Source: http://blog.noanglicancovenant.org/2011/06/lionels-draft.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:02:05+00:00

Document:
Critics of the Anglican Covenant have, in many cases, expressed satisfaction with Sections 1–3, while declaring Section 4 defective. Lionel Deimel has published an evaluation of those first three sections, suggesting they are not as innocent as many believe. Deimel was primarily addressing Anglicans in The Episcopal Church, but his remarks should be of interest to other Anglicans as well.
Deimel’s “A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant” appeared in two parts on his blog here and here. It is reproduced below as a single post. It is also available as a single PDF file here.
The second section of the Anglican Covenant begins with propositions that signatories affirm.
It is difficult to object to §2.1.1, but it is easy to be suspicious of it. What does it mean to assert that “communion is a gift of God?” If we believe that all things come of God, then surely communion does. But so do tsunamis, by that reasoning. (Christians have a tendency to attribute to God those things they like and to absolve God of responsibility for those things they don’t like. It is difficult to find a rational basis for such belief.) I think that the authors want readers to believe that the Anglican Communion is a gift of God. It is not clear just how good this particular gift is or why Anglicans, specifically, have been so blessed. In any case, arguing that the Anglican Communion is a gift of God could become an excuse for condemning any action that “tears the fabric of the Communion” as a rejection of God’s gift.
In §2.1.2, the Covenant begins to make the case for the new Anglican Communion the Archbishop of Canterbury is hoping we will all embrace, one that achieves “a more fully developed communion life.” There are many scales on which our communion life might be “more fully developed.” Churches could, for example, develop a communion life that is more tolerant, understanding, and mutually supportive. That is not the kind of development envisioned by the Covenant, however. Instead, the Covenant is luring signatories into “a worldwide family of interdependent churches,” as it is expressed in §2.1.4. “Interdependent,” of course, despite protestations in the Covenant to the contrary, means constrained, not independent, not autonomous.
The function of §2.1.3 is unclear, unless it is intended to make us feel guilty, so we will agree to adopt the Covenant.
Section 2.1.4 is not objectionable except insofar as it assumes that we desire to become “a worldwide family of interdependent churches.” I, for one, have no such desire.
Section 2.1.5 expresses the desire to see “full, visible unity of the Church,” since Jesus is reported by St. John to have prayed “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). “Being one” does not necessarily mean that all churches must unite. What would our world be like if all churches were the same, if going to one house of worship delivered the same experience as going to another? I suggest that such a world would minister to a minority of people, leaving most people outside the church. I, for one, do not lament our present diversity, either in the Anglican Communion or in the world at large. When all people have the same personality, education, ethnicity, and nationality, the Christian Church can fully unite. Until then, doing so is counterproductive.
On the basis of the assertions of §2.1, §2.2 lists commitments assumed by churches that adopt the Covenant.
In §2.2.1, signatories commit to evangelism “and, with mutual accountability, to share our God-given spiritual and material resources in this task.” What, exactly, is the “mutual accountability” called for here? Would The Episcopal Church be acting contrary to the Covenant if our evangelism doesn’t look like the evangelism of, say, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican)? Are we expected to help finance the Nigerian church’s evangelism?
I can find little to object to in §2.2.2, which is derived from the five Marks of Mission. (Other marks of mission have been suggested recently, however.) I don’t see the point of “as essential aspects of our mission in communion” in §2.2.2.e.
Section 2.2.3, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5 seem unobjectionable.
Section 3.1 enumerates more affirmations. It is here that the Covenant begins to reveal how it will transform the organization of the Communion.
From the standpoint of what we might call Anglican Communion polity, I am particularly concerned about the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In practice, he has become more than simply the spiritual head of the Communion, more than primus inter pares. Americans especially should be wary of placing a single man—I surely do not expect to see a female Archbishop of Canterbury in my lifetime—at the center of all the “Instruments.” That man is not chosen by the Communion and is not even elected in any democratic sense from his own church! When the Standing Committee recommends “relational consequences” to the Primates’ Meeting or to the Anglican Consultative Council, as described in §4.2.5, it is a group of people who have to agree on the imposition of such consequences. Such a recommendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury is imposed or not based on the will of a single person from whose decision there is no appeal.
In the Primates’ Meeting, the Primates and Moderators are called to work as representatives of their Provinces in collaboration with one another in mission and in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.
I am unclear as to what this passage means. What is it that results from the work of the primates? Is it more interference in the affairs of individual churches? We need less, not more of that. I don’t know if the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is authorized to perform the work specified in §3.1.4.
Acknowledging the foregoing, §3.2 sets out additional commitments that signatories assume. Each of these commitments is designed to rein in the autonomy of Communion members.
to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole.
In other words, the autonomy of Anglican churches is to be respected except when it isn’t. This is not reassuring.
Section 3.2.4 extends the restrictions on autonomy to agreements with other churches.
to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.
This provision establishes what Jim Naughton has called “governance by hurt feelings.” Churches are expected to intuit how others in the Communion will react to an action that may be not only justified, but even required by a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. Section 3.2.5 elevates politeness over truth.
The Covenant refers to conflicts that “could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.” Does (or should) the Communion have a mission apart from supporting the individual churches in their missions? This is, I think, an important question. The Anglican Communion is not now a church itself, and I do not believe it should be. (I am opposed to the Communion’s negotiating ecumenical agreements, for example.) Individual Anglican churches have, in fact, painted themselves into a corner by claiming authority over and thereby taking responsibility for the actions of other Anglican churches, a responsibility that is not really theirs to assume. If Muslims try to embarrass an African church based on what, say, The Episcopal Church has done, that African church now has—if it chooses to invoke it—credible deniability. That is, the African church can assert that Anglican churches are autonomous and not subject to outside pressure or control. It is therefore not responsible for the actions of The Episcopal Church. This posture, which wisdom would have urged in the past, will not be an available option under the Anglican Covenant.
Section 3.2.6 forces churches to accept mediation in situations of conflict.
Section 3.2.7 is intended to intimidate churches into behaving as the Covenant intends them to behave.
I hope that the foregoing will cause those who will be participating in the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church to reconsider the notion that Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant are somehow innocuous. They are, in fact, pernicious. It is my sincerest hope that other Anglicans around the world will conclude this as well.
We should not allow Anglicans, in discussing the Covenant, to declare blithely that Sections 1–3 of the covenant are acceptable, without insisting that they explain why they believe this to be so. It is important that all Anglican churches consider the whole of the Covenant. Section 4, after all, exists to enforce what is set forth in Sections 1–3.
I hope that my critique will encourage discussion of the Covenant in greater detail. No doubt, I have minimized some threats to The Episcopal Church and to the Anglican Communion and failed to notice others. I believe that serious discussion among Episcopalians can only lead to the conclusion that the Anglican Covenant has little to recommend it.
The goal of the General Convention should be not only to defend The Episcopal Church against the depredations of an ill-advised Anglican Covenant, but also to encourage other Anglican churches to reject the Covenant as well.

References: §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §4
 §3
 §3