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?’
