What does it mean to be Anglican? I have not always been Anglican. I was Roman Catholic when my family visited Truro Church in 1974, but my wife and I sensed the Lord calling us to make our church home there. I find that my catholic heritage has been deepened as I have learned to understand the Scriptures through evangelical Anglican eyes and to experience the power of the Holy Spirit in making my faith real. One could give many answers to what is the essence of being Anglican, but to me the most important is that Anglicanism is situated solidly in the Great Story of the redemptive love of the Creator God Who we know as a Trinity of Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To be Anglican is to be in continuity with the ancient Church’s way of understanding the story of Jesus of Nazareth as told by the Apostles. Jesus, the crucified and risen Lord, the Messiah of Israel, fulfills the promises God made to Abraham to bless the whole world through his descendants, as we learn from both the old and new testaments of the Bible.

Read it all.

MT: I’d like to talk to you a little about Grace Episcopal in particular. Can you give me an overview of the place of Grace Episcopal in the Anglican Communion? How does the relationship between the members of the Communion work in practicality?

TV: The Anglican Communion, coming as it did out of the Reformation, is what I call ecclesiastically schizophrenic. Basically we’re Catholic (just not Roman Catholic) but, with our Reformed fear of papal authority we’re very decentralized. Grace is a mission (meaning the Bishop is the rector, head, of the parish) in the Diocese of San Joaquin which in turn is part of the Episcopal Church. Each national church (e.g., Canada, Nigeria) is autonomous, within a loose confederation headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury who, however, has more of a bully-pulpit authority rather than a legislative one.

MT: What are the primary doctrines of Grace Episcopal? How are these connected to the broader Episcopal Church? Are there differences or are the doctrines consistent?

TV: Grace was founded as, and is, a welcoming and inclusive parish, which means, especially in Bako, that we fully welcome LGBT folk. We were also founded as an outreach parish, reaching out in love to others rather than focusing overmuch on ourselves. The two main tenets that separate Grace and the Episcopal Church (TEC) from the schismatics is that we embrace our LGBT sisters and brothers and we ordain women.

Read it all.

The creation of …[the Anglican Consultative Council] required no canonical change in the Episcopal Church’s Constitution and Canons, but it did have implications nonetheless, for someone needed to appoint the three representatives to the ACC, and someone needed to respond to the request for approval of the ACC’s constitution. The special session of the General Convention in 1969 “acceded and subscribed to the Proposed Constitution of the said Anglican Consultative Council,” and took responsibility for election of representatives to that body.34 Subsequent General Conventions approved later changes in the ACC constitution.35 The convention’s Joint Committee on Nominations initially proposed names of ACC representatives for election by convention, but in 1982 the Executive Council (the name adopted in 1967 for what had been called the National Council since 1922) took over the responsibility for selection of ACC representatives.

An additional development in the Anglican Communion had taken place in 1960, which would also bring the Episcopal Church into closer relationship with the Anglican Communion. In that year Stephen Bayne, former Bishop of Olympia in the U.S., had accepted a position as the first Executive Officer or the Anglican Communion, a position later renamed as “Secretary General.” Bayne served until 1964. The fourth person to hold the position (Samuel Van Culin, Secretary General,1983-94), was also an American.

The General Conventions of 1964 and 1967 responded to the call of the Anglican Congress in Toronto that it was time for “the rebirth of the Anglican Communion, which means the death of many old things but””infinitely more””the birth of entirely new relationships.” The Presiding Bishop set up a Committee on Mutual Responsibility, which reported to both conventions. The 1964 Convention adopted a resolution proposed by the committee that resolved

That this Church, speaking through its episcopate and its duly elected representative in the lay and clerical orders in General Convention assembled, accept the message of the Primates and Metropolitans of the Anglican Communion entitled, “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”, as a declaration of God’s judgment upon our insularity, complacency, and defective obedience to Mission; and be it further

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That this Church undertake without delay that evaluation and reformation of our corporate life, our priorities, and our response to Mission, which is called for by the leaders of the Anglican Communion”¦.

Read it all.

Historian Robert Prichard of Virginia Theological Seminary described General Convention’s call, in the early 20th century, for more business-like models of management, which led to organizing dioceses into provinces; changing the Presiding Bishop from the longest-serving bishop to an elected executive; and establishing a national council, now known as Executive Council.

Dr. Prichard noted that The Living Church was the first publication, in response to those changes, to apply the courtesy title “the Most Rev.,” normally reserved for archbishops, to the Presiding Bishop.

The 20th century also led to greater ties with the Anglican Communion, Dr. Prichard said, including the appointment of the Rt. Rev. Stephen Bayne as the first executive officer of what is now the Anglican Communion Office.

The Episcopal Church’s two major trends of the 20th century ”” greater centralization and stronger ties with the Anglican Communion ”” are now at odds with each other, Dr. Prichard said.

Read it all.

You can find the documentation here. When I saw this Monday night I tried to find it on all sorts of Episcopal Church websites but could not. When I mentioned this at a committee meeting on Tuesday the only person in the room other than myself who knew of it was Bishop Lawrence. Read it carefully and read it all–KSH.

…there apparently is a new ACC constitution (now referred to as Articles of Association) that changes the membership procedures for the ACC. This new constitution (which has not been made public) also applies in some way to the adoption of the Covenant by other churches.
11. On the second question, “who can invite,” the Covenant is explicit in saying that this may be done by the “Instruments.” On its face, this means that any of the Instruments, e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Primates’ Meeting, could issue such an invitation, which would then invoke the procedures indicated: approval by the Standing Committee and consents from the Primates.

12. None of this is meant to suggest that such an invitation is necessarily imminent, but the procedures are far more flexible and responsive to developing circumstances than many have been led to believe.

13. With these principles in mind, we urge all churches and dioceses interested in committing to the life of mutual accountability and interdependence required by the Covenant to adopt and affirm the Covenant as soon as practicable and communicate their decisions to the Communion and its churches. We note that paragraph 4.1.6 provides that “This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.” Thus, the Covenant will become active as soon as member churches begin to adopt it, and the Global South churches have indicated their intention to begin doing so as early as April 2010. By committing to the Covenant, a church or diocese will immediately begin to share in the Communion life represented by the Covenant even as the formalities of the Communion Instruments necessarily will take longer to implement.

Read it carefully and read it all.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The Anglican Covenant is now in its “final” form, and it has been distributed to the Provinces of the Communion for their consideration. It is not greatly different from the third draft that we saw several months ago. I believe that the first three sections are an excellent – truly excellent – summary of what Anglicans believe and have in common. The full text is available at: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm

Section four is in a sense what the whole exercise has been about. The drafting of this Covenant was first proposed in the 2004 Windsor Report which was produced in response to the Primates’ concerns over the election and consecration of an openly non-celibate gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire.

It has been a lengthy process, and it will not be concluded soon. But section four of the Covenant outlines a process by which the majority of the Communion might be able to declare that a given action on the part of one of its member Churches (such as the consecration of an openly non-celibate homosexual bishop) is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant” and there might then be “relational consequences.”

From the beginning of the Covenant drafting process the Archbishop of Canterbury has been clear that he hoped we would create a Covenant that each member Province could voluntarily decide to “opt into” or not. He has envisioned a “two tier” or “two track” Communion in which those Provinces that choose to “opt into” the Covenant remain in “constituent membership” in the Communion, and those Provinces that “opt out” of the Covenant move into “associate membership” – something which he has compared to the status of the Methodist Church: it has an Anglican heritage, but it is really a separate denomination.

The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council has said that the earliest time in which TEC as a whole can officially consider the Covenant is the General Convention of 2012. But, in his response to my inquiry on behalf of our Diocesan Board, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that dioceses are certainly free to “affirm” the Covenant if and when they choose to do so.

The Covenant has created a procedure by which those Provinces that “opt into” it can take action on behalf of the Communion as a whole to declare that certain actions are outside the bounds of our corporate life, and while the “relational consequences” are not spelled out in the Covenant itself, they clearly are foreshadowed by those Provinces which have declared “impaired” or “broken” communion with The Episcopal Church over the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire.

Both our Diocesan Board and our Standing Committee have already affirmed the first three sections of the Covenant, and there is a Resolution to be considered by our 41st Convention next month to do likewise. Now that the fourth section has been finalized Fr. Eric Turner (who proposed the original Resolution) will offer a substitute Resolution that the Convention affirm the Covenant as a whole.

I have repeatedly said that I believe the only hope for the Anglican Communion is in following the Archbishop’s lead in drafting and adopting this Covenant. I now urge the delegates to Convention to study it and affirm it on January 30.

It remains my personal commitment to uphold the Covenant, and I give you my assurance, again, that I will never consent to the election of a bishop (or for that matter a priest or deacon) living in a relationship of sexual intimacy other than marriage as the Book of Common Prayer defines and understands it (one man and one woman, in Christ).

Warmest regards in our Lord,

–(The Rt. Rev.) John W. Howe is Bishop of Central Florida

What many people do not know, and others, I’m afraid, choose to ignore, is the legal independence of the Episcopal Church from other jurisdictions. In fact, it was in Chestertown, Maryland, in 1780, that a convention of clergy and laymen began the process of making an American Church separate from the Church of England, in the spirit of our declaration of political independence of 1776.

After that, the Archbishop of Canterbury had no more legal jurisdiction in this nation than King George III, the “Supreme Governor” of the established Church of England. So when Archbishop Rowan Williams says that he regrets Canon Glasspool’s election and urges the American church to reject her, he does not speak in any official capacity.

Read it all.

The covenant by itself cannot save Anglicanism ”” I’m not sure it’s structured in a way that would allow it to do that ”” but the process of studying the covenant, responding to it, receiving it, and recommitting ourselves to one another may do so, and it will leave the Anglican Communion stronger. A strengthened Anglican Communion will be confident in itself while actively working for Christian unity through joining with our brothers and sisters in mission and by standing ready to share the understandings born from our comprehensiveness.

Two points in the Ridley Cambridge draft seem especially important in such a task and in light of a call to be reconcilers and interpreters. The first is in §2.1.5, which affirms that “our common mission is a mission shared with other Churches and traditions” and recognizes that “the ecumenical vocation of Anglicanism to the full visible unity of the Church in accordance with Christ’s prayer that ”˜all may be one.’ ”

The other is §4.1.5, which states:

It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant. Adoption of this Covenant does not bring any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion. Such recognition and membership are dependent on the satisfaction of those conditions set out by each of the Instruments.

Leaving open the possibility that other churches might adopt the covenant is, in my mind, a wonderful gesture that seems born from reflection on the ecumenical vocation of Anglicanism mentioned in section two. This provision has inspired resistance in some quarters of the Episcopal Church, for fear that it might play into the perceived schemes of some of our departed brothers and sisters to replace the Episcopal Church as the officially recognized Anglican body in the United States. While I understand the origins of such concerns, I wonder if they are the fruit of a conflict mentality that is unhelpful and could lead to an even longer period of being internally focused. The key portion of the provision for those who have these concerns would seem to be that any body’s acceptance as part of the Communion would come only with the approval of all the Instruments of Communion, not simply one or two.

In the end, the inclusion of this provision within the covenant prevents it from being a document purely internal to the Communion as it is, and instead turns a portion of it outward in a gesture of invitation and welcome.

Read it all.

Read it carefully and read it all.

…the Anglican experiment is far from over. For in a world of mounting religious tension, now more than ever we need the witness of precisely the sort peace treaty attempted by the Church of England.

Not, of course, that we as a church have been very good at resolving our differences over women bishops. Which gets us to the core of the problem. What happens when principles clash?

This isn’t a churchy problem to be waved away by those not involved. For what’s at stake here is how we live alongside those with whom we fundamentally disagree. The Anglican answer has always made peaceful co-existence the priority. And that can mean compromising one’s principles in the name of a greater good. And yet, of course, compromise has a limit – especially when the issue is regarded by many as a fundamental question of justice. So here then is the tragedy: even in a church of natural compromisers, compromise can’t always keep people together.

Read it all.

CROSSROADS ARE FOR MEETING (AGAIN)

AN ADDRESS TO THE CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF DALLAS ON THE PROPOSED ANGLICAN COVENANT

**
THE REV. DR. PHILIP TURNER

I

As you know, my subject is the Anglican Covenant. Is it really Anglican? Is it really necessary? Is it theologically defensible? Is it an effective way to address our present difficulties? I will get to these questions and others in due course, but first, to make sure we know what it is that we are talking about, I must take you on a little trip down memory lane. The first book I published was a collection of essays entitled “Crossroads Are For Meeting.” The date was 1986, and the particular cross in the road faced at that time by the Anglican Communion was the nature of its mission, and in particular its mission as a world-wide communion of autonomous churches. Previously, in 1963, The Anglican Congress had defined the inter-relation of these churches as being one of “mutual responsibility and interdependence in the body of Christ.” At this gathering, the assembled delegates took a dramatic step in defining the nature of Anglicanism as a communion rather than, say, a federation; but there were divisions over the Communion’s calling. If Anglicans are to understand themselves as bound by mutual responsibility and interdependence in the body of Christ, just what is the purpose of this communion under God?

The collection of essays I helped assemble revealed a profound division over this matter, one that is with us to this day. Is the mission of the Anglican Communion to join other Christian bodies in spreading the Gospel of reconciliation and redemption through Christ’s victory on the cross, or is it, with other churches, to join Christ in a sacrificial struggle to include the oppressed and marginalized and so to establish justice on the earth? Despite very articulate pleas that these two views need not be in conflict, they were in conflict then and remain so to this day. This conflict over the mission of the church has returned in our own time with such ferocity that it threatens any possibility of meaningful communion.

I hope I do not have to defend the statement that divisions over the mission of the church are lodged just below the surface of our current argument about sex. The crisis we now face has been building for quite some time, and it involves matters far more central and complex than disputes over sexual identity and conduct. To my mind, the big issue is how autonomous churches called to carry out God’s mission at a particular time and place can remain at the same time in a communion that is catholic in both belief and practice.

In its modern form this question was posed at the Lambeth Conference of 1948””the first to be held after the Second World War and the first to take place during the dismantling of the British Empire. At this meeting a committee of bishops asked, “Is Anglicanism based on a sufficiently coherent form of authority to form the nucleus of a world-wide fellowship of churches, or does its comprehensiveness conceal internal divisions which may cause its disruption?” This question defines the struggles of Anglicans in the post-modern period, but its roots go down into the soil of Anglican beginnings. The Church of England established itself as the church of a nation, but it sought to do so as an expression of catholic Christianity. The Episcopal Church sought to establish itself as a church independent of the Church of England, but nonetheless bound by its doctrine and discipline (and so also by its combination of both national and catholic identity).

Similar tensed goals are to be found in the numerous provinces that had their beginning the middle of the 19th Century and came to full flower after The Second World War. Just how are these churches to remain both local and catholic? That is the question. In response, Anglicans have at best stumbled toward an answer. In 1867 the first Lambeth Conference of Bishops was called to address governance issues brought into focus by growing independence within the colonial churches, the publication of Essays and Reviews, and by the Bishop of Natal’s view of Holy Scripture. The birth of many new and autonomous provinces after The Second World War issued in the Pan Anglican Congress, The Anglican Consultative Council, and The Meeting of Primates. The crisis brought about by the consecration of a woman to the Episcopate produced The Virginia Report along with linkage of a congeries of consultative bodies that were labeled “The Instruments of Unity” (now “The Instruments of Communion”). Finally, the actions of the Dioceses of New Westminster and New Hampshire in the matters of gay blessings and ordinations issued in the Windsor Report and the proposal for an Anglican Covenant.

All these institutional developments have been directed to the same end””both to guard the autonomy of the various provinces of the Anglican Communion and insure that each “recognizes” in the others fellow members of a communion of churches. This goal is easy to state, but extraordinarily difficult to achieve. To this point, the Instruments of Communion have not been able to provide the several provinces of the Communion with confidence that they, the instruments, can achieve this goal. Failure to address adequately the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and those of The General Convention of The Episcopal Church (TEC) has strained the credibility of each and every one of them. The proposed Anglican Covenant is, in my view, the last best hope for achieving the goal of a communion of autonomous churches bound by common belief, practice, mutual responsibility, and interdependence. As I hope to demonstrate, it does so by placing responsibility for communion firmly in the hands of the autonomous provinces themselves. The proposed Covenant asks that the provinces and local churches of the Communion covenant one with another (rather than with a legislative or juridical body) and within this covenanted relationship exercise their autonomy within the limits imposed by membership in a communion of churches.

II
Now, is this proposed Covenant really Anglican? Is it necessary? Is it theologically sound? Will it succeed in achieving the goal its supporters have in mind? The best way to respond is to work through the main points of the proposed covenant with these questions in mind. You will remember that the latest version of the Covenant has four parts””the first three of which, along with an “Introduction,” “Preamble” and “Declaration” have been approved for circulation to the provinces for ratification. The fourth section, largely procedural in nature, is now being reviewed. Since they have already been approved for circulation, I will focus on “The Introduction to the Covenant Text,” the “Preamble”, and sections one through three. Though it is of central importance, my remarks on Section Four will be brief because we do not know what its final form will be.

Though it is not part of the Covenant itself, the” Introduction” provides the theological base for all that follows, and it does so by reference to the primary theological theme present in the ecumenical dialogues of the Anglican Communion. The foundational theme is “communion”. The churches, all of them, are called through Christ into communion with the Triune God. In this communion, Christians share one with another in the very life of God. The mission of The Anglican Communion is, therefore, to share with other churches in calling all peoples, through Christ, into the life of God and to manifest that life in the relations of its various provinces one with another. The Covenant, its proposers contend, is not intended to change the nature of Anglicanism. Rather, its purpose is “to reflect, in our relations with one another, God’s own faithfulness and promises towards us in Christ.” To reflect God’s purpose for the creation in this way, it is necessary that God’s mission be “carried out in shared responsibility and stewardship and in interdependence among ourselves and with the wider church.”

It seems to me that nothing could be more Anglican than this theological starting point. It accords with the catholic identity we have claimed since the Reformation, it accords with our self-representations in ecumenical dialogues, and it is faithful to our internal deliberations. Nevertheless, you are surely aware that many object to the Covenant because they believe it compromises the autonomy of the provinces and for this reason is “un-Anglican.” I can only say in response that neither in the foundation of the various Anglican provinces nor in their ecumenical self-representations have Anglicans understood the autonomy of the various provinces to exist as an unfettered right. Neither have Anglicans, despite claims to the contrary, understood mutual responsibility and interdependence to have no relation to common belief and practice. If anything is “un-Anglican” it is an unfettered claim to autonomy in which each province claims to be judge in its own case whenever its “autonomous” decisions are questioned by other provinces. So it seems to me that the covenant drafters are quite Anglican when they say in the “Preamble” that the churches of the Anglican Communion covenant together “in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God revealed in the Gospel, to offer God’s love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God’s people to attain the full stature of Christ.”

So far, at least, the Covenant seems to me to thoroughly Anglican and certainly theologically adequate. It surely can’t be a mistake to root one’s ecclesiology in the sacrificial death of Christ and the life of the Triune God. But let us test further to see if we can make similar affirmations in respect to the specifics of the proposed covenant. Section One concerns “Our Inheritance of Faith” and like the other two sections is divided into affirmations and commitments. The affirmations seem to me both thoroughly adequate and thoroughly Anglican.

What is affirmed in respect to our inheritance of faith? Communion in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church that worships one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! The Catholic and Apostolic faith uniquely revealed in Holy Scriptures and set for in the catholic creeds! This faith to which authentic witness is born in the historic formularies of the Church of England and appropriated in various way in the Anglican Communion! To this list of affirmations is attached the four elements of the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral and participation “in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God.”

To what are Anglicans committed in respect to “Our Inheritance of Faith?” The answer is to a number of things but they all stem from a faithful and communal reading of Holy Scripture that is attentive to the councils of the Communion, our ecumenical agreements, the teaching of Bishops and synods, the work of scholars, and prophetic and faithful leadership.

Now, once again, (taking due note of the fact that the Covenant does not require subscription but only affirmation that the formularies of the C of E bear authentic witness to the catholic and apostolic faith) I see nothing “un-Anglican” or theologically inadequate in this. The rub for the Covenant’s opponents comes with the commitment to seek a common understanding of scripture that must be attentive to a host of voices that may well challenge deeply held convictions on the part of an individual province. But, once again, it seems to me less than theologically adequate to place the primary weight of interpretive responsibility on the shoulders of individual readers or even individual churches, as it appears many within our own church would prefer. It also seems to me theologically inadequate to define communion apart from unity of belief and practice””a cry heard with increasing force among the Covenant’s opponents.

Now to Section Two that concerns “Our Anglican Vocation”! This section affirms that the communion of the churches is to be placed within God’s providential ordering. The Anglican Communion is also to be understood as part of that ordering, and within that context the mission heritage of Anglicans is affirmed as offering unique opportunities. These opportunities are given greater specification by five commitments that echo the Baptismal Covenant found in TEC’s Book of Common Prayer.

Though I have quibbles with some of the wording of this section, I doubt that it will be the subject of much controversy, and so I will pass immediately on to Section Three that, if grasped in its plain sense, most certainly will cause great controversy. Here the Covenant addresses “Our Unity and Common Life”, and here we come to the heart of our present conflicts. How shall we understand communion on the one hand and autonomy on the other?

What is it that the covenant asks us to affirm? We affirm that by incorporation into the body of Christ we are called “to pursue all things that make for peace and build up our common life.” For Anglicans this affirmation signals a resolve “to live in a Communion of Churches” in which each “orders and regulates its own affairs”¦through its own system of government and law.” In doing so, however, it understands itself to be living “in communion with autonomy and accountability.” This accountability is not mediated through a “central legislative and executive authority” but by “mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference and the other instruments of Communion.”

From this basic affirmation flow certain commitments. Chief among these is “to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the churches of the Anglican Communion while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole.” Concretely this means that each of the Churches of the Communion, before taking a controversial action, will seek a shared mind through the Communion’s councils. Further, it means that when an action “by its intensity, substance or extent” threatens the unity of the Communion or the credibility of its mission, a province will only act (if it does so at all) with “diligence, care and caution.”

Few, I think, realize how strong the words “intensity, substance or extent” and “diligence, care and caution” in fact are. The same lack of recognition applies too much of the vocabulary deployed in earlier sections of the covenant. I speak of terms like “shared discernment, accountability, and autonomy.” In deploying these terms, the Covenant’s drafters refer to a substantial and well-developed body of Anglican thought.
The generally accepted meaning of these terms places a heavy burden of proof on any province that exercises its autonomy in ways that other members of the Communion believe threaten their unity or their credibility.
III

I am forced to say (sadly) that by any reckoning, the recent actions of TEC’s General Convention are of sufficient “intensity, substance, and extent” to threaten the unity of the Communion. Further, given the seriousness of the threat and given the fact that TEC’s actions have been taken both against the counsel of all the Instruments of Communion and a direct plea by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it stretches credulity to say that they are actions that manifest “diligence, care, and caution.”

Indeed, given the fact that the first section of the Covenant clearly understands unity of belief and practice to be, in part, constitutive of communion, and given the fact that the third section makes clear that autonomy must be understood within the context of communion wide accountability, it would appear that TEC’s recent actions amount to a provisional rejection of the covenant. Apart from reversing the decisions recently taken, the only way TEC can with any integrity ratify the first three sections of the Covenant is to deny its plain sense and openly define communion univocally in terms of forms of mutual aid and hospitality that are decoupled from unity of belief and practice.

It is just this sort of talk that appears on the blogs and issues from the mouths of many of our present leaders. They do not like the Covenant because it compromises provincial autonomy and so is “un-Anglican.” By this charge they mean that the Covenant places limits on doctrinal and moral innovation, hinders innovations made necessary by the requirements of the mission of particular provinces, and places a curial hierarchy above the governing structures of individual provinces.

In response, one can only say that living in communion does place limits on doctrinal innovation and it does require that local adaptations for purposes of mission not make innovations other churches of the Communion cannot “recognize” as in accord with Holy Scripture and apostolic teaching. What, however, are we to make of the charge that the Covenant creates a curia that compromises the autonomy of the provinces? Opponents level this charge particularly against Section Four.

Since we do not have a final version of Section Four, I cannot respond in any definitive way to this charge. I will only say that in all the versions submitted so far the drafters have bent over backwards to protect the autonomy of the provinces. Rather than creating a curia that has legislative and juridical authority, they have sought procedures that will allow the provinces to act jointly and in good order when an action by a province, because of its “intensity, substance and extent”, is not “recognized” by the provinces as in accord with the belief and practice of the Communion as a whole.

The final section of the covenant in its penultimate form is procedural only. It does not establish an international hierarchy. It seeks only to present an orderly process for the provinces to preserve their unity and credibility through a process of “recognition” rather than adjudication. It is just such a process that the Anglican Communion has lacked and because of this lack, reactions to TEC’s recent actions have been piecemeal, chaotic, idiosyncratic, and productive of greater division rather than more extensive communion.

The simple fact is that without a strong Section Four that creates credible procedures rather than additional hierarchies, the Anglican Communion will perish as a communion of churches. So is a covenant necessary? I prefer to use the word necessary like St. Luke does only in reference to God’s providential ordering of his world. Whether a covenant or, indeed, whether Anglicanism itself are in this sense necessary I do not know. I can only pray that they are. Whatever the case may prove to be it is still reasonable to ask if a covenant is likely to be an effective means of preserving communion? I cannot answer this question with any degree of certainty. Nevertheless, I believe the Covenant is the only hope we have if we wish on the one hand to preserve a communion that involves more than mutual aid and hospitality; and on the other, in doing so, avoid the creation of an international hierarchy. At this point, I must be utterly clear. From a human point of view our choices are extremely limited. Either we have a covenant with real consequences like the “two track” proposal or the Communion will collapses. Many provinces from the Global South that support a covenant with consequences will simply go their own way, and those who have rejected a covenant with consequences will be left with something that is a Communion in name only. To return to the beginning, I believe the Covenant is our only hope to arrive at our present cross in the roads and meet rather than part forever.

——————————————–
i The Lambeth Conference 1948 (London: SPCK, 1948), p. 84.
ii For verification of this point see William Curtis, The Lambeth Conferences: The Solution for Pan-Anglican Organization, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), pp. 17-77.
iii Ibid, passim.
iv See e.g., the various reports of ACRIC and The Church of the Triune God, The Cyprus Statement of the International Commission for Anglican Orthodox theological Dialogue, 2007.
v Ridley Cambridge Draft (hereafter cited as RCD), “Introduction to the Covenant Text” (here after cites as Introduction) #5.
vi RCD, Introduction #7.
vii RCD, Preamble.
viii RCD, 1.1.1-1.1.8.
ix RCD, 2.2.2a-2.2.2e.
x RCD, 3.1.1.
xi RCD, 3.1.2.
xii Ibid. See also “A Letter from Alexandria”, the Primates, March 2009.
xiii Ibid. See also Lambeth Conference 1930.
xii RCD, 3.2.2. See also Toronto Conference 1963, and the Ten Principles of Partnership.
xiv RCD, 3.2.4; 3.2.5.
xv See Anglican Communion Institute, “The Anglican Covenant: Shared Discernment Recognized by All”, Anglicancommunioninstitute.com.

The larger problem is that the Anglican Church, along with most mainline Protestant churches, has lost its identity. In a well-intentioned but misguided effort to soften its image, the Anglican Church has embraced a big-tent strategy that has driven away its traditional members and made itself even more irrelevant to potential worshippers. The crowning example of this confused strategy came in February 2008 when Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, told a British radio program that the adoption of some parts of Islamic Sharia law in Britain “seems inevitable.” Though this can be considered as much an indictment of the present depressed state of British politics and society as much as of the Anglican Church, nothing in Williams’ tenure suggests he has committed himself to lifting the Anglican Church out of its decline.

So what must the Anglican Church do to avoid its demise?

First, it must be Christian and unapologetically so.

Read it all.

Bishop Ackerman said he has heard from the Diocese of Bolivia regarding the Presiding Bishop’s actions. “Having heard from the Diocese of Bolivia, I understand that I’m a priest in good standing in that diocese,” he said.

Bishop Ackerman said he is troubled by the Episcopal Church’s apparent inability to transfer bishops peaceably to other provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

“It must see itself as highly independent,” he said. “If orders are not universal in the Anglican Communion, they cease to be catholic in the full sense of the word. ”¦ The Episcopal Church does not own the ministry of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

Neva Rae Fox, the Episcopal Church’s program officer for public affairs, said the Presiding Bishop was unlikely to respond to Bishop Ackerman’s remarks.

Read it all.

“This will bring further recognition of our diocese as a part of the Episcopal Church, as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, and in communion with the See of Canterbury. When I shared with the Archbishop of Canterbury last month the plans for a resolution of this nature, he responded favorably,” the bishop said.

The bishop also spoke of why he believes the diocese needs to remain within the Episcopal Church.

“We need to stay where we are because our Lord needs the faithfulness of the ministry this diocese has to offer, and does offer, through the commitment of those who make this their spiritual home, and in turn are striving to build up the kingdom of God in this place and the life of Christ’s Church,” he said. “We stay also because our historic identity with the Anglican Communion demands it of us. Without ordered processes there is no catholicity, no claim to the ancient Christian unity, which we claim is at the very heart of whom we are as members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

Read it all.

I have suggested that authentic Anglicanism is Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and Reformed. But what do we mean when we say that Anglicanism is truly ‘Catholic’?

The term ‘Catholic’ is open to considerable misunderstanding. Almost five centuries of use to distinguish the Roman church from evangelical Protestantism has made it difficult for many to understand it apart from these institutional overtones. To suggest that a Protestant denomination might be ‘Catholic’ seems like a betrayal of its distinctiveness or, at best, ecclesiological confusion. One is either Catholic or Protestant, certainly not both together. This is at least part of the popular Protestant unease with retaining the word ‘Catholic’ to describe the church in contemporary translations of the Creeds.

In addition, since at least the nineteenth century, the term has been used to describe an emphasis within certain strands of Protestantism which has re-centred Christian corporate life on the sacraments, priesthood, notions of apostolic succession, and the like. In this way ‘Catholic’ describes one tradition within Anglicanism (alongside, and in certain tension with, evangelical and charismatic traditions). One is either Catholic or Evangelical, certainly not both together. A century or more of tension between the catholic and evangelical traditions within Anglicanism has made it difficult for some to accept the word ‘Catholic’ as an appropriate description of authentic Anglicanism.

Read it all.

What we need is a vigorous and informed discussion of Anglican identity, one which explores why the Anglican heritage is worth promoting, protecting and joining in the twenty-first century.

In order to get the conversation going, I’d like to suggest that Anglicanism that is true to its classic identity is Catholic, Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical and that there is something entirely worthwhile about each of these dimensions.

Read it all.

Often, The Episcopal Church is called a “bridge church” between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Many couples who join The Episcopal Church do so when a Catholic marries a Protestant. Both find in The Episcopal Church a theology and a style of worship that honors the faith traditions in which they were formed.

The foundation of faith in The Episcopal Church is often described using the image of a Three-legged stool.

The first leg of the stool is Holy Scripture. The catechism in the Prayer Book says of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament that “God inspired their human authors” and that “God still speaks to us through the Bible” (BCP 853). The Old Testament conveys the story of the covenant relationship between Israel and God. The New Testament reveals the Incarnation of God in the person of Jesus Christ. Holy Scripture serves as the touchstone of our lives.

Read it all.

See what you make of the answer presented here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has recently published “reflections” proposing major changes in the way the Anglican Communion is organised. Because of growing willingness in the Episcopal Church (TEC) both to consider it possible that lesbians and gays, including those who are partnered, may be called to any kind of ministry within the church, and also to respond positively to requests to bless same-sex unions, he has suggested a “two-track” approach. Provinces such as TEC in North America would not be able to carry out certain functions such as representing the Anglican Communion in ecumenical circles, while those which signed up to a Covenant would have a more central position.

This research paper describes the background, examines the evidence on which the Archbishop’s main points are based and discusses the implications. It is suggested that some of his claims about the nature of change in the church are historically incorrect, and that TEC has made greater efforts to abide by decisions made at international Anglican gatherings, and the overall ethos of the Communion, than many provinces which might sign up to the Covenant. Important aspects of the Anglican heritage have been rejected in recent years by some of TEC’s most vigorous critics, at a cost to the vulnerable in society and church mission and ministry.

While the intention of the Archbishop’s proposal is to promote Christian unity and spiritual growth, there is a strong possibility that the results will be the opposite. A different approach, less focused on institutional structures, might be more effective in addressing divisions and ultimately enabling Anglicans to move towards a deeper unity.

Read it all.

This is important, first, because it marks the public rolling out of an agenda by the Communion Partner bishops, hopefully with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s full and forthcoming public support, aimed at preserving some remnant of constituent membership in the Communion for covenanting Episcopalians.

Second, and more profoundly, this step effectively serves as a petition to God for the preservation of Anglicanism, to a larger end of reconciliation and communion. “The divisions before us,” after all, have to do with much more than “differences of opinion on matters of human sexuality,” as the bishops note. They finally touch upon ecclesiology ”” the nature of the Church, as a global communion, committed to “discerning the mind of Christ together.” And this point, like the text of the Anglican covenant itself, drops us into a rich field of ecumenical discernment and decision, since communion in Christ is always larger than the particularities of any one divided church or family of churches….

For this reason especially: that the Catholic Church precedes and follows, comprehends and judges, our feints at autonomy, independence, and party spirit, as well as our flirtations with one or another false unity, we applaud the movement forward to covenant by the Communion Partner bishops, and pledge our support.

Read the whole thing.

Where does all this leave us as Anglicans? Our problem, as has been made painfully clear in the current crisis, is that we do not really know who we are. It will not do to defer to scripture as if scripture stands outside the catholic and ecumenical tradition, for this attitude easily suggests, however unintentionally, that we read the scriptures alone, and that we alone mediate their interpretation.

Instead, let us follow the vision of Lambeth 1920, at which the bishops urged “every branch of the Anglican Communion” to “prepare its members for taking their part in the universal fellowship of the reunited Church, by setting before them the loyalty which they owe to the universal Church, and the charity and understanding which are required of the members of so inclusive a society” (Resolution 15).

Read it all.

Two members of the Communion Partners rectors advisory committee say the group is striving to be an irenic voice as the Episcopal Church discusses the Anglican Communion’s proposed covenant.

“We aim to be constructive in relationships between orthodox clergy and their bishops whose theology may not be the same,” said the Rev. Leigh Spruill, rector of St. George’s Church, Nashville.

Communion Partners has begun filling the void left by congregations and dioceses affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network, but it is cautious about becoming another political force within the Episcopal Church.

“We’re trying to find a better way than the political structures that have arisen in response to volatile issues,” said the Rt. Rev. Anthony Burton, former bishop of Saskatchewan and rector of Church of the Incarnation, Dallas.

Read it all.

From here:

ACI believes that, on the basis of the Constitution and Canons of TEC and their historical substance and meaning, dioceses have the power to withdraw from General Convention. We do not deny that there are probably legal complications involved in exercising that power, most of which are untested. But granting this””and defending the constitutional structure that might permit a San Joaquin or Pittsburgh or Fort Worth to withdraw as well as opposing as uncanonical the means by which bishops of these dioceses were disciplined””is not the same thing as approving of specific decisions here and there.

And there is a fundamental difference between what is at stake in CP dioceses adopting the Covenant and the actions of the dioceses mentioned above: in the former case, the dioceses in question would (and should) adopt the Covenant on the basis of their powers as laid out by the Constitution and Canons of TEC itself for its own dioceses. There is no question here of “leaving” TEC, but of TEC dioceses doing what they are meant to do.
Brian seems to think that doing this would cause a free-for-all among anglican churches in the world. But what is at issue is precisely that TEC’s polity is DIFFERENT from the polity of most other anglican churches. And its “provincial” personality exists only according to this unusual, even unique, polity. That personality operates according to individual diocesan decision-making, which either coheres or does not with the collective that is designated by the General Convention. The former shapes the latter, not the the other way around in terms of “hierarchical” powers.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this interpretation of our Constitution. But our argument is that is it not up to the Instruments of Unity to interpret our Constitution and Canons on behalf of American dioceses. Over and over, the Instruments have prescinded from such a task, and on principle. Unless the constituional question is resolved amongst the members of TEC themselves, it will finally be resolved in the civil courts of the United States. That, in fact, seems to be path now being taken.

Until such time, we have two vying interpretation as to who has the “authority” to adopt the Covenant within TEC: we argue that only dioceses can do this, in any final way; others have argued that only the General Convention can do this. No other Anglican Church has in fact exhibited such a disagreement, and none is anticipated given the shape of other churches’ constitutions. Those provinces who do end up adopting the Covenant will finally have to make the decision themselves as to who they will recognize as Covenant partners amongst those American Anglicans who formally express their desire to be party to this Covenant. But nothing now prevents, from a legal point of view, TEC dioceses from such formal expressions apart from General Convention. Nothing. It is not illegal, it is not rebellious, it is not unAnglican, it is not a declaration of war, it is not impertinent: it is rather the exercise of diocesan responsibilities, with its bishop, to remain faithful (as we see it) to the Anglican commitments of its formation and vocation.

We must go further, however. Theologically, the provincial system is itself flawed, or at least many believe it is, and I have argued along these lines recently in my paper “The Organizational Basis of the Anglican Communion”. These flaws are ones that have increasingly been noted within the Communion itself, despite our generally (but not uniformly!) provincial organization. The Christian Church ought properly to be ordered, I have argued, according to what I call “pastoral synodality”, which is episocopally centered and structurally ordered along what amount therefore to diocesan lines. Cultural, regional, and political considerations ought not to define the character of these structures, but rather the persuasive pastoral witness of self-expenditure that discples of Christ provide. There are good historical and theological reasons for seeing matters this way, and the Anglican Communion itself, I would argue, has long been evolving in this direction, and away from the national-provincial structures that were pragmatically and often unthinkingly and problematically adopted in the wake of colonial expansion and then ecclesial and national independencies. I would prefer to see the present turmoil less as a simple matter of a clash of theological commitments, than as the transformational pains of a more faithful adaptation to the Church’s intrinsic order.

It so happens that TEC’s Constitution is shaped more in accord with the character of pastoral synodality than some other Anglican churches! But it is not surprising, therefore, that this very Constitution and its implications is now being subverted by those whose theological commitments demand the justification of nationalistic and/or cultural priority over the authority of particular sanctified witness that pastoral synodality represents. That is, TEC’s leadership is promoting a new understanding of the Episcopal Church, and one that contradicts our Constitution, that demands subservience to a purported cultural revelation that General Convention has arrogated to itself and the PB the power to impose. The subversion is one of political convenience.

Any attempt to defrock bishops or priests who seek to uphold our Episcopal Constitution in opposition to these subversions would be meaningless in substance, and practically so unless and until any court ruled in favor of the defrockers. CP dioceses and bishops should adopt the Covenant when its text becomes recognized, and assuming its acceptability. If other covenanting churches do not wish to receive these dioceses and bishops as full covenanting partners, that will be to their shame.

The Episcopal Church is in a Level Five conflict. It’s not getting better, it’s getting worse. We continue on this trajectory and the entire communion is affected. The best thing would be for The Episcopal Church to withdraw for a time certain, work through their theological issues, and then come back. Perhaps in that time, the rest of the communion will have worked through and discovered that yes, God is Doing A New Thing and glory hallelujah. Or not. Then The Episcopal Church can decide whether it belongs in the Anglican Communion.

Read it all.

An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in The Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in The Episcopal Church, at least provisionally. As Christians, we live in hope that The Episcopal Church will at some future General Convention reverse the course to which it has committed itself, but we acknowledge the decisions that already have been taken. These decisions and actions run counter to the shared discernment of the Communion and the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion implementing this discernment. They are, therefore, also incompatible with the express substance, meaning, and committed direction of the first three Sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. As a consequence, only a formal overturning by The Episcopal Church of these decisions and actions could place the church in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant’s already articulated commitments. Until such time, The Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican churches within the Communion must take this into account. This conclusion is reached not on the basis of animus or prejudice, but on a straightforward and careful reading of the Covenant’s language and its meaning within the history of the Anglican Communion’s well-articulated life.

Read it all.

I mean, can we really say that none of that stuff matters as long as we eat his flesh and drink his blood? Is it really all about what we do and not at all about what we believe? Well, no, not quite. If there are no limits at all, we don’t even have fudge any more, just goo, and I’m not here to commend Anglican goo.

Take this business about the sacrifice of Jesus. I suspect many of you haven’t heard this story, because unlike what happened at General Convention, this didn’t lend itself to being misrepresented by a secular press that is just looking to whip up anxieties and tell sensational stories, whether they’re true or not. A certain priest was elected bishop in one of our dioceses. Now even though our dioceses choose their own bishops, the Church as a whole has to approve episcopal elections by a majority vote of all the diocesan bishops and a majority vote of all the diocesan Standing Committees. Usually this sort of thing proceeds without much attention being paid, but in this case, for various reasons, people started to get suspicious about this priest’s theology, and more and more people began to think that he had gone too far, even by the rather generous standards of Anglicanism. One of the turning points in the whole process came when one highly respected bishop ”“ who is very much on the liberal side of things ”“ wrote a public statement saying, basically, “I can’t see that this guy believes that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice, or that it accomplished something for us that we couldn’t do for ourselves, in any way whatsoever. So I can’t consent to his election.” In the end, a majority of both bishops and Standing Committees said no.

Though I grieve for the diocese that now has to go through the election process all over again, I rejoice ”“ you have no idea how much I rejoice ”“ that our beloved Anglican fudge was not allowed to melt into Anglican goo. After all, how can we really accept the gifts of God for the people of God ”“ how can we feed on Jesus in our hearts by faith, with thanksgiving ”“ if we do not acknowledge in some way that Jesus gives his flesh to be broken for the life of the world?

There have to be some core elements somewhere, to keep our Anglican fudge from melting into a pile of goo. But what are they? They are the essentials of believing without which our doing makes no sense.

Read it all.

(Please note that the post of Mark Harris to which this responds may be found here).

So what if your main point is, as we believe, wrong? What if the move forward (C056 and D025) has been undertaken regardless of the threat to Communion and its unity, out of a sense of justice and rights? What if proponents of the new sexual ethic truly want to be a church on its own and fully reject the logic of a Covenant or Windsor? Interdependence in a Communion, as is intimated by 3.2.5, is precisely what is being rejected in favor of autonomy and a federal association. The nominations in LA and MN make that abundantly clear. So again, we hold that your main point is wrong and that TEC is moving clearly and resolutely in the opposite direction of the approved covenant text.

It is because of this that ACI speaks of provisional rejection. What we do not understand is why supposedly liberal Christians wish to hold hostage to their way of thinking those who prefer interdependence in Communion. On logical terms, why must all be bound to go the way of autonomy and a national denomination? Why do you not see that some truly wish to belong to a catholic church and an Anglican Communion via a covenant, instead of being lumped with those whose understanding and hopes are very different? Moreover, most of us believe that in so doing we are upholding the constitution of this church. No one is contesting that your way of being an Episcopalian is winning out in General Convention voting. What we do not understand is why you don’t declare that this entails an autonomous church, and a way of being Anglican the proposed covenant does not embrace, and then let those who wish to embrace this do so? Surely that is congruent with a liberal position and mindset.

What remains terribly confused for those wishing to embrace a covenant of interdependence is your insistence on saying nothing has changed, that there has been no rejection, that we are studying the covenant, etc., but insisting at the same time that the American Episcopal way is a way of autonomy and independent action. If this be so, why not declare it and concede that those who wish to be Episcopalians in Communion ought to do so?

Read it all.

In response to the decisions taken at general convention, The Archbishop of Canterbury, has outlined a “two track” future for provinces in the Anglican communion, with a choice of covenantal or associate status. One track is for those who are willing to intensify their relationships of interdependence in the communion, through signing the proposed Anglican covenant, and the other is for those who prefer federal automony, not signing the covenant.

The Anglican communion is involved in “intensifying” its current relationships and those who do not wish to continue on that “intensifying” trajectory may remain where they are, which will become track two, while the centre of the Communion moves on with glacial gravity into track one. Not exclusion, but intensification: not force, but choice.

Who cares? God does: for communion mirrors the love of the trinity better than a loose federation ”“ the federation of the holy trinity? Hardly. Who cares? Those in the precarious positions of Tutu and Gitari, in Pakistan and Sudan today, and all those who support them in solidarity, such as the 36-year interweavings of the Episcopal church of Sudan with the diocese of Salisbury, in which I now serve.

Read it all.

[Mark Harris] asks why those that want TEC to sign the Covenant do not wait for the next General Convention and there cast 51% of the votes for ratification. If this time were taken before a final judgment, there might, he says, be some possibility of a provincial decision by “the so called ”˜local’ Church.”

It is of course the case that if no provision is made before that time for dioceses to ratify the Covenant, then dioceses would not have to hold off casting their votes. They would have no vote to cast. The question would be moot. However, if provision is made for diocesan ratification dioceses that want to ratify the Covenant would simply be foolish not to do so. First The Episcopal Church has already taken steps that both effectively repudiate the approved portion of the Covenant and make ratification of a Covenant that limits its autonomy impossible to imagine. Second, a provincial decision that is the result of consensus building among those who support the decisions of the General Convention and those who do not now sadly lies beyond reach and has, in any case, been contradicted by a majoritarian system of decision-making. Pronouncements of victory have been heard resounding from the halls of our deliberations. “It’s time to move on” is the mantra that focused the attention of the vast majority of all three orders and both houses. How then can there be consensus building that includes those who have a problem with the majority if they have no way to contribute to building such a consensus. According to the reports we have received, a declaration of consensus by majority vote has already been made.

In such a context “minority influence” must be exercised in new ways. Thus, in taking the step of direct ratification the minority would, as previously noted, be saying no to a Christian identity defined first all by boundaries of a nation state and the confines of a denomination that locates itself first of all within those boundaries. Again, as previously noted, the primary objection we lodged against Fr. Harris’ first two articles on these subjects is that they locate the identity of The Episcopal Church first within the boundaries of a nation state. His further explication of his views makes doubly clear that this is indeed his position. And having stated it in this way, it becomes increasingly clear that Fr. Harris not only believes this innovative understanding of our polity is true, but also that it must be enforced as true by making all dioceses and members suffer whatever fate is in store for a province that does not intend to sign any covenant restricting a course of action undertaken, for example, like that of the last General Convention. All must go where the church of the nation goes, whether they want to or not, even if to do so calls into question their belonging to the Anglican Communion.

Read it all.