The signers include such illustrious figures as evangelical patriarch the Rev. Dr. John R. W. Stott, Bishop Wallace Benn, President of the Church of England Evangelical Council, The Rev. Dick Lucas, 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) and The Rev. David Petersen, (Principal of Oak Hill College) to name but a few. They are the crème de la crème of British evangelicalism.

But this apparently was a red rag to Bishop Wright who ripped the Covenant from top to bottom, and in a scathing rebuttal accused the signers of not being truly representative of evangelicals in England, of ignoring a large swathe of evangelical opinion within the Church of England that include such organizations as Anvil, Alpha, AWESOME, Fulcrum and Grove. (Bishop Wright published his paper on Fulcrum's website).

He blasted the Covenant signers for bad timing (the Primates meet next month in Tanzania) for being "Congregationalists," and said the 'covenant' was not like the one envisaged by Windsor but was more "a political position-statement, a sabre-rattling call to arms, a half promise and a not-quite-veiled threat," and of having a sectarian ecclesiology. He repeatedly said the statement was either redundant or duplicitous. And then he said the document gives plenty of evidence of cultural captivity. He accused the signers of using money as a "threat" and "unbiblical," and being in a power-play.

He concluded with this blast: "The real problem - speaking from one of the poorest dioceses in the country - is this. I'm truly sorry to say it but it must be heard. The threat in question looks arrogant and self-serving. Of course the churches represented by the authors and signatories are well off. Goldman Sachs is well off - it doesn't necessarily mean you're doing God's will all the time! When, and only when, the church networks represented by these signatories show that they're prepared to leave their wealthy enclaves and support churches who (all right, may not be aware of the finer intellectual points of the gospel, but who) are living the gospel on the street day after day - then I might take them seriously."

Clearly stung by the criticism, the evangelical Covenant signers fired back with a few pointers of their own, saying that the present problems in the Church of England were widespread, varied and complex - but inter-related, focusing on issues of authority, scripture, the nature of God and creation. "They transcend personality issues, and although manifesting locally are linked globally. We recognize 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."

They said the Church of England will not escape any fracture in the Anglican Communion and if communion is finally broken by some with The Episcopal Church, (USA) 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."

They also said that faithful orthodox Anglicans will not live with the innovations and lack of discipline that have already been put in place by homosexual civil partnerships, and 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," they said.

They also said this new "Covenant for the Church of England" had no relation with the Windsor Covenant, that they were not Congregationalist and that they were not dividing the CofE. They said this process was the best and 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."

"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." They also denied they were trying to pick their own bishops, but when asked if they were advocating unlawful oversight, said that the current situation of "unregulated indiscipline" called for "out-of-the-ordinary actions to deal with them."

Asked what they really wanted, the signers said that what was needed was a long term solution which recognizes 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 recognize the authority of those who do not affirm orthodox Christian teaching."

They said the central decision-making structures in the church were largely in the hands of a liberal leadership thus making their actions necessary. They denied they were advocating illegal cross-boundary plants but said that existing ecclesiastical legal boundaries should be seen as permeable.

On the subject of money, the signers said that a less centralized tax system than that which perpetuates a dependency culture will multiply resources, strengthen partnership, liberate generosity and encourage mission.

They then took a hearty whack at the institutionalism of the CofE saying that "we recognize 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." They also denied that women's ordination had anything to do with the covenant, with signatories holding varied opinions on the subject.

VIRTUEONLINE then asked two theologians - one from London, the other from Oxford to speak to the Covenant and Bishop Wright's retort. They agreed to comment on the grounds of anonymity in order to protect their professional identity within the Church of England.

From London: "It has been a long standing observation that Evangelicals are weak on their theology of the church. When Archbishop Robert Runcie came to NEAC3 it was famously his observation that 'Evangelicals have no ecclesiology', and it has been doing the rounds ever since. But it isn't - and wasn't - true. Runcie knew nothing of evangelicalism, and it was a put up job. Our ecclesiology always starts with the biblical emphases on the universal and local doctrines of the church, and therefore with the primacy of the congregation over the denominational structures, including episcopacy. They exist to serve the local church, NOT vice versa."

"This position is described frequently as 'Congregationalism', and Wright is wrong. It is a silly, ignorant and inaccurate description. Why? Because Congregationalism is a theology of Independency and the people who drafted the Covenant are not independents - they are fiercely connectional in their theology, with a high view of the place of fellowship, partnership in the gospel and the expression of that formally in episcopal government. There is no way that is congregationalism, and I would lay good claim to it being classic Anglicanism. If pushed I would more accurately describe it as a form of High Presbyterianism, because it deliberately excludes Prelacy."

"The "C" word is being used by Wright and others as a slur, as a way of saying these people ought to allow their elders and betters (i.e. bishops) to make the decisions on this, and their refusal to do that is so awful we shall reach for a really bad and non-Anglican word to describe it. Congregationalism is, of course, not Anglican - but the Covenant is not Congregational, and calling it such does not make it such. It is childish and inaccurate. The sheer volume of his piece shows that he (Wright) is actually quite alarmed by it - and he should be. He has lost the hearts of many of the evangelicals."

From Oxford: "It is indeed the case that some of the conservative evangelicals got to see Williams and made those demands which you saw. They are highly optimistic, and I think there is a congregational rather than an Anglican spirit in them. There is no chance of being able to choose your own bishop or train your own ordinands! Tom Wright is correct in saying that the names do not represent the whole of the evangelical movement by a very long chalk, and many of them are retired."

"However the liberals are increasingly strident, and there is no doubt that the evangelicals feel they are not listened to at the highest levels. I doubt if this proposed covenant will have any future, but it is a marker that has been put down. Compromise and discussion will be needed. There is no doubt that it did not carry the weight of evangelical opinion and was not properly thought out before going to Dr. Williams. There was a lack of widespread consultation. Still it may do no harm and may show Williams that he cannot walk over evangelicals even should he want to."

CONCLUSION: VOL believes this attack by Dr. Wright only serves to show disunity among evangelicals at a time when orthodox (evangelical) unity is most needed. By his attack Dr. Wright has effectively made it possible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to ignore evangelical demands in the same way that Forward in Faith's request for a Third Province that excludes ordained women is not being received.

The Global South Primates will meet next month in Dar es Salaam and a number of TEC orthodox bishops have been invited to come along with Mrs. Schori to make the case that there is irrevocable breakdown within the American branch of Anglicanism. If the perception is that evangelicals are not united in the Church of England, and that evangelicals in the TEC are breaking off almost weekly to come under Global South Archbishops, it effectively undercuts a united orthodox front that Network bishops like Bob Duncan (Pittsburgh) might hope to persuade Archbishop Williams to recognize and act on.

What happened in England this past week might be the worst of all possible things to have occurred. It shows disunity at precisely the moment unity was called for. It ultimately means that schism is now almost inevitable (along perhaps with a long overdue disestablishment of the C of E) and the wholesale break up of the Anglican Communion.

END