The TEC's response follows a wide consultation and is very sensitive to the differences of opinion this has thrown up. A draft (presumably) of the Church of England's response, by contrast, was leaked to the Daily Telegraph and headlined "C of E to empower foreign bishops". Thanks to Pluralist for following this story.
This is my (largely) cut and paste summary, and original is worth reading in full.
They set out three possible roles for a covenant:
- The Episcopal Church deeply and sincerely desires to continue in the life of mutual responsibility and interdependence with the other churches of the Anglican Communion.
- The tensions of the present moment notwithstanding, we believe that there is a strong common identity that unites Anglicans worldwide. Anglicanism flourishes in geographical and cultural contexts of remarkable diversity. Yet we share a distinctive character that is familiar wherever it is found.
In this age of globalization and post-colonialism, our Anglican identity fosters a powerful and creative dynamic between the particular and the universal, the local and the global, the contextual and the catholic. The question then, before Anglicans today, is: how can we live more deeply into what God, in Jesus, empowered by the Holy Spirit, is calling us to be in the variety of our local circumstances while, at the same time, remaining in unity with sisters and brothers in Christ who live in different circumstances? and What role can an Anglican covenant play in negotiating the life of the Anglican Communion lived between the local and the global?
They deal with each section of the draft in turn:
- A covenant can describe structures, relationships, or a process by which members of the communion settle disputes.
- While many feel that a covenant is neither necessary nor helpful, nonetheless the Episcopal Church remains committed to the effort to perfect this draft so that the resulting Covenant can be a beacon of hope for our common future.
- The Introduction is broadly approved
- The Preamble described as useful. But Some are concerned that the language "to grow as a Communion to the full stature of Christ" could, in this context, imply that Anglicanism is intended to grow into a singular global church rather than a communion of churches.
Section 2: "The Life We Share" In addition to the first three articles of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, namely: that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation, that the standard of faith is set forth in the creeds, and that two sacraments, Baptism and Eucharist, duly administered, are necessary for the church. they would like to see the fourth item ... the embrace of the historic episcopate locally adapted, included at this point.
- The Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer do not have the status in TEC that they are accorded in the Draft.
Section 3: "Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith"
While the commitments contained in Section 3 are commendable, the language used for some of them is subject to various interpretations and misinterpretations. It seems to many of us unwise to place language of this sort within the Covenant without having a clear and agreed-upon definition of what these terms mean. According they propose dropping this section.
Section 4: "The Life We Share With Others" (drawn heavily from the Standing Commission on Mission and Evangelism in its report to the Anglican Consultative Council 13, known as "Communion and Mission.")
- Many in The Episcopal Church would prefer to see a covenant based largely on the terms of the Covenant for Communion in Mission. This, they believe, would create an Anglican covenant based on relationship rather than structure and more appropriately focus on the missional nature of our interdependence. But, as discussed below, others believe that relationship without structures for determining the shared identity on which relationship is based is not sustainable. This is the critical division with the TEC response.
Section 5: "Our Unity and Common Life"
- The principal concern voiced by many ... is that it focuses our unity almost entirely on the office of bishop.... While we are indeed an "episcopal" church, the relation of that episcopacy to the baptized, on the one hand, and the emphasis on an increasing role of primates, on the other, raise a variety of concerns. ... Because of The Episcopal Church's embrace of lay people in the governance of the church since 1789, the exercise of episcope is always in relationship to the role and authority of the baptized. Further, most in the Episcopal Church believe that decisions taken by the church should always include lay people, deacons, priests and bishops as a structured part of the decision making process.
- We believe the description of the role of the Instruments of Communion in this section needs further clarification and discussion.
One of the principal defects in the Draft Covenant as perceived by many in The Episcopal Church is its failure to recognize effectively the voices of lay people, deacons and priests in the councils of the Anglican Communion. In fact, even for those who accept the idea of a covenant, many reject the proposal of the increased role of primates alone as presented in this section.
Section 6: "Unity of the Communion"
We note a progression in the six commitments in this section from (i) a relational understanding of communion as consultative and communal (koinonia), to (ii) a more conciliar, consultative process of discerning "common mind," and finally (iii) to a synodical or council structure for decision-making in contentious circumstances.
Most Episcopalians do not want to see the development of a synodical decision-making body in the Anglican Communion. They would strongly prefer communion as based on relationships and shared participation in service to God's mission.
Nevertheless, some in The Episcopal Church believe that interdependence and mutual accountability require reasonably well-defined structures of consultation and resolution to function effectively. They believe that a communion of Christian churches is based on relationships of shared identity, and shared identity requires a means of defining that identity and what is and is not within its boundaries. Those in this group believe that the absence of structures for defining what can and cannot fall within our shared identity as Anglicans has contributed to the current discord in the Communion. They believe that instituting such structures is the only logical way to maintain the Communion. Further, they see much value, internally and ecumenically, in a global Anglican Communion that can speak with one voice on important issues of doctrine and practice. They believe that the Communion could pursue God's mission in the world more effectively if the Communion's identity were more clear, its structures were better defined and its decision-making processes more transparent and deliberate.
We are not of a common mind regarding the authority granted by Section 6 to the various Instruments of Communion, and in particular the Lambeth Conference and the Primates Meetings. Many if not most of our members have serious reservations about what we perceive as a drift towards a world-wide synod of primates with directive power over member churches.
Ultimately, the fundamental question remains: Is there a need for a juridical/conciliar body in the Anglican Communion to deal with "issues" and is such a body consistent with our understanding of what it means to be an Anglican? With all due respect to our sisters and brothers across the Anglican Communion, a great many in The Episcopal Church do not see the need for such a body at present.
Section 7: "Our Declaration" contains no issues of concern.
- Overall:
We are prepared to consider a covenant that says who we are, what we wish to be for the world, and how we will model mutual responsibility and interdependence in the body of Christ. We believe we must be open to God's doing a new thing among us; therefore, we remain open to explore such new possibilities in our common life while honoring established understandings.
