Thoughts on the Anglican Covenant

I imagine everyone has had one of those moments when you reflect back on your day and wish you’d said something differently, maybe articulated something more clearly. That happens to journalists a lot. I wrote a short piece on the second draft of the Anglican Covenant released Wednesday, which you can find here. The article […]

I imagine everyone has had one of those moments when you reflect back on your day and wish you’d said something differently, maybe articulated something more clearly.

That happens to journalists a lot.

I wrote a short piece on the second draft of the Anglican Covenant released Wednesday, which you can find here. The article hits all the main points, but might benefit from further elucidation.


Here goes.

The covenant is basically designed to do two things, and moves along two tracks; the first might be called “theological,” the second, “political.” This will generally be true of any covenant that’s produced, since those are the two main points of contention in the international communion: What do Anglicans believe and how do they deal with Anglicans who differ?

On the theological track, the covenant gives special weight to Scripture. It says that each of the 38 national churches must “uphold and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition.” It also says that provinces must “ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently.”

There’s a lot in there to make conservative Episcopalians happy. Their arguments against the acceptance of gay and lesbian bishops, as well as the blessing of same-sex unions, stands very much upon biblical injunctions against homosexual acts.

The covenant’s political track is less about belief than it is about consequences: How do Anglicans with sharp differences on everything from hermeneutics to theology to science get along under one tent? The covenant sets out a process, at the center of which is the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is too long and convoluted (not to mention provisional) to discuss here. Believe me, it gave me a headache to read it. What’s important is what’s missing from the covenant: any mechanism to toss the Episcopal Church from the communion. This makes liberal Episcopalians very happy.

Provinces can lodge complaints against each other; the Archbishop can make a “request” of a national church (e.g.”No more gay bishops, please.”) But no one can compel any province to do anything; the covenant expressly says that “no process shall effect the autonomy of any Church of the Communion.” So, there may be endless finger pointing but perhaps no real consequences. Of course, all of that could change at the Lambeth Conference.

Ok, now that’s off my chest. Sometimes these documents are so complex (particularly the extremely legalistic docs Anglicans tend to produce) that you can’t really explain everything clearly in the time and space you have. If this was helpful at all, please let me know and I’ll try to post similar things in the future.

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!