Fulcrum Initial Response to the 'Covenant for the Church of England' which some evangelicals presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury on 12 December 2006
Whilst the provenance, process and representative authority of the 'covenant for the Church of England', which was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury on 12 December 2006, are still very much contested issues, some initial comment from Fulcrum may be helpful.
Fulcrum:
- objects to the hijacking and denuding of the theologically rich word 'covenant' to decorate a restrictive declaration, which is already being used to categorise people as 'covenant compliant'
- believes that this 'covenant' bypasses, rather than contributes to, the real Anglican Covenant being developed by a group officially chaired by Archbishop Drexel Gomez. This should be the covenant for the Church of England
- strongly questions the representative process of the publication of this 'covenant', eg in that it was not on the agenda, nor amongst the papers, of CEEC meetings
- considers that the ecclesiology underlying the 'covenant' is theologically flawed and strategically weak eg the statement:
'If the local Bishop unreasonably withholds authorisation, we will pay for, train and commission the ministers that are needed, and seek official Anglican recognition for them.'
This is reminiscent of the irregular ordinations, in Southwark a year ago, of deacons into the Church of England in South Africa (supported then by the main two drafters of the covenant)
- shares the concerns of evangelical Anglicans to continue the pressure for maintaining the Anglican Communion's conservative view on sexual ethics within the Church of England
- agrees with the need for finding appropriate Church of England processes for episcopal oversight for particular parishes, in extreme cases, where bishops do not abide by the House of Bishops' report 'Issues in Human Sexuality'
We are encouraged that the so called 'covenant' does not appear to follow the routes of:
- applying for jurisdiction under African provinces, (as compared with some parishes in the USA)
- pushing for a third province (which is very unlikely to pass General Synod)
Some have interpreted the 'covenant' as encouraging the setting up of permanent 'general' evangelical 'flying bishops'. This could well lead to some evangelicals splitting off into ghettos, producing greater fragmentation among us and would be to the detriment of evangelical involvement in the centre of the Church of England.
A better way forward in the Church of England for those parishes in serious dispute with their bishops may be consideration, in extreme cases, of agreed episcopal oversight from within that diocese or that region.
