The British publication International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church commissioned a volume on Covenant and Communion in 2007. This essay was prepared by invitation for that volume several months ago, and it will appear in published form in May 2008. It was posted on the ACI site so that it could be referred to in the context of a General Seminary event in New York last week. The remarks prepared for that context are much briefer, and aimed at a more general audience. They should be posted as well on the ACI site shortly. This was an event attended by Archbishop Gomez and Gregory Cameron, as well as others. Archbishop Gomez is on the ACI Board. I was present as representative of Wycliffe College, University of Toronto.
In order both to set limits and for clarity’s sake-themes to which I shall return- the present essay will undertake theological reflection on covenant and the appropriateness of using this term for work presently before us in the Anglican Communion. This requires some threshold consideration. By ”˜theological reflection’ I mean, giving a comprehensive account of Scripture with concern for its total, mutually-informing witness. I take this to be the concern of one of the Articles, with a long prior history, that scripture be read in such a way that its portions be not repugnant, one with another. The same concern also animates what in our present period is called ”˜canonical reading.’
It will be a basic contention of the present essay that this hermeneutical caution is traceable to the rule (kanon; regula) of faith (regula fidei) in the early church. Indeed, in the period of the formation and consolidation of New Testament writings and especially relevant because of the character of that ”˜work-in-progress,’ the rule grounds Christian convictions about the nature of God in Christ in the witness of the stable, inherited scriptures of Israel. The rule of faith is an appeal to the total witness of scripture, especially the Old Testament, as constituting the speech and work of the selfsame Living God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in Israel and in the Apostolic witness to Jesus Christ.
This 12-page essay contains a lot of good, solid theology about the concept of covenants in Holy Scripture, their various and dynamic character and so on. But the application of this biblical data to our Anglican crisis is very muted and restrained. Dr. Seitz ably shows that there is nothing inherently unbiblical about the idea of creating an Anglican Covenant.
But unfortunately, I see little practical payoff here beyond that rather minimal point. Alas, to me, it seems to be “Much Ado about Nothing,” or very little anyway. What Prof. Seitz has not done is to explain how this new proposed Anglican Covenant would really solve our problems. To me, it’s just a case of “Too little, too late.”
I would much prefer an Anglican Covenant that resembled the Deuteronomic form that Dr. Seitz discusses. And that covenant form, resembling the Assyrian 8th century BC vassal treaty forms that clearly influenced the composition of Deuteronomy (especially in its Josianic edition around 622 BC), should include a much more specific historical prologue section (comparable to Deut. 1-11 in the final, canonical form of the sacred text), a lot more specific stipulations (akin to Deut. 12-26), and something clearly comparable to the long blessings and curses at the end that spell out the consequences of obedience and disobedience (in Duet. 27-28).
That is, our specific current crisis should be explicitly acknowledged and dealt with (i.e., as in the historical prologue), including a specific, explicit condemnation of the pro-gay position as not only unbiblical but contrary to the will of God (in the stipulations section), and provinces that violate the classic and normative teaching of the Bible and the Christian moral tradition should be forthrightly BANISHED from the AC until they repent (with the kind of clarity that resounds in Deut. 28).
And if the western provinces balk at this, as they surely would? Fine. Let them be banished from the AC and denied the right to call themselves Anglican. The whole point of the Anglican Covenant should be the clarification of doctrinal boundaries and their ecclesiastical consequences, not the maintencance of a spurious institutional unity that is no real unity at all. Doctrine trumps policty. Not vice versa. Let’s make that clear, once and for all.
David Handy+
Fr. Handy, remember that the Assyrian and Hittite treaty forms, as used in the OT, are between unequals. God is the suzarian and Israel the vassel. That is, God is in the superior position. That is not what is being proposed for this Anglican covenant.
David,
I think the reason that this article and Goddard’s below have faulty conclusions is that the authors’ thinking has been distorted by their relationships—they are unable to draw the conclusions a reader would expect from the content of their writings because they are at war with people who would agree with those logical conclusions, and so they now find themselves instead blowing smoke for the likes of Jefferts-Shori by default…
One of the things to remember is that the ACI is not writing for the likes of most readers of Titus1:9. Likewise, this article seems destined for some journal, but still one wonders about the intended audience.
ABp Gomez gave a recent lecture on the covenant process (aside: I hate processes), and Jenny Te Paa was in the audience. She dismissed the whole thing as an attempt to extent male hegemony over the oppressed female in the church. Appealing to scriptural bases for the covenant certainly is irrelevant to the likes of her.
Then there is the likes of Katherine Jefferts-Schori and the cadre of the TEO, together with their sycophants (this would comprise the majority of the house of bishops and provinces like Brazil, etc.). Appealing to anything but raw power is a waste of time.
Then there is essentially all the orthodox who need no convincing of the need for a covenant and its scriptural basis but only differ in the details.
So to whom is this directed? My guess is the extremely small audience of reappraisers with integrity. In particular, there is a dialog between Ephraim+ and the Anglican Scotist at AS’s site that is enlightening. Will Chris Seitz’ essay sway AS and the small collection of like minded people (one might include, say, Aspinall of Australia). In a sense which may be overly blunt, it doesn’t really matter.
[i] Please comment on the essay, not the individuals. [/i]
This is my first comment on TitusOneNine, though I’ve been following for 18 months now.
Just two days ago I had re-read Dr. Radner’s presentation of the proposed covenant to the HOB last March, so I was eager to read Seitz’s essay. I tried reading it on line, but found the essay too hard to follow with out printing a copy and doing my John Madden thing with circles, Xs and arrows to help me follow the argument. That did not bode well for me.
A couple thoughts.
1) I agree with Robroy in asking, “Who is the audience?” but perhaps for a different reason. It is written in tortured academic prose that I think would put off the average reader of, say, First Things. So the non-technical audience is gone. In addition I find it hard to imagine anyone being pursuaded by this: convinced of some sort of validity maybe, but not pursuaded to DO anything.
2) I could not find a satisfying notion of covenant in the essay. The word seemed to mean anything from a mere “temporary arrangement” to permanent communion. I would think that in the current situation some people would want a narrower sense of the word for purposes of discussion. However, I realize that vague and mutable definitions sometimes satisfy a larger group than clearly delimited ones.
3) This may be treading on thin ice, but I’ll continue. When I was a young man “marriage” was considered a covenant, and preachers used the language of covenant to describe marriage, and vice versa. TEC, and two other (Wales? Canada?) provinces of the AC have been consecrating re-married Bishops, thus diminishing the notion of covenant to something like contract. At least they have diminished the notion of marriage to that of contract, but I haven’t kept track closely enough to know if TEC has de-linked marriage from the notion of covenant. If so then my critique is a bit mis-guided. It would be much more intellectually satisifying if TEC maintained a credible link between the notions of a life-long covenant of marriage (the RC view) and church-to-church or God-to-church covenants. There truly is a butterfly effect.
Bob Siletzky (#4),
Welcome to the elite club of T19 commenters! You certainly chose a rather difficult topic or post to make your initial comment on. Bravo for having the courage.
Alas, this essay by Dr. Seitz doesn’t show him at his best. He can be much more clear and compelling when he takes the time and effort to write for a broader audience and when he writes with a clear practical goal in mind. Now maybe he had such a goal in mind here, but I admit that it escapes me too. Reading this learned essay is like overhearing one side of a phone conversation; we can only guess what the person on the other end of the line is saying. Prof. Seitz is responding to someone and something, but apart from his general defense of the idea of an Anglican Covenant, it’s unclear what his real point is.
As for TEC and the idea that marriage is a life-long “covenant” as opposed to a mere contract, I think this is probably another case where many leaders in TEC still use biblical words like “covenant,” but then re-interpret them as they wish, substituting new meanings for them. That is what can be so confusing. But their actions make things clear enough. And plainly, in TEC, divorce and remarriage is now treated quite casually. Witness (and I know it’s all too easy to pick on him) the infamous case of Bp. Beisner of Northern CA, who is not just once but twice divorced, and is now on his third mariage. Actions speak louder than words. And often clearer too.
Again, welcome Bob. Keep posting!
David Handy+