This, the first of three CNI special reports on the discussion of the proposal to subscribe to the Anglican Covenant, presents excerpts from the speech proposing acceptance made by the Bishop of Cashel and Ossory, Rt Rev M Burrows.
Bishop Michael Burrows, the proposer of the motion, said he came to the rostrum with a heavy heart, saying, “It is easy to long for simpler times, when fewer things needed to be defined, when traditional bonds of affection were adequate to glue the Anglican Communion together, but of late we have not lived in simple times, the Anglican Covenant is a new and, let’s face it, somewhat experimental method by which we together articulate to the world something of what we are, not least in terms of our theological method, and acknowledge that within a global communion of autonomous churches actions taken by one part of the body do have relational consequences which we are honest about facing.”
He continued, “If we believe that the Anglican covenant arises from the best of intentions, is the one available putative remedy for some of our recent difficulties and at least deserves to be given a chance to prove its worth, endorsing it by means of the motion before the Synod today involves a highly nuanced and indeed cautious approach. Above all, we do not propose to make the covenant a part of the Formularies of the Church of Ireland. We are what we are, we have our Preamble and Declaration, our Constitution and our Prayer Book. We are in no wise proposing to change ourselves or to make the covenant part of our internal self understanding. What we are saying is that the covenant exists, that it is ‘out there’ in the global Anglican arena and that since we decided to be consonant with what we already are, we are freely choosing to regard it as a useful and creative tool to order our external relationships not least with other national churches who share so much of our theological and liturgical heritage. We wish it well, we will try to help it work as a midwife of unity and mutual attentiveness across the Anglican world, but if it fails to deliver or becomes a thorn in the flesh we reserve the right to walk away and explore other possibilities. We will not have changed.”
Subscription
Turning to the matter of subscription, Bishop Burrows said, “We propose that the synod, the due authority of the Church of Ireland, subscribes the covenant. We will put our collective name to it, using an honorable word long used here for example by clergy who at their institutions subscribe a lengthy declaration of a somewhat disciplinary nature by which they freely agree to aadhere, for example, to certain liturgical norms. By subscribing the covenant the Church of Ireland will honorably align itself with its contents, intentions and proposals, giving our word that at least until further notice we will live up to what the covenant asks of us. However we will not make the covenant part of our inner-being – to be blunt and using language more common these days in economic rather than the theological sphere, we are not giving away our sovereignty.” (Something which the Republic of Ireland has done).
He admitted, “Much of this may sound like semantics and fudge, but each province has an obligation and a duty to approach the covenant in its own particular idiom. We are not a church where the primate can say ‘Lets adopt the covenant’ and there are such provinces; we are a church with remarkably long and resilient experience of synodical government where our autonomy our own sense of ecclesiastical right and wrong are stoutly cherished.”
Covenant is like the relationship to the C of E
He later commented, “In a way, the covenant is like a grander global version of the complicated relationship we have always had here with the Church of England. It is not about inhibiting freedom and restraining prophetic action – had it existed then I don’t believe (as some fear) that it would have inhibited the surge of some decades ago towards the ordination of women. All it is saying is that individual actions have relational consequences, that no one acts in a vacuum.”
Bishop Burrows concluded, “We can only make our own decision, based on the text and the evidence before us now. Bluntly, I think we have got to give the covenant a chance. And so, not with joy or great enthusiasm, but with a sense of obligation that arises from the inner voice off (I hope) a good conscience about this, I am compelled to share with the Senate the conviction I have developed that it is now right to subscribe to the covenant.”