A Covenant for the Church of England: Signatories and Questions

The   signatories to “A Covenant for the Church of England” are now being made public   together with some background explanation.   Although it was our original intention to publish the list of signatories   and the “Questions that may be Asked” at the same time as the Covenant, we have   withheld them for one week at the request of Lambeth Palace. We are publishing them now in the   hope that they will help people to understand the full context in which these   conversations have been begun.   

Signatories to A Covenant for the Church of   England.

Bishop Wallace   Benn (President) and Rev Dr Richard Turnbull (Chairman) for the Church of   England Evangelical Council.

Bishop David   Pytches (formerly of Chile)

Bishop Colin   Bazley ( former primate of the Southern   Cone)

The Rev Dr John   Stott CBE

The Rev Dick   Lucas

The Rev John   Coles, director of New Wine, a charismatic evangelical network, on behalf of the   leadership of New Wine.

The Rev David   Banting, (chairman of Reform on behalf of   Reform).

Canon Andy Lines,  (General Secretary of Crosslinks and the Board of   Crosslinks)

The Rev David   Phillips, (Director of Church Society and the leadership of Church   Society)

The Rev Simon   Vibert (St Luke’s Wimbledon Park, Diocese of Southwark and Chair of   the Fellowship of Word and Spirit)

The Rev David   Petersen, (Principal of Oak Hill   College).

Prebendary   Richard Bewes OBE

Paul Boyd-Lee,  (Member of General Synod)

The Rev Bruce   Collins (Christ Church Harrow, New   Wine International Director)

Mrs Sarah Finch,  (Member of General Synod)

The Rev Jonathan   Fletcher, (Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon, Diocese   of Southwark)

Dr   Philip Giddings, (Convenor of   Anglican Mainstream and member of General   Synod)

Rev David   Holloway, (Jesmond Parish Church, Diocese of Newcastle)

The Rev Angus   Macleay (St Nicholas Sevenoaks and member of General Synod)

The Rev Charles   Marnham, (St Michael’s Church, Chester Square, Diocese of   London)

The Rev Justin   Mote  (North   West   Partnership)

The Rev Rob Munro   (Cheadle   Parish Church and member of General   Synod)

The Rev Hugh   Palmer (All Souls Langham   Place, Diocese of London)

The Rev Ian   Parkinson (All Saints Marple, Diocese of Chester)

The Rev Chris   Pemberton (St Mary’s Bredin, Diocese of   Canterbury)

The Rev Paul   Perkin (St Mark’s, Battersea Rise, Diocese of Southwark and member of General   Synod).

The Rev Vaughan   Roberts (St Ebbe’s, Diocese of Oxford)

Mrs Alison L   Ruoff JP, (Member of General   Synod)

The Rev Dr Mark   Stibbe (St Andrew’s, Chorleywood, Diocese of St Albans)

Canon Dr   Chris Sugden, (Anglican Mainstream   UK, member of General Synod).

The Rev William   Taylor (St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, Diocese of   London)

 

Questions that may be   asked.

 

1   Who do you represent?

We speak on   behalf of the many Anglicans, (from among Evangelical, Charismatic and   Anglo-Catholic traditions) who want to remain faithful to the biblical faith as   the Church of England has received it, and who see that that faith is currently   at risk.    Those who wish to express support for the concerns   of the Covenant are invited to e-mail any of the signatories to say so.

2  What are the   problems calling for responses advocated in the Covenant? Are they only little   local difficulties? Are they merely personality   differences?

The present problems in the Church of England are   widespread, varied and complex – but inter-related, focussing on issues of   authority, scripture, the nature of God and creation. They transcend personality   issues, and although manifesting locally are linked globally. We recognise that   the fault-line running down through the Anglican Communion is also running   through the Church of England. The issues this precipitates can no longer be   ignored or marginalized.

3. Why have you chosen to release A Covenant now?   There is no current dispute.

While there are many situations of tension around   the country, we are not responding narrowly to any isolated incident. Precisely because no immediate crisis event is current, it is   important to express the deep concern that does exist and initiate a process of   dealing with potential problems. It is too late when things go seriously wrong   to put in place a way of making provision for those who are then in a crisis of   loyalty, conscience and obedience.   It is important in a principled   comprehensive church to make provision for those loyal to the agreed teaching of   the church when the leadership they are answerable to are going beyond Christian   teaching.

Further, the Church of England will not escape any   fracture in the Anglican Communion. It needs to be prepared to handle the   different and potentially powerful reactions to the Primates Meeting in   February.  If Communion is finally broken by some with The Episcopal Church,  there will be those in the Church of England who will continue publicly to   express their strong support for TEC. This will put many parishes and clergy who   are in their charge in impossible situations.  The fracture in North America or   between North America and others will not pass   the Church of England by.  The same issues have arisen elsewhere in   New Zealand and   South   Africa. There is no process in the Communion   for handling them.  It might even be possible to provide in the Church of   England the beginnings of ways of handling them that could be a model for   elsewhere.

Finally, some believe that those who are faithful   orthodox will live with the innovations and lack of discipline that have already   been put in place. For example, Changing Attitude records 46 couples who have   entered civil partnerships registered in 15 dioceses. They include 36 ordained   gay men, 2 ordained lesbians, 31 lay gay men and 6 lay lesbians, ignoring the   House of Bishops Guidelines. Legal advice is that it is not possible to   discipline anyone blessing a same sex union since it is a liturgical matter   subject to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction measure under which no case has been   successfully brought.  The idea that nothing is wrong at the moment and that   Church of England teaching remains unbreached is part of the strategy of those   bringing these innovations. Continued silence is taken as consent.

4. How does A Covenant for the Church of England   relate to the Windsor Covenant?

The Covenant has no relation or implications for   the Windsor Covenant. There are many covenants, the one with the Methodists for   example. “A Covenant” is between the many disparate groups across the orthodox   spectrum who have come together to express agreement on fundamental theological   and moral commitments and loyally to support each other.

5.  Are you really   Anglicans?

Yes. Being Anglican means giving priority to the bible in   matters of faith and doctrine; engaging positively with our culture and being   faithful to the tradition of the early church. Our concern is that some of our   bishops are not giving priority to the scripture nor being faithful to the   tradition. We understand ourselves to be in fellowship with over 70% of   Anglicans who are in Africa, Asia and Latin   America - and the majority of Anglicans   world-wide.

6. Are you leaving the Church of   England?

No. To a growing series of problems we are seeking a way   forward that keeps within the procedures of the Church of England. For instance,  there are already many churches and clergy who cannot take oversight from their   diocesan bishop because he ordains women – and a solution has been found to hold   them within the Church of England. In a very similar way, over a wider range of   issues, we are looking for a process by which the required bishop’s ministry can   be made available.

7.  Even if not   leaving, are you dividing the Church of   England?

No. We believe the very opposite – that this process may   prove to be the best hope and maybe even the last hope for preserving unity in   the Church of England. We are neither leaving the Church of England nor   encouraging others to do so, but rather urging them to stay and to work for a   better, more faithful and more confident Church of   England

8.  Are you   against the very idea of bishops? Are you essentially   congregationalist?

No. The very reason for this action is that we believe we   need faithful oversight, desire it for the good of our parishes, and are asking   for it. We are parish people, ministering to all in the community, not   congregational people ministering just to those who come. And it is because we   believe in the connectional ministry of parishes around the country under a   regional oversight, rather than simply in congregations drawing an eclectic   membership, that we are so concerned to be faithful ourselves to this   vision.

9. Are you, then, wanting to pick your own   bishops?

No. The health of the church depends on a leadership   recognised by the church as a whole, not merely by each individual congregation   in a free-for-all. That is why we are seeking a way forward that represents a   breadth of orthodox sympathies, for those who have deficient oversight that they   justifiably cannot accept. The decision to receive oversight should not lie with   an individual parish, but with an officially sanctioned   solution.

10.  Are you   advocating unlawful oversight?

In the current position world-wide we are already in a   situation of unregulated indiscipline. Our aim is to help prevent the situation   getting worse. However, extraordinary times call for out-of-the-ordinary actions   to deal with them.

11.  Are you   urging widespread and uniform action throughout England?

No. Situations vary very greatly around the country, and   different conditions call for different responses. The Covenant expresses the   teaching and principles which lie behind different local requests for oversight.  It will enable individuals and groups to know the assurance of the support of   the many in the wider church for the actions that may be appropriate and   necessary in particular local situations. It provides a range of possible   actions according to need. It invites those in situations of relative comfort to   stand alongside and support those in situations of   discomfort.

12. What do you really want?

What is needed in the long term is a solution   which recognises the central place of creedal and moral orthodoxy in the Church   of England and the need for leaders for mission who affirm this.  We want to   ensure the continuing life, health and activity of those congregations who   cannot recognise the authority of those who do not affirm orthodox Christian   teaching.

13.  What is the   big picture? 

The big picture is that there are those in the Church of   England who wish to be Windsor Compliant, to recognise fellowship with the   Global South and the orthodox in the United States, and to be a faithful   part of the Global Anglican Communion. We want to stand alongside the churches   of the global Communion with our fellowship, prayer and material support, as   well as in partnership in mission.

14.  What is your   long-term vision for the Church of   England?

We want to get on with the job of sharing the reality of   the love and life of the risen Jesus with our communities and our nation. In the   long term there need to be structural solutions, indeed Church of England   solutions to Church of England problems. We do not have in mind all the answers.  We are committed to working cooperatively with the regular, legal and synodical   processes for ratifying those solutions. But actions now in the right directions   to provide temporary emergency arrangements will help us to clarify the   long-term requirements that need to be met.

15.  What do you   see as the steps towards that vision?

Likewise, we do not have a ‘road-map’ on the way to a   reformed and renewed Church of England. In the short term we want temporary   emergency arrangements to be able to have new believers baptised and confirmed;  their ministers to be selected, trained, ordained and deployed; and to be given   wise and biblically faithful guidance by bishops whom we can trust to be   faithful to the Bible and the Christian tradition. We want this to be a prelude   to an accepted structural solution.

16.  Are you   trying to take over the Church of England to shape it into your   views?

No. The formularies and teaching of the Church of England   are orthodox and biblical. We simply desire to be faithful to them and to have   oversight from those who are also faithful. This will include a wide range of   evangelical, charismatic and Anglo-Catholic churches, congregations and members.  We are seeking to be truly evangelical (a church based on the authority of   scripture), truly catholic (preserving the unity through word and sacraments of   the Anglican Communion across the globe, and in fellowship with other creedally   and morally orthodox churches and denominations), and truly liberal (releasing,  rather than controlling and stifling mission)

16.  Is this at   any rate a narrow evangelical take-over   bid?

No. On the contrary, as with any healthy democracy, the   church also needs a resistance to a one-party leadership. The Church of England   in its central decision-making structures is largely in the hands of a liberal   leadership. This initiative aims to help the church more truly to reflect the   values and variety of both leadership and membership in the parishes. In this we   carry the wide support of a diverse spectrum of church   leaders.

17  Are you   inviting people/churches/organisations to sign up to the   Covenant?

No. The covenant is not an opinion poll or a voting   petition form. It has been signed by a few in recognised leadership positions of   parishes, networks of churches, and central positions of responsibility in this   country. There are very many others who have voiced similar concerns to those   expressed in the Covenant, both in this country and overseas, and who have   indicated their desire to identify with the process, and to associate with   us.   

19.  Are you   advocating illegal cross-boundary plants?

No. Innovative, experimental, and even irregular, do not   necessarily mean illegal. The Mission-Shaped Church report, wholeheartedly endorsed by   General Synod, has already accepted in principle that: “Existing ecclesiastical legal boundaries should be   seen as permeable”. We believe that the issues concerning mission to the nation   are more urgent and important than the issues of ecclesiastical order and   structure. Therefore we want to support every congregational outreach,  conventional church plant and fresh expression of church that proves effective   in reaching sections of the nation at present unreached by traditional methods.

20  Are you   attempting to by-pass the normal selection, training and appointments   procedures?

No, the present systems are necessary, but are not   adequate or sufficient for the challenge of the new mission task. There are   already some interesting initiatives being pursued to discern, train and deploy   mission leaders in more innovative and experimental mission contexts. We want to   nurture and support these alternative tracks towards ordination and   appointment.

21  Are you   provoking parishes to withhold/set unilaterally/‘cap’ their parish   contributions, or ‘quota’?

We believe that parishes should not only take greater   responsibility for the self-sustaining support of their own ministry, but should   also be encouraged to a greater generosity towards churches, projects and   mission initiatives at home and abroad with which they can be in full sympathy.  This is already recognised and implemented in many dioceses in this country, and   even more widely in the Anglican Communion. A less centralised tax system than   that which perpetuates a dependency culture will multiply resources, strengthen   partnership, liberate generosity and encourage   mission.

22.  Are you   suggesting an exclusive fellowship only of the like-minded in local areas?

No. However, Christian fellowship must be based on both   love and truth, or it is an illusory and unreal association. We rejoice in the   fellowship of believers across the cultural, social, ethnic and age groups, and   we are committed to the inclusive, multi-faceted diversity of Christ’s body.   However, we recognise that our   fellowship with believers of other churches, networks and denominations may be   more real than an artificial connection with those with whom we have profound   differences within our own denomination.

23.  Are you   paving the way for trans-geographical episcopal jurisdiction in the Church of   England, even across provinces?

We are not seeking oversight in this country from   overseas, on the model presently being explored in other parts of the world. We   will understand those parishes which, in unusual times and circumstances, have   no other option. However, we are looking for a Church of England solution to the   problems of Church of England oversight. 24. Is women’s ordination a central issue being addressed by the Covenant? No. The signatories of the Covenant vary in their views about this. Of course, many people are concerned that proper provision is made for people of the traditional integrity.