I - GAFCON Briefing Paper on Changes Between

Again, this is hard to understand as a simple comparison of the introductions shows that St Andrew’s is much fuller than Nassau in terms of “the history of salvation” and indeed more explicit in its appeal to Scripture.

The only removal this can refer to is that of “biblically derived moral values and the vision of humanity received by and developed in the communion of member Churches” from 3.1 where it is replaced (in 1.2.2) with “to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition and that reflects the renewal of humanity and the whole created order through the death and resurrection of Christ and the holiness that in consequence God gives to, and requires from, his people”. It is unclear that the original statement “provided an important foundation” in Nassau or why this revision – based on wording proposed by the Church of England’s Faith and Order Advisory Group which includes two evangelical ethicists – is so unacceptable.

Neither draft covenant contains an explanation of the events which provoked the need for a covenant.

7. The Nassau Draft envisages that discipline is ‘required’ for departure from the apostolic witness while the St. Andrews Draft omits reference to any such requirement.

The only reference to anything being required in Nassau is in 6.6 where it refers to restoration and renewal following discipline - “and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches”. At no point does Nassau speak of discipline in response to “departure from the apostolic witness”. St Andrew’s has the same place and broad structure for discipline as Nassau did (albeit by a different method) and both drafts speak of “the need for mutual commitment and discipline” (para 4 of introduction) although they unfortunately lack any theological rationale for their proposals for discipline.

8 The St Andrews Draft removes the highly significant reference to the accountability of the ‘instruments of Communion’ in the Nassau draft.

10. Similarly the St Andrews Draft ignores entirely the Nassau Draft’s insistence that new structures are necessary to support many parts of the Anglican family who have ‘remained faithful to Anglicanism as a valid expression of the church of the Apostles’.

Once again the Nassau Draft does not insist on new structures to support many parts of the Anglican family and so the St Andrew’s Draft cannot be accused of ignoring something in the original draft covenant.

Conclusion on Briefing Paper

GAFCON argues that the covenant must recognise the crisis and it defines this in two ways – “a crisis of obedience to Scripture” and the Instruments are themselves parts of the problem. It concludes “this covenant will not allow the real issues to be addressed”.

While both of these are indeed elements of the current crisis this critique fails to recognise that the covenant – from its inception – was seeking to address another important cause of the crisis. This is the lack of agreed procedures for dealing with a situation where one province wishes to (and in the case of same-sex unions proceeds to) introduce innovations others find unacceptable. While this focus of concern in one sense recognises the current Instruments are insufficient the problem it addresses encompasses more than disobedience to Scripture. This was the focus of both the Global South covenant – that also did not “address the issue” - and the Nassau draft and so to reject the St Andrew’s draft for having this focus is to raise a concern that could and should have been raised earlier.

GAFCON claims that “the understanding of the individual Churches of the Communion throughout this document is fatally ambiguous” and criticises the use of the language of “autonomous-in-communion” as unjustified and unqualified (especially by no reference to Scripture).

This again fails to consider the background to the current draft and in particular all the work of The Windsor Report on autonomy. As noted above, far from being ambiguous, the current draft is much clearer and better by qualifying the language simply of “autonomy” and speaking of being “autonomous-in-communion”. This is not only an improvement on Nassau but also on the Global South draft which, though referring to the same principle was even more ambiguous in its language and privileging of autonomy when it proposed the wording, “Each autonomous Church has the right to order and regulate its own affairs through its own system of government and law. At the same time, in essential matters of common concern, each Church shall in the exercise of its autonomy have regard to the common good of the Communion”. The concern about the authority of Scripture is addressed by the covenant’s commitments to Scripture and the GAFCON critique fails to grapple with how to address the problem of what the Communion does when there is disagreement over whether or not “Scripture has spoken definitively (and where autonomy is therefore a euphemism for sin)”

GAFCON states the entire document and particularly para 1 “is detached from the Scriptural narrative of salvation and redemption from sin” and “the principal concerns of Scripture are ignored”. It implies the covenant seeks in a “sub-biblical” way to “generate or sustain” unity on our own terms and by our own institutional efforts.

This, given the lengthy theological and biblically-based introduction added to the latest draft (and in total contrast with the Global South draft which had practically no explicit biblical theology), is a bizarre claim. The introduction makes quite clear that our communion “flows out of the redeeming work of Christ and the incorporative ministry of the Spirit” eg in para 2 where it states “In God’s Son Christ Jesus, a new covenant is given us, established in his ‘blood … poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mt. 26:28), secured through his resurrection from the dead (Eph. 1:19-23), and sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit poured into our hearts (Rom. 5:5). Into this covenant of death to sin and of new life in Christ we are baptized, and empowered to share God’s communion in Christ with all people, to the very ends of the earth and of creation”. While one may wish to critique and offer amendments to this part of the covenant, it is hard to see how it can be claimed there is “no biblical theology”.

GAFCON notes that ecclesiology presupposes a doctrine of humanity and claims the implicit anthropology “fails to capture the reality of any Christian’s life in this world as this is explained in Scripture”. This is because it fails to recognise we remain sinful even when redeemed and does not take seriously “the reality of temptation and sin”.

It is unclear how the covenant is guilty of this failing or what it would need to do in order to address it. Once again, earlier drafts are at least as “faulty” here. In fact, an addition to Nassau in the St Andrew’s Draft Introduction acknowledges “our divisions caused by sin” and as in Nassau the introduction concludes “Our prayer is that God will redeem our struggles and weakness”. Implicit in much of the covenant (hence the need for explicit commitments to one another) and explicit in the final section is a recognition that sin is present in the church and the church needs some way to encourage enable mutual accountability and where necessary rebuke and discipline.

GAFCON claims the draft “fails to adopt an appropriately biblical eschatological perspective” and is too preoccupied with “institutional processes”. So it says there is no reference to “sin, judgement, ‘the coming wrath’ or to God’s provision of a remedy in the cross of Christ and the forgiveness of sins which attends faith and repentance”.

Although there is indeed not much of an eschatological perspective in the covenant it would appear that the criticism fails to consider what the covenant is trying to do and no constructive suggestion is made as to how these elements could be incorporated or how it would help serve the covenant’s goal. The criticisms are, once more, applicable not just to the earlier Nassau draft but also the original Global South draft. While it is correct that there is no reference to final judgment, there are 5 references to “sin” and the claim there is no reference to the cross or forgiveness is false as the new introduction adds a reference (noted above) to “a new covenant...in his “blood … poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt. 26:28)” and the new conclusion ends with a citation of Hebrews 13 with its reference to the “blood of the eternal covenant”.

GAFCON believes that “throughout this document an attenuated view of biblical authority is presented” seen in the language of “respect” (1.2.4) but not obedience – “the absence of the language of obedience to the Word of God throughout the document is one of its most serious flaws”.

This is where there is the strongest evidence that the writers of this paper may have been misled by the briefing paper which makes these points in its first two criticisms. In addition to the response to these two points above, it should again be noted that the Global South draft covenant is also marked by “the absence of the language of obedience to the Word of God”.

GAFCON claims that throughout the covenant “biblical values are not treated in their mutual relationships” and in particular that unity is not related to “the equally serious injunctions of Scripture to preserve the truth given to us”. The concern of the covenant is with threats to unity not “moral and doctrinal error” despite the latter being the cause of our current disunity.

Here there is some basis in the critique. In particular the test of 3.2.5 only refers to actions which “threaten the unity of the Communionand the effectiveness or credibility of its mission”. While presumably “moral and doctrinal error” would fall into this category (though again the covenant seeks to be broader than this) this could be made explicit, perhaps drawing (though again GAFCON make no positive suggestions) on the earlier recognition that the Lambeth Conference “serves as an instrument in guarding the faith and unity of the Communion” and the Primates’ Meeting collaborates on “doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have communion-wide implications” (3.1.4). The covenant’s establishing of a process to deal with threats to unity is not “vacuous” but actually offers what the Communion is currently lacking and desperately needs – an agreed way of dealing with the moral and doctrinal error that so concerns GAFCON. The dismissal of the covenant’s proposal as “abstracted from biblical faithfulness” is unfounded (e.g. the covenant signatories commit explicitly “to ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully” (1.2.4)). Although GAFCON and others have found the Instruments’ responses to recent events insufficient, the root problem lies in the actions of member churches (to which the Instruments have inadequately responded) and it is therefore hard to see how “the Instruments of Communion themselves might be the focus of objection” once the covenant is in place or how any covenant can address the fact that whatever bodies have oversight they may themselves be objected to at some stage (here one risks entering an infinite regress...).

GAFCON claims that in describing four instruments the covenant draft “fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury”. This is “compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly colonialist”

This is clearly an application of GAFCON’s relativisation of Canterbury but once again this critique applies just as much – if not more – to earlier versions of the covenant. The Windsor draft covenant gave the Archbishop of Canterbury even more power. The Global South draft made no criticism of the fact that, in its words, “from the late 1940s, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office is enhanced due to his historic role” though it did note that “The Archbishop of Canterbury together with the Primates should work in full collaboration in all decisions that have Communion-wide implications”. The St Andrew’s Draft revises Nassau’s description of Canterbury’s role in a way which tends to lessen the see’s significance: he “gathers” rather than “calls” the Lambeth Conference, he “presides in” rather than “is President of” the ACC, in its description of the Lambeth Conference the claim that it is “under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury” is removed and in relation to the Primates’ Meeting it is now “called by” rather than “presided over by” the Archbishop). The covenant itself makes no further claims for the Archbishop of Canterbury so the “prominence” claimed must refer to the current draft appendix (which it is stressed by the Covenant Design Group has a “provisional nature”) where the Archbishop has a key role as “gatekeeper”. However, it should be noted that he must seek advice from Assessors and only in emergency situations does he rather than another Instrument make a request and he is not the final court of appeal. The concerns about the “colonialist” are therefore exaggerated though could be perhaps countered by various changes eg asking the Primates rather than the Archbishop to appoint the Assessors. Sadly no such concrete alternatives are offered by GAFCON.

Again this critique relates not to the covenant but to the current “tentative draft” of procedures where the JSC has a role of hearing appeals in certain cases. It reflects wider concerns about the current Instruments and in particular the JSC. These clearly need to be addressed but again GAFCON offers no positive alternative either within the current structure of the Instruments or, more likely and better, in terms of new structures.