There are four reasons why this covenant is not a good idea for Anglicans.
1. It is against the grain of Anglican ecclesiology (what we think the church is)
2. It is an inadequate response to the conflict in the Anglican Communion
3. In practical terms it will create immense and complicating confusion about institutional relationships and financial obligations.
4. It does not address the key fundamental issue in this conflict, how to act in a particular context which is relevant to that context and also faithful to the gospel.
I have no idea who Bruce Kaye is (probably some highly educated important person I am supposed to know about). But if he can say #3 with a straight face, he belongs in a rubber room.
Well; who is Bruce Kaye? See for starters http://www.csu.edu.au/faculty/arts/theology/staff/people/bruce_kaye.html
His real ‘claim to fame’, re these sorts of matters, is his previous role as General Secretary of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia, coupled with being founding editor of the Journal of Anglican Studies. As a result, his remarks in section 3 on lay presidency come directly from his experience of the moves raised by the Diocese of Sydney; they are not an abstract hypothetical. I personally would not take issue with this section 3 at this point; it raises some valid issues. Rather, I’d want to go for broke and address his section 4, the heart of the matter – although I know well that taking on Bruce Kaye is a formidable exercise: he is no slouch; trust me! [But who am I?!] Nor is he some academic prima donna without his feet on the ground!
My question is, What [i]is[/i] context? And how might we better ‘read’ our contexts? While it might be de rigeur nowadays to speak readily of ‘context’ in any missiological task, ‘constructing’ such ‘contexts’ is a most slippery thing. Furthermore, as part of such a construction process, we as Christians are bedevilled by trendy hermeneutical tools that are far from value neutral. This is one reason for the newly revised engagement, which has been going on for at least a decade now, of [b]theological[/b] hermeneutics. It constitutes for example one reason for the renewal of Barthian studies, as we are discovering – finally! – that he had far more to say about all this than we initially realised …
An example, pertinent to Bruce Kaye’s comments. It is one thing to say of human beings that, on account of the [i]imago Dei[/i], we are creatures of immense worth and to be accorded real dignity as individuals. It is quite another – given now our more recent historical context – to merely invoke the language of human rights. For, while the two might have once been more or less synonymous – viz the kinds of debates we have in countries like Malaysia, whose plausibility structures apparently, according to Mahathir at least, do not predispose immediately towards such a notion as ‘universal human rights’ – after decades now, and even a couple of centuries if one looks more carefully at western history, the initial premise of being particular creatures in God’s image has given way to the sense, the claim that humans are quite simply autonomous: our freedom is our freedom is our freedom – by some kind of innate ‘right’. But really [i]push[/i] folk on how to [b]legitimate[/b] such a claim, and we are quite quickly into all sorts of quagmires.
My challenge to the likes of Bruce Kaye is to substantiate a really authentic [i]Christian[/i] claim to universal human dignity [b]and[/b] the [i]significance[/i] of its consequences – as opposed to any secular thesis – and then apply this singular world-view to BOTH the United States AND Nigeria (his two examples) at the same time.
The thing about the Anglican Communion Covenant as it presently stands, to my mind, is that it is indeed sufficiently robust to establish the kinds of distinctions I have been trying to draw above, and then to apply them in ways that are not incoherent. For actually [i]plus ça change, rien ne change[/i]: this too is an essential feature of the Christian world-view, as we dig deeply enough and are not distracted by trendy power plays …
5. The Anglican Covenant will be “interpreted” by each province according to their own understanding, and applied how each sees fit
6. It does not provide for a central adjudicating authority that is able to set boundaries
In sum, the covenant may be signed by any and all, and then simply represented as meaning whatever is desired. Meanwhile, there is no central authority with the ability to bring correction or discipline. So, the current crisis will continue in the same manner in which it has unfolded over the last decade – confrontation, dialogue, official statements, additional conversations, recommitment to opposing theologies, back to confrontation….
1) As the Anglican Church was founded, there was a confessional document relevant to the theological disputes of the day to which all clergy had to subscribe to, the 42 and later 39 articles. Since then, we have had the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral, before then Nicea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc. each of which produced confessional documents to take sides on disputes. The idea of the covenant is thus very much consistent with an Anglican Ecclesiology. This covenant basically just summarises how we have come to be arranged.
2) Here I partially agree; partly because section 4 is in the process of being gutted by the ACC and JSC. I would much rather something that addressed the underlying epistemological, trinitarian, christological and ethical issues, for example. It would also be much better if we addressed the theology first hand at, say, a Lambeth conference. Part of the reason why there has been no serious theological discussion, though, is because TEC and her allies have not presented a serious case for their innovations; for example to set our hope on Christ was a complete joke.
3) Though not as much of a joke as this point. The purpose of the covenant is to reduce confusion about institutional relationships. Again, whether the current draft is perfectly formed for that purpose is entirely debatable, but it is better than our current situation of no rules.
4) On this point, I partially agree, although I rather strongly disagree with the identification of the underlying cause is (see point 2). Christianity transforms the Christian to conform to the Biblical standard; it does not transform the Biblical standard to conform to the Christian or the context in which he finds himself. The Church has always understood this; the reformation and counter reformation were attempts to articulate this. The absorption of the secular civil rights movement into the episcopal church to replace the Christian way was certainly a step in the church’s slide into irrelevance, but the initial error came first, allowing the leadership of the church to even consider that change, in the failure to fully consider the implications of the doctrine of original sin and what it means for merely human reasoning not based on either scripture or natural philosophy. The wholesale adoption of the secular ideas in the 1950s was considerably worse than the wholesale adoption of Aristotelian metaphysics into the Medieval Roman Church, which the reformers protested against. Rather, fifty years ago, they should have seen the dangers of the human rights movement and preached against it’s potential excesses while they still had influence and respect. Since our context has changed, there needs to be an adjustment in how to present the non-adjustable gospel. The episcopal church has instead adjusted the gospel without changing how it tries to present it. It neither speaks to modern society nor speaks for God, which is why it is dying. A convent cannot help the episcopal church or any other decide how to address modern society; but it can, if constructed correctly, by providing a bastion against error help ensure that it speaks God’s word rather than the latest fashionable novelty; which is why I believe it to be a good idea for Anglicans if done right. The current covenant is far from perfect, but has more good points than it does bad.
Except Fr Jack (#3),
That the present occupant of the See of Canterbury will not be there for ever. I can’t believe it would be business as usual under the present +Durham or +Winchester.