The Anglican Covenant - a view from NZ

Bishop Brian Carrell of Nelson, New Zealand, has posted a talk giving a considered overview of history and prospects for the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. (Here.)

I share his list of centrifugal factors with which the Anglican Communion must cope, though these pull in different directions.

For example, the need to address diversity in a post-modern world suggest the possibility of a range of differing answers - a loosening of the bonds of Anglicanism without finally untying them. Conversely the resurgence of conservative Christianity across all parts of the Church which tends to look toward answers in the narrowing the bonds of unity and greater degrees of centralisation and control. I share his statements that the authority and understanding of the Bible is a core issue, whilst sexuality has been the occasion (rather than the cause) our our present disputes; and also that the centre of gravity in Anglicanism has moved from London and Washington to Africa which would require an organizational response whatever the occasion of our differences.

But his discussion of the Anglican Instruments of Unity is a little sparse. To quote Michael Nazir-Ali as asserting that "Lambeth has a moral authority which is different to legal authority but not less; it’s the authority of the common mind of Christ manifested in his Church." does not make it so. Previous Lambeth Conferences have explicitly eschewed such a level of authority and it's hard to see what this statement means in constitutional terms. If Provinces are autonomous (i.e. self-governing) then they are not subordinate to the Lambeth Conference however carefully they may listen to its pronouncements.

Michael Nazir-Ali's statement also equates the mind of the church with the resolutions of its bishops. But perhaps the ACC (with its formal constitution and lay participation), has a better claim to express the mind of the church. Whoever has the better claim, however, the idea of 'the mind of the church' entails a deliberate choice not to hear minority voices from any quarter, and to not take seriously the evident diversity of the church. Why should disputes have only one outcome?

Bishop Carrell rightly points to the antecedents of the Primates' assumption of greater power. However he misses the Primates' decision that we already have a fifth Instrument of Unity - Canon Law, as agreed in Canterbury, 2002. But - although a network of legal advisers was agreed - this has largely sunk without trace as an element of restructuring the Communion, overtaken by subsequent events. It would be no more than a footnote in any talk on this issue except for one thing: the fact that the proposal could rise and fall so quickly shows the flexibility inherent in decision making: just because a meeting comes to a decision it doesn't make it so. There also has to be a process of reception.

Lambeth 1998 certainly expressed its mind in Resolution I:10 on human sexuality. The Bishop doesn't explain that this involved the rejection of the results of the international study group which had been preparing a paper for the conference - and this may very largely explain the surprise (in NZ as elsewhere) at the eventual outcome.

Bishop Gene Robinson's election and consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire certainly brought the pot to the boil. However, first, enough people were looking for a fight - if Gene Robinson hadn't been the cause célèbre someone else would have been. Second, to say

Gene Robinson had been a married man, but before his election had parted from his wife to form a public partnership with another man in a same-sex union.

is to telescope events of his personal history in a way which at best is seriously misleading.

The Windsor Report was clearly a significant pivot in the progress of the dispute (and I note the Bishop does not also cite the Windsor Report's opposition to the intrusion of one bishop into the jurisdiction of another) but it was not a statement of the mind of the church. Again, its recommendations did not make it so - notwithstanding the semi-juridical and now ecclesiological weight the Report has subsequently been accorded.

And so to the Covenant. (This talk was evidently given before the Episcopal Church made their response public - my summary.) The Covenant was part of the Windsor Report. But the suggested draft with the Report, once again, has sunk without trace. Again, in a talk, this would be no more than a footnote. Except that what it shows is that the issue is not 'Covenant or no Communion' but: 'what are the terms of our association with one another which are to be expressed in this document?' Writing a Covenant will not create harmony - and the Covenant as drafted was evidently designed to give power to the Primates to exclude The Episcopal Church - but if there is sufficient agreement between the parties of a voluntary communion then these can be written down for all to follow.

The response of TEC's House of Bishops to the Primates' Communiqué from Tanzania, and its broad welcome by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates' meeting, provoked considerable disappointment from more conservative bishops. But they don't constitute "the rest of the Communion", they are pursuing their partisan commitment like the rest of us. (And the Global South isn't a monochrome entity with a single voice - there are as many differences in Africa and Asia as anywhere else on the globe.)

And, after all this, my major criticism of Bishop Carrell's account is its one sidedness. He hears the voice of the conservatives much louder than he hears the voice of others. But their answers are not the only ones, nor do they have a monopoly on faith or wisdom.

The causes of disintegration are also the sources of reconstruction, and multiple answers are possible. My sympathies are unashamedly with TEC - but I don't suppose that whatever happens will simply echo what I (or any other individual) would ideally like to see. The church is formed by the actions and decisions of all its members.

The mind of the church can only be determined by historians, if there could ever be such a thing in the singular. In the meantime all is politics: while we continue to struggle together we stay together - it is when we walk away and stop talking that division ensues (and, as Bishop Carrell notes, in the US at least the only thing holding the dissentients together is their dislike of the Episcopal Church - they walk away in different directions).

And of course the next Lambeth Conference will go ahead. Who would want to miss the opportunity of a truly global shebang in the midst of such uncertainty? To miss this party is to have no say in the shape of the church to come.

Draft Anglican Covenant - TEC's Response

The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church have published their formal response to The Draft Anglican covenant here.

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.

• 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 set out three possible roles for a covenant:

• 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.

They deal with each section of the draft in turn:

• 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.

  
  

Plan B: an alternative to The Draft Anglican Covenant

Six months ago it seemed that the Windsor process, and the covenant in particular, were the only serious games in town for rebuilding of Anglican Communion. Partly because there were no alternatives the stakes were very high: risk a covenant or risk no communion. Where would you place your bets?

In the last few months a number of things have become clearer: the covenant is no longer seen as the way forwards; some in the TEC are making serious provision for schism; some African Provinces (and the Southern Cone) are actively establishing structures within the territory of the TEC in schismatic actions; and yet the Anglican Communion is not necessarily tearing down the middle. Instead of the ejection of TEC (and possibly the Anglican Church in Canada) from the Anglican Communion it seems that some of their accusers are walking away. It is still unclear where the paths pursued by Archbishop Akinola and Archbishop Jensen will lead but, in my estimation, as the reality of schism comes close so some of the fire for schism has burnt out.

In effect the schismatic actions of some have created the beginning of an alternative to the Windsor process.

The covenant stood on the conviction that unity and order are to be found in greater uniformity of doctrine and practice, and thus in less tolerance of difference. Uniformity is an ideal which is visibly not reality. The desire for uniformity has been a strong current setting the direction of discussions – and the attempt to achieve it has driven people further apart.

Turning this ideal around might offer the possibility of an alternative vision of the future. Perhaps Anglicanism could develop in new and surprising ways, and still stay together, valuing both its shared history and its present diversity.

The Anglican Communion is currently held together by bonds of affection, of history, and by a range of written agreements. If each of these strands were disentangled and each formally recognised as entailing different levels of mutual accountability – and therefore differing degrees of distance from one another – there would be much greater room for co-operation.

Bonds of affection, with an inherent presumption of mutual hospitality, could sustain cordial relations between groups which did not, for example, recognize the full range of each other’s orders (of women as priests or bishops, for example). Bonds of affection would continue to reach across cultural and doctrinal differences at the level of personal friendship, mutual aid between parishes and dioceses, and support though missionary and other organizations.

Bonds of history might focus as much on distinctive developments as on commonality of origin such that scholars, liturgiologists, and canon lawyers, for example, could keep talking to one another even where the divides between their respective churches seemed wide and deep.

Bonds of history and friendship need not entail or imply any test or endorsement of other members’ doctrine or practice. They could sustain relationships of hospitality, exchange and mutual learning, and avoid the temptation to insist that anyone take sides on divisive and contentious issues.

Bonds of agreement, on the other hand, could fully or partially recognize the unity and uniformity of doctrine and practice between autonomous churches. Agreements could be global, regional, or bi-lateral; they might concern liturgy or orders, or the exchange of clergy and training; they could be brief statements of unity or detailed specifications of shared canon law. What is key is that they do not have to be uniform: multiple layers of agreement can bind together as effectively as one single covenant while allowing for much greater diversity of practice. In effect this has been the pattern the Anglican Communion has followed since the uneven process of recognition of the Church of South India and the differing practices on the ordination of women.

New groupings could not be restricted to provinces. Already groups based on common interests and shared convictions such as African churches in the USA and British Provincial Episcopal Visitors cut across provinces and dioceses, some formally accepted and others seen as intrusions. New affinity groups would develop. The outcome would be an uneven, lumpy, energetic Communion. The points of conflict would be sharpest wherever new groups seek to cut across existing jurisdictions and formal agreements.

All of this would entail a new Anglican ecclesiology. A diocese would no longer be a geographic entity which would require re-thinking the nature of the episcopacy. Conversely the voluntary nature of church adherence would be embodied in a much more varied church.

The Instruments of Unity would have to change as a consequence. Bonds of history would keep the Archbishop of Canterbury as the focal point of communion. The Lambeth Conference would no longer meet (already the Global South are considering an alternative meeting of bishops in 2008). The Primates’ Meeting would be re-cast in scope and membership.

The Anglican Consultative Council would become pivotal to holding the Communion together. It would monitor and share formal agreements and weave together the fraying threads of the Communion. It would be broker, facilitator, and communicator. Its work would rest on bonds of history and affection, always conscious of the voluntary nature of participation.

Like real life this is complex, untidy and, I think, hopeful. It makes a virtue of necessity, finding treasures in the mess. The Anglican Communion is no longer dependent on the Church of England nor on the Archbishop of Canterbury but, as a family of adults each of whom lives their independent life, there is much that has been shared that no-one wants to throw away and much that we value in one another, even if we meet less often and don’t see eye to eye in the way we used.

At the very least the presence of an alternative to the covenant might help lower tension at the table and change the question from ‘covenant or communion?’ to ‘what sorts of communion?’

Andrew Plus: The Covenant is dead, but can we get back to square one?

I believe this to be an accurate and balanced account of where the Covenant proposal has got to (October 2007):

Andrew Plus: The Covenant is dead, but can we get back to square one?

There are a couple of outstanding questions about the Covenant if we grant, as would seem to be the case, that it is dead as a regulatory scheme.

1) Given the public endorsements it has had, can it really be allowed to die?
2) Those who want a regulatory framework are unlikely to be satisfied. Even if its main proponents leave the fold, will not those who are left continue to worry at this bone and look for other ways to get to the same goal? There always seem to be people who want to order the church in their own image.

I would guess that, when some of the dust has settled and the membership of the Anglican Communion (Provinces, Dioceses and people) becomes clearer, the issue of a regulatory framework will be revisited. Watch out for those who seek to delegate powers to some innocuous sounding but high-powered international committee.

Anglican Covenant

At long last - well, it feels as though it's taken ages to get the words right and all approved - the response of the Modern Churchperson's Union to the proposal for an Anglican Covenant has been sent off.

The summary is here, and the full report is accessible through the same page. My contribution is 'Covenant and Government'.

It's gone both to the Anglican Consultative Council who will, we trust, pass it to the Covenant Design Group. It's also gone to all the English Diocesan Bishops to try to increase its impact.

The Covenant is conceived as a contribution to holding the Communion together. I argue that it won't work. If people want to stay together they will anyway. If they don't, they won't. A Covenant won't make it so. The original report is here.

It's not really clear but the expectation is that a Covenant will have

• a statement of faith,
• a constitution for the Anglican Communion, and
• a conflict-resolution process.

I argue that this will move Anglicans further from a body of people who come together voluntarily and who decide things amongst themselves (however difficult this may be at times) to a legalistic corporation.

Jonathan Clatworthy argues that it will be a break with traditional Anglican theology and the tradition of inclusive tolerance.

We both fear that the whole point of the proposal is to narrow the boundaries of Anglicanism in the direction of conservatism and foundationalism. It will help unity only by excluding large slices of the church - a bit like going to war to make peace.

Basically, we don't want a Covenant. But we fear one may be proposed anyway (++Rowan is keen) and so we we wait to see what will be proposed next.