Vermont General Convention Deputies Respond to St. Andrew's Draft
of the Proposed Anglican Covenant

September 2008

To: Members of the INC 021 Task Force of Executive Council:

The purpose of this letter is two-fold: first to reflect briefly on the Saint Andrew’s Draft (SAD) of the Anglican Covenant (as a manifestation of the “Windsor Report”) and second to comment on Lambeth and its implications. Clearly the two are interwoven.

The 75th General Convention committed itself in 2006-A166 to monitor progress of any draft covenant, and it is in this spirit that we consider the Saint Andrew’s Draft. Issued on Ash Wednesday of this year, it contains many improvements over the Nassau draft. Of primary importance was the restoration of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in its complete form, rather than as in the Nassau draft where the historic episcopate was separated from the other three essentials. Also included, albeit in passing, was mention of our shared sacramental life in baptism and the Eucharist, something that was totally missing in the previous draft.

The Saint Andrew’s draft establishes a wish for a life lived in covenant with one another. This covenantal life is based on mutual responsibility. As long as the language in the draft remains covenantal, one of relationships, this portion of the draft is acceptable.

However, section 3.2.5 indicates a change in tone, moving this relational language to contractual and legalistic language. Once the appendix is included in the discussion, the entire nature of the aforementioned covenant changes. Language of covenant and respect morphs into contractual and governance language that emphasizes control and punishment. Moreover, these provisions are in many areas in rough form leaving many questions unanswered or imperfectly resolved.

The Rev. Canon Marilyn McCord Adams of Christ Church, Oxford sums up the poverty of charity in the Saint Andrew’s Draft succinctly:

Responding to the charge that NDC [Nassau Draft Covenant]’s Excommunication Clause was too vague, SAD’s Appendix elaborates four alternative exclusionary procedures and runs to two-thirds of the length of the SAD covenant proper. Moreover, SAD proposed exclusionary procedures make attempted purges all too easy: one province or covenanting ‘local’ church complaining against another is all that it would take to get the process rolling (Appendix, sec. 2.1). The overall result is a lop-sided emphasis on gate-keeping.

We still believe that the Covenant for Communion in Mission remains the covenant to adopt if we are to adopt one at all. We suggest that we already have a covenant that is sufficient to sustain the Anglican Communion, the Baptismal Covenant. We know that The Episcopal Church is not the only church in the Anglican Communion that uses the form of the Baptismal Covenant as found in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. Those churches that formerly were part of TEC, such as the Anglican Church of the Region of Central America and the Anglican Church of Mexico, use a translation of the 1979 BCP and therefore also claim the power of that covenant as part of their ordered life. Fundamentally, we believe that signing onto any covenant that has punishment or the power to exclude as a part of it is unacceptable and a misunderstanding of what it means to be in relationship with one another.

The recent letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury to all bishops and his last presidential address at Lambeth Conference give us pause. First, the use of the terminology, Anglican “Church” instead of Anglican “Communion” betrays a bias of turning our world-wide relationships into a more structured, formal, centralized and hierarchical institution. His desire to create a Faith and Order Commission, a body that the Windsor Continuation Group (pdf) would seem to favor, while still speculative, nonetheless bespeaks this drift toward centralization.

The Windsor Continuation Group, which appears to be assuming more and more authority (from a report that is nothing more than a report but which increasingly is being treated by some as authoritative) has called for “the swift formation of a Pastoral Forum at a communion level to engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion.” Its function is quite clear: the forum’s duties would consist primarily of advising the Archbishop of Canterbury and offering guidance to individual provinces when controversies arose involving the blessing of gay relationships, the consecration of an openly gay bishop, or cross border interventions by one province against another. As experience has borne out thus far, the last point, cross border interventions, seems to have garnered less attention than the former two points. And giving the Archbishop of Canterbury or any of the other so-called Instruments of Communion authority to intervene in the life of the self-governing members of the Anglican Communion is, we believe, unwise.

Lastly, then, is the question of the three moratoria that the Archbishop mentioned in his final presidential address. He equates blessings of same-gender relations and the consecration of LBGT bishops with cross border interventions. We believe the first two are not equal to the latter insofar as they involve individuals and a decision made locally, the election of a bishop. The latter is a clear flouting of ecclesiological tradition that dates from the early Christian Church.

We strongly urge our House of Bishops, the Executive Committee of TEC and the 2009 General Convention to push back on these points: a Faith and Order Commission, a Pastoral Forum and, most of all, this drift toward an Anglican “Church.” Only the General Convention can commit TEC to church-wide policies or a global Anglican covenant.

Covenant or not, the bonds of affection that Vermonters have established with Anglicans throughout the world will continue. It is through incarnational encounters with brother and sister Anglicans throughout the world that we are made known to one another and manifest Christ to each other.

Faithfully,
Anne Clarke Brown
Thomas J. Brown
Lee Alison Crawford
Thomas C. Ely, bishop
Nancy Gordon
Thomas Little
John Morris
Jenny Ogelby
Tanya R. Wallace

The 2009 Vermont deputation to General Convention