There's an old joke
about three people being interviewed for a job as an accountant. The
interviewer asks, “how much is two plus two?” The first
confidently says, “four.” The second, not to be outdone, says,
“four point zero.” The third says, “how much do you want it to
be?”
I think the third is
working for the Anglican Communion Office.
The Anglican
Consultative Council is meeting in New Zealand as I write, and is in
the process of considering the status of the proposed Anglican
Covenant. In the opening presentation on the topic, the assembled
Council were updated on what the various churches around the Anglican
Communion have done with the Covenant to date. There are, they were
told, three categories of response.
In category A there are
nine churches. Eight were said to have adopted the Covenant.
Those in the so-called Category A that have approved the covenant are Ireland, Mexico, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Southern Cone of America, and the West Indies. In addition, according to the document, South East Asia adopted the covenant with an added preamble of its own and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia has subscribed to the covenant’s first three sections but said it cannot adopt section 4, which outlines a process for resolving disputes.
That left the Scottish
Episcopal Church all on its own as having “refused” to adopt the
Covenant.
It's funny how you can
add up churches' responses and come to eight approvals. Ireland
didn't approve the Covenant; rather it “subscribed” it. Whatever
they intended by “subscribe” wasn't entirely clear but it was
clear that they didn't mean “adopt,” which is the verb actually
in the text. As the Anglican Communion News Service put it at
the time, “in the course of the Synod debate it was stressed that
the word 'subscribe' in relation to the Covenant, rather than
'adopt', was important.”
Similarly, South East
Asia chose a different verb, voting to “accede to” the Covenant,
rather than to adopt it. And, as noted above, they did so in the
context of a lengthy preamble which effectively amends the document
unilaterally. So, which Covenant exactly did they accede to? Not the
one on offer, evidently.
As for the Anglican
Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia approving the Covenant,
that's not the impression one gets from the text of the motion they
adopted in July, which stated that that church “is unable
to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant due to concerns about aspects
of Section 4, but subscribes to Sections 1, 2, and 3 as currently
drafted as a useful starting point for consideration of our Anglican
understanding of the church.”
The Anglican Communion News Service story that reported this turn of
events depicted the resolution as “a final 'No.'”
So we have five
“adopts,” one “subscribe, but definitely not adopt” one
“accede to our own version” and one pretty definite “no”
which somehow add up to eight “yeses”.
Anglican Math.
Category B is just as
convoluted.
The Episcopal Church,
which just last July “declined to take a position” on the
Covenant, is depicted as having made a “partial decision,” which
I suppose is meant to convey that they're in the process of adopting
the Covenant and will certainly say Yes once they assume a position.
At least as certainly as New Zealand has, at any rate. Similarly
Australia and Canada, which have both sent the document to dioceses
for study are in this category. And most bizarrely so, too, is the
Church of England, whose dioceses have voted the Covenant down rather
soundly. Korea and Melanesia have both expressed difficulties with
section 4 of the Covenant, and are also counted as having made
“partial decisions.” About the only Church that I can see that
actually fits in this category is South Africa, which has in fact
given preliminary approval to the Covenant, but needs to ratify that
decision (or not) at its next Synod meeting. But then, a category of
one isn't much of a category, not that it bothers the Anglican
Communion Office.
Category C consists of
just one Church, the Philippines. Their Council of Bishops has
rejected the Covenant. But the Anglican Communion Office isn't quite
certain what that means, exactly, and are seeking clarification.
Here's a hint: it means
“no.”
I suppose if all this
Anglican Math means that churches that say “no” are counted as
having said “yes” and churches that say “maybe to something
else” are also counted as saying “yes”, and churches that say
“let us do a bit of due diligence before we answer” are counted
as having made a “partial decision” (which, nudge, nudge, means
“yes”) before long everyone will have adopted the Anglican
Covenant without actually voting to do so. Except the Scottish
Episcopal Church, who, like the cheese, will stand alone.
...before long everyone will have adopted the Anglican Covenant without actually voting to do so. Except the Scottish Episcopal Church, who, like the cheese, will stand alone.
ReplyDeleteAlan, that's how the putting-facts-on-the-ground strategy works. Say it enough times, and it will be true. The Windsor Report morphed into rules that must be obeyed with just such a strategy.
As for me, I want to stand with the cheese, and I'm disappointed that TEC didn't vote the covenant down.