THREE LECTURES ON THE PRESENT STATE AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner Springfield ILL. February 2009
Lecture One
The Gathering Storm
I have been asked to lead a discussion of a matter of central importance both to The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Communion (TAC). It is a matter whose outcome will determine whether or not Anglicanism remains a credible form of Catholic Christianity. Its outcome will also determine whether or TEC remains a part of that catholic expression of Christian faith and practice or becomes no more than another denomination in the fan of liberal protestant options that make up America’s religious map. I speak, of course, of the proposed Anglican Covenant.
I hope to stimulate our conversation by means of three presentations each of which will be followed by a period for questions, responses and discussion. The first will delve into the background of the covenant proposal. The second will place in view the proposal now being considered by the Covenant Design Group (CDG) and soon by the Anglican Consultative Council. The third will take a look at objections, defenses, and possible outcomes. My hope and prayer is that we can have an open and charitable discussion of these matters if for no other reason than the life and health of our church and our communion depends upon a faithful grappling with the issues the proposed covenant presents.
Let me begin with remarks about the origin of the covenant proposal. Why has the Archbishop of Canterbury proposed this way to repair the “torn fabric” of our Communion? I will not try to read the mind of Rowan Williams. That project is above my pay grade. Nevertheless, I believe I can show why a covenant proposal rises out of our history as a sensible (indeed almost inevitable) way to address our current divisions. Briefly, a covenant makes sense as a way to maintain and strengthen communion and catholic identity in the absence of a centralized jurisdiction like that of the Roman Catholic Church or an ecumenical council as required by the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Let us note first off that maintaining communion and catholic identity has been of central importance to Episcopalians since what became TAC was, as it were, in utero. After the Revolutionary War, The Protestant Episcopal Church was born and with its birth came a thorny problem. Its Bishops and clergy could not swear an oath of allegiance to the crown, but they did not want an utter break with the Church of England. Thus, in place of an oath of allegiance they substituted conformity to the doctrine and worship of the Church of England. In time this formula was changed, as in our present Constitution, so that TEC was defined as “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion…in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding the historic Faith and Order set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.”
My point is that from the beginning, TEC did not see itself as an independent denomination but as tied by doctrine and worship to a wider communion. And with the expansion of the British Empire, this Communion became wide indeed. However, with the break up of the empire, the continuing existence of Anglicanism as a communion of churches rather than a federation (like the Lutheran World Federation) became increasingly problematic. These stresses were brought about by the sudden profusion of new nation states, each of which had its attendant nationalism. So when the Lambeth Conference convened in 1948 a committee chaired by Archbishop Carrington of Quebec addressed this question to the assembled Bishops. “Is Anglicanism based on a sufficiently coherent form of authority to form the nucleus of a world-wide fellowship (emphasis added) of churches, or does its comprehensiveness conceal divisions which may cause its disruption?”
The question was apt, but as we now know, the first real threats to this “world-wide fellowship” did not come directly from nationalistic pressures, but from threatened changes in church order, to some extent fomented by nationalistic pressures. Forty years after Bishop Carrington posed his question, the Lambeth Conference was faced with a proposal by what was then ECUSA to consecrate a woman to the episcopate. In response, the Bishops appointed a commission headed by the Rt. Rev. Robin Eames with a mandate to examine relationships between the Provinces and encourage consultation with a view of maintaining “the highest degree of communion (emphasis added) possible while endeavoring to come to a common mind.” The conference also passed resolution 18 that reads, “As a matter of urgency further exploration of the meaning and nature of communion (emphasis added) with particular reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, the unity and order of the Church, and the unity and community of humanity.” The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Meeting of Primates implemented this resolution by assembling a representative group of church leaders and theologians to address the question.
Please note, throughout the course of this history, even though the term itself was late in arriving, Anglicans have understood themselves as constituting a communion. It was inevitable that the first thing the authors of the Virginia Report were asked to do is to explore the meaning of this term. The shear force of circumstance pressed the Bishops to give more definite content to a word they had been using for some time. This TVR did, and what was said in that report about communion set the stage for the later Windsor Report (TWR) and for the covenant proposal it contained.
TVR begins with the assumption that communion (koinonia) is a way of construing the entire Christian mystery. Thus, communion is to be understood first as a property of the life of God “whose inner personal and relational nature is communion.”
It is this mystery of the divine life that calls the church “to communion in visible form.” The sort of communion that imitates the life of God is a form of diversity within unity that is held together by mutual self-giving and receiving love. This sort of love is most clearly manifest in the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father, but it is also to be seen in the love Christ has for us and the love we show toward Christ and one another.
Here we have the theological starting point for all the discussions of the future of Anglicanism that have followed. I have argued elsewhere that TVR gets the seminal importance of koinonia right, but it nonetheless underestimates the forces that work against its realization both in the life of the church and that of the world. One might say that its ecclesiology suffers at times from premature eschatology. That said, however, TVR does recognize the importance of and need for time to sort out disputes and division. That is, in its discussion of discernment, reception, interdependence, subsidiarity, and the instruments of unity (now the instruments of communion) the authors of TVR recognize that the maintenance of communion, though always a priority, nonetheless requires spaces in time wherein division can be overcome, wounds healed and fellowship restored.
Need I say that the ensuing proposal for a covenant made by the authors of TWR is to be understood in relation to TVR’s proposals about how to maintain communion in the midst of diversity and conflict. The proposed covenant is in fact the central proposal for maintaining communion and catholic identity that now lies before TAC. It is the chief way that is being proposed to create a space in time in which the Holy Spirit can work to bring about God’s will for the church.
To put the matter in another way, one that I think actually improves somewhat on TVR; communion will exist in a complete form only when God is all in all. In the mean time, communion comes to be in the midst of conflict. The question is how is the mutual giving and receiving in love is to be fostered, protected, and restored in the midst of the imperfections of history? TVR’s answer is through provision of a space in time for the Holy Spirit to do its work. Nevertheless, the creation of that space requires more than good will. It requires church order as well.
Hence, TVR contains an extended discussion of the importance of the office of Bishop. It also brings to the fore the importance of the Instruments of Unity (now Communion) for accomplishing the same task. How is this so? The authors of TVR begin with the assumption that “The Episcopate is the primary instrument of Anglican unity.” Communion can be sustained, strengthened, restored only if Bishops maintain collegial relations and act in concert when divisive issues arise. The authors of TVR are clear that no legislative authority exists within Anglicanism beyond the Diocese and the Province. The point is that if the collegiality of bishops breaks down TAC has no legislative means of maintaining its unity.
In pointing to the central role the office of Bishop has within a communion of churches, the authors of TVR were more than aware of the fact that the collegiality of Bishops within the Communion was beginning to unravel. Indeed, they commented that it is a question as to whether the bonds of interdependence among Anglicans “are strong enough to hold them together embracing tension and conflict while answers are sought to seemingly intractable problems.” Doubts such as these led them to make a suggestion that gave new responsibility to one of the four instruments of communion—the Meeting of the Primates. Building on a resolution passed at Lambeth 1988, the report suggests that, in circumstances where a Province confronts a crisis it is unable to resolve on its own, The Meeting of Primates under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury be authorized “to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” It also asked if the present arrangement whereby Anglican assemblies are consultative and not legislative is sufficient to hold the communion together.
The significance of these questions became plane as a pikestaff with the move by the Diocese of New Westminster to bless gay unions and by the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. In the eyes of many, both churches had claimed a degree of autonomy that was fatal to any credible notion of communion. Further, in their eyes, its Bishops had manifestly ignored the call of the Episcopal office to express and protect the unity of the church. Claiming the status of prophets, they had shattered the Episcopal collegiality upon which communion among Anglican depends. As we all know, announcements of impaired or broken communion soon followed TEC’s action. Suddenly, TAC was confronted with a situation that was subversive of its claim to be a communion of churches. The world was presented with a group of independent churches all claiming communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury while announcing they did not in all cases enjoy such communion one with another.
Not surprisingly there appeared a number of proposals for addressing this crisis. One, espoused by supporters of the actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC, was to cry wolf about the creation of hierarchical structures and to speak of the communion of Anglicans in very diluted terms. Thus, Michael Peers, former Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, defined communion simply by tolerance of difference, mutual hospitality and aid. Any notion of common order or shared doctrine and discipline was simply evacuated from the Anglican notion of Communion. In a similar manner Professor Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School reacted to TVR by saying that the polity suggestions contained therein represent the opening salvo of a group of white, male Bishops who are taking the first steps toward an Anglican curia that will impose the same sort of control on the church they enjoyed during the colonial period. In the eyes of Douglas and many other progressives neither common doctrine nor effective structures are necessary for communion. These speak of “patriarchy.” Rather Douglas, along with Conrad Raiser of the WCC, opts for a “mutual resonance among a multi-cultural, (polycentric) community dedicated to God’s mission” as constitutive of communion.
These proposals elevate autonomy over common belief and practice and reduce communion to a group of moral relations. There were, however, other reactions of a more conservative stripe with which we are all familiar. Many individuals simply left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada to become members of other churches. Some Parishes and Dioceses detached themselves from TEC and formed alliances with other Dioceses or Provinces within the Anglican Communion. The recent creation of the Anglican Church in North America represents the latest stage in this particular form of reaction.
Nevertheless, the reaction of the Communion as a whole lay neither to the left nor the right. It found expression in The Windsor Report (TWR) and the Windsor Process that report initiated. That report not only provides a thicker understanding of the nature of communion; it also suggests an Anglican Covenant as an additional mechanism for its maintenance and strengthening in the midst of the present conflict. It is TWR in a more immediate sense than TVR that sets the scene for present discussions of the nature, preservation and furtherance of the Anglican Communion. I will conclude this initial presentation by reminding us of its content and highlighting some of the questions with which it leaves us.
Rooting their understanding of the nature and calling of the church in a reading of Ephesians and Corinthians, the authors of TWR state that it is the vocation of the church to be “an anticipatory sign of God’s healing and restorative future of the world.” This calling has three constitutive aspects; unity, communion, and holiness. Together they provide something like a circle of grace within which sinful people who have been brought into a new form of life by incorporation into Christ can struggle to bring about a faithful witness to God’s purposes for the world. Further, they also display the fundamental disobedience both of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, and they call into question the reactions on the part of a number of Provinces to these compromises of the very calling of the church. (I speak both of unilateral pronouncements of broken or impaired communion and the violation of diocesan boundaries.)
Recognizing that the circle of grace marked out by unity, communion, and holiness is easily compromised. TWR notes that throughout history Anglicans have been sustained as a communion by “a common pattern of liturgical life” that is “shaped by the continual reading…of the Holy Scriptures” as well as by a “web of relationships” that include the See of Canterbury, bishops, consultative bodies, companion dioceses, and projects of common mission. Thus, though the communion of Anglicans has its base in the redemptive act of God in Christ, it “subsists in visible unity, common confession of the apostolic faith, common conformity to Holy Scripture and the two creeds, common Baptism and shared Eucharist, and a mutually recognized common ministry.”
We have here what may fairly be called a thick understanding of the nature of communion—one that stands opposed to the diluted understanding defended by those who favor the actions of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. It involves a common vocation sustained by common devotional practice, common worship, common faith, common sacraments, and common ministry. It also depends upon each Province of the Communion recognizing that “in communion, each church acknowledges and respects the interdependence and autonomy of the other, putting the needs of the global fellowship before its own.” It depends, in short, upon common allegiance to a common practice that TWR (referencing Ephesians) terms “mutual subjection in Christ.” Above all others, this practice creates room for “repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation”—what TWR terms “the imperatives of communion.”
Before moving on to the part the proposed Anglican Covenant plays in this discussion of the calling of the church in general and the Anglican Communion in particular, allow me to pause for a moment and put on the table the defining issue the authors of this report have brought to the surface—one that lingers in, with, and under all our discussions of an Anglican Covenant. That issue is the relative weight of autonomy on the one hand and “the needs of the global fellowship” on the other. Put simply, TWR has revealed a conflict in Anglican thinking between the demands of provincial autonomy and the requirements of communion. Defenders of the first give a strong account of autonomy and weak account of communion. Defenders of the second give a more robust account of communion, and they place greater limits of the exercise of autonomy. I need hardly note that TWR favors the second view over the first.
Here at last we come to the covenant proposal itself. The authors of TWR clearly recognized that the pillars upon which the communion of Anglicans have been based have been shaken by time and circumstance. Forms of worship have multiplied, as have understandings of Holy Scripture. Theological and moral agreements have eroded and in some cases disappeared. Episcopal collegiality has been shattered. One could go on, but it’s clear enough that TAC is now, in the words of TWR, a “torn fabric.”
How is it to be repaired? Clearly by grasping once again the calling of the church and the practices that sustain its life—in short by reclaiming its catholic and evangelical character. How is this to happen? It will not happen unless a space in time is provided for repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation to occur. The Anglican Covenant is a proposal to provide the communion such a space in time and the sort of understanding that will allow its use for the reform and renewal of all the Provinces of the Communion. These purposes are writ large in the model covenant provided in the Appendix to TWR. Its primary sections are (1) common identity; (2) relationships of communion; (3) commitments of communion; (4) exercise of autonomy in communion; and (5) management of communion issues.
The specific terms of this model have long ago been left behind in the two subsequent drafts of the covenant. Nevertheless, its fundamental rational and purpose remain. And so the covenant proposal presents a choice to TEC and TAC. Indeed, to my mind the most brilliant thing about TWR is that it does not issue juridical or constitutional pronouncements. Rather, it poses questions and asks for choices. Will the Anglican Communion adopt a form of covenant that serves to preserve its character as a Communion, or will it take steps, through a covenant with no consequences or no covenant at all, that guarantee the devolution of the Anglican Communion into the Anglican World Federation?
This is the question posed to the communion as a whole. Yet another is posed particularly to TEC. If a covenant is adopted that has real consequences for Provinces that either do not ratify it or who violate its terms once adopted, it will almost certainly contain as a consequence the diminution in status of those Provinces within the Communion. Most of us believe that TEC will refuse to ratify a covenant with real consequences. So the question is, where will that leave those who wish to be part of a covenanted Communion rather than a loosely federated grouping calling itself a communion but not in fact in any meaningful sense actually being one? The answer is that it will leave those parishes and dioceses within an ecclesial form that runs counter to their deepest convictions. This answer leads to another question—this time to the Communion. What action will it take to address the dilemma of these dioceses and parishes? This is a question with which in my view our Communion will soon be confronted; and it is a question, despite the inevitable objections of TEC to the contrary, that the Communion can ignore only at its own peril.
