THREE LECTURES ON THE CURRENT STATE AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION AND THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner Springfield Ill. February 2009
Lecture Three
What Then Shall We Do?
I have argued that TAC and TEC stand at a cross roads in their respective histories. We are faced with a classical question that St. Luke states simply and clearly. “What then shall we do?” Are we to covenant or are we not to covenant? That is the question. That the question is a live one became obvious in the responses given to TSAD by the Bishops of our Communion when last they assembled at Lambeth. Those responses are now in the public domain, and I urge their careful study. They provide an excellent introduction to the push and pull that now defines the torn fabric of our Communion. They serve well to take us through the dilemmas we face, and they provide an excellent format we can use to assess the value of the covenant proposal.
The first question, one that like the others I will list in fact expresses an objection, is this: why do we need a covenant at all? The answer lies first of all in the history of our Communion. Over the past 150 years God has blessed the missionary efforts of Anglicans in various parts of the world. Anglicans now form the third largest body of Christians on the globe. Of greater importance is the fact that Anglican churches in Africa and Asia have emerged as Spirit-filled Christian communities that are in no small measure responsible for the explosive growth of Christian belief and practice in those areas of the world. The covenant thus does more than address the strains brought about by TEC. It seeks to address how Anglicans from around the world, though no longer bound by ties to England and North America, can honor and share the gifts they have received and maintain their unity in the face, not only of often conflicting national interests but also of diverging forms of belief and practice.
A covenant provides a way to ensure the continued existence of a form of Christian belief and practice that God appears to have blessed. It does so by providing much needed procedural norms by which fidelity to the witness of Holy Scripture can be maintained by means of common council and common decision-making. It does so also in face of the fact that the structures that have evolved over the years (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference) and those that are recent innovations (the Meeting of Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council) are proving incapable of holding things together. If you will, a covenant takes ultimate responsibility for the unity of the Communion out of these hands and places it in those of the various provinces. It asks, “Do you, the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, want to continue as a communion of churches or not? If you do, the Instruments of Communion can aid and abet that process. But if you do not, there is little they or anyone else can do.”
Even if we grant the problem a covenant is meant to address, many ask is not the whole idea of a covenant “un-Anglican” both in the sense that it is an innovation and in the sense that it is destructive of central Anglican values. It is often said that covenanting is not an Anglican practice, but in fact it is. A common agreement in respect to confession, mission, and accountability was part of all the legal actions, including oral and written vows that established the Church of England in the 16th Century. Covenants have also marked agreements between the dispersed provinces of the Anglican Communion, particularly in respect to their establishment and later missionary support. In our day covenants have both bound Anglican Churches together (e.g., TEC and the Philippines) and created links with other denominations (Lutherans and Methodists). Having cited these precedents, one might add that covenanting is deeply rooted in the life of the New Testament Church. I need only cite the relation between Paul and the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 2:9).
It is also said that a covenant subverts central Anglican values, particularly the value of the autonomy of the local church. Until the more recent strident claims made by some members of TEC, Anglicans have understood their autonomy to be constrained by the Word of God in Holy Scripture (c.f. Articles 20 and 34 of the Thirty-nine Articles) They have also understood that local decisions should be coherent with a common faith and order held by Anglican churches throughout the world (cf. the 1789 Preface to the American Prayer Book and Resolution 49 of the 1930 Lambeth Conference). It is this commitment to placing autonomy within the circumference of shared faith and practice that the proposed covenant aims to safeguard. Further, it seeks to realize this goal without curial centralization of jurisdiction. In stead, the covenant relies upon a shared commitment to “mutual subjection within the body of Christ” to preserve both communion and autonomy as both necessary to the health of the Communion. The Covenant seeks to create a space in time in which common belief and practice can be sustained without damaging the creativity that comes with governance at a local level.
Many also wonder how will a covenant further Christian life and witness on the part of the various provinces of the Communion. The answer in brief is that it will foster a way of common life that mirrors the Gospel message of reconciliation and so serves to give power to the witness made by the various provinces, each in its own place. This it can do in various ways. First, it will provide an example of honest clarity in respect to a set of commitments in the way the provinces of the Communion relate one to another and to the larger context in which they exist. It will, in short, allow their yes to be yes and their no to be no with the result that their word of reconciliation will have the example of their lives behind it and so will not be a word that falls empty to the ground. It will also provide a model of transparency through processes of discernment and judgment guided by agreed upon standards. Clarity and transparency are sustained within a covenant by mutual accountability for the health of a common life and witness. Indeed, clarity, transparency, and mutual accountability embody the form of Jesus’ own teaching on the common life of the church (Mt. 18:15ff; James 5:19-20). Finally, clarity, transparency, and mutual accountability breed trust, and trust actually allows the various provinces of the Communion to make their witness with the non-anxious and peaceable life of thanksgiving that constitutes, in part, a clear witness to Christ (Phil. 4:4-7).
Despite these objections and others, I take it that the dominant opinion among Anglicans favors some form of covenant. The next questions concern the adequacy of the proposals now under consideration, and the most basic of these is whether or not TSAD is in fact adequately supportive of the purpose and Anglican values it is intended to sustain. My conviction is, that whatever its shortcomings may be, the draft is indeed adequately supportive of the covenant’s basic values and purpose. A careful reading of TSAD’s three sections on Common Faith, Common Mission, and Common Life will show that their particular elements all accord with historical Anglican commitments. These elements stem from agreed statements of faith and order that Anglicans have already adopted in various ways (e.g., the Book of Common Prayer, the Lambeth Quadrilateral, various Provincial constitutions, Lambeth resolutions and agreed statements of ecumenical dialogues, and Communion Commission Reports).
Be that as it may, there is a significant area of disagreement about the adequacy of the proposed covenant. Are the procedural proposals about what to do when concern arises as to whether the commitments and standards of the covenant are being up held adequate? Even if one grants that the question has considerable legitimacy (particularly in respect to the time given for the resolution of disputes and the interrelation of the Instruments), it should be noted that the Covenant seeks, even though imperfectly, to display more adequately ways of responding to disagreement among Anglicans that have been pursued to date. A fair reading of the proposal leads in fact to the conclusion that those who drafted them did not seek new means of resolving differences but sought in stead to suggest ways in which present structures and processes might become more coherent and effective though the greater honesty, transparency, accountability and trust a covenant might foster.
These efforts gave rise to yet another question posed by the Bishops at Lambeth. What is the proper balance in a Covenant between definitions of belief and practice and the processes for resolving differences? The question can be put in another way by asking how a right balance can be maintained between local autonomy on the one hand a mutually bound life on the other? Though some think otherwise, TSAD does not present a defined statement of faith and practice as in some way antithetical to a process directed toward the resolution of conflict. In linking a clear statement of faith with a procedure informed by charity toward a person or group with differing convictions TSAD simply follows Paul’s injunction (1 Cor. 14:40) that all things be done “decently and in order.” TSAD is correct in understanding this injunction to apply to aspects of both belief and practice (see e.g., 1 & 2 Tim, Titus; Col. 3:12-4:6). Indeed, throughout Holy Scripture there is a connection between relationships and procedure on the one hand and the definition of faith and morals on the other (cf., Ephesians 4 & 5). In short, the biblical witness makes it clear throughout that it is not possible to teach one faith without a means of relation one to another that is clear, trustworthy, and charitable. The same witness also makes it clear that having a means to relate in a clear, trustworthy, and charitable manner is without purpose if it is not directed toward and defined by the substance of right belief and practice.
TSAD clearly stands opposed to the oft- voiced view of progressives within TEC that Anglicanism should eschew theological constraint and rely solely upon charitable relations to define and sustain communion. On the other hand TSAD continues to hold that the Anglican Communion is not bound together by a central legislative and executive authority. It continues to up hold the autonomy of the various provinces. It does so, however, by placing autonomy within the limiting conditions of mutual loyalty sustained by the common counsel of bishops in conference (Lambeth Conference, 1930, Resolution 49).
Avoidance of centralized legislative and executive authority has always been understood as a way to embody “mutual responsibility and interdependence” (Anglican Congress 1963) subordinate to the authority of Holy Scripture. When the matter is put in this way the tensions between common beliefs on the one hand and charitable procedure on the other becomes even more complex. In addition to this tension, we are confronted with confusion within and between the provinces in respect both to the definition of faith and discipline and the procedural form of common discernment and judgment. It is to the credit of TSAD that its drafters seek to address all aspects of these tensions and does not press for one direction over another.
The time has now come to look at the questions with which this presentation of the covenant is bound to leave us. The most obvious concerns whether it is proper for an Anglican Covenant to draw limits to diversity. Many within TEC believe such an arrangement goes against the “inclusivity” of the Anglican tradition. I will say only that a communion that has no limits to its diversity cannot rightly claim to be a communion. I believe it is the case that many do not favor a communion but something more like a federation. This is surely their right, but it is good to have the difference stated clearly and not cloaked behind the continued use of the term communion when that use conveys a meaning utterly different from any that has gone before.
A more difficult set of issues is presented to the Communion by the complex and possibly lengthy processes suggested when it is faced with what its Instruments of Communion judge to be a genuine threat to the Communion’s integrity. I know for a fact that the Covenant Design Group has received a number of reactions to and suggestions concerning the processes they have put forward, and that they are considering revisions. I will comment only that, no matter what process is finally decided upon, if the covenant is to be effective, a way will have to be found to get a right balance between the need for space and time to resolve difference on the one hand and a timely way of addressing division on the other. If no space is given, the covenant will betray the logic of its inception. If too much is given, the covenant will fail to achieve the purpose for which it exists. I take this dilemma to be fundamental, and one can only pray that wise heads can find a way to get the right balance.
One thing is certain, no matter how the balance is struck the issue of consequences cannot be avoided. In this respect, I am of good heart. It is important to note, I believe, that those who drafted TSAD, though they avoid the use of the word discipline, do employ the language of consequences. In a case where a church refuses to abide by the results of agreed upon procedures their action is to be taken either by them or by the Instruments of Communion as “a renunciation of the force and meaning of the Covenant.” Even in the absence of juridical and executive authority, there are understood procedures and consequences, namely, a province refusing the counsel of the Instruments of Communion, by their own choice and by the terms of the Covenant, comes to occupy a diminished status within the Anglican Communion. Such a consequence is serious indeed but note that the result is a form of “impaired” communion rather than “broken” communion.
The obvious strength of handling unresolved difference in this way is that it does not result in the terrible finality of broken communion. The obvious weakness is that it still lies in the right of any province actually to break communion with the church in question, thereby producing the confusing picture of a communion of churches whose individual provinces stand in differing relations to an offending church but in the same relation one with another. Should this happen, it might not be the first time such an anomaly has appeared, but it is surely far from an ideal situation. It is a possibility that suggests the need for further thought being given to the sort of consequences the Covenant drafters envision.
The autonomy of the provinces that allows for differing reactions to another that in some way scandalizes one or more of them presents yet another question. How does one know that the draft Covenant has reached its final form? The answer lies in a process that may not take a form that all the provinces would want. As matters now stand a proposed final draft, one that has taken into account the comments of the Bishops assembled at Lambeth in 2008, the views of the various provinces, and any possible legal ramification for the various provinces, will be presented to the Anglican Consultative Council in 2009. The Council will then have an opportunity to ratify its terms as sufficient for adoption. If they do so, the Covenant in final form will be circulated to the provinces for ratification.
It is at this point that yet another set of issues will present themselves. Two stand out. What happens if a province or a significant number of provinces refuse to ratify the Covenant? What happens if an individual Diocese in a Province that does not ratify wishes to do so? These questions cut to the bone of TEC because it is unlikely that TEC will ratify a covenant that limits its autonomy in any significant way.
First, suppose TEC (or some other province) refuses to ratify the covenant? Such a decision would be a decision not to be a full member of the Anglican Communion. As I have already indicated, this would mean that TEC (or some other province) would no longer be a party to the Communion’s discernment and decision-making bodies. Again, however, I wish to emphasize that a diminished status of this sort would not necessarily imply broken communion with Canterbury and other covenanting provinces. It would simply mean that such communion would now be a province-to-province decision; and, if one or more provinces decided to break communion all together, being in some way part of the Anglican Communion would no longer carry with it a presupposition of common life. In circumstances such as these, cooperative mission could still be pursued among individual provinces should they choose to do so. Further, a range of mutual forms of life could still be exercised, again on an individual provincial basis.
We must also ask what would happen if a significant number of provinces decided not to ratify the proposed covenant. In this instance, it seems likely to me that we would face a split in what had been the Anglican Communion—one group having agreed to the covenant and the other not. So, for example, TEC might align itself with other sympathetic provinces so as to constitute a de facto communion distinct from that of the covenanting provinces. Indeed, the rhetoric emanating from 815 at times suggests that such a plan is well along the way.
The second question, what if a diocese in a province that refuses to ratify the covenant wishes to do so, is now before us. The Archbishop of Canterbury has indicated that, from a theological perspective, the diocese rather than the province is the primary unit of the Anglican Communion. Nevertheless, the covenant proposal will be sent to provinces and not individual dioceses. There is a conflict here that requires resolution in a coherent manner. In principle, such a diocese must be recognized as being a part of such a Communion; but how that can and will be arranged demands attention sooner rather than later.
In respect to this issue, a final comment is in order. If the Communion makes provision for individual dioceses to ratify the Covenant, it will prove easier for that to happen in TEC than in many other churches of the Anglican Communion. It will be easier because of the unique character of TEC’s constitution. TEC’s constitution makes no provision for a metropolitan bishop, givens no real authority either to its Presiding Bishop or its General Convention to impose its will on a diocese; and I am convinced it allows for a diocese to remove itself from TEC. If provision were to be made for ratification at the level of a diocese, individual dioceses within TEC would have a degree of freedom in this respect that dioceses in many other provinces would not.
So now we come to the question, “What then shall we do?” For many in TEC a covenant with any real consequences is out of the question. It is likely that they will answer the question “What then shall we do” by refusing to ratify the covenant and forming an alliance with other provinces of like mind. In all likelihood they will continue to claim membership in the Anglican Communion, seeking from within their diminished status, as they are want to say, “the greatest degree of communion possible.” It may well be, however, that in forming such an alliance, they in fact end up by creating another communion altogether. In any case, the forces at play in these circumstances will be centrifugal rather than centripetal.
For others of a more confessional frame of mind a covenant may be a part of their future, but, at present, they are skeptical that the final draft will have sufficiently clear commitments to shared doctrine and practice. For those who have cast their lot with ACNA, their future in relation to a covenant is at best uncertain. At present, only provinces can ratify the covenant. It is unlikely that ACNA will realize its goal of provincial status in the near future. Further, should there be an arrangement for individual dioceses to ratify, there are only three, perhaps four, dioceses now a part of the ACNA group. They might be given access to ratification, though that is doubtful. Even, however, if they were allowed to ratify the covenant as individual dioceses, the majority of ACNA’s membership would not be so allowed because it is unlikely that they would be able to establish diocesan status.
For my own part, these first two options appear fraught with difficulty. I believe that the present proposal of the Covenant Design Group, even though it is surrounded by questions, provides the best way forward for Anglicans if they wish to maintain both communion and catholic identity. It has sufficient doctrinal content to provide Christian identity, it is deeply imbedded in Anglican tradition, and it suggests a process for resolving differences, flawed though it may be, that reflects New Testament practice. Indeed, for those members of TEC who wish to remain part of a communion rather than a federation of churches, I believe it is the only option. And, as I have said, in respect to TEC, it is an option that is far superior to the alternative—becoming yet another Protestant denomination (of either a liberal or conservative bent) within the range of religious boutiques located along the promenade of America’s religious shopping mall.
