Of Advent Letters and Archbishops

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent an Advent letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, and released it on his website so the rest of us can read it. In summing up the year, he tells some moving stories and gives several examples of ways in which the Anglican Communion has been a source of mutual support in the past year. All of this is good and interesting reading. I commend it.

There is a bit, however, that I take some issue with, having to do, in case you hadn't guessed, with the proposed Anglican Covenant. The Archbishop writes:

This of course relates also to the continuing discussion of the Anglican Covenant. How it is discussed, the timescale of discussion and the means by which decisions are reached will vary a lot from Province to Province. We hope to see a full report of progress at next year’s Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) meeting. In spite of many assurances,some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body. With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all. It sets out an understanding of our common life and common faith and in the light of that proposes making a mutual promise to consult and attend to each other, freely undertaken. It recognizes that not doing this damages our relations profoundly. It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled. It alters no Province’s constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces. It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function. I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.

Although I don't imagine this blog is bookmarked at Lambeth Palace, I should like to respond to some the Archbishop's points.

How it is discussed, the timescale of discussion and the means by which decisions are reached will vary a lot from Province to Province.

Yes, that's true. Some Provinces, evidently, are taking the proposed Covenant very seriously, submitting it to careful theological and legal analysis, and then considering it in light of those analyses. Others, it would appear, are content simply to rush the Covenant through their Synodical processes with little more than a heavy-handed sales pitch and an appeal to people's loyalty to their Primate. I'm not sure what's meant to be democratic about pushing people to vote without adequate information. Natural Justice requires that we hear the other side. But then, why should I be surprised that the process to adopt a document which violates the principles of natural justice should be remotely interested in following those principles itself.

In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body.

Er, that would be people like me, I imagine. But then, I've read the document and analysed it, rather than simply rely on unsupported “assurances” to form an opinion.

With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all.

I do wish that the Archbishop would ask someone to respond to the sorts of concerns that I and others have raised, and perhaps even offer a rationale or argument in favour of the Covenant. “No it isn't” is not an argument, it's mere contradiction.

It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled.

Well, actually, it outlines the rough idea of a procedure, which is so vague that it's practically useless, to make arbitrary decisions based on unclear criteria whether a given decision or action of a given Province is or is not “incompatible with the Covenant.” And, although it threatens “relational consequences” it doesn't define them, so the Archbishop is incorrect to say that it indicates any “sorts of consequences.” The process, such as it is, is a recipe for arbitrariness.

It alters no Province’s constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces.

In a word, poppycock. An Act of Synod adopting the proposed Covenant makes it law for that Church in exactly the same way an Act of Parliament (or equivalent) adopting an international treaty makes the treaty law for the country. And, in the same way, it commits that Church to abide by the undertakings contained in the Covenant, if it can figure out what they are, given that they are not clearly defined. In making this commitment, the adopting Church will be ceding jurisdiction in at least some areas of it life. If that doesn't imply a change to the constitution, I don't know what does.

It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function.

Well, that's partially correct. The proposed Covenant does not create a new body. The new body (the Standing Committee) was created in the course of the development of the Covenant text, though I must confess to being a bit vague on the process by which the body was created. And, if it's not unaccountable, at least its accountability is circular, given that it consists entirely of members of the two bodies to which it is purported to be accountable, and given that its chair is also the chair of one of those bodies and the president of the other. And surely, its powers are more than merely advisory. And arbitrary, given the complete lack of definition of criteria or process for it to do its work. And because of the overlapping roles in the Standing Committee and other bodies, it is intrinsically incapable of producing fair decisions. See “judiciary, independent” or “powers, separation of.”

I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.

Ah yes, TINA. We've heard that before. Actually, the good Archbishop has come up with an excellent alternative himself: indaba. It would be interesting to give that process time to work rather than continuing to push the hard sell of a dodgy Covenant.

I enjoyed reading most of the Archbishop's letter. I appreciate and value the Anglican Communion, and his travelogue only underscores that value. It's a pity that he took the opportunity, like a latter-day Cato the Elder, to use the letter to push the proposed Covenant. Let us study it, Archbishop, and each according to our own procedures come to an informed decision without being told from above how to vote.

The Archbishop advises that the Communion needs “a sustained willingness on the part of all Provinces to understand the different ways in which each local part of the Anglican family organizes its life.” Yes. Good advice. Perhaps it should start with Lambeth Palace.

Happy Advent, Archbishop. And, in case I don't get a chance, Happy Christmas, too.

Logs and Specks

The proposed Anglican Covenant mentions accountability three times (Sections 2.2.1, 3.1.2, and 4.2.1). Section 3.1.2 speaks of “autonomy and accountability” which seems at first glance to be a pair of competing interests held in tension. The question is, what exactly is meant by accountability? The term is undefined in the proposed Covenant text, which shouldn't come as much of a surprise: no term is defined in the text.

Colloquially, when we speak of accountability we often mean it punitively, as in the phrase “hold someone accountable.” There's an overtone of “make someone pay for what (s)he has done wrong” or “stop the person from doing the offensive thing.” Certainly that use of the term has been evident in the recent tensions in the Anglican Communion. But there may be another way to understand accountability. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives the primary definition of accountable as “liable to be called to account,” which certainly sounds like the colloquial use of the term at first blush. But I want to suggest that it might simply mean that one may be required to explain one's decisions or actions to someone else. If that is what is meant in the proposed Covenant, then it suggests that, when asked, a covenanting Church undertakes to supply an explanation of an action about which another covenanting Church raises a question. But the process of determining whether a “controversial action” is “compatible with the Covenant” indicates that simply supplying an explanation is not enough. It is clear that the explanation will be judged by the Standing Committee as to whether it is acceptable or not. And in the latter case, “relational consequences” will ensue.

Adopting the proposed Covenant, then, implies an undertaking not simply to be prepared to offer an explanation of a Church's actions when asked, but to supply a satisfactory explanation or suffer the consequences. “Satisfactory” and “consequences” are, of course, undefined.

A second question that comes to mind is whether the obligation under mutual accountability is one-way or two-way. That is, does adoption of the proposed Covenant imply undertaking to supply a satisfactory explanation of any given action or decision, or does it also imply undertaking to demand such explanation of others – to hold them accountable? In other words, is the right to raise a question pursuant to the dispute settling process of section 4.2 permissive only, or is it obligatory?

In the Sermon on the Mount/Plain Jesus asks “Why do you see the speck in your neighbour's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5 // Luke 6:41-42)

The proposed Covenant is about logs and specks. It's about being empowered, and possibly even obligated, to look for the specks in others' eyes, which will inevitably give rise to others pointing to logs in one's own eyes. The trouble, as Jesus suggests, is that it is often much more interesting to look for specks than to deal with one's own logs, and in fact it's human nature to be in denial about one's own logs.

I wouldn't suggest that other Churches in the Anglican Communion should never be permitted to ask what's going on with a given action or decision, and my own Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, has been quite prepared to give an account of its deliberations, discussions and decisions. Transparency is a good thing. But do we really want a binding treaty that encourages, and possibly even requires, the search for specks in our neighbours' eyes?

Autonomy versus Communion?

Another instalment of the Living Church's series of pro-Covenant articles has appeared while my attention was diverted. In his article, From Autonomy to Communion, Bishop Titre Ande Georges, of the Diocese of Aru in the Democratic Republic of Congo, compares the Anglican Communion to the Eglise du Christ au Congo (ECC), of which his Church is a member. The ECC, says Bishop Georges, is a loose federation with an unclear ecclesial identity and no clearly defined body of doctrine. It is, says Bishop Georges, not so much a Church as an ecclesial social club suffering from a severe ecclesial deficit.

So, too, says Bishop Georges, with the Anglican Communion. He suggests that the Anglican Communion is an equally loose federation of Churches without a clearly defined statement of faith and no central authority. He correctly states that “There has never been a normative statement of faith binding each of the national churches in the Anglican Communion, nor a central source of authority.” Whether this is a problem is where I respectfully disagree with the good Bishop. For I do not believe that he is correct to say that, “ 'Communion' has been merely a matter of social fellowship between autonomous churches, fostering spiritual and social bonds of affection. ” It is true that the Churches of the Anglican Communion are autonomous, but this autonomy is a strength rather than a problem. And communion is surely about more than “spiritual and social bonds of affection.” The Churches of the Anglican Communion are in a relationship of full communion with each other, albeit a communion which is impaired in certain areas. It is not clear from the ECC website whether there are any marks of full Communion, notably mutual recognition of orders, among the member churches. But that is certainly a mark of the relationship among the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

As I have argued previously, it is unfortunate that the proposed Anglican Covenant does not contain a definition of communion. But if it means anything in our context surely it means that we recognize the full authenticity of the Church in all its marks in each other, and that we (generally) accept the validity of the sacraments, and especially of the ordination conferred in each of the member Churches. (There is the anomaly that some Churches do not accept ordination of women or ordination by women. But with those exceptions, a bishop, priest or deacon in one Anglican Church is accepted as such in any other Anglican Church.) So, with respect to the Bishop, the nature of the relationship among the Anglican Churches is different from, and deeper than, the relationship among the member churches of the Eglise du Christ au Congo.

The “ecclesial deficit” of which Bishop Georges speaks stems from a collective identity crisis and an inability to “speak and act as one coherent ecclesial body”, and so “our ecumenical partners are frustrated” evidently because they expect the Anglican Communion to do so. But are these really problems? Is not a multiplicity of voices a necessary corollary of being a diverse communion of Churches? It may be that Bishop Georges and certain, unspecified, ecumenical partners would prefer a more uniform global Church over a diverse family of Churches, as long, presumably, as this uniform Church espoused the same doctrinal positions as Bishop Georges. But this is precisely the problem with the proposed Anglican Covenant: it is uniformitarian in its essence, designed to place the member Churches of the Anglican Communion on a Procrustean bed of uniformity. But we must not confuse uniformity with unity; it is the illusion of unity. True unity, the kind of unity to which God calls us, and for which Jesus prayed, is the coming together of diverse people in a common mission, revealing the multifaceted love of God for humanity in all its diversity in celebration, not annihilation, of that diversity. It is the kind of unity to which the Eglise du Christ au Congo apparently aspires. It is the kind of unity depicted by the Second Vatican Council. It is the kind of unity reflected by the Anglican Communion at its best. And this kind of unity is foreign to the Anglican Covenant.

As with other authors in this series of articles, Bishop Georges uses the Anglican Covenant as a screen on which to project his vision of the Anglican Communion. He asserts, but does not attempt to demonstrate, that the proposed Covenant will enable the Anglican Communion to grow, or in this case shrink, into his vision. Sadly, I think in this case he may well be correct. The Covenant is indeed designed to produce an Anglican Communion along the lines that Bishop Georges describes. But it will be a Communion that is too small, worshiping a God who is too small, proclaiming a false Gospel of uniformity, incapable of engaging with the beautiful diversity of humanity that is itself created to reflect the multifaceted image of God.