Test Driving the Anglican Covenant – Part 1

In 2007, at its meeting in Winnipeg, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada adopted Resolution A186, which reads:

That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with the core doctrine (in the sense of being creedal) of The Anglican Church of Canada.

The resolution followed on a report from the Primate's Theological Commission, the St Michael Report, which came to the same conclusion, and added that “the Commission does not believe that this should be a communion-breaking issue.”

Obviously the resolution was controversial, and the subject of much debate and several amendments. It was adopted on a vote by orders, but by a narrow majority in the Order of Bishops. I'm not going to discuss the merits of the resolution here, but instead I am interested in exploring how it might be addressed under the proposed Anglican Covenant, were it in force at the time.

First, it is important to understand the significance of the resolution under Canadian polity. The St Michael Report was written as a result of a request to the Primate's Theological Commission to advise whether the blessing of same-sex unions was a matter of doctrine or not. The request was made in 2004, prior to the adoption of the Civil Marriage Act 2005, which made same-sex marriage legal across Canada. Thus the language was of “unions” rather than “marriages” both in the request and the report, as well as in the resolution. The reason the question arose is because “the definition of the doctrines of the Church” is a matter of the jurisdiction of the General Synod under our constitution. (Declaration of Principles, section 6(i)). So, reasoned some people, if it were a matter of doctrine, then any statement on same-sex blessings would be a matter for the General Synod alone and thus if any other Synod (of a diocese or internal province) were to pronounce on the issue, that would be ultra vires. The point was that some opponents of the decision of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster to request their bishop to authorize a rite for blessing same-sex unions felt that they could have that decision ruled ultra vires, and hence null and void, if it could be demonstrated that it were a matter of doctrine.

Of course, asking a bunch of theologians whether something is a matter of doctrine is like asking the proverbial man with a hammer whether there are any nails about. But the resulting report, which is still worth reading, not only stated that blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, it also differentiated between core doctrine and non-core doctrine. Core doctrine, such as we find in the creeds, is non-negotiable. Non-core doctrine, according to the report, involves matters about which there can be legitimate disagreement among faithful Anglican Christians. And blessing same-sex unions, says the report, is one of those items of non-core doctrine. People of faith can agree or disagree with such blessings, even passionately, but it's not worth breaking communion over.

So, Resolution A186 is the General Synod's response to the Report, in which the Synod agrees with the Theological Commission. Constitutionally, it represents the General Synod exercising its authority as the body with jurisdiction to define the doctrines of the Church. In other words, it is the definition of the doctrinal position of the Anglican Church of Canada with respect to same-sex blessings. (It leaves unsaid whether we should bless same-sex unions and, if so, in what manner and by what process such blessings should be authorized.)

But what if the proposed Covenant were in force?

In that case, someone – either another Church or one of the Instruments of Communion – could “raise a question” pursuant to section 4.2.3. The question could arise in one of three ways:

1. another Church might openly disagree with the doctrinal position of Resolution A186 and seek a ruling on whether it is compatible with the Covenant, presumably expecting a negative answer;
2. another Church, or one of the Instruments of Communion, could, without stating disagreement, still ask the same question from a stance of uncertainty;
3. the Anglican Church of Canada itself, presumably as a result of a motion by the General Synod, could ask the question, though this would imply some uncertainty or lack of conviction in its own resolution.

So, what happens if the Standing Committee declares, pursuant to section 4.2.6, that Resolution A186 is compatible with the Covenant? That would suggest that there is nothing in the core doctrine of the Anglican Communion, or at least in the Covenant, that conflicts with the blessing of same-sex unions. The Canadians, and perhaps some others, could carry on. Of course, you can imagine how well such a declaration would go over in some churches! It is not a significant stretch of the imagination to foresee that some churches would disagree, perhaps quite vehemently, with such a declaration. If the question came about as in the first scenario above, because another Church disagreed with the Canadian position, a positive answer would not settle the matter for that Church. We can talk about mediation, as in section 3.2.6 of the proposed Covenant, but really in this kind of matter there wouldn't be much to discuss, would there? Either the Canadian General Synod is correct or it isn't. So if there is an open dispute between the Anglican Church of Canada and another Church, a positive declaration isn't likely to end the matter. Nothing would be solved.

Well, then, what if the Standing Committee declared Resolution A186 to be incompatible with the Covenant? That would certainly make any Church that disagrees with the Canadian General Synod happy. But what of Canada? As I said, either the Canadian General Synod is correct or it isn't. But constitutionally the General Synod is always correct, albeit not infallible. It is the highest body, and with respect to doctrinal matters the only body, with jurisdiction to make decisions. The General Synod is sovereign just as Parliament is sovereign. So in this case we have a constitutional crisis in the Anglican Church of Canada. The General Synod has made a statement, in exercise of its jurisdiction in the Declaration of Principles, and constitutionally there is no other body competent to refute or overturn that statement. If we've got this far the General Synod will have adopted the Covenant, and the Covenant states repeatedly (e.g., sections 3.2.2, 4.1.3) that it respects the constitutional autonomy of the signatory Churches. So now you have two processes, both recognized by the General Synod, which have come to opposite conclusions on the same issue. How is the General Synod to resolve the matter? Either it will have to revisit Resolution A186 and rescind it, or live with whatever “relational consequences” befall it - or withdraw from the Covenant, pursuant to section 4.3.1 and live with whatever consequences that would trigger. And as for the Covenant's assurance of respect for constitutional autonomy, it's empty. Because true respect for the constitutional autonomy of the Anglican Church of Canada would mean that the Standing Committee would have to decline to rule on any question about Resolution A186, or any constitutionally similar resolution.

This, of course, raises a third possibility. The Standing Committee could decline to make a ruling, perhaps because it decides that it must so decline in order to respect the constitutional autonomy of the Anglican Church of Canada, or because it realizes that neither declaration will actually resolve the dispute, or possibly even because the Standing Committee itself is divided on the question. But making no ruling would be de facto the same as ruling that the matter at hand is compatible with the Covenant. Canada would go home happy, but those who raised the question might well go home angry and frustrated. Of course, I only use Canada as an example. The same could be true of any Church that decides to adopt the proposed Covenant.

And is there any way in either of the above three scenarios in which the proposed Covenant will have actually made things better? Would it give us anything that the existing structures of the Anglican Communion can't give us? All I can see is a process that would exacerbate the dispute.

I've skipped over the details of how the Standing Committee might come to a decision, but I'll pick that question up in the next post.

Based on possible outcomes, the proposed Covenant fails the test drive.

Yes, Virginia, There is an Alternative

TINA: There Is No Alternative.

The slogan was used so often by Margaret Thatcher that my English friends tell me her detractors began to call her Tina.

TINA can indicate a number of possible things:

At times, it is true, that options are in short supply. And it may seem there are no choices but a single proposal on the table. But that is not the usual meaning of TINA.

TINA can also indicate a failure of imagination or initiative. In this case, it's not so much that there are no alternatives, but rather that whoever is in charge is unable to think of any, or simply couldn't be bothered.

But in its usual sense, TINA is an ideological assertion. It's not that there aren't any alternatives, but that whoever is saying TINA is unwilling to entertain any other options than that which is being pushed. In this sense, TINA is a slogan. It's propaganda, which dismisses any attempt to suggest that alternatives should be imagined and explored. It's a slightly less impolite way of saying, “my way or the highway.” TINA is the slogan of what is euphemistically called strong and decisive leadership, or bullying in plain English.

TINA has taken a central place in the narrative in support of the proposed Anglican Covenant. We are told that it is the Covenant or the demise of the Anglican Communion. We are told that there are no other options, so we'd better get on board with the right side of history and support the Covenant. I'm not here launching an ad hominem attack on the leadership of the Anglican Communion. I'm not calling them Margaret Thatchers or bullies. Nor am I suggesting that they are deliberately engaging in propaganda. I am prepared to believe that they honestly believe that there is no alternative to the Anglican Covenant as proposed.

But they're wrong. TINA isn't true. There are alternatives.

Earlier, I wrote about Instrument Choice. In a nutshell, Instrument Choice is about exploring alternatives to legislation before committing to going the legislative route. Sometimes Instrument Choice is either/or; sometimes it's both/and. It depends on the specifics of a given issue, the problem, the range of proposed solutions, and the specific goals. But Instrument Choice has been bypassed in the quest to address the malaise of the Anglican Communion. Instead of looking at options a few years ago, the Instruments of Communion seized on the suggestion of a Covenant and immediately committed to it. TINA.

Drawing on a paper by Les Pal, I wrote previously about the option of Capacity and Institution Building. From the perspective of government, this way of dealing with problems means equipping local agencies to deal more effectively with the problems on the ground. From the perspective of the Anglican Communion, it might mean helping Churches to engage in dialogue more effectively, and strengthening the Instruments of Communion and the various agencies of the Anglican Communion to be more effective in promoting and facilitating encounters between Churches and church leaders.

Strengthening the Instruments of Communion is precisely what was suggested by the Virginia Report. Although the purpose of the report was not to give specific recommendations, it did raise a number of questions with respect to the desirability of strengthening the Instruments, and also regarding the possibility of enhancing the roles of the lower clergy and the laity in the Communion through the vehicle of a periodic Anglican Congress which, like the Lambeth Conference of bishops, would be held every ten years. Addressing the need to strengthen the Lambeth Conference by addressing the issue of attentiveness, or of hearing voices that are not always heard, the Virginia Report says:

Increasing the opportunities for, and occasions of, Christian attentiveness should be promoted and protected at the Lambeth Conference. This will allow the bishops gathered at Lambeth to share in, to be shaped by and to show forth the attentiveness of God the Father's love as we know it in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. (section 6.15)

Thus, for example, special care must be taken to facilitate the hearing of bishops whose first language is not English, and to hear the voices of women bishops. Lambeth 2008 tried to get at the issue of attentiveness through the Indaba process. Although some have criticized Indaba because it did not produce any resolutions, that was not its point. Its point was to empower the Lambeth Conference to do its job more effectively by providing a mechanism by which the bishops could be more attentive to each other.

Similarly, a recent initiative to gather Canadian and African bishops for dialogue specifically on questions of sexuality has borne some initial fruit. Opportunities to meet, to worship together, to speak candidly and openly with each other and to do the hard work of building relationships can only strengthen the Communion.

The Virginia Report also reminded bishops of their accountability to the marginalized:

Bishops are accountable for their words and actions at Lambeth, before God and the whole Church. The bishops at Lambeth are to represent those who have no voice: those who can rely on no one else to tell their story and plead their case; those whose concerns society and/or the Church have chosen, sometimes deliberately, sometimes forgetfully, [not] to address. It is when the bishops consider themselves accountable to those who have the least that they discover the way of the Kingdom of God. (section 6.20)

In other words, Lambeth is not to be a venue for exercising power, but one for careful listening and deliberation, particularly with regard to those who normally have no voice in Church and society.

The Virginia Report also made some observations about the Anglican Consultative Council, noting:

It is important that the representation be balanced between laity and clergy, with greater continuity of membership than at present. Representatives should have entree to the councils of their own church and be knowledgeable about its concerns and interests. (section 6.26)

That is, staffing of the ACC through the various Churches' appointment processes is an essential consideration. We need to ensure that the people we send are the best and the brightest, that they are well informed and that they have access to engage in conversations with the governance structures in their own churches. I have no evidence that this is not generally the case, but obviously the authors of the Virginia Report thought it necessary to address.

Strengthening the work of Lambeth, the Primates' Meeting and the ACC through attention to appointment processes, and mechanisms for respectful and attentive dialogue, as well as providing for discussion and relationship building through mechanisms such as the recent meeting in Tanzania of Canadian and African bishops, and diocesan partnerships, are long-term sorts of projects. But such exercises in Institution Building bear long term dividends in the form of healthier governance and its benefits.

I can see why the proposed Anglican Covenant seems more attractive than the longer-term option of institution building. It's quick, and it's more tangible. Building relationships takes time and effort and generally doesn't produce documents that can be shown as evidence that we've done something. But in my view it's more satisfying and, in the long term, it's likely to produce more good.

But the idea that there is only one way to strengthen the Anglican Communion is simply not true. TINA is an illusion. So, Virginia, there is an alternative.

Life Together

Section 3 of the proposed Anglican Covenant describes the way in which the Churches of the Anglican Communion collaborate with each other. At the heart of this section is a description of the Instruments of Communion. These used to be know as Instruments of Unity, but for some inscrutable reason the term was changed in recent times.

Section 3.1.2 correctly notes, quoting the Lambeth Conference of 1930, that “Churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together 'not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference' and of the other instruments of Communion.” This statement is a little ironic, of course, being contained within a document which is being proposed as central legislation for the Communion, and which gives at least some executive powers to the Instruments of Communion and the Standing Committee. As we say in Quebec, it seems the proposed Covenant is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

Section 3.1.3 speaks of the role of bishops in mediating relationships among Dioceses and Churches. The language seems to be drawn from the Virginia Report, but I must say that I really don't understand the point of the last sentence in this section: “We receive and maintain the historic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, ordained for service in the Church of God, as they call all the baptised into the mission of Christ.” There's nothing wrong with the statement per se, it's just that it seems to be a bit of a non sequitur here. It seems to me that it would make more sense to include it in section 1.1, which describes “Our Inheritance of Faith.”

The meat of this section of the proposed Covenant is found in 3.1.4, which describes the four Instruments of Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting. This section looks quite innocuous at first glance, but I do have a few questions about it.

First, 3.1.4 begins by affirming “the importance of instruments in the Anglican Communion to assist in the discernment, articulation and exercise of our shared faith and common life and mission.” Sounds good so far, but the question is, in what way can these instruments meaningfully discern and articulate our shared faith, in light of the affirmations of section 1? Can our faith evolve, as the instruments continue to discern it? Or is their role to become one of interpreting the faith as outlined in Section 1, in the absence of any future amendments to the Covenant text?

Second, I wonder if the descriptions of the four Instruments is adequate. On the face of it, there isn't much to quibble with here, and it is evident that these statements are meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but look for a moment at the description of the Primates' Meeting. It states:

The Primates' Meeting is convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury for mutual support, prayer and counsel. The authority that primates bring to the meeting arises from their own positions as senior bishops of their Provinces, and the fact that they are in conversation with their own Houses of Bishops and located within their own synodical structures. 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 doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

That's a bit of a mouthful!

Now, the first sentence is fine, but we begin to see some difficulties beginning in the second sentence, about the authority of the Primates. The recent meeting of the Primates noted that there is a vast range of roles, responsibilities and terms of office for the Primates of the various Churches. It may not be correct, for example, to state that a given Primate has authority because he or she is in “in conversation with” his or her church's House of Bishops. In Canada the Primate's authority is clearly laid out and circumscribed in a Canon on the Primate. And the Canadian House of Bishops has no constitutional authority as a body. I'm not saying that the Primates have no authority, but the primary purpose of the Meeting is not to exercise authority at all, but rather for “mutual support, prayer and counsel,” which role the Primates themselves affirmed in their document “Towards an Understanding of the Purpose and Scope of the Primates' Meeting.”

And then there's a rather thorny question about their collaboration on “matters that have Communion-wide implications.” The question is, what matters have Communion-wide implications? How is this discerned? I will pick this up below.

Finally, with respect to section 3.1.4, having set out the descriptions of the Instruments of Communion, even briefly, does the text say too much? Can the Instruments evolve? What if a fifth Instrument were to develop? As I have noted with respect to the proposal for a sixth Mark of Mission and the implied need to amend the Covenant, the same can be said for the possible development of a fifth Instrument. The Virginia Report proposed the convening of a periodic Anglican Congress of clergy and laity along with bishops. Although the Report said it should not be an Instrument of Communion, it could nevertheless develop into one just as the Lambeth Conference did.

I could point out the misuse of “comprise” in the phrase “The Anglican Consultative Council is comprised of lay, clerical and episcopal representatives....” which should say either “is composed of” or “comprises”. (Is this a typically North American linguistic faux pas, or does it happen elsewhere in the English-speaking world?) I could also point out the typo in footnote 18, which says “cf. the Objects of the ACC are set out in Article 2 of its Constitution.” Either “cf.” or “are set out” shouldn't be there, of course. I could point out these two infelicities as evidence of the haste with which the proposed Covenant was drafted, but some readers might think I was being overly critical and might even point out my typos, so I won't mention them.

As interesting as the affirmations in section 3.1 are the commitments in section 3.2. There is much to commend here, but still a few things that I wonder about.

Section 3.2.1 starts out well enough, committing signatories “to have regard for the common good of the Communion” and to support the Instruments, but then this clause ends with a further commitment “to endeavour to accommodate (the) recommendations” of the Instruments of Communion. So, the narrative that the disciplinary process isn't punitive because it can only produce recommendations falls right there. Recommendations are there to be accommodated, and presumably failure to accommodate a recommendation would be contrary to the Covenant.

Elsewhere I have written about section 4.1.3's claim that adoption of the Covenant does not imply any change to a church's constitution. The same issue arises with respect to the commitment in section 3.2.2 “to respect the constitutional autonomy of all the Churches of the Anglican Communion.” The whole point of the proposed Covenant is to restrain the exercise of autonomy, even to the point of the detriment of a Church's mission, and the procedure for “raising a question” in section 4.2 is in fact an invitation to interfere with a Church's exercise of its autonomy. We can say until we're blue in the face that we respect each others' autonomy, but it seems that this respect stops once autonomy is actually exercised.

Section 3.2.3 speaks of taking time to work through new or controversial proposals, “with openness and patience”. What is left undefined is where is the limit of patience? The proposed Covenant seeks to address the question of the limits of autonomy, but how long should a Church wait before implementing a proposal it sincerely, prayerfully believes is the correct thing to do? After all, notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary, I haven't seen much evidence of any headlong rush to act by progressive Churches. On the contrary, they have consistently engaged in lengthy processes of extensive study, consultation and prayer, often deliberately deferring action in order to give a chance for more study and consultation. No-one can reasonably accuse the Church of England, for example, of acting precipitously or hastily in moving to ordination of women as bishops. But at some point, there is such pent-up demand for a change, that yet another delay becomes intolerable. At some point, you have to decide either to fish or cut bait. Where is the limit to patience? Indeed, the only area where I have seen significant evidence of impatience is the headlong rush to draft and adopt a Covenant.

Section 3.2.4 is about seeking “a shared mind ... about matters of common concern.” As mentioned above with respect to the Primates working on matters with Communion-wide implications, how do we know in advance that a matter is of “common concern”? Is something a matter of common concern because someone claims it is, or are there some criteria for testing such a claim? Without some agreed-upon criteria, we have the potential for arbitrary action. And what if some other Churches aren't interested in seeking a shared mind? Then what?

Section 3.2.5 returns to the theme of “diligence, care and caution” again implying that there has been a lack of these qualities in recent times. It also introduces the concept of a mission for the whole Anglican Communion, which it seems is to take priority over local actions or decisions. What is the mission of the Anglican Communion as a whole? Who decides? How do we discern when there is a conflict between the mission of a member Church and that of the Communion?

Section 3.2.6 finally comes to the point of the proposed Covenant: “situations of conflict.” Here perhaps some of my questions are addressed, in that there is a commitment to participate in “mediated conversations.” And presumably an unwillingess to participate in such conversations would constitute an action incompatible with the Covenant, which might carry with it some relational consequences. Although, frankly, that would be rather a matter of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Which is pretty much where we are now as a Communion. There's really nothing particularly wrong with this clause; it's just that if we need a Covenant to commit ourselves in some enforceable way to act like adults, then a Covenant in and of itself isn't likely to bring that about, is it?

Finally, section 3.2.7 reminds us of the need “always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.”

For me there is one fundamental problem with this whole section of the proposed Covenant, and that is that it seems to assume both that Churches will have a tendency to act in a manner which is irresponsible, or that their mechanisms for discernment and consultation are inadequate. And it seems to assume that relations among the churches of the Anglican Communion will normally be marked by conflict. Yes, we are in a period of serious conflict right now in the Communion, with open hostility between churches and blocs of churches. And this hostility has led to boycotting of the Lambeth Conference and of the Primates' Meeting, which is sad.

These boycotts also reveal a missing element in section 3.2. In the draft, or model, Covenant in the Windsor Report, there was a commitment to show up at international meetings, or not be absent without good cause. Perhaps the drafters of the model covenant could foresee the possibility of a boycott. It's clear, and section 3.2.6 implies as much, that when people refuse to come to the table a relationship is seriously impaired, if not irretrievably lost. And when that happens, we are all diminished.

Vocation and Mission in the Anglican Communion

Section 2 of the proposed Anglican Covenant is probably the strongest section of the whole document, and certainly the one most likely to attract broad support. It focuses on the vocation and mission of the churches in the Anglican Communion, and puts the Five Marks of Mission in the centre of that vocation.

I'm a fan of the Five Marks of Mission, and they seem to have wide appeal and acceptance across the church. Nevertheless, I'm not so certain about the way in which the Marks of Mission are used in the proposed Covenant. There are three problems in section 2.2.2 of the proposed Covenant.

First, there is the question of the adequacy of the Five Marks of Mission. Useful though they are, they cannot be understood to exhaust all the possible aspects of the mission of the Church. This question was raised at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and addressed in the Lambeth Commentary, which stated that the Covenant Design Group felt it was important to quote the Marks of Mission in the form in which they have been received by the Instruments of Communion. Perhaps the question was raised in light of a current movement to add a sixth Mark of Mission, “that relates to peace, conflict transformation and reconciliation”. The Anglican Consultative Council endorsed this suggestion at its meeting in 2009, and work is underway to implement it.

But this gives rise to the second problem with the way in which the Marks of Mission are used in the proposed Covenant. For once the sixth Mark is added, the Covenant text will be out of date. Obviously the move to amend the Marks of Mission was too late to have the sixth Mark included in the Covenant text, and that text has been frozen in its current form for adoption by the Churches of the Anglican Communion. But the addition of a sixth Mark will give rise to the need to amend the Covenant, a process which will take a significant amount of time and energy. Perhaps the addition of a section 2.2.2.f to include the sixth Mark of Mission will simply be put on a Communion to-do list and included in a package of future amendments to be done all at once. But in the meantime, the Covenant, if adopted, will be out of date. An alternative which either didn't occur to the Design Group or was rejected by them would have been to refer to the Marks of Mission without actually quoting them. In other words, section 2.2.2 could have simply read something like “to undertake in this mission, which is the mission of God in Christ, to engage in all of the Marks of Mission as identified by the Instruments of Communion.” This would have left the document more fluid and dynamic, including automatically any future revisions of the Marks of Mission. Instead, we have a document that will be out of date in at least one respect before it is even adopted.

The third problem with the use of the Marks of Mission is more serious. The Lambeth Commentary states clearly that “While some have suggested additions to the Five Marks of Mission, it is the view of the Covenant Design Group that it is important to cite them in the form in which they have been received by the Instruments of Communion.” But the Marks of Mission are not quoted in the form in which they have been received. Whilst it is true that the texts in quotation marks are in fact the Marks of Mission as received, each one has been expanded in the Covenant text, which reads:

(2.2.2.a) “to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God” and to bring all to repentance and faith;

(2.2.2.b) “to teach, baptize and nurture new believers”, making disciples of all nations (Mt 28.19) through the quickening power of the Holy Spirit and drawing them into the one Body of Christ whose faith, calling and hope are one in the Lord (Eph 4.4-6);

(2.2.2.c) “to respond to human need by loving service”, disclosing God’s reign through humble ministry to those most needy (Mk 10.42-45; Mt 18.4; 25.31-45);

(2.2.2.d) “to seek to transform unjust structures of society” as the Church stands vigilantly with Christ proclaiming both judgment and salvation to the nations of the world, and manifesting through our actions on behalf of God’s righteousness the Spirit’s transfiguring power;

(2.2.2.e) “to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and to sustain and renew the life of the earth” as essential aspects of our mission in communion.

This expansion of the Marks of Mission is problematic because it places a particular lens on the Marks of Mission and that lens may not fit everyone's eyes. Consider, for example, the expansion of the second Mark, “to teach, baptize and nurture new believers.” That's all well and good; it fits with the task of incorporating new members into the Church, whether they come into our midst by birth or by their own decision to join the Church. But consider the gloss that's added: “...making disciples of all nations (Mt 28.19) through the quickening power of the Holy Spirit and drawing them into the one Body of Christ whose faith, calling and hope are one in the Lord (Eph 4.4-6).” All of a sudden the second Mark begins to sound rather triumphalistic. It's no longer just about incorporating new members; it's now about the project of converting the whole world. This formulation of the second Mark begins to have serious implications for interfaith dialogue. How we read the quote from Matthew 28 is crucial here. It's one thing to say that people from all nations are welcome to become disciples of Christ; it's quite another thing to suggest that the task of the Church is to make all nations into disciples. And that second reading was pretty much what the Constantinian era assumed. I am with those who welcome the death of the Constantinian era of the Church, but there is certainly no lack of Christians, including some Anglicans, who are still gathered around the body defibrillating it. And the gloss on the second Mark takes it in that direction.

If the second Mark of Mission reads triumphalistically as glossed, the fourth is even worse. It's one thing to say that part of our mission is “to seek to transform unjust structures of society.” It's quite another thing to suggest that this is to be done “as the Church stands vigilantly with Christ proclaiming both judgment and salvation to the nations of the world, and manifesting through our actions on behalf of God’s righteousness the Spirit’s transfiguring power.”

There is an irony, too, about inclusion of the fourth Mark of Mission in the proposed Covenant, given that the dispute-settling process of section 4.2 is itself demonstrably an “unjust structure”. Maybe we should be more concerned about addressing our own unjust structures before we start arrogantly “proclaiming both judgment and salvation to the nations of the world.”

Triumphalism isn't just my concern, it was raised as an issue in the Lambeth Commentary. And in its response, “The Covenant Design Group acknowledge[d] that this is an important corrective.” So we have section 2.2.3, which commits signatory Churches “to engage in this mission with humility....” Humble triumphalism.

But it would have been better if the Design Group had taken its own advice and simply quoted the Marks of Mission in their canonical form, without adding the gloss to them. Or better still, if they had simply included them by reference, allowing the Marks of Mission to continue to evolve without rendering the Covenant out of date. But then, if the proposed Covenant is rejected, we won't have that problem.

Primates Committed

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent a letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. There is much to celebrate in that letter. But he has also mentioned a few curious things in commenting on the recent Primates’ Meeting and the proposed Anglican Covenant.

First, the Archbishop noted that the various Primates have “different legal and canonical roles.” That is, “some have a good deal of individual authority; others have their powers very closely limited by their own canons.” And so, “it would therefore be difficult if the Meeting collectively gave powers to Primates that were greater than their own canons allowed them individually, as was noted at the 2008 Lambeth Conference.”

This is interesting in light of the statement that the Primates who met at Dublin are “committed to the Covenant process.”

So, what exactly does the Archbishop mean by “committed to the Covenant Process”? Does he mean that the Primates are committed to a thorough study of the proposed Covenant and an eventual vote, based on informed opinion, as to whether to adopt the Covenant or otherwise? Or does he mean to imply that the Primates are committed to trying to ensure that the Covenant is adopted by their Churches?

Given that at least some Primates are constrained by the canons that govern them, the latter seems impossible unless the canons in question allow such a position. But otherwise the statement seems rather optimistic.

Interestingly, the Archbishop also indicated that “the unanimous judgment of those who were present was that the Meeting should not see itself as a ‘supreme court’, with canonical powers, but that it should nevertheless be profoundly and regularly concerned with looking for ways of securing unity and building relationships of trust.”

Of course, the Archbishop himself knows that the proposed Covenant, the process of which (whatever that means) is committed to by the Primates, will in fact turn the Meeting into a kind of “supreme court” with “canonical powers”.

Which raises the question: to what, exactly, are the Primates committed?

Anglican Covenant: Questions and Answers and more Questions

Alongside its rather thin Study Guide, the Anglican Communion Office has also recently published a document of Questions and Answers. To give some credit, this document is much more meaty than the Study Guide, which might be better described as a sales brochure. A careful read of the Questions and Answers in conjunction with the proposed Covenant itself may help stimulate some actual critical thinking, which is a good thing.

The Q&A begins by asking, “What is a covenant?”

The answer, which includes an extensive quote from an address given to the Lambeth Conference by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, is very helpful. It points to the biblical model for a covenant which, “refers to a solemn agreement or promise which binds two parties.” For example, the document quotes the Covenant God makes with Noah (Genesis 9): “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” Or again, there is the Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17): “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations.” As signs of these covenants, we have the rainbow and circumcision.

An interesting point not explored by the document is the fact that these covenants are awfully one-sided. God promises Noah that he won’t destroy the earth again, and gives a rainbow as a perpetual sign. God promises Abram that he will be the ancestor of great nations, and throws in a new name, with the sign being circumcision. In other words, there’s a whole lot of quo and not much quid in the bargain. In addition, there are no mechanisms in these covenants for addressing disputes. There’s no Standing Committee, no threat of Relational Consequences, and so on. (Yes, Israel would later understand various setbacks such as various defeats in battle and the Exile as Relational Consequences of a sort, but these are not built in to the Covenant. It is not designed to impose them.)

The document correctly notes that “there is ... only one true covenant: that which we receive in Christ as God binds himself to us.” Which begs the question: why, then, this paper Covenant? Do the authors not see the irony of how much they dignify the proposed Anglican Covenant by comparing it to the biblical covenants? Do they not see how poorly it fares in relation to the New Covenant in Christ?

Oh, but “our Covenant uses words from the Bible and our Church tradition.” Yes, but that does not make it Holy Writ. I can quote Shakespeare until I am blue in the face and never once be mistaken for the bard himself. And, as we shall soon be reminded in our Sunday Gospel reading, the devil is capable of quoting scripture. So the fact that the proposed Covenant is liberally sprinkled with words and phrases from scripture and from previous ecclesiastical documents (all carefully footnoted) means exactly nothing. What is important is what the proposal actually says, what it is likely (or unlikely) to achieve, what are the possible and probable side-effects. And about these, we see very little, if anything, emanating from the Anglican Communion Office.

Question 2 asks, “How and why has the Covenant been written?”

The document explains that the Covenant was written on the recommendation of the Windsor Report. It says that this report was a “response to developments in North America with respect to same-sex relationships” as a result of which “serious differences threatened the life of a diverse worldwide Church.” That’s one reading of events, I suppose, though not a very thorough one. It ignores, for example, that people outside North America also have same-sex relationships. Some of them are even Anglicans. And the suggestion that “differences” were the cause of disunity, rather than aggressive actions, is a serious weakness. And I’m not certain which “worldwide Church” the document refers to. Do they mean “Communion of autonomous Churches”? No, probably not.

The document states that the aim of the proposed Covenant is not “to change current Anglican Structures or to amend doctrine.” But in fact, it does change current structures, by turning the recently renamed Standing Committee into a tribunal, and the Instruments of Communion into Instruments of Coercion. As to amending doctrine, it seems to be designed to remove the possibility of evolution of doctrine, which is certainly a change to what I have long seen as one of the hallmarks of the Anglican approach to doctrine - provisionality.

The document assures us that “Love, charity and unity form the basis of the Covenant.” But it fails to explain how these qualities can emerge from the climate of hostility, uncharitableness and disunity that has pervaded so much of the relations in the Anglican Communion these last several years. Love, charity and unity are all certainly desirable, but they cannot be imposed, nor can they emerge from a document. They must be received as a gift from God and cultivated by God’s followers. That would require things like showing up at meetings and worshiping together.

The document also assures us that the proposed Covenant “has been arrived at only after a thorough process of consultation.” In fact, the whole process of drafting this proposal has occurred at breakneck speed, with very little opportunity for careful, informed reflection. It has gone through four drafts in the span of three years, quickly shown to each of the Primates’ Meeting, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council, with no chance for a report back to any of these bodies before moving on to the next stage. That’s drive-by consultation, which respects neither the people being consulted nor those tasked with conducting the consultation. As to the Churches of the Communion, the document pays lip service to the fact that “the timescales and legal processes vary considerably amongst the provinces of the Communion” but the process neither takes these differences into consideration nor seriously entertains the possibility that a number of Churches will decline the invitation to adopt the Covenant. The Communion Office needs to grasp that some General Synods don’t meet three times per year.

Question 3 asks, “What does the Anglican Communion Covenant say?”

I have written, and will write, elsewhere about the content of the proposed Covenant, but here one line leaps out: “The third section ... asks the question, ‘what is the source of our unity?’ The immediate answer is ‘our participation in Baptism and Eucharist’ by which we are incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Church.” Ah, so the proposed Covenant is not a source of our unity!

Question 4 addresses “How will the Covenant deepen our Communion?”

Well, “addresses” is a strong word. The document suggests that this goal will be achieved “by providing a constant reminder of our shared life and mutual responsibilities while renewing our commitment to the mission of the Church in the world.” Who could argue with that? But, as always, the devil is in the details. The document goes on to state that, at times of dispute “the early Christians would meet together and discuss their disputes and, guided by the Holy Spirit, find a measure of peace and resolution as they journeyed together.” Yes, but what they didn’t do was to set up a mechanism for applying Relational Consequences following a demonstrably unfair process. So the unanswered question here is, given the method of the early Christians for addressing matters of controversy, in what way (if any)  is the proposed Covenant an improvement?

One of the key virtues mentioned by the document (and the proposed Covenant) is patience. I would like to know what is implied by patience, because sometimes it is a two-edged sword. I recall as a curate that I was involved in some initiative or other in the parish to which a certain segment of the community took exception. One femme d’un certain age told me, “Just wait 15 years and we’ll all be dead; then you can do what you want.” In other words, be patient. I recall thinking that if I had to spend the next 15 years waiting to get on with things then I wouldn’t be there to implement the idea once the last objector was dead. Patience can indeed be a virtue, but the call to patience can also be a delaying tactic. And when people are trying to bring the sorts of changes that free the oppressed, or to liberate the marginalized, the call to patience is anything but virtuous. When a marginalized minority is waiting for the better part of a generation for the majority to make up its mind, the call to patience perpetuates oppression. And in the process countless lives of service in the Gospel are frittered away, countless opportunities to advance the Kingdom of God are squandered, measureless amount of energy wasted. Is this what we want for the Anglican Communion?

Sometimes there is such a thing as divine impatience.

Question 6 asks, “Will all churches associated with the Anglican Communion adopt the Covenant?”

The short answer is, we hope so, but some might not. But the curious point is raised that “there may be other Churches not currently in the Communion, or individual dioceses within existing provinces or local churches, which wish to affirm the Covenant, and which could be invited by the Instruments of Communion to adopt it formally.” With respect to the first category, I have to ask “why”? Why would a non-Anglican Church want to sign on to an international treaty that couches the faith in peculiarly Anglican language, affirms the value of the heritage of the English Reformation, including the 39 Articles, Book of Common Prayer and so on, and then creates mechanisms for disciplining signatories? It makes no sense to me. And with respect to the second category, whilst I can’t speak for other Churches, it would be ultra vires for a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada to adopt the Covenant formally, and it would be out of line for the Instruments of Communion to invite such a diocese to do so. Such an invitation would be a profound disrespect for the constitutional autonomy of the Anglican Church of Canada. So let’s put that idea to bed right now.

Question 8 asks, “Will the Covenant prevent the Church from moving forward?”

The answer may surprise you. It surprised me! The document says that “each local Church must be free to develop its life and mission within its particular context.” But the whole reason we have a proposed Covenant is precisely because some Churches have attempted to do just that: to develop their lives and mission within their particular contexts; and then other Churches in other contexts objected. The response from some leaders in the Anglican Communion, including the original Chair of the Covenant Design Group, has been that we need mechanisms to restrain Churches from acting in their own contexts. The purpose of the Covenant is in fact precisely to act as a restraint! And it’s not exactly like Churches need restraints. We already have all sorts of mechanisms to slow down and test the spirit and study proposals. Churches, according to a Lutheran bishop I have met, are like aircraft carriers: they don’t turn on a dime. The only thing that needs restraining is the Covenant juggernaut.

Question 9 asks, “Will the Covenant strengthen central control within the Anglican Communion?”

Again, a surprising answer: not at all! “It must be stressed,” the document soothes, “that the Covenant continually emphasises the autonomy of the provinces of the Communion.” Yes it does. But then it undermines that autonomy with a vague and arbitrary process by which the Standing Committee can threaten Relational Consequences against any provinces that has the audacity actually to exercise its autonomy.

Finally, question 10 asks, “Why might people be nervous about the Covenant?”

The only answer here appears to be that the Covenant is new. And Nervous Nellies are always worried about novelty. But, “we can be confident that the Covenant is the result of a careful process of consultation, debate and prayer.” Actually, I’m not so confident. There has been very little careful study or debate, even if there has been a fair bit of prayer. Although we do need to differentiate between prayer and wishful thinking. And as to consultation, it has often been hurried or involved processes designed to elicit consensus and agreement. Just over a month before the Covenant Design Group was appointed a number of Anglican scholars were approached and asked to provide some background papers to help the Group do its work. The deadline was impossibly short, just a few weeks and in the midst of the already busy season of Advent. And within ten days of the Design Group being announced, it had met and produced the first draft. Notice of the first meeting was so short that some members of the Group were unable to attend. And they can have given no more than the most cursory glance at the background materials. That’s not careful; it’s rushed. And in spite of a great deal of effort to go back and clean up that initial work through the text three drafts, the proposed Covenant still shows evidence of that initial rush.

The Question and Answer document is certainly worth reading. But read it critically. I hope it stimulates some more serious discussion and debate than the Study Guide is likely to do. We need more serious discussion and debate and less assertion.

Anglican Covenant: the Study Guide

Just in time for Lent, the Anglican Communion Office has issued a Study Guide to assist ordinary Anglicans around the world in coming to a clear understanding of the proposed Anglican Covenant. The idea seems to be that people will gather in groups for five sessions to read through the text together and, assisted by the Study Guide, understand what the Covenant is all about and what it will accomplish.

Each session is supposed to focus on one part of the proposed Covenant, beginning with the Introduction - which actually isn’t part of the Covenant at all, but is intended to provide an interpretive framework for it - and then moving through the four sections of the Covenant itself. A single question is provided for the study of each section. These are:

Introduction:

For each paragraph, read the Bible passages that are mentioned in the text, read the text and discuss it, and then ask ‘How does this paragraph help me/us understand the Christian faith as Anglicans have received it?’

Section 1:

Read each paragraph and discuss it. How is each of these affirmations and commitments lived out in your church?

Section 2:

Read each paragraph separately and discuss it. How do you understand the work of your church in furthering the mission of God in the world?

Section 3:

Read each paragraph separately and discuss it. How do you experience each of these as equipping Anglicans for common life and mission?

Section 4:

Read each subsection (4.1, 4.2, 4.3). What might this mean for your church?

That’s it. Naturally, a few comments come to mind:

1) The stated purpose of the process of study and consultation is "that Anglicans around the world will have an opportunity to understand and rejoice in the commitment which the churches are being asked to make." Funny, that word "rejoice". I would have thought that the purpose of study would be so that Anglicans would be able to make an informed decision about whether to accept the commitment asked of them. Evidently there is no possibility that anyone will do anything upon understanding the Covenant but to rejoice.

2) There is a typo on page 15. The paraphrase of section 4.2.6 says "the Standing Committee many (sic) declare something incompatible with the Covenant." I don’t point this out to be nitpicky, but because this kind of error reflects the haste which has characterized the whole Covenant process. (There are a couple of typos and grammatical errors in the draft Covenant, too). No one is perfect, but surely something as important as this document should have been carefully proofread.

3) The Study Guide is extraordinarily thin on actual study. In essence all it says is "read this section and discuss it in a group". Yes, there is a guiding question for each section, but it seems that the authors of the Guide feel that the value of the Covenant is so self-evident upon a simple reading of the text that no discussion or explanation of it is necessary. Either that or they fear that anything like an in-depth study will lead to people seeing through it and start pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Here are a few supplementary questions of my own:

Section 1:

Bearing in mind that these statements will be the basis on which the actions of  member Churches  may be judged in future, do you think these affirmations will be understood the same way by all members of the Anglican Communion? Are they clear enough to be used in a tribunal?

Section 2:

Based on reading the Covenant text, do you understand what it means by “communion?” What do you think your church should repent of (2.1.3)? Is there anything the whole Communion ought to repent of? Does mission mean different things in different contexts? Can you think of some examples of these differences? Do you think that all other Churches in the Anglican Communion will understand what mission means in your context?

Section 3:

Do you believe your Church is resolved to live in the Anglican Communion with all the current members? Do you believe that all other Churches in the Anglican Communion are resolved to live with your Church as a member? Do you agree that bishops have a central role as guardians and teachers of the faith (3.1.3)? What is the role of other clergy and the laity? Does the Covenant reflect that role? Does the description of the Instruments of Communion help you to understand these four bodies? Do you believe your Church respects the autonomy of the other Churches of the Communion? Do you believe the other Churches respect your Church’s autonomy? Does the Covenant provide adequate protection for the autonomy of the Churches?

Section 4:

Do you understand the process for deciding on controversial actions? Do you understand what is meant by relational consequences? Do you believe that it is helpful to impose relational consequences on a Church which is trying to live out its mission faithfully in its own context? If relational consequences were imposed on your Church, would you accept that the decision to do so is fair? Would you be troubled by the absence of a mechanism to appeal the decision?

Overall:

In what ways do you believe adoption of the proposed Covenant would help or hinder your Church in its mission? In what ways do you believe the adoption of the proposed Covenant would help or hinder the development of the Anglican Communion? In what ways do you believe the adoption of the proposed Covenant would address or fail to address the current tensions in the Anglican Communion? Do you feel more hopeful about the continuing life of the Anglican Communion and your Church if the proposed Covenant is adopted or rejected? If it were up to you, would you vote to adopt or reject the proposed Covenant?

By all means, do go ahead and study the proposed Covenant. Ask your own questions of the document. Study it in depth. And then ask yourself if it truly does make you want to "rejoice."

As for the Study Guide, I think I will wait for the Motion Picture.