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.