CGD/PRO9/01 The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia Te Hähi Mihinare ki Aotearoa ki Niu Tireni, ki Ngä Moutere o te Moana Nui a Kiwa A SUBMISSION ON THE ST ANDREW’S DRAFT ___________________________________ __________ Introduction The Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is grateful for a second opportunity to comment on the proposed Anglican Covenant and in particular to address the three questions posed by the Covenant Design Group. The Province had sent an earlier response to the “Nassau” Draft. Although the Lambeth Commentary has since been received, and the Primates’ recent Communique is now available, the Province noted that the original request only related to the “St Andrew’s Draft”. Given the widespread circulation of the Lambeth Commentary and the recent reports from Alexandria, it is somewhat inevitable that the current thinking of our Province has been informed by these subsequent papers. The Three Questions The three questions and our summarised replies are as follows: 1. Is the Province able to give an ‘in principle’ commitment to the Covenant process at this time (without committing itself to any details of the text)? The Maori or Indigenous New Zealand constitutional partner in this Province does not support an Anglican Covenant. The reasons for this can be summarized as follows: • The principle of provincial autonomy is closely linked to the indigenous view of ‘rangatiratanga’ or ‘self determination’ whereby autonomy is not lightly ceded. • • The experience of Maori with historical covenants or kawanata has been fraught with controversy and breach of the terms of covenants by colonial partners has in the past led to landlessness, voicelessness and contributed to the near annihilation of a people. There is therefore great discomfort with the use of the term ‘covenant’. • Anglican polity has always been one of dispersed authority and not centralised authority. The Pakeha constitutional partner, those who have no traditional indigenous links to Aotearoa or the Pacific and who are largely represented in the New Zealand Dioceses, are prepared to give an ‘in principle’ commitment to the concept of a Covenant . One Diocese writes that they wish to argue vigorously for the principle of the Covenant . It writes; General Synod Office: General Secretary –Mrs Jackie Pearse, Ph: 09) 521 4439, Fax 09) 521 4490 E-Mail: [email protected] [Our] Diocese is committed to the mission of the church. And therefore we are committed to unity because the alternative is a barrier to real mission. However we do not believe in a unity based upon something as intangible as “historic loyalties”. We believe in a unity that is based upon our orthodox faith that is reflected in our 39 Articles of faith and on the historic creeds of the church. Theology must be the basis of our unity. We believe that the Covenant outlined in the St Andrew’s Draft presents this faith clearly and honestly which is why we strongly commit ourselves to the Covenant process. Most other Dioceses are less enthusiastic but are prepared to give a guarded commitment to ‘a’ covenant but not neccesarily the St Andrew’s Draft or indeed any draft where the wording and proposed processes are punitive, exclusive, overly legal or quasi juridical, and divisive. Some of the wording expressed in the St Andrew’s Draft was adjudged deeply un- Anglican; particularly the Appendix which was perceived as theological flawed, internally incoherent and practically unworkable. 2) Is it possible to give some indication of any Synodical Process which would have to be undertaken in order to adopt the Covenant? The means of adoption of any document including a Covenant within our Province, would be determined by the wording. If the wording was in conflict with our Constitution / Te Pouhere, a four year Canonical and Synodical process would need to be undertaken to incorporate the changes. Even following this process there would be no guarantee that the inclusion would be successful as two different General Synods and a majority within each Tikanga would need to consider and accede to the changes. If the wording did not impact on the Constitution / Te Pouhere, a Canon could be drafted but this could still take a minimum of two years and possibly four years to progress. The easiest option would be if the Province determined that an Anglican Covenant be adopted by a Standing Resolution of General Synod /te Hinota Whanui.. This would not carry the same weight as a Canon or Constitutional change but it would give the Covenant a formal Provincial status. It also has the advantage of enabling ready adoption or incorporation of the changes and revisions that would almost inevitably arise as the kinks and fishhooks of the Covenant become apparent in its initial implementation. 3) In considering the St Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant, are there any elements which would need extensive change to make the process of Synodical adoption viable? This question is ambiguous as it is uncertain whether the elements to which it refers are portions of the Draft itself or elements of the Synodical process. We have assumed the former. The key to viability and adoption is the wording. As stated there is no support for the Appendix and there is considerable unhappiness about the wording of Section Three. Even if redrafted it is unlikely that Tikanga Maori would consent to the adoption of any Covenant that affected its sovereignty and in this Province any one Tikanga can veto a Synodical Provincial adoption. This would not preclude the other two Tikanga partners adopting the Covenant at a Diocesan level. Conclusion Despite the concerns expressed Maori Anglicans believe that a longer conversation is needed and they want to part of that conversation. We can say without reservation that every part of the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is passionately committed to the Anglican Communion regardless of the outcome of the Covenant process. The concept of whanau, fono and family – of being united in the family of God is the theological underpinning of that commitment. While we consider it inevitable that there will be prodigal sons and daughters and Dioceses who will at times leave the family home, the role of the family is to wait and carry on with the mission and to ensure there is a home and a welcome to which, should they choose, they can return. A Covenant should model the best parts of family life – it should invite participation, should offer reconciliation and should model relational love in a spirit of generosity and graciousness. CDG/PRO9/02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RESPONSE OF THE PROVINCE OF AUSTRALIA TO THE COVENANT DESIGN GROUP’S ST. ANDREW’S DRAFT The Province of Australia welcomes the Report of the Second Meeting of the Covenant Design Group, including the St. Andrew’s Draft Covenant and associated materials. By this response the province offers answers to the three questions asked of provinces by Canon Kenneth Kearon and associated reflections about the St. Andrew’s Draft Covenant. The answers of the Province of Australia are as follows: 1. Is the Province able to give an “in principle” commitment to the Covenant process at this time (without committing itself to the details of any text)? 1. The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia (ACA) has committed itself to engaging in the ongoing process of discussion and development of the covenant proposal. 2. The ACA has not yet formalised in-principle support for an Anglican Communion covenant. 3. The ACA has not committed itself to the implementation of a final draft of an Anglican Communion covenant. 2. Is it possible to give some indication of any synodical process which would have to be undertaken in order to adopt the Covenant in the fullness of time? There are three synodical processes by which the ACA could, in the fullness of time, adopt the Anglican Communion covenant. (i) Constitutional amendment The covenant could be adopted by amendment of the Constitution of the ACA (‘the constitution’). It is anticipated, however, that any attempt to adopt the covenant through this process would be likely to fail because of the onerous requirements for constitutional amendment. (ii) Adoption by canon The covenant could be adopted by canon of the General Synod. However, it is anticipated that an attempt to adopt the covenant by this method would also be likely to fail because of the constitutional requirements for making certain types of canon. (iii) Adoption by Resolution The covenant could be adopted by resolution of the General Synod. Unlike adoption by constitutional amendment or by canon, adoption of the covenant by this means would not have the effect of incorporating the text of the covenant into the law of the ACA. However, the prospects of success by this method are greater than those for adoption by either of the methods outlined above. 3. In considering the St Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant, are there any elements which would need extensive change in order to make the process of synodical adoption viable? A. Character of the Covenant Document Because adoption is most likely to be achieved by means of resolution, the kind of covenant in respect of which synodical adoption is most likely to be viable in Australia is one which is advisory, aspirational and relational in character. B. The St Andrew’s Draft There are two principal areas in which the ACA considers that further work needs to be done. First, there are problems with a looseness and imprecision of language used in the draft. Secondly, the St. Andrew’s draft is too juridical and insufficiently relational in character. C. Procedures upon the Failure of Mediation • The moral obligation felt by churches that have adopted the covenant is the best motivation for acting interdependently in relation to their co-covenantors (TWR 51).