Why do we need a Covenant at all?
A covenant has been proposed, not to change the nature of Anglicanism or the nature of the Anglican Communion, but in order faithfully to respond to developments that have already taken place within our common life as Anglicans. These developments have to do with the enormous blessing God has given to the missionary receipt of the Gospel within different parts of the globe over the past 150 years through the Anglican church. Many of these blessings, though taking form over a long period, did not become apparent in their scope until just the past few decades, as Anglican churches in Africa and Asia especially, as well as in other parts of the world, have emerged as vital and Spirit-filled Christian communities, themselves engaged in a broad range of missionary endeavors. The Covenant seeks to address how Anglicans around the world, although no longer bound by the past habits and culture of a more restricted British and Anglo-American fraternity, will maintain their unity and energy as they witness to the Gospel.
At the same time, the Anglican Communion has always understood itself to be “bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” (Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 49). This eschewal of a “central legislative and executive authority” has always been understood as embodying the Anglican charism of “mutual responsibility and interdependence” (to use the phrase from the 1963 Anglican Congress), exercised under the “ultimate” authority of the Scriptures themselves. Given this tradition, “procedure” in terms of common council and behavioral norms of common decision-making with regard to the meaning and application of Scripture’s rule must take a higher profile for Anglican churches than perhaps for some other Christian ecclesial communities. The Covenant is designed to address this traditional need for procedural faithfulness.
I must confess to being indifferent to the covenant. It may do more harm than good as people who have no intention of following it will sign it and then claim that they are in communion with their polar opposites. But I doubt that it will have any more effect than the 39 articles. It can be the newest item in the historical documents section of the BCP.
Any organization must have the power of exclusion. A gun club, for example, has certain safety rules for the good of the other shooters and breaking one of those rules can lead to one’s expulsion so fast you wouldn’t have to think about it. If the AC professes to have a common beliefs than those who do not hold to those beliefs should expect to be excluded. If the AC does not profess to have any common beliefs, then of course any one can be a member regardless of belief, but I have wonder as to what purpose?
Any covenant must be written only ‘by the orthodox, of only orthodoxy and for the orthodox that the Faith of the Apostles should not vanish from the earth.’ (apologies to ALincoln)
In other words, any Anglican Covenant should NOT be one, as a blogger wrote, one that anyone and their third cousins, including all the ayatollahs could happily sign.
We must clarify what it means to be a member of the AC. The objectives of covenant as described in the primer are essential to building that clarity:
[blockquote]It will seek the official and solemn commitments of Provincial (and possibly diocesan) Anglican churches around the world to a common set of doctrinal, missionary, and decision-making standards.[/blockquote]
Must all of these objectives be satisfied by a single covenant document? My concern is that by including all of these elements in a single document it is implied that decision-making standards have the same weight as key doctrinal positions.
[blockquote]Is it possible to complete this process with Christian integrity while churches in the Communion are currently in conflict?[/blockquote]
If we agree on the doctrine of sin and salvation only through the intervention of Jesus as described in scripture and repeatedly reaffirmed in the BCP, then we can legitimately debate women’s ordination and other matters but if we do not agree on what it means to be Christian there is no point trying to debate anything else!
[blockquote]For instance, the Anglican commitment to Scripture’s ultimate authority, although articulated, is not as consistently applied throughout the Covenant as it might be.[/blockquote]
The “commitment to Scripture’s ultimate authority” can be accomplished by: 1) Creating a doctrinal covenant that clearly upholds the authority of scripture and the essential and unique role of Christ in our salvation, 2) Specifying that all mission and decision-making activity must promote the doctrines of the AC. In other words we are united with other Christians through Christ as defined by a doctrinal covenant and our unique mission and methodology within the body of Christ is defined by a Anglican covenant.
Any group or individual that agrees with our doctrinal covenant would be recognized as fellow Christians but participation in the decision-making bodies would be contingent on affirmation of both covenants.
I agree with Br Michael. What I have read of the Covenant proposals so far seem to indicate that there is the usual liberal conniving to prevent the covenant from having any real force or ability to hold people to their word — on purpose.
All you “unity at all costs” poeple: please wake up to the fact that real doctinal orthodoxy MUST be present for this to work and that is precisely what the leftists will prevent at all costs.
The only real unity can only be IN Jesus Christ. How can those who do not believe that He is truly the only-begotten Son of God, truly risen from the dead and the only Savior find any untiy in Him?
No one ever wants to deal with THIS question, and until we really do we will just keep playing an empty political game.
If, and I think this is the case, TEC is willing to break the AC over this issue, and the Communion Conservatives are not, then the TEC has the greater power of will and they will win in so far at the AC is concerned. Now we know that in the end God will prevail, but I do not think He has any interest in preserving the AC if it does not put Him first.
David Handy: Can the covenant have its best purpose if its operation is controlled by a council? Does the covenant, if put in place, remove the necessity or desirability of a council? I myself put the counsiliar church organization first because it is likely to have more real power to adjudicate and to make vital distinctions. Larry
As usual with ACI writings, one wonders who the audience is. Is it to moderate liberals like Fred Hilz? Is to raving, power-is-everything liberals like Bruno or Tanner-Irish?
It certainly is not to any orthodox because it does not speak to any of the concerns listed above and elsewhere here and at Standfirm.
Are we pandering the Covenant to the liberals, removing any teeth so that it will be accepted by the likes of Tanner-Irish? It seems so.
As the many statements coming out of GAFCon show, Rowan Williams has a severe loss of trust issue, even with clergy in England but especially with the African clergy. My main concern is that the old ditherer becomes the ultimate arbiter of everything in the new scheme. Others have voiced this concern as well. Yet Ephraim+ ignores this. Again, to whom is he talking?
I wonder if one of the things we may be determining–here Gafcon is proving very interesting–is the degree to which the environment of US problems and blog conjecturing about how they will be solved is simply not a good gauge of genuine Communion leadership and thinking, including the GS leadership. I am constantly surprised, and pleased, at how the GS has its own concerns; at Gafcon, one message we may be hearing is, ‘we have our own priorities and our own way of addressing these.’ I say this in part because it is by no means clear that ‘the concerns of T19 or Standfirm’ (#8) translate directly into the work as it goes on in our Communion. The danger is always real that a blog environment heats certain things up, disproportionate to reality, because it is dominated by certain individuals and certain local concerns. Gafcon is blowing fresh and unexpected winds.
The preliminary statement issued today (Thursday) by ++Nzimbi is interesting. He says that in order to “build on the experience of GAFCON and see it become a movement and not simply a moment” we need an “agreed theological framework and appropriate structures to sustain its growth.”
#10 — I certainly agree that we are looking at an open book. I would anticipate some kind of concern for conservatives in TEC, but also a willingness to examine a range of governance issues. The Primates Meeting needs an executive council of some kind (ACI is on record about this). +Rochester has called for proportional representation for the ACC (a good idea). +RDW himself acknowledged in the St Sergius talks (Leander Harding graciously indicated where they could be read) that a revamp of governance structures was in order (I suspect he wearies of being cast always in the villain role). I am hopeful about Gafcon because it appears that a wider range of concerns has emerged, and that a single agenda of ‘how to be separate’ has not emerged.
#11-I hope you’ll find this as amusing as I did. When I read ++Nzimbi’s remarks I assumed that he was referring only to those who are sympathetic to Gafcon (and creating a theological framework and structures for them). You read his comments, I believe, as relating to reforming the entire communion. We’ll learn more about what he meant in time, but I was humorously reminded that our personal hopes and desires can often color how we read these statements.
#12 — it is simply that, knowing key leaders in the GS, my judgment is affected by the awareness that they are not leaving but are working for a better Communion. In this sense they rightly prize a common mind and a sense of differentiation, so as to work at objectives — just as we hope will be the case with Communion Partners in the US. Differentiation is not a weaker cousin of separation, but a different strategic model. Will a Gafcon communique call for a separate province in the US? This may well happen, as it is reflective of certain strains within the GS. This is not the way forward for those of us working with the differentiation model, but if it was, my question would be: how does calling for a thing make it so? Surely 815 will fight to the end against a rival province created by forces outside their own councils. So, there was never going to be a quick fix, and I doubt that Gafcon was ever designed to solve US-based problems as its top priority anyway.
13-I think we agree that the differences are great enough that something needs to be done whether that’s differentiation or establishing separate structures, theological frameworks, etc. The steps can be incremental. To begin with I would like to see a covenant agreement between the orthodox provinces.