(ACNS)
The Covenant Design Group (CDG) held its second meeting at the Anglican Communion Offices, St. Andrew’s House, London, UK, between Monday, 28th January, and Saturday, 2nd February, 2008, under the chairmanship of the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, Archbishop of the West Indies.
The main task of the group was to develop a second draft for the Anglican Covenant, as originally proposed in the Windsor Report 2004; an idea adopted by the Primates’ Meeting and the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates in their following meetings. At their meeting in January 2007, the CDG produced a first draft ”“ the Nassau Draft – for such a covenant, which was received at the meeting of the Primates and the Joint Standing Committee in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in February of that year. This draft was subsequently sent to the Provinces, Churches and Commissions of the Anglican Communion for consultation, reflection and response.
At this meeting, the CDG reviewed the comments and submissions received and developed the new draft, which is now published. In addition to thirteen provincial responses, a large number of responses were received from commissions, organisations, dioceses and individuals from across the Communion. It is intended that these responses will be published in the near future on the Anglican Communion website. The CDG is grateful to all those who contributed their reflections for this meeting, and trust that they will find their contributions honoured in the revised text prepared.
Gee, another document to solve the problems created by TEC and the lack of an ABC who can lead. Don’t they get it? TEC has fractured the Communion and ABC is part of it all. It isn’t going to be repaired–certainly not by another weak approach that will lead only to more study, more discussion, more delay, more same old same old. And any system that issues from or relies on ABC is dead on arrival. He cant/won’t/hasn’t done anything hinting of leadership since his appointment by the ultra liberal government in Britain (not elected by Anglicans–appointed by liberal politicians). He has destroyed the integrity of the See of Canterbury as leader of the Communion through complete lack of leadership. He won’t lead in the discipline of TEC no matter what scandal they issue next. He can’t keep his own national church together–why should the rest of us follow him? Wait for Lambeth? Study and study and study draft after draft of a Covenant? Expect ABC to bring any relief from decades of disgrace and disaster in and by TEC? Baloney.
Can someone tell me why this matters? Isn’t it just another statement/document that will be ignored by TEC with no consequences from the ABC? “Captain Smith, sir, some of the deck chairs are getting wet!” “Don’t just stand there, move them to the rear of the ship and arrange them in rows of three this time.”
This is good:
[blockquote] ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods [/blockquote]
But they have pulled the teeth of the Primates’ Meeting:
[blockquote] the Primates’ Meeting is called by the Archbishop of Canterbury for mutual support, prayer and counsel. The Primates and Moderators are called to work as representative of their Provinces in collaboration with one another in mission and in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have communion-wide implications. [/blockquote]
The responsibility falls to the Anglican Communion Office, which
Under a vigorous and committed ABC, this could work. In the present situation, given the demonstrated characters of the ABC and the ACO, it is a recipe for more of the same old same old.
Please note the contortions to say all sorts of nice things about scripture while strenuously avoiding affirmation of its authority.
It would all be wonderful if people would just DO what they say they are committed to do.
The “Framework Procedures” seem to be a crucial section for the communion at this time. I find that these procedures, rather than leaning on the four Instruments of Communion to be just that, instead leave the Instruments more as parties in a conflict, rather than instruments of resolution to that conflict. The ACC is the exception, of course. I find that the JSC really holds the big power here. If the ABC makes a request, all the JSC has to do is believe that the request has been accepted by the province, and the matter is closed. What if the Instruments do not agree? What if the issue is so obviously still a problem to the vast majority of leadership around the communion? There is no recourse within the covenant. I don’t think that this serves the covenant’s purpose, which is to offer some framework for clarity when such divisions occur (otherwise, remarkable chaos and mischief occurs).
The evidence of this problem is clear to us in the history of the JSC (or was it a different committee?) saying of TEC’s House of Bishops “oh, yes, they have fully complied with the Primate’s requests,” yet we have such a breakdown in communion on our hands that a large portion of Lambeth chairs will be empty this summer. These procedures give too much interpretive power to JSC, whereas they would be better to give more to the Instruments themselves (as is suggested by the thinking of the Virginia Report). They are identified as Instruments because they best demonstrate the reality of the state of unity around the Communion –and for the most part, those who make up the Instruments are also the most equipped to lead their respective provinces as they respond to any issues. The ACC is weakest among them, in this respect, and therefore the JSC is perhaps the most remote from such leadership. Thus, the JSC (by comparison) is the more idiosyncratic and least representative of what is likely to be the response around the Communion.
Am I being cynical, or does this sound like TEC has turned the AC into a bunch of pod people? Rather than being a genuinely hierarchical, episcopal (bishop-led) church, the AC is being (re)defined as essentially a USA-styled federation or a republic? Primates are not to be seen as overseers, but as delegates?
I suppose it’s true that Primates in some provinces have more authority than in other provinces. But perhaps the CDG is biased toward the least-common-authority-denominator, and allowing the ACO to usurp the authority of the Primates and other bishops.
This draft covenant is like coffee without caffeine. Why bother.
Even now, in the basement of 815, the acolytes are parsing words of the Covenant and creating counter-parsing proposals so that it will mean anything and nothing: “See, we want to be in the Communion, but we now need listening space created because we read the Covenant as (this or that). Won’t you join us in that journey?” Did it already. The Episcopal Recovery group meets on Monday nights.
Where’s the beef?!
I must say I’m not impressed. I had really hoped for more from ++Gomex, Dr. Radner, et. al.
Has anyone redlined the changes in this new draft yet?
If the wherewithall existed to make this covenant work, then TEC wuld have been disciplined by now. The goal is to perserve the AC at all costs and that can only happen if there is never any conclusion to process. The covenant accomplishes that.
From 3.2.5.e–The only consequence for not listening to the Instruments of Unity–“relinquishment…of the force and meaning of the covenant” only kicks in with the “resolution” of (all?) the Instruments. This will only happen “in the most extreme circumstances.”
Based on how the Communion has carried through on TEC consecrating as church-leader a man in a sexual relationship outside marriage, I wonder what a “most extreme circumstance” would be. The bishops who consecrated VGR will be at Lambeth debating the Covenant, which they have already managed to gut in this draft. Sheesh!
I think most of you are missing the point that the existing Anglican Communion is neither “a genuinely hierarchical, episcopal (bishop-led) church” nor “a USA-styled federation or a republic.” It is a Communion, which is something other than either a unitary church or a voluntary association. What it means has been discussed in any number of Communion documents over the last 50 years; all of us would profit by re-reading them. The Design Group must deal with the reality that all real power in the Communion lies in the hands of 44 self-governing churches intimately bound by a sense of mutual responsibility and interdependence within the Body of Christ.
While there is overwhelming support among those churches for making them more accountable to one another and for defining the requirements for membership, there is [b]no support at all[/b] for eliminating provincial autonomy. Not a single one of the 44 churches would support that. Even Nigeria has recently amended its Constitution to make it more independent and less reliant on the Instruments of Communion, rather than the reverse. The alternative structures to be proposed at GAFCON will almost certainly be [i]less[/i] centralized than the present Communion, not more so (although it will be easier to expel a member and declare its territory an open missionary field).
So, if there is no support for creating a unitary Anglican Church and very little support for converting the Communion into an Anglican Association, what are the alternatives? About the only one I can think of is the one endorsed by the Windsor Commission, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and most of the bishops who will be at Lambeth 2008. That approach is to make each member church explicitly acknowledge the interdependence and moral authority of the Communion in matters that affect the unity and mission of other member churches. Those who will submit to that authority are welcome to continue in the Communion, while those who will not submit must be recognized as having relinquished their place within the Covenant that defines membership.
Those who cannot deal with being in a Communion of that sort and who prefer either “a genuinely hierarchical, episcopal (bishop-led) church” or “a USA-styled federation” are free to pursue their theological vision of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in another venue. However, I believe that the vision promoted by the Covenant Design Group is the the most faithful to the Anglican ecclesiological tradition and the only one likely to gain broad support among the members of the existing Communion.
What a great idea the Anglican Communion was. But without core agreement on ar
Dale,
“faithful to the Anglican ecclesiological tradition” ?
Would that it were so. The only problem is that TEC has wiggled, obfuscated, lied, undermined, and repeatedly redefined “the Anglican ecclesiological tradition”. I personally cannot deal with a Communion that has so little regard for itself that it allows continuing deceit as part of the tradition. Forgive, then, those of us who are sick of the parsing and want clear, sustainable, verifiable definitions and standards – what some would call “ecclesiology”.
I don’t understand what happened to my comment #17.
Without core agreement on faith and practice, none of this is worth the paper it’s written on. Faith and practice. Faith and practice. Without agreement on these, its over.
When the House of Bishops state that they as a body can not make a decision for the church, who can, Bonnie Anderson or whatever her name is? It seems that the bishops have abdicated the kingly authority conveyed on them at their consecrations to a committee of incompetents led by a fraud who identifies herself by an honorary degree and a failed scientist(or is it scientologist?)
Dale,
I think it would be helpful for all of us if you listed at least some of these documents to which you refer.
TEC is arguing in all its courts cases that it is itself a hierarchical church, but I would suggest that if the Communion is merely a volunteer association of provinces, then within provinces–so are dioceses volunteer associations, and within dioceses–congregations the same, and within congregations–parishioners too…and that the only authority is at every level limited to moral persuasion and influence.
TEC is trying to have at most a suggestive authority over from the Communion, but to have absolute authority within their own ranks…whatever we decide, its theological and historical justification needs to run clean up and down the ladder…wouldn’t you think?
Don Armstorng
One other thought, why not do away with all these committees, ACC or ACO (whatever it is now) for a college of the primates. Let them elect the head, Archbishop of ???? and the primates sit as a council. The world does not need the house of commons or lords deciding on who should lead the church. If you don’t want to be a member and abide by the rules, then go link up with the group of your choice. All covenants are going to be exclusionary by nature. No one can have it all.
Apart from Dale’s comments the reception given to the amended draft Covenant by commentators on this list seem uniformly lugubrious. Perhaps this is because it is Ash Wednesday?
My main quibbles are with the unavoidable prolixity of the text’s procedures and, more importantly with the idea that the synods of “National” churches might have a role in biblical interpretation! I may have misinterpreted the language on this point but if not I find myself extraordinarily opposed to the notion that apart from recognizing core doctrine and biblical authority in their local ecclesiastical law local synods have any role in such matters. Indeed it is the encroachment of authority by the synods of “particular” churches which has got us into our present mess.
Mind you, if one believes that core doctrines and doctrinal formularies and discipline derived therefrom develop, and one has no papacy, the temptation to grant to local synods pneumatic and oracular authority is overwhelming. I think it was Archdeacon Mozley who warned of such a thing in his reply to Newman’s essay “On the Development of Christian Doctrine” a notion of which Anglicanism before that moment was mercifully unaware.
While I agree with Dale to the extent that it was unreasonable to believe that it was even possible for an Anglican Covenant to remove final legal authority from the national Churches, I nevertheless believe that this Covenant is a massive waste of time.
This Covenant seems to be one that will work so long as it is never needed, but will NOT work when a serious dispute arises. It doesn’t take a a rocket scientist to realize that were this Covenant in place in 2003, the net result would have been a Communion more divided then it currently is. Why? Because it seems clear to me – given the evidence of actions taken by the ABC and others – that the Covenantal Procedure would have very quickly closed down any Communion discipline of TEC for its 2003 actions. I really can’t see how anyone could argue any other resolution. On the flip side, the Procedure would have called the Global South to task for their interventions. The result would have been (again, can anyone really doubt this???) that the Global South would have relinquished their place in the Covenant. I would also predict that the credibility of the Covenantal Procedures would then have been seriously undermined, with the net result little different then that which we currently face. This seems to me to be rather obvious.
So what is the major problem with this Covenant? The problem is not that it doesn’t legally bind the national Churches. That it could not do anyway. No, the problem is with the dispute resolution mechanism. Permit me to explain.
First, for the Covenant to include an effective dispute resolution mechanism does not require it to have legal effect. The only effect that the Covenant can have – and it MUST have this to be effective – is a clear mechanism for excluding an offending Province from membership in the Anglican Communion.
Second, for the dispute resolution mechanism to be effective, if must have the CONFIDENCE of the biggest players in the Communion. A side aspect of this is that the adjudicative bodies have CREDIBILITY and the CONFIDENCE of the key players in the Communion. The problem with this Covenant is that the adjudicative bodies designated do NOT have any credibility (did not the GAFCON leaders just make this abundantly CLEAR??!!??). This means that the dispute resolution mechanism will not have the confidence of those who NEED to have confidence in it.
Ergo, this Covenant is OBJECTIVELY a supreme waste of time. This isn’t about whether I think the Covenant might theoretically work, whether I agree with a CommCon perspective, a LibCon perspective, or a FedCon perspective. I am saying that OBJECTIVELY, pursuing this draft of the Covenant is a supreme waste of time, because IT IS OBJECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE THAT IT WILL DO WHAT IT SETS OUT TO DO.
In other words, if this is going to be the Covenant, then why have a Covenant at all? It does not solve the problem. It merely codifies a dispute resolution procedure that has been proven to be ineffective.
Dale’s basic argument is right – i.e. that the purpose of the Covenant can not be to “force” Provinces to do anything; but rather that it must be about setting the boundaries for what it means to be in Communion, and must have a procedure to determine when those boundaries have been violated. But this Covenant does not do that.
My goodness, drummie (#20), such interesting accusations! By which honorary degree does Bishop Katharine identify herself?
Several quick comments from one who was a part of the Design Group:
1. The articulation of a procedural “framework” was necessary, for a host of reasons, including legality, prudence, justice, and efficacy.
As #23 notes, this had as its consequence a number of elements, including enumerated detail (“prolixity” is not exactly a fair charge, I think, given the nature of these kinds of outlines which, in other contexts, tend to be far more, not less, extended). It must be said that responses from the Communion on this section in the first draft were uniformly concerned about the vagueness of what had earlier been proposed, a vagueness that might move against the reasons listed above for change. And this concern was voiced by parties of both “liberal” and “conservative” character. It should be said, however, that the movement towards such concrete outlines is surely not going to be welcomed by many for whom the very idea of covenantal discipline is repugnant.
2. The shift away from making the Primates’ Meeting a gateway of evaluative articulation for the Communion was motivated by several reasons. It is not clear that this is a role the Primates themselves wish to assume; it quite evident that this is a role that the Primates’ Meeting has currently shown itself incapable of performing (being at present divided amongst itself in rather spectular ways, and seemingly unable to speak decisively into its own midst); it is not clear that there is sufficient distance from or lack of implication within, among the Primates, the very disputes that might be at issue. Certainly, there is room in the present outline for the Primates’ Meeting to exercise self-discipline, to initiate procedures, and to provide clear evaluations and directives.
3. The ACC as a last evaluative body regarding covenantal faithfulness might suggest itself for some legal reasons, among others, given that they are the only Instrument of Communion constitutionally charged with membership decisions (although not currently this particular one). The relationship of Provinces to the ACC is already defined, in this regard, and this definition may provide some useful foundation for the implementation of these suggested procedural endpoints. It needs to be said, however, that there is probably no uniform sense within the Communion or even within the Covenant Design Group about this conclusion. The notion of erecting a final “tribunal”, separate from the current Instruments or structures of the Communion is one that has long been resisted in the Communion (dating from the first Lambeth Conference, in fact). But short of that, it is not clear what the alternatives are, and none were suggested within the responses we received.
4. It should be noted that there are several means available, in the face of dispute or the threat of danger (in terms of teaching and/or unity), to move more quickly, indeed even bypassing the various procedural options outlined in the appendix. The suggested framework is deliberately not “one-size-fits-all”, provides the Instruments of Communion (apart from the ACC) with direct engagement within matters that concern the Communion’s integrity of life, and quite explicitly requires a range of disciplined decisions by all. The fact that individual churches might choose to ignore their commitments, or choose to contravene them, or choose to reject counsel, admonishment, and even common judgment is simply a part of what it means to be a free partner within a Covenant that involves multiple parties (i.e. the Church of Christ!). As #16 has rightly pointed out, within Anglicanism, both in its history and in its self-articulated self-ordering, the acknowledgement of such freedom and its rejectionary capacities gives rise to a particular way of ordering a response to this on the ground. Other Christian traditions have indeed chosen to order things differently and on the basis of differing kinds of acknowledgement concerning the nature of the Church’s powers and choices, through transnational centralized authorities, congregationally-located authority, the comings and goings within the porousness of federation, and so on. Are these alternatives better or worse in the light of the Church’s larger history? It is an interesting moment for all of us as we ponder just such fundamental questions. We believe, however, that the current draft at least points in the direction that is congruent with our long-standing commitments as Anglican Christians.
5. Readers should remember that this is second draft of what will prove to be at least 4 versions (the fourth, we hope, being the final one). It is to go to the bishops at the Lambeth Conference, where it will receive quite explicit and concrete comment and response, which will inform the 3rd draft later this year. It should by now be clear where the direction of the Covenant is oriented, including its basic form and the basic hopes and theology that structure its content. But of all the sections, surely the last must continue to be amended and refined on the basis of the wisdom of the Communion itself. This is not the last version, and the constructive responses of all are in fact being and will continue to be carefully received, assessed and used.
Those who have no confidence in, e.g. the Instruments of Communion, and therefore in the Covenant itself, will decide not to be a part of it. That is their choice. You seem to be arguing, #24, that some have apparently already made that decision, in an implicit way. I am not sure, however, that your judgment on this matter constitutes an “objective” analysis of the parties involved. The fact that some of them are actually a part of the very groups they claim to have lost “confidence” in, would indicate that there is more involved than a simple and objective conclusion, but that we are engaged in something that is calling forth some personal soul-searching. I think most of the “key” players know this, and realize that the road to the Covenant has not yet been traveled, and its landscape not yet been comprehended. By definition, those who sign this Covenant (in whatever eventual form it takes) will have to “change” somehow, because it requires a form of life that we have not yet, until this time, embodied. The only “objective” fact right now in relation to the Covenant is that we are not now parties to it. At best, we are being called into it. To say, then, that it is “objectively” a “supreme waste of time” is basically to make a judgment about the nature of repentance, grace, and responsibility that, I would hope, is from the start unacceptable to our Christian conscience.
The Primates “adjudicated” in a fashion, in the sense that they issued a Communique to which they claimed they all agreed. However, they failed themselves to follow through with their own purported agreement, in its details as well as in its spirit, and when it became obvious that this was the case, they failed to order their own common life in such a way as to address this. Do not suppose for a moment that the only reason the Primates did not gather again was because Canterbury refused. He refused because, by and large, there was no agreement to gather, and that such a gathering and its failure would have further disoriented the supposed hopes the Communique articulated. Why did Dar es Salaam seemingly go nowhere (and, I need to say, I don’t fully agree with the assumption behind the question)? Because the Primates themselves did not trust each other or hold each other accountable. This has, I’m afraid, been the case since at least 2000.
I agree with Matt Kennedy.
There was quite clear “evaluative articulation for the Communion” at Dar. And that evaluative articulation was rejected — first by TEC, then by the ABC. That latter rejection appears to be one of the primary reasons why certain Primates are not going to be around for the “Covenant Process”.
Further, I do not believe that the ACC is the “only Instrument of Communion constitutionally charged with membership decisions” — indeed, I believe that the ACC is the body charged with ACTING upon the membership decisions of the Primates Meeting, is it not?
The ACC does not make “membership decisions” but rather modifies the membership list in response to the Primates’ requests. I would appreciate correction on this, if I have read the Constitution and resolutions that tasked the ACC incorrectly.
Dr. Radner — other than the ABC and TEC — could you please say who among the Primates “failed themselves to follow through with their own purported agreement, in its details as well as in its spirit, and when it became obvious that this was the case, they failed to order their own common life in such a way as to address this”?
That is quite a breathtaking statement when we all observed the ABC quite deliberately 1) repudiate the deadline, 2) insert the JSC into the process, and 3) manipulate through his ACO the process of deciding whether TEC complied, which it indubitably did not. Furthermore the ABC simply starkly and clearly invited the world to Lambeth — which invitations were to be decided once it was determined that TEC had not or had complied.
I am simply amazed that you would assert that the Primates had failed, after the events of this past year.
The ABC failed to discipline. And now, we are in a mess.
Denying the reason for the “failure” of Dar and then blaming it on the Primates Meeting is simply amazing to me.
I can certainly understand why — having been through the past year — four Primates are not attending Lambeth.
Dr. Radner: It seems to me that when assessing the four Instruments of Unity, especially in light of their potential role as resolvers of disputes, some attention must be paid to their political natures. It seems to me that two of the Instruments are typically regarded as being contrary to conservative interests, while two are regarded as being somewhat more friendly to conservative interests. While I think the political reality is not so cut-and-dry, I think you must agree that the ACC is typically thought to be most closely aligned to the big-money Provinces and the ACO (i.e. compromised in TEC’s favor); the Archbishop of Canterbury is thought of as nice but completely ineffectual; the Primates’ are thought of as divided but the strongest body for the conservative Primatial leadership; and the Lambeth Conference to be a neutered but conservative body. I think that while different factions in the Communion might use different words, I think my descriptions above are fairly on point.
The first draft of the Covenant gave the Primates the major say in the dispute resolution process. This second draft seems to cut the Primates out, and puts the dispute resolution process firmly in the hands of the two Instruments of Unity generally regarded as being the most biased AGAINST the conservative interests. Thus I am not sure how this is supposed to gain traction for the Covenant amongst the Communion’s more conservative Provinces especially in light of everything else going on.
It seems to me that if the Covenant process is going to have any chance of success, you will need to find a credible dispute resolution process that is capable of holding the confidence of the major players in the dispute. The process outlined in this draft does not do that, and will not do that.
I think that perhaps the political reality of the Instruments has been overlooked. This reminds me of the situation in 2000 when the US Supreme Court issued a decision which impacted the outcome of the Presidential election. Many Democrats saw the outcome as illegitimate because the arbiter was biased due to Republican appointed judges forming the voting majority on the court. Keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court has a 200 year history in this country, including a long history of making critical political decisions (i.e. on abortion, civil rights, etc.). It was only that long history that resulted in the court decision being tolerated, if not accepted.
Under the Second Draft Covenant, there is no long and distinguished history of independent dispute resolution. The individuals and bodies selected as the final arbiters do not have the confidence of the major players nor do they have the credibility to be impartial and independent arbiters.
I fear that under this version of the Covenant, the results of the “dispute resolution” will more resemble the anarchy we see in Kenya following the disputed election there instead of the what we saw in 2000 in the USA. If you want the latter you need a dispute resolution process that has credibility and commands confidence.
[blockquote] who among the Primates “failed themselves to follow through with their own purported agreement…? [/blockquote] Sarah, I would suggest that you consider at least one of the Primates resident on the same continent as yourself, and perhaps more than one of them.
What is also clear is that if any orothodox in TEC hope for any relief from TEC’s leftward drift it can only be outside TEC and the AC. Otherwise you might as well learn to live with it.
Re; 25
KJS can have more degrees than a therometer, but she demonstrably lacks credibility. Life at the ocean and in the air are places of solitude where one can revel in their own mind. Sorry, but the human world and the Church require more than personal feelings, ramblings, and musings. Only careerists and the wistful believe that KJS has brought clarity, healing, and hope to the Church that her co-travelers have ravaged. Start looking outside the fishbowl at the MAJORITY of Christianity and they are averting their eyes from TEC as though it is a disease.
Dr. Radner: I recently posted on some blog or another the following assessment of the political nature of the Insturments of Communion. This is just a loose framework for thinking things out, but I believe that it is helpful.
Basic government organization includes a legislative branch (which makes policy decisions); an executive branch (which implements policy decisions); and a judicial branch (which resolves disputes). I would suggest that in the Anglican Communion we see the following:
1) Legislative branch: being the Lambeth Conference (akin to the House of Representatives/House of Commons; and the Primates’ Meeting (akin to the Senate/House of Lords). These bodies meet and issue policy statements and plans for action for the Communion.
2) Executive branch: being the ABC, ACO and the ACC. The ABC is roughly akin to the President/Prime Minister, with the ACC being akin to the executive agencies, departments and ministries.
3) Judicial branch: being the blogs?!?!?? Okay, there is no body in the AC that plays this role.
It seems to me that the GAFCON primates have lost confidence in the executive branch of the Anglican Communion, NOT in all the Instruments of Communion. (And as a side comment, note who has been given greater power in the Second Draft). The reason why there is a boycott of the Lambeth Conference is NOT due to a loss of confidence in the legislative branch (i.e. Lambeth Conference) itself, but rather due to a belief that the executive branch (i.e. the ABC, ACO, and ACC) will not implement the policies passed by the legislative branch. And your arguments blaming the Primates for the failure of Dar are unconvincing, especially in light of the ABC’s failure to appoint the Pastoral Council (as he was tasked to do), his unilateral dismissal of the Sept. 30 deadline, and his unilateral insertions of the JSC into the adjudication process.
So, my argument is, Dr. Radner IF the purpose is to find a solution that is workable for the WHOLE Anglican Communion, it seems rather unwise to choose the two Instruments of Communion who have the least credibility with the largest Provinces to be the authoritative bodies in the dispute resolution process. If your goal is to EXCLUDE the majority of the Communion from the Covenental Communion then this Draft will work just perfectly. But if that is the goal, then why have a Covenant at all?
Re #21: The documents defining Anglicanism as a Communion as against either a unitary church or a loose association include:
Perhaps most articulately [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/1998/documents/report-1.pdf]The Virginia Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission[/url], which was [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-3-8.cfm]endorsed by[/url] the 1998 Lambeth Conference.
As original source material, resolutions of the successive Lambeth Conferences, which can be [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/]found here.[/url]
Note particularly the sections of the [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1878/]1878 Encyclical Letter[/url] dealing with Union Among the Churches of the Anglican Communion, the [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1888/1888-10.cfm]1888 Resolution[/url] on Prayer Book Revision, the [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1897/1897-24.cfm]1897[/url], [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1908/1908-22.cfm]1908,[/url] and [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-63.cfm]1968[/url]Resolutions on overlapping jurisdictions, the 1908 Resolution on [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1908/1908-10.cfm]clergy transfers[/url], the 1920 Resolutions [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1920/1920-43.cfm]on provinces[/u] and [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1920/1920-44.cfm]the central consultative body[/url], the 1930 [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/1930-49.cfm]definition of the Anglican Communion[/url] and associated [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1930/]Resolutions 47-60[url] on the Communion and its provinces, the 1958 Resolution [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1958/1958-61.cfm]on the Consultative Body[/url], the 1968 Resolutions on url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-67.cfm]Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence[/url] and the [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/1968-69.cfm]Anglican Consultative Council[/url], 1978 [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1978/]Resolutions 11-16[/url] on Anglican collegiality, the 1988 Resolution on [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1988/1988-18.cfm]Identity and Authority[/url], and the 1998 Resolutions on [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-3-8.cfm]subsidiarity[/url] and the [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-3-6.cfm]Instruments of Communion[/url].
Also, the Reports of the 1963 Anglican Congress, the Eames Commission on Women in the Episcopate, and the Eames Monitoring Group, which I can’t immediately find online.
And, of course, [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm]The Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion[/url].
My initial global/holistic/overall impression of this latest draft is that it is a Very Big Win . . . for the Sydney/FedCon/Leavers.
They can move forward with very little hesitation about whether they have done the right thing or made good decisions in their departures, or attendance of GAFCON. There will be no “cause for pause” in this latest draft.
Plus, it will be much easier for them to convince others to not attend Lambeth as well, as well as go to GAFCON.
Re #30: Sarah Hey, I understand the constitutional provision being referred to be this one: “With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule.” I think the normal way that would be read, at least in the U.S., is that the council can initiate a change but the specified supermajority of the Primates must assent for it to become effective. The Primates, under this provision, wouldn’t be able to take a province off the schedule by themselves. That said, Dr. Radner seems not quite accurate in his statement either because the Primates do have some role in membership decisions. But the main point, acknowledged by Dr. Radner, is that the role in membership decisions the ACC has now is not the one being proposed. I would like to hear more about the legal reasons Dr. Radner refers to for suggesting the ACC as the last evaluative body.
Dr. Radner, forgive me for being a bit cynical but it seems to me then, that Windsor, Dar, etc… are not worth the paper they were written on. The Primates issued these statements, without any Primate’s public dissent; however, because there was private dissent, they mean nothing. Why did the ABC call the meetings and allow these issues to dominate their agenda if they really had no power to ajudicate their outcome? Makes no sense to me (help me if you can).
Re #36: I think your analysis is flawed for two reasons. First, a clear division into legislative, executive, and judicial branches is not “basic government organization” except in the United States. In Britain, for example, the chief executive is simply the leader of the legislature and (until recently) the highest court (the House of Lords) was also part of the legislature. There are, of course, legislative, executive, and judicial duties to be performed, but those need not be exercised by distinct branches. Separation of powers may be a good idea, but it is rarely followed outside the US.
Second, it is a mistake to analogize the Communion to a unitary authority like a government. From 1867 down to 1998, there was never any suggestion that any of the Instruments had any legislative (law-making, as opposed to advisory) powers. There was no intention to make Lambeth and the Primates’ Meeting a bicameral legislature, if for no other reason than that Lambeth created the Primates’ Meeting and could presumably abolish it. There was some notion of making the Primates act as the Executive Committee of Lambeth between meetings, but that idea went over like a lead balloon with the other bishops. Recently, as Dr. Radner points out, the Primates have been singularly ineffective in controlling some of their own membership.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not purely an executive, because he has no direct authority over the executive departments of the Anglican Communion Office (haven’t you noticed how the Lambeth and Communion staffs sometimes operate at cross purposes?), but he does exercise certain legislative and judicial powers. Mostly, he acts as more of a Head of State than a Head of Government. Like the Queen, he works quietly behind the scenes as a mediator but has no power to enforce his suggestions. His Speeches from the Throne are more aspirational than programmatic; unlike Her Majesty’s Government, he doesn’t control the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of the Communion. He has to lead by persuasion, just as you can’t shout commands at a herd of cats without having them scatter.
The ACO isn’t one of the Instruments of Communion, although it is technically subject to the Anglican Consultative Council and its Standing Committee (technically, because the ACO, like most bureaucracies, sometimes acts on its own). The ACC is one of the Instruments, and was originally conceived as at least a prototype for a Communion Synod including episcopal, clerical, and lay members. There is no reason to suppose it is inherently more liberal than the Primates. Most of its members are, in effect, chosen by their Primate, so it would be odd if they did not reflect the views in their province. The ACC is not the same as the ACO and it is a mistake to confuse the two. Most opposition among reasserters to an expanded role for the ACC is politically based (they do not see an ally among the current majority), just as most reappraiser opposition to the Primates is similarly based.
Any solution that is acceptable to the whole communion must satisfy the whole communion, not just a few of the largest provinces.
Dale–thanks a lot–this is very helpful…
Don Armstrong
Dr. Radner–I am very sympathetic with your efforts at developing an effective covenant. I am worried, however, about JSC’s inordinate amount of interpretive power in the process (in this draft). See #6 & 9 above. Despite the closeness of the primates to the issues at hand, the distance of the JSC (and their lack of prominence in the Communion, and their basically bureaucratic function) makes their decisions less likely to gain credence. Before, say, 2005, there was broad patience–first looking to the Instruments to weigh-in before the Autumn of 2003, and afterward, waiting for them to respond. Of course, many weren’t patient, such as AMia, but most gave the Instruments their credibility. I think that their mutual accountability would indeed hold up if there were clear teeth in their decisions. The Draft rightly attempts just the right amount of teeth, but in at least one pathway, puts those teeth in the hands of bureaucrats (so seems the JSC to most) rather than in the hands of those seen to hold both respect and authority.
If those parties argue, yes, going to a third party to judge is helpful, but only if the third party is seen as above them, not below them. When there is no “above†the players, those at the top will inevitably need to be the ones to hammer out the resolution, or it won’t hold water. The problem for the Instruments was not the opportunity to hammer something out (until recently, their declarations were quite forceful and broadly held). The problem was a lack of clarity on the process and consequences if the polite conversation didn’t work. Go for the Covenant, yes, please, but I would recommend investing the powers of recognition to the Instruments (encoding something of the spirit of the Virginia Report). Perhaps that sounds a little too much like the Nassau Draft—but the Nassau draft invested more in the Primates, did it not? What would it be like to try some sort of consensus approach by all the Instruments? One could apply that effectively to the situation in 2003 (all four said “noâ€).
Dale: Well, when I took political science in Canada, we learned the three branches of government. You are correct that the branches need not be as seperate as they are in the U.S., but the functional distinctions remain. I also did not say the analogy was a perfect one, but rather that it helps understand the current problems regarding confidence and the Instruments of Unity.
Regarding a dispute resolution mechanism. I am not saying that such a mechanism must ONLY satisfy the largest GS Provinces. Rather, I am saying that the largest Anglican Provinces must have some buy-in if this Covenant is seriously intended to be for the whole Communion. Don’t take this analogy too far either, please Dale, but I would draw your attention to the UN Security Council permanent members. In any organization, there are certain members who have sufficient importance that any solution must be acceptable to them if the solution is to have any credibility whatsoever.
Dale, I think the ACC could be a great body IF it was reformed so as to include proportional representation according to number of verified Anglicans, and appointment was decided by the Provinces (i.e. like delegates) themselves (the latter may already be the case).
My point is simple: IF the Covenant is to be the means by which the whole Anglican Communion can come together and order itself, it must meet a minimum threshold of credibility and confidence for the largest member Provinces. If it does not, then ipso facto, it cannot be the means by which the Anglican Communion can come together and order itself.
I think we both know that this Second Draft can not and will not do that.
Radner,
Some of the Primates didn’t want to meet? Why is that exactly, and why does it even matter? I have no doubt Schori was one.
You make these pronouncements about ‘what would have happened had the Primates met,’and insinuate that the outcome would have been negative. Then you claim that the Primates have ‘failed to hold each other accountable.’ Really? I think a good number of the GS Primates have been quite attentive to hold Schori accountable for her actions post-DES, and were more than ready to do so this last Fall face to face.
“Accountability” was the very thing that would have happened at another Primates meeting, but that is the thing that Williams doesn’t seem to want. So to claim that the Primates have ‘failed to hold each other accountable’ because Williams failed to call a meeting (and some Primates didn’t want one anyway) is the worst kind of circular logic.
Regarding the inherent weaknesses of the Primates’ Meeting, I did not intend to aportion quantities of blame. Canterbury, after all, is a part of the Primates’ Meeting, and has enough to answer for on his own. But the fact is that, since at least 2000, when certain provinces, like Rwanda and then South-East Asia (although they soon moved away from this), began ignoring the requests of their fellow Primates, and then the Primates’ Meeting itself chose to ignore the issue of this complete breakdown of accountability altogether, the notion that there was some kind of internal discipline being exercised in their midst was, to say the least, implausible. One of the major realities that faced the Dar “agreement”, as it turned out (not what the paper stated), was that it had only partial support from a number of Primates (not just from TEC) who gave their purported approval. That is to say, there was no united will to prosecute the requests. Did Canterbury fail to lead in the face of this stepping back? Most probably. Would “leadership” have succeeded in resolving the matter? Most probably not. What has become clear, in the wake of several Primates’ Meetings is that the public statements they have issued have masked enormous ill-will shared among the group, and this feeble base has hardly encouraged Canterbury to press forward with a line of response that would have received not even grudging support from a majority of colleagues. I confess that I myself have, in the past, probably misjudged the coherence of the Meeting. None of which is somehow to defend the failures of any individual Primate, at home or within the Communion. It is only to underline the fact that some realism about how real people actually function together must determine the choices we make.
As I said, if the GAFCON leaders think (and I don’t know that they do, but there are a lot of people here and elsewhere who seem to believe they know this) that the only basis upon which they can continue to be full partners in the Anglican Communion as historically constituted is to insist on some outcome to the process of common decision -making before the fact, that is their choice. In doing this, however, they will simply be mirroring the forms of behavior that have already undone many otherwise sound relationships within the Communion. The notion that this, or any other related verssion of the Draft Covenant somehow “makes their point” is preposterous. The only people who can make anyone’s point are the people whose point it is. If people want to walk away from the efforts to set the Communion’s life and witness on a basis of integrity, with all the challenges personally, legally, evangelically and so on that this involves, that will be just and only the point that they will make.
JamesW still seems to think that the current level of mistrust within the Communion simply must define the character of the Covenant that people will sign. But it is not the Covenant that will invent trust or confer credibility. There is not a single person in this Communion who can be trusted in some “objective” way by all the others. It has ever been thus, and given human nature — “all are liars” (Ps. 12:1f; Rom. 3:13) — it will ever be thus in this world. The Christian calling is both to be transformed out of this condition (which is hardly an instantaneous event) and to live with others who themselves are not perfect withtin the frame of Christ. The Church herself, uneasily to be sure, balances the calling and the historical reality of her own life and condition, as best she can through what means and order she has been led and is led to provide. In this context, trust and credibility is something into which we grow through Christ’s own gifts, and we approach the structures (in this case) of something like the Covenant with the imperative of such openness and discipline in relationship such that the future and the instruments of our future are not governed by our present. Every Primate and every province and bishop and person in this church must be willing to do this, and this alone will prove the basis for any credibility. I agree: it isn’t there yet.
I personally consider it equally an imperative that the relationship of TEC to the Communion as it/we now stand must somehow be resolved, if only provisionally, before any proposed Covenant can be fruitfully entered. The Covenant itself cannot do this and is not meant to. (Hence Gledhill’s article was highly misleading.) How then shall such resolution happen? Some have hoped that the invitations to Lambeth might prove an element within such resolution; I myself have supported such a thing. But even in doing so, I realize that this may not be the best or even an attainable means of resolution. (And it does not look as if it is moving in that direction.) The Windsor Continuation Group (or whatever it is called) to which Canterbury referred in his Advent Letter, may be another possible means — and I do know that it is rapidly being assembled and deployed in the next month or so. But I really have no idea if this group will be able to “fix” matters before Lambeth, or before a Covenent, or if it even is being asked to. What is increasingly apparent — although perhaps not certain — is that the Communion as it stands may not be capable of doing what some of us wish it could do at this point in time. (And I DO wish it could!) We are facing our own weakness as a Communion (an understatement). What therefore should be our response? Most of us have already chosen one way or the other.
Thank you for your hard work and efforts Dr. Radner.
Re #44: I agree with you that there needs to be some sort of buy-in by as many provinces as possible, particularly the larger ones. Proportional representation might get their support, but the smaller provinces are going to want some control as well (that’s why the US has a bicameral legislature–the big states control the House and the small states the Senate). Like the Security Council, the Anglican Church of Australia allows any of the Big 5 dioceses a veto, but there must also be an overall majority of all the dioceses.
The ACC might be set up like that, I suppose. The Schedule of Membership can be changed by the Council with the consent of 2/3 of the Primates. There is already some degree of proportionality, in that some provinces get three votes (bishop, other cleric, lay) and others get two (bishop and either cleric or lay).
Each province chooses its own ACC representatives according to its own internal procedures, but there has recently been some pressure to either have all the bishop members be Primates or to co-opt the Primates as additional members. There has also been a suggestion that the clerical and lay slots should be filled, when possible, by people who hold a significant office within the province. In many Anglican provinces, those people (if not the ACC representatives themselves) are primatial appointees, so there is no inherent reason why the ACC should have a theological or political orientation any different from the primates themselves.
If the Communion was operating smoothly, of course, none of this would be necessary. The fact that it has become disfunctional makes the task of the Design Group much more difficult. Frankly, I don’t know if this draft can “be the means by which the Anglican Communion can come together and order itself,” but I certainly don’t know of any alternative that would get any wider support. It has become increasingly clear in the past few weeks that some provinces are planning to “walk apart” from the Canterbury-centered Communion no matter what happens. It would be foolish for the Design Group to make changes in the Covenant in a vain attempt to get the support of those provinces, which no viable text could ever obtain.
RE: “The only people who can make anyone’s point are the people whose point it is.”
Really? Why — another member of the ACI said just the opposite some time ago in comments right here on this blog! ; > )
While I disagreed with his precise example “point-making” I certainly agree that others actions may well make one’s point for one. But I suppose that is a minor quibble regarding actions and corresponding consequences for those actions.
RE: “What has become clear, in the wake of several Primates’ Meetings is that the public statements they have issued have masked enormous ill-will shared among the group, and this feeble base has hardly encouraged Canterbury to press forward with a line of response that would have received not even grudging support from a majority of colleagues.”
Of course, the public statements issued by the ACC and the Lambeth Meeting also mask “enormous ill-will shared among the group” so that will also “hardly encourage Canterbury to press forward” either — as apparently “good-will” is what makes Canterbury capable of “pressing forward” with prosecution of [i]formally, legally, publicly, officially agreed upon ways forward[/i]. One realizes more and more, then, considering Canterbury’s need for “good will” just how little his role in the latest draft of the Covenant will actually be fulfilled.
RE: “If people want to walk away from the efforts to set the Communion’s life and witness on a basis of integrity, with all the challenges personally, legally, evangelically and so on that this involves, that will be just and only the point that they will make.”
Actually, they appear to wish to walk away from the [i]failure[/i] “to set the Communion’s life and witness on a basis of integrity”.
The good news is that those not going to Lambeth would probably hardly be any help anyway to the Covenant Process — they’d merely gum up the works wanting to introduce revisions and stronger discipline which the ComCon Primates and bishops wouldn’t approve of. At one time I had been confused and hesitant as to whether the FedCon portion of the Global South should go to Lambeth. But now I see that the FedCons showing up would actually 1) indicate to Rowan and the ComCons and the revisionists that things are working and they shouldn’t change a thing! [functioning as the enabler to the dysfunctional alchoholic], and 2) gum up the works for whatever plan the ComCon portion thinks they have regarding the Covenant and discipline.
In this way, I agree with Dr. Radner. Let those who think there is still an actual “effort” going to to “set the Communion’s life and witness on a basis of integrity” show up at Lambeth and work for their plan — and [i]their plan[/i] it is. And let those who think there is an actual [i]radical and finished failure[/i] to “set the Communion’s life and witness on a basis of integrity” move on to other matters in keeping with their new priorities in light of the past failures.
RE: “I personally consider it equally an imperative that the relationship of TEC to the Communion as it/we now stand must somehow be resolved, if only provisionally, before any proposed Covenant can be fruitfully entered.”
I don’t understand why.
I don’t think any further resolution is needed. We can move on to the completion of the Covenant Process, I think, doing pretty well. TEC is — other than the “I don’t want to be the gay bishop” bishop — invited to to Lambeth and is doing okay, I think, in its relationship to the Communion as a whole.
I see no need — nor any interest — in resolving a non-problem. And I don’t think that there is any doubt that there is any real issue with the Communion as a whole.
Oh sure . . . numerous individual provinces have problems with TEC. But they don’t speak for the communion as a whole, and I feel sure that things will rock along just fine over the next decades . . .
I suspect that the ABC has now greatly lowered expectations for the “Communion” — as various provinces move on in light of the ended-processes that were undertaken over the past four years. But better the lowered expectations, than “ill-will” . . .
It will be a rather exciting time of immense chaos and rapid detachment over the next 10 years, much like the creation of another galaxy appears to be.
Radner, thank you for your response. I do not believe that another Primate’s Meeting would have necessarily led to reconciliation, in fact the whole Meeting may have just as easily exploded…but in any event there would have been more honesty and integrity in that outcome than there is now. The problem is that ‘not calling a meeting’ merely erodes everyone’s confidence further, and makes the ABC look either weak or coniving.
If one of my vestry members goes back on their word there is a good chance that they will not want another meeting. There is also a pretty good chance that their colleagues will not be excited about another meeting, and an 100% chance that I won’t be excited about calling the vestry together. All of that is immaterial, however, as it is our duty to work out a common Christian life together. It is my duty to call the Vestry together, the offending member’s responsibility to fess up and either repent of breaking their word or giving their word in the first place, and the rest of the Vestry’s responsibilty to hold that member accountable.
If I say, “Hey, how about you all send me slips of paper through the postal system telling me what you think, and I’ll get back with you each individually?” that solves precisely nothing, as the conditions for relationship building (maybe ‘forging’ would be the better word here) have been absent.
So to get back to the Covenant: Why decide to back away from giving more responsibility to the Primates (as Lambeth and Windsor had asked)?
Simply because the Primates currently don’t have an atmosphere of trust? Why is this relevant?
Is the ABC or ACC more trustworthy? No.
Did Lambeth or Windsor call for the ACC to take an enhanced role? No.
My guess is that the liberal elements of the Design Group know that the ACC is not nearly as representative of the Communion as the Primates, and (as the JSC’s performance in NO shows) they are rather pliable when in the hands of Kearon.
Above you said “some realism about how real people actually function together must determine the choices we make.” This isn’t the sort of sentiment that I would have expected from you, but setting aside my surprise, what might realistic people expect from the ACC or ABC?
I happen to think the Primates, deeply flawed though they are, were the Communion’s best chance at unity. Because of the group’s size (smaller), make-up (heads of provinces), ability to gather frequently, and most important of all, their track record over the last decade, this was the group that could most realistically hold Global Anglicansim together. Lambeth and the Windsor Report could see this, but whatever negotiations happened behind closed doors, it seems the design group bowed to the pressure of TEC and changed the adjudicating body for no clear reason.
Dale and Ephraim: I have not said this, and it probably bears saying. I think that Covenant Design Group has an impossible task to perform, unless they receive some assistance from the Archbishop of Canterbury. I completely agree with Dr. Radner when he says
I don’t think the Covenant can succeed without some form of discipline first being meted out to TEC and New West. It is a pre-condition to a serious consideration of the covenant. If the TEC situation is not resolved first, the Covenant will be seen only through those terms. You might not like that, but that’s the way it will be – that is human nature.
Having said that, it is my opinion that the only person who can save the Covenantal process is Rowan Williams. IMHO, there are a number of things that he could do/have done that could buy the necessary credibility. He could 1) attach a condition to all Lambeth invitations that the bishop upholds the Windsor process by not permitting SSB’s in their diocese and agreeing not to confirm any more practicing homosexual bishops pending Communion consensus; and 2) withholding judgment on the legality of the Diocese of San Joaquin’s reaffiliation pending a wider Communion review. He needs to communicate that he is more than words, and that he will hold TEC to account (or at the very least that he will stop being an enabler to TEC’s continued violation of Lambeth I.10 and Windsor and its persecution of its own conservatives).
Dr. Radner – I am not saying that the current level of mistrust should define the Covenant, but I think realistically speaking the current lack of trust in the Communion is the Elephant in the room. The mistrust is there, you can’t ignore it, it must be addressed head on. In a real sense, you are drawing up the nation’s future constitution before the civil war has been resolved.
Perhaps Rowan Williams needs to be told that the Covenant process needs to be suspended until he resolves the TEC crisis. Perhaps instead of a Covenantal design process at this time, we need to get Brian Cox into a room along with Rowan Williams, Akinola, Minns, Orombi, Jefferts-Schori, etc., etc.).
[i]As I said, if the GAFCON leaders think (and I don’t know that they do, but there are a lot of people here and elsewhere who seem to believe they know this) that the only basis upon which they can continue to be full partners in the Anglican Communion as historically constituted is to insist on some outcome to the process of common decision -making before the fact, that is their choice. In doing this, however, they will simply be mirroring the forms of behavior that have already undone many otherwise sound relationships within the Communion.[/i]
Dr Radner, I understand your objection here, and I agree with it to a certain point. Otherwise there is no conciliar discernment, but only dictation from one party (or a few) to the whole. But, as I say, I agree only to a certain point. Surely you would agree that there is rightly a presumption that the conciliar decisions of the Churches of the Anglican Communion must be consonant with the “rule of faith” that has structured the Church’s life and faith from the earliest centuries?
On another note, in a minor and work-related way, I’ve been involved in these sorts of committee-led actions and drafts . . . and I am confident that Dr. Radner and many others did the best that they could under the circumstances.
Although it’s not particularly important what my opinion is, just for the record, my critique of the outcome of the process or responses is not at all a critique of the members of the committee.
Dr. Radner (#46):
Thank you for your frank assessment of the state of the communion.
If even half of what you write is precise, it calls for only one more thing, and it calls for it desperately.
It calls for more prayer. Urgent prayer. Desperate prayer. Desperate prayer for the health of Christ’s Ekklesion here on earth.
There is no human solution to what is, quite plainly, a spiritual problem. May we all turn our attention to fervent prayer this Lent for the State of Christ’s Church.
Amen, Br’er Rabbit.
Ephraim writes,
[blockquote]it quite evident that this is a role that the Primates’ Meeting has currently shown itself incapable of performing (being at present divided amongst itself in rather spectular ways, and seemingly unable to speak decisively into its own midst);[/blockquote]
The only instrument of unity that the orthodox, majority voice is heard now has its legs cut out. I don’t imagine the revisionistas are unhappy about that.
I seem to recall a very strong, [b]unanimously consented[/b] document that could have gone a long way to solving the problems of the Communion that was produced by the primates meeting. Yes, that document was thoroughly subverted by another instrument of unity. But the primates meeting was the only instrument of unity that had leadership fortitude that was capable of addressing the problems Communion. Now, that instrument of unity is relegated to fourth class status behind: the old ditherer, the jamboree, and the TEC cronies. What a sad joke.
Goodbye, old Anglican Communion. You are sooo dead. Hello, GAFCon centered communion.
My gut response to all of this: it’s all pretty depressing. We are back in the clouds of non-clarity. Sweet Lord, where will you direct your children? Where do we need to follow you in obedience?
Dr Radner said,
“What is increasingly apparent—although perhaps not certain—is that the Communion as it stands may not be capable of doing what some of us wish it could do at this point in time. (And I DO wish it could!) We are facing our own weakness as a Communion (an understatement). What therefore should be our response? Most of us have already chosen one way or the other.”
I admit, with great sadness, that I agree with “Most of us have already chosen….”
Its not a decision that I have sought, it is a decision forced upon me by the leadership of ECUSA. I will act upon my decision when my bishop decides to act. If he doesn’t act within some reasonable time frame or compromises himself and decides to remain under the secular radicals running ECUSA, then I will act on my own.
My decision is to remain Anglican and to disassociate myself from the syncretists, Christ-doubters and neo-pagans who have infiltrated ECUSA.
If you don’t like those labels. Reflect on them for a moment and try to understand why others feel justified in applying those labels to ECUSA’s leadership.
Re #58: The problem is that this disaster has escalated far beyond choosing between being an Episcopalian and being an Anglican. That choice would be comparatively easy if TEC left the existing Anglican Communion in such a way that it was no longer possible to be both at once. That situation may never happen, though, because the existing Communion may have dissolved before TEC ever leaves it.
If the Communion splits, those who would take the Anglican option will have to choose which sort of Anglican they are from among at least two choices. As Peter Toon has suggested, it could soon be many more than two, as the same centrifugal forces that tore apart the 1970s-era Continuing Church Movement act on 2008-era Continuing Anglicans.
I find all of this heartbreaking. At each stage over the last 5 years, responding in hope to the words of encouragement to wait and give time, and encouraging other folks to do the same, for it all to come to this conclusion: that our Communion is weak and inadequate. I blooming well knew that. I could see it all around. The Covenant was supposed to be a response to the breakdown of Communion, not simply another expression of it. It’s all hearbreaking.
I guess this is what God’s judgement on our church looks like and feels like.
Dr. Radner+,
Thank you for staying active on this thread and for contributing your valuable insights as a member of the Covenant Design Group (CDG). As usual, I find them stimulating and illuminating.
However, I must admit that I am one of many at SF and T19 who find this second draft of the proposed Covenant completely unacceptable. Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t blame you or the rest of the CDG for this. I have great respect for you personally, as well as the utmost admiration for ++Drexel Gomez and ++John Chew. Heck, I even like and admire (as a fellow or aspiring NT scholar) Prof. Katherine Grieb of VTS, although we are on opposite sides of the underlying issue of the vorality of homosexual behavior. I think all of you on the CDG have acted honorably and responsibly, given the severe limitations of your mandate and the general type of model proposed in the Windsor Report.
As I see it, the basic problem is that the whole general approach adopted by the CDG is wrong and is inevitably doomed to failure. That is, I think Br. Michael hit the nail on the head way back in his post #14 above. He wrote that the goal of this draft seems to be “to prserve the AC at all costs.” If so, I must respectfully but firmly protest that this is the wrong goal. That is, the fundamental problem with this draft, like the previous one and like the Windsor Report before it, is that this proposed Covenant preserves only the APPEARANCE of unity, not real unity itself. Any authentic unity worthy of the name must be based on a common adherence to the essentials of the Christian faith, as Anglicanism has received them, and to a common submission to real accountability. Alas, this Covenant provides the basis for neither real unity in faith nor genuine accountability.
Le me be blunt, if I may do so in my usual way without giving unintended offense. I think the whole approach adopted in this draft Covenant is fatally flawed because it refuses to deal with the root causes of our unhappy divisions. Presumably that’s because the virtually inevitable outcome of actually addressing those root problems would be “unthinkable,” i.e., the final, likely irrevocable division of the AC in a massive schism, basically rending asunder the orthodox and liberal wings of Anglicanism. Well, is so, I say: it’s time to start thinking the unhinkable!
Granted, amputation of a limb or two is a very drastic measure and ought to be a matter of last resort. But that’s the sad reality. Much of western Anglicanism is so fatally compromised by outright heresy (ideological pluralism as an ism, moral relativisim etc.) that it constitutes the equivalent of gangrene. Let’s face it. It’s time to amputate the liberal dioceses and bishops in the Anglican Communion, before their theological errors kill the whole body.
Let me be specific. I firmly believe that there are two absolute necessities that MUST appear in this new Covenant for it to actually work and provide the basis for TRUE unity in the future. Both are extremely controversial and divisive. But that’s exactly why we’re in the mess we’re in.
First, the Covenant MUST be unequivocal on the authority of Holy Scripture as the word of God written and “the ultimate rule of faith and practice” (as asserted at Lambeth 1886 in the famous Quadrilateral, and often affirmed since). I do NOT believe we can simply repeat the language of the Quadrilateral. We must GO BEYOND it and recapture the “core doctrine” stated clearly in the old Article XX of the 39 Articles. That is, we must say something to the effect that the Bible provides the constitutional norm for doctrine in Anglicanism so that NOTHING that is contrary to what is taught clearly and consistently in Holy Scripture can ever be taught as doctrine in any province of Anglicanism. Period.
And so what if huge numbers of western Anglicans balk at this? Let them walk apart. I say, “Good riddance!”
Second, the Covenant MUST directly address the issue of homosexual behavior and categorically rule it out for Anglicans. Period. No loopholes. No wavering and waffling. The Covenant must GO BEYOND the controversial Lambeth 1998 resolution 1:10 and state not only that such immoral practice is “incompatible with Holy Scripture” (which of course it is) and roundly and dogatically declare in no uncertain terms that it is also “CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF GOD.”
Once again, who cares if that means that huge numbers of liberal Anglicans refuse to go along with that?? And if the Archbishop of Canterbury himself can’t sign it, let him be excluded too! And I mean that literally.
It’s time for REAL CHANGE. It’s time for REAL UNITY.
David Handy+
“Ever Effervescent” Advocate of a radical New Reformation
Dale Rye (#59.) said,
“If the Communion splits, those who would take the Anglican option will have to choose which sort of Anglican they are from among at least two choices. As Peter Toon has suggested, it could soon be many more than two, as the same centrifugal forces that tore apart the 1970s-era Continuing Church Movement act on 2008-era Continuing Anglicans. ”
I agree. But, it is my hope that unifying leadership will result in coalescence.
It may be that at first, there will be several such leaders and that will give the appearance of centrifugal disintegration into unrecoverable chaos.
But for those of us who are both Anglican and beleivers in the unity of the Church Catholic, such centrifugal force will be matched and overcome by the centrepetal force of the Church Catholic.
It may take a generation or two, but I would rather be a member of an Anglican-based fragment of the true Church Catholic during my lifetime than have anything further to do with the likes of ECUSA’s secular-progressive-revisionist leadership.
A few questions maybe someone can answer:
1- This is going thru what is hoped to be two more revisions before adoption. It would appear that attendance at Lambeth will have no impact on ones ability to offer comments. Am I incorrect on this? Will Dr. Radner be attending Lambeth? If not will he still have input?
2- I am not sure how this covenant addresses the sense of distrust and betrayal that seems to exist on both sides of the issues dividing the communion. I understand the “this is all we have” statement – I just don’t understand how it gets us anywhere? There are reasons people are cautious (unwilling) about meeting (listening).
Paul (#63.) said,
“I am not sure how this covenant addresses the sense of distrust and betrayal that seems to exist on both sides of the issues dividing the communion.”
Paul, you speak of “two sides”. My “side” is “the Faith once given,” nothing more and nothing less.
The other “side” seems to be that of the temporal views of white, decadent and self-justifying argumentation that is so prevalent in Europe, the USA, Canada, parts of Australia and New Zealand.
There really aren’t two sides. There is the side of “the Faith once given” and what the other side ‘makes’ of it.
#60
Cheer up Driver8 – God’s in charge.
Perhaps we are all being asked the question Christ asked Peter, which is probably the same question Dr Sentamu was asked on behalf of us on his recent visit to the Vatican :
“Who do you say that I am?”
If you have not done so do check out the Interim Report on the [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/anglican_catechism_in_outline_acio_interim_report/ ]Anglican Catechism in Outline [/url] prepared by a group with Dr Poon on the Global South Anglican website. In terms of discerning a way forward for us in the Communion I thought it would be a very productive discussion aid for Lambeth and the Covenant discussion there rather than Bishop Jones’ peculiar offering.
#60 today is a good day to acknowledge before God what we are and what we have become. God is indeed sovereign and Jesus is Lord. It is exactly this acknowledgement that invites the repentance of which our churches seem incapable and thus we step aside again from God’s healing.
#66 Yes, you are right Driver8 – that is a good thing for us to concentrate on during Lent and perhaps all join the Bunny #54 in prayer for ourselves and for our church. Thankyou.
By being “realistic”, I didn’t mean being gloomy or pessimistic. I meant, in a sense, being willing to “gird up one’s loins”, and get to work. I am not particularly gloomy. In assessing this — or any “Anglican Covenant”, there are a number of questions one might ask:
1. Does it articulate the basic shape of the Anglican churches’ commitments of faith and order, both historically and in terms of genuine desire?
2. Does it articulate a way of living together that is a positive witness to the Gospel of Christ and the Christian calling in general?
3. Will it, if followed, provide a strengthening foundation for the healing of division with other Christians and Christian traditions?
4. Does it accurately reflect and respond to the realities of human failing within our churches and the Church Universal?
I don’t think this second Draft is answers all these (and other similar) questions perfectly. But I think that it is, in fact, a stronger document than the first draft in this regard. The bishops at Lambeth will have the opportunity formally to weigh in on these kinds of questions, and will do so (we hope) after having consulted with their people, and not only at a provincial level.
There are also questions that are to the side of the draft Covenant, and that are, in a sense, irrelevant to its purpose. These might include:
1. Does the present draft provide this or that group with comfort in its present arguments regarding, say, same-sex blessings and TEC and autonomy of action?
2. Does the present draft provide a judgment on TEC’s current position in the Communion?
3. Does the present draft solve our problems and get this or that new bishop “recognized” or separate out this or that conflicted province?
It is not that these last questions are not, apart from the Covenant, important ones. But the Covenant is not and never was conceived of and therefore designed to answer them. And to evaluate it on these terms is to engage in a category mistake.
Although the Covenant is meant to reflect certain present commitments, it is really, at this stage about the FUTURE, not the present: if this is what it will mean to live as the Anglican Communion, am I up to it or willing to do it or desirous of doing it? (“I” being a church and those within it — bishops, clergy, laity.) If and when the time comes to embrace a partnership within the Covenant, some will choose to do so, and some will choose not to. That choice, at that time, will reflect that church’s will, and nothing else. Speaking predictively, it is likely that some churches will choose NOT to sign on. The remarks from some posters here would suggest that they believe that TEC will not be among those who choose not to. I cannot say; but I rather think that most indications at present point in the other direction. (Sarah thinks that “TEC is doing okay in its relationships with the Communion” at present. But TEC, in its current executive configurations, is dying, and with that death is also dying its current form of relationship with the Communion. This reality ought to alter radically the judgment of “all is lost” that so many seem to have embraced here.) It may be that some churches will choose not to sign on, but will later come to a different view and will they will have the chance to do so at that later time. In any case, a useful exercise would be to ask:
What might be the reasons, based on the shape of the Covenant itself, that a given church would or would not wish to sign on to this (or some other) Covenant sometime in the future? Are such reasons reflective of faithfulness, or of something less? If in fact this Covenant represents they the Anglican churches, in their general Christian vocation and in their particular historical vocation, are called to live, why would I or someone else not wish to be a part of it?
We have been talking about “credibility” a bit on this thread; so another question might be:
What would it take build the trust that TODAY is insufficient to covenant with one another, so that in the FUTURE this or that given church is able to sign on with a sense of hope?
My guess is that an answer to this last question has little to do with the Covenant itself — indeed, I don’t see how it could — but with realities on the ground at present that remain in a shambles. But I think that separating the present from the future in this way, the shambles of current relationships and decision-making and forms of action and interaction from the future of a chosen and willed way of common life, is helpful. For one thing, it rightly raises another question:
Why would one ever think that people who are not willing today to sign such a Covenant would ever be trustworthy to do so in the future? And this question, I think, drives us back (on the Ash Wednesday, no less!) to a critical evalution, not of of the Covenant, or of this or that church, but of ourselves.
A follow-up to my white-hot #61,
First, I apologize for the many typo’s in #61. I wrote in haste without proofreading sufficiently as I had been called to dinner and was eager to post it first. I wrote very much in the spirit of Paul’s rather impetuous and venhement Letter to the Galatians (as opposed to the more moderate Letter to the Romans that deals with some of the same topics like justificastion) But I stand by the gist of what I wrote.
I wholeheartedly believe that this is no time for compromises with the well-intentioned heretics and irresponsible traitors who have hijacked so much of the western provinces of Anglicanism and recklessly led TEC into schism and brought the AC to the brink of disaster. It is time for all-out theological warfare in the name of the Prince of Peace. This is no time for half-measures.
Having picked on the honorable Dr. Radner and the CDG above in #61, let me take a shot at Dale Rye next and his #16 early in this thread. He wrote (and in so doing represents the viewpoint of a great many others in the AC, conservatives and liberals alike):
“There is NO SUPPORT AT ALL for eliminating provincial authonomy. Not a single one of the 44 churches would support that.”
Well, even I wouldn’t favor “ELIMINATING” provincial autonomy. But I admit that I do believe in strictly LIMITING provincial autonomy. I contend that we absolutely must develop international structures with BINDING powers over provinces, such as the Anglican “Supreme Court” I keep calling for. The Bible is the true constitution of any Christian church worthyof the name, and this bitter conflict has proven beyond a doubt that we can no longer get along without a centralized international judicial body that can declare unbiblical actions of wayward provinces “unconstitutional” and thus null and void. Likewise, there must be a way of providing international controls on elections to the episcopate, where they are subject to review and nullification by the wider Communion. I’m serious. I really mean that. Now that would be a real Reformation worth fighting for and sacrificing a great deal to achieve.
That is, I do argue that we must clip the wings of the 38 provinces which are currently wholly autonomous for all practical purposes. I admit that what I desire is nothing less than a radical restructuring of Anglicanism to turn it into a single worldwide Church (and not a family of churches anymore) with SEMI-autonomous branches. That is NOT to morph into a Roman style church. But it IS to morph into a PATRISTIC style Church, with international councils that make BINDING decisions on both doctrine and discipline.
I recognize that this is very unpopular at present. But I firmly believe that nothing less is necessary. Our danger is NOT over-centralization and the threat of tyranny that goes with it (although the old fears of Romanism die hard). Rather, the real threat we face is sheer anarchy, such as we in fact see all around us today. We are in the situation described at the end of the Book of Judges, where there was chaos because “every man did what was right in his own eyes” since there was no king (Judges 21:25). Now mind you, I’m NOT advocating that we Anglicans need a “king.” I’m in favor of a plurality of archbishops who are real ARCHbishops, with limited but real coercive powers over the bishops under their jurisdiction (again, along patristic or Eastern Orthodox lines).
Or to return to one of Dr. Radner’s posts above (#26). He wrote:
“Those who have no confidence in, e.g., the Instruments of Communion, and therefore in the Covenant itself, will decide not to be a part of it.”
Well, I freely concede that I am one of those who have no confidence whatsoever in the Instruments of Communion AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST. But I’m not intending to leave. Instead I plan to stay and FIGHT for the radical OVERHAUL of those Instruments, including the formation of a 5th Instrument of Unity that would be that international, interprovincial Supreme Court I spoke of earlier in my provocative and incendiary post #61.
And one key aspect of that overhaul of the current Instruments is that they the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council must be totally revamped in order to become TRULY representative in the way jamesw suggested in post #44, i.e., by making representation in them based on actual size. It’s downright and silly and even preposterous for tiny provinces like Scotland, Wales, Korea, Japan, or Myanmar to have equal representation with the giant provinces: Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya. And yes, that means even the C of E (England) must be represented on the basis of actual worshipping members (maybe 3 million at best), instead of the huge numbers of completely lapsed “members” who may have been baptized but never come to church and don’t practice the Christian faith (the 26 million or so on the rolls). That means that Kenya outranks England now and should have more weight in our international councils as they morph into real synods.
Of course, if our international bodies are merely for modest things like consultation, building fellowship and renewing the famous “bonds of affection,” i.e., just liasons really, then equal repressentation makes sense. But plainly this is no longer enough.
Recall our American history. It is increasingly recognized that the Civil War and its aftermath represents “the Second Founding” of our republic (as, for example, Prof. Mark Noll, formerly of Wheaton, now of Notre Dame argued in a recent essay in First Things). Before the Civil War, Americans regarded the states as the primary authorities with the federal government as secondary and derivative. Tellingly, the customary usage was to speak of the United States as a plural subject, as in “The United States ARE…” After the war, things subtly changed and ever since we’ve spoken of the US in the singular, “the United States IS…”
What I’m suggesting is that we should see this great Anglican Civil War in a similar light. I hope and pray that it amounts to nothing less than “the Second Founding” of Anglicanism, with the provinces relegated to SECONDARY status as the SEMI-autonomous branch offices of the SINGLE worldwide ANglican CHURCH. Now that would be a real Reformation.
David Handy+
Never one to shy away from radical solutions
Never one to idolize moderation
If I am reading Dr. Radner right, he is stating the following:
1. The covenant was never meant to deal with the current crisis in the communion.
2. It is “imperative†that the current crisis be dealt with before the covenant can be entered.
3. The communion is not capable of dealing with the current crisis.
If some of us are making category mistakes (and I am definitely in that category!), perhaps it is because we are using the only categories we have left. I would hope those considering next steps realize that the three points above (with which I fully agree) lead inexorably to Jerusalem, not Lambeth.
Matt, you are quite right that asking the question, “how might a Covenant like this (or some other one) have been able to respond to a crisis like the present one?”. However, that is a very different question from the following: “how WILL this Covenant resolve our PRESENT problems?”. It is the last question that is a category mistake. A future covenant cannot solve a present difficulty.
As for the other question — “could it work?” — we played with this through a number of scenarios, some deliberately fantastic, some less so. We are by no means certain that the current proposals will do the job — hence, we are deliberately setting out this kind of approach, in concrete detail, so that others in the Communion can work through it and see where and what kind of issues need to be dealt with in a different way. I can offer detailed rationales about why we think the present procedures could work, but that is not the point here: this is something to be thought through with some percolating reflection, especially as one tries to imagine a potential scenario in the company of others who are able to raise questions and objections one might miss oneself, and as one actually attempts to articulate in writing what is involved. (Despite the sometimes cavalier claims that “all you need to do is say, ‘Let the Primates decide!”, that one sometimes hear, it is obvious from experience that more than this needs to be set down, and carefully so.)
One of the principles governing this entire section, with respect to its place within a future Covenant, is that a committed knowledge ahead of time regarding expected and formally accepted procedures is, IN ITSELF, a help to doctrinal discernment and discipline. One of the great burdens of the present crisis in the Communion has been the “make-it-up-as-you-go along” character of our responses. The Communion had no choice in this, but this has also given rise to enormous corporate anxiety, discouragement, reactive pressures, and the rest. One of the great differences between even this proposed procedural form and 2003 is that, in 2003 until the present, there has been no agreed-upon basis for proceeding at all. And many have concluded that the only way to outline a procedure is to shout more loudly than the person on the right or the left or to quit the playing field altogether because “I didn’t sign up for this”. Precisely.
Mark has not quite captured my meaning with his 3.): to be sure, the Communion is not proving itself capable to resolving the current crisis, but that is because it — that includes all of us — is approaching the problem with attitudes and reactions that are not suited to resolving it. To sign a Covenant will require a change in attitude, and that will include those going to Lambeth and those going to GAFCON’s meeting, and those going to both. If there is no change in attitude, such that one would make a commitment to the Covenant’s calling and responsibilities and methods of accountability, then going to Lambeth OR going to GAFCON, it strikes me, is all rather beside the point anyway. So, we are not now capable; but we had better pray that God (not Lambeth or GAFCON) will give us the gifts and will that might empower us.
I am in substantial agreement with what Ephraim Radner wrote in #68, especially when read together with his statement in #46 that he considers it an imperative that the relationship of TEC to the Communion must somehow be resolved, if only provisionally, before any proposed Covenant can be fruitfully entered into. Work on this draft cannot have been easy, and I thank Ephraim for his efforts. To the extent the second draft is, as he says, less than perfect, those who are so inclined ought to weigh in through whatever channels they feel they can use effectively.
Work on this draft cannot have been easy, and I thank Ephraim for his efforts.
Amen.
I find the timing of the release of this second draft very symbolic. Ash Wednesday represents the time when we are all faced most directly with the solemn reminder that we are mortal (as well as sinners in need of redemption and sanctification). “Remember you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
And to me this draft Covenant represents how the Anglicanism that we all have known and loved is likewise mortal, doomed to die, and will soon be relegated to the dustbin of history. Indeed, what I like to call “the Old Anglicanism” of necessity has to die, in order for “the New Anglicanism” to rise in its place, Phoenix-like from the ashes. Bishop Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted’s splendid speech last week in Charleston at the Mere Anglicanism Conference illustrated this nicely. The old Elizabethan Settlement is obsolete, not least because it was tied to the Christendom (Constantinian) social world in which it was born and which it was designed to serve. That world has virtually disappeared, not least in England itself, where we Anglicans represent “the Church of a tiny minority of England.” And as a result, Anglicanism IN ITS CURRENT FORM is disintegrating. It will not survive this crisis in anything like its former strength and numbers. The “fabric” of the Communion has not only been “torn,” it is being ripped to pieces. This process appears unstoppable. But that may be a blessing in disguise.
How so? Well, while much about the form and substance of the “New Settlement” that +Duncan spoke of is unclear, what is clear is that it will amount to a radical difference in KIND from the old, outdated, Christendom-based Settlement of the 16th century, not just a difference n degree from what we’ve known in the past. In other words, moderate, gradual, incremental change won’t suffice. What we need is drastic, sweeping, revolutionary change, not evolutionary change. At least, that is my firm and ever growing conviction.
Of course, we Anglicans have traditionally resisted such radical change (witness the deep, widespread resistance to the Evangelical Revival in the mid 1700s and the Catholic Revival in the mid 1800s). We traditionally favor a stress on continuity over discontinuity. But every once in a while (say, every 500 years or so), truly radical change becomes both possible and necessary due to the widespread perception of a genuine crisis, where maintaining or restoring the status quo is simply impossible. This is one of those times.
On this Ash Wednesday, as we enter into the holy season of Lent, let us hope that not only individually, but also corporately, we will experience that saving but traumatic passage from death to life that is at the heart of the Christian faith. May Anglicanism as a whole come to share in Jesus Christ’s own passing over from death to life.
The New Reformation is already underway, for better or worse, as the proceeding realignment makes clear. And I for one, am confident that it will be very much for the better. This is of course highly debatable; this conviction or perception is a matter of faith and can’t be proven. For we are in the awkward cocoon period at the moment. The Old Anglicanism (like the catepillar) is dying or metamorphosing into the beautiful butterfly that is the New (and superior) Anglicanism of the future. Thanks be to God!
David Handy+
Passionate Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Engine room to the Bridge: “Captain, we hit something big and we’re taking on water fast. I dunno if it was an iceberg, another boat, or what, but we need you to make a decision here.”
Captain: “Initiate the Windsor Process.”
Engine Room: “Excellent. What does the Windsor Process do?”
Captain: “It leads us to the Covenant Process.”
Engine Room: “Excellent. What does the Covenant Process do?”
Captain: “It helps us avoid future icebergs.”
Engine Room: “Excellent. Umm, one question the water’s pretty high now, should we abandon our posts or do you have further orders?…Hello?…Captain? You still up there?”
(Tune in next time to hear a certain marine biologist on board say, “Crisis? What crisis? There’s no crisis, only signs of abundant joy, and life, and togetherness.”)
So we’re in the middle of a huge bust up and the Covenant is about dealing with the next bust up. Have I got it right?
Actually, driver8, the “new and improved” covenant is written specifically for the revisionist splinter of the Anglican Communion. The Covenant design group has apparently written off the global south and tailored this new covenant for the offshoot of the AC that will contain the TEC and its cronies. It also assumes that the ABC will go with the heretics. Autonomy is in. Border integrity is in. Adherence to orthodoxy and tradition is out or merely optional.
We are in the midst of history (a terrible time to gain a very accurate perspective) but God is in charge, and we need to trust our various callings in the context of God’s providence…I think judgements about one another like I have read in this thread (see #73) show a certain lack of faith and faithfulness…the covenant is one of many attempts to be faithful in the current crisis…as is CANA…as is Gafcon…as are even the Windsor Bishops…one might even make a case that TEC is as well–although I tend to think not…but in God’s providence all things work together for God’s purposes…and in that we can trust…and in that we can be faithful in our various callings and in the same way in each other’s callings…that God is sovereign is the key, not the covenant.
OK, I will say it, we need a unifying source of authority – faithful to the received teachings of the church catholic (on authority, fellowship, mission and morality) and with trans-jurisdictional, juridical power. Let us face it. That is what we are hoping the Covenant will function like – to one degree or another – right? However, even future interpretations of the a Covenant will fall to solipsistic and politically imbued renderings of it. It really reminds me of Judges 17.6: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” Does this Covenant fit the bill? I do not see how it can – or maybe even should – in spite of our hopes to the contrary.
Nevertheless, thank you Dr. Radner for your hard work. I would be very interested in hearing about how this process has effected your ecclesiology.
Well, fo me the money quite is from Dr. Radner:
[blockquote]There are also questions that are to the side of the draft Covenant, and that are, in a sense, irrelevant to its purpose. These might include:
1. Does the present draft provide this or that group with comfort in its present arguments regarding, say, same-sex blessings and TEC and autonomy of action?
2. Does the present draft provide a judgment on TEC’s current position in the Communion?
3. Does the present draft solve our problems and get this or that new bishop “recognized†or separate out this or that conflicted province?
It is not that these last questions are not, apart from the Covenant, important ones. But the Covenant is not and never was conceived of and therefore designed to answer them. And to evaluate it on these terms is to engage in a category mistake.[/blockquote]
In other words the present situation in the AC is not addressed by this Covenant. Which means that, from my perspective, it is all a waste of time. We just had a member of my Order solve this conundrum by joining the Orthodox Church and maybe that is the best solution. That is, not only to get out of TEC, but out of the entire AC altogether.
Terwilliger wonders how my ecclesiology has been affected by this current “process”. That’s a very interesting question, given that the process — which goes, as far as I can see, from 1998 to the present — has obviously been, among other things, a fundamentally ecclesiological challenge that touches widely drawn elements of the Christian faith.
My own ecclesiology, however, has been and remains one defined by the Church as the Body of Christ understood in terms of the Cross. It is understanding the two realities as one — Body and Cross — that is the theological issue at stake. This has not changed for me. Given the entrenched division and mutual hostility and outright contradictions (of all kinds) that seem to lie at the heart of our Christian lives as Church/churches, I do not see any other ecclesiological way to move forward that is consonant with Scripture. There ARE other approaches, of course, that can deal with the historical realities of Christian life: radical sectarianism of one kind or another, or a kind of hyper-Lutheran ecclesiological “occasionalism”, wherein one sees the Church as being repeatedly “instantiated” when and only where the faith before the Word “happens” (a point of view that is deliberately ahistorical and rejecting of ecclesial continuities in any normal sense of the term). These two alternatives can be coherent, logically; and they have proved attractive for many, even in the present circumstances of Anglicanism (and both have their liberal AND conservative proponents). But I do not think that either altenrative has a compelling Scriptural foundation (indeed, I think they are “contrary to” Scripture in some significant ways).
In any case, my ecclesiology has NOT changed during these years; if anything, it has been given greater substance along its consistent lines. What HAS changed has been my sense of God’s timing in all of this, and, on a more personal level, the attitudes driven by my own disappointments. With respect to the question of “timing”, I think I really believed that matters with respect to the Communion’s life could be sorted out more surely and more quickly than has obviously been the case. That expectation was based, in part, on personal arrogance (God will do what I want, because what I want is right) and on a simple lack of realism about how a global, multi-cultural, and multi-personalitied “body” can actually function, take counsel, make decisions, maintain focus and so on. I have NOT moved to a judgment that we need greater centralization of authority. There are enormous dangers and problems associated with that, and the pre-Reformation, Reformation, and post-Reformation (negative) experiences of the Church in the West in relation to such dynamics of centralization (and in relation to the East) is not a reality one can brush under the carpet. But the alternative of non-local conciliarism is difficult to pursue, not least because it demands of Christian life elements that we have long-since, in modern Christianity as a whole, let go of (these elements are asectic, exegetical, and much more). God’s timing in all of this seems to be leading to the unmasking of our poverty before anything else can happen. Personally, I think this is a good. But it is a good that we have not, as a body, yet grasped. Where I have “changed” is in seeing more clearly what this good is, and that it is worth our long-term efforts.
In terms of personal reactions to disappointments, this is related to the previous item. The flip side of the “change” in sight and valuation regarding the “good” of God’s timing, is the toll this has evidently taken on relationships and inner strength — for me and for many, many others. We are often tired and discouraged, and we often descend into the grip of quite destructive vices that include anger and malice. While God works for our good, He does so often by allowing Satan to assault us — and, in this case, all of us, not just this or that individual. We have been warned in Scripture and in the example of our forbears that this will happen and that we are being led into a trial. “Do not be surprised”, says both Paul and Peter (not to mention Jesus). Being thrown back constantly upon the grace of God is a gift, but one that few of us are able to receive gladly at first. I think we are still in the “first” stages of this divine gift-giving, and hence we are living through much personal struggle and reaction. We could call the period of 1998 to the present, Stage One: Kicking Against the Goads, after Paul’s own experience. And this is precisely what we popularly call “reactiveness”, and why we are seeing it all around, including in our own hearts. When will this stage come to an end? Are we soon to enter the next one, as it were? We pray, even as we are changed.
The Covenant will not solve the present crisis. It was and is obvious that that the revisionists and orthodox camps could never come back together and that the they would not be turned. The revisionists will not turn back from their reckless innovations and the orthodox won’t be swayed by the cultural arguments. Thus, a “solution” would necessarily entail an amicable parting of ways. The question was and is where would the ABC land, with the majority orthodox camp or the rich minority revisionists? The current ABC certainly would like to end up with his liberal colleagues. This new and improved Covenant most definitely makes it easier for the ABC to land with heretics. The previous version pushed him the other way.
One subject I have not seen addressed is that “autonomy” seems to have different meanings to different groups. I have previously suggested that I believe the local understanding of “autonomy” may reflect the manner in which that country/province separated from Great Britain.
While the US did so sudenly and violently, that was no the norm in the British Empire. Most went through a gradual separation process, in which one of the final stages was internal self-governance or “autonomy”. I maintain that this history is why TEC seems to equate “autonomy” with independence, while most other countries/provinces understand “autonomy” as having a higher degree of interdependence. It remains symptomatic of our present difficulties that we cannot yet even agree what such basic words mean. Without such agreement, how could we expect a Covenant to succeed?
Dr. Radner,
Forgive my (maybe) misunderstanding. In your exchanges with the Rev. Kennedy you mention that the covenant is not intended to solve this present crisis. Then why has this whole covenant been developed anyway? The whole idea of a covenant only made itself know after GC2003, right? The covenant, by it’s very existence, is meant to solve the present problems. Otherwise, why have one?
Also you mentioned that the covenant attempts to take into account the “real” modes of communication and decision making that are present in the AC. If I may offer a Chesterton quote: “What is wrong with the world is that we do not ask what is right.” Shouldn’t the covenant attempt lay out the ideal of how the communion should function. I.E. what is the best (not just the “real”) way to accomplish a goal or be in communion with each other?
On a side note. I am very pleased and gladdened that you comment here. Your willingness to explain your thoughts show a real and very tangible commitment to your brothers and sisters in Christ. Openness of communication is rare it seems, but your continued engagement is a model to others and myself. Thank you.
St. D.O — thanks for the kind remarks. Your questions are good ones, and it is surely my overemphasizing of certain things at the expense of other important elements that creates confusion.
Of course the Covenant is a kind of “response” to the present crisis within the Communion. It would be disingenuous to claim otherwise. But it is a repsonse that is aimed, less at the immediate issues and parties in involved in the present crisis, than at the larger context that has allowed these matters to assume crisis form: the matters of TEC etc. have acted as a wake-up call to the Communion to adjust to new demands of common life and decision-making. As Canterbury and others have noted, there are plenty of potentially divisive issues awaiting us on the horizon that we already know about but have not yet had to tackle — e.g. lay presidency at the Eucharist (promoted by, among others, the Archdiocese of Sydney), communion of the unbaptized, radical prayerbook revision — and others that we don’t even know about yet. We need to reorder our common commitments in a way that will allow us to meete these challenges faithfully and without the same kind of disintegrative dynamics of the present. So, yes, the proposed Covenant has been occasioned by current issues; and its character is certainly being informed by what we have been learning from and in the current confusions; but its orientation is towards the future, not the present.
Your second question also prods some clarification. I agree: the point isn’t simply to adjust to (fallen) realities of human/ecclesial interaction and behavior. The Covenant’s commitments should aim at something “higher”. And I think that it does, insofar as its embrace will presuppose a set of Christian attitudes and forms of common behavior that will be DIFFERENT from the present, and that will require growth in the fruits of the Spirit vis a vis today. But it will also need to take account of what we have learned from the past few years with respect to the intrinsic limitations on anmd possibilities for global, inter-cultural, and trans-ideological communtion and decision-making. That is the “reality” to which I was referring. And these cannot be ignored simply because they seem to “slow things down” and require “too much patience” or demand unacceptable “self-restraint” and so on. The latter virtues are precisely those we need to seek after, through God’s grace and our own discipline, so that we can be true to the shape of our world and shared existence.
Thank you Dr. Radner for your personal reflections on my question to you. I appreciate your transparency and clarity. I also appreciate the godly patience that comes out of your reflection on the issue of God’s timing and what we are called to. I will ponder your response even as I do my own self-analysis in the midst of my deep dissatisfactions. Your reflections are greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
I would echo others’ notes of appreciation to Dr. Radner for his work in the CDG, the ACI, and elsewhere in the Communion, and for his dropping by to dialogue here on this and other blogs. I don’t always agree with Dr. Radner, but I will say that of all the individuals at play in the Communion right now, there are few who I respect more, few whom I would trust more, and few whose opinion I would value more highly. The Communion is indeed fortunate to have somebody of Dr. Radner’s calibre and humility at this critical time.
I second the commendations and thanks that others above have given to Dr. Radner+. He has hung in there through thick and thin over many years of tumultuous and difficult controversy when he came under attack from all sides. And he has helped raise this bitter controversy to a higher level of dignity and depth (as the whole ACI team has done). I salute him for that.
Alas, I must also balance that commendation with strong feelings of disappointment that he and the rest of the elite ACI team have failed to exercise the kind of bold LEADERSHIP that I think has been required. In the end, I strongly disagree with their diagnosis of the situation and I also have a very different vision of the future that I believe God is calling us to pursue. No need to revisit that in depth now. But I see the ACI team as seeking to defend a completely outdated and unworkable form of Anglicanism, essentially seeking just modest incremental change when I believe hothing less than a total overhaul of Anglicanism is tragically necessary. They appear to seek mere “renewal.” I will not be content with anything less than a radical, sweeping, drastic Reformation, comparable in its transforming power to the original Reformation of the 16th century. Doubtless, it will also be equally divisive. But that’s secondary! Doctrine trumps polity. As I said above, it’s time for REAL CHANGE. It’s time for REAL UNITY. The fact is I have NOTHING is common with the apostate leaders of TEC. Nothing that matters anyway.
David Handy+
Fierce Proponent of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism, with all the far-reaching ramifications that implies
Well, frankly, I haven’t grasped how the Covenant cannot address the current crisis and still has the audacity to exactly do that in matters of geographic boundaries. If one must leave out the precious gay-agendites’ dynamiting of the AC, how can they address the responses to the said dynamiting. Obviously by talking until the death of the parties is completed. No cancer surgery. Just supportive measures until cellular death is complete, that’s the proper approach, apparently.