A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all readers!
This blog is going on holiday until the 3rd or 4th January.
I will post comments (as able) but not interact with them.
Best wishes
Peter
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Anglican Covenant (iv): Effects
Although the Covenant is not yet in effect (since no Anglican church has yet signed its agreement with it), a possible effect of the Covenant in place is signaled in this resolution of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (published simultaneously with the final draft of the Covenant):
"Resolved that, in the light of:
The recent episcopal nomination in the Diocese of Los Angeles of a partnered lesbian candidate
The decisions in a number of US and Canadian dioceses to proceed with formal ceremonies of same-sex blessings
Continuing cross-jurisdictional activity within the Communion
The Standing Committee strongly reaffirm Resolution 14.09 of ACC 14 supporting the three moratoria proposed by the Windsor Report and the associated request for gracious restraint in respect of actions that endanger the unity of the Anglican Communion by going against the declared view of the Instruments of Communion."
With this resolution the Standing Committee indicates that the Covenant in place is likely to change nothing about the sense that a partnered gay or lesbian person elected to episcopal office in the Communion is 'incompatible with the Covenant' (see S4.2.6).
I will assume, for the purposes of this post, that for the foreseeable future this view, that a partnered gay or lesbian person elected to episcopal office in the Communion (or indeed, out of the Communion, in, say, a church seeking to become a member of the Communion) is incompatible with the Covenant. I will also assume for the purposes of this post that the Covenant is signed by member churches in such numbers that it is effective as a means of ordering the life of the Communion (my personal estimate of the numbers required is 90+% of current member churches).
(One further thing I ask readers to note is that I am a supporter of the Covenant because I think a number of ways in which life in the Communion has diversified or threatens to diversify need limits or constraints placed upon them, not because it will solve one major presenting issue. The 'gay issue' may have catalysed the process which has led to a Covenant, but it is not the only reason for having the Covenant. Here, however, space and time limit my focus to one or two implications of the Covenant for the 'gay issue'.)
A small bevy of questions immediately arises (though, for me, the one question which will not arise is whether TEC would draw back from electing partnered gay or lesbian people to episcopal office). Will TEC be able to sign the Covenant and confirm such elections? If TEC does not sign the Covenant what will that mean in respect of a range of matters from the considerable gifting of funds TEC makes to the life of the Communion? Would TEC (already an international network of churches) form an alternate Communion? Would TEC seek as far as possible to be an active, though unCovenanted member of the Communion?
On the one hand we can see that, even the most positive answers to questions above being given, one likely effect of the Covenant being adopted is that some division between TEC and the remainder of the Communion takes place. On the other hand we cannot see what the life of the remainder of the Communion as a Communion will look like. We should not assume that TEC would be ungenerous to the Communion in regard to funding. Conversely, if funding were withdrawn, we should not assume that meetings of the Communion could not take place. But we should accept now that the future could be very different. (Teasingly, we could observe that if one effect of the Covenant is that a member church is dis-invited to a meeting it does not amount to much if the meeting cannot take place for lack of funds!)
Some will have little or no regret about a division of some kind taking place between TEC and the Communion - some that is, who are tired of the Communion's constraints on TEC, and some who are tired of TEC's thorny presence in the life of the Communion. Others are very concerned that we could get to such a point. For some there is incomprehension that so insignificant a matter as a person's domestic life could be constructed into a matter over which division takes place. For some the incomprehension is that TEC could persist in thinking it could continue on a path it has been told is divisive while believing this would be without consequence to its relationship with the Communion. For others their concern is that the Communion seems unable to agree to disagree on an issue which concerns basic human dignity; and, one might add, on an issue which is compatible with the basic autonomy of member churches to order their own life according to their constitution.
To reflect in this way is to recognise that the presentation of the Covenant exposes a multiplicity of disagreements in our Communion over homosexuality. It is not just that we disagree about partnered relationships; we disagree about how that disagreement should be handled in our life as a Communion; and we disagree about whether it would be a good or bad thing if we finally divide over it.
From one perspective the Covenant is a shadow over our life: all these disagreements are in our midst. But from another perspective the Covenant is God's searchlight exposing our many weaknesses.
To know our weaknesses is to have a foundation for building new strengths. Can we do this? Will we do it?
[Later: have just discovered the internet existence of this from ACANZP.]
"Resolved that, in the light of:
The recent episcopal nomination in the Diocese of Los Angeles of a partnered lesbian candidate
The decisions in a number of US and Canadian dioceses to proceed with formal ceremonies of same-sex blessings
Continuing cross-jurisdictional activity within the Communion
The Standing Committee strongly reaffirm Resolution 14.09 of ACC 14 supporting the three moratoria proposed by the Windsor Report and the associated request for gracious restraint in respect of actions that endanger the unity of the Anglican Communion by going against the declared view of the Instruments of Communion."
With this resolution the Standing Committee indicates that the Covenant in place is likely to change nothing about the sense that a partnered gay or lesbian person elected to episcopal office in the Communion is 'incompatible with the Covenant' (see S4.2.6).
I will assume, for the purposes of this post, that for the foreseeable future this view, that a partnered gay or lesbian person elected to episcopal office in the Communion (or indeed, out of the Communion, in, say, a church seeking to become a member of the Communion) is incompatible with the Covenant. I will also assume for the purposes of this post that the Covenant is signed by member churches in such numbers that it is effective as a means of ordering the life of the Communion (my personal estimate of the numbers required is 90+% of current member churches).
(One further thing I ask readers to note is that I am a supporter of the Covenant because I think a number of ways in which life in the Communion has diversified or threatens to diversify need limits or constraints placed upon them, not because it will solve one major presenting issue. The 'gay issue' may have catalysed the process which has led to a Covenant, but it is not the only reason for having the Covenant. Here, however, space and time limit my focus to one or two implications of the Covenant for the 'gay issue'.)
A small bevy of questions immediately arises (though, for me, the one question which will not arise is whether TEC would draw back from electing partnered gay or lesbian people to episcopal office). Will TEC be able to sign the Covenant and confirm such elections? If TEC does not sign the Covenant what will that mean in respect of a range of matters from the considerable gifting of funds TEC makes to the life of the Communion? Would TEC (already an international network of churches) form an alternate Communion? Would TEC seek as far as possible to be an active, though unCovenanted member of the Communion?
On the one hand we can see that, even the most positive answers to questions above being given, one likely effect of the Covenant being adopted is that some division between TEC and the remainder of the Communion takes place. On the other hand we cannot see what the life of the remainder of the Communion as a Communion will look like. We should not assume that TEC would be ungenerous to the Communion in regard to funding. Conversely, if funding were withdrawn, we should not assume that meetings of the Communion could not take place. But we should accept now that the future could be very different. (Teasingly, we could observe that if one effect of the Covenant is that a member church is dis-invited to a meeting it does not amount to much if the meeting cannot take place for lack of funds!)
Some will have little or no regret about a division of some kind taking place between TEC and the Communion - some that is, who are tired of the Communion's constraints on TEC, and some who are tired of TEC's thorny presence in the life of the Communion. Others are very concerned that we could get to such a point. For some there is incomprehension that so insignificant a matter as a person's domestic life could be constructed into a matter over which division takes place. For some the incomprehension is that TEC could persist in thinking it could continue on a path it has been told is divisive while believing this would be without consequence to its relationship with the Communion. For others their concern is that the Communion seems unable to agree to disagree on an issue which concerns basic human dignity; and, one might add, on an issue which is compatible with the basic autonomy of member churches to order their own life according to their constitution.
To reflect in this way is to recognise that the presentation of the Covenant exposes a multiplicity of disagreements in our Communion over homosexuality. It is not just that we disagree about partnered relationships; we disagree about how that disagreement should be handled in our life as a Communion; and we disagree about whether it would be a good or bad thing if we finally divide over it.
From one perspective the Covenant is a shadow over our life: all these disagreements are in our midst. But from another perspective the Covenant is God's searchlight exposing our many weaknesses.
To know our weaknesses is to have a foundation for building new strengths. Can we do this? Will we do it?
[Later: have just discovered the internet existence of this from ACANZP.]
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Earthquake Church is left behind as tectonic plates of faith shift
Pulling no punches, Ephraim Radner offers some knock-down arguments that TEC is out for the count on the canvas, and the future of the Anglican Communion, for those who Covenant to it, shines brighter than the stars TEC is seeing:
"The final text of the Anglican Covenant has now been sent out for adoption by the churches of the Communion. The slow process by which this text and its official dissemination for action has occurred has frustrated some, yet its persistent progress forward to this point at last puts the lie to the naysayers and early eulogists of the Covenant’s purpose. Joined to the restarting of the Anglican-Roman Catholic international dialogue, to be focused on substantive matters of ecclesiology and moral decision-making, what seemed merely slow now appears to be the visible sign of a tectonic shift in global Anglicanism and Christianity itself. It is one in which the Episcopal Church in the United States has placed itself on the far side of a widening channel separating the ballast of Christian witness, Catholic and Pentecostal, from marginal spin-offs of liberal Protestantism in decline."
and
"The Episcopal Church, as we have known it and given ourselves to its ministry, is over. But the Gospel is alive, and the Church that is Christ’s Body given, takes us to a new place."
I can imagine the scripted response from here. Episcopalians to the left crying foul blow below the belt. North American Anglicans to the right reacting to some left jabs Radner makes to their chins. But the essential point of what Ephraim is saying bears thinking about: Has TEC painted itself into a corner with its commitment to a non-traditional sexual ethic? Is it dying a slow death, measured by statistics its leadership will not own and lacking a remedy through gospel growth it can no longer provide because, to all intents and purposes, it preaches 'another gospel'?
One response, of course, is that most North American Christianity faces the same future as TEC, to one degree or another.
It is possible, however, that Radner is right, that there is a problem particular to TEC. If it will not change, it will die. Or at least keep withering on the vine.
But then, maybe Ephraim is wrong. What would be the evidence and the explanation which demonstrated that?
(H/T Titus One Nine)
"The final text of the Anglican Covenant has now been sent out for adoption by the churches of the Communion. The slow process by which this text and its official dissemination for action has occurred has frustrated some, yet its persistent progress forward to this point at last puts the lie to the naysayers and early eulogists of the Covenant’s purpose. Joined to the restarting of the Anglican-Roman Catholic international dialogue, to be focused on substantive matters of ecclesiology and moral decision-making, what seemed merely slow now appears to be the visible sign of a tectonic shift in global Anglicanism and Christianity itself. It is one in which the Episcopal Church in the United States has placed itself on the far side of a widening channel separating the ballast of Christian witness, Catholic and Pentecostal, from marginal spin-offs of liberal Protestantism in decline."
and
"The Episcopal Church, as we have known it and given ourselves to its ministry, is over. But the Gospel is alive, and the Church that is Christ’s Body given, takes us to a new place."
I can imagine the scripted response from here. Episcopalians to the left crying foul blow below the belt. North American Anglicans to the right reacting to some left jabs Radner makes to their chins. But the essential point of what Ephraim is saying bears thinking about: Has TEC painted itself into a corner with its commitment to a non-traditional sexual ethic? Is it dying a slow death, measured by statistics its leadership will not own and lacking a remedy through gospel growth it can no longer provide because, to all intents and purposes, it preaches 'another gospel'?
One response, of course, is that most North American Christianity faces the same future as TEC, to one degree or another.
It is possible, however, that Radner is right, that there is a problem particular to TEC. If it will not change, it will die. Or at least keep withering on the vine.
But then, maybe Ephraim is wrong. What would be the evidence and the explanation which demonstrated that?
(H/T Titus One Nine)
Anglican Covenant (iii): Possibilities
Disarray is one way to describe the present state of the Anglican Communion in which there is uproar over gay bishops (one consecrated, one waiting confirmation), non-recognition of ministries (there are places in the Communion in which ordained women or men ordained by a woman bishop or men bishops who have ordained women are not welcome to exercise their ministry), varying relationships with the See of Canterbury (e.g. no longer part of the constitution of Nigeria's Anglican Church), turmoil within North American Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, controversial episcopal arrangements in my own church (in summary terms, we can have two or more jurisdictions over the same territory), and the lurking possibility that from Sydney the Communion will finally be confronted with the question of whether our tolerance stretches to include lay presidency at the eucharist as an expression of Anglican polity. Bosco Peters offers a sweeping overview of these difficulties in our common life and draws the conclusion that the Covenant will make no difference to the mixture of diversity and division which is an ongoing characteristic of our life as a messy church.
It is certainly difficult to see how the Covenant will make any difference to the Communion if it is adopted by some provinces and not by others. In my own estimation it requires in the region of 90+% adoption by the member churches of the Communion if it is to make any difference to the life of the Communion. I offer this figure because a Covenant between members of a large body, by definition, needs agreement if it is to bind the body in any manner. Conversely, I do not see that we need hold out for 100% agreement (nice though that would be) as requiring 100% offers the possibility of a tiny minority vetoing the large majority. Having said that, however, I note two matters to ponder: (a) should 90% be 90% of members churches, each member church being one signatory, or 90% of the (presumed) numerical membership of the Communion (so that, e.g., Western Anglican churches such as Australia, ACANZP, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, Canada and TEC failing to sign up might not matter)? (b) could the Covenant get off the ground if Church of England, the church of the Archbishop of Canterbury itself did not sign?
This could all be put another way. If the Anglican Communion is in significant disarray (as Bosco effectively argues) and less than 90% sign up to the Covenant (my requirement for success, not his), then our disarray is underlined, indeed, set in concrete. But if the Communion signs up in near, or even total unity to the Covenant, this would be a sign that the Communion intends, albeit over time, to walk more closely together, to work on its common life, and thus, as an intended consequence, to minimise the divisions in our midst. There would be some changes required: Sydney might need to disavow further consideration of lay presidency; ACANZP might need to review and revise its episcopal arrangements; and so forth. But these changes, driven by a document called the Covenant, would not be about a stick used to beat us. They would be the result of committing ourselves to living by a common Anglican theology grounded in Scripture as received by us through our tradition and reason.
Take just one case, one I am reasonably familiar with: the way ACANZP has ordered its life through three tikanga arrangements which has led to more than one bishop having jurisdiction over the same territory. This is not, ultimately, a satisfactory expression of our unity together in Christ which, in an episcopal church, should be represented by one bishop per territory: our arrangements, I believe, are vital for the situation we find ourselves in as we work out the effects of colonization on Aotearoa New Zealand, but, measured against the gospel, they are provisional and should not be deemed permanent. Our church will have some within it, including, obviously, many Maori Anglicans, who fear the Covenant and its effects. But this is an unfortunate way to frame the role of the Covenant which is a calling back to our theological roots grounded in the vision for the church set out in Scripture. For Christians committed to Christ as the Lord of the church and resolved to live a common life in Christ, there is nothing to fear in the Covenant which should be welcomed, as should anything and everything which renews our life in Christ, even though the path of renewal is costly.
Thus the first revised paragraph of Section Four (remember the first three sections of the Covenant are now largely without demur on the part of member churches) proposes a vision for membership of the Communion that can only be disputed at risk to the foundations of ecclesiology itself:
"(4.1.1) Each Church adopting this Covenant affirms that it enters into the Covenant as a commitment to relationship in submission to God. Each Church freely offers this commitment to other Churches in order to live more fully into the ecclesial communion and interdependence which is foundational to the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of national or regional Churches, in which each recognises in the others the bonds of a common loyalty to Christ expressed through a common faith and order, a shared inheritance in worship, life and mission, and a readiness to live in an interdependent life."
I have italicised the words above which draw us to consider what our life in Christ means as Anglican together in the mission of God in the world. Do we have 'bonds of common loyalty to Christ' or not? If we do, are these to be 'expressed through a common faith and order'? If they are, my argument through these posts, contra other commentators, is that the proposed Covenant is the means to enable that expression to take place. Naturally if questions about our common faith and order never arose we would not require a Covenant, so we expect the Covenant would say something about how we respond to such questions. Thus there is now an all new section 4.2.1:
"The Covenant operates to express the common commitments and mutual accountability which hold each Church in the relationship of communion one with another. Recognition of, and fidelity to, this Covenant, enable mutual recognition and communion. Participation in the Covenant implies a recognition by each Church of those elements which must be maintained in its own life and for which it is accountable to the Churches with which it is in Communion in order to sustain the relationship expressed in this Covenant."
In other words, if Communion means we have things in common in a relationship of mutual accountability then those things must remain in common for our fellowship as a Communion to be sustained. But what if some things do not remain in common between us? Here the revised Section 4 sets out a procedure which I quote in full:
"(4.2.3) When questions arise relating to the meaning of the Covenant, or about the compatibility of an action by a covenanting Church with the Covenant, it is the duty of each covenanting Church to seek to live out the commitments of Section 3.2. Such questions may be raised by a Church itself, another covenanting Church or the Instruments of Communion.
(4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate, the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting for advice.
(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.
(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”.
(4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations.
(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.
(4.2.9) Each Church undertakes to put into place such mechanisms, agencies or institutions, consistent with its own Constitution and Canons, as can undertake to oversee the maintenance of the affirmations and commitments of the Covenant in the life of that Church, and to relate to the Instruments of Communion on matters pertinent to the Covenant."
Some would see the bite in these teeth of the Covenant as affecting relationships in respect of meetings in the life of the Communion which (as Bosco Peters reminds us) are non-binding. In other words, not much bite.
However I suggest the bite is at its sharpest at another point, in the section whose words I have italicised above, which I repeat here:
"(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”."
If the Covenant is that which expresses our common life together as an Anglican Communion then it is a statement of what being Anglican means in this day and age. This determines that what being Anglican means will not be set by facts on the ground laid out by individual Anglicans (e.g. through publication of heterodox theology or well publicised provocative actions such as we have seen in recent days in Auckland, NZ) or individual member churches (e.g. through deciding to permit lay presidency at the eucharist). Rather it will be set through a process in which members of the Covenanted Communion may draw attention to actions or proposed actions and seek consideration of those actions as to whether they are or are not compatible with the Covenant, that is, with our resolve to be what we are as a Communion, that is, to live a common life together in Christ. At the least this will mean that of some things labeled 'Anglican', we will be able to say , "No, that is not so. They are not part of our common life together, no matter what the newspapers say".
Perhaps, I feel emboldened to ask critics of the Covenant, we do not wish to live a common life together in Christ as global Anglicans?
There is much more to say about the Covenant in respect of matters such as who may sign up to the Covenant, what signing up would mean in terms of the constitution and canons of member churches and so on. But others are saying those things. This is what I want to say for now. Tomorrow I hope to post on a practical aspect of Covenant thinking as expressed in a recent decision of the (newly named) Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in respect of the election of Mary Glasspool.
It is certainly difficult to see how the Covenant will make any difference to the Communion if it is adopted by some provinces and not by others. In my own estimation it requires in the region of 90+% adoption by the member churches of the Communion if it is to make any difference to the life of the Communion. I offer this figure because a Covenant between members of a large body, by definition, needs agreement if it is to bind the body in any manner. Conversely, I do not see that we need hold out for 100% agreement (nice though that would be) as requiring 100% offers the possibility of a tiny minority vetoing the large majority. Having said that, however, I note two matters to ponder: (a) should 90% be 90% of members churches, each member church being one signatory, or 90% of the (presumed) numerical membership of the Communion (so that, e.g., Western Anglican churches such as Australia, ACANZP, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, Canada and TEC failing to sign up might not matter)? (b) could the Covenant get off the ground if Church of England, the church of the Archbishop of Canterbury itself did not sign?
This could all be put another way. If the Anglican Communion is in significant disarray (as Bosco effectively argues) and less than 90% sign up to the Covenant (my requirement for success, not his), then our disarray is underlined, indeed, set in concrete. But if the Communion signs up in near, or even total unity to the Covenant, this would be a sign that the Communion intends, albeit over time, to walk more closely together, to work on its common life, and thus, as an intended consequence, to minimise the divisions in our midst. There would be some changes required: Sydney might need to disavow further consideration of lay presidency; ACANZP might need to review and revise its episcopal arrangements; and so forth. But these changes, driven by a document called the Covenant, would not be about a stick used to beat us. They would be the result of committing ourselves to living by a common Anglican theology grounded in Scripture as received by us through our tradition and reason.
Take just one case, one I am reasonably familiar with: the way ACANZP has ordered its life through three tikanga arrangements which has led to more than one bishop having jurisdiction over the same territory. This is not, ultimately, a satisfactory expression of our unity together in Christ which, in an episcopal church, should be represented by one bishop per territory: our arrangements, I believe, are vital for the situation we find ourselves in as we work out the effects of colonization on Aotearoa New Zealand, but, measured against the gospel, they are provisional and should not be deemed permanent. Our church will have some within it, including, obviously, many Maori Anglicans, who fear the Covenant and its effects. But this is an unfortunate way to frame the role of the Covenant which is a calling back to our theological roots grounded in the vision for the church set out in Scripture. For Christians committed to Christ as the Lord of the church and resolved to live a common life in Christ, there is nothing to fear in the Covenant which should be welcomed, as should anything and everything which renews our life in Christ, even though the path of renewal is costly.
Thus the first revised paragraph of Section Four (remember the first three sections of the Covenant are now largely without demur on the part of member churches) proposes a vision for membership of the Communion that can only be disputed at risk to the foundations of ecclesiology itself:
"(4.1.1) Each Church adopting this Covenant affirms that it enters into the Covenant as a commitment to relationship in submission to God. Each Church freely offers this commitment to other Churches in order to live more fully into the ecclesial communion and interdependence which is foundational to the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, of national or regional Churches, in which each recognises in the others the bonds of a common loyalty to Christ expressed through a common faith and order, a shared inheritance in worship, life and mission, and a readiness to live in an interdependent life."
I have italicised the words above which draw us to consider what our life in Christ means as Anglican together in the mission of God in the world. Do we have 'bonds of common loyalty to Christ' or not? If we do, are these to be 'expressed through a common faith and order'? If they are, my argument through these posts, contra other commentators, is that the proposed Covenant is the means to enable that expression to take place. Naturally if questions about our common faith and order never arose we would not require a Covenant, so we expect the Covenant would say something about how we respond to such questions. Thus there is now an all new section 4.2.1:
"The Covenant operates to express the common commitments and mutual accountability which hold each Church in the relationship of communion one with another. Recognition of, and fidelity to, this Covenant, enable mutual recognition and communion. Participation in the Covenant implies a recognition by each Church of those elements which must be maintained in its own life and for which it is accountable to the Churches with which it is in Communion in order to sustain the relationship expressed in this Covenant."
In other words, if Communion means we have things in common in a relationship of mutual accountability then those things must remain in common for our fellowship as a Communion to be sustained. But what if some things do not remain in common between us? Here the revised Section 4 sets out a procedure which I quote in full:
"(4.2.3) When questions arise relating to the meaning of the Covenant, or about the compatibility of an action by a covenanting Church with the Covenant, it is the duty of each covenanting Church to seek to live out the commitments of Section 3.2. Such questions may be raised by a Church itself, another covenanting Church or the Instruments of Communion.
(4.2.4) Where a shared mind has not been reached the matter shall be referred to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee shall make every effort to facilitate agreement, and may take advice from such bodies as it deems appropriate to determine a view on the nature of the matter at question and those relational consequences which may result. Where appropriate, the Standing Committee shall refer the question to both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting for advice.
(4.2.5) The Standing Committee may request a Church to defer a controversial action. If a Church declines to defer such action, the Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which may specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.
(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”.
(4.2.7) On the basis of the advice received, the Standing Committee shall make recommendations as to relational consequences which flow from an action incompatible with the Covenant. These recommendations may be addressed to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion and address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion, and the practical consequences of such impairment or limitation. Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations.
(4.2.8) Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.
(4.2.9) Each Church undertakes to put into place such mechanisms, agencies or institutions, consistent with its own Constitution and Canons, as can undertake to oversee the maintenance of the affirmations and commitments of the Covenant in the life of that Church, and to relate to the Instruments of Communion on matters pertinent to the Covenant."
Some would see the bite in these teeth of the Covenant as affecting relationships in respect of meetings in the life of the Communion which (as Bosco Peters reminds us) are non-binding. In other words, not much bite.
However I suggest the bite is at its sharpest at another point, in the section whose words I have italicised above, which I repeat here:
"(4.2.6) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Standing Committee may make a declaration that an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”."
If the Covenant is that which expresses our common life together as an Anglican Communion then it is a statement of what being Anglican means in this day and age. This determines that what being Anglican means will not be set by facts on the ground laid out by individual Anglicans (e.g. through publication of heterodox theology or well publicised provocative actions such as we have seen in recent days in Auckland, NZ) or individual member churches (e.g. through deciding to permit lay presidency at the eucharist). Rather it will be set through a process in which members of the Covenanted Communion may draw attention to actions or proposed actions and seek consideration of those actions as to whether they are or are not compatible with the Covenant, that is, with our resolve to be what we are as a Communion, that is, to live a common life together in Christ. At the least this will mean that of some things labeled 'Anglican', we will be able to say , "No, that is not so. They are not part of our common life together, no matter what the newspapers say".
Perhaps, I feel emboldened to ask critics of the Covenant, we do not wish to live a common life together in Christ as global Anglicans?
There is much more to say about the Covenant in respect of matters such as who may sign up to the Covenant, what signing up would mean in terms of the constitution and canons of member churches and so on. But others are saying those things. This is what I want to say for now. Tomorrow I hope to post on a practical aspect of Covenant thinking as expressed in a recent decision of the (newly named) Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in respect of the election of Mary Glasspool.
Notes on the Anglican Covenant
Here are some links to keep abreast of responses to the Anglican Covenant.
Bosco Peters offers a robust, reasoned case against the Covenant here. His verdict is, "The proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not do what so many of its advocates are convinced it is meant to do."
Incidentally, h/t to Bosco, another form of comparison between the former and present versions of Section 4 can be found here thanks to the work of Lionel Diemel.
The Living Church offers several posts on the Covenant:
Catholic Voices: Four Responses to the Covenant (Kings, Josiah Idowu-Fearon, Clavier, Kew).
The Covenant Arrives on Schedule.
Essential Aspects by Christopher Wells highlights important changes in Section 4.
To Arrive Where We Started is an editorial by Christopher Wells. He concludes with these words (written, note, from within TEC itself):
"What will the Episcopal Church do? Of course, many if not most in our church, as well as in the Communion, presume that our church will decline to adopt the Covenant, and that may be true. There is, however, freedom in Christ, and Episcopalians can decide for ourselves whether to accept this mission. The Living Church considers these the minimal criteria of Christian responsibility for discerning God’s will in this matter:
1. Take up the Covenant and read it, carefully and prayerfully.
2. Discuss it in your parish and diocese and decide if you can commit yourself to it and endorse it, as the Covenant Working Group has encouraged.
3. Decide if you will support its adoption on the provincial level."
Finally, it is always good to hear what Ephraim Radner, one of the architects of the Covenant, has to say as the wording evolves. His comments are reported in an article by Douglas LeBlanc. Dr Radner offers these observations about TEC's place in the global Communion:
"Because changes to the fourth section did not reflect what Episcopal Church leaders were seeking, Dr. Radner said, the document helps change that province’s standing. He described it as being part of a pattern, along with the ecumenical dialogues of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission and the recent meeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury with Pope Benedict XVI.
“You take this, with the restarting of the ARCIC dialogue and what Rowan was engaged in at Rome, and there is a shift going on, and that shift is leaving the Episcopal Church behind,” he said. “There’s nothing the Episcopal Church can do about it at this point.”
While acknowledging the archbishop’s explanation that the Covenant is “not going to be a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply,” Dr. Radner said of Episcopal Church leaders: “They’re not going to be able to claim any moral high ground. They’ve been sidelined.”
Those leaders are not being shown the exit, he said, but “they’re on a path that’s going around the side of the building.”
He highlighted Section 4.1.6, which says simply, “This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.”
Conservative provinces in the Global South “ought to be able to go ahead with it,” he said about adoption of the Covenant, “whatever problems there are with this or that detail.”"
Also just noticed, a post by the Anglican Communion Institute.
Bosco Peters offers a robust, reasoned case against the Covenant here. His verdict is, "The proposed “covenant” is not “fit for the purpose” and will not do what so many of its advocates are convinced it is meant to do."
Incidentally, h/t to Bosco, another form of comparison between the former and present versions of Section 4 can be found here thanks to the work of Lionel Diemel.
The Living Church offers several posts on the Covenant:
Catholic Voices: Four Responses to the Covenant (Kings, Josiah Idowu-Fearon, Clavier, Kew).
The Covenant Arrives on Schedule.
Essential Aspects by Christopher Wells highlights important changes in Section 4.
To Arrive Where We Started is an editorial by Christopher Wells. He concludes with these words (written, note, from within TEC itself):
"What will the Episcopal Church do? Of course, many if not most in our church, as well as in the Communion, presume that our church will decline to adopt the Covenant, and that may be true. There is, however, freedom in Christ, and Episcopalians can decide for ourselves whether to accept this mission. The Living Church considers these the minimal criteria of Christian responsibility for discerning God’s will in this matter:
1. Take up the Covenant and read it, carefully and prayerfully.
2. Discuss it in your parish and diocese and decide if you can commit yourself to it and endorse it, as the Covenant Working Group has encouraged.
3. Decide if you will support its adoption on the provincial level."
Finally, it is always good to hear what Ephraim Radner, one of the architects of the Covenant, has to say as the wording evolves. His comments are reported in an article by Douglas LeBlanc. Dr Radner offers these observations about TEC's place in the global Communion:
"Because changes to the fourth section did not reflect what Episcopal Church leaders were seeking, Dr. Radner said, the document helps change that province’s standing. He described it as being part of a pattern, along with the ecumenical dialogues of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission and the recent meeting of the Archbishop of Canterbury with Pope Benedict XVI.
“You take this, with the restarting of the ARCIC dialogue and what Rowan was engaged in at Rome, and there is a shift going on, and that shift is leaving the Episcopal Church behind,” he said. “There’s nothing the Episcopal Church can do about it at this point.”
While acknowledging the archbishop’s explanation that the Covenant is “not going to be a penal code for punishing people who don’t comply,” Dr. Radner said of Episcopal Church leaders: “They’re not going to be able to claim any moral high ground. They’ve been sidelined.”
Those leaders are not being shown the exit, he said, but “they’re on a path that’s going around the side of the building.”
He highlighted Section 4.1.6, which says simply, “This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.”
Conservative provinces in the Global South “ought to be able to go ahead with it,” he said about adoption of the Covenant, “whatever problems there are with this or that detail.”"
Also just noticed, a post by the Anglican Communion Institute.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Anglican Covenant (ii): Hopes
Opposition to the Anglican Covenant, or simply indifference to it, seems to proceed from four bases. Base One is the belief that, when all hand-wringing explanations are made, the Covenant is simply a fig-leaf covering naked homophobic aggression against those parts of the Communion with the temerity to publicly affirm through ordination and blessing the sanctity of same-sex partnerships. In four words: its purpose is punishment.
Base Two is the belief that the Anglican way is what it is without need for further definition or description; indeed, the idea of a Covenant is "unAnglican". In four words: it will not do!
Base Three is not entirely dissimilar to Base Two because it also sees no need for a Covenant, but does so for a different reason. When all is said and done, the Anglican Communion is caput. Over. Working on a Covenant is, from this perspective, a waste of time. In four words: it will achieve nothing.
Base Four, to which I was alerted by a correspondent yesterday, again, has similarity to Base Two, and to Base Three, but with an important difference. The Covenant is a waste of time, but not because it will achieve nothing. It might in fact achieve something inasmuch as it enables the world Anglican church as an institution to totter along for a few more decades. But the Covenant is a waste of time, on this view, because God is doing something else within the context of the Anglican Communion (and beyond it). That is, God is building a new form of church (a New Reformation so to speak) with a new generation of people, freed of (say) the shibboleths of the Baby Boomers, who are zealous to obey God and indifferent to some of the concerns of their elders. Thus to focus on the Covenant is to miss where the divine action in the church and world is today. In five words: God is not in it.
So, what I am about to write is in the face of the possibilities that the Anglican Covenant is wrong-headed because its purpose is punishment, it will not do, it will achieve nothing, and God is not in it!
With the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, I share some hopes for the Covenant. In his recent introduction to the final version of the Covenant he says this,
"In other words, what we need is something that will help us know where we stand together, and help us also intensify our fellowship and our trust.
"The covenant text sets out the basis on which the Anglican family works and prays and lives and hopes. The bulk of the text identifies what we hold in common, the ground on which we stand as Anglicans. It's about the gift we've been given as a Church and the gift we've been given specifically as the Anglican Communion. All those things we give thanks for, we affirm together, and we resolve together to safeguard and to honour."
In other words, if being Anglican in the world means presenting ourselves as a global body united in Christ, then some definition of the basis of our unity as Anglicans is worth spelling out via the Covenant. In Rowan-speak a key word in the above citation is "intensify". The hopes for the Covenant are not like the hopes for Copenhagen, that somehow some form of words might be agreed to by nations otherwise resolved not to like each other. Rather they are hopes that the member churches of the Communion might not only agree to the Covenant, but on the basis of it deepen our common life together, "presenting to the world a face of mutual understanding, patience, charity and gratitude for one another", and thus becoming "a truly effective tool for witness and mission in our world".
This is a great vision for our life in Christ facing outwards to the world!
(Unfortunately the whole text of the Archbishop' introduction is littered with statements about what the Covenant is "not", and with a sense that the hopes for the Covenant lack the solidity of the hope of which the New Testament speaks. I wish the Archbishop were not so pessimistic!)
Tomorrow the revised text of the Covenant itself ...
Base Two is the belief that the Anglican way is what it is without need for further definition or description; indeed, the idea of a Covenant is "unAnglican". In four words: it will not do!
Base Three is not entirely dissimilar to Base Two because it also sees no need for a Covenant, but does so for a different reason. When all is said and done, the Anglican Communion is caput. Over. Working on a Covenant is, from this perspective, a waste of time. In four words: it will achieve nothing.
Base Four, to which I was alerted by a correspondent yesterday, again, has similarity to Base Two, and to Base Three, but with an important difference. The Covenant is a waste of time, but not because it will achieve nothing. It might in fact achieve something inasmuch as it enables the world Anglican church as an institution to totter along for a few more decades. But the Covenant is a waste of time, on this view, because God is doing something else within the context of the Anglican Communion (and beyond it). That is, God is building a new form of church (a New Reformation so to speak) with a new generation of people, freed of (say) the shibboleths of the Baby Boomers, who are zealous to obey God and indifferent to some of the concerns of their elders. Thus to focus on the Covenant is to miss where the divine action in the church and world is today. In five words: God is not in it.
So, what I am about to write is in the face of the possibilities that the Anglican Covenant is wrong-headed because its purpose is punishment, it will not do, it will achieve nothing, and God is not in it!
With the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, I share some hopes for the Covenant. In his recent introduction to the final version of the Covenant he says this,
"In other words, what we need is something that will help us know where we stand together, and help us also intensify our fellowship and our trust.
"The covenant text sets out the basis on which the Anglican family works and prays and lives and hopes. The bulk of the text identifies what we hold in common, the ground on which we stand as Anglicans. It's about the gift we've been given as a Church and the gift we've been given specifically as the Anglican Communion. All those things we give thanks for, we affirm together, and we resolve together to safeguard and to honour."
In other words, if being Anglican in the world means presenting ourselves as a global body united in Christ, then some definition of the basis of our unity as Anglicans is worth spelling out via the Covenant. In Rowan-speak a key word in the above citation is "intensify". The hopes for the Covenant are not like the hopes for Copenhagen, that somehow some form of words might be agreed to by nations otherwise resolved not to like each other. Rather they are hopes that the member churches of the Communion might not only agree to the Covenant, but on the basis of it deepen our common life together, "presenting to the world a face of mutual understanding, patience, charity and gratitude for one another", and thus becoming "a truly effective tool for witness and mission in our world".
This is a great vision for our life in Christ facing outwards to the world!
(Unfortunately the whole text of the Archbishop' introduction is littered with statements about what the Covenant is "not", and with a sense that the hopes for the Covenant lack the solidity of the hope of which the New Testament speaks. I wish the Archbishop were not so pessimistic!)
Tomorrow the revised text of the Covenant itself ...
Monday, December 21, 2009
Anglican Covenant (i): Why?
The Anglican Communion as a working communion of Anglican churches committed to work together to the glory of God is bruised, battered, and, if not broken in pieces, certainly has a broken limb or two. What is to be done? "Nothing" is a possible answer. The Communion might recover to one degree or another as some illnesses are healed through the passage of time. Or, the Communion might simply evolve without further intervention into a new set of bodies (say, a (much diminished) Communion, a Conference, and a network or two, including one which lies within the jurisdiction of Rome). Or, the Communion may remain a communion in name only, its effective status that of a federation, an entity, that is, consisting of independent churches that share a few things in common, but do not share any willingness to be accountable to one another.
Another answer is that "something" ought to be done to enhance and to develop the life of the Anglican Communion. The "ought" being driven by a theology of unity, fellowship, body, love, and christology: the church under Christ is both an organically growing body of believers and a communion of believers united in Christ. A divided Anglican Communion (whether formally into several Anglican groupings, or effectively by virtue of being a federation) represents a failure to attempt to live up to the vision of the church in the New Testament. An Anglican Communion which made this attempt would, consistent with the underlying theology, be a Communion of churches intent on seeking an even greater unity with all churches, beginning first with those it has most in common (e.g. Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox). An Anglican Communion which gave up making the attempt would be contributing to the disunity of the church. Thus, something ought to be done!
For some Anglicans, what ought to be done is simply renewing our commitment to doing things the way they have been done. Whether we follow Desmond Tutu's simple but profound description of the Anglican Communion, "We meet", or the more detailed description in terms of the Instruments of Unity, this presumes that "bonds of affection" flowing in and through these Instruments are sufficient to bind us together. Renewal might work. One difficulty, however, is that this way has not worked to this point. Under this 'business as usual' model we have become a Communion out of sorts: divided as to whether or not we should have bishops in same-sex partnerships, stretched by a diversity of theology which means we keep waking to headlines about priests and bishops who do not believe this core doctrine of the church, and strained to breaking point by an increasing lack of any commonality in our liturgical worship.
I suggest the Anglican Communion needs a Covenant in order to define itself in a manner agreed by all. Otherwise the Communion is defined, and will keep being defined according to media headlines, and/or local assertions of what 'Anglican' means. The bonds of affection which have held us together now require the bounds of covenanting lest ‘Anglican’ mean everything to everyone and therefore nothing to anyone. Constant harping against the Covenant is either nostalgia or an effective call for the Communion to become a federation. If people wish to express sorrow that things have come to this pass they should look back in anger at the consistent attempts on the part of a series of bishops, clergy and academics to define ‘Anglican’ in a manner which was always liable to lead to a broken Communion.
The billboard blunder in Auckland last week is a powerful reminder that the media can take up the antics of the few and present to the world a version of what being Anglican means which has not been determined by the majority of Anglicans. The Covenant, in principle at least, is an opportunity for the Communion to define itself. Some fear it will be used to punish Anglicans. I suggest it could be used as a means of self-discipline, which would lead to less headlines about distracting controversies, and better coordinated, coherent mission on the ground.
Another answer is that "something" ought to be done to enhance and to develop the life of the Anglican Communion. The "ought" being driven by a theology of unity, fellowship, body, love, and christology: the church under Christ is both an organically growing body of believers and a communion of believers united in Christ. A divided Anglican Communion (whether formally into several Anglican groupings, or effectively by virtue of being a federation) represents a failure to attempt to live up to the vision of the church in the New Testament. An Anglican Communion which made this attempt would, consistent with the underlying theology, be a Communion of churches intent on seeking an even greater unity with all churches, beginning first with those it has most in common (e.g. Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox). An Anglican Communion which gave up making the attempt would be contributing to the disunity of the church. Thus, something ought to be done!
For some Anglicans, what ought to be done is simply renewing our commitment to doing things the way they have been done. Whether we follow Desmond Tutu's simple but profound description of the Anglican Communion, "We meet", or the more detailed description in terms of the Instruments of Unity, this presumes that "bonds of affection" flowing in and through these Instruments are sufficient to bind us together. Renewal might work. One difficulty, however, is that this way has not worked to this point. Under this 'business as usual' model we have become a Communion out of sorts: divided as to whether or not we should have bishops in same-sex partnerships, stretched by a diversity of theology which means we keep waking to headlines about priests and bishops who do not believe this core doctrine of the church, and strained to breaking point by an increasing lack of any commonality in our liturgical worship.
I suggest the Anglican Communion needs a Covenant in order to define itself in a manner agreed by all. Otherwise the Communion is defined, and will keep being defined according to media headlines, and/or local assertions of what 'Anglican' means. The bonds of affection which have held us together now require the bounds of covenanting lest ‘Anglican’ mean everything to everyone and therefore nothing to anyone. Constant harping against the Covenant is either nostalgia or an effective call for the Communion to become a federation. If people wish to express sorrow that things have come to this pass they should look back in anger at the consistent attempts on the part of a series of bishops, clergy and academics to define ‘Anglican’ in a manner which was always liable to lead to a broken Communion.
The billboard blunder in Auckland last week is a powerful reminder that the media can take up the antics of the few and present to the world a version of what being Anglican means which has not been determined by the majority of Anglicans. The Covenant, in principle at least, is an opportunity for the Communion to define itself. Some fear it will be used to punish Anglicans. I suggest it could be used as a means of self-discipline, which would lead to less headlines about distracting controversies, and better coordinated, coherent mission on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)