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.

The word from Clonmacnoise

The Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Reverend Alan Harper, preached at Clonmacnoise on the Feast Day of St Mary Magdalene 2007:

I have somewhat to say on the present madness of the Anglican Communion and the Christian quest to appropriate and to live the life of resurrection. All here.

He identified two 'boulders' to the resurrection life: bibliolatry and division and disunity in the Church.

While both are undoubtedly boulders the first is historically specific; the second is endemic.

He regards as simplistic the notion the thesis that unity may be sought at the cost of truth, arguing that no single group can hold all truth while division actively discourages us from seeing the mote in our own eye.

It is not then the case that unity is maintained at the expense of truth, but rather that disunity guarantees that access to a fuller knowledge of the truth is consciously inhibited.

I might want to ask he understands truth and our perception of it, and also how truth is apprehended if our disunity and division are not ephemeral to Christian faith but inherent and integral to it.

On his observation of the Covenant, however, I am with him all the way (emphasis added):

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, addressing the General Synod of the Church of England on the issue of an Anglican Covenant, [full speech here] said recently:

Anglican leaders are seriously wondering whether they can recognize in each other the faithfulness to Christ that is the cornerstone of our common life and cooperation. While some feel there will be inevitable separation, others are trying to deny that there is a crisis at all. That is hardly a meeting of minds. Unless we can make a fresh statement clearly and basically of what holds us together we are destined to grow apart.

I doubt if anyone believes that there is no crisis. Rather, in the context of Archbishop Drexel’s key test, that is, recognizing in each other the faithfulness to Christ that is the cornerstone of our common life and cooperation, a spirit of arrogance on both sides is causing people of genuine faith and undoubted love for the Lord Jesus to bypass the requirement for patience and for making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I have yet to meet any “leader” who does not treat with the utmost respect and indeed reverence the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. I have heard no one in this crisis deny the fundamental tenets of the faith as Anglicans have received them. Yet I have heard believing Christians attack other Christians for not believing precisely as they themselves believe. Equally, I have heard believing Christians attack other Christians for not attaching the weight they themselves attach to this biblical text compared with that.

This is not the way of Christ; it is the way of fallen humanity. It is a boulder of our own creation and I do not know who will help us to roll it away.

Some fear, and I am among them, that an Anglican Covenant, unless it is open and generous and broad, may simply become a further means of obstruction: a boulder, rather than a lever to remove what obscures and impedes our access to the truth that sets us free.

After a long gap:

The Draft Anglican Covenant is still wandering around the world. Critical comments (in some detail as well as summaries) are on the MCU site: http://www.modchurchunion.org/Covenant.htm. Progress in the General Synod can be followed through Thinking Anglicans.

There's also a paper on the way in which the Powers That Be are trying to bounce the decision through Communion by giving no-one a public voice on its contents (and therefore enabling a few people - whoever they are - to draft versions in private).

I believe this is wrong in principle and ineffective in practice. It will simply create a legal system which no-one cares for and, possibly, will ignore as soon as it makes a decision that is disliked.

Anglican Divorce

An excellent and brief summary of TEC's divisions from the New York Times:

LAURIE GOODSTEIN

A Divide, and Maybe a Divorce

[Extract]

In many American churches, the divide on homosexuality is neither generational nor geographic, unlike the North/South split over slavery. Homosexuality is not the cause of the divide, just “the last straw,” said John L. Kater, a lecturer in Anglican Studies, at the Church

Divinity School of the Pacific, in Berkeley, Calif., a liberal-leaning seminary. The underlying differences are over the basic understanding of tradition and Scripture. The conservatives say they are something sacred and fixed, while the liberals say they can be open to interpretation and responsive to new information.

That approach has shaped their responses. The liberals insist that what defines Anglicanism is theological diversity, and the conservatives claim Anglicanism requires a commitment to doctrine. The liberals are saying, “Can’t we all just get along,” while the conservatives are saying, “Can’t we all just get in line?”

Hardly a Christian spectacle, the rivalry has been more like a log-rolling contest where the conservatives and the liberals are battling to push each other off a spinning log, while trying to make it look as if their adversaries voluntarily jumped. Now, with the ultimatum, the liberals may need a lot of deft footwork to stay on the log.

The branches break

We have come, I think, to the parting of Anglican ways.

The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) have declared: enough is enough. They refuse to allow unaccountable Primates to dictate terms; they refuse to countenance any longer the intrusion of other Bishops into their jurisdictions; they refuse the deal offered (or demanded) at Dar es Salaam; and they refuse to embed in TEC structures discrimination against people on the grounds of sexuality. [Thinking Anglicans, amongst others, has followed the story in detail.] It has to be said that the Bishop's statement still needs ratification in the American synodical process but it seems unlikely that this will not happen.

The first reaction is, I think, to give thanks to God. Conservatives and liberals are generally welcoming the end of prevarication, if for different reasons. LGCM has issued an exultant press release (can't see it on their site yet).

But it will take a while to see how things pan out in the global game of poker that our Primates are playing - using as chips the members of the Anglican Communion. (You can see this in the way the numbers of adherents are attributed to each Primate or group of Primates as though they all agree with their leader and the group with the biggest pile of members at the end of the game is the winner.)

It may be that TEC's stand - especially if supported vocally by other Provinces and Dioceses - will force the conservatives to retreat. Can the Anglican Communion claim unity if TEC is asked to leave? Can the international 'Instruments of Unity' survive without TEC's money? Will Canada, Scotland, Wales and others join them in saying 'if TEC is pushed out we go too'? If so, it is unlikely that the rest of the players will want to force everyone to show their hands.

Or, perhaps, it will work the other way. Perhaps the conservatives now scent victory. After all, TEC was given an ultimatum and they blinked first. From the conservative point of view TEC has now made explicit that it stands on the side of 'culture' and against biblical truth. They have revealed their hand and they held no high cards. Will the conservatives therefore force their exclusion from effective participation in the Anglican Communion? Will the conservatives in the US formalise their division from TEC, pending only law suits and financial settlements?

Either way the statement of the House of Bishops is likely to shift the politics significantly and, in my judgement, the chances of a formal split are now higher than before. For this I do not thank God: divisions in church structures and conflicts between Christians (and history is full of them) are inherently derogations from the unity that God seeks for us all.

I guess the CofE will try to stay friends with everyone - and may not be able to. Perhaps it will be time to choose which team it belongs to. On the other hand, knowing the CofE's infinite capacity for playing cards all through the night on the grounds that tomorrow is another day and you never know what that might bring, I think I'd be surprised.

TEC's stand may result in new options within the CofE. There is a growing prospect that conservative congregations might seek pastoral oversight from conservative bishops outside the CofE (as even the most reactionary flying bishop may be seen as tainted by association with the House of Bishops' stance on Civil Partnerships) . Perhaps TEC will offer a parallel possibility for liberal congregations. But I think this is improbable short of complete melt-down: congregations will find it hard to let go of parish churches and clergy will not relish eviction from their vicarages.

Nonetheless the ecclesiastical landscape has changed unexpectedly and the future is even less predictable than it was.

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.

one heart and mind

I regularly use the phrase 'let us pray with one heart and mind' (it's in the prayer book I use).

And it's been worrying me.

As an aspiration I have no problem with it. It seems to me right, even a spiritual duty, that we should struggle towards personal integrity of life (body, mind and soul), and towards integrity of our life with the will and Spirit of God (always recognising that this is an unattainable goal, at least in this world).

But there is an edge of spiritual blackmail about the phrase when it comes to praying together. Does it mean, perhaps: 'I want all of you praying with me to agree with me.'?

Or does it mean: if we are not in agreement then our relationships with God, and hence these prayers, are all diminished?

I suspect the idea stems from the common-sense syllogism that:

1. We are all Christian believers;
2. God is one and undivided; therefore
3. All Christian believers should be united. (Disunity is prima facie evidence of a wrong relationship with God.)
   

But this is nonsense. From the New Testament on there has never been a time when Christians have not disagreed amongst themselves - we have never all sung from the same hymnsheet. As each person is unique, so too is their relationship with God and the words they use to articulate faith. Nor can God be contained in any box that human beings can specify. In Marilyn Adams' words (though I don't see this exact quote): God is so very, very big, and we are so very, very small.

In fact the desire for unity is a powerful force for division. The more that conservatives insist that ECUSA and the Anglican Communion must embody their agenda the more they destroy the faith they have inherited from the saints. Anglicans Online (always full of common sense) has this reflection on the notion that 'our church has been taken away from us'.

The desire for purity denies the generosity of God. The campaign for a narrow unity divides one Christian from another. The search for certainty becomes idolatry: we set up formulae to articulate an understanding of faith and end up making the words more important than openness to God.

Let us pray in the common cause of worship and service of God, bringing all our gifts, our conflicts, our uncertainties to our sharing together.

After all, just because we're Christian it doesn't mean we have to like one another.