What next?

Last week the process of diocesan consultation on the proposed Anglican Covenant in the Church of England reached a definitive conclusion. With six dioceses still to vote, a majority had already rejected the proposed Covenant. (As of this writing, 40 of 44 dioceses have now voted, with 15 voting in favour of the Covenant and 25 against.) The question the dioceses faced was, procedurally at any rate, whether they wanted the General Synod to consider a motion to adopt the proposed Covenant.

The reason the dioceses were even asked this question is that the proposed Act of Synod adopting the Covenant was deemed to be “Article 8” business, that is that it had to do with “a scheme for … a permanent and substantial change of relationship between the Church of England and another Christian body, being a body a substantial number of whose members reside in Great Britain.” The rules with respect to the reference to the dioceses required that a majority of the dioceses (i.e., at least 23 of the 44 dioceses) vote for the proposal in order for it to return to the General Synod for a vote. In the event that a majority did not vote for the proposal (i.e., at least 22 voted against), the proposal cannot return to the General Synod in the current quinquennium, which I understand runs until July, 2015. So now, with 25 diocese having voted against the Covenant, it is effectively dead in the water.

The blogosphere is full of the comments of pundits examining the entrails of the diocesan decisions from a political perspective, but I am more interested in procedural questions.

What does this mean for the Church of England?

Technically speaking, what this does not mean is that the Church of England has rejected the Covenant. Under the rules of Article 8, the General Synod may now not consider the draft Act of Synod to adopt the Covenant, and thus may not vote either yes or no, at least until the next quinquennium. Whether the leadership of the Church of England wants to resurrect the process of adopting the Covenant in 2015, and whether the General Synod wants at that time to start over with another Article 8 reference to the dioceses, would be matters for them to decide then, prognostications of pundits notwithstanding. So the Church of England has (obviously) not adopted the Covenant, nor has it definitively decided not to adopt the Covenant. Nor can it, by its own rules, consider the question for at least another three years.

I suppose the General Synod could conceivably consider a Act of Synod stating that it does not adopt the Anglican Covenant, although I seriously doubt that is likely.

What does this mean for the operation of the Anglican Covenant?

The proposed Covenant contemplates three categories of Church in the Anglican Communion. It refers in a few places to Churches that have adopted the Covenant “through the procedures of [their] own Constitution[s] and Canons.” (4.1.6) Once they have done so, the Covenant is “active” for them. This means that they can be the object about whom a question is “raised” (4.2.3), that they can participate in the decision making processes of section 4.2 (4.2.8), submit a proposal to amend the Covenant (4.4.2) or withdraw from it. (4.3.1)

The second category of Church consists of those “who are still in the process of adoption” of the Covenant. Although this term is not defined, it seems to refer to Churches that have neither said that they will adopt the Covenant, nor that they won't. These Churches can participate in the processes of section 4.2 (4.2.8), but are not subject to these processes, nor can they propose an amendment to the Covenant. The Church of England is, as I have suggested above, in this category.

The third category, non-Covenanting Churches, is implied by the text in section 4.2.8 and section 4.3.1. It is not clear whether this refers to Churches that have rejected a motion to adopt the Covenant, or have definitively adopted a motion stating that they will not adopt the Covenant. Sometimes voting against a motion is not the same as adopting its opposite. One could argue that as long as the possibility remains that a motion to adopt the Covenant could be brought to a Church's General Synod (or equivalent), that Church is still in the process of adopting the Covenant, even if it has previously rejected a motion to adopt the Covenant.

So, from the perspective of the operation of the Covenant, it is apparently in effect for a few Churches that have adopted it, with the implications set out above. (Exactly which Churches have adopted the Covenant is a matter of some debate.) The rest of the Churches, at least those that haven't definitively rejected the Covenant (and it's not clear that any have done that), are still in the process of adopting it.

What if the Church of England definitively rejects the Covenant?

This is where the wheels come off. Some pundits have raised questions about whether the Archbishop of Canterbury acts, with respect to the operation of the Covenant, as an Instrument of Communion, or as a representative of a particular Church. They raise this question because if the Archbishop of Canterbury is a representative of the Church of England, and the Church of England definitively rejects the Covenant, then the whole operation becomes absurd. Elsewhere I have pointed out the several overlapping roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury with respect to various bodies that conduct the dispute settling processes of section 4.2. (The overlap of roles means that the process violates the second principle of Natural Justice, as I have shown.) But if you take the Archbishop out of those roles without in some way replacing him, it creates a procedural crisis. For example, the Primates' Meeting has a key role in staffing the Standing Committee, and advising it in its deliberations. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is the convenor of the Primates' Meeting (and the President of the Standing Committee). He's also the President of the Anglican Consultative Council, which is the other key body that staffs and advises the Standing Committee. If he cannot participate in the process, the process itself becomes unworkable.

And even if the process can somehow be rescued, there is still the question of how Churches which are bound to a certain set of (vaguely defined) commitments can continue indefinitely in a meaningful relationship with a Mother Church which chooses not to take on those commitments itself. The primacy of honour traditionally accorded to the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury within the Anglican Communion would be seriously undermined if the Church of England rejects the Covenant and the Covenant is widely adopted by other Churches in the Communion.

What does this mean for the rest of the Anglican Communion?

Two years ago, I introduced a resolution to the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada that it not consider the Covenant until after the Church of England formally adopts it. The resolution was ruled out of order by the chair, and so I was not able to present my reasons for introducing it. My concern was, in fact, that we might face just the current state of affairs. If the Church of England rejects or fails to adopt the Covenant, it would create a problem for the Canadian Church if it were to adopt the Covenant. We are constitutionally bound to communion with the Church of England, and adopting a Covenant with respect to the Anglican Communion to which the Church of England is not party would create constitutional problems, to say the least. Hence, my resolution was intended to suggest that we not spend too much time, effort or money on a constitutional proposal before it became clear that its adoption by the Church of England made it at the very least workable.

I don't know how much time, effort or money has been expended on the Anglican Covenant proposal, but I think it is safe to say “a lot”. And this proposal has distracted Anglicans to a significant degree from pursuing, both other avenues of building relationships, and our primary mission of living out the Gospel in our various contexts. Now that the project is stalled, perhaps irretrievably, in the Church of England, how much more time, energy and money should the rest of us be expending on this proposed Covenant?

What should those outside England do?

It's really up to each Church to decide how it's going to deal with the proposed Covenant, but I see four options at this point:

1. Continue with the process of considering and adopting the proposed Covenant;
2. Continue to consider the Covenant, but adopt it conditionally such that an Act of Synod adopting the Covenant does not come into effect until the Church of England adopts it;
3. Suspend the process of considering the Covenant until it is clear what the Church of England is going to do next;
4. Adopt a resolution rejecting the Covenant.

The first and fourth options are pretty straightforward. I suggest the fourth because it is clearer than simply defeating a resolution to adopt the Covenant, which is a possible outcome of Option 1.

Option 2 would allow for continued study and debate of the Covenant, but if it is adopted, it would not come into effect, and the Church in question would thus not become a Covenanting Church, until the Church of England chooses to adopt the Covenant. Other conditions such as a critical mass of Covenanting Churches being reached could also be included. This would be rather like the adoption by the British Parliament of the EasterAct 1928, which fixes the date of Easter on “the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April”. The Act itself has not yet come into effect, and will not before an Order in Council is made, “provided ... that, before making such draft order, regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body.” Similarly, a given Church could entertain a conditional resolution to adopt the Covenant in order to bring the project to a decisive conclusion. If the Church decides to adopt the Covenant, doing so conditionally would mean that it's not actually bound by that decision until the conditions are met.

I think the attraction of Option 3 is pretty self-evident. Perhaps it's time to admit that the proposal for a Covenant has been found sufficiently wanting that it's time to cut our losses and get on with building up the Kingdom of God in our several contexts and building relationships with other members of the Anglican Communion. But if we're not prepared to take that definitive a step, then at least we could take a wait and see approach and let the Church of England untie its Gordian knots before we spend any more time on this project.

Of Archbishops and Videos

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently issued a video defending the proposed Anglican Covenant against what he depicted as some “misunderstandings” about the proposed Covenant, which seem to be abroad. I assume he refers to such “misunderstandings” as some of mine. Though I don't flatter myself that the Archbishop has ever read my blog in person.

I think the Archbishop has a few misunderstandings of his own.

For example, he seems to believe that

A lot of people have said that the first few sections of the Covenant, the first three bits of the Covenant, are uncontroversial. They set out a common ground on which we all agree and they, in general ways, urge us to think about these things – to think about the impact on other parts of the Communion and what we decide to do.

Well, I for one am not among that “lot of people.” The first three sections are, in my view, very controversial. They have some serious problems which I have outlined in depth. The biggest problem is that they purport to set out a coherent understanding of the Anglican faith and the Anglican way, against which future actions can be objectively measured (in section 4's process). That's what the Archbishop seems to believe. But, with the greatest respect, he's wrong. Sections 1 to 3 are very far from coherent, and although they may look attractive to a broad constituency because of the elasticity of their language which lends them to a variety of interpretations, that very elasticity of language will make it quite impossible to use them as the basis of anything remotely resembling an objective comparison with a proposed future action by a Church.

The reason these sections have attracted so little comment from opponents of the propose Covenant is not because they are so brilliant or uncontroversial. It's because section 4 is so very awful that it attracts the lion's share of the debate. As I have suggested before, if a man with a bad haircut attacks you with a knife, your attention is on the knife, not the haircut. Section 4 is a knife; sections 1-3 are a very bad haircut.

But the biggest problem, as the Archbishop sees it, is not any quibbles obscure Canadians like me might have with sections 1-3. No, there is apparently some false propaganda circulating. As the Archbishop puts it:

one of the greatest misunderstandings around concerning the Covenant is that it’s some sort of centralising proposal creating an absolute authority which has the right to punish people for stepping out of line. I have to say I think this is completely misleading and false.

I would be more convinced if he were to demonstrate, citing the actual Covenant text of course, precisely why these concerns are “misleading and false.” Without doing so, he engages in unsupported assertions and even verges on ad hominem attacks.

The fact is, as I have already demonstrated, that the so-called dispute-settling process in section 4 of the proposed Covenant is vague, arbitrary and intrinsically unfair by design. And it is designed to determine winners and losers. Either an action by a Church is compatible or incompatible with the Covenant. And the decision is final, with no mechanism for further discussion or appeal.

Oh, says the Archbishop, “what the Covenant proposes is not a set of punishments, but a way of thinking through what the consequences are of decisions people freely and in good conscience make.” Given the vagueness of the process, it's not much of a way of thinking through anything. We don't even know how to start the process. It's that unclear. I challenge the Archbishop to demonstrate where the Covenant text says how a question is to be raised, as it quaintly puts what elsewhere would be called lodging a complaint. It's simply not there in the text.

And furthermore, as I have shown before, the “recommendations” of “relational consequences” will be made with the a priori expectation that they will be adopted. Indeed, it might be that failure to adopt a recommended relational consequence would in itself be “incompatible with the Covenant.”

This is not about having scones and cream at tea, but no jam; it's about not being invited to the popular parties because one has been sent to the naughty corner. It's about churches being judged by an unfair and arbitrary process against unclear standards, and on the basis of that judgement, without any right of appeal, having their participation in the Instruments of Communion withdrawn.

“The Covenant suggests a process of scrutiny,” says the Archbishop. Yet for some reason the proponents of the Covenant try to block or ignore every serious attempt to scrutinise the Covenant text. The Archbishop's video is yet another attempt at diverting decision makers from having access to the necessary information on which to base their decisions. It's because he knows what decision they will make with that information.

Implementing the Covenant

It has been said that the proposed Anglican Covenant does not affect the constitution or canons of any Church adopting same. Actually, the Covenant itself says that. It has also been said that this statement is, as the technical term puts it, “poppycock”. Because if any Church truly wants to implement the Covenant, it does have constitutional implications. After all, adopting the proposed Covenant means agreeing to all the terms therein, including the possibility of having any action taken by the adopting Church declared to be “incompatible with the Covenant” (whatever that means) and thus being subjected to “relational consequences” (whatever that means) unless it ceases and desists from its incompatible activity.

So what would it take to implement the Covenant, should a Church decide to adopt it?

It seems to me that it would mean putting into place mechanisms for addressing the possibility that a given action would be declared “incompatible with the Covenant.” So, for example, any action of any legislature in the adopting Church which has been declared “incompatible with the Covenant” would have to be addressed. One way would be to hold an emergency meeting to rescind the offensive action, or alternatively to decide to accept the “relational consequences”, whatever that might mean. (Call me a stickler, but I do wish these terms were actually defined!) But holding emergency meetings in a Church such as the Anglican Church of Canada, whose General Synod only meets every three years, would be a significant burden.

So, the Church could simply incorporate in its constitution a provision automatically to nullify any action that has been deemed “incompatible with the Covenant.” This would, in effect, give the Standing Committee the power to veto any action taken by the adopting Church. Which is actually the point of the proposed Covenant. It's called ceding jurisdiction. And, of course, the veto power would have to extend to any action taken by any given bishop, such as ordaining someone, or authorizing a liturgy. Obviously the bishops of a Church adopting the proposed Covenant would accept that it is necessary to constrain their own powers, and the powers of their successors, in order to ensure that they (and their successors) never do anything, however inadvertently, that is “incompatible with the Covenant.”

A second area to address would be the definition of heresy. Heresy is, after all, a disciplinary offence. At least in my Church. Even if (sadly) it no longer means burning the heretic at the stake. But the definition of heresy would have to be expanded to include teaching anything incompatible with the Anglican Covenant. Which is a bit of a problem, given the fuzziness of the definition of the faith in the proposed Covenant.

A third point would have to do with the question of consultation on significant issues. Many Churches have provision for their General Synod (or equivalent) to consult (e.g. with dioceses) on certain matters such as the ordination of women as bishops, or the adoption of an international treaty such as the proposed Anglican Covenant, prior to the adoption of such measures. Obviously, it would be prudent (or “cautious” as the proposed Covenant puts it) to include in that consultation process a reference to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion through the process known as “raising a question” in order to determine proactively whether the proposed action would be compatible or incompatible with the Covenant. Such a reference shouldn't add too many years to the process of adopting whatever change is contemplated (such as ordaining women bishops, for example). And any delay would be well spent in order to be certain that the contemplated change won't be subsequently found “incompatible with the Covenant” and nullified. We wouldn't want to rush into any changes that might be challenged under the proposed Covenant.

Exactly how to implement these points into the constitution of any given Church would depend on the nature of that Church's constitution. For the Anglican Church of Canada, it is relatively easy to imagine about four changes that would have to be drafted in the Constitution and Canons of the General Synod. (Three changes to the Declaration of Principles, and one to the Discipline Canon, to be precise.) These changes would only take two readings (or about six years) after the formal adoption of the Covenant. It would be a bit more complex to draft the necessary changes for the thirty-four other legislatures in the Anglican Church of Canada (four internal Provinces and thirty dioceses). But it is doable, I suppose.

Even more complex would be the mechanisms to implement the Covenant in the Church of England, with its complex system of governance as the only Established Church in the Anglican Communion. For example, if the appointment of a given bishop were subsequently deemed “incompatible with the Covenant”, the appointment – a Crown appointment – would obviously have to be nullified. Similarly if a Measure (which in the Church of England has the full status of an Act of Parliament) were to be found “incompatible with the Covenant” it, too, would have to be nullified. So, too, with any legacy Act of Parliament. Unless, of course, the Church of England decided to accept the ensuing “relational consequences” such as being expelled from the Lambeth Conference. But that would be absurd.

Obviously, anyone voting to adopt the proposed Covenant has already thought through these issues and accepted the implications. Not to do so would hardly be “cautious”, as the proposed Covenant puts it.

Of Epiphany Letters and Archbishops

Back at the beginning of Advent, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote a letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion in which he extolled the virtues of the proposed Anglican Covenant. Nearly two weeks ago, at the beginning of the Epiphany season, the Archbishop of Cape Town responded with a letter of his own, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but published by the Anglican Communion News Service. (Note to self: when writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury, be prepared to see your letter on ACNS.)

As with Archbishop Williams, Archbishop Thabo Makgoba speaks eloquently about the value of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, there is much of value in his letter on that score. Recalling the visit to Zimbabwe made by the two Archbishops together, Archbishop Makgoba says, “the capacity to act together – across old divides of colonisers and colonised, and contemporary differences of rich and poor, north and south, through God’s gift of unity to the Communion – gives considerable force to our joint proclamation of Christ as the Light of the World.” Indeed, it does. Coming together across divides to speak with a single authoritative voice on a matter of justice gives flesh to the gift of unity for which Jesus prayed, of which we are particularly mindful in this Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Archbishop Makgoba also recalls with gratitude the way in which the wider Anglican Communion gave strength to the embattled South African Church in its struggle against apartheid. I recall a motion of solidarity in the struggle against apartheid being adopted at the very first Synod I ever attended, and how I was impressed that we were called to think and speak and act outside the narrow confines of our own bailiwick.

The good Archbishop continues:

Yet such mutuality cannot be taken for granted, and indeed, the way that our disagreements on human sexuality have played out suggests we had already begun to drift from that particular sense of belonging to God and to each other, within the wider body of Christ, which was so strong in Southern Africa’s great time of need. It seems to me that the Covenant is entirely necessary, in recalling us to ourselves. Only in this way can we continue to grow in bearing this rich fruit that comes from living the life which is both God’s gift and God’s calling.

He is correct that we cannot take the kind of mutuality of which he speaks for granted. As with any other relationship, the relationships among the churches of the Anglican Communion need constant work. This is why, for example, our bishops gather in the Lambeth Conference, and why we have such programmes as diocesan partnerships. It is about being constantly called out of ourselves and the narrow confines of our own bailiwicks to learn about others in their contexts, to engage with them and to stand beside them in their joys and sorrows. What I don't understand is how Archbishop Makgoba concludes that this means the proposed Anglican Covenant is “entirely necessary” beyond his TINA assertion. But perhaps his reflections on the Covenant would help.

But the problem is that his reflections on the Covenant nowhere refer to the actual text. Like Archbishop Williams before him, Archbishop Makgoba does not seem to be interested in discussion the text on which we will all be voting, and which he depicts as “entirely necessary.” If it will help us to work at our relationships, to preserve and develop mutuality and solidarity, in what way will it do so? Which clauses in the proposed Covenant does he see as assisting these positive outcomes? In fact, I don't know what document Archbishop Makgoba is referring to at all. It doesn't seem to be the proposed Anglican Covenant that I have been reading.

He goes on:

Arguments that the Covenant is ‘not fit for purpose’ (for example through ‘going too far’ or ‘not going far enough’) are too often predicated upon an inadequate model of ‘being church’ and what it means to live as members of the body of Christ. Implicit, it seems to me, is a diminished view of God’s grace, God’s redemptive power and purposes, and God’s vision and calling upon his people and his Church, and so of Anglicanism’s place within these. Our sense of who we are, and called to become, should not principally be conveyed through legal prisms, whether of some form of centralising authority, or of Provinces’ constitutions and canon law which must be ‘safeguarded’ from external ‘interference’. Nor should we primarily look to structural or legal solutions to our undeniable difficulties or for regulating our relationships.

Yes, precisely! There is an inadequate model of being church at play here. And that model has led us to believe that the sort of “structural or legal solutions” against which Archbishop Makgoba argues are in fact a necessary part of our ecclesiology. For the proposed Covenant is nothing other than a legal solution to our difficulties. As Archbishop Makgoba himself says, “Scripture reminds us that solving our problems ultimately rests not on our efforts but on the salvific work of Jesus Christ.” Surely he is not suggesting that the proposed Covenant represents the “salvific work of Jesus Christ” rather than our own efforts?

Again:

Seeing the Covenant merely as a product of disagreements over human sexuality, or in terms of whether or not it provides particular solutions to these disagreements, is therefore to miss the fundamental point. As I noted earlier, it seems that, especially in the acrimonious and bitter ways we have often handled our differences, disunity over sexuality was symptomatic of a deeper malaise within our common life.

Quite right! But again I ask, in what way does the proposed Covenant address this “deeper malaise” of which the Archbishop correctly speaks? If it does, he does not enlighten us as to how. True, he asserts that the proposed Covenant “places God’s vision for God’s Church and God’s world centre-stage; and then invites us to live into this as our ultimate and overriding context and calling.” But he doesn't indicate how the document does this, and he conveniently ignores that, even if it does do so, it does it in the context of a legal document with a punitive process at its heart.

The good Archbishop is entirely correct to speak both about the value of the Anglican Communion as a vehicle for living out God's solidarity with each other and with the world that God so loves. He is correct to draw attention to the need to preserve and develop relationships of mutuality and support across theological and cultural divides. He is correct in so many ways. Where his letter disappoints is in its depiction of the proposed Covenant as a magical panacea for all of our relational problems without a single reference to the actual document. He does not apparently see, or perhaps doesn't want us, his readers, to see, that the proposed Covenant is a legal solution to a relational problem – and not a very good legal solution at that. It is designed to empower a central group acting entirely without objective criteria to choose winners and losers by an arbitrary and intrinsically unjust process. It is based on the inadequate ecclesiological assumption that the hard work of developing and maintaining relationships in the context of the grace of God can be replaced by the facile imposition of authority, even to the point of severing those relationships.

The Anglican Communion is, has been, and can be the kind of gift that the Archbishop depicts in his letter. But here's the point: it has been such a gift in the past without a Covenant. No Covenant was required for the Communion to stand in solidarity with the South African church in its struggle against apartheid. No Covenant was required for the recent Archiepiscopal visit to Zimbabwe. And, for all his passionate eloquence, Archbishop Makgoba never once demonstrates how any Covenant, let alone the one on the table, is remotely “entirely necessary” for the Anglican Communion to grow into the kind of gift he hopes it can be in the future.

In the end, the Archbishop's letter is rather like one of those awful children's sermons about a squirrel in which the squirrel is mean to represent Jesus, but no one, least of all the preacher, is able to grasp how. It's not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with stories about squirrels, but if there is no clear connection with Jesus, the preacher would be ahead simply to leave the story in its proper context rather than force a connection. Similarly, there is much worth reading in the Archbishop's letter about the value of the Anglican Communion and about the need to work at our relationships. But the remotest connection with the proposed Covenant is forced at best.

Unless the proposed Covenant is a squirrel.

Hear the Other Side Redux

This blog has been on hiatus for a while as I have been in the process of moving from Montreal to Edmonton to take up a new post. Now I have an opportunity to take it up again, and the New Year is as good a time as any.

Laura Sykes has challenged all Anglicans, especially those involved in synods, to take on a New Year's resolution to read the Anglican Covenant. Given that many of those Anglicans will be asked to vote on whether or not to adopt the Covenant in the months ahead, that sounds like a sensible idea. I hope Laura won't mind me adding to her proposed resolution, that those who take her up on it should read the proposed Covenant carefully, bearing in mind from the beginning that it is a legal document. This is especially important in reading the first three sections, as they don't look like a legal document. With the elasticity of language in sections 1-3, they look more like a theological consensus document. But it is vital to keep in mind that these sections will become the basis for any judgment of a controversial action pursuant to the process, such as it is, in section 4. So, whilst reading the first three sections, it is useful to ask whether the language is clear enough to be used as a basis for deciding whether an action is compatible with the Covenant or not, and how any given action might measure up to the standards therein.

Laura has also taken on a challenge herself, not only to read the proposed Covenant, but to publish her own analysis of it over the coming months. I look forward to reading the fruits of her efforts.

I would like to add my own challenge to Laura's, this time aimed at the leadership of the Anglican Communion at every level. I have in mind the Instruments of Communion, the Anglican Communion Office, the national, provincial and diocesan leadership, bishops, archbishops and those who are responsible for organizing synods – the very synods that will be deciding on the Covenant in the months ahead.

My challenge is simple: please, I implore you, ensure that there is a balanced presentation of both sides, for and against, with equal time for both at all stages, before putting the proposed Covenant to a vote.

I make this challenge for two reasons.

First, because there has been an unfortunate pattern in several synods that have already voted on the proposed Covenant. A number of these synods have heard only one side in the formal presentation of the document, and thus have been asked to vote without hearing any presentation or receiving any material on why the proposed Covenant should not be adopted. Naturally, when presented only with a rosy picture of the proposed Covenant and reasons to adopt it, and no reasons against, these synods have tended to adopt or recommend adopting the Covenant. And the senior leadership has taken the approach of dismissing any opposition to the Covenant rather than engaging it and demonstrating why those opposed are wrong.

There is an irony here, for one of the chief fears about the proposed Covenant is that it will lead to greater centralization and control in the Anglican Communion, a fear that is hotly denied by proponents of the Covenant. But in presenting an unbalanced picture of the Covenant to those who are asked to decide on it, and denying circulation of materials opposed to it alongside materials in favour, the leadership is modelling the very centralization and control that opponents of the Covenant fear.

Ironic, too, is the way in which this pro-only presentation of the Covenant models the criticism that the process for deciding on controversial actions in section 4 is arbitrary and intrinsically unfair. And this gives rise to the second reason for my challenge.

Previously I have written that the dispute-settling mechanism in section 4 of the proposed Covenant does not measure up to the standards of Natural Justice, the first principle of which is audi alteram partem – hear the other side. It's all very well for the senior leadership of the Anglican Communion to tell me not to worry my pretty little head about Natural Justice in settling disputes, but when they refuse to allow the other side to be fairly presented in debating the proposed Covenant they do much more to stoke than to assuage my fears. If they are unable – or unwilling – to demonstrate the skills and habits of fairness in the process of debating the proposed Covenant, how can we believe that they will suddenly acquire these skills and habits when it comes to deciding on the first controversial action that comes their way? For it will be the very same people who are actively campaigning for the proposed Covenant who will be sitting in the judgment seat when a question is raised.

So, if the senior leadership of the Communion truly believes that the proposed Covenant is the unalloyed Good Thing that they depict it as being, why not allow it to be subjected to careful and fair scrutiny? For if they are correct, then the Covenant will withstand the scrutiny. Of course, if they are not correct, then that scrutiny may well save us all from a very unfortunate mistake.

Hear the other side! Let the presentation of the proposed Covenant be balanced and the process for deciding on it be fair, so that those who are called to vote on it can do so fully informed.

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?