium was a concession to Western
churches opposed to the unauthorized incursions by
bishops of the so-called Global South. Western
churches continue to be vilified by the more
conservative elements of the Communion, who
nonetheless, have continued their incursions.
Those unhappy with modern “innovations” in the
Communion often have more far-reaching complaints.
The ordination of women and, especially, the
consecration of women bishops continue to be
controversial in some churches, including the Church
of England. Many object to the toleration of birth
control, to the acceptance of divorce, and to
liturgical changes. The Anglican Communion is
hardly of one mind on any of these matters.
The main argument in favour of the Covenant is
that it would prevent future controversies being so
bitter by establishing an international authority
with power to decree Anglican teaching. We believe
that, on the contrary, it would encourage schism,
because it would treat those who dissent from any
such judgment as un-Anglican. Instead we believe
unity is best ensured by maintaining the classic
Anglican position that diversity of opinion is a
sign of a healthy community committed to seeking—but not
necessarily always possessing—truth.
Finally, it should be noted that not all
opposition to the Anglican Covenant is from
moderates and liberals. Our objection, of course, is
that the Covenant is restrictive and authoritarian.
Some of the strongest criticisms of the Covenant,
however, have come from the Global South, where the
Covenant is viewed as not nearly restrictive or
draconian enough. Whether or not the Anglican
Covenant is widely adopted, a formal split of the
Communion as currently constituted remains a
possibility.
A Concise Timeline
The timeline below is
not intended to show all the events relevant to the
question of whether the Anglican Covenant should be
adopted. Rather, it clarifies and expands on the
information presented in the essay above to help the
reader understand the background of the Covenant.
| Early 16th
century |
The Church of
England separates from Rome. Emphasis on
supreme authority of the Bible leads to two
conflicting principles: (1) Nobody has the
authority to dictate how to interpret it, so
it’s up to each individual, but (2) because
all Christians submit to the Bible there
should be no disagreement. The current
debate revives this conflict. |
| Late 16th
century |
Richard
Hooker’s Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical
Polity written. Gradually, Hooker’s
treatment becomes normative for Anglican
theology with its balance of scripture,
reason, and tradition as sources of
authority. |
| 1660 |
Restoration of
monarchy after Puritan rule. Prayer Book of
1662 largely aims to incorporate a wide
range of opinion within one church. |
| 1867 |
First Lambeth
Conference, called in response to row over
Bishop Colenso’s claims that some of the Old
Testament is historically inaccurate. Some
want the Conference to forbid his ideas, but
others object to centralization of power.
Assurances are given that the Conference
will not be a decision-making body. In
principle, this has applied to all
subsequent Lambeth conferences. Today it is
accepted that Colenso was largely right. |
| 1997 |
Kuala Lumpur
Conference of Global South Anglicans
expresses concern that “the setting aside of
biblical teaching in such actions as the
ordination of practicing homosexuals and the
blessing of same-sex unions calls into
question the authority of the Holy
Scriptures.” |
| 1998 |
Lambeth
Conference sees stormy session and passes
Resolution I.10 that describes “homosexual
practice as incompatible with Scripture.” |
| 2000 |
Anglican
Mission in America (now Anglican Mission in
the Americas) established in the U.S. by the
Church of the Province of Rwanda. This was
the first large-scale border crossing by a
conservative church to protect American
conservatives from the “liberal” Episcopal
Church. Many more incursions were to follow. |
| 2002 |
Announcement
that Rowan Williams is to be the next
Archbishop of Canterbury touches off media
campaign opposing his appointment because of
his liberal views. Repeated and heavily
publicized threats of schism begin, focusing
on disapproval of same-sex partnerships. |
| May 2003 |
Jeffrey John, a
partnered, celibate gay man,
appointed Bishop of Reading. The Archbishop
of Nigeria threatens schism if the
consecration goes ahead. Archbishop Williams
eventually persuades Canon John to withdraw. |
| May 2003 |
Canadian
Diocese of New Westminster authorizes a
liturgy for same-sex blessings. |
| June 2003 |
Openly gay and
partnered Gene Robinson is elected Bishop of
New Hampshire in the U.S.A. The threats
intensify. Much public talk of
“disciplining” or “expelling” Canadian and
American churches from the Communion, with
demands for “repentance.” |
| October 2003 |
Primates’
Meeting blames the Canadian and American
churches for threatening the Communion’s
unity and requests what will ultimately
become the Windsor Report. |
| January 2004 |
Secret
so-called Chapman letter leaked to the
press. It explains that while, in public,
Episcopal Church dissidents are asking for
“adequate episcopal oversight,” the real
aim, being secretly planned on both sides of
the Atlantic, is a major realignment of
Anglicanism, a “replacement jurisdiction” to
exclude the liberals. |
| October 2004 |
The Eames
Commission publishes the Windsor Report,
which blames the American and Canadian
churches for Communion disruptions and
proposes a covenant to resolve future
disputes. |
| 2005–2009 |
Covenant Design
Group works on successive drafts of a
covenant. Persistent tension between those
determined to give it teeth and those
concerned with protecting provincial
autonomy. |
| 2008 |
Lambeth
Conference, structured for discussion rather
than for legislation. Many Global South
bishops attended the alternative GAFCON
(Global Anglican Future Conference) held in
Jerusalem in addition to or instead of
attending Lambeth. Archbishop Rowan Williams
pointedly did not invite Bishop Gene
Robinson to Lambeth. GAFCON establishes the
Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and
promulgates the Jerusalem Declaration, seen
by some as an alternative faith statement to
that contained in the Anglican Covenant.
|
| December 2009 |
Final Covenant
draft approved for consideration by
churches. |
Status of Covenant
Adoption
In the table below, we
track the status of the Anglican Covenant in
the various churches of the Anglican Communion. To
help readers understand the state of Covenant
adoption without having to do a lot of reading, we
have added icons to the listing for each church
about which we have any information. Doing this is
more difficult than you might imagine.
Some churches have clearly adopted the Covenant
(green icon), and at least one (we think) has
rejected it (red icon). Many churches are in the
process of making a decision about the Covenant
(yellow icon). Because the Covenant does not specify
the exact form that adoption must take, however,
some churches have acted positively on the Covenant
but have seemingly restricted or extended its
significance. We have tagged the entries for these
churches with an orange icon, since such “adoptions”
may or may not be the functional equivalent of
unambiguous ones. If you know of updates that should be
incorporated into our table, please let us know. (Go
to Contact page.)
| Church |
Status |
|
Australia, The Anglican
Church of |
 Agreed to a
nationwide debate on Covenant. All dioceses are to comment
on the Covenant by December 2012. Report to
be prepared for 16th session of General
Synod. in time for
the next meeting of the church’s national parliament in 2013.
Resolution amended to say the church
“received,” not “welcomed” the Covenant.
Source The Diocese of Newcastle passed a
resolution against adoption.
Source The Diocese of Sydney has also
rejected the Covenant.
Source |
|
Bangladesh, The Church of |
|
|
Bermuda (Extra-Provincial to Canterbury) |
|
|
Brasil, Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do |
|
|
Burma: The Church of the Province of Myanmar |
 It was noted in
passing in an Anglican Communion New Service
story of January 30, 2011, that this
province has accepted the Covenant.
Source |
|
Burundi, The Anglican Church of |
|
|
Canada, The Anglican Church of |
Passed
Resolution A137 in June 2010. Sent Covenant
to dioceses and parishes for study. General
Synod to consider in 2013.
Source |
|
Central Africa, The Church of the Province
of |
|
|
Central America: Iglesia Anglicana de la
Region Central de America |
|
|
Ceylon, The Church of (Extra-Provincial to
Canterbury) |
|
|
Congo, Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du |
|
|
Cuba, Iglesia Episcopal de |
|
|
England, The Church of |
General Synod
voted 24 November 2010 to send the Covenant
to diocesan synods. If a majority of synods
vote in favour of adopting the Covenant, the
question will be brought back to General
Synod for a final vote.
Source
More information about the referral to the
dioceses can be found
here. To date, the dioceses of
Litchfield,
Durham, and
Europe have voted in favor of adopting
the Covenant. The dioceses of
Truro,
Birmingham,
Wakefield, and
St Edmundsbury & Ipswich have voted
against adoption. |
|
Falkland Islands (Extra-Provincial to
Canterbury) |
|
|
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui |
|
|
India: The Church of North India |
|
|
India: The Church of South India (United) |
|
|
Indian Ocean, The Church of the Province of
the |
|
|
Ireland, The Church of |
 The Ireland
church “subscribed” to the Covenant on 13
May 2011. The General Synod intended to make
it clear that the Covenant did not supplant
existing governing documents of the Church
of Ireland.
Source |
|
Japan: The Nippon Sei Ko Kai |
In May 2010,
the General Synod determined to move forward
with consideration of the Covenant,
overruling a recommendation from the
theological committee of the House of
Bishops.
Source |
|
Jerusalem & The Middle East, The Episcopal
Church in |
|
|
Kenya, The Anglican Church of |
|
|
Korea, The Anglican Church of |
|
|
Lusitanian Church, The (Extra-Provincial to
Canterbury) |
|
|
Melanesia, The Church of the Province of |
|
|
Mexico, La Iglesia Anglicana de |
Adopted
Covenant June 2010.
Source |
|
Nigeria, The Church of (Anglican Communion) |
|
|
New Zealand: The Anglican Church in
Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia |
In May 2010,
the General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui approved
the first three sections of the Covenant in
principle. The Covenant will be studied and
brought back to the Synod in 2012 for final
acceptance or rejection. Legal opinion will
be sought regarding Section 4.
Source Two Maori dioceses have rejected
the Covenant.
Source
Source
The Diocese of Auckland has rejected
the Covenant.
Source So has the Diocese of Waiapu.
Source
The Diocese of Dunedin voted against
adoption, but the Diocese of Wellington
voted for it.
Source The Diocese of Waikato and
Taranaki voted, in principle, for the
Covenant.
Source Although the final vote on the
Covenant has not been taken, a vote by the
Tikanga Maori appears to assure that the
church will reject the Covenant.
Source |
|
Pakistan, The Church of (United) |
|
|
Philippines, The Episcopal Church in the |
 The bishops
rejected the Covenant in May 2011.
Source
Source |
|
Papua New Guinea, The Anglican Church of |
|
|
Rwanda, L'Eglise Episcopal au |
|
|
Scotland: The Scottish Episcopal Church |
The Faith and
Order Board will advise General Synod 2011
on what process or processes might be
appropriate to be followed by the Synod to
enable due consideration of the final
version of the Covenant.
Source |
|
South East Asia, Church of the Province of |
The church
“acceded” to the Covenant in May 2011 and
published an
explanation of its understanding of
the action, which seems to go beyond the
Covenant text itself. |
|
Southern Africa, Anglican Church of |
Provincial
Synod approved Covenant October 2010. The
decision will have to be ratified in 2013.
Source |
|
Southern Cone: Iglesia Anglicana del Cono
Sur de America |
|
|
Spain, The Reformed
Episcopal Church of (Extra-Provincial to Canterbury) |
|
|
Sudan, The Episcopal Church of the |
|
|
Tanzania: The Anglican Church of |
|
|
Uganda, The Church of the Province of |
|
|
United States: The Episcopal Church |
At its 2009
General Convention, the church approved a
resolution commending the draft Covenant and
successive versions of the document to
dioceses for study. The Covenant will be
taken up at the 2012 General Convention.
Source Various dioceses have passed
resolutions both for and against the
Covenant. Most notable, because of its
detail is a resolution against adoption from
the Diocese of California.
Source The Executive Council will offer
a resolution at General Convention gently
rejecting the Covenant.
Source (The resolution by the Executive
Council may not be the resolution that makes
it to the legislative floor.) |
|
Wales: The Church in |
|
|
West Africa, The Church of the Province of |
|
|
West Indies, The Church in the Province of
the |
The Provincial
Synod voted to accept the Covenant in
December 2009, and the Standing Committee
did so in November 2010.
Source |
|
