Speech by The Rt Revd Harold Miller, Bishop of Down and Dromore,
Seconding the motion on the Anglican CovenantBishop Miller said:
In seconding the Resolution on the Anglican Covenant, I find myself yet again in
agreement with Bishop Michael Burrows about many things, but from quite different
starting points. Let me emphasise two places of agreement.
First of all, I come to this with a sense of rightness rather than enthusiasm. I could push
it even farther, and say that I have no real sense that the Covenant is going to find
wide enough agreement within the Anglican Communion to be a meaningful
instrument of unity. The signs are that the more liberal voices in our communion,
which have been speaking very vociferously against the Covenant of late; and the
more conservative voices, especially in the Global South, which represent the vast
majority of our members – are unlikely to sign up to the Anglican Covenant. On one
side this is because it is seen as too restrictive and (that amazingly emotive word!)
‘punitive’, and on the other side it is simply that there is no longer any belief that it
will achieve anything in terms of discipline.
Secondly, I have come to the conviction that we are using the right verb in relation to
this motion. We are to ‘subscribe’ the Covenant rather than ‘adopt’ it. Verbs are
vitally important. On May day, I ‘took part in’ the Belfast Marathon. When
interviewed for the radio, the interviewer said ‘I gather you are running in the
Marathon’. My response was ‘Everything you say is true except for the verb! So
‘subscribe’ is used in its old fashioned legal Anglican way to mean ‘sign up to’. It
was thought that ‘adopt’ meant making the Covenant part of us in our very being.
All of that may seem a matter of semantics, but it is probably this particular verb which
has enabled us to deal with the Covenant by means of a one year motion rather than a
two-year bill. What is made clear by this process is that ‘subscribing’ the Covenant
cannot mean any change in our doctrine. The Covenant sits under the Preamble and
Declaration and cannot challenge it.
This is vitally important, because it is the Preamble and Declaration which declares our
essential and foundational principles for determining those with whom we are in
communion. The Church of Ireland maintains (with the essential meaning: holds our
hands out in) communion with our sister Church of England as a given, and with all
other Christian Churches agreeing in the principles of this Declaration; and will set
forward, so far as in it lieth, quietness, peace and love, among all Christian people’.
That means that we are de facto by our title deeds in communion with others who may
not be in the Anglican Communion, but who agree in these things: essentially- the
canonical scriptures, the threefold ministry, reformed and protestant principles, the 39
Articles, the Book of Common Prayer. Our communion is not finally determined by the
Anglican Covenant, important though it may be, but by the Preamble and Declaration
on p.776 of the Book of Common Prayer. And it probably also means the contrary: that
we would not be in communion with a church which no longer agreed with these
principles set out in our Preamble and Declaration. So ‘subscribe’ is, I have become
convinced, the correct word for what I hope we will do today, even though the hoped
for word in the actual covenant is ‘adopt’.
But,
Thirdly, I want to make a local point. Bishop Michael Burrows has shared that he would
have greater problems with lay presidency than with issues of human sexuality. I
cannot understand that, because the scriptures are, in my view, entirely silent about
the issue of Eucharistic presidency. I often wonder if St Paul even understood the
concept! On human sexuality, however, the Bible says a great deal! But, for the
sake of peace and unity, I certainly would not wish to push the area of lay
presidency which seems to me to be adiaphora, even if I believed it was a good
idea, because it would divide the church. I expect the same, and the Covenant
expects the same, in areas of human sexuality, which is clearly and verifiably
church-dividing. The reason why I say that this point is ‘local’ is that there is the
potential for the divisive issues of the Communion to be played out very
damagingly in a few key provinces of the Anglican world, and we are one of them.
The reason is quite simply this. Most of the Provinces of the Communion are vastly
conservative or vastly liberal. The Church of Ireland is a wide range, and may well
divide half and half in some divisive issues. And sadly, the division could be largely
North/South. That would be devastating to a church which has held together
throughout the political upheavals of this land, and not least the recent Troubles. It
would be undermining of the Gospel we proclaim, and of the high-priestly prayer of
the Lord Jesus: that they may all be one. As you Father are in me and I am in you,
may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. John
17:21
With everything I have said about ‘subscribing’, I would swish to affirm that what we
are doing today is a very important things. I cannot put my signature to or underwrite
something unless I am in agreement with it and prepared to put myself behind it.
The last paragraph of the Covenant applies whether we subscribe or adopt:
‘ With joy and with firm resolve, we declare our Churches
to be partners in this Anglican Communion Covenant,
offering ourselves for faithful service and binding ourselves
more closely in the truth and love of Christ