On December 18, 2009, the long-awaited Anglican Covenant was sent to the Anglican Communion’s 38 provinces for formal consideration. The Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council””now self-denominated as the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” has now approved a revised Section Four.
The question on many people’s minds is, “Do we need a covenant?
Some have said that we do not. They complain, “It’s not Anglican!” What they mean, I believe, is that the whole notion of a covenant uniting and binding the whole Communion is contrary to classical Anglican ecclesiology. The argument goes something like this: the provinces of the Anglican Communion have always been independent and self-governing. Any attempt to impose a covenant that would aim to limit that independence and autonomy is simply contrary to the expansiveness and freedom of self-governance that has traditionally been characteristic of Anglicanism.
Ah, but is that a fair reading of our history? I believe not.
In this paper I will summarize the arguments in favor of calling the churches of the Anglican Communion to adopt a Covenant. Then I will address the argument that requiring the churches in the Communion to sign on to the Covenant is not in keeping with our tradition of how we order our common life as Anglicans. A fair reading of the history of the Anglican Communion will show that the aims of the proposed Covenant are in keeping with how the Communion has historically dealt with major disagreements.
[blockquote]The question on many people’s minds is, “Do we need a covenant?[/blockquote]
We shouldn’t need a covenant. Anglicanism “works” when bishops are honorable persons. However, because some bishops are not behaving, certain things do need to be in writing, and there does need to be a disciplinary process.
Ralph,
It is not just individual bishops who are misbehaving. It the leadership of an entire province. When a province does not discipline itself, then external discipline is needed.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Actually, more than one province is involved. Let’s not forget our neighbors in Canada. Certainly, there are some really bad bishops in other provinces, as well.
Since, however, we are not hierarchical except at the diocesan level, I still place a lot of blame, and the need for discipline, at the diocesan level. It is the House of Bishops who allow the leadership of TEC to do what they do.
Of course, let’s not exclude the laity…
You do not need a creed until there is a heresy. This has happened before.
Ralph and Phil,
I think it’s a tempting mistake to focus on the failures of bishops as individuals. I contend that the basic root problems that make this terrible, prolonged crisis so severe and hard to solve are precisely that they aren’t merely due to the personal weaknesses or bad choices of individuals, whether bishops (including the ABoC), pirests, deacons, or laity. If that were the case, simply putting new people in charge would solve the problem.
But the real problem goes much deeper and reflects fatal flaws that are inherent in the Anglican system of polity itself, particularly at the international level. Indeed, this bitter conflict reveals that there are deep-rooted problems that are endeomic in traditional Anglican culture itself, and the Covenant doesn’t even begin to address those.
That’s where I fundamentally disagree with Canon Neal Mitchell, much as I respect him, and despite the fact that he doubtless represents the majority view among conservative (or even moderate) Anglicans.
Rather, we are dealing with an unprecedented situation due to a epoch-making change in western civilization, the passing of the Christendom era and the rise of a vigorously anti-Christian ideology (ideological pluralism or relativism) as the new dominant mindset in the Global North. This presents us with a wholly new challenge, for which the Deism of a few intellectual elites in the Enlightenment is a very pale anticipation.
This completely new social situation, totally contrary to our state church heritage and engrained assumptions, is FORCING us, IMHO, into a radically new and highly uncomfortable stance, where we are COMPELLED to take a radically counter-cultural, confrontational approach to the general culture. Richard Neibuhr’s favored model of “Christ the Transformer of Culture” is no longer an option on the table; the culture has turned too much against biblical Christianity for that to be a possibility these days. Today, in the secularized, neo-pagan west, we are FORCED, I believe, into a highly adversarial, Christ-against-culture stance, ala the early martyrs, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Tertullian, and the rest of those glorious guys.
Canon Mitchell seems not to grasp this fundamental change in the very character of Anglicanism that is called for in our time. My guess is that many people, all along the theological and political specturm (thus including many orthodox folks) take it for granted that a harmonious, rather this-worldly, relationship with the powers that be in society is somehow part of the essence of Anglicanism. In England and in terms of the history of the CoE, that may well to true (alas, all too true). But certainly it is no longer so in the AC as a whole. Just remember the Martyrs of Uganda in the 1880s, or those in Sudan today, etc.
And that’s again one key reason why I myself put no trust in this proposed Covenant. It fails to diagnose the real problems we face, and thus fails to deal with their root causes, and only threats some of the symptoms now so glaringly evident. We must somehow develop a radically new post-Christendom style Anglicanism in order to deal with our scary new post-Christendom social context in the Global North.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Sorry about the typo in the last paragraph, I meant that the Covenant only [b]treats[/b] some of the symptoms instead of the root causes driving our “recent unplesantness.” It only looks at the problems we’re facing in the AC from an institutional, relational perspective, without grappling with the profound theological and cultural issues driving the whole thing.
While I welcome Canon Mitchell’s fine, brief historical review of three previous occasions when Anglican unity was threatened, and the province proposing an innovation backed off and graciously submitted to the wider Church (although actually his 2nd example, the Colenso Affair, is much more complicated than Mitchell admits, since +John Colenso in fact led a schism that lasted for decades in South Africa), I think there are other historical analogies that may be at least as pertinent.
I like to put it this way. We are in the early stages of what I like to call “the Fourth Anglican Counter-Reformation.” The first three were the Puritan Movement of the 16th-17th centuries, the Evangelical Revival of the 18th-19th century, and the Catholic Revival of the 19th-20th century. All involved radical attempts to, you might say, “unsettle” the Elizabethan Settlement and radically remake the CoE. All in the end eventually failed, in the sense that they were put down by the majority of leaders in the Established Church, and the Settlement remained in place. Mind you, all three movements left their mark on the CoE, and much good resulted from them, but they failed to overthrow the established order and remake Anglicanism from within.
However, I strongly suspect that this time, the Fourth Anglican Counter-Reformation will succeed at last. The Elizabethan Settlement is plainly obsolete and counter-productive in a post-Christendom world. Or so I firmly and ardently believe. And like ++Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted (in his famous, eloquent, far-sighted address on the eve of GAFCON, one of the greatest Anglican speeches of all time), I’m totally convinced that we’re on the verge of a whole new Global (post-Colonial) Anglican Settlement that will replace the venerable but now outdated and indefensible Elizabethan one.
David Handy+
David,
Much as I appreciate your opinions and analysis–truly–I think you’ve missed the mark on postmodernism much as you have accused me of doing so. I do appreciate the cataclysmic changes that postmodernism and post-Christendomism (is there a noun form for it?). However, postmodernism, in my view, affects institutions from the edges rather than from the center. The sweeping changes that you expect–which would certainly be welcome in these quarters–will come not from the edges but from those already in power, namely, the instruments of communion, the primates, and some of the bishops. And I include the Africans in this group (but see my comments in the final paragraph).
I actually think that the federation approach is a postmodern way of dealing with the present conflagration, which I believe would be a disaster to the witness of Anglicanism. I also think that the Covenant approach is a more postmodern way of responding to the disagreements in Anglicanism, because it is based on relationship rather than community self-identity. (I also think that is what angers folks like Matt Kennedy who want a more confessional approach to defining who is Anglican, and I’m not being critical of Matt when I say this.)
Postmodernism would say, if I have it right, that there is no true set of beliefs that I can require anyone to believe; what is important is that our community define what we believe and invite into our community those who believe those same things. That is, essentially, what the Covenant does: it trusts the community to self-define what are the parameters or limits of the Anglican Community. A modern would call for the hierarchy to define what should be assented to and then allow only those who assent to be part of the community.
The Africans are neither modern nor pomo, I think, as they were not formed in modernity, but they were were formed under British colonialism and have generally adopted that modus operandi, which tends to function more in a modern way. Hence, they are equally comfortable aligning themselves with the confessional, modern approach to defining who is in the communion.
I subscribe to a journal called Modern Theology, and have done so for nearly 24 years. It has just released a 25th celebratory edition this January, reflecting over the past 25 years of the theological enterprise as viewed from this journal’s perspective. I mention this as many of the contributors want to assess (rightly, in my view) this perspective as being neither “liberal†nor “orthodox/conservativeâ€, but something else again. [BTW: my own credo is not exactly of this brand! But I do draw from their wells to a degree.]
That is, with regards to David Handy’s two comments, I sense too that the better solution to the AC’s real problems is neither TEC’s own brand of federalism premised on power and money – aka “liberalismâ€! – nor a ‘defiant’ retreat into a supposed counter-cultural ‘conservatism’. Rather, the way of the Covenant seems to offer a view of Church that may be truly global and truly historical, even as it also subscribes to real parameters of belief and practice – parameters that sit suitably well between the Roman form and the Congregationalist form. In other words, an authentic way for mission in the 21st C. It is not surprising that not a few of the essayists in the latest edition of Mod Th refer to Rowan William’s theological views …!
All in all, the view I have of the Covenant Process is that it offers a far deeper theological opportunity than some have given it credit for. Furthermore, from such a perspective, it has a far better chance of engaging with our complex global culture than the positions of many of its detractors, which seem to me often to be too partial – both institutionally and intellectually.
I fail to see the congruence that Michell alleges between the current Covenant and other historical challenges to the Communion. The Covenant is indeed a New Thing and deserves to be questioned as such.
But, if the NEW THING that TEC is doing is not worth scrutinizing, why scrutinize the covenant? Just sign on and do your own thing, just like TEC. Why all this blather about intent? The best behaviour predictor is past behaviour. Regardless of who signs what. Those Anglicans who have indeed been in the proper relationship with others in the Communion will continue to act like that. TEC will do what it damn well pleases and the Communion be damned. Why, TEC will get all huffy and start laying claim to being its own communion! Which, of course, with its sycophants, it is in reality. TEC long ago abandoned the Anglican Communion for its own NEW THANG GOZPELL and it ain’t never, ever going back!
I want to thank Canon Michell for this analysis. I find the Covenant and its uncertain future a fascinating cause for speculation. As far as TEC goes, I tend to agree with commenters who foresee more of the same with no real consequences for bishops who have gone off the reservation.
Neal (#7),
Thank you for a very thoughtful, stimulating response. I’m going to have to ponder it before making a more substantial reply. But for now, let me simply say that you and I were apparently thinking about different categories or realms of thought into which we could place the Covenant in order to gain a broader perspective. I didn’t have postmodernism in mind, as you did (a philosophical category), but rather the demise of Christendom and state church religion (thus a historical or sociological category). So I’m going to have to think through the implications of the momentous shift to postmodernism as another key contextual element that must be considered in evaluating the usefulness of the Covenant. You may be right that the Covenant is better suited to our new postmodern social context than the new Anglican creed that I keep calling for that would explicitly rule out relativism as a heresy.
Anyway, your essay was a very good one, lucid, illuminating, and practical. And let me add, if I may, that I’m very sorry you weren’t elected in Upper SC (or as Suffragan in Dallas, for that matter). You would’ve been infinitely preferable to Waldo.
David Handy+