St. Paul, in relation to just such a divine grace, ties the “richly indwelling Word” (Col 3:16) to the relational virtues of peace, harmony, forgiveness, and love. But also, because what is involved here is a coming to one mind, a learning, what is required is a discipline within the church, where “admonishment”, of the kind he himself was willing to offer, is a necessary and essential aspect of the Scripture’s power to bring minds together. “Discipline”, after all, is a word cognate with “disciple”, the “student” who learns through following and standing ever near. The “teacher” points to the Scriptures and holds the student ”“ the disciple ”“ close to its formative demands. And “discipline” represents that framework of order through which this teaching or Scriptural indication is permanently applied.
If the councils of the church in the Communion exercise a magisterium, it is in just this way. And it is a way that, arguably, the Communion is currently engaging.
The goal of any Covenant for the Communion, then, would further the one-mindedness of Anglican churches through the discipline of Scriptural listening. Does the conciliar model of the current proposal do this? It would appear, at least, that this is exactly what is happening in the present ”“ we are, through the interplay and adjudication of our councils, being taken close to the Scriptures and made to hear them, often in contested ways to be sure, but ultimately in “symphonic” or agreed upon ways, even if not all are convinced at once. And thus it would seem that the proposal itself is in general congruent with the goal. If anything, the Proposed Covenant could be strengthened through a greater Scriptural focus that linked conciliar discernment with Scriptural conformity and “non-repugnance”, to use the Articles’ own phraseology. This is a point that underlines the fact that Anglican identity need not be sacrificed by stepping to the side of full-fledged confessionalism. Rather, as John Webster has noted, confessions “bind only as [they] present the Gospel’s claim” (Nicene Christianity, p. 131). Agreeing in the truth of God’s holy Word is the act that receives that claim as God’s, and hence makes confession ”“ the “one-speaking” (1 Tim. 6:12f.) that comes from “one-mindedness” — possible. To this act, the Communion is now called to give itself.
This was but one of the papers presented at last week’s Conference in Oxford that I was privilieged to attend–read it all.
I appreciated Radner’s exposition of the importance according to Scripture of “common-mindedness.” But there will be a huge uphill battle to convince many (most?) within TEC of its importance I fear.
On page 10 of their Covenant response paper, the Executive Council and other leaders of the Diocese of Southeast Florida stated:
[i]Indeed, the suggestion that there is a “common mind†for 38 churches around the world is not realistic either as a description or as a goal.[/i]
http://www.diosef.org/ResponsetoDraftAnglicanCovenant.pdf
And Southeast Florida has not (at least up until now, things may be changing?) among the more extreme reappraising dioceses in ECUSA.
Troubling.
Covenant with confession. Covenant without confession.
My concern is more pragmatic. The announcement of the Covenant design study committee was about as stacked deck against the proposed Covenant as one could imagine. “Over my dead body” succinctly summarizes the [url=http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/06/responses-to-questions-on-draft.html]thoughts on the proposed covenant[/url] of Mark Harris, prominent member of the new committee.
So the liberal TEC will never participate. Does the Anglican communion without the puerile TEC even need a covenant? It seems to me that underlying reason for a covenant is so that the TEC can declare themselves out of communion rather than the rest of the communion declaring it for them. The rejection of the covenant will, this time, scout’s honor, really be the last straw, no I mean it. [i]Has the Anglican church become so impotent?[/i] Impotency, in contrast to boldness, certainly well describes the early invitations to those that thumb their noses in a most un-Christian manner to other members of the communion.
As an oxymoronic (or just moronic) conservative Episcopalian, will the covenant help me one iota? Fellow conservatives are leaving in droves. Even though the numbers of AMiA, CANA, etc are growing nicely, their numbers are probably a minority of the disaffected Episcopalian diaspora. The time for action is probably past, but I still hold onto hope. This autumn or certainly no later than Lambeth 08 is the time to lose all hope. And it is foolhardy in the extreme to hold any such hope that involves the TEC. Any and all relevant aspirations of the conservatives reside in a yet to be created alternative Anglican province in America. Such a structure would necessarily require the participation of continuing churches, those churches which have been held in disregard or even disdain by members of the ACI.
The covenant as an indirect method of excluding the TEC from the Anglican communion is of little worth to conservative and liberal Episcopalians, to continuing church members and to the communion as a whole. There could be value of the covenant for a basis a new, TEC-less Anglican communion so that history does not repeat itself, something to be explored [i]after[/i] the expulsion.
I sat yesterday in a most frustrating meeting of clergy looking at the Anglican Covenant. If there was a prevailing theme of the meeting it was “I don’t want to be told what I should believe,” and that old and tired chestnut that we don’t need clarity of belief, all we need is love. Ye gods, I thought I was back in the 1960s for a few minutes!
Clarity of belief was condemned by some of the more vocal as unloving, insensitive, and irrelevant, but what was fascinating was that no one could come up with any real alternative, except being free to slop around all over the place. I am not sure that there was the grace required in the way that I said my piece in response to all this, but it was received as so much water off a duck’s back.
What was particularly fascinating was the small-minded insularity of those rejecting any notion of a theological covenant. The Proposed Covenant as I read it does little more that re-affirm the fundamentals of Anglicanism and present a possible structural manner for moving forward, but with many of those speaking it was doomed.
As one who has spent a good part of his ministry working within the context of the wider Communion, those giving a thumbs-down on the Covenant had little or no idea of the nature of the Anglican Communion, and neither were they prepared to hear or listen to the wisdom of those who come from elsewhere — particularly Africa. It was as if we have all that matters already wrapped up, so please don’t upset my applecart.
Those of us who are committed to global Christianity and an Anglican Communion which seeks to address the challenges of a rapidly changing world were perceived as narrow and bigoted, but I heard little that was helpful or constructive from those who live within the tiny little culture of a self-referential Episcopalianism that has soaked itself in the zeitgeist.
I wish I had been able to read Ephraim Radner’s piece before this meeting took place, it would certainly have helped and edified me.
One final comment: Ephraim mentions the word homothumadon, being of one mind that is repeatedly used particularly in Acts. I would commend the lovely exposition of this word by Eugene Peterson in his latest book, “The Jesus Way.”
Radner’s broad vision and definition of a Covenant is fantastic and moving. Amen! Best definition I’ve seen! This is the section I’m thinking of:
[blockquote]On a simple level, this is the only reason for a Covenant among Anglican churches today: that we might come to oneness of mind and heart, agreeing in the truth of God’s holy Word, for that is what we must do because we are Christians and followers of Jesus. The Covenant – any covenant between churches to live together as Christian churches – constitutes a promise to act in certain ways so that such oneness of mind and heart, such agreement in the Word, is furthered. The promises, however, derive from God’s own promise that this is what He does, and this is how the very words of the Son’s prayers take their shape in the life of the Church. [/blockquote]
The Covenant cannot just be words. That aspect of PROMISE is crucial. It has to affect how we live our lives. And that is obviously something reappraisers recognize and are reacting against.
Along similar lines of thinking: I found his Radner’s example re: the Lausanne Covenant to be hugely helpful.
You can read the Lausanne Covenant here. I highly recommend it!
http://www.perspectives.org/about/lausanne.html
Radner writes:
[blockquote]But we must remember what Lausanne was after: cooperative work. It was not after the nurturing and support of an identity and ecclesial self, a single Body, of “one-mindedness” in the sense of what we call “communion”, or the New Testament sense of coming together, of living together, of stripping oneself before the other, as in Acts 2 or 4’s description of the apostolic communion, let alone Ephesians 5’s description of mutual subjection in the form of husband and wife, Christ and Church. Had the Lausanne Covenant been about this, could its “confession” have been sufficient or even directly to the point? [/blockquote]
This explains why, for instance, many ECUSA reappraisers are big supporters of the IASCOME document on mission, and also the mission section (Section IV, I think), of the Covenant Draft.
An agreement as to the basis of shared cooperation in mission is one thing. (Though I think even that would be very hard to come by and get TEC/ECUSA to sign onto in the current Anglican climate). But the huge difference, is that an agreement about goals and purpose of mission has nothing to do with DISCIPLINE or MEMBERSHIP. And that is where the huge rub is in the Anglican Covenant. It is not just about agreeing to work together as independent entities, it is about establishing boundaries and clarifying authority over what it means to be a MEMBER of the Anglican Communion. Are there any disciplinary standards? Are there any boundaries? These are huge questions and questions that I would gather the vast majority of reappraisers in TEC/ECUSA want to see avoided.
Following Richard Kew’s comment on this interesting word (from [url=”http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3661″]here[/url]):
homothumadon – 1. with one mind, with one accord, with one passion
A unique Greek word, used 10 of its 12 New Testament occurrences in the Book of Acts, helps us understand the uniqueness of the Christian community. Homothumadon is a compound of two words meaning to “rush along” and “in unison”. The image is almost musical; a number of notes are sounded which, while different, harmonize in pitch and tone. As the instruments of a great concert under the direction of a concert master, so the Holy Spirit blends together the lives of members of Christ’s church.