The Scottish Episcopal Church now has a published response to the draft Anglican covenant. Although I have one strong reservation about something that it says, I do broadly welcome it.
My reservation is over the phrase, “There is much in the Draft Covenant which we wish to commend: we appreciate its rootedness in Scripture, …” It has always seemed to me that the Draft Covenant was littered with scriptural texts rather than rooted in Scripture. There is quite a difference. There is no-one I respect on either side of the covenant controversy who would be happy to treat the bible in as cavalier fashion as those who have drafted the covenant. The “proof texts” which are scattered through it show a lack of conviction and are one of the worst examples of taking the biblical texts out of context. Those of us who love the word of God, liberal and evangelical alike should not be commending that – we should be condemning it.
The Scottish response makes it pretty clear that the covenant is not really what we are looking for and proposes an alternative name and an alternative way of responding to the Anglican “crisis” to that which the covenant proposes. This is nothing new, of course. At last year’s General Synod, Bishop Brian said something to the effect that the covenant was “not the only show in town” and there were other speakers who wanted to find other ways of allowing the Anglican communion to hold together with diversity rather than be whipped into order by a central curia.
Of course, Rowan Williams has let us down. In his Advent Letter, he said, “I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. ” (His italics, not mine).
I cannot read that in any other way than him saying that those taking the line that Bishop Brian took at the General Synod and anyone who is supportive of this new Scottish response to the Draft Covenant should stay away from Lambeth. Will he enforce that?
In Scotland as a church, we have never accepted or supported the Windsor Report in any forum to my knowledge. Nor Lambeth 1.10. Nor this Draft Covenant.
Wonder what will happen next.
UPDATE
Some comments on the response are available on Thinking Anglicans.
I might be able to read that differently. Maybe one of the best ways to “work with” it is to point out its failings, from existence through name to contents.
I don’t think so Tim. I think that the context of the quote from RW rules out your reading of it. He said:
“I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference’s agenda.”