Speeches made by members of the General Synod during the debate, and some reactions from Anglicans elsewhere to the C of I decision. Voting figures.
In the first speech from the floor, Canon Michael Kennedy expressed grave doubts about the covenant. He said there are provisions here to remove a church from the communion and he asked, “Can we be happy with a system which can contribute to splits in their communion, or even to deepen division?” He referred to the law of unintended consequences and said the sticking point for him was 427 on page 9.
Mr Walsh, Dublin diocese, was concerned with the grievance procedure in section 4. It was in the hands of a standing committee comprised of representatives of churches which had accepted the Anglican Covenant. Future provincial decisions would be assessed by this.
He felt the phrase ‘subscribing’ was misleading both within the Church of Ireland and to the rest of the communion. He said that “the Church of Ireland needs to be clear in its communication to sister churches what we mean by subscription”. He was troubled with a two tiered Anglican Communion comprising of a covenanting, and a non-covenanting group.
Rev B O’Rorke, Cork, said he was fearful that the proposed Anglican covenant will redefine what is to be an Anglican. The freedom of the local Anglican churches had given room to move. The covenant would contribute to situations in which there was a black and white. He described Section 4 as a punitive “slapping room.”
He asked,”Is it a covenant of exclusion? Who decides what is incompatible? Who decides when the prophetic voice is authentic?”
Rev Pat McKee from Limerick, a university chaplain, described a bridge on her campus and suggested the covenant could be a bridge.
Rev Bill Atkins of Elphin said that a covenant is consonant with doctrine and discipline. The Episcopal Church in the USA and Canada, he claimed, have departed from apostolic norms. He stated that “We owe it to our brothers and sisters in the rest of the world to uphold Anglican norms.”
Mr Dermott O’Callaghan, Down, said the covenant was trying to address nothing less than a conflict of world views. The body referred to as the standing committee, he claimed, has been mired in controversy. The recent reduced size primates’ meeting in Dublin showed that there were people prepared to walk against the Lambeth conference. He would vote no because he wished to see a restoration of the Windsor principles and the primates’ meeting.
Mr Stephen Ellis, Tuam, saw the covenant as a good start on which more needed to be done. He said that we need to understand each other is coming from.
Rev Paul Willoughby argued for a loving rejection of the Anglican covenant. A covenant is about love and healing transformation, he claimed, and stated that he found no love and no healing in section 4. He urged the C of I to go back to our own drawing board and do it our way.
Canon Norman Jardine, Down, stated that he was a very pro-the Anglican Communion and its life. He had been spiritually enriched by it especially in Africa. He was very pro-a worldwide Anglican Church and he was prepared to put up with material in the covenant which he struggles with, recognising that you can come to a point where you can’t go any further.
He continued stating that the Anglican Covenant is “to enable us to be confident in one another without going down a road we do not want the guy. I do not see this as anything heavy or draconian”, he concluded.
Ms Kate Turner, Connor, who has been the Church of Ireland lay representative to the Anglican Consultative Council for the past 10 years, said it was difficult to accept division amongst friends and she was conscious that there were concerns about the proposed standing committee which are related to the fact that decisions are being made by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Secretaryof the ACC.
“Whatever we do, the Church of Ireland will make its own decision. It is better to avoid getting into a two tiered Anglican Communion”, she concluded.
Dean Paul Draper saw the covenant as a way of deepening the communion. He wished to have a listening space. He suggested that an Emmaus Road experience of walking together with people of different perspectives, and meeting in communion, at a time when communion is so precious, was the only way forward.
The Dean of Cork, Very Rev Nigel Dunne, said that the first three sections of the document is one of the finest statements of Anglican doctrine which there is about
However he was fearful that section 4 could lead into a confessional Church – negatively confessional and divisive. He felt that section 4 placed in the hands of the Standing Committee powers which could result in the danger of Anglicanism imploding in on itself. He did not wish to see the narrowing of boundaries when defining limits of belief. This should be avoided. He concluded that most people would not understand the difference between subscribing and adopting
In his concluding remarks Bishop Burrowes said that the Welsh church and others “may learn from what we in the Church of Ireland do”. The covenant as it was bears the hands of the Church of Ireland – the hands of Archbishop Eames and Archbishop Neill. “Our voice has been heard in the rewriting of section 4”, he claimed, stating “I am an unlikely person to propose this motion. If we pass this we face a difficult journey in the Anglican Communion. If we don’t we face chaos”.
The vote was 235 in favour, 52 against. All the bishops save the Bishop of Cork indicated their approval.
Comments from elsewhere in the Anglican Communion:
“So subscription is something different to adoption. And South East Asia used the term accession. Confused? If so, then these three blog articles may not help you.”
Catholicity and Covenant has Quincy, SE Asia & Ireland: Covenant questions.
http://catholicityandcovenant.blogspot.com/2011/05/quincy-se-asia-ireland-covenant.html
Bosco Peters at Liturgy – Anglican Covenant meaningless.
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/anglican-covenant-meaningless/5857
Tobias Haller at In a Godward Direction.
http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2011/05/anglican-covenant-lets-be-clear.html
See also Alan Perry – Articles on this site.