To Covenant or Not to Covenant? That is the Question: The Grand Design

From The Anglican Communion Institute:

Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

THREE LECTURES ON THE PRESENT STATE AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Springfield Ill.
February 2009

Lecture Two
The Grand Design

How is a space in time in which conflict can be overcome and unity preserved to be, if not created, at least marked out? How is this task to be accomplished when the collegiality of bishops has unraveled to an alarming degree, and there is no centralized political and/or juridical order to fill the gap left by its decline? Or, to put the question in a more positive manner, how is the koinonia of the various Provinces of the Anglican Communion to be preserved and promoted at the same time the autonomy of each province is recognized, even celebrated?

The proposal now before provinces of the Communion is by means of a covenant that calls for placing autonomy within the encompassing and limiting context of communion. I have chosen to term this proposal “The Grand Design” for the simple reason that it is an ambitious and inventive proposal to preserve communion and catholic identity within a broad expanse of both space and time.

There have now been three versions of the proposed covenant—the model found in The Windsor Report, the Nassau Draft, and the St. Andrews Draft (TSAD). Comparison of these three drafts is an instructive exercise, but for present purposes we should focus on the TSAD, a version of which will go before the Anglican Consultative Council later this year. What are the primary elements of this draft? Along with an “Introduction,” a “Preamble,” and a “Declaration,” the draft contains three sections, a commentary on those sections, and an appendix. With the exception of the commentary, I will provide a summary with comments on each division beginning with the “Introduction.”

It is always tempting to whiz though an introduction in order to get to the “red meat” of an article or book, but in this case a hasty pass through would be a big mistake. In a real sense, the “Introduction” is the red meat. In accord with both TVR and TWR, it places the covenant proposal within a communion construal of Christian belief and practice. As in these reports, the life of God is presented as itself being a communion; and, through Christ, Israel and the Church have been called to share in that life so that, by means of their witness, all peoples will know God’s purpose for them. Communion is thus essential to mission and so to God’s purpose for the church in history. One cannot argue, for example, that we need to forget our divisions and get on with mission. The point is that our mission is expressed in our communion and, absent that communion; our mission lacks power to change the world.

The divisions that exist between the churches highlight even more the importance of maintaining communion among Anglicans who have, the authors TSAD believe, a special charism in respect to communion. Sad to say, they do not really tell us what this charism is. Nevertheless, they do insist that, because of the importance of koinonia and their special charism in respect to it, Anglicans have a special responsibility to renew their “mutual commitment and discipline in a time of instability, conflict, and fragmentation.” This implies a renewal of a “commitment to one another, and our common understanding of the faith…” The proposed covenant, therefore, is to be understood as the servant of koinonia, and so also the nature and mission of the church along with the special calling of the Anglican Communion.

It is precisely this purpose that is stated in the “Preamble” that follows; viz., “As people of God, drawn from ‘every nation, tribe, people and language’ we do this (make a covenant) in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the Grace of God revealed in the gospel, to offer God’s love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God’s people to grow up together to the full stature of Christ.”

Given the central importance of communion, the threat it is under, and the special calling claimed for the Anglican Communion within the family of churches, one is forced to ask, if not a covenant then what? The only other answers proffered to date are to dilute the definition of communion, opt for the much weaker relation of federation, or initiate an altogether different form of communion based upon confessional or ideological agreement. None of these, I am forced to say, cohere with the substantial demands of koinonia as fully as does the covenant proposal.

What then are the proposed terms of this covenant? One set involves a statement of theological identity. Section One of the proposed covenant is entitled “Our Inheritance of Faith.” This inheritance is comprised in the first instance of common belief “uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures”… “set forth in the catholic creeds,” and born witness to in the “historic formularies of the Church of England.” It also involves holding and administering the two sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, upholding the historic episcopate, sustenance by patterns of common prayer and liturgy, and sharing in the apostolic mission of the people of God.

This is a thick portrayal of communion indeed—one that has not been well received within TEC. The most controversial portion of this account of the Inheritance of Faith is mention of the historic formularies of the Church of England. The historic formularies are no longer in use throughout the Communion. The Thirty-nine Articles are not points of theological definition, and the Book of Common Prayer along with the Ordinal now appear in a number of versions that are markedly different one from another, and certainly different from the Prayer Book of 1662.

Nevertheless, this part of the proposed covenant carries great weight. It reflects pressures from the Global South whose Provinces are particularly concerned about what they perceive to be the doctrinal drift of TEC and a number of the other “Northern Provinces.” Its purpose is clearly to draw a more easily detected boundary indicating the limits of diversity. It does so by means of a return to the sources–resourcement. Scripture and Creeds will not cause much of a stir; but, as I have said, mention of the historic formularies will. Before one screams too loudly, however, it should be noted that the formularies are put forward with the very modest claim that they “bear significant witness” to the faith “revealed in the Holy Scriptures.” To mind, this way of signaling the importance of the formularies hardly suggests theological overdefinition.

Given the extensive theological wiggle room this way of stating their authority allows and given their importance to the Global South, one can assume I believe that the historic formularies will remain a part of the draft covenant and that they will appear in its final form. Despite charges to the contrary, as presented in the draft, they do not suggest or demand a form of confessionalism, but they do provide necessary theological points of reference that ought not to pose (though they undoubtedly will) grave issues even to a North American “progressive.”

Having set forth a statement of theological identity for the Communion, the draft covenant goes on to list certain commitments that flow from this identity. Chief among these are commitments to “uphold and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order, and tradition.” This fundamental commitment suggests others, namely, that the Provinces of the Communion will “uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline (emphasis added) that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition…” The Provinces are also committed to “seek in all things to uphold the solemn obligation to sustain Eucharistic communion…to ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully…primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods…(and) to nurture and respond to prophetic and faithful leadership…”

These commitments, save one, seem unproblematic and generous in scope. However, the commitment to “proclaim a pattern (emphasis added) of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline” is highly problematic and frankly should be changed or dropped. It calls to mind the claim made by Bishop McAdoo that Anglican theology is not defined by content but by a particular theological method—the famous triad of scripture, tradition, and reason. Bishop Stephen Sykes delivered a fatal blow to this position when he pointed out that in its liturgies and canon law Anglicans profess masses of very specific theological content. One simply cannot reduce Anglican Theology to a method, and given what the authors of the draft covenant have said about the creeds and formularies it is simply incoherent to say that all we proclaim is a pattern of theological and moral reasoning. One can only hope that the final draft cleans up this particular mess.

So much for Section One! Section Two is entitled “The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation.” This section locates Anglicanism within the long history of the church and then goes on to focus on the mission its various provinces share with one another and with other churches. To move to a discussion of the mission of the church immediately after presenting its theological identity is a theologically sound step, even though the drafters do not remind its prospective signatories of the first aspect of the mission of the church presented in TWR, namely, to be in its own common life a light to the nations, an “anticipatory sign of God’s healing and restorative future for the world.” Passing over the evangelical power of its common life, the draft goes on to ask a commitment to evangelization on the part of all Provinces. It also asks of each Province certain undertakings. Each is to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God, teach, baptize and nurture new believers, respond to human need, seek the transformation of unjust structures and strive to safeguard the integrity of creation.

In respect to section two, I will comment only that the specific undertakings asked of each Province in respect to mission look very much like the Baptismal Covenant found in TEC’s Book of Common Prayer. My only problem with this is that as employed by many within TAC and particularly in TEC, proclaiming the kingdom need not involve evangelism. Indeed, our Presiding Bishop seems to have very serious questions about its necessity even though she is devoted to the idea of the Kingdom. When a new draft of the covenant is made and circulated to the Provinces, one can only hope that the call to evangelization is more closely linked to proclaiming the Kingdom than now is the case.

“Section Three” of TSAD traces the implications of the previous discussions for relations between the various Provinces of the Communion. Once again the discussion is divided into affirmations and commitments. The affirmations focus on the resolve to live in Communion and the role of Bishops and the Instruments of Communion in sustaining and strengthening koinonia. Clearly these affirmations understand the autonomy of each province as circumscribed by this fundamental resolve.

What might be called the lexical ordering of these affirmations (communion/autonomy) appears clearly in the commitments that follow the affirmations. Thus, each Province is asked “to have regard to the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy.” Each is also asked to respect “the constitutional autonomy of all the Churches of the Anglican Communion.”

A number of specific commitments follow, particularly from the commitment “to have regard for the common good of the Communion.” The various provinces are “to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate.” They are to seek through the shared councils of the Communion a “common mind.” They are “to act with care and caution in respect to actions…at a provincial or local level…which…are deemed to threaten the unity of the Communion.” These commitments imply that there be a willingness to undertake wide consultation, accept “the legitimacy of Communion wide evaluation,” be ready to participate in “mediated conversation,” be willing “to receive from the Instruments of Communion a request to adopt a particular course of action.”

There you have it; the grand design! A communion ecclesiology that gives birth to common mission and common life, expressed and maintained not by an overarching jurisdictional structure but by means of a solemn covenant in which each province and diocese pledges itself to mutual subjection within the body of Christ. This grand design is to be taken on by a solemn declaration. “With joy and firm resolve, we declare our Churches to be partakers in this Anglican Covenant, offering ourselves for fruitful service and binding ourselves more closely in the truth and love of Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory for ever.”

This is indeed a grand design, but as with all grand designs there hovers about it a host of questions. The two that most concern those of us in TEC are (a) does this covenant have any consequences and (b) if it does will TEC ratify it? I will leave the second question to my next talk. For the moment let’s focus on the question of effectiveness—the question of what happens if a Province refuses to ratify the covenant or, having ratified it, fails to abide by its terms.

This is clearly the question with which the drafters of TSAD had the greatest difficulty. Hence, they place their proposal for the resolution of conflict in an appendix rather than in the body of the draft covenant itself. Given the Anglican propensity for muddling through, it is not surprising that the proposal involves a rather involved process that can last up to five years. I may as well say it now. Given the intensity of present debate, five years is too long. Such an extended period is an invitation to chaos. Having said this, I hasten to add that the proposal does involve a real consequence that would place a recalcitrant province in what the Archbishop of Canterbury has nicely termed “a diminished status” in relation to the Communion as a whole.

In brief, the suggested process runs like this. If a “Church” proposes to act or does act in a way another “Church” or one of the Instruments of Communion believes threatens the unity of the Communion and the credibility of its mission, and if informal conversations cannot resolve the dispute, the offending Church is to consult with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop may then seek to resolve the matter himself and/or refer it to three “assessors.” If the pastoral efforts of the Archbishop fail and the matter is referred to the three assessors, they must decide whether or not the matter in question indeed poses a threat to the unity and mission of the Communion. If it does not pose a threat they are to refer the matter to mediation. If it does pose a threat they may follow one of three courses of action. If time is not of the essence and rigorous theological study would help they are to refer the matter to a Commission for evaluation. If it is unclear that time is of the essence then the matter is to be referred to another Instrument of Communion, probably the Meeting of the Primates in most cases. If it is clear that time is of the essence, then the Archbishop of Canterbury is to decide whether to make a determination himself, pass the matter on to a Commission for study, or refer it to another of the Instruments of Communion for a determination. Within a specified period of time, one or another of these “instruments” is to make a “request” to the Church who actions are in question. If after six months the church has not responded or has directly refused the request “that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.” In short, the “Church” in question would now be in a diminished status in relation to the rest of the Communion, probably meaning they would at best have observer status in the Councils of the Communion.

Now a final comment! This is indeed a grand design. There are a myriad of questions that can be raised, the length of time it takes and the unclear relation between the various Instruments of Communion being chief among them. There a thousand doubts that surround it. Say what you will, however, it is a proposal to create a space in time for the preservation and strengthening of communion in the midst of the stresses and strains of history that in its own way mirrors the wisdom of the New Testament. In particular, the very deliberate character of the process it sets forth makes room for the counsel given in the Epistle to the Ephesians—a wisdom proposing that the Pauline churches resolve the threats to their unity by the deployment of a range of graces rather than by the ordering hand of juridical authority. The counsel is this: “I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

If Anglicans indeed have a special charism, it may perhaps be this—to seek to maintain communion and catholic identity through a covenant based upon mutual subjection in the Lord where in these graces may be deployed. This way presents an alternative to centralized jurisdiction. The question presented to TEC and TAC is whether nor not this way will be taken and their charism offered to the churches or whether it will not and the charism taken away.