(ACNS) The Covenant Design Group (CDG) met under the chairmanship of the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, former Primate of the Church in the Province of the West Indies, between 29th March and 2nd April, 2009, in Ridley Hall, Cambridge, at the invitation of the Principal, the Revd Canon Andrew Norman, former Representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Covenant Design Group. We are grateful for the warm welcome received.
The main work of the group was to prepare a revised draft for the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant which could be presented to the fourteenth Meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, and commended to the Provinces for adoption. The CDG now presents the third “Ridley Cambridge” draft for the Anglican Communion Covenant.
I sped through most of it.. Needs a good bit of study. However, I did read TEC’s comments (probably on the St. Andrew’s Draft”, and on line 43, or 44, I saw that TEC at least, says, “the Covenant can only be approved/signed by a province”.. Don’t have time to see where/why they decided that, BUT, makes one wonder re: our “vote” at Convention.
Grandmother in SC
Also, the Presiding Bishop has made it clear this third draft will not be part of the discussion (or should I say dialogue) of GC09. Not that it is her decision to make but she acts as though it is!
What would happen if a resolution for the Covenant made it to GC09 and it was voted down?
If you take a close look at the Covenant, you’ll see that when it refers to ‘Church’, it does not specify ‘Province.’ ‘Church’ refers to any ‘church’ on the ACC schedule; it can therefore include dioceses, regional churches, extra-provincial churches and ecumenical partners. So any Church on the ACC schedule is free to sign onto the Covenant, which indicates that Church’s request to participate in the Instruments i.e. Lambeth, Primates’ Meeting.
The PB has made the claim that dioceses are not free to sign onto the Covenant; however this is simply not the case given how TEC is ordered (see Mark McCall’s article ‘Constitution and Canons: What do they tell us about TEC http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=249)
I am not sure it is possible to fully describe the utter failure of this document. This is now the final proposed solution to the crisis of communion that began six years ago. It was the reason we were told over and over to exercise patient and stick through the process. It is the reason we were told to attend lambeth. This document is being proposed as the basis of communion in Anglicanism. Six years…
# 5 could you at least point to the main reason you believe it to be an “utter failure?” Or, failing that, what would you have liked to have seen? What would have made it a success?
I find it hard to believe that TEC can agree to this draft Covenant. They may be veiled and contorted, but there are sanctions.
Problem # 1
[blockquote] Any covenanting Church may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. Although such withdrawal does not imply an automatic withdrawal from the Instruments or a repudiation of its Anglican character, it raises a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, and of compatibility with the principles incorporated within it, and it triggers the provisions set out in section 4.2.2 above [/blockquote]
Okay let’s apply this to marriage. Something that we all agree is a covenant. Let say a man & a women get married. Some dispute arises and the man withdraws from the pledges he has made. How is that not a divorce? Anglicanism.
Problem #2
The use of the word “may†throughout section four. No action on any matter is required of any instrument or person in the communion. At any point an instrument can choose not to act without any consequence thereby derailing any process of discipline.
Problem # 3
[blockquote] If a Church refuses to defer a controversial action, the Joint Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below. [/blockquote]
Again with the “may†let say this covenant was in place before hand. It could have been handled in the exact same way (i.e. no real discipline) of TEC and still be in line with the covenant.
Problem # 4
[blockquote] 4.2.4) On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, the Joint Standing Committee may make a declaration concerning an action or decision of a covenanting Church that such an action or decision is or would be “incompatible with the Covenant”. A declaration of incompatibility with the Covenant shall not have any force in the Constitution and Canons of any covenanting Church unless or until it is received by the canonical procedures of the Church in question. [/blockquote]
So if everybody by some miracle agrees that someone does something outside of the covenant it impacts no relationship until they as a church decide that it is bad enough to do something about it. Which is exactly what the individual African churches have done in regards to TEC. They saw the problem. The communion could make no official action. Through their bodies they declared themselves out of communion with TEC. The only change is now we would have to have all the instruments and the covenant enforcement committee say that it is bad and then act. Which is silly because all of the instruments have already said that about TEC.
Problem # 5
[blockquote] 4.2.5) On the basis of the advice received, the Joint Standing Committee may make recommendations as to relational consequences to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion. These recommendations may address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church to continue with an action or decision which has been found to be “incompatible with the Covenant” impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion. It may recommend whether such action or decision should have a consequence for participation in the life of the Communion and its Instruments. It shall be for each Church and each Instrument to determine its own response to such recommendations. [/blockquote]
See the above. Each instrument decides what to do with the offending church. Let’s think this through. ACC says TEC is heretical (just for example, will never happen) that puts no obligations on Lambeth in regards to invitations. Lets say Lambeth and the primates meetings say that TEC is heretical. It has no impact on ACC meetings. Lets say all the instruments declare TEC heretical it has no bearing on any covenanted church. Our orders are still completely interchangeable. Think about this on a diocesan level and it becomes clear. Texas deposes a priest, but it has no bearing on South Carolina. Etc. So the only way to leave the Anglican communion is if All four instruments kick you out of their meetings and each individual province personally excommunicates you. In no way do any of these 40
It should end:
In no way do any of these 40 something decisions interact with each other. This is the picture of incoherence.
I write this quickly, and apologize in advance for mistakes in spelling and grammar, as well as lacunae in important points.
I am sympathetic to commoncausepriest’s arguments: would it not be better if determinations and their consequences were “mandated” in this or that instance? Yes. But that is the business of canon law, not of this kind of covenant. The “may” clauses are necessary, because they provide the discretionary room that is required by the varying realities of ecclesial existence, not only potential, but current. For instance: there are reasons why a church might wish to withdraw from the covenant (once having adopted it) that have nothing to do with rejection of its responsibilities, or heresy, and so on — the need to adjust ot local/national laws; the need to adjust to local/national ecumenical agreements (e.g. among united churches), and so on. Again, the “may” clauses regarding consequences that the JSC or an Instrument could determine reflect the fact that not all “incompatibilities” are equivalent, or equally damaging; not all actions are such; not all concerns are of the same weight. If there were a Code of Canon Law, perhaps it would be easier to avoid discretionary latitude within the Covenant; but even then, it would be necessary to have “mays” as well as “wills”.
More of a concern, perhaps, is the fact that the Instruments are not mandated to respond uniformly to the advice of, say, the JCS. Or that covenanting provinces and churches themselves have an acknowledged authority to determine their response to a declaration of “incompatility”. How is this different from the “incoherence” of the present? Several things could be said here:
1. The polity realities cannot be cast aside in this or any covenant. I don’t know if “commoncausepriest” is a member of Common Cause, but the latter group cannot do this either, as its provisional Constitution makes clear: member churches maintain authority of their ordered jurisdictions. Nothing can “make” one church in Asia do what another church in America says, and vice versa. Period. Just as religious belief and faith cannot be coerced, neither can ecclesial commitment and decision in this case.
2. This is true of the Instruments of Communion as well. The ACC has a constitution. It can be changed, but it cannot be changed by a covenant among member churches. Likewise, the Primates’ Meeting has some informal, but concrete, qualifications for attendence, that depend on the members of the meeting, including most especially the Primate of Canterbury. A covenant cannot compel a decision by this body or any individual member of it.
3. A covenant to which members of the ACC and Primates Meeting, for instance, are party, will however and eventually (perhaps quite soon) alter the criteria, dynamics, and goals of decision-making among these members and (if they gain a majority) the Instrument itself. At a certain point — once the covenanting members of these groups reach a critical mass — the Instrument itself may wish to order its common decision-making in a way that was explicitly conformable to the Covenant’s substance; the ACC, for instance, could change its constitution.
4. Meanwhile, covenanting churches will deal wtih each other according to their own commitments and accountabilities. Non-covenanting churches, even if still members of an Instrument, will not be party to such consultation and decision-making. This is a bit like an “ecclesiola in ecclesia” — the tier of “intensified relation”, as Rowan Williams has put it — but with the original transformative dyanmic in place.
5. The maintenance of the Instruments’ relative distinction one from another in decision-making is also a principle of conciliar mutuality that both casts the net widely among the Church’s people but also binds each to the others’ direction. The Covenant makes clear the relationship. This has always been a part of a large and catholic church’s form of self-governance, and is central of Anglican polity from the beginning and in its transformations and extensions around the world (e.g. multiple houses in synod, diocesan/provincial relations and mutual distinctions, etc..).
A covenant like this seeks the organic conversion and transformation of the larter Church through the covenanting of individual churches. We can speak of a time of “transition” where there are seeming overlaps in membership and relation; but one could also speak of the “day by day” fashion of being reshaped that Jesus and Paul each point to as the form of the Holy Spirit’s work in time.
Nor does “time” here mean “on and on and on”, except in a banal way. The best thing, as I see it, is for as many provinces (GAFCON included!) to sign on as quickly as possible. A sea change of relationships, and the force of their meaning in Christ, will take place thereby in a moment.
#10 Thank you for that Dr Radner. I don’t pretend to understand it all or how it is envisaged that it will work without a close study of this document. I wonder if in due course you or one of your colleagues will issue a detailed explanation of it and in particular the differences from the earlier drafts. I see some general commentary already exists.
Thank you for your hard work on this.
Is there to be an appendix as in the earlier drafts detailing the disciplinary process and consequences in more detail?
#8
Given Dr. Radner’s responses, I will only reply to one of the points you have made.
[blockquote]Okay let’s apply this to marriage. Something that we all agree is a covenant. Let say a man & a women get married. Some dispute arises and the man withdraws from the pledges he has made. How is that not a divorce?[/blockquote]
Would you then advocate that one should be forced to comply in some manner? How? Without fundamentally changing the character of Anglicanism? Is forced compliance faithful? Willingness to consent seems pretty critical to a faithful response to relationship.
Furthermore, in Churches that do force compliance, i.e. confessional Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, either one complies, or one simply leaves and (perhaps) goes to another Church. But short of coercion (which doesn’t work particularly well in our context of religious and Christian pluralism), one is free to leave these Churches. That is the choice that seems to be given here too.
#12
No. The measures are laid out in section 4.
Dr. Radner wrote (#10)
[blockquote]4. Meanwhile, covenanting churches will deal wtih each other according to their own commitments and accountabilities. Non-covenanting churches, even if still members of an Instrument, will not be party to such consultation and decision-making. This is a bit like an “ecclesiola in ecclesiaâ€â€”the tier of “intensified relationâ€, as Rowan Williams has put it—but with the original transformative dyanmic in place.[/blockquote]
Is it not the case that as far as the covenant is concerned the non-covenanting Churches will still participate in the Instruments along with the covenanting Churches on the same basis as before on matters other than the processes in Section 4.2? I can see why the covenant might not be thought to be the right vehicle to limit participation in the Instruments by a non-covenanting Church other than as provided in 4.2.7. If that’s the case, though, it seems it would be better for needed interfacing with some provisions outside the covenant to proceed on a parallel track. Such provisions would be structured to avoid the situation in which a Church withdrawing from the covenant would trigger the processes under 4.2.2 which could lead to limitations or even suspension from an Instrument, while no comparable consequence would attach to not signing in the first place. After all, the consequences in 4.2.2-4.2.5 all involve “may” language as to the JSC and recommendations to the Instruments. Why, then, shouldn’t there be put in place comparable language pertaining to non-signatory status after a period of time. Further, the ACC could send an amendment to its constitution out to the Churches at the same time as the covenant, authorizing action on the basis of JSC recommendations. It seems as now structured, you have the situation that as far as the covenant itself is concerned the provisions relating to limitations on participation in the Instruments by non-signers relate primarily to the “consequences†sections, to which the non-signers aren’t themselves subject. The exception would be Section 4.2.1, which is not limited to consequences and in which “the functioning of the Covenant†might be read expansively, but the only participants in Section 4.2.1 activities are the JSC members and certain appointees.
An interesting question is what does it mean to be “still in the process of adoption.†(Section 4.2.7) Presumably saying “we’ll consider it in three years†doesn’t qualify.
This draft leaves the question of inter-province relationships up to each province or each Instrument. There is a certain kind of defacto truth to this, but is this really “communion?” It seems more like free-association than communion to me. Sort of like ongoing, fluid diplomatic relations rather than a treaty with commitments. I think that there is a lot lost if we adopt this approach to communion. Yes, communion is a gift from God, but this moves us closely to seeing communion only as a mystical and invisible reality, with no commitments on the ground that embody that reality. This may be the best we can do, but I’m sad for the loss of a more robust communion.
Ah well.
Optimus prime,
I maybe been unclear. In regards to the marriage analogy. No one forces a husband or a wife to be faithful. It is a mutual submission,but if one of the parties ceases to agree to the covenant of marriage then they are no longer married. The idea that a person can announce that they no longer want to submit to the terms of the marriage by definition leave it. The covenant says very clearly that that is not the cause.
Father Radner,
I am a member of common cause, but we will leave that aside for a second. We must remember as I am sure you do that this covenant is the direct result of the windsor report which was commissioned as a result of the ordination of a practicing homosexual to the episcopate. Over the course of dealing with this crisis it became clear that the fatal flaw in Anglicanism was discipline. A covenant would be means of ordering our life that would hopefully bring some order out of the chaos. This covenant does not do that. It states what “may” happen if certain things are done. It binds no one to any decision that they do not submit to. It does not even change the status of provinces that do not sign on. If TEC does not sign unto the covenant they have a less intense relationship with the churches that do? What does that even mean? How does the covenant help with the fact that various provinces of the communion are out of communion with each other if signing or not signing has no clear impact on membership in the communion
simplest reasons that I think this covenant is a bad idea:
Does provide a clear means of discipline in the communion? NO
Does this actually deal will the weakness of Anglicanism in regards to dealing with controversy or does feel like a fudge? Fudge
Do you really believe this will somehow reconcile GAFCON with TEC? No
Could I imagine the RC’s, The Orthodox Church, or the Southern Baptists dealing with an issue of controversy in such a convoluted matter? NO
Does anglicanism sometimes seem incapable of making painful, clear decisions? Yes
Questions:
1) Is the ACC required to take any action one way or the other, or will TEC’s point of view be allowed, which would be that ACC should table the thing for 6 years until TEC has time to study it and revise it into nothingness?
2) IF the ACC is under some requirement to vote on it this time around, are they required to vote it up or down as is, or can they amend it to nothingness?
3) Is there a real timeframe, or just another deadline that will turn out not to be a deadline?
4) Since the major offending party- the one that caused the requirement for a Covenant in the first place- sits on the JSC- why would the JSC work better in the future than it did after the New Orleans HoB meeting? You remember the JSC report that gave TEC a pass even though 40 odd bishops permit and actively encourage and sometimes participate in SSB’s, not to mention communion of the unbaptized and a dozen other doctrinal absurdities. Will KJS be able once again to sit in on the meeting that determines whether TEC is in compliance? If not, why not?
Hi CCP,
[blockquote] It is a mutual submission,but if one of the parties ceases to agree to the covenant of marriage then they are no longer married.[/blockquote]
Actually that is not true in the case of marriage. One can say they wish to leave a marriage but there is still a process through which one must (let alone should) go before leaving such a relationship. Counseling would come to mind … but if it goes forward then … children, bank accounts, tax records, property issues, lawyers, insurance, paperwork etc.
Leaving any type of relationship in which there is common decision-making and other parties involved, is not straight forward.
It is quite interesting to read the Archbishop’s paper to the Communion of 27th June 2006 ‘The Challenge and Hope of being an Anglican Today’ to see where this process started and the Archbishop’s vision at that point and then consider to what extent this draft fits with it:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1462?q=challenge+and+hope
#16 Tom Pumphrey (2) says:
I’m going to use this as a jumping-off point for some idle thoughts, if you don’t mind.
It seems to me that if you’re going to have a number N of entities that wish to assert some kind of “in communion-ness” with each other, and if you stipulate that there is no hierarchical authority among these entities (such that there is a central authority capable of making binding declarations on who is or is not in communion) then there are a couple of models that spring to mind.
One is a series of pairwise relationships. That is, assume entities A and B can determine whether they are in communion with each other. Assume further that “in communion-ness” is not transitive; that is, if A is in communion with B and B is in communion with C, it does not necessarily follow that A is in communion with C. Then entities A, B, C, and D are all in communion if and only if each of the possible pairings AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD are in communion.
This model has the difficulty that the number of pairwise relationships rises polynomially with N. If N were, for the sake of argument, 34, then unless my math is off there would be 561 distinct relationships to keep track of.
Another model is a spoke-and-hub one. In this model, one entity — call it Z — is singled out as the “hub” of communion relationships, and it is asserted that communion is transitive only through Z. That is, if A and B are both in communion with C, then they are not necessarily in communion with each other; but if A and B are both in communion with Z they are necessarily in communion with each other, as well as with any other entity with whom Z is in communion.
This model has the advantage of greatly decreasing the number of communion relationships that must be tracked, but it limits flexibility. If A decides that it no longer wishes to be in communion with B, then A has no recourse but to sever communion with Z — and thereby lose communion with C, D, E, etc.
One of the factors confusing the situation in the Anglican Communion now is that the AC is by the usual description and by the assumptions built into Lambeth and the Primates’ Meeting an instance of the second model, where the hub is of course Canterbury… but individual provinces are acting as though the Anglican Communion were an instance of the first model, where any distinct pairwise relationship can be broken without requiring that any others be broken.
How relevant is this analysis? In one sense not very, because at the end of the day all of these entities are made up of people and people and their relationships are far more complex than As and Bs. But I think it does highlight, in a small way, at least one aspect of the confusion and difficulty that surrounds the Covenant. So, for what it’s worth, I offer it.
A few brief responses:
I think it would indeed be useful, as an exercise, to apply the proposed covenant to the situation of the present. One thing to note is that the main place of conflict – within the US, for instance — would be untouched by ANY proposal of any kind. That is, once portions of TEC, or the leadership or the General Convention decides to go in a direction that significant portions of the rest of the church refuse to accept, and people start splitting up (dioceses, parishes, etc.), there is nothing anyone can do to stop lawsuits. That is, how people in the US Episcopal/Anglican churches deal with each other is up to them, and always will be.
Leave that rather important matter aside. There is, in the Covenant, a clear process for dealing with a complaint regarding the actions/witness of another church. If pursued along all lines, it would go to the JSC, which might determine “incompatility”, and recommend withdrawal from the common instruments of the Communion’s life. It might also recommend such withdrawal early on in the process if, say, TEC refused to stop for the time being doing what was in dispute.
It should be said that no such process has existed until this point in the Communion. Certainly, there have been actions taken, recommendations made, and so on; but no agreed upon process.
I suppose the real worry is that such a process be put in place and pursued, but the outcome not be what one group believes should be the outcome. In this case, perhaps the JSC decides that TEC’s actions “compatible” with the Covenant; or it makes a recommendation that the Primates choose not to accept, and therefore continue to invite TEC’s rep to their meetings and counsel. Or perhaps TEC simply thumbs its nose at the decisions of the Instruments. In any event, the outcome is not satisfactory to some, and they protest, leave, etc..
It must be said that these kinds of scenarios are possible in ANY arrangement: somebody doesn’t like an outcome; somebody else refuses to listen; somebody else ignores common recommendations. In international bodies, as well as in local ones, this happens all the time. Coercion is an effective response only infrequently! No Covenant, with no matter what “teeth”, can deal with these realities. People will always find something intolerable.
Do the RC’s do better? Or the Southern Baptists? I find these to be ironic counterexamples: the RC church is in major schism (it’s called Protestantism), and in its current form does not disintegrate openly in large part because there are many alternative Christian bodies to welcome dissenters. Baptist conventions are notoriously disjunctive for obvious reasons. And so on. The issue is not whether this or that form of ecclesial discipline can prevent people from disagreeing, contradicting, destroying, and leaving — there is none — but whether there are ways that churches can be oriented in their common life to accountability for faith and witness, and whether these ways can be “ordered” in a regular fashion that preserves, rather than undermines, the ongoing witness of the Gospel.
One of the themes that has already arisen in the comments above is that there is no reason to trust the JSC, for instance. (One important thing to note is that the JSC is likely to changed in its composition, according to the Windsor Continuation Group’s recommendations — upping the number of Primates who sit on it.) Of course, half the Communion doesn’t trust the ACC and the other half doesn’t trust the Primates, and so on. Just as a lot of people don’t trust GAFCON’s leadership council and others don’t trust the ones who don’t trust them. A covenanting process and reality is a means of reordering relationships on the basis of common and agreed-upon commitments, so that trust itself is rebuilt and strengthened. That is crucial. Hence, a previously agreed upon process of dealing with disputes, even if in certain respects it replicates particular actions that have taken place before without helpful result, represents an enormous advance, because now these actions are expected, commonly understood, and pursued according to some already-established principles.
It would not be correct, therefore, to say that the proposed Covenant is “no different than” what we have seen these past few years. It is very different, precisely because those involved will have covenanted to an agreed-upon way of dealing with matters according to an agreed-upon understanding of the meaning of what they do in the eyes of God. That agreement and understanding will refashion the moral powers of participants in their relations. Anglicans have indeed said that such moral power constituted the authority of the church in the world and within its own sphere of life; what we have seen escape our grasp with the rapid and wholly unexpected expansion of the Communion over just a few decades is a common means by which such moral power was identified and recognized. The Covenant is a means of regrasping that means, but not altering the basic premise of anglican ecclesiology which it serves.
The challenge, as some are noting and as the CDG itself knows well (as we noted in the Commentary), is the transition period into a Communion which is shaped — from “within”, as it were — by its covenanting members, from one in which membership is inherited or “ex officio”. A covenant cannot eliminate this period of transition — which began several years ago — but it can order it and direct its purpose. But there is every reason to believe that as it gets under way, and picks up steam, the Instruments themselves (that is, their members) will use their inherent decision-making authority to re-order themselves in a way that more nearly reflects the covenanting commitments that most of its members will have by then adopted and been living by.
Two final practical points:
1. It was not the Covenant’s purpose (or the CDG’s) to define an initial period of adoption (as I said earlier, up to 5 years perhaps for Sudan). That can and should be done by the Instruments. If there are those who are worried that TEC will stall and refuse to make a decision after a couple of years, and there is a sufficient critical mass of covenanting churches who believe this is unhelpful, time-frames and consequences for ignoring time-frames can easily be established. But that is something for covenanting members to do, not a document. And if churches are unable to do so, prefer to foist that repsonsibility on a document, and then complain about it, so much the worse for them.
2. The ACC does not “own” this or any other covenant proposal. They can commend, not commend, decide to revise or ont. But it is not their document. The Primates could commend it, or anyone else could. Provinces could adopt it with or without any Instrument’s commendation. Obviously, it would be helpful if representative bodies from the broad range of the Communion’s life chose to facilitate rather than deter covenanting at this point. But the only Lord we have in the Communion is Christ Jesus.
Myself, I am passionate about this proposal. Not because it is perfect (which it is not). But because it represents an unparalleled attempt by Anglicans from around the world and from a broad range of viewpoints, yet together bound by a common vocation in Christ, to discern a way forward in responsible life for a great throng of Christians in the midst of a fractured and fast dissipating world. No work in Anglicanism’s life has garnered a greater breadth of consultation and response, spent more hours in common labor and prayer, and sought to be held accountable by the burdens shared among God’s people in the light of their faith in the Lord. This doesn’t make the proposal “rightâ€. But it commands attention that goes beyond a simple theological or political document: what is God doing here? I have observed and engaged in costly acts of listening, adjustment, honest confrontation, and hard submission. And these have been marks of faithfulness, not of compromise, that in their very enactment proclaim something of the Gospel. Questions need to be raised, and debates held in the next weeks and months around the Communion. But I hope they are done with a sense of expectation and hope, rather than of intrinsic suspicion and disdain. I am convinced that we are being led to a better place.
Though the Covenant [i]may[/i] offer some aid in future disagreements, what does it do for the elephant mess and stench that already exists and is smeared all over the living room?
#24. Ephraim Radner,
1. If TEC did not exist, would we be looking at an Anglican Covenant?
2. Is this what you see as the primary objective of this Covenant? [blockquote]it represents an unparalleled attempt by Anglicans from around the world and from a broad range of viewpoints, yet together bound by a common vocation in Christ, to discern a way forward in responsible life for a great throng of Christians in the midst of a fractured and fast dissipating world.[/blockquote]
3. I believe the Covenant assumes a behavioral understanding of how trust is reestablished.
4. [blockquote]I have observed and engaged in costly acts of listening, adjustment, honest confrontation, and hard submission.[/blockquote]
We have been blessed by those “costly acts”
I wonder if Dr. Radner would kindly comment on #4 above, i.e., whether there is an explicit or implicit understanding that “We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion…” can include entities other than the 38 Provinces.
Having read a bit further in the RCD, let me be more specific. Could Dr. Radner kindly expound the meaning of sec. 4.1.5? The RCD Commentary does not do so, except for an oblique reference in the penultimate paragraph on Section 4. Most contracts will include an introductory “definition” section. Surely it is proper to define the word “Church” as used throughout the Draft. The normal definitiion in similar documents of the Communion would be that a “Church of the Anglican Communion” is a Province. If this is not the case, surely transparency requires that the Covenant or at least the Commentary say so.
And clearly much hangs on the question of whether other entities, like individual dioceses in non-covenanting Provinces, or alternative entities like ACNA, will be considered as eligible under sec. 4.1.5, even if it is the prerogative of the several Instruments to set out conditions for membership and determine whether those conditions have been met.
One of the things I have liked about the covenant plan from the beginning was the way it enacts Jesus’ new commandment. Love is not commanded and cannot be enforced. Part of the character of Anglicanism that touches my core values is the graciousness that surrounds people living together as a new commandment community.
The polity word “interdependence” expresses this the way dry bones suggest a body. This may explain why too few people get exorcised by the “autonomy vs. interdependence” debates. As a polity, I believe that Anglicanism more than any other Christian denomination is framed upon the New Commandment. It bends the knees of discipline and the independence to the ideal of love. What I find attractive about the proposed covenant is the way it invokes the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral. While I understand the need for its length and precision, I find the need for such precision a very sorry necessity. I pray that this draft is enough to set us on a course correction, and hope that the clarity this covenant provides is enough to help those who need to opt out to do so.
Thank you to all the drafters of the proposed Covenant. You had a difficult job and I pray that by the Grace of God that you got it just right enough.
The Covenant affirms a lot of things that would get voted down at General Convention: like the notion of the Trinity, like “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as containing all things necessary for salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith”, and an affirmation of the Great Commission.
Rowan Williams is not the center of all things Anglican and the ultimate arbiter of the Covenant…. the Joint subcommittee is. We have experience with the Joint subcommittee. Ms Schori is on it. Rowan put her there. Should a member of the Joint subcommittee recuse herself if the issue at hand involves her province? Apparently not.
Dr. Noll asks one of the question very much in some people’s minds. The answer is that the word “church” is not carefully defined because it would have been overly limiting of a number of potential situations we did not feel it was wise to constrain in advance, including churches now in a relationship of ecumenical partnership, as well as future uniting churches, currently extra-jurisdictional dioceses, or future ones, etc.. The specific issue of ACNA or an individual diocese in a non-covenanting province was placed on the table, discussed at length, and we agreed that no limitation on this possibility would be defined. I.e., of course ACNA or siuch a diocese can sign and formally request recognition and participation. (The latter might finally function under some metropolitan aegis as currently happens with e.g. Lusitania. The seeming inconsistency between the Preamble and these kinds of possibilities was noted, and understood to be acceptable as the price paid for the organic transformation of the Communion under the covenant as I have noted it in a previous comment (I think!): the Communion is not static.
4.2.7 speaks to Robroy’s concern: at a certain point (to be defined, presumably, by the Instruments themselves as they examine the timeframe that adoption must demand based on different constitutional and local realities) a TEC that was not party to the Covenant would not be dealing with matters of consequence for the covenanting churches. Until that point, however, there is nothing in the Covenant itself that would prevent e.g. Schori from functioning on the JSC. I am well aware that there are voices in TEC already saying quite explicitly “stall, stall, stall” with respect to a Covenant-adoption decision. They are not, however, the only voices in TEC, even among those unsymnpathetic to the Covenant itself. Furthermore, with the probably expansion of the JSC to include more Primates, I am less concerned about the possibility of gumming things up on that score than is Robroy. If, in fact, the Covenant goes forward, and especially if conversatives who have been reluctant to offer it any support were to take the lead in moving it forward, the shift in common attitude, tenor, and hope for the Communion’s direction and decision-making will be enormous; the kinds of wiggle-room based on alliances and triangulation that permit stalling of one kind or the other, will rapidly dissipate. It is true that during the period of the Covenant’s adoption, there is no mandated “recusing” of members who are still working to adopt but have not yet fulfiled their constitutional processes; nor ought there to be! Hyposcrisy on the matter, however, can neither be prevented, nor need it be bowed to in a growing consensus of common purpose.
Dr. Radner,
First let me apologize for my rather sarcastic approach in #20. I do beg your forgiveness and that of Archbishop Gomez and the other members of your group who have been working tirelessly on this project for several years. I live in N. Michigan, the diocese that has declared any covenant unnecessary on the grounds that we are all incarnations of the Trinity, and therefore already one in God (that is a paraphrase, but not a joke, check the back issues of the diocesan newsletter, or just the diocesan homepage, assuming they left the links up). I guess I was hoping against hope that there would be some succor for the hundreds of thousands of real Episcopalians in the non-CP dioceses that may sign, but will never adhere to, the Covenant.
OK, after a feeble attempt to excuse my behavior of yesterday, I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask to clarify what I read in the draft, and to see if I follow your earlier remarks correctly.
1- If I understand correctly, the timeframe for adoption of the Covenant is essentially determined by the existing provinces of the Communion. Which is to say, assuming that the ACC approves it and commends it to the provinces, the Covenant draft becomes the Covenant at whatever point in time, if any, it is approved by the constitutional structure of 3/4 (2/3?) of the current recognized provinces of the Communion. Is this correct?
2- Individual Instruments of Unity may then determine the degree to which being a signatory to the Covenant will impact membership or participation in said Instrument. A hypothetical might be: the Primates might determine that only Covenant Primate (or no, I see another acronym problem) will be invited to the Primates meetings; the ACC might determine that non-Covenant provinces will have their delegations reduced; the Archbishop of Canterbury might invite all bishops to Lambeth, whether from Covenant provinces or not. Am I correct so far? On an ongoing basis, individual Instruments might make similar determinations if they feel a particular member is in violation of the principals of the Covenant, correct?
3- One thing that I find missing in the Covenant, which if true would be ironic, is that there seems no need for Covenanted Provinces of the Anglican Communion to maintain full communion with one another. That is to say, full sacramental communion- recognition of validity of Eucharist in all provinces, recognition of all bishops of all provinces, etc. Have I missed something, is there more in the document than I am seeing? I mean, here we have TEC. If (granted, a big if) all the Provinces were to sign on, TEC would remain essentially excommunicated by the FCA Provinces, and in impaired communion with quite a few. (Currently, even in the case of the CoE, since the ABoC does not recognize at least one TEC bishop (VGR), and TEC has deposed one CoE bishop (+Scriven), true full communion does not exist between the two.) How can a “Covenant” relationship exist between 2 provinces in utterly broken Communion, as, say, TEC and Uganda?
I wish I could get excited about the Covenant, one way or the other, but I just can’t. My sense is that it’s an approach that has already been eclipsed by events. I very much doubt it will ever be adopted in a form that is anything less than open to endless interpretation (i.e., therefore totally meaningless). The instruments of Communion have failed so completely in dealing with this crisis that no covenant that could possibly be accepted by the Communion as it now exists could fix the problem. However, all is not lost, and that is the very good news. Anglicanism is evolving — new connections are being made and new structures are coming into being. The Anglican witness to the Gospel will continue, even if it does not look the same as it has. My guess is that bonds of affection will deepen and grow between parts of the current Communion that recognize in each other the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Reasserters will grow closer and Revisionists will grow closer. All of them will be technically linked through Canterbury, but the Canterbury connection is likely to recede in significance over time and as the two faiths now inhabiting the Anglican Communion continue to grow further apart. As various parts of the Communion cannot see in each other the authentic Gospel, the focus of unity in the Communion will become less relevant. The reality is as the majority of Primates saw it in Alexandria, there are TWO FAITHS inhabiting the Communion at this time, and one of them is NOT Christian. There is NO covenant possible that can bridge this reality. There is NO via media between orthodoxy and heresy — never has been, never will be.
I think Chris 33, has it in a nutshell. He expresses why I am indifferent to the Covenant and at this point, after the AC’s total inaction, to the AC itself. It’s no longer important to me. I don’t wish the Covenant efforts ill. I just don’t care any longer.
#32
Re your point (1). The Covenant does not require a 2/3 or 3/4 affirmation to come into play. Nor does it require affirmation by the ACC. As soon as two Churches sign onto the Covenant, it becomes effective for those two Churches. I’ll give an example. Let us say that two Churches whose members are part of GAFCon, ACNA, or any other entity who are currently on the ACC schedule sign onto the Covenant. The Covenant then becomes effective for those two entities.
Given this reality, the smart thing for those in GAFCon, ACNA, etc to do, would be to sign onto the Covenant immediately. Why? Because as these Churches begin to sign on, the dynamic of authority and decision-making within the currently ordered Communion will shift to favor their perspective. If all of a sudden Conservatives begin to sign on in droves and TEC either doesn’t sign on or waits 5 years to sign on, they would be coming into a Communion shaped by a conservative/orthodox ethos.
Optimus Prime,
RE: “they would be coming into a Communion shaped by a conservative/orthodox ethos.”
The Communion already is “shaped by a conservative/orthodox ethos.”
Doesn’t matter, essentially, in the absence of any further boundary, which it appears at first blush that this Covenant does not provide either.
TEC will still be in the Communion even if it does not sign on to the Covenant. TEC will still be a part of the “Instruments” — on the ACC, invited to Lambeth, a part of the Primates meeting — even if it does not sign on to the Covenant. TEC will still, in short, be doing precisely what it has done over the past five years, even if it does not sign on to the Covenant.
Where’s the problem for TEC?
I am much struck by this appropos paragraph by Dr. Radner: “Meanwhile, covenanting churches will deal wtih each other according to their own commitments and accountabilities. Non-covenanting churches, even if still members of an Instrument, will not be party to such consultation and decision-making. This is a bit like an “ecclesiola in ecclesiaâ€â€”the tier of “intensified relationâ€, as Rowan Williams has put it—but with the original transformative dyanmic in place.”
Of course, the provinces of the Anglican Communion are [i]already[/i] dealing “wtih each other according to their own commitments and accountabilities” and certain provinces are [i]already[/i] not a “party to such consultation and decision-making.” The Communion is [i]already[/i] “an “ecclesiola in ecclesia—, and [i]already[/i] with tiers of “intensified relationâ€.
And so we are at the exact same place as we were in August of 2003.
Next steps?
The provinces which are already “over there” look at the provinces which are “over here” and say “hey, look — you’re over there with your faith, and we’re over here with our faith, what say we have our group and you have yours.”
And as I said three years ago, there’s only one way to get that – -two separate groups of the two different faiths. And that’s for them to look at the hub around which all the spokes of the wheel have congregated and say “thanks for all the fish, and goodbye.”
That’s where all of this is inevitably leading, since five years later, the two groups continue farther and farther apart, having established as Dr. Radner says — only without any sort of Covenant at all — an “ecclesiola in ecclesiaâ€. All that is left is for the ecclesiolas to create separate ecclesias.
I say all of the above while at the same time deeply respecting Dr. Radner’s continued work at international levels. I can point out the reality as I see it, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have tried, or shouldn’t continue on trying. I respect people who commit themselves completely to a task without really thinking about “success” or “failure” since none of us can EVER know that before hand.
I’ve never wanted the breakup of the Communion. But a formal breakup is what will happen, unless something enters in that allows the two faiths some honorable separation from the one organization with integrity. Since the two faiths being in an incoherent and unboundaried Communion is intolerable [and I mean that as an objective law of the Universe, not as an emotional expression] it will not be tolerated. And the actions of the past five years of all the provinces demonstrate that intolerability beautifully.
I look for an escalation in the coming five years of that demonstrable reality of intolerability.
Re #31:
[blockquote] 4.2.7 speaks to Robroy’s concern: at a certain point (to be defined, presumably, by the Instruments themselves as they examine the timeframe that adoption must demand based on different constitutional and local realities) a TEC that was not party to the Covenant would not be dealing with matters of consequence for the covenanting churches.[/blockquote]
I would read 4.2.7 as applied to Robroy’s concern as follows. Unless TEC makes a credible demonstration that it is “in the process of adoption†of the covenant at the 2009 GC, which means something more than discussing it a little and then putting off consideration until 2012 and which must be directed to adoption of the covenant as presented rather than some proposed modification, then after the covenant comes into force the TEC Presiding Bishop should withdraw or be excluded from some JSC deliberations from the outset, but only those relating to the “consequences†(what used to be referred to as disciplinary) provisions of sections 4.2.2-4.2.6 and the “overseeing of the function of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion†in section 4.2.1. This is not insignificant by any means, but seems somewhat narrower than “matters of consequence for the covenanting churches.†The language could have been “in the process of consideration or adoption†but is not.
A few other observations:
[b][i]Timeline for adoption.[/b][/i] There may be other information out there, but as to a timetable for adoption I am aware that Rowan Williams, in his capacity as a co-signatory to the comments of the English House of Bishops, said in January that ratification by Provinces should “if possible†take place before the ACC meets in 2012. He further said that responses from the provinces (to the CDG’s request for comment) would cast further light on whether that timescale is achievable. Since the comments are now in, it would seem that more could be said soon. I would have assumed that the ACC, if it commends the covenant for adoption and submits it to the Churches, would establish a time by which responses are expected to be submitted (not to the exclusion of later adoption, but with relational consequences to follow from non-adoption by the specified date), and that the date set would take into account +Rowan’s already expressed view and the contents of the responses. (I don’t think the unsupported view in the TEC executive council’s comments that an amendment to TEC’s constitution might be necessary should be credited.) I don’t see the issue as whether the timeline will be in a document or not, because ultimately it will be written down, but who will establish the timeline and when.
[b][i]Status of non-adopting Churches.[/b][/i] Apart from the timeline for adoption, there is the issue of what should be the status of a Church that does not adopt the covenant by the date set. Although I can see the reasoning why provision for this belongs elsewhere than in the covenant, I think it needs to be dealt with forthwith. Expectations date back to the Challenge and Hope letter (“associated†status), “diminished status,†etc. The intent should not be retributive, but a degree of differentiation needed for the covenant to fulfill its objectives. Revising what I said in #15, I see no reason for this consequence to be left open (JSC to recommend later on if needed, Instruments to decide, etc.), but it should be set, with the latitude reserved to make a change if circumstances warrant. The ACC should make a decision, and if that requires a constitutional change, send it out with the Covenant. Canterbury will be there and he can say what he would expect to do with respect to the convening of the Lambeth Conference. The Primates’ meeting can follow up later if necessary. Part of the reason I think this should be done now is that I don’t read section 4.2.7 to go as far as Dr. Radner’s paraphrase “matters of consequence for the covenanting churches.” If it isn’t done, then the dynamics Dr. Radner refers to once there is a critiical mass could still operate, but there would be more risk, it seems.
[b][i]Non-uniform status among Instruments.[/b][/i] This (“It shall be for each Church and each Instrument to determine its own response to such recommendation.â€, section 4.2.5) seems cumbersome and to have the potential for delay and disorder. Another path that might have avoided this would have been to require agreement by each signatory as part of the covenant to comply with requests to withdraw or limit participation in the Instruments, made in accordance with a procedure that doesn’t depend, for example, on the ACC’s changing its schedule of membership.
[b][i]Non-ownership by ACC.[/b][/i][blockquote] The ACC does not “own†this or any other covenant proposal. They can commend, not commend, decide to revise or not. But it is not their document. The Primates could commend it, or anyone else could. Provinces could adopt it with or without any Instrument’s commendation. Obviously, it would be helpful if representative bodies from the broad range of the Communion’s life chose to facilitate rather than deter covenanting at this point.[/blockquote] I am glad to see this from Dr. Radner’s #24 in light of Matthew Davies’ comment in the April 3 article he wrote for ENS that the ACC is “the communion’s main legislative body and the only instrument with the authority to ask the Anglican provinces to sign onto the covenant.†This seemed to me at the time to indicate that TEC may think it has a shot at derailing the covenant in the ACC.
Sarah,
[blockquote]Doesn’t matter, essentially, in the absence of any further boundary, which it appears at first blush that this Covenant does not provide either.
TEC will still be in the Communion even if it does not sign on to the Covenant. TEC will still be a part of the “Instrumentsâ€â€”on the ACC, invited to Lambeth, a part of the Primates meeting—even if it does not sign on to the Covenant. TEC will still, in short, be doing precisely what it has done over the past five years, even if it does not sign on to the Covenant.[/blockquote]
Yes this is true in terms of their attendance. However, TEC will have no role in decision making for the Covenanting Churches if it does not sign onto the Covenant. They can come to council, sit on ACC, anything they like, but they have no participatory role: hence the church within a church pointed out by Dr. Radner. The example here would be something like the situation in Canada. The evangelical Lutheran Church is in communion with the Anglican Church of Canada; however, the ELC does not have any actual ‘vote’ and so no participatory role other than that of suggestion, in the shaping, forming, teaching and mission of the Anglican Church of Canada.
The critical distinction here, is that so long as TEC does not sign onto and agree to abide by the shape of Church which the Covenanting members begin to form (which is incredibly unlikely), they will have no part in the decisions made by the Covenanting Churches.
RE: “However, TEC will have no role in decision making for the Covenanting Churches if it does not sign onto the Covenant.”
What on earth are you talking about? Being able to vote on the ACC, vote in Primates Meetings, and disrupt the Lambeth Meeting is certainly a “role in decision making” unless you’ve decided that no real decisions of import are made in the instruments of Communion — and I am not so cynical as that.
In response to 32:
I think, first, that 35 is correct: the Covenant goes into effect — for the covenanting churches — immediately upon adoption (4.1.6). That is, with the first two adopting churches, there is a covenant at work. As others joing, that body or network of covenanting churches expands. None of this is dependent — for churches already recognized within the Communion — upon any Instrument’s say-so — ACC, Primates, Canterbury. If the GAFCON churches or the Agnlican churches of America or Africa or wherever adopted the covenant today, it would be in effect, and would begin to order the life of the Communion and its Instruments incrementally and finally, as others joined.
Regarding question 2., if I understand it, I believe 32 has it correct.
Questoin 3 is more complicated to answer — the issue of various intercommunions among individual churches, but perhaps not on the level of the covenanting churches common counsel. Would this end in complete and variegated incoherence? I suppose that’s possible, as in all relationships among multiple groups. Constitutionally speaking, any Anglican church has the power solely vested in it to affirm or renounce communion with any other church. That has always been the case (cf. Sydney and the Church of England in South Africa, Porvoo, etc..), and it cannot change legally, without completely altering the Constitutions of individual churches around the world. It is the case with GAFCON churches, with CAPA churches, and so on. On the other hand, the Covenant as a whole contains an array of commitments that would limit this kind of incoherence, from 1.2.7 to 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and so on: eucharistic communion and the recognition of ministries is a matter for the Communion as a whole to discern, and for individual churches to engage on a Communion-wide level. It is precisely unilateralism in this kind of thing that could give rise to a question regarding “incompatibility” with the Covenant, from each side of a dispute.
To 33: Obvoiusly the Communion is evolving, with or without a Covenant. Whether that evolution is sufficiently and faithfully directed by its own current internal dynamics is another question. While I am sympathetic with the notion that sometimes distinct and even sometimes contradictory understandings of the Christian faith are at work in the midst of our churches and Communion, I am less confident than is Mr. Taylor (indeed, I am not confident at all) that the neat distinctions he would draw in our midst are so easily identified on an ecclesial level. Ordering the evolution of our common life according to a common set of evangelical and ecclesial purposes that take into account both the complexity of our Christian life and the calling of the broader (non-Anglican) Church and world requires, many of us believe, some kind of covenanting framework. If events have in fact overtaken the fulfilment of this need, so much the worse for us.
Finally, to 34, I would say this: the Anglican Communion’s ministry is not first of all for Americans at this stage in our life. We have pretty much shown ourselves incapable of receiving it. That is not to ignore the needs and hopes of people in, say, Northern Michigan, as 32 identifies them, but to place these needs within a framework of, as it were, accomplishment. The Communion exists right now in the first place for Anglicans (and non-Anglicans) in places like Zimbabwe, Burundi, Congo, Egypt, Haiti, Myanmar, and so on. When you and I can start “caring” about this more genuinely and concretely, in terms of engaging the difficult ecclesial processes that both permit and enable our Christian witness to bring effective hope to our Christian brethren in such places, then the good fruit of such ministry can indeed be tasted by Americans with greater appreciation and understanding, and provide nourishment for those (e.g. in N. Michigan) who in fact require it in a special way. Nor is this something that must happen sequentially. But Americans have been asked to be servants in this process in the first place, given the blessings we have received. As the great spiritual leaders of our tradition have consistently pointed out: there are many (and mysterious) reasons why God would allow someone to be poor; but there is only one reason why God would permit someone to be rich: to give all away in the service of those in need and to follow Christ.
Sarah,
I draw your attention to two points already made by Dr. Radner in posts 10 and 31:
A covenant to which members of the ACC and Primates Meeting, for instance, are party, will however and eventually (perhaps quite soon) alter the criteria, dynamics, and goals of decision-making among these members and (if they gain a majority) the Instrument itself. At a certain point—once the covenanting members of these groups reach a critical mass—the Instrument itself may wish to order its common decision-making in a way that was explicitly conformable to the Covenant’s substance; the ACC, for instance, could change its constitution.
4. Meanwhile, covenanting churches will deal wtih each other according to their own commitments and accountabilities. Non-covenanting churches, even if still members of an Instrument, will not be party to such consultation and decision-making. This is a bit like an “ecclesiola in ecclesiaâ€â€”the tier of “intensified relationâ€, as Rowan Williams has put it—but with the original transformative dyanmic in place.
Post 31:
at a certain point (to be defined, presumably, by the Instruments themselves as they examine the timeframe that adoption must demand based on different constitutional and local realities) a TEC that was not party to the Covenant would not be dealing with matters of consequence for the covenanting churches [note that I was referring specifically to the ‘certain point in time’ mentioned here given my hope that conservative Churches will quickly begin to adopt the Covenant if they could see how it is to their advantage]. Until that point, however, there is nothing in the Covenant itself that would prevent e.g. Schori from functioning on the JSC [your point to me]. I am well aware that there are voices in TEC already saying quite explicitly “stall, stall, stall†with respect to a Covenant-adoption decision. They are not, however, the only voices in TEC, even among those unsymnpathetic to the Covenant itself. Furthermore, with the probably expansion of the JSC to include more Primates, I am less concerned about the possibility of gumming things up on that score than is Robroy. If, in fact, the Covenant goes forward, and especially if conversatives who have been reluctant to offer it any support were to take the lead in moving it forward, the shift in common attitude, tenor, and hope for the Communion’s direction and decision-making will be enormous; the kinds of wiggle-room based on alliances and triangulation that permit stalling of one kind or the other, will rapidly dissipate [again, the point I was making]. It is true that during the period of the Covenant’s adoption, there is no mandated “recusing†of members who are still working to adopt but have not yet fulfiled their constitutional processes; nor ought there to be!
The instruments have collectively been unwilling to act so far – many bishops and the primates’ meeting have tried to act in a biblical manner – but others, including the ABC, have strongly resisted them.
This covenant relies on the JSC to produce a recommendation to the instruments as to “relational” consequences:
[blockquote]”(4.2.5) On the basis of the advice received, the Joint Standing Committee may make recommendations as to relational consequences to the Churches of the Anglican Communion or to the Instruments of the Communion. These recommendations may address the extent to which the decision of any covenanting Church to continue with an action or decision which has been found to be “incompatible with the Covenant” impairs or limits the communion between that Church and the other Churches of the Communion. It may recommend whether such action or decision should have a consequence for participation in the life of the Communion and its Instruments. It shall be for each Church and each Instrument to determine its own response to such recommendations.”[/blockquote]
A few thoughts – if I understand correctly:
(a) The jurisdictional scope of the JSC in adjudication is limited to that which is “incompatible with the Covenant.” Thus, the Covenant must express the boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable “action [s] or decision[s] of a covenanting Church.” If the Covenant fails to expresses (in plain meaning) such boundaries, then the ‘standing’ of the JSC is open to dispute, and questions of “compatibility” may be avoided. Thus, the JSC must first agree that it has ‘standing.’
(b) If (a) is satisfied, then the JSC must be willing to adjudicate fairly, honestly, and hopefully in a biblical manner. This adjudication would be a determination or opinion of compatibility. Historically, the JSC has proven somewhat sympathetic to TEC.
(c) If (a) – (b) are satisfied and the JSC produces an opinion of incompatibility, then it adjudicates whether to make a ‘relational’ recommendation to one or more instruments. Presumably, there could be opinions of incompatibility with no recommendation forthcoming. However, one would imagine that a recommendation would require the support of an opinion of incompatibility.
(d) If (a) – (c) are satisfied, then we are back with the insturments. The instruments must now be willing to act on the recommendation of the JSC (when they were previously unwilling.) Presumably, the ACC and Primates Meeting would vote (this might be a good time to suggest reconsideration of representation on the ACC.) The Lambeth Conference is a toss up, as the ABC may unilaterally choose for a conference to avoid conducting business under accepted rules of order, as in the most recent conference. (I suppose this gives the ABC control of two instruments.)
What happens if the covenant is universally accepted and there is not a proper outcome from (a) – (d)?
ISTM that efforts at this point must not only resolve the current conflict, but must also restore trust among the provinces and the organization to notions of a communion vice federation.
(I’ll leave it to others as to (a) whether the covenant is sufficiently clear to show standing and compatibility for the presenting issue, and (b) how the missionary movements might be considered ‘incompatible’ under the covenant.)
Pardon any typos.
: – |
I meant to include in my initial point in #37 about determining whether, by the end of GC 2009, TEC is “in the process of adoption†of the covenant as contemplated by section 4.2.7, that, whatever else they do or don’t do formally with respect to the covenant other than adopt it outright, it would seem inconsistent with being in a good faith process of adoption for TEC to adopt a resolution to repeal B033 directly or indirectly or adopt any of various other proposed resolutions with similar effect, or to fail to take action directed toward the cessation of same-sex blessings.
A couple of other points: 815-type thinking got a little boost from the inclusion of “in our different contexts†to the commitment to hear, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures in section 1.2.4. This seems doubling up on context qualifiers since the introductory language of section 1.2 already had “in varying contexts.†Similarly, section 1.2.8, which in the prior draft spoke of a commitment to pursue a common pilgrimage “to discern the Truth†now substitutes “continually to discern the fullness of truth into which the Spirit leads us.†I think people understand that to many in TEC, where “the Spirit leads us†is code for “what we decide†but others don’t have to accept the code so I don’t worry too much about this kind of language.
Bishop N.T. Wright gets bonus points in section 3.2.5 for the reference to “intensity, substance or extent†(intended to unpack the concept of adiaphora). I thought he would have been satisfied with intensity, substance and extent.
Over on Episcopal Café, Jim Naughton and friends are in quite a huff over Dr. Radner’s response in comment 31 above to Stephen Noll (to whom Naughton refers as the “schismatic leader Stephen Nollâ€). They are also agitated that Dr. Radner would have shared a “special meaning†or “hidden definition†on TitusOneNine.
As to the purported “special meaning,†neither this draft nor the prior ones uses explicitly defined terms. People can, after all, read having regard for the context. Is there a similar complaint about the use of the word Church in section 1.1.1 (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church)? It is one thing to complain about the substantive decision embodied in section 4.1.5. But to complain that “other Church†in section 4.1.5 should properly be read to mean a Church of the Anglican Communion already covered by 4.1.4 and that what Ephraim Radner is saying above reveals a “hidden meaning†is just silly.
Optimus Prime,
RE: “A covenant to which members of the ACC and Primates Meeting, for instance, are party, will however and eventually (perhaps quite soon) alter the criteria, dynamics, and goals of decision-making among these members and (if they gain a majority) the Instrument itself. At a certain point—once the covenanting members of these groups reach a critical mass—the Instrument itself may wish to order its common decision-making in a way that was explicitly conformable to the Covenant’s substance; the ACC, for instance, could change its constitution.”
Why?
Why should they?
Keep in mind — these are [i]the precise same people as are sitting on the things right now[/i]. They could “alter the criteria, dynamics, and goals of decision-making among these members and (if they gain a majority) the Instrument itself” right this very moment based on their common values and gospel and theology.
They haven’t.
They haven’t in the past five years.
The reason is either 1) they don’t have a majority who have the same values, theology, or gospel or 2) they don’t feel the need to.
I see nothing that the Covenant provides that would make them say “hey, you know what — even though we’ve shared the same gospel and faith for the past five years during this intense crisis in the Anglican Communion and we’ve had ample opportunity — now that we have this nice Covenant here, we’re going to alter the criteria, dynamics, and goals of decision-making among us and maybe even of the Instrument itself.”
There is already a “critical mass” of Primates that could have ordered their “common decision-making in a way that was explicitly conformable” to oh, say, the Primates Tanzanian communique.
But — they didn’t.
The Covenant does not change the people, any more than the Dar communique changed the people.
The Covenant is not a “will” or “shall” document; instead it’s a “hey, agree with this Covenant, and a few things could happen — if you wanted them too, that is.” But it’s already clear that . . . [i]the majority do not want those things to happen[/i].
So here we are back yet again with the Windsor Report, aka the Covenant.
Unlike some, I don’t think TEC will sign on to the Covenant [although if I were advising them as a revisionist, I’d say to get over their bitterness and rage over being asked to do anything at all, and sign on to it post-haste].
But it doesn’t matter if they don’t sign on to the Covenant any more than their not signing on to Windsor. After 30 Provinces muster up the energy to sign on to it, everybody will looking at TECUSA, and saying . . . [i]the precise same thing that they said back in late 04 after the Windsor Report[/i] . . . “what we do now Kemosabe?” At which point you’re back to what it’s always been — the instruments of the Communion making some hard decisions, which they’ve well-demonstrated already in spades that they’re simply unable to do.
#44. Mike Watson,
[blockquote]They are also agitated that Dr. Radner would have shared a “special meaning†or “hidden definition†on TitusOneNine.[/blockquote]
Mike, did we forget to turn on the cloaking device for Dr. Radner’s comments?
This Covenant leaves plenty of room for the professional digressors and parsers of TEC to make any case they want to and plenty of outs when they deceive, and plenty of turmoil to come. It MAY mean one thing to those who designed it. But 10 years from now…when TEC finally agrees to it…it will mean exactly whatever the 815 acolytes want.
Thanks for nothing.
#35 and #40
I was about to say that I do not mean to be argumentative, but I suppose, in truth I do, although hopefully you will take it in the spirit of academic argument. You have my prayers and best wishes for the success of the Covenant. My concerns lie in the fact that I have been an Episcopalian since birth, and have become so used to words being twisted by the church, that I assume that will happen in this case as it has consistently for 40 years. I can see no reason why this document will not become as abused as the Windsor Report which spawned it. I pray that it will not, but all experience to date says it will. In truth, in the long term I think that demographics will have more impact than any document- as growth goes on in the Global South, those provinces will have an ever greater voice in the ACC, and we may see some of the larger provinces divide into yet more provinces- giving the GS even greater control and voice in the ACC and at Lambeth as well.
I would continue to argue that while the Covenant might impact any 2 or more churches that sign on, until such time as there is some sort of critical mass (ie- large number of churches) it will not impact the way the Communion as a whole does business, nor, until that time, will it have much influence on churches that have not yet signed it.
Currently, the Provinces that are signatories to the Jerusalem declaration represent 1/2 the world’s Anglicans (more, if you go solely by ASA), but clearly do not control the Communion or its direction. What can 2 or 5 or 7 covenanted churches do to discipline wayward Anglican provinces? If Uganda and Nigeria had any say in the disciplining of TEC, it would have been done by now. Until such time as the Instruments of Communion are in the control of signatories of the Covenant, the Covenant is not the policy of the Communion.
And, quite honestly, unless the Church of England signs on (which seems probable, but should not be cast as a forgone conclusion) the whole circumstance remains murky, since one Instrument of Communion is indeed the head of that body.
My other concern is that with a rather indefinite schedule, and rather indefinite terms, this could devolve into something that rather than a firm commitment to Communion of all full members of Communion, becomes a “Jerusalem Statement” for moderate Provinces. I could see a situation arising in which the current FCA Provinces remain out of the Covenant, TEC, Canada and their “coalition” (for want of a better word- but perhaps including Brazil, Mexico, Scotland, Wales, etc.) remain out of the Covenant, the 15 or so provinces “in the middle” sign on, and no one has enough votes on the ACC or in a Primates meeting to determine what to order for lunch, much less address the church’s business. Certainly, this is exactly the sort of outcome TEC is working on very diligently.
At this point, I think I should bow out of the discussion, although I will continue to follow it. While there have been several rather public “no” votes in the local episcopal election (N. Michigan), one must assume that, since the candidate has not withdrawn, he and KJS remain confident there will be sufficient votes to confirm him, at which point, the church here ceases to exist- as there can be no church in a place where all the clergy vow loyalty to a bishop who denies the Creeds, denies the divinity of Christ, and styles himself as “an only begotten child of God.” Without a recognized, full Communion, Anglican alternative (without crossing the border into Canada), and not even an ACNA church within 100 miles, I daresay that I will cease being an Anglican long before the Covenant is signed.
On initial reflection, it seems to me that the overarching picture is that quite a few, and perhaps a majority, of provinces are already moving towards recognizing ACNA as the North American province, and de-recognizing TEC. That is happening without the formal help of any of the instruments, well, perhaps the primates meeting when not being subverted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But it is moving forward inexorably nonetheless.
So how does the covenant fit into that? The covenant does not require much, but that may be a feature as well as a bug. For if ACNA can sign on, it moves it further into the Anglican column and reduces any distinction between it (a province in waiting) and a province in being, yet another step towards becoming a formal province. And if TEC does not sign, it moves further out of the Anglican column, and makes it even less like a province than ACNA. The covenant can thus be seen as one way that GAFCON, with an ACNA in provincial status, is brought onside of the Anglican Communion. And what is the downside? One can argue that the covenant will go nowwhere, but it is hard to see how it could make things worse. Though maybe others can foresee how.
# 49
It seems that TEC, or at least its ‘hard right’ membership is certainly not inclined to sign (from the Episcopalcafe site) http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/a_troubling_interpretation.html#comments:
We are all busy indeed Dr. Radner, and I do hope you drop back by. None the less, your protestations are flaccid at best in the face of your comments on TitusOneNine.
You are or have been part of groups that has generated great mischief with the use of carefully crafted language and even greater mischief with sloppy word ussage. The ACN, for example took an offhand remark from the ++ABC on “networking” and turned it into an organization seeking recognition as a shadow Province. Likewise another remark in a letter to Bishop Howe on the centrality of Dioceses with respect to the See of Canterbury has led, practically, to a whole new ecclesiology on the part of some of the disaffected.
So the last thing we need is a document with the sort of sloppy language that serves as swiss cheese for interpretation by those looking to fulfill their own agendas. That people representing those agendas crafted the language is sufficient cause for suspicion and rejection of the document.
You well know the sort of lengths that the ACN and others will go to to get their way. So the language of any new document needs to be bulletproof against mischief. By your own admission on TitusOneNine this document does not meet that standard.
Finally you do not address the issue of when, where and how the “Instruments” became real and by what process of consent that happened. You also failed to address the huge flaw of declaring the Covenant in effect once two churches agree to it.
I am sorry this is poor work in a troubled time.
Posted by Michael Russell | April 10, 2009 2:19 PM
I think it is clear that a meaningful Covenant is only one piece of the puzzle. The problems of the early church were not solved by any one document, creed, or council. The fight against early Christian heresy took centuries, and it involved several ecumenical councils, the development and revision of creeds, a canon of scripture, increased authority of bishops, greatly increased activity of orthodox theologians, written-down liturgies, and probably other things I can’t think of at the moment. Paul may have written as many as 6 letters to the Corinthians (depending on whether you believe in partition hypotheses of 1 and 2 Corinthians as I do) before they got straightened out. And even then they didn’t stay straightened out.
So I think we should see the development of this Covenant as a meaningful step, but it cannot be the only step.
Rudy+
Well, #51, I think the TEC partisans overstate the case that the ambiguity over what churches can sign on was some sort of secret interpretation until Radner exposed it, just a the ACI continues to overstate the case that TEC diocese can sign on without provincial approval (since, following the Howe letter, Rosenthal disavowed that, as I recall).
But I think you and Mr. Naughton make your objections clear: “Surely you can see that having the news that ACNA and individual dioceses can sign on to the covenant emerge in a conversation between Rev. Radner and Stephen Noll on T19 decreases the liklihood that the covenant will be viewed favorably by the Episcopal Church and others who are suspecious of the Anglican right. You may wish it were otherwise and believe it should not be so, but I think that as a matter of simple politics, this is indisputable.”
TEC will brook no compromise that requires an accomodation of the orthodox who have left or the other provinces that are in communion with them. They must be thrown out of the Anglican Communion, or TEC will leave. Well, Williams, it is TEC or the Global South and ACNA. Prime, I at least thank you for making that much more clear than the covenant itself.
But really, you should not get so concerned about what the covenant says. What is important is what it means. Happy Easter.
[blockquote]…the covenant emerge in a conversation between Rev. Radner and Stephen Noll on T19 [/blockquote]
I am glad that there is a conversation between these two men. I hope and pray they will continue to talk. I believe they will be working together in the future.
New #51
“What is important is what it means. Happy Easter.” Agreed and I think as #50 wisely points out, it will take time, patience, courage, and perseverance for the Covenant’s meaning and implications to emerge if/as it begins to take shape in ordering our lives.
Happy Easter to you too!
Tobias Heller, at Jim Naughton’s site, raises an objection for the orthodox:
[blockquote] Given that one of the things apparently covenanted to is respect for the governance of existing Churches that are already part of the Anglican Communion, and a commitment to remain in communion with them, how could ACNA or any other dissident diocese or province (or Church, e.g., Nigeria) sign on?[/blockquote]
Can the provinces who, to all intents and purposes have broken communion with the TEClub, sign on to the Covenant? Do the provinces of Nigeria and Uganda (et cetera) have to accept the TEClub heresies?
Re #54:
I think the respect for governance required is respect for the autonomy of governance, not necessarily the outcome in every case. Hence the careful handling of the relationship between autonomy, interdependence and accountability. As to remaining in communion, see section 1.2.7, which speaks of seeking to uphold the obligation to nurture and sustain Eucharistic communion in accordance with existing canonical disciplines. (The commentary to the St. Andrew’s draft on this provision refers to an obligation to work to sustain Eucharistic communion even where there is conscientious objection.) See also section 3.2.7, setting forth a commitment to “have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to uphold the highest degree of communion possible.†Remember here that the bonds of affection referred to are the ones that were breached by TEC. Hence, although Fr. Haller raises a point to be taken seriously, the commitments expressed are somewhat different from his shorthand.
One of my fears is that with each successive draft, is that “cross border” interventions were moved up to parity with homosexual bishops and SSU blessings. If Nigeria, say, supports the ACNA, would that be grounds for “discipline”. Can Ms Schori and her minions use this to sanction Nigeria?
Reflecting further about the absence in the Ridley Cambridge Draft of provisions dealing with the consequences of not adopting the Covenant: A reason why such provisions have seemed to be of particular urgency is that the Covenant has recently been perceived as, not primarily but in part, a means to address particular breaches which have already impaired communion, such as those by TEC and particular dioceses within it. Earlier, I believe the thinking was that that the situation of TEC would be addressed separately, and before promulgation of a covenant. That didn’t happen. As a result, either mechanisms within or accompanying the covenant need to have the capacity to deal with the existing situation, or some other way needs to be found. I think many people have been assuming that not signing the Covenant would result in some form of “diminished status,†within the Communion, one of the attributes of which would be non-participation in the Communion’s discernment and decision making bodies. And they have also been assuming that TEC would probably not sign the Covenant. However, as Dr. Radner points out, under the governing documents of some of the Instruments, a requirement for such non-participation couldn’t be imposed solely by a Covenant among individual Churches without going through the Instrument’s own processes for approving a change. The CDG in the Ridley Cambridge Commentary speaks of the situation in which both covenanting and non-covenanting Churches coexist as a potential problem that will create anomalous situations and concludes only that “such matters may become the subject of agreed conventions alongside the Covenant.â€
One question might be whether anything is happening with respect to the Windsor Continuation Group’s recommendation no. 48 (under its discussion of “the Moratoriaâ€) to the effect that it is now appropriate to explore what relational consequences should be expressed or put in place by the Instruments of Communion for a diocese or province that has taken actions that impair communion. As to the nature of such consequences, the Windsor Continuation Group says in paragraph 48 that possibilities are explored in relation to the Covenant in the remedial possibilities set forth on page 24 and 25 of the Lambeth Commentary. But this might not mean that the Windsor Continuation Group was expecting that there would be implementation through the Covenant process, but merely that the range of consequences would be similar to the relational consequences under the Covenant. Maybe it would be better to separate out the consequences for existing breaches from the issue of failure to adopt the Covenant, the former having greater urgency. I note that there are agenda items for the Anglican Consultative Council’s upcoming meeting that relate to the Windsor Continuation Group. That probably relates in part to the Pastoral Forum, but it might also relate to the recommendation in paragraph 48 to get something moving on what the Instruments should do in case of an impairment of Communion. Maybe whether it does or not is already known and I’m just not aware of it; it’s hard to keep up with all these documents.