A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant

Critics of the Anglican Covenant have, in many cases, expressed satisfaction with Sections 1–3, while declaring Section 4 defective. Lionel Deimel has published an evaluation of those first three sections, suggesting they are not as innocent as many believe. Deimel was primarily addressing Anglicans in The Episcopal Church, but his remarks should be of interest to other Anglicans as well.

Deimel’s “A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant” appeared in two parts on his blog here and here. It is reproduced below as a single post. It is also available as a single PDF file here.

Although much has been said and written about the Anglican Covenant, critics have been superficial and generous in their evaluation of its first three sections. Section 4 has been a lightning rod for criticism, which has both diverted attention from the rest of the Covenant and encouraged charity toward it so as not to be seen as uncoöperative. The devil, it is often said, hides in the details, however, and the exact wording of Sections 1, 2, and 3 is important. Churches considering adoption of the Covenant need to understand just what they are being asked to sign on to, so that they can evaluate the likelihood of their being subjected to “relational consequences” for their actions past, present, or future.

I have long thought the first three sections of the Covenant misleading and dangerous, but I have resisted the daunting task of making a systematic argument to that effect. In what follows, however, I offer a critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 in the hope that doing so will encourage more thorough and honest discussion of those parts of the Covenant.

I undertake this task as a defender of the integrity of my church and with my skills as a technical editor, one who seeks clarity in a text and who is obliged to raise questions wherever clarity is lacking. In this instance, unfortunately, I cannot go back to the author and suggest rewording, since we have been told that the text to which churches are being asked to subscribe is the “final text.” I cannot, therefore, always provide a definitive explication of the meaning of the Covenant, but I can suggest what, in practice, it might mean. This is the best anyone can do.

I will not attempt to analyze the Introduction, which, according to §4.4.1 is not actually part of the Covenant. The Introduction is a page and a half of impenetrable gobbledegook intended to lend an air of religiosity to the Covenant and to discourage serious reading of what follows. Likewise, I will ignore Section 4 for now, which is of an entirely different character.

My observations will be of greatest interest to members of The Episcopal Church, and especially to deputies to the 2012 General Convention who will likely determine the fate of the Covenant in relation to The Episcopal Church. I trust that other Anglicans will also find my remarks helpful.

Preamble

Let me begin with the Preamble of the Covenant. Here and in what follows, I will quote the Covenant text sparingly. Readers should read my comments with the Covenant text itself readily available in order to follow my remarks.

The Preamble seems reasonably straightforward. I do find the citation of Revelation 7:9 to be both pretentious and irrelevant, but this is only a stylistic issue.

Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith

This section includes assertions that “each church affirms.”

Section 1.1.1 is certainly unobjectionable.

Section 1.1.2 is a bit problematic. What, exactly does it mean to affirm that

The historic formularies of the Church of England, forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, bear authentic witness to this faith.

A footnote explains that what is being referred to here are “The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” The significance of the “historic formularies” has been downplayed somewhat in this draft over earlier ones. The Episcopal Church, of course, never used the 1662 prayer book, and I think that Episcopalians would not accept the Articles of Religion as a valid statement of their Anglican faith. Can The Episcopal Church “affirm” §1.1.2 in good conscience? I suspect not.

I cannot accept, and believe that The Episcopal Church cannot accept, the characterization, in §1.1.3, of the Old and New Testaments “as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.” This formulation has tended to earn a bye by virtue of being attributed, in a footnote, to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Significantly, however, this particular wording appeared in the wording adopted by the 1888 Lambeth Conference. It was not part of the resolution adopted in Chicago by Episcopal bishops in 1886 and never formally adopted by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. The wording of §1.1.3 seems to elevate Scripture over tradition and reason and could be—and almost certainly will be by some Anglican churches—seen as an assertion of sola scriptura.

Section 1.1.4 is also derived from the Chicago and Lambeth Quadrilaterals, but, again, the Covenant favors the Lambeth articulation. What, exactly, does it mean to affirm the Apostles’ Creed “as the baptismal symbol”? This seems to make no sense. And what of The Episcopal Church’s Baptismal Covenant in the 1979 BCP? Is it somehow incompatible with §1.1.4?

Section 1.1.5 also derives from the Chicago and Lambeth Quadrilaterals. What is the significance of “and of the elements ordained by him”? If wine is unavailable and grape juice is used, is this a violation of the Covenant? Perhaps this section is too specific.

I see no problems in §1.1.6.

Section 1.1.7 is clearly asserting that our churches are liturgical and, in one way or another, derive our liturgies from the first Book of Common Prayer. The phrase “shared patterns of our common prayer and liturgy” suggests a uniformity that does not exist, however. The wording is circumspect, perhaps in recognition that a distressing amount of Anglican worship is not based on the local prayer book.

What, exactly, is the “apostolic mission” referred to in §1.1.8? Do all Anglican churches understand this mission the same way?

In general, §1.1 gets into trouble by being too specific. It thereby encourages disputes regarding whether churches might be acting in a way that is incompatible with the Covenant. Doing anything to encourage such debates is not going to advance the reputed goal of keeping the Anglican Communion together.

Section 1.2 enumerates commitments of signatories of the Covenant. It is quite reactionary, although this has not been widely noted. The Covenant has a strong prejudice against change.

That prejudice is immediately apparent in §1.2.1. Churches commit

to teach and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, as received by the Churches of the Anglican Communion, mindful of the common councils of the Communion and our ecumenical agreements.

When did the “Churches of the Anglican Communion” receive the faith they are supposed to uphold? Did the Church of England receive it before The Episcopal Church did? Did each receive the same faith? What about the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil? What are the “common councils of the Communion”? The Lambeth Conference? The Primates’ Meeting? Whose “ecumenical agreements”? Does the Anglican Communion have any ecumenical agreements? (I don’t think so.) Does The Episcopal Church have to be “mindful” of the relationship of the Church of England and the Church of Sweden, since those churches are members of the Porvoo Communion? Does the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) somehow have to be respectful of The Episcopal Church’s relationship to the Moravian Church in North America? Does anyone really know—can anyone really know—what §1.2.1 allows and what it prohibits?

Section 1.2.2 may seem innocuous on first reading, but the reality is that the Communion has many conflicting ideas about what is “the teaching of Holy Scripture,” and many would argue that that teaching has been and is now in conflict with “the catholic tradition.” Ultimately, this section will mean whatever the Standing Committee says it means. That is unlikely to be what The Episcopal Church thinks it should mean.

It is significant (and disturbing) that neither §1.2.1 nor §1.2.2 acknowledges reason as a source of authority for the Communion. Apparently, Richard Hooker is not going to be the quintessential theologian of the Anglican Communion that will be created by the Anglican Covenant. The omission again illustrates the profound prejudice the Covenant has for forever keeping things as they are, since neither tradition nor a literal reading of Scripture allows latitude for change.

As far as I can see, §1.2.3 is complete gobbledegook. I have no idea what it means. It asserts that churches commit

to witness, in this [theological and moral] reasoning, to the renewal of humanity and the whole created order through the death and resurrection of Christ, and to reflect the holiness that in consequence God gives to, and requires from, his people.

I suggest that statements like this are not helpful if a layperson like myself can make so little sense of it. This section will endear Episcopalians neither to the Covenant nor to the Anglican Communion. This is the sort of statement that gives theology a bad name.

Section 1.2.4 overall seems reasonable, but it has some worrisome eccentricities. The “communal reading of … the Scriptures” seems to suggest that we all must interpret Scripture the same way. Surely, this is unacceptable. (Section 3.2.3 elaborates this theme.) I have no idea what to do with “and costly witness to.” Is this about martyrdom or what?

Section 1.2.5, concerning the handling of Scripture, is not, in itself, objectionable. The problem, of course, is that one person’s faithful, respectful, comprehensive, and coherent interpretation of Scripture is another person’s misreading. Provisions such as §1.2.1 lead me to believe that sincerity in interpretation will not be a defense for any interpretation deemed non-traditional.

Section 1.2.6 is just fine. It is perhaps the only provision in the entire Covenant that could be viewed as “liberal.”

Section 1.2.7 is another provision whose meaning is obscure. What does it mean to act “in accordance with existing canonical disciplines”? The Anglican Communion itself has no canons, so what canons are being invoked here? What does it mean “to nurture and sustain eucharistic communion”? I suspect this means that no church should do anything that would cause another church to declare broken or impaired communion. If so, it is another instance of a prejudice against any church’s rocking the Anglican Communion boat.

The final clause of §1.2.8 sounds lovely. But the notion of pursuing “a common pilgrimage with the whole Body of Christ” is another instance of the Covenant insisting that no church can do anything novel unless the whole Communion goes along. Here, in fact, there is a suggestion that all Christians, not just all Anglicans must agree. Thank you, no, I prefer a church that’s alive to one that’s preserved in formaldehyde.

Section Two: The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation

The second section of the Anglican Covenant begins with propositions that signatories affirm.

It is difficult to object to §2.1.1, but it is easy to be suspicious of it. What does it mean to assert that “communion is a gift of God?” If we believe that all things come of God, then surely communion does. But so do tsunamis, by that reasoning. (Christians have a tendency to attribute to God those things they like and to absolve God of responsibility for those things they don’t like. It is difficult to find a rational basis for such belief.) I think that the authors want readers to believe that the Anglican Communion is a gift of God. It is not clear just how good this particular gift is or why Anglicans, specifically, have been so blessed. In any case, arguing that the Anglican Communion is a gift of God could become an excuse for condemning any action that “tears the fabric of the Communion” as a rejection of God’s gift.

In §2.1.2, the Covenant begins to make the case for the new Anglican Communion the Archbishop of Canterbury is hoping we will all embrace, one that achieves “a more fully developed communion life.” There are many scales on which our communion life might be “more fully developed.” Churches could, for example, develop a communion life that is more tolerant, understanding, and mutually supportive. That is not the kind of development envisioned by the Covenant, however. Instead, the Covenant is luring signatories into “a worldwide family of interdependent churches,” as it is expressed in §2.1.4. “Interdependent,” of course, despite protestations in the Covenant to the contrary, means constrained, not independent, not autonomous.

The function of §2.1.3 is unclear, unless it is intended to make us feel guilty, so we will agree to adopt the Covenant.

Section 2.1.4 is not objectionable except insofar as it assumes that we desire to become “a worldwide family of interdependent churches.” I, for one, have no such desire.

Section 2.1.5 expresses the desire to see “full, visible unity of the Church,” since Jesus is reported by St. John to have prayed “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). “Being one” does not necessarily mean that all churches must unite. What would our world be like if all churches were the same, if going to one house of worship delivered the same experience as going to another? I suggest that such a world would minister to a minority of people, leaving most people outside the church. I, for one, do not lament our present diversity, either in the Anglican Communion or in the world at large. When all people have the same personality, education, ethnicity, and nationality, the Christian Church can fully unite. Until then, doing so is counterproductive.

On the basis of the assertions of §2.1, §2.2 lists commitments assumed by churches that adopt the Covenant.

In §2.2.1, signatories commit to evangelism “and, with mutual accountability, to share our God-given spiritual and material resources in this task.” What, exactly, is the “mutual accountability” called for here? Would The Episcopal Church be acting contrary to the Covenant if our evangelism doesn’t look like the evangelism of, say, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican)? Are we expected to help finance the Nigerian church’s evangelism?

I can find little to object to in §2.2.2, which is derived from the five Marks of Mission. (Other marks of mission have been suggested recently, however.) I don’t see the point of “as essential aspects of our mission in communion” in §2.2.2.e.

Section 2.2.3, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5 seem unobjectionable.

Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life

Section 3.1 enumerates more affirmations. It is here that the Covenant begins to reveal how it will transform the organization of the Communion.

Section 3.1.1 is unremarkable.

Section 3.1.2 begins with a resolution “to live in a Communion of Churches.” Perhaps you thought we were already doing that. We are not now living in the “Communion of Churches” outlined in the Covenant, however, which is living “in communion with autonomy and accountability,” arguably an oxymoron. There is a lot of gibberish here, but we can see in §3.1.2 the beginning of the institutionalization of the “Instruments of Communion” and an exalted role for bishops. (In general, the Covenant seems to see laypeople as chopped liver.) For example, §3.1.2 asserts that “[e]ach Church, with its bishops in synod, orders and regulates its own affairs and its local responsibility for mission through its own system of government and law ….” Arguably, this statement is not true of The Episcopal Church, as the House of Bishops only acts in concert with the House of Deputies in the General Convention to govern the church. Perhaps this form of governance is “incompatible with the Covenant.”

Section 3.1.3 again asserts “the central role of bishops” and speaks of “the historic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons.” There is no role for laypeople here! By contrast, in the Catechism of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (p. 855), the answer to the question of who are the ministers of the Church is: “The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons.”

It is §3.1.4 that fully establishes the four “Instruments of Communion” as permanent and essential elements of the Anglican Communion. I find this worrisome, as I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Meeting have seriously abused their authority since 2003. (Actually, the Primates’ Meeting had no authority to abuse, so it simply attempted to appropriate authority. The primates seemed to repent of their arrogation of power at their most recent meeting in Dublin, but, when primates who stayed away from the meeting return, so may the primates’ meddling in the affairs of individual Anglican churches.) Moreover, certain primates and their allies have tried to elevate resolutions of the Lambeth Conference—well, one of them, anyway, Resolution I.10 of 1998—to the status of “the teaching of the Communion.” Given this history of abuse of power, why do we want to give more authority to these “instruments,” allowing them even more opportunity to become instruments of oppression? This section contains many phrases that reveal an intention to remake the Anglican Communion into an entity that acts in lockstep:

• our shared faith and common life and mission
• the common faith of the Church’s members
• calls the Churches into mutual responsibility and interdependence

From the standpoint of what we might call Anglican Communion polity, I am particularly concerned about the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In practice, he has become more than simply the spiritual head of the Communion, more than primus inter pares. Americans especially should be wary of placing a single man—I surely do not expect to see a female Archbishop of Canterbury in my lifetime—at the center of all the “Instruments.” That man is not chosen by the Communion and is not even elected in any democratic sense from his own church! When the Standing Committee recommends “relational consequences” to the Primates’ Meeting or to the Anglican Consultative Council, as described in §4.2.5, it is a group of people who have to agree on the imposition of such consequences. Such a recommendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury is imposed or not based on the will of a single person from whose decision there is no appeal.

Finally, in Item IV of §3.1.4, we find this explanation:

In the Primates’ Meeting, the Primates and Moderators are called to work as representatives of their Provinces in collaboration with one another in mission and in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

I am unclear as to what this passage means. What is it that results from the work of the primates? Is it more interference in the affairs of individual churches? We need less, not more of that. I don’t know if the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is authorized to perform the work specified in §3.1.4.

Acknowledging the foregoing, §3.2 sets out additional commitments that signatories assume. Each of these commitments is designed to rein in the autonomy of Communion members.

Section 3.2.1 requires churches “to have regard for the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy,” i.e., to restrain the exercise of autonomy voluntarily. It also requires churches “to endeavour to accommodate their recommendations [i.e., those of the Instruments of Communion.]”

Section 3.2.2 is an excellent example of doubletalk. It commits churches

to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole.

In other words, the autonomy of Anglican churches is to be respected except when it isn’t. This is not reassuring.

It gets worse. Ostensibly, §3.2.3 requires that Communion members remain at the table to discuss matters of importance. Given the way meetings have been boycotted in recent years and the way certain people have been banned from those same meetings, this is a welcome obligation. But this section also asserts that some issues “may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith.” Presumably, the Communion reserves the right not to talk about these issues or to discuss them interminably without reaching resolution. (It is not hard to imagine what some of these issues might be.) “All such matters therefore,” we are told, “need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.” It is this shared discernment that churches are buying into when they adopt the Anglican Covenant. This means that, until there is substantial (or perhaps even universal) agreement about certain contentious matters, no church can move forward on them. If The Episcopal Church accedes to shared discernment in the Anglican Communion, it is a fair assumption that LGBT persons will achieve equality in our church at the second coming of Christ or when hell freezes over, whichever occurs last. (Section 4 provides a preview of what shared discernment will look like in practice.)

Section 3.2.4 extends the restrictions on autonomy to agreements with other churches.

Just in case churches have not yet understood that they are surrendering their independence in adopting the Covenant, §3.2.5 obligates them

to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.

This provision establishes what Jim Naughton has called “governance by hurt feelings.” Churches are expected to intuit how others in the Communion will react to an action that may be not only justified, but even required by a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. Section 3.2.5 elevates politeness over truth.

The Covenant refers to conflicts that “could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.” Does (or should) the Communion have a mission apart from supporting the individual churches in their missions? This is, I think, an important question. The Anglican Communion is not now a church itself, and I do not believe it should be. (I am opposed to the Communion’s negotiating ecumenical agreements, for example.) Individual Anglican churches have, in fact, painted themselves into a corner by claiming authority over and thereby taking responsibility for the actions of other Anglican churches, a responsibility that is not really theirs to assume. If Muslims try to embarrass an African church based on what, say, The Episcopal Church has done, that African church now has—if it chooses to invoke it—credible deniability. That is, the African church can assert that Anglican churches are autonomous and not subject to outside pressure or control. It is therefore not responsible for the actions of The Episcopal Church. This posture, which wisdom would have urged in the past, will not be an available option under the Anglican Covenant.

Section 3.2.6 forces churches to accept mediation in situations of conflict.

Section 3.2.7 is intended to intimidate churches into behaving as the Covenant intends them to behave.

Some Final Words

I hope that the foregoing will cause those who will be participating in the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church to reconsider the notion that Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant are somehow innocuous. They are, in fact, pernicious. It is my sincerest hope that other Anglicans around the world will conclude this as well.

We should not allow Anglicans, in discussing the Covenant, to declare blithely that Sections 1–3 of the covenant are acceptable, without insisting that they explain why they believe this to be so. It is important that all Anglican churches consider the whole of the Covenant. Section 4, after all, exists to enforce what is set forth in Sections 1–3.

I hope that my critique will encourage discussion of the Covenant in greater detail. No doubt, I have minimized some threats to The Episcopal Church and to the Anglican Communion and failed to notice others. I believe that serious discussion among Episcopalians can only lead to the conclusion that the Anglican Covenant has little to recommend it.

The goal of the General Convention should be not only to defend The Episcopal Church against the depredations of an ill-advised Anglican Covenant, but also to encourage other Anglican churches to reject the Covenant as well.

Analysis of the Provincial Votes By Jonathan Clatworthy

From Jonathan Clatworthy, who is both a member of Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant Coalition and General Secretary of Modern Church, we have received this analysis of recent actions by provinces.

********************

So neither Ireland nor South-East Asia decided to adopt the proposed Anglican Covenant – but neither felt able to just say no. Ireland voted to ‘subscribe’ to it, South-East Asia to ‘accede’ to it. As both provinces know, these are meaningless expressions; the Covenant will only come into force if the provinces sign on the dotted line to adopt it. Why are they pussyfooting about?

There is a good reason. Provincial leaders are under immense pressure to sign the Covenant, but few of them like it. It was originally conceived as a way of threatening the USA with expulsion over gay bishops. The present text makes two changes to that aim. Firstly, instead of directly threatening to expel, it sets up an international system which could respond to complaints by expelling but could decide not to; we wouldn’t know the result until after it had been set up. So GAFCON have decided this is not discipline enough and have gone their own way, leaving the rest of us wondering who still wants it.

The second change is that the Covenant makes no mention of same-sex partnerships. It would be possible for one province to object to any initiative by another and demand a judgement from the newly empowered central authorities. Anglicanism would become a confessional sect where we were told what to believe.

So what do provinces do? If they refuse to sign, they may find themselves effectively expelled. If they do sign, they will no longer be able to run their own affairs without constantly checking whether someone in another part of the world objects. So they opt for a third alternative. There isn’t one, but they act as though there is. Whether ‘subscribe’ and ‘accede’ end up counting as ‘adopt’ will no doubt depend on which side has the cleverer political manipulators.

Guest Post on Authority

I am honored to offer you a post from the House of Deputies / Bishop's private blog. Fr. Jim Stockton, as am I, is a read only member of that list who submits posts via full members from time to time. I generally find his contributions logical and on target.

Note that Fr. Jim's email address is below and he has received a copy of this post. So you can comment here and he will be able to see and respond or you can comment to his email account directly. Also below is the address of his own very excellent blog.

Welcome to our blog Fr. Jim! Thank you for permission to post the following.

**********************************************************

No argument can be made for the proposed covenant that is not an argument for what the Virginia Report termed 'a universal authority' in the Anglican Communion. It may be the case, but I personally have not noticed anyone contend that the proposed covenant would give new power to the so-called 'four instruments.' To the contrary, just as was suggested by the commission behind the Virginia Report, then as was recommended by the commission behind the Windsor Report, a single universal authority (one, not four) is now proposed by the text of the proposed covenant. This single universal authority would be the Standing Committee. The text of the proposed covenant claims that the covenant would not interfere with the respective constitutions and canons of the Churches of the Communion, but the claim is contradicted by the very proposal of the Standing Committee itself. For those arguing in favor of the proposal, or considering doing so, I suggest that they attempt to explain how it is that the surrender of the autonomy and autocephaly of each Church of the Communion is a step forward. I suggest that they explain how this proposal is not massively contradictory of the Church of England's own origin in its historic rejection of the interference of foreign authority in its own affairs; how it is not also contradictory of TEC's origin in similarly rejecting England's rule over its affairs. There is a reason that we are not hearing arguments made along these lines. No argument can be made for the proposed covenant that is not an argument for a trans-provincial and universal authority whose powers would supersede that autonomy of each Church of the Communion.

No argument can be made for the proposed covenant that is not an argument for ceasing to honor the contexts of ministry in which each of the Churches of the Communion exists. One can certainly suggest the possibility that the affects upon the Anglican Communion of TEC's rejection of the proposed covenant would be negative. Surely, then, one recognizes also the possibility that the affects of TEC's adoption of it would be negative to at least the same degree. What witness to the age-old Anglican ideal of the contextualization of ministry would be undone by TEC’s adoption of the proposed covenant? What witness in the wider context of the U.S. and the world to the Love of God for all would be undone? It is quite right to note that what TEC does in response to the proposal can and will affect countless lives, both within and outside the Episcopal Church and within and outside the Communion. We need to take this responsibility very seriously. So, it is important to note that choosing not to adopt the covenant is not equivalent to fleeing the argument. Nor is it equivalent to leaving the Anglican Communion. It is choosing to fight by claiming our rightful place in the Communion, by protecting the legitimacy of our contextualized ministry, and by inspiring other Churches to do the same. No argument can be made for the proposed covenant that is not an argument for ending the recognition and respect for the particular contexts of ministry in which the Churches of the Communion serve. To argue for the proposed covenant is to argue that the differences are irrelevant.

No argument for the proposed covenant can be made without first denying these very important realities.

Jim +

The Rev. James V. Stockton
The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection
2200 Justin Lane
Austin, Texas 78757
jstoc@ecraustin.org
http://www.ignitingthesoul.blogspot.com/

Mark Harris does it again

On his blog, Fr. Harris offers a carefully designed flow chart to explain the adoption process. Go there, read it. Reflect. Do it now! It is worth your time.

The Blog

Section 4: A holy or unholy mess?

Episcopal Café is running a series of essays from The Chicago Consultation on the proposed Covenant. Chancellor Sally Johnson discusses Section 4 and raises some issues about the process and language that we need to heed:

The focus of this article is on the procedures and processes for handling disputes articulated in this final draft. Unfortunately, the deletion of the Appendix and its replacement with Section Four does not resolve any of the issues previously raised. In fact, it may have made matters worse instead of better. The Appendix attempted, if inadequately, to create a justice system in which the outcome could be respected based on the process used to reach it (often referred to as “the rule of law”). Section Four, however, proposes a justice system in which the outcome is supposed to be respected based on the nature of the group that makes the decision, rather than on how the decision is made. In doing so, the new system gives significant power and great discretion to a group that previously did not exist.

In the final draft of the proposed covenant, references to the “Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting” have been changed to the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.” While this might appear to be an insignificant change, it may be a highly significant one. The language itself suggests that there is a body, “the Anglican Communion,” that has a “Standing Committee” with independent authority and governance powers separate from the meetings (Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting), the office (Archbishop of Canterbury) and the body (Anglican Consultative Council) referred to in recent years as “Instruments of Communion.”

Read it all here.

Yes, well sort of, kind of, conditional consents begin to arrive.

Communion leadership displaying impatience with the processes in the Anglican Communion has proclaimed that the current "draft" of the so-called "covenant" the "final document." Sending it to the provinces, the message was take it or leave it. To say the least this is not working out. The provinces are clearly not buying the whole thing even when they somehow attempt to accept something.

New Zealand and Japan seem to have accepted, provisionally, three quarters of the thing. The onerous section four is not approved. It is not clear where in the "two tier" system the leadership seems to embrace that leaves them.

In what can only be called Pyhrric victories¹, the so-called "covenant" was "approved" in two provinces over the last few weeks. In the case of Ireland, the "approval" is so conditioned that it does not apply to Ireland! In the case of the Province of South East Asia, the approval is in the context of an extensive document that directly contradicts what the document's authors and supporters say it contains.

Ireland noted in "subscribing" that it did so only to the extent the constitution, assemblies, and canons of the Irish Church were and remain superior. This makes sense only if someone else is supposed to be subordinated. In plain English (or perhaps plain Irish) that means they approved "spank the yank / Canadian" not the "covenant."

South East Asia offered an extensive and well written explanation and history that discusses what they think they are agreeing to accept. I have quoted parts here:².

15. The Anglican Communion Covenant offers a concrete platform in ordering the Churches in the Anglican Communion to be a Communion with a clear ecclesial identity. This is why global South Churches embraced the concept of the Anglican Communion Covenant when it was first proposed (South-to-South Encounter, Third Trumpet, 22). {Emphasis mine}

Oh really? For the first 150 years the only function of the Lambeth Conference was to "advise." There has never been any agreement that the communion may "order" anything.

Supporters would have us believe the "covenant" is neutral, and non-juridical. Here again South East Asia's "affirmation" of the Covenant.

We regret the decisions of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General to include TEC members in the Standing Committee, despite Mary Glasspool’s consecration (para 12).

To these folks the intended effect is clearly simillar to what Pope Benedict 16 promised the cardinals upon his election: a smaller and more in-line communion.

Finally, the first three articles and the various equivocations from the defenders all claim the draft is not attacking autocephalous standing. And yet in affirming the document, South East Asia clearly asserted a right to interfere in the most intrusive ways. They think the covenant should lead to their ability to dictate how Canada and England choose bishops!

The Anglican Communion should adopt more uniform processes in the election and appointment of bishops, to ensure that such processes are not held hostage to local politics and to parochial understandings of the episcopal office.

South East Asia's guidance on how to select bishops is not likely to be welcome in England, nor will Canada, USA, nor even Uganda seek it. Each church thinks its process quite fine and consistent with the Quadrilateral³.

The effect of utterly unrealistic expectations; Ireland thinks it remains autocephalous, while South East Asia thinks the "Covenant" is about "subordinating" other churches; is inevitable chaos. The "covenant" will be meaningless or worse, the cause of even greater anger. Leadership needed precisely what it rejected: more conversation, more consensus building, more diversity, and more time.

Now we can discern a growing set of conditional approvals that in aggregate amount to very little. The likely outcome of more conventions is more and more varied conditional affirmations. It is possible that Canada and USA will in spite of my and my colleagues opposition, do something like this. Consider what something like "We accept the covenant subject to our constitutional requirement to "respect the dignity of every living human person" or "the covenant is of course subject to the interpretation of General Synod" would mean in African ears!

The "covenant" effort won't hold the church together. It will lead to ever more divisive disputes over exactly what is agreed to and what is to be "subordinated" and to whom.

The smart thing to do is to note Southern objections (from the "Gafcon" primates), negative comments from the recent communion Primates' Meeting, and various partial approvals: then constitute a new group of scholars to review and revise the document. They should be asked to take a careful and very long look at it. In fact it might be a good idea to ask only for a progress report at the 2018 Lambeth Conference.

"Delay," wrote Parkinson, "is the deadliest form of denial⁴." Communion leadership cannot now, as they should have before say, "Sorry, bad idea!" They can however delay any further decisions until the entire process becomes, as it so richly deserves, clearly irrelevant. The communion is going to have to work out its relationships. It needs perhaps some leadership, but not an unclear, ineffective set of rules. It is time to move on from "covenant" to communion.


**********
1 A "Pyhrric Victory" is one that damages the "winner" more than it does the loser. See This link for more details.

2 The complete document is at this site.

3 See the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral as one of the four elements required for unity:

The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.

4. C. Northcote Parkinson, The Law of Delay, 1970

Another diocese from the Midwest says "No."

I have re-published this statement this morning. It is precisely the same statement formatted for this medium. Paragraph structures have been carefully maintained but the formatting is now set up for HTML.

Jim Beyer
2 May 2011

The Episcopal Diocese of Quincy
Anglican Covenant Responses


We, the deputies of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, each having read the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant thoroughly and prayerfully and various documents in favor and not in favor of adopting the covenant, report our unanimous response (with one lay deputy absent due to serious illness):

1) We have grave reservations about the “instruments of the Communion,” the authority bestowed by the proposed covenant and the hierarchy it creates. The only hierarchy of the Communion has been a spiritual one, bonding all Anglicans to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Lambeth Conference is an important gathering of the Communion’s bishops, each now by invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It may issue recommendations or spiritual advice to the Communion, but has no binding authority.

The Anglican Consultative Council, created by the Lambeth Conference in 1968, is not widely recognized as an authoritative body in the Communion, nor does it appear to be clearly known to the average Anglican.

The Primates’ Meeting seems to have taken on a life of its own and again is not widely understood or seen as a source of authority.

While the present wording of the Covenant does not clearly establish these bodies as an authoritative hierarchy, it is a move in that direction.

We only recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as our spiritual head, and no other earthly international authority. We see no reason to change this.

2) Despite protests to the contrary, it is clear that section 4 is punitive. It is a break with the history of the Communion, which has been a warm fellowship of churches in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and who share common sources of worship and tradition.

3) The need or desirability of a Covenant, with or without section 4, seems to us counterproductive, sewing seeds of conflict and endangering the great productivity with which God has blessed our Communion.

4) While manifold blessings are being given us as our global community draws closer together, we must recognize that the world in which we live is still very diverse. The customs, circumstances, growth and spiritual needs of people throughout our world share much in common and yet remain quite divergent as our histories, traditions and social interactions are not always the same. We recognize that the continents and countries of our world each have unusual, sometimes unique, needs to which God, through His Church, will respond in varying ways. We can only respect these needs and differences and recognize God’s grace showered on us all.

5) All of our deputies feels the language of the proposed Covenant is too vague, unclear and not concise. Specifically it was called “gobbledygook.” The average church person probably will have little idea what the covenant really says or means, if she or he can be induced somehow to read it. We doubt few have any real interest in a covenant.

6) We feel rather than binding the Communion together in closer fellowship, the proposed covenant, with or without Section 4, is an invitation to conflict and will lead to further stress and distrust that will endanger our future together.

7) We shall attend General Convention determined to listen carefully and be open to the Spirit. However, with the knowledge and urging of that Holy Spirit we have received up to this point, we shall will vote against adopting the Covenant.

Submitted by:
The lay and clergy deputies to the 2012 General Convention from the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, 24 April 2011.

The Rev. Robert L’Homme
The Rev. James Clement
The Rev. Margaret Lee
The Rev. Canon Thomas Stone
Ms. Anne Fulton
Mrs. Tobyn Leigh, Chair
Ms. Beverly Everett
Dr. Lin Goldstone