The first three sections of the Covenant provide a solid foundation for Anglican unity. The fundamentals of our shared faith are affirmed, as is the constitutional autonomy of all Anglican Churches (provinces) (3.2.2). The Churches are called to have regard for the common good of the Communion in exercising their autonomy (3.2.1), to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection, and to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God (3.2.3).

These sections are an admirable and sufficient statement of global Anglican relationships. But Section 4 moves beyond respectful dialogue to a process (see Background) which could disenfranchise Churches that can no longer accept the traditional view on same-sex unions as the only view. This stance is made clear by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflection (##7,8) : “the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2000 years” in a way that does not support such unions, and only “the most painstaking biblical exegesis” leading to “a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding” could support any change.

This question is not one on which Anglican bishops agree. One third of those at the 1998 Lambeth Conference voted against including the words “rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” in resolution 1.10.4. I was one of those bishops and opposed the words because I believe Scripture did not envisage the type of relationship being discussed today.

That type of relationship is described (Res. DO39, General Convention, Episcopal Church, 2000): “We expect such relationships will be characterised by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”. This kind of relationship hardly fits the list of depraved behaviours Paul catalogues in the latter part of Romans 1.

Study of the contemporary context is also a central element of scriptural interpretation. Lambeth 1988, for example, “urged such study and reflection to take account of biological, genetic and psychological research being undertaken by other agencies, and the socio-cultural factors that lead to the different attitudes in the provinces of our Communion” (Res. 64). There is little recent evidence in Anglican circles of that type of enquiry.

So we are now in a situation where (1) the proposed Covenant establishes a process for suspending Churches from full communion, and (2) Archbishop Rowan has stated that adherence to the traditional position on same-sex unions will be the basis for avoiding such suspension. The Archbishop foreshadows the potential for a “twofold ecclesial reality” (#22). Each Anglican province faces four options:

1. Not to sign the Covenant because it opposes a procedure that will judge and divide, and/or opposes having to affirm only one of two conscientiously held positions. Failure to sign will see a Church suspended from full communion.

2. To sign the Covenant but to face suspension from the Communion if it permits any steps on same-sex unions contrary to the traditional position.

3. To sign the Covenant and adhere exclusively to the traditional position on same-sex unions. This will disenfranchise all who conscientiously hold the other viewpoint, and separate a Church from full communion with any Church that does not sign the Covenant, or transgresses it.

4. To engage with other provinces to collectively abstain from a process which could split the Communion, and to reinvigorate the Anglican way of dialogue in diversity.

Unhappily, the Archbishop describes those suspended from full communion as having decided that local autonomy is a greater value than a covenantal unity. This is a serious misrepresentation. Such a decision would arise not from a preference for local autonomy but from a conviction that the path chosen was driven by conscience and local context.

One might ponder how the move to women’s ordination might have fared under the proposed Covenant. Given the continuing staunch opposition to such ordinations in some parts of the Communion today, an exclusively male priesthood and episcopate might still persist. And will the proposed Covenant process be as rigorous in disenfranchising those Churches that transgress Anglican polity by ordaining flying bishops to minister in other provinces?

My reading of the proposed Covenant process is that it places unity ahead of conscience, is based on a deeply flawed hermeneutic, and is contrary to the Anglican ethos of finding a balance between the fundamentals of faith on the one hand, and the avoidance of over-regulation which suppresses local autonomy on the other. I believe the Covenant will also undermine the process of hermeneutic and respectful dialogue that blossomed following the Windsor Report. If the Anglican leadership has declared in favour of the traditional view, why engage in dialogue with those who think differently?

My hope is that this Church will oppose a process that rides roughshod over the convictions of a significant part of the Anglican Communion. The Communion is too culturally diverse to encompass one-size-fits-all strategies. An artificial unity that ignores conscientious diversity is no reflection of the Body of Christ. Option 4 is this Church’s best strategy.

Richard Randerson is the former Dean and Assistant Bishop of Auckland.

randersonjr@paradise.net.nz