Might be worth checking out this article, as this could be the beginning of the development of a true Anglican Covenant, that the majority of the Communion would approve. The AAC summarise it as follows:
Revision 1: Strengthens the historic and normative role of the Anglican Formularies (page 4) by restoring the Nassau Draft’s specific inclusion of the Thirty Nine Articles, the 1662 BCP and its Ordinal as the common doctrinal basis for Anglicans worldwide. This may assure evangelical Anglicans that their position is upheld within the Communion.
Revision 2: Affirms explicitly God’s standard of marriage and abstinence as stated in Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998) as binding on members of the Communion (page 4), thereby addressing the need Global South leaders identified in paragraph 21 of the Final Communique of the Fourth Global South to South Encounter (GSE4).
Revision 3: Constitutes the Anglican Communion under the Covenant (pages 4-6): Adoption of the Covenant is co-terminous with membership and removes the muddled and failed vision of a “two-tiered’ membership. It removes the Anglican Consultative Council entirely as an “Instrument of Unity” and replaces it with a revised section on the Primates to make it clear that the primary form of Communion governance is conciliar by bishops meeting in “council” regularly for “deliberations” and not simply fellowship or Indaba. Canterbury remains a “focus of unity” but provides for a “Council of Bishops”, archbishops and bishops having actual jurisdiction and meeting regulalrly apart from Lambeth. The Instruments of Unity shall be composed only of those who adopt the Covenant. This too addresses the criticism of the muddled Communion governance structures that were presented in the existing Covenant to GSE4.
Revision 4: Restores the Primates to their proper oversight of Communion faith and order (page 6): See above, Revision 3 and below Revision 5.
Revision 5: Binds the Communion into an accountable union (pages 6-7): by authorizing a Primates’ Council (from adopting provinces only) to de-recognize and declare “vacant” those provinces that fail to adopt this revised Covenant in a timely manner, and extends provisional recognition of membership in the Communion to “dioceses, parishes and ecclesial networks” who adopt the revised Covenant from within non-adopting provinces “until such time as the status of a replacement national and regional church is ratified by the Lambeth Council of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury”-thereby addressing the needs of both Communion Partners and the ACNA in North America, and the escalating needs of the orthodox in the Church of England.
Revision 6: Replaces the SCAC with the Primates Council (or “College of Primates”) throughout sections 4.2 and 4.4 as the body authorized to administer communion discipline under the Covenant (pages 7-8 and Appendix): thereby addressing the fatal defects that we have witnessed only too clearly in the meetings of the SCAC, while reaffirming the conciliar form of governance in a “council” of bishops who themselves have adopted the Covenant.
This would be good.
It’s certainly encouraging, and I hope the Global South Primates will move forward with this whether or not it meets resistance from Canterbury.
Finally – a document with teeth. I agree – it would be great if the Global South moved ahead with it – perhaps the GAFCON members would begin the movement.
This would appear to be a document that a vast majority of Anglicans in the world-wide Anglican Communion could embrace. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how Rowan the procrastinator would react if all orthodox parishes, diocese and provinces around the world ignored the wishy-washy “Canterbury” covenent, and instead signed on to this document. One can but dream.
It wasn’t obvious to me that the linked document has any actual official status.
Depends what you mean by official status, I guess. For me, the emasculated version that came out of the lawless political maneuvering of the so-called Standing Committee at the ACC in Jamaica, is not one I recognise.
This proposal, on the other hand, has promise, and if the majority of the provinces in the communion sign on to it that’d be great.
Thing is, the fabric of the communion has indeed been torn – there are now two communions and two definitions of ‘official’.
“Finally a document with teeth” Muriel (3). I agree, now if we can somehow emphasize unequivocally the inclusion of relationship with Our Lord and Saviour and recognition of His Headship in our church as paramount in and to this Covenent I personally can get on board.
Peter #6 I agree with your – “there are now two communions and two definitions of ‘official’. However and I realize this is “small potatoes” but personally I don’t think the fabric has been torn at all, but rather certain entities have attempted to sew new (read revisionist) materiel onto the old and original coat.
I am just old enough to remember how comforting it use to be and pray that this new coat (covenant) will be just as warm, just as strengthening as the original.
These are revisions proposed by Dr Steven Noll. Your introduction to this article was a little confusing to me. Could you comment upon the significance of Dr. Noll offering possible and good revisions to the communion at this time?
Sam #9; For my part #8 my reference to “revisionists” does not refer to Dr. Noll. His revisions are about the Covenant (which I welcome) and not about the Communion at large.
It is interesting that ACNA could not sign on to Dr. Noll’s proposed covenant without amending its constitution and canons.
First, ACNA’s constitution contextualizes the 39 Articles, something Dr. Noll explicitly rejects.
Second, the conferral of synodical powers on the Lambeth “Council” is inconsistent with the reservation of powers to dioceses in Art VIII of ACNA’s constitution.
While Dr. Noll is an evangelical (and indeed frames his revisions on the 39 Articles as preserving a place for evangelicals theologically), this creates a very Roman-style curial hierarchy.
Hello Jim (11)
Perhaps part of the systemic problem with the Worldwide Anglican Communion is that all of the member Provinces are too independant of each other, and something more “centralized” is needed in order to save what is left of the WAC and ensure greater consistancy of theology throughout the world. One of the advantages enjoyed by the RCs is that they do have a global consistancy. If we in Canada are to be truly “Anglican” than should we not also be more strict in our adhearance to things such as the 39 Articles of Religion? Should our Theology and Doctrine not be more consistant with the other Provinces of the WAC? But if we maintain the same degree of Provincial independance we run the risk of “local options”. As I have suggested in other posts, a WAC House of Bishops, with enough authority to maintain global consitancy and the ability to “discapline” wayward Provinces and Primates is needed. If this is “Romanish” than so be it. But just because it might be “Romanish” is no justification for not even considering it.
Hi Amp – it never ceases to amaze me how often we forget that we should be totally centered on the Lord Christ. (Please don’t take offence many including myself have been caught up in religion and forgotten our faith.) the Center, the Head, the Power, The Way ,Truth and Life it all rests at the right hand of God. Oh yes and flows from there with the Holy Spirit. Obedience to those in authority is a scriptural given but to emphasize that at the expense of the one-on-one, or three-on-one or twelve-on-one, (and so on) relationship with Jesus is dangerous. Frankly it’s why we have lost more than we have gained since Pentecost.