THE BISHOPS’ COVENANT: AN ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Anglican Communion Institute, March, 2005
The recent ECUSA House of Bishops meeting follows the publication of the Windsor Report (TWR) from the Lambeth Commission, an earlier response by the House of Bishops in January, and finally the February Communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting in Newry. In their ‘covenant statement’, reproduced below with commentary, the House of Bishops offers their current response to the main concerns of the Windsor Report and the Primates.
The House of Bishops “Covenant” comes at an “extraordinary” time in the life of ECUSA and of the Anglican Communion, a time when clearly some “extraordinary action” is required if both the church and the Communion is not to divide irreparably and the witness of these Christian bodies become maimed beyond recognition. That the House of Bishops grasps the “extraordinary” character of this “moment” represents a certain progress in her, until now, irresponsible foot-dragging and denial. And given the divisions of the church at this time, the house is to be commended, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has done, for at least attempting to engage the challenges that threaten our common life in Christ.
The Covenant agreed to, however, is deeply flawed and, we believe, more likely to increase the risks of schism than to alleviate them. The best that can be said is that a little time has been bought in which conflicting commitments can be more clearly articulated in terms of the practical and ecclesial consequences that they will demand. We have been given a few months now to order our respective affairs. The worst that can be said is that this respite has been won at the price of undermining the calling and public image of the episcopacy, holding hostage the process of our church’s pastoral leadership to the aggressive demands of a party already disciplined by the Communion’s theological and ecclesial judgment, and implementing a time-table aimed at producing a divisive outcome under the brazenly disingenuous and false premise of canonical obedience.
As the commentary below will show, the bulk of this Covenant constitutes an avoidance, misconstrual, or outright denial of the requests and theological rationale presented in the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Communiqué. The shape of the agreed “moratorium” follows the lines of “protest” adopted by proponents of gay marriage within the church who have, given their failure to gain permission, responded by a refusal to perform all marriages and blessings until granted their demands. Apart from the sly petulance implied in this response, the perversion of justice this embodies – by which those under legitimate scrutiny are allowed to undermine the purposes and functioning of the entire body – is indefensible. That the House of Bishops should take such an approach, apply it to the very need for, character and exercise of episkope, and justify it in terms of the humility of “forbearance” is ethically inappropriate and pastorally depleting.
Added to this the repeated claims by the bishops that they themselves have no authority to discipline their own decisions and their own priests in compliance with the consensual teaching (unmentioned in the Covenant) of the Communion of which they are a part and which they have vowed to serve, and we are left wondering whether a church that has, out of a sense of obedience to the Christian truth, ordered herself around the episcopal calling exercised in council has not now abandoned her own raison d’être. Such actions simply do not maintain integrity in the face of the apostolic call to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church”, to be “faithful pastors”, and to “share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world”, vows taken by each member of the House. The many conflicts suffered by the Apostles of our Lord demanded of them humility before God and man; but not the deferral of their vocation to teach and to lead. Finally, the fact that this deferral has been made, within a complete vacuum of theological rationale, to a General Convention that itself has proved unable to gather, sustain, and lead this church in a manner consistent with her own Constitution, indicates a deep confusion on the part of some bishops, and invites the deep suspicion of the motives of others.
It is to be hoped and pleaded before Almighty God, therefore, that He will use the small window of time that this Covenant has at least afforded us, to stir the consciences and wills of our bishops to renew their commitment to lead their flocks within the guiding fellowship, teaching, and discernment of the Communion to which they have pledged the ordering of their ministries. This is the form of the “substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church”, “incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all” (Chicago Quadrilateral, 1886).
Introduction – The Windsor Report
We have received the Windsor Report as a helpful contribution to our relationships with Anglican brothers and sisters across the world. We recognize its recommendations as coming from a broadly representative commission inclusive of bishops, clergy, and laity and as an attempt to speak as equals to equals. We experience it as being in the best tradition of autonomy within communion and as helpful in our efforts to live into communion. Likewise, we appreciate receiving the communiqué from the February meeting of the Primates and take seriously the perspectives and convictions stated therein. It is our heartfelt desire to be responsive and attentive to the conversation we have already begun and to which we are being called and as a body offer the following points.
The House of Bishops receives the Report as ‘a helpful contribution’ and refers positively to the source of its recommendations emphasising the Lambeth Commission’s ‘inclusive’ nature and its representation of bishops, clergy and laity. They describe their experience of it and of the ‘perspectives’ and ‘convictions’ of the Primates’ Communiqué which they ‘take seriously’. These two key documents are then embraced within a bigger frame of reference – ‘contributions’ to a ‘conversation’ which ECUSA says it has begun (presumably by its disregard for Communion teaching and the Instruments of Unity) and in which it wishes to be ‘responsive’ and ‘attentive’. Then, ‘as a body’ (which is usually code for a majority that is not of one mind) they ‘offer the following points’ into this ‘conversation’.
This introduction clearly seeks to incorporate the Report and the Primates into a bigger and larger ongoing process. It stands in contrast to the Primates who said, “We welcome the general thrust of the Windsor Report as offering a way forward for the mutual life of our Communion” and commended certain conclusions “for dealing with the differences of opinion which have opened up amongst us” (para 7). The Primates clearly stated their belief that “the Windsor Report offers in its Sections A & B an authentic description of the life of the Anglican Communion, and the principles by which its life is governed and sustained”. They therefore accepted “the description offered in Sections A & B of the Windsor Report as the way in which we would like to see the life of the Anglican Communion developed, as we respond in faithful discipleship to Christ”. In particular they highlighted the authority of scripture and “autonomy-in-communion”. More specifically they requested “all provinces to consider whether they are willing to be committed to the inter-dependent life of the Anglican Communion understood in the terms set out in these sections of the report” (para 8), a request specifically directed to ECUSA in para 14 of the communiqué but not answered by this ‘covenant’.
Para 1 – Life in communion
We reaffirm our commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and each of its individual points. We reaffirm our earnest desire to serve Christ in communion with the other provinces of the Anglican family. We reaffirm our continuing commitment to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and to participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates' Meeting, and we earnestly reaffirm our desire to participate in the individual relationships, partnerships, and ministries that we share with other Anglicans, which provide substance to our experience of what it is to be in communion.
Here the desire for continued communion is clearly stated but it is quite clearly not ‘understood in the terms set out’ in Sections A&B of TWR as requested by Primates. The affirmation of the Quadrilateral fails to articulate that document’s complex meaning, context, and use within the Communion’s ecumenical and internal life, and it therefore obfuscates by generality rather than enlightens through explication. The statement also fails to acknowledge that communion has already been broken because of ECUSA’s actions (as now acknowledged by the Primate of Canada). This was powerfully symbolised in the refusal by many Primates to share communion with the Presiding Bishop in Newry. The commitment to participate fully in the Instruments of Unity is made without any commitment to respect their deliberations or acceptance that they have ignored them by their recent actions and in response to the Primates’ request to withdraw representatives from the ACC this could be seen as an implied objection to the Primates.
Para 2 – The call for regret and repentance
We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
The opening clause repeats regular statements that, since the publication of TWR, have complied with its call (para 134) for regret for the consequences of recent actions. At their last meeting the HOB went further and expressed “our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church”. This is now further strengthened into ‘sincerest apology and repentance’. It is also more sharply defined: it is repentance “for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions”.
This is clearly much closer to what is requested in para 134 of TWR. That calls for ECUSA "to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the see of New Hampshire". However, the statement contains serious ambiguity in that it does not say the bonds were breached by the consecration. Rather, it speaks of repentance for ‘any failure to consult….’. The use of ‘any’ rather than ‘our’ is particularly ambiguous, implying perhaps there is no acceptance of even this failure.
The statement also implies that ‘failure to consult adequately’ is the only problem. This ignores the fact that it was not failure to consult but failure to heed the Communion and respect its teaching that was the deeper problem. In the words of Abp Eames, introducing TWR to the Primates in Newry, “we have been compelled to reach the serious and unanimous conclusion that ECUSA acted against the expressed opinions of the four instruments of unity, their understanding of Communion teaching on the issue of the episcopate - and against an understanding of the universality of Episcopal ministry”.
In short, this statement represents movement but there is still no acceptance of the interpretation of their actions given by TWR and the Primates. The bishops have given signs that in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they have “sought to respond positively to the requests made of them in the Windsor Report” and shown “a real willingness to engage with the challenges posed” but they have not yet responded positively nor risen to the challenges posed. In particular, there is here certainly no repentance for the action itself as a breaching of the bonds and a ‘tearing of the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level’ (Primates Meeting, Lambeth 2003). As one English evangelical has been reported as saying, there is a shift but they are still being shifty.
Para 3 – Moratorium on elections and consecrations to episcopate
The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal. Nevertheless, this extraordinary moment in our common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses, and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal ministry.
This is really the heart of the covenant and reveals with little analysis that nothing has been done to repair the very deep cracks which remain under this new, more attractive wallpaper. In fact, the proposal (especially if being presented as a serious move towards the Communion) is marked by duplicity, lack of logic and injustice.
Authority
The claim is made that ECUSA’s polity means that the House of Bishops lacks “the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal”. This ignores the fact that there are criteria in the canons and the ordinal which relate to the pattern of life of those ordained. The bishops could state clearly that they believed - in the light of the teaching of the Anglican Communion on sexuality and the nature of the episcopate, TWR and the Primates’ Communiqué – that this meant they could no longer approve as a bishop someone in a sexual relationship other than marriage.
This would not even be a denial of ECUSA’s provincial autonomy. The House of Bishops seemingly forget that that in 1979 the General Convention passed the following resolution which remains the last substantive resolution on the subject:
That this General Convention recommend to Bishops, Pastors, Vestries, Commissions on Ministry and Standing Committees, the following considerations as they continue to exercise their proper canonical functions in the selection and approval of persons for ordination:
1. There are many human conditions, some of them in the area of sexuality, which bear upon a person's suitability for ordination;
2. Every ordinand is expected to lead a life which is "a wholesome example to all people" (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 517, 532, 544). There should be no barrier to the ordination of qualified persons of either heterosexual or homosexual orientation whose behavior the Church considers wholesome;
3. We re-affirm the traditional teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity and sexual chastity as the standard of Christian sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are expected to conform to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not appropriate for this Church to ordain a practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in heterosexual relations outside of marriage.
The fact is that many of the current House (including the Presiding Bishop) explicitly expressed their refusal – despite their current protestations about the authority of General Convention - to adhere to this clear recommendation from General Convention. Indeed, that refusal was in many ways the source of the current crisis.
Once these facts about ECUSA’s polity and recent history are acknowledged, a real question arises of who does have authority “to impose moratoria”. There is the real possibility that even were GC 2006 – in both Houses - to vote for a moratorium, certain bishops and dioceses would claim they had no authority to do so, that their resolutions were only recommendations, and so they would continue to elect and consent to whomsoever they believed the Spirit led them to choose.
The House then proceeds to claim that having no authority to address the specific issue asked of them they nevertheless at this “extraordinary moment” can take the “extraordinary action” of claiming authority to act in a wider area that enables them also to respond to the presenting issue – “Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly”. It is worth putting this next to what was asked of them by the Primates -
In the meantime, we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage (para 18).
If the HOB – without consulting with the other House of General Convention or with dioceses or with Executive Council - can issue the blanket moratorium on all consents (as they have done in the covenant) then it is hard to see how it was beyond its jurisdiction to state, “Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to effect their own moratorium on election of such candidates”. It is no defence to say this would not have gained unanimity. It is clear that the current covenant was not unanimous, especially once it is recognised that many conservative bishops were absent. It only needed a majority of bishops with jurisdiction to agree to withhold their consent in such circumstances and thus show their commitment to Communion teaching for this to have effect. Clearly what was lacking here was not authority but rather the political will to respond as requested by the Communion.
Status and Rationale
The rationale given for this wider moratorium is “that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church”. This fails to respond to what was asked for in TWR. This was not a ‘provisional’ and very short specifically time-limited ‘forbearance’ but “a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” set in the context of the need for ‘repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation’ (para 134, italics added). It was, in other words, to be part of the ‘fruits of repentance’ – a sign that because what was done was recognised to be wrong it would not be repeated until it ceased to be wrong because the wider Communion held such actions to be in line with Scripture and tradition. In the words of the report by two bishops within the Church of England, “Traditionally, there have been seen to be three parts to repentance, contrition (sorrow for what has been done wrong in the past), confession (admitting that one has done wrong) andamendment of life (ceasing from wrong behaviour and doing better in the future). The Windsor Report asks those on both sides to repent in this fashion by expressing regret for what they may have done wrong (contrition and confession), ceasing to act in those ways and seeking to make things better in the future (amendment of life)” (The House of Bishops Theological Group and the Faith and Order Advisory Group, A Response to the Windsor Report, para 2.3.7).
What we have here is not repentance in the form requested and certainly not amendment of life but rather a mix between a tactical political ploy and a childish tantrum – “We still believe what we did was right but we will hold back from repeating it in order not to cause more trouble and so as to appear to be doing what we are asked. However, the whole church must suffer as a result because we believe what is being asked of us is unreasonable and wrong”.
Issues of justice
This measure is also fundamentally unjust and an abandonment of the responsibility of bishops within the church to provide oversight for the flock. The ‘burdens of such forbearance’ are not shared by the whole community but by particular dioceses (including some who have done nothing wrong and are committed to Communion teaching eg South Carolina) who are planning to elect a new bishop, in some cases because their bishop is required by the canons to retire. These dioceses are now prevented from electing a bishop when they need one and are also left unrepresented in the House of Bishops including at the crucial 2006 General Convention.
The dogmatic form in which this power is wielded (an interesting contrast with the Primates ‘invitation to withdraw’ from the ACC) is astonishing.
To understand what is being done it is necessary to explain the process of election. Title III Canon 16 requires that “the election of a person to be a Bishop in a Diocese shall be held in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Convention of the Diocese and pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and Canons of this Church” (section 1(a)). Clearly any diocese is at liberty to continue with this. The problem arises when, if duly elected more than three months before General Convention, the Bishop-elect requires the consent of diocesan standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction. This process would need to be undergone if an election was completed three months before General Convention (section 4) but in this ‘covenant’ it is clear that ‘Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006’. The effect of this is that the election is null and void (section 6).
What is quite unclear is on what possible grounds consent can be refused other than that the House of Bishops have decided with no reason to refuse all requests for confirmation. The statement of consent from Standing Committees reads:
We, being a majority of all the members of the Standing Committee of ______________, and having been duly convened at ______________, fully sensible how important it is that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B. ought not to be ordained to that Holy Order. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands this _____ day of _________in the year of our Lord _________.
It is here clear how a Standing Committee or bishop (or indeed the House of Bishops collectively) could decide to refuse consent to someone in a sexual relationship outside marriage. In the light of TWR and the Primates Communiqué (and their emphasis on “the universal nature of the ministry of a bishop within Anglican polity” (para 11)) and of ECUSA’s legal self-definition that it is ‘a constituent member of the Anglican Communion’ it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse consent because of a belief that the office of bishop would be ‘unworthily conferred’ as the candidate is not living a life which is “a wholesome example to all people” (Book of Common Prayer) and there is a clear impediment preventing the person being made a bishop in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. It is unclear what ‘impediment’ there would be for any other candidate, except that the House of Bishops have unilaterally decided not to approve any new bishops.
Looking back to General Convention 2003 the decision is even more bizarre. Many were there (wrongly) persuaded the only reason they could possibly refuse consent was if there was a canonical irregularity in the diocesan process of election. Now it appears the House of Bishops cannot get a majority to state they will refuse consent on the grounds of unworthy conferment but they can get a majority to prevent dioceses electing any bishop at all no matter how properly they follow the process and no matter how acceptable the candidate is to ECUSA and the wider Communion.
The effect of this action is that a significant number of dioceses must now face difficult choices. They could proceed with an election they know will be declared null and void and thus have to be re-run from scratch (unless the candidate was then consecrated irregularly) OR they must time their election such that consent falls to General Convention 2006 because it meets within between thirty days and three months of such election. Alternatively, a diocese could wait until after General Convention before holding the actual election although that would mean a very long gap in some dioceses as consecration would likely not take place until some time in 2007.
All this raises the real possibility that General Convention may still be presented with a candidate in a sexual relationship outside marriage and asked (as in 2003) whether or not it will consent to his or her election. Many believe that California (which had already timed its election process to require consent at General Convention) might elect such a candidate. There is significantly no appeal from the bishops for such candidates not to stand for election for the good of the Communion nor for dioceses to consider the Communion’s teaching when electing candidates despite these being central features of both TWR and the Primates’ communiqué.
The rationale for this move is apparently that to do as asked by the Communion would be unjust towards gay and lesbian candidates. This ignores the fact that it is patterns of life that are the grounds for discrimination within the moratorium and not sexual orientation. It also clearly states that ECUSA’s HOB believes the Communion teaching is unjust and that justice demands either no bishops at all or bishops irrespective of whether they are in a sexual relationship outside marriage. This is, sadly, a long way from acceptance of Communion teaching, TWR, and the Primates’ Communiqué. Indeed, it appears to be in utter contradiction to that teaching.
Para 4 – Moratorium on rites of blessing
In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.
This issue was not addressed in January at the HOB and does go some way to compliance. Thankfully, the logic applied to consecrations has not, in this context anyway (despite the appeals of some), been applied to marriages – ‘If we cannot bless same sex couples, then we cannot marry’.
However, the statement is again disingenuous. It was the clear intention of many who supported C-051 to encourage ‘local option’ and its statement “that, we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions” has had that effect. This is confirmed by the fact thatIntegrity notes that “seven dioceses have official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex relationships”, two dioceses are working to develop a policy and “a number of bishops implicitly allow the clergy of their diocese to bless same-sex unions”.
Given that in the HOB view none of this reality amounts to ECUSA authorising such liturgies it is unclear as to the effect of their commitment not to authorise “any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions”. It is also unclear whether those bishops who have authorised and themselves personally blessed such unions will retract such authorisation and comply with TWR’s request for personal expressions of regret. In fact Bishop Bruno, one of the drafters of the covenant, is already being quoted as saying that priests in his Los Angeles diocese are free to continue blessing same-sex couples if the wish. His diocese has issued a statement with the further spin on the covenant that while “bishops said that they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being” nevertheless “clergy in dioceses that already practice same-sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice”.
It would appear that this paragraph simply claims ‘you’ve misunderstood what we’re doing and it is really just business as usual in our dioceses but with no new developments before GC 2006’. The statement is clearly not full compliance with TWR, which asked for a moratorium on all such public rites of blessing of same sex unions (para 144).
Para 5 – Respect for boundaries
We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.
The reaffirmation of respect for boundaries is unsurprising as this is one of the fundamental beliefs of ECUSA’s House of Bishops. It is noteworthy that the bishops speak most strongly and clearly on matters relating to their own power while avoiding firm statements on the matters of faith and morals in dispute.
Given the provincial limits of the authority of the ECUSA House of Bishops it is far from clear what is meant by the statement that they ‘we will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable’. This could be understood as a threat of potential legal action against those who have already transferred to other provinces (including David Moyer, hence the reference to bishops) or are considering doing so. It could be seen as a threat to respond more vigorously to any bishops or primates of other provinces who minister within America without consent of the ECUSA diocesan bishop.
The request to other Anglican ‘partners’ interestingly refers back to the stronger request of TWR rather than the much weaker ‘neither to encourage nor to initiate’ statement from the Primates. There is also no explicit reference to either the widely discredited DEPO or to the new Panel of Reference for the Archbishop of Canterbury although the appeal to ‘work with us to find more creative solutions…to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity’ perhaps alludes to these as part of the reality of ECUSA life.
Para 6 – Withdrawal from ACC
As a body, we recognize the intentionality and seriousness of the Primates' invitation to the Episcopal Church to refrain voluntarily from having its delegates participate in the Anglican Consultative Council meetings until the Lambeth Conference of 2008. Although we lack the authority in our polity to make such a decision, we defer to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church to deliberate seriously on that issue.
Again, the ‘as a body’ probably reflects a division within those present and approving the statement as a whole. It remains unclear what the Executive Council will do though it is highly unlikely (especially given the fact that Louie Crew reports that 7 of their 38 members are ‘lesbigay’) they will approve the Primates’ request and they may even explicitly counter it. The deference of the HOB to the ACC and the Executive Council may therefore result in deferring to two incompatible bodies. This creates the real risk that the ACC meeting will witness many of the tensions evident among the Primates and be led to the brink of collapse. The request by the Primates for a “voluntary” withdrawal of ECUSA’s representatives to the ACC was in part motivated by a desire to allow the ACC to meet at all, and to do so within a context of some measure of order, precisely so that ECUSA’s “case” could be heard. An insistence on defying this request, under these circumstances, can be seen in no other light than as one aimed at destroying the Communion’s unity altogether. It is unconscionable that the House of Bishops has taken no steps to avoid such an outcome, and indeed may have positively encouraged it.
Conclusion
The bonds of affection are not ends in themselves but foundations for mission. Therefore, we re-commit ourselves to work together throughout the communion to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and to address the other efforts mentioned by the Primates' Communiqué (para. 20). We dedicate ourselves to full and open dialogue in every available venue through invitations for mutual visitation, intentional exploration of the theological perspectives and spiritual gifts that our diverse cultures offer, and collaborative partnerships for the purpose of shared mission in Christ.
The closing section again ignores the reality that most parts of the Communion dealing most urgently with these issues are not currently willing to ‘work together’ with ECUSA. The final sentence, with its emphasis on ‘full and open dialogue’ and ‘diverse cultures’, will likely be seen by those provinces as further evidence that ECUSA has not radically changed its attitude but is simply ‘buying time’ until General Convention.
The Primates also emphasised the importance of mission and one of their strongest statements declared that, “Whilst there remains a very real question about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely hindered” (para 12).
This ‘covenant’ from ECUSA’s HOB shows absolutely no signs that ECUSA is “willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion”. It has positive words and shows on the surface a welcome movement towards some form of legalistic, technical compliance (until General Convention 2006) with some key recommendations. The bishops certainly did not take a stance of the most outright defiance that would make continued discussion impossible. However, the Covenant is ultimately driven by the fact that the House is unwilling to accept the vision of life in communion commended in TWR and that it persists in refusing to accept Communion teaching on sexual morality. That it has framed these refusals within an argument that swings between the most abject deferrals of episcopal responsibility and the most extreme impositions of episcopal self-assertion represents a dismal contradiction of apostolic stewardship.
The covenant perhaps reveals that, having walked apart, the House of Bishops has now agreed to stop walking. As symbolised in its “solution” to the requested moratorium, it has simply ground to a halt as an episcopal house. It is clear that some (notably those who signed the minority report at the previous House of Bishops’ meeting) are willing to turn around and walk back and walk together with the Communion. It is also clear that some (including many who worded the covenant) believe their walking is a keeping in step with the Spirit and so must continue after this short delay. The covenant has, thankfully, shown that this divided house has agreed not to make matters worse in the next year prior to General Convention and that is to be welcomed. It is, however, clearly a seriously divided house, and a house so divided against itself is unlikely to stand for long. General Convention – including its House of Bishops - will need to do much more than this covenant has done if it is to show that ECUSA is not continuing to ‘walk apart’ from the rest of the Communion but rather wishes to walk back together in true repentance and reconciliation. Sadly, despite this covenant, the situation described by the Primates remains true - the reality of our communion in God the Holy Trinity remains as obscured and our common mission as severely hindered after this meeting of the House of Bishops as it was before. Perhaps even more so.
