Last weekend, the Diocese of New Westminster convened a workshop on the draft Anglican Covenant. To no one's surprise, those in attendance had virtually nothing positive to say about it. A news report has been posted at the Diocese's website.
A document prepared for an international group of senior Archbishops that tries to list the fundamental principles of the Anglican Communion – and what might happen to national Anglican churches that don’t follow them - drew little support at a diocesan workshop at St. Catherine’s, North Vancouver, September 22.
“I’m hardly overwhelmed with your enthusiasm for the covenant,” joked former Canadian Primate Andrew Hutchison, towards the end of the meeting. Hutchison came out of retirement for the first time to help facilitate the meeting, which was chaired by Bishop Michael Ingham.
Abp Hutchison (at right) said he was happy that Anglicans around the world are discussing a covenant but, in his view, the draft text on offer is completely wrong-headed.
“I am happy with the process,” said Hutchison. “I hope it goes on for several years.
Since he attended the several primates' meetings held since 2003 to discuss the tensions and fractures that have developed within the Anglican Communion, Abp Hutchison should realise that the Communion has little chance of surviving in its present state for "several years".
The idea for an Anglican Covenant was first mooted in an international report, the Windsor Report, as a way of helping resolve some of the disputes affecting the Anglican Communion. The report suggested that a common Covenant could “make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection” between the 38 independent national Churches which make up the communion.
That sounds rather mysterious. What could "some of the disputes affecting the Anglican Communion" be referring to? Why have they arisen? The diocesan news article doesn't say.
One must turn to The Windsor Report itself to discover that New Westminster's decision to allow blessings of same-sex unions played a leading role in sowing distrust within the Communion. (See, for example, paragraphs 33, 35, 37, and 39.) Nowhere does the article admit that New West's own actions helped to prompt both The Windsor Report and the attempt to develop a written and formally approved Anglican Covenant.
Abp Hutchison seems to think that New Westminster's decision to perform same-sex blessings should not concern other Anglicans. You say "to-may-to", I say "to-mah-to".
He said he appreciated the independence Anglican Churches have now: some ordain women priests, others do not; some bless same sex unions, others oppose the practice, and so forth.
What he sees as "independence", others have likened to anarchy.
Strangely, the former primate speaks as if he did not sign off on last February's Tanzania Communiqué, which affirmed that blessing same-sex unions is incompatible with Scripture and with the standard of teaching accepted in the Anglican Communion. (But he's done that before.)
Of concern too at the workshop was that the covenant, as drafted, might lead to a “two tier” Anglican Communion. Section 6.6 suggests that “in the most extreme circumstances” if a national Anglican church fails to accept the decisions of the majority of the rest of the Anglican Communion “we will consider that such churches will have relinquished … their covenant relationship.”
Executive Archdeacon Ronald Harrison, reporting for his group, said it was felt a two-tier church could be “the beginning of the end” of a unified Anglican Communion.
He ignores the elephant in the room—that the "unified Anglican Communion" has been under threat for years because of the actions of New Westminster Diocese and The Episcopal Church. If Executive Archdeacon Harrison and the other New West Anglicans who attended last weekend's workshop want to find out why they are even discussing a covenant, they need to take a good look in their own back yard.
Cross-posted at Anglican Essentials Canada blog.
Previous related posts:
Posts
