Introduction
In this paper I examine theologically the nature of the Instruments of Communion and the proposal made about them in section 6 of the draft Anglican Covenant.
I begin by looking at what we mean by communion with the help of Andrei Rublev's icon 'The Old Testament Trinity,' before going on to look at how the word and the dominical sacraments are the primary means by which we enter into communion with God and each other.
I then argue that alongside these primary instruments of communion there are also secondary instruments of communion given to the Church by God in order to ensure that the word is rightly preached and the sacraments duly administered and that God's people respond to Him in a life of unified obedience. In the Anglican tradition these secondary instruments take the form of an episcopal form of church government with personal, collegial and communal aspects.
I further argue that the four 'Instruments of Communion' represent the development of this Anglican form of Church government at the international level and that they have a necessary function in allowing the Communion to operate according to is true nature as a manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ. The proposals made about them in section 6 of the draft Covenant are entirely sensible and the criticisms of them ill founded.
Finally I note that while the Instruments of Communion have a proper God given authority that needs to be respected, this authority is based on their fidelity to God's self-revelation in word and sacrament and their authority creases when and if they take decisions that transgress this limit. I also contend that this point needs to be made explicit in section 5 of the draft Covenant.
(I) The Old Testament Trinity
The 'Old Testament Trinity' by the fourteenth century Russian Icon painter Andrei Rublev is one of the most well known images in the history of Christian art and is generally regarded as one of the finest icons ever produced. However, what I want to consider at the beginning of this paper is not its popularity or its artistic merit, but the message it give us about the concept of divine communion - the communion which we share within the Church as the result of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
As its title suggests, Rublev's icon is a portrayal of a scene from the Old Testament. It is a Russian reinterpretation of an Ancient Byzantine image called 'the Hospitality of Abraham,' which included the figures of Abraham and Sarah and other details from the story in Genesis 18: 1-8 of Abraham's entertainment of three mysterious visitors by the oaks of Mamre.
At the beginning of this story we are told that: '...the Lord appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre,' (Genesis 18:1) but in the rest of the story it is said to be 'three men' who visited Abraham. The question that this has raised in the minds of commentators has been the relation between the Lord and these three human figures, who are clearly not just human beings since in Genesis 19:1 two of them are referred to as angels. In Patristic and Medieval exegesis of the text there were three main theories.
· That it was God (undifferentiated) and two angels.
· That it was God the Son and two angels
· That it was God the Holy Trinity appearing in angelic form as human beings.
In his icon Rublev takes the third approach. That is why he depicts three angels (note the wings), who are human in form, but also divine in nature as reflected by their haloes and by the rods they are holding which are sceptres and which indicate that as God they exercise authority over the created order.
What Rublev has in fact done is used the Genesis story as the starting point for an attempt to portray God Himself, God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In line with Nicene orthodoxy he does this by portraying three persons who share the same nature, but also have their own personal characteristics (portrayed in the icon by their slightly different faces and the different colours of their garments) and who exist in an eternal fellowship of love.
The existence of this fellowship is shown by the way in which the three figures are grouped round a table (a symbol of fellowship) and by the way in which the two figures on the right, representing the Son and the Spirit, gaze with unceasing love at the figure on the left, representing the Father. The eternity of this fellowship is indicated by the way in which the fellowship exists within a circle whose centre point is in the middle of the table, the circle being a symbol of eternity because it is without beginning or end.
The really important thing for our purposes, however, is that this is not a closed circle. The way Rublev has painted the icon there is a gap in the circle on the side towards us, just as there is a place at the table on the side facing us. This is quite deliberate. What Rublev is doing is portraying the Holy Trinity in such a way as to make reference to the great Orthodox theme of participation in the life of God. That is to say, Rublev is telling us that the fellowship of love which is the life of God is a fellowship that we too are invited to join. God's Trinitarian life has room for us within it.
(II) Sharing the Trinitarian life of God
It is the fact that God's Trinitarian life is, as Rublev depicts it, an open fellowship, or communion, of love, which is open to us as well that is the basis of the communion that exists within the Church. It is therefore the correct starting point for tackling the issue of the Instruments of Communion (the topic I have been asked to address this morning).
To understand why this is the case we need to ask the most basic of all philosophical questions, 'Why is there anything at all?' From the Christian perspective the answer is that the reason that there is anything at all is because God is the God depicted by Rublev, and before Rublev by Holy Scripture, the Trinitarian God whose life is a life of ecstatic love.
This is a point that is well made by Kallistos Ware in his book The Orthodox Way:
To love means to share, as the doctrine of the Trinity has so clearly shown us: God is not just one but one-in-three, because he is a communion of persons who share in love with one another. The circle of divine love, however, has not remained closed. God's love is, in the literal sense of the word, 'ecstatic' - a love that causes God to go out from himself and to create things other himself. By voluntary choice God created the world in 'ecstatic' love, so that there might be besides himself other beings to participate in the life and love that are his.
The biblical narrative is the story of how God has fulfilled, and will fulfil, His purposes of ecstatic love, by creating the world, and by rescuing the world after it had fallen into sin, so that in the fullness of time, through the work of the Holy Spirit, all things in heaven and on earth might be united to God the Father through God the Son (Eph 1.10). As FF Bruce puts it in his commentary on Ephesians, this union of all this with Himself is: 'the grand purpose of God which embraces all lesser aspects of his purpose within itself' and the existence of the Christian Church is an integral part of this divine purpose.
The Church is the anticipation, the 'first fruits,' of the cosmic unity that will exist at the end of time. It is the place where God's human creatures begin to participate in the life of God. On the night before His crucifixion Christ prayed that those who believe in Him might share in His relationship of love and unity with God the Father (Jn 17:20-26) and the Church is the community in which this prayer is answered.
The term that has come to be used in ecumenical theology to refer to the participation of believers in the life of God is the New Testament term koinonia, normally translated into English as 'communion.'
As the ARCIC report Church as Communion explains:
In the New Testament the word koinonia (often translated 'communion' or 'fellowship') ties together a number of basic concepts such as unity, life together, sharing and partaking. The basic verbal form means 'to share,' 'to participate,' 'to have part in,' 'to have something in common' or 'to act together.' The noun can signify fellowship or community. It usually signifies a relationship based on participation in a shared reality (e.g.1 Cor 10.16). This usage is most explicit in the in the Johannine writings: 'We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ' (1 John 1:3; cf 1 John 1:7).
In the New Testament the idea of koinonia is conveyed through a variety of different images:
· The people of God (1 Pet 2:9-10)
· The flock (Jn 10:14, Acts 20:28-29, 1 Pet 5:2-4)
· The vine (Jn 15:5)
· The temple (1 Cor 3:16-17)
· The bride (Rev 21:2)
· The body of Christ (Rom 12:4-5, 1 Cor 10:17, 1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-23)
As Church as Communion further explains, all these images:
...express a relationship with God and also imply a relationship among the members of the community. The reality to which this variety of images refer is communion, a shared life in Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17; cf Jn 17), which no one image exhaustively describes. This communion is participation in the life of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, making Christian one with each other.
What this last quotation brings out the fact is that koinonia/communion is both vertical and horizontal. It is a communion with God that unites Christians with each other, making them the single united body to which St. Paul refers.
If that is what communion is, the next question we have to answer is how communion is created and sustained.
The first answer to this question is that it is created and sustained by God the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 13:14) who unites us with Christ, and in Christ with the Father. However, we also have to note that the Holy Spirit uses instruments to do this and the instruments that He primarily uses, the primary instruments of communion, are the word and the sacraments. It is as: 'the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same' (Article XIX) that communion is created and sustained. It as people hear and believe the witness of the word that they have fellowship with the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, and therefore have fellowship with each other (1 Jn 1:3). It is as they are baptised that they become members of the one body and partake of the one Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). It is as they partake of the elements at the Eucharist that they receive the eternal life of God and participate in the body of Christ (Jn 6:54-56, 1 Cor 10:16).
However, the word does not preach itself nor do the sacraments minister themselves. There need to be human beings to preach the word and minister the sacraments and to ensure that the visible unity and holiness which are meant to be the visible fruits of the invisible communion of Christians with God and with each other are manifested in the life of the Church.
It is for this reason that among the gifts given by the ascended Christ to His Church through the Holy Spirit are the leaders that Church requires (Eph 4:11-12) and it is for this reason also that over the centuries various different structures of leadership and Church government, which we may describe as 'secondary instruments of communion,' have developed among the churches.
(III) The Anglican tradition of ministerial leadership and Church government
At the heart of the structures of leadership and Church government that exist in the churches of the Anglican Communion lies the historic episcopate. At the Reformation, when other reformed churches abandoned the episcopate, the Church of England retained it and an episcopal form of Church government has been a defining characteristic of Anglicanism ever since.
If we ask why the Anglican tradition has retained the episcopate, the answer is that it has done so for two key reasons.
The first reason is because the pattern of leadership and Church government based on bishops is the one that has come down to us from apostolic times
As J B Lightfoot argues in his classic study of the issue, we can only make sense of the evidence that we have surrounding the emergence of mono-episcopacy if we accept the tradition handed down to us by the Early Fathers such as St. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian that the Apostle John, building on the example provided by the leadership exercised by St. James over the church in Jerusalem, appointed bishops for the churches in Asia Minor at the end of first century in order to provide for the continuing oversight of these churches after his death. This way of ordering the Church's ministry then achieved universal acceptance in the Church during the second century and remained unchallenged within mainstream Christianity until the Reformation.
What this means is that the statement in the Preface to Ordinal attached to the Book of Common Prayer that: '...from the Apostles times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons' is accurate and the question that arises in consequence is whether the Church is at liberty to dispense with a form of Church order that has an Apostolic origin. The classic Anglican answer to this question has been 'No.' If we accept the authority of the New Testament and the Church's rule of faith enshrined in the Catholic creeds because of their Apostolic origin, then we are bound to do the same with regard to the form of Church order that has come down to us from Apostolic times and with Apostolic authority.
The second and related reason is the link between episcopacy and the unity of the Church.
In his book After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, the Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf writes that:
Every Catholic church is charged with maintaining and deepening its ties to other churches past and present. The church that refuses to do thus would not be a church at all. Openness to other churches should lead to a free networking with those churches, and as the image of the net also suggests, these mutual relations should be expressed in corresponding ecclesial institutions.
Anglicans see the historic episcopate as being one of the most important of these institutions. Because episcopacy is the form of Church leadership and government that has come down to us from Apostolic times, has been accepted by the vast majority of the Christian Church ever since, and is still accepted by the vast majority of the Church today, it symbolizes in a uniquely powerful and effective way to the God given unity of the Church across time and space, what are technically known as its apostolicity and catholicity. As those in communion with the Father in the Son through the Spirit, all Christians are united with each other regardless of the barriers of time and distance and the existence of the historic episcopate shared across the churches expresses the fact that this is the case.
In the words of Michael Ramsey, through the existence of the episcopate:
...the truth is taught that every local group or Church depends upon the life of the one Body, and that the Church of any generation shares in the one historic society which is not past and dead but alive in the present.
For these two reasons Anglicans have traditionally regarded episcopacy as gift of God to His people and have commended it to their ecumenical partners as a necessary part of a visibly united Church.
It is important to note, however, that while the churches of the Anglican Communion have seen episcopacy as a gift to be maintained and upheld, in the centuries since the Reformation they have also felt free to adapt and develop the way that their episcopally based form of Church government has operated. The nature of this process of adaptation and development is explained in the following quotation from the Virginia Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission:
At the Reformation the Church of England maintained the threefold order of ministry in continuity with the early Church. Bishops in their dioceses continued to be the personal focus of the continuity and unity of the Church. There was no attempt to minimise the role of bishops as ministers of word and sacrament nor to stop a collegial relation between bishops and presbyters in the diocese or bishops together at the level of Province. Conciliar life continued to be part of the Church of England's experience. The role of Parliament and the Royal Supremacy ensured that the role and place of the laity were embedded in the structuring of the life of the Church of England. In time, this developed into synodical structures which bring together ordained and lay for discernment, decision making and authoritative teaching.
The expansion of the Church of England as a result of British colonisation led to the formation of Provinces, each with its own episcopal and synodical structures for maintaining the life of the Church. In the post-colonial period of the twentieth century the various independent Anglican Churches are governed by synods which recognise bishops' authority in some form as crucial and distinct, but which include, not only presbyterial representation, but also lay representation. Each Province, too, has developed some form of primatial office in the role of archbishop or presiding bishop .
The expression of episcopacy and the form of synodical and collegial government are not identical in each place. The experience and exercise of authority in the local context has played a part in shaping the different Provincial structures and processes. In some places the increasing emphasis on democratic forms of representation in modern secular governments has also affected church government.
As this quotation indicates, the developments that have taken place have resulted in a variety of different structures of leadership and government. In addition, each church within the Communion has developed its own distinctive ethos with some churches, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States, placing great emphasis on the role of the clergy and laity in the government of the Church and others placing greater emphasis on episcopal authority. Nevertheless, in spite of this variety, the patterns that have developed within the churches of the Anglican Communion each reflect what, to borrow the terminology of the WCC Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry report, we may call the 'personal', 'collegial' and 'communal' aspects of leadership and government.
· The personal aspect can be found in the personal ministry of each bishop in their diocese and the personal ministry of the Archbishop or Presiding Bishop in each Province (or in the national Church in the case of the Episcopal Church in the United States).
· The collegial aspect can be found in the ways in the bishops take counsel together in the Houses of Bishops and Bishops Meetings of the various churches and in other ways.
· The communal aspect can be found in the way in which (to quote Colin Podmore) the bishops act: '...not in isolation but in partnership and constant dialogue with the clergy and laity through the synods of the church and with their consent.'
Although these structures of ministerial leadership and Church government are nowhere prescribed in Scripture, Anglicans believe that they are consonant with overall biblical principles and specifically with:
(a) The account given in Acts 15 of the first council of the Church in which although the decision about Gentile circumcision was taken by the Apostles and Elders in consultation with the whole church.
(b) The teaching of St. Paul in 1 Cor 12:12-26 that those who are in communion with God and with each other form one body in Christ and that each individual member of the body has his or her own distinctive and indispensable role to play in ensuring the well being of the body as a whole.
Given the weight that Anglicanism has traditionally given to the example provided by the life and teaching of the Church in the Patristic period, it is also worth noting that the Anglican combination of episcopal leadership and the consultation of the whole people of God is in line with Patristic theology and practice.
For example, although St Cyprian of Carthage is renowned for taking a very high view of the importance of the episcopal office, he also stressed the importance of bishops, clergy and laity taking counsel together. Thus in a letter to his presbyters and deacons written in 250 AD and concerned with the reconciliation of those who had lapsed during the persecution under the Emperor Decius he writes:
For this is suitable to the modesty and the discipline, and even the life of all of us, that the chief officers [bishops] meeting together with the clergy in the presence also of the people who stand fast, to whom themselves, moreover, honour is to be shown for their faith and fear, we may be able to order all things with the religiousness of a common consultation.
We can also see this principle of consultation involving the whole people of God being put into practice in St Cyprian's account of the council held at Carthage in 258. In this account he describes how:
...a great many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia and Mauretania had met together at Carthage, together with the presbyters and deacons, and a considerable part of the congregation who were also present...
It is important to stress these last two point, because although the increased emphasis on the importance of democracy in the modern world may well have influenced the way in which structures of church government have developed in the Anglican Communion, the principle that the exercise of leadership and government in the Church should involve consultation with the whole people of God is in fact one that has ancient and biblical roots.
(IV) The Instruments of Communion
Thus far we have noted the secondary instruments of communion, the structures of ministerial leadership and Church government, which have developed within the individual churches of the Anglican Communion. However, similar structures have also developed within the Communion as a whole. It is these secondary instruments of communion relating to the Anglican Communion as a whole that are normally meant when reference is made to the 'Instruments of Communion,' and they are what are referred to in section six of the draft Anglican Covenant.
There are four Instruments of Communion.
(1) The first and oldest is the Archbishop of Canterbury. His office dates back to the time of St Augustine of Canterbury in the sixth century, and Anglicans have historically been in communion with his See. Within the Anglican Communion he is:
... accorded a primacy of honour and respect as first amongst equals (primus inter pares). He calls the Lambeth Conference, and Primates' Meeting, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council.
The Archbishop has an important role as a personal focus of unity within the Communion, a role that is analogous to that of an Archbishop at a provincial or national level or the role of the diocesan bishop at the diocesan level.
(2) The Lambeth Conference was first called by Archbishop Longley in 1867 and it has met roughly every ten years ever since. It has traditionally been a conference to which the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited all the serving bishops of the churches of the Anglican Communion. Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it:
...gathers the bishops for common counsel, consultation and encouragement and serves as an instrument in guarding the faith and unity of the Communion.
Each bishop is invited individually by the Archbishop rather than through their church and this is important because it reflects the fact that bishops are invited as bishops of the Catholic Church in their own right representing their dioceses rather than simply as episcopal representatives of their national churches.
The decisions of the Lambeth Conferences have had no formal legal, conciliar or synodical authority. However, as Owen Chadwick argues, the resolutions they have produced have in fact come to be seen as being binding on the Communion and have shaped the way in which Anglicanism has developed over the hundred and forty years since the first conference was held.
(3) The Anglican Consultative Council (frequently abbreviated to the ACC) was established in 1968 on the basis of Resolution 69 of the Lambeth Consultative Conference of that year, although the idea of having a Communion wide consultative body goes back to Resolution 5 of the Lambeth Conference of 1897. The Council, which first met in 1971, meets every three years and its standing committee meets annually. One to three people from each of the churches of the Communion attend the ACC. When three people are able to come, a bishop, a priest and a layperson attend. When fewer than three people are able to come, preference is given to lay attendance .
The role of the ACC is:
... to facilitate the co-operative work of the churches of the Anglican Communion, exchange information between the Provinces and churches, and help to co-ordinate common action. It advises on the organisation and structures of the Communion, and seeks to develop common policies with respect to the world mission of the Church, including ecumenical matters.
(4) The Primates' Meeting, which is also presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a meeting of the senior bishops of each of the churches of the Communion. It is not a meeting of all those with primatial status in the churches of the Anglicam Communion since there are a number of churches, such as England, Ireland and Australia, that have more than one Archbishop and in that case it is normally only the senior Archbishop who attends.
The Primates' Meeting was established in response to Resolution 12 of the Lambeth Conference in 1978 and it first met the following year. It assembles:
...for mutual support and counsel, monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.
The Lambeth Conferences in 1988 (Resolution 18.2a) and 1998 (Resolution III.6 a & b) called for the Primates' Meeting to be given enhanced responsibility to offer guidance to the Communion on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters and for it to give: 'guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies.' The Primates' Meeting has been, accordingly, the body that has taken the leading role in responding to the current divisions within the Communion.
Like the secondary instruments of communion at the national level, these international Instruments of Communion are personal, collegial and communal. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops of the communion exercise their personal episcopal ministries, but they do so in consultation with each other and with representatives of the other clergy and of the laity.
It is sometimes suggested that these Instruments of Communion are unnecessary and that the Anglican Communion should exist simply as a lose federation of churches with a similar history that co-operate together when they see fit and as they see fit. This position is difficult to justify theologically.
The Church at the international level is still just as much a manifestation of the one Church of Jesus Christ as is the Church at the national or diocesan levels. It is just as much a: '...congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.' It follows that it has just as much of a responsibility to manifest the communion that it has in Christ by developing a common mind and responding to God in united obedience as does the Church at these other levels. The four Instruments of Communion outlined above are necessary to enable this to happen and if they did not exist it would be necessary to invent them (or at least something very like them).
(V) Section Six of the Draft Anglican Covenant
Section six of the draft Anglican Covenant contains a number of commitments relating to these Instruments of Communion. It is frequently suggested by those who are critical of the Covenant that what is being proposed is that all power should be given to the Primates. Thus Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times on 22 June 2007:
The latest grand plan for Anglicanism is called the Covenant. The Primates of the Communion have fallen out, and have refused to share communion with each other. Their answer to this situation is that we vote them more decision-making power. It is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. But, because these Primates have whipped up an atmosphere of panic, they are persuading some people that theological martial law needs to be imposed.
This description of what is proposed is inaccurate. The draft Covenant does not propose putting Primatial tanks on the streets of Putney. What it does suggest is four things.
· First, it suggests that the each church within the Anglican Communion should: '...support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it.'
· Secondly, it suggests that each church should seek: '...with other members [of the Communion], through the Church's shared councils, a common mind about matters of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.'
· Thirdly, it suggests that the churches should; '...heed the counsel of our Instruments of Communion in matters which threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness of our mission.'
· Fourthly, it suggests that the churches should:
...seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel.
In specific terms, it says, this will involve:
1 ...submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.
The draft Covenant explains the theological rationale for these proposals by declaring that:
While the Instruments of Communion have no juridical or executive authority in our Provinces, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.
These proposals are not suggesting that there should be a coup d état in which the Instruments of Communion would replace the normal forms of Church government within the churches of the Communion. What they are suggesting is that (a) the churches should be willing to pray for and pay for the work of the Instruments, (b) that they should use them to seek a common mind, (c) that they should heed what the Instruments have to say on matters that threaten the Communion's unity and the effectiveness of its mission, and (d) that the Primates should take the lead, in consultation with the other Instruments, in offering guidance and direction on divisive issues.
It is important to note that the 'moral authority' attributed to the Instruments of Communion is a different, but not a lesser, authority than the juridical and executive forms of authority which exists within the churches of the Anglican Communion. If the Instruments of Communion reach a common mind about what is required for the well being of the churches and the furtherance of their mission, then this decision should be regarded as binding, even if it does not possess legal authority unless this is given to it subsequently by the individual churches involved.
These proposals are not controversial (or at least they should not be). The Instruments of Communion already exist, with the agreement of the churches of the Anglican Communion. Their role is to provide personal, collegial and communal forms of leadership and consultation across the Communion and their decisions (as in the case of Lambeth Conference resolutions) have been traditionally regarded as binding. What the Covenant is proposing is simply that the churches of the Communion should formally commit themselves to allowing the Instruments to carry out this role.
The Covenant Design Group, following the lead of the Primates, has not accepted the suggestion in paragraphs 108-112 of the Windsor Report that the archbishop of Canterbury should be given an enhanced role in the life of the Communion supported by a Council of Advice. It has instead taken the view that the Instruments of Communion that we have already can resolve the kind of problems that the Anglican Communion has faced since 2003 provided that the churches of the Communion allow them to do their job and are willing to accept the decisions that they make and the guidance that they give.
If we ask what the alternative to these proposals might be, then the answer is not simply sticking with the status quo. As I have just argued, the Covenant proposals reflect the status quo. What is being suggested by those who oppose the Covenant proposals is, in fact, that we should move to the situation so powerfully depicted in the Book of Judges in which the alienation of the people of Israel from God and therefore from each other was reflected in the fact that: 'every man did what was right in his own eyes' (Judg 17:6, 21:25). Such a situation would be totally incompatible with the Pauline injunction that those who are in communion with each other through their mutual participation in the life of the Holy Trinity should be: '...of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind' (Phil 2:2).
It has been suggested that the Anglican Consultative Council as rather than the Primates should offer guidance and direction in divisive situations because it is: '...the sole instrument which has lay membership alongside ordained membership other than the episcopal order.' There would be practical difficulties with a body the size of the ACC fulfilling this role given its size and the relative infrequency of its meetings (although these difficulties might be resolved by the ACC Standing Committee acting on its behalf), but the real objection to this idea is ecclesiological.
The key point to grasp is that we are not in Dr Who territory here. Contrary to the impression given by some hostile commentators on the draft Covenant, the Primates are not a group of alien beings flown in from Alpha Centauri to take over the Communion. They are simply the senior bishops of the churches of the Communion and all they are being asked to do is to exercise the leadership role that is proper to their episcopal office.
In episcopal churches, such as the churches of the Anglican Communion, the role of the bishops, individually and collectively, as the 'chief pastors and teachers of the churches' is to provide leadership in the light of consultation with the other clergy and with the laity. What the draft Covenant is proposing is simply that the senior bishops of the Communion, acting on behalf of the other bishops as the executive committee of the Lambeth Conference, should exercise this leadership role with regard to the Communion as a whole. In ecclesiological terms this is exactly the right. The Primates are the right people to exercise this function.
Even though there is an overwhelming case for the Covenant proposal in terms of accepted Anglican ecclesiology, there are two specific objections to the role proposed for the Primates that need to be considered.
The first objection is that the Covenant proposal would give undue influence to the conservative Primates from the Global South.
There are two points that need to be made in response to this objection.
(a) In terms of the way that the Primates' Meeting works, the Primates from the Global South do not have any more influence than other Primates. Each Primate has one vote. Furthermore, what has happened in Primates' meeting has in fact been that conservative and liberal Primates and those in the middle have had to reach a consensus in order to determine an agreed way forward for the communion as a whole. Worries about a Primates' Meeting dominated by conservative bishops are simply not justified on the basis of the facts.
(b) It is true that the Global South has come to exercise more influence in the life of the Anglican Communion since the Lambeth Conference 1998. This reflects the fact that in the Anglican Communion, as in world Christianity in general, the centre of gravity has now moved from the declining churches of the North, which are largely though not exclusively liberal, to the burgeoning churches of the Global South, which are predominantly conservative. This is something that liberal Christians in the North are just going to have to get used to. There is no longer any good reason why they should dominate the life of the Communion in the way that they have done in thre past. The churches of the Global South have come of age and they rightly want their voice to be heard.
The second objection is that the fact that decision making will be concentrated in the hands of the Primates means that henceforth the 'mind of the communion' will be whatever is decided by a majority vote in the Primates' Meeting.
This objection fails to recognise two key features of the Covenant proposal. First, that according to 6(3) what is determined to be the common mind of the Communion will have to be: 'consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the cannon law of our churches.' This means that the Primates' will not be able to decide what they like, but will have decide in accordance with the Scriptures and existing Anglican standards of faith and practice. Secondly, according to 6(5)2, where a common mind does not already exist the Primates will have to seek it: '...with the other instruments and their councils.' This means that in terms of the Covenant anything decided by the Primates will have to be agreeable to the other Instruments as well. The Primates will not have the authority to declare unilaterally what the mind of the Communion is on any given topic.
In addition to be objections being raised about the proposed role of the Primates' Meeting, exception has also been taken to the suggestion in the final clause of section six that in extreme circumstances those who choose not 'fulfil the substance of the covenant' as understood by the Instruments of Communion should be considered as having 'relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose.' The key point here is that being part of the Covenant means choosing to engage in a process of jointly discerning the mind of God for His people and responding to God in united obedience. If a church decides that it no longer wishes to be part of this process then it is, of course, free to do so, but it cannot do so while at the same time wanting to remain within the Covenant. As Archbishop Gomez has said: 'If you go this way, you put yourself out.' To put the matter in sporting terms, if you are not willing to play by the rules you cannot expect to be part of the game.
(VI) And finally....
The final point that needs to be made with regard to the Instruments of Communion is that, as we have already said, they are only secondary instruments of communion, with the primary instruments of communion being the word and the sacraments. This means that although the Instruments of Communion have a proper authority it is a derived and limited authority.
The Instruments of Communion have the God given role of enabling those of us who belong to the churches of the Communion to jointly discern the gift and demand made by God through the word and the sacraments so that, as those who share the life of God, we should be holy as He is holy (Lev 19:2. I Pet 1:15-16). They therefore have an authority that we should respect. The command given to us in Heb 13:17 is relevant here: 'Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping a watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account.'
However, their authority is a derived and limited authority, because it exists only in so far as they perform their God given role. If they step outside this role then their authority ceases. This is a point made with great clarity by Article XX of the Thirty Nine Articles 'Of the Authority of the Church.' This declares that: 'The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith,' but it also goes on to explain that, nevertheless:
: ...yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
There is a limit to what the Church, and hence the Instruments of Communion can say, and that is what God Himself has said and continues to say to the Church by word and sacrament.
The fundamental theological reason why the English Reformers rejected the claim to authority of the Western Medieval church was that they felt that it had transgressed this limit and this is what is in the background to Article XX. However, this is not just an historical issue.
It is clear for example, for example, that the decisions that have been taken within the Episcopal Church to ordain practising homosexuals or to bless gay and lesbian partnerships have lacked proper authority even if they have been taken lawfully in terms of being taken by the properly appointed leaders of the church in accordance with its constitution and canons. Because the acceptance of homosexual practice is 'contrary to God's word written' what the Episcopal Church has done can never have authority no matter who has done it or on what legal basis.
It is also clear that any decisions taken in future by the Instruments of Communion to move away from Lambeth 1.10 by agreeing to ordain practising homosexuals or bless same-sex partnerships would also lack proper authority for the same reason.
The authority of Lambeth 1.10, that is to say, lies not just in the fact that it was produced by the Lambeth Conference and has been endorsed by the other Instruments of Communion as Anglicanism's current teaching. If this were the case, the Instruments would have the authority to revise or repudiate 1.10. The authority of Lambeth 1.10 lies in its fidelity to what God has said to his people and for that reason, I would argue, it is un-revisable. The Instruments have no more authority to revise what God has said about sexual morality than they have the authority to say that Christ did not die for our sins or that He did nor rise from the dead. There are some things that the Church and its Instruments of Communion simply cannot do.
The principle that the Church is subject to what God reveals through word and sacrament and that this places a limit on the authority of the instruments of Communion is arguably implicit in the affirmations and commitments in sections 2 and 3 of the draft Covenant and in statement in 6(3) about the common mind achieved by the Instruments of Communion needing to be consistent with Scripture, but it needs to be made explicit in section 5 (2) or in a subsequent section 5(3). It needs to be made explicit so that those involved in the work of the Instruments are constantly aware of the proper limits under which they operate and so that theologians and the faithful in general will be aware that they have the right and the duty to challenge any decisions made by the Instrument that transgress these limits.
Only if this is the case will the Anglican communion be able to live up to its calling to be an ecclesia reformata semper reformanda and by an ever deepening obedience to the will of God enter every more deeply into the communion of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit so graphically portrayed by Rublev in the Icon with which this paper. began.
M B Davie 2.7.07
Questions for group discussion:
1) Does this paper give an adequate account of the nature of communion? If not, what needs to be added or changed?
2) Do you agree with the distinction made in this paper between the 'primary' and 'secondary' instruments of communion?
3) Do you agree with the account given in this paper of the nature and function of the secondary instruments of communion in the Anglican tradition?
4) Are you convinced by the defence made in this paper of the proposals about the role of the Instruments of Communion in section 6 of the draft Covenant?
5) How do you respond to what is said in the final section of the paper about the authority of the Instruments of Communion and the limits to that authority?
In this paper I examine theologically the nature of the Instruments of Communion and the proposal made about them in section 6 of the draft Anglican Covenant.
I begin by looking at what we mean by communion with the help of Andrei Rublev's icon 'The Old Testament Trinity,' before going on to look at how the word and the dominical sacraments are the primary means by which we enter into communion with God and each other.
I then argue that alongside these primary instruments of communion there are also secondary instruments of communion given to the Church by God in order to ensure that the word is rightly preached and the sacraments duly administered and that God's people respond to Him in a life of unified obedience. In the Anglican tradition these secondary instruments take the form of an episcopal form of church government with personal, collegial and communal aspects.
I further argue that the four 'Instruments of Communion' represent the development of this Anglican form of Church government at the international level and that they have a necessary function in allowing the Communion to operate according to is true nature as a manifestation of the Church of Jesus Christ. The proposals made about them in section 6 of the draft Covenant are entirely sensible and the criticisms of them ill founded.
Finally I note that while the Instruments of Communion have a proper God given authority that needs to be respected, this authority is based on their fidelity to God's self-revelation in word and sacrament and their authority creases when and if they take decisions that transgress this limit. I also contend that this point needs to be made explicit in section 5 of the draft Covenant.
(I) The Old Testament Trinity
The 'Old Testament Trinity' by the fourteenth century Russian Icon painter Andrei Rublev is one of the most well known images in the history of Christian art and is generally regarded as one of the finest icons ever produced. However, what I want to consider at the beginning of this paper is not its popularity or its artistic merit, but the message it give us about the concept of divine communion - the communion which we share within the Church as the result of the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
As its title suggests, Rublev's icon is a portrayal of a scene from the Old Testament. It is a Russian reinterpretation of an Ancient Byzantine image called 'the Hospitality of Abraham,' which included the figures of Abraham and Sarah and other details from the story in Genesis 18: 1-8 of Abraham's entertainment of three mysterious visitors by the oaks of Mamre.
At the beginning of this story we are told that: '...the Lord appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre,' (Genesis 18:1) but in the rest of the story it is said to be 'three men' who visited Abraham. The question that this has raised in the minds of commentators has been the relation between the Lord and these three human figures, who are clearly not just human beings since in Genesis 19:1 two of them are referred to as angels. In Patristic and Medieval exegesis of the text there were three main theories.
· That it was God (undifferentiated) and two angels.
· That it was God the Son and two angels
· That it was God the Holy Trinity appearing in angelic form as human beings.
In his icon Rublev takes the third approach. That is why he depicts three angels (note the wings), who are human in form, but also divine in nature as reflected by their haloes and by the rods they are holding which are sceptres and which indicate that as God they exercise authority over the created order.
What Rublev has in fact done is used the Genesis story as the starting point for an attempt to portray God Himself, God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In line with Nicene orthodoxy he does this by portraying three persons who share the same nature, but also have their own personal characteristics (portrayed in the icon by their slightly different faces and the different colours of their garments) and who exist in an eternal fellowship of love.
The existence of this fellowship is shown by the way in which the three figures are grouped round a table (a symbol of fellowship) and by the way in which the two figures on the right, representing the Son and the Spirit, gaze with unceasing love at the figure on the left, representing the Father. The eternity of this fellowship is indicated by the way in which the fellowship exists within a circle whose centre point is in the middle of the table, the circle being a symbol of eternity because it is without beginning or end.
The really important thing for our purposes, however, is that this is not a closed circle. The way Rublev has painted the icon there is a gap in the circle on the side towards us, just as there is a place at the table on the side facing us. This is quite deliberate. What Rublev is doing is portraying the Holy Trinity in such a way as to make reference to the great Orthodox theme of participation in the life of God. That is to say, Rublev is telling us that the fellowship of love which is the life of God is a fellowship that we too are invited to join. God's Trinitarian life has room for us within it.
(II) Sharing the Trinitarian life of God
It is the fact that God's Trinitarian life is, as Rublev depicts it, an open fellowship, or communion, of love, which is open to us as well that is the basis of the communion that exists within the Church. It is therefore the correct starting point for tackling the issue of the Instruments of Communion (the topic I have been asked to address this morning).
To understand why this is the case we need to ask the most basic of all philosophical questions, 'Why is there anything at all?' From the Christian perspective the answer is that the reason that there is anything at all is because God is the God depicted by Rublev, and before Rublev by Holy Scripture, the Trinitarian God whose life is a life of ecstatic love.
This is a point that is well made by Kallistos Ware in his book The Orthodox Way:
To love means to share, as the doctrine of the Trinity has so clearly shown us: God is not just one but one-in-three, because he is a communion of persons who share in love with one another. The circle of divine love, however, has not remained closed. God's love is, in the literal sense of the word, 'ecstatic' - a love that causes God to go out from himself and to create things other himself. By voluntary choice God created the world in 'ecstatic' love, so that there might be besides himself other beings to participate in the life and love that are his.
The biblical narrative is the story of how God has fulfilled, and will fulfil, His purposes of ecstatic love, by creating the world, and by rescuing the world after it had fallen into sin, so that in the fullness of time, through the work of the Holy Spirit, all things in heaven and on earth might be united to God the Father through God the Son (Eph 1.10). As FF Bruce puts it in his commentary on Ephesians, this union of all this with Himself is: 'the grand purpose of God which embraces all lesser aspects of his purpose within itself' and the existence of the Christian Church is an integral part of this divine purpose.
The Church is the anticipation, the 'first fruits,' of the cosmic unity that will exist at the end of time. It is the place where God's human creatures begin to participate in the life of God. On the night before His crucifixion Christ prayed that those who believe in Him might share in His relationship of love and unity with God the Father (Jn 17:20-26) and the Church is the community in which this prayer is answered.
The term that has come to be used in ecumenical theology to refer to the participation of believers in the life of God is the New Testament term koinonia, normally translated into English as 'communion.'
As the ARCIC report Church as Communion explains:
In the New Testament the word koinonia (often translated 'communion' or 'fellowship') ties together a number of basic concepts such as unity, life together, sharing and partaking. The basic verbal form means 'to share,' 'to participate,' 'to have part in,' 'to have something in common' or 'to act together.' The noun can signify fellowship or community. It usually signifies a relationship based on participation in a shared reality (e.g.1 Cor 10.16). This usage is most explicit in the in the Johannine writings: 'We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ' (1 John 1:3; cf 1 John 1:7).
In the New Testament the idea of koinonia is conveyed through a variety of different images:
· The people of God (1 Pet 2:9-10)
· The flock (Jn 10:14, Acts 20:28-29, 1 Pet 5:2-4)
· The vine (Jn 15:5)
· The temple (1 Cor 3:16-17)
· The bride (Rev 21:2)
· The body of Christ (Rom 12:4-5, 1 Cor 10:17, 1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-23)
As Church as Communion further explains, all these images:
...express a relationship with God and also imply a relationship among the members of the community. The reality to which this variety of images refer is communion, a shared life in Christ (1 Cor 10:16-17; cf Jn 17), which no one image exhaustively describes. This communion is participation in the life of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, making Christian one with each other.
What this last quotation brings out the fact is that koinonia/communion is both vertical and horizontal. It is a communion with God that unites Christians with each other, making them the single united body to which St. Paul refers.
If that is what communion is, the next question we have to answer is how communion is created and sustained.
The first answer to this question is that it is created and sustained by God the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 13:14) who unites us with Christ, and in Christ with the Father. However, we also have to note that the Holy Spirit uses instruments to do this and the instruments that He primarily uses, the primary instruments of communion, are the word and the sacraments. It is as: 'the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same' (Article XIX) that communion is created and sustained. It as people hear and believe the witness of the word that they have fellowship with the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit, and therefore have fellowship with each other (1 Jn 1:3). It is as they are baptised that they become members of the one body and partake of the one Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). It is as they partake of the elements at the Eucharist that they receive the eternal life of God and participate in the body of Christ (Jn 6:54-56, 1 Cor 10:16).
However, the word does not preach itself nor do the sacraments minister themselves. There need to be human beings to preach the word and minister the sacraments and to ensure that the visible unity and holiness which are meant to be the visible fruits of the invisible communion of Christians with God and with each other are manifested in the life of the Church.
It is for this reason that among the gifts given by the ascended Christ to His Church through the Holy Spirit are the leaders that Church requires (Eph 4:11-12) and it is for this reason also that over the centuries various different structures of leadership and Church government, which we may describe as 'secondary instruments of communion,' have developed among the churches.
(III) The Anglican tradition of ministerial leadership and Church government
At the heart of the structures of leadership and Church government that exist in the churches of the Anglican Communion lies the historic episcopate. At the Reformation, when other reformed churches abandoned the episcopate, the Church of England retained it and an episcopal form of Church government has been a defining characteristic of Anglicanism ever since.
If we ask why the Anglican tradition has retained the episcopate, the answer is that it has done so for two key reasons.
The first reason is because the pattern of leadership and Church government based on bishops is the one that has come down to us from apostolic times
As J B Lightfoot argues in his classic study of the issue, we can only make sense of the evidence that we have surrounding the emergence of mono-episcopacy if we accept the tradition handed down to us by the Early Fathers such as St. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian that the Apostle John, building on the example provided by the leadership exercised by St. James over the church in Jerusalem, appointed bishops for the churches in Asia Minor at the end of first century in order to provide for the continuing oversight of these churches after his death. This way of ordering the Church's ministry then achieved universal acceptance in the Church during the second century and remained unchallenged within mainstream Christianity until the Reformation.
What this means is that the statement in the Preface to Ordinal attached to the Book of Common Prayer that: '...from the Apostles times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests and Deacons' is accurate and the question that arises in consequence is whether the Church is at liberty to dispense with a form of Church order that has an Apostolic origin. The classic Anglican answer to this question has been 'No.' If we accept the authority of the New Testament and the Church's rule of faith enshrined in the Catholic creeds because of their Apostolic origin, then we are bound to do the same with regard to the form of Church order that has come down to us from Apostolic times and with Apostolic authority.
The second and related reason is the link between episcopacy and the unity of the Church.
In his book After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity, the Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf writes that:
Every Catholic church is charged with maintaining and deepening its ties to other churches past and present. The church that refuses to do thus would not be a church at all. Openness to other churches should lead to a free networking with those churches, and as the image of the net also suggests, these mutual relations should be expressed in corresponding ecclesial institutions.
Anglicans see the historic episcopate as being one of the most important of these institutions. Because episcopacy is the form of Church leadership and government that has come down to us from Apostolic times, has been accepted by the vast majority of the Christian Church ever since, and is still accepted by the vast majority of the Church today, it symbolizes in a uniquely powerful and effective way to the God given unity of the Church across time and space, what are technically known as its apostolicity and catholicity. As those in communion with the Father in the Son through the Spirit, all Christians are united with each other regardless of the barriers of time and distance and the existence of the historic episcopate shared across the churches expresses the fact that this is the case.
In the words of Michael Ramsey, through the existence of the episcopate:
...the truth is taught that every local group or Church depends upon the life of the one Body, and that the Church of any generation shares in the one historic society which is not past and dead but alive in the present.
For these two reasons Anglicans have traditionally regarded episcopacy as gift of God to His people and have commended it to their ecumenical partners as a necessary part of a visibly united Church.
It is important to note, however, that while the churches of the Anglican Communion have seen episcopacy as a gift to be maintained and upheld, in the centuries since the Reformation they have also felt free to adapt and develop the way that their episcopally based form of Church government has operated. The nature of this process of adaptation and development is explained in the following quotation from the Virginia Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission:
At the Reformation the Church of England maintained the threefold order of ministry in continuity with the early Church. Bishops in their dioceses continued to be the personal focus of the continuity and unity of the Church. There was no attempt to minimise the role of bishops as ministers of word and sacrament nor to stop a collegial relation between bishops and presbyters in the diocese or bishops together at the level of Province. Conciliar life continued to be part of the Church of England's experience. The role of Parliament and the Royal Supremacy ensured that the role and place of the laity were embedded in the structuring of the life of the Church of England. In time, this developed into synodical structures which bring together ordained and lay for discernment, decision making and authoritative teaching.
The expansion of the Church of England as a result of British colonisation led to the formation of Provinces, each with its own episcopal and synodical structures for maintaining the life of the Church. In the post-colonial period of the twentieth century the various independent Anglican Churches are governed by synods which recognise bishops' authority in some form as crucial and distinct, but which include, not only presbyterial representation, but also lay representation. Each Province, too, has developed some form of primatial office in the role of archbishop or presiding bishop .
The expression of episcopacy and the form of synodical and collegial government are not identical in each place. The experience and exercise of authority in the local context has played a part in shaping the different Provincial structures and processes. In some places the increasing emphasis on democratic forms of representation in modern secular governments has also affected church government.
As this quotation indicates, the developments that have taken place have resulted in a variety of different structures of leadership and government. In addition, each church within the Communion has developed its own distinctive ethos with some churches, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States, placing great emphasis on the role of the clergy and laity in the government of the Church and others placing greater emphasis on episcopal authority. Nevertheless, in spite of this variety, the patterns that have developed within the churches of the Anglican Communion each reflect what, to borrow the terminology of the WCC Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry report, we may call the 'personal', 'collegial' and 'communal' aspects of leadership and government.
· The personal aspect can be found in the personal ministry of each bishop in their diocese and the personal ministry of the Archbishop or Presiding Bishop in each Province (or in the national Church in the case of the Episcopal Church in the United States).
· The collegial aspect can be found in the ways in the bishops take counsel together in the Houses of Bishops and Bishops Meetings of the various churches and in other ways.
· The communal aspect can be found in the way in which (to quote Colin Podmore) the bishops act: '...not in isolation but in partnership and constant dialogue with the clergy and laity through the synods of the church and with their consent.'
Although these structures of ministerial leadership and Church government are nowhere prescribed in Scripture, Anglicans believe that they are consonant with overall biblical principles and specifically with:
(a) The account given in Acts 15 of the first council of the Church in which although the decision about Gentile circumcision was taken by the Apostles and Elders in consultation with the whole church.
(b) The teaching of St. Paul in 1 Cor 12:12-26 that those who are in communion with God and with each other form one body in Christ and that each individual member of the body has his or her own distinctive and indispensable role to play in ensuring the well being of the body as a whole.
Given the weight that Anglicanism has traditionally given to the example provided by the life and teaching of the Church in the Patristic period, it is also worth noting that the Anglican combination of episcopal leadership and the consultation of the whole people of God is in line with Patristic theology and practice.
For example, although St Cyprian of Carthage is renowned for taking a very high view of the importance of the episcopal office, he also stressed the importance of bishops, clergy and laity taking counsel together. Thus in a letter to his presbyters and deacons written in 250 AD and concerned with the reconciliation of those who had lapsed during the persecution under the Emperor Decius he writes:
For this is suitable to the modesty and the discipline, and even the life of all of us, that the chief officers [bishops] meeting together with the clergy in the presence also of the people who stand fast, to whom themselves, moreover, honour is to be shown for their faith and fear, we may be able to order all things with the religiousness of a common consultation.
We can also see this principle of consultation involving the whole people of God being put into practice in St Cyprian's account of the council held at Carthage in 258. In this account he describes how:
...a great many bishops from the provinces of Africa, Numidia and Mauretania had met together at Carthage, together with the presbyters and deacons, and a considerable part of the congregation who were also present...
It is important to stress these last two point, because although the increased emphasis on the importance of democracy in the modern world may well have influenced the way in which structures of church government have developed in the Anglican Communion, the principle that the exercise of leadership and government in the Church should involve consultation with the whole people of God is in fact one that has ancient and biblical roots.
(IV) The Instruments of Communion
Thus far we have noted the secondary instruments of communion, the structures of ministerial leadership and Church government, which have developed within the individual churches of the Anglican Communion. However, similar structures have also developed within the Communion as a whole. It is these secondary instruments of communion relating to the Anglican Communion as a whole that are normally meant when reference is made to the 'Instruments of Communion,' and they are what are referred to in section six of the draft Anglican Covenant.
There are four Instruments of Communion.
(1) The first and oldest is the Archbishop of Canterbury. His office dates back to the time of St Augustine of Canterbury in the sixth century, and Anglicans have historically been in communion with his See. Within the Anglican Communion he is:
... accorded a primacy of honour and respect as first amongst equals (primus inter pares). He calls the Lambeth Conference, and Primates' Meeting, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council.
The Archbishop has an important role as a personal focus of unity within the Communion, a role that is analogous to that of an Archbishop at a provincial or national level or the role of the diocesan bishop at the diocesan level.
(2) The Lambeth Conference was first called by Archbishop Longley in 1867 and it has met roughly every ten years ever since. It has traditionally been a conference to which the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited all the serving bishops of the churches of the Anglican Communion. Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it:
...gathers the bishops for common counsel, consultation and encouragement and serves as an instrument in guarding the faith and unity of the Communion.
Each bishop is invited individually by the Archbishop rather than through their church and this is important because it reflects the fact that bishops are invited as bishops of the Catholic Church in their own right representing their dioceses rather than simply as episcopal representatives of their national churches.
The decisions of the Lambeth Conferences have had no formal legal, conciliar or synodical authority. However, as Owen Chadwick argues, the resolutions they have produced have in fact come to be seen as being binding on the Communion and have shaped the way in which Anglicanism has developed over the hundred and forty years since the first conference was held.
(3) The Anglican Consultative Council (frequently abbreviated to the ACC) was established in 1968 on the basis of Resolution 69 of the Lambeth Consultative Conference of that year, although the idea of having a Communion wide consultative body goes back to Resolution 5 of the Lambeth Conference of 1897. The Council, which first met in 1971, meets every three years and its standing committee meets annually. One to three people from each of the churches of the Communion attend the ACC. When three people are able to come, a bishop, a priest and a layperson attend. When fewer than three people are able to come, preference is given to lay attendance .
The role of the ACC is:
... to facilitate the co-operative work of the churches of the Anglican Communion, exchange information between the Provinces and churches, and help to co-ordinate common action. It advises on the organisation and structures of the Communion, and seeks to develop common policies with respect to the world mission of the Church, including ecumenical matters.
(4) The Primates' Meeting, which is also presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a meeting of the senior bishops of each of the churches of the Communion. It is not a meeting of all those with primatial status in the churches of the Anglicam Communion since there are a number of churches, such as England, Ireland and Australia, that have more than one Archbishop and in that case it is normally only the senior Archbishop who attends.
The Primates' Meeting was established in response to Resolution 12 of the Lambeth Conference in 1978 and it first met the following year. It assembles:
...for mutual support and counsel, monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.
The Lambeth Conferences in 1988 (Resolution 18.2a) and 1998 (Resolution III.6 a & b) called for the Primates' Meeting to be given enhanced responsibility to offer guidance to the Communion on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters and for it to give: 'guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies.' The Primates' Meeting has been, accordingly, the body that has taken the leading role in responding to the current divisions within the Communion.
Like the secondary instruments of communion at the national level, these international Instruments of Communion are personal, collegial and communal. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops of the communion exercise their personal episcopal ministries, but they do so in consultation with each other and with representatives of the other clergy and of the laity.
It is sometimes suggested that these Instruments of Communion are unnecessary and that the Anglican Communion should exist simply as a lose federation of churches with a similar history that co-operate together when they see fit and as they see fit. This position is difficult to justify theologically.
The Church at the international level is still just as much a manifestation of the one Church of Jesus Christ as is the Church at the national or diocesan levels. It is just as much a: '...congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.' It follows that it has just as much of a responsibility to manifest the communion that it has in Christ by developing a common mind and responding to God in united obedience as does the Church at these other levels. The four Instruments of Communion outlined above are necessary to enable this to happen and if they did not exist it would be necessary to invent them (or at least something very like them).
(V) Section Six of the Draft Anglican Covenant
Section six of the draft Anglican Covenant contains a number of commitments relating to these Instruments of Communion. It is frequently suggested by those who are critical of the Covenant that what is being proposed is that all power should be given to the Primates. Thus Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times on 22 June 2007:
The latest grand plan for Anglicanism is called the Covenant. The Primates of the Communion have fallen out, and have refused to share communion with each other. Their answer to this situation is that we vote them more decision-making power. It is like trying to put out a fire with petrol. But, because these Primates have whipped up an atmosphere of panic, they are persuading some people that theological martial law needs to be imposed.
This description of what is proposed is inaccurate. The draft Covenant does not propose putting Primatial tanks on the streets of Putney. What it does suggest is four things.
· First, it suggests that the each church within the Anglican Communion should: '...support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it.'
· Secondly, it suggests that each church should seek: '...with other members [of the Communion], through the Church's shared councils, a common mind about matters of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.'
· Thirdly, it suggests that the churches should; '...heed the counsel of our Instruments of Communion in matters which threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness of our mission.'
· Fourthly, it suggests that the churches should:
...seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel.
In specific terms, it says, this will involve:
1 ...submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.
The draft Covenant explains the theological rationale for these proposals by declaring that:
While the Instruments of Communion have no juridical or executive authority in our Provinces, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.
These proposals are not suggesting that there should be a coup d état in which the Instruments of Communion would replace the normal forms of Church government within the churches of the Communion. What they are suggesting is that (a) the churches should be willing to pray for and pay for the work of the Instruments, (b) that they should use them to seek a common mind, (c) that they should heed what the Instruments have to say on matters that threaten the Communion's unity and the effectiveness of its mission, and (d) that the Primates should take the lead, in consultation with the other Instruments, in offering guidance and direction on divisive issues.
It is important to note that the 'moral authority' attributed to the Instruments of Communion is a different, but not a lesser, authority than the juridical and executive forms of authority which exists within the churches of the Anglican Communion. If the Instruments of Communion reach a common mind about what is required for the well being of the churches and the furtherance of their mission, then this decision should be regarded as binding, even if it does not possess legal authority unless this is given to it subsequently by the individual churches involved.
These proposals are not controversial (or at least they should not be). The Instruments of Communion already exist, with the agreement of the churches of the Anglican Communion. Their role is to provide personal, collegial and communal forms of leadership and consultation across the Communion and their decisions (as in the case of Lambeth Conference resolutions) have been traditionally regarded as binding. What the Covenant is proposing is simply that the churches of the Communion should formally commit themselves to allowing the Instruments to carry out this role.
The Covenant Design Group, following the lead of the Primates, has not accepted the suggestion in paragraphs 108-112 of the Windsor Report that the archbishop of Canterbury should be given an enhanced role in the life of the Communion supported by a Council of Advice. It has instead taken the view that the Instruments of Communion that we have already can resolve the kind of problems that the Anglican Communion has faced since 2003 provided that the churches of the Communion allow them to do their job and are willing to accept the decisions that they make and the guidance that they give.
If we ask what the alternative to these proposals might be, then the answer is not simply sticking with the status quo. As I have just argued, the Covenant proposals reflect the status quo. What is being suggested by those who oppose the Covenant proposals is, in fact, that we should move to the situation so powerfully depicted in the Book of Judges in which the alienation of the people of Israel from God and therefore from each other was reflected in the fact that: 'every man did what was right in his own eyes' (Judg 17:6, 21:25). Such a situation would be totally incompatible with the Pauline injunction that those who are in communion with each other through their mutual participation in the life of the Holy Trinity should be: '...of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind' (Phil 2:2).
It has been suggested that the Anglican Consultative Council as rather than the Primates should offer guidance and direction in divisive situations because it is: '...the sole instrument which has lay membership alongside ordained membership other than the episcopal order.' There would be practical difficulties with a body the size of the ACC fulfilling this role given its size and the relative infrequency of its meetings (although these difficulties might be resolved by the ACC Standing Committee acting on its behalf), but the real objection to this idea is ecclesiological.
The key point to grasp is that we are not in Dr Who territory here. Contrary to the impression given by some hostile commentators on the draft Covenant, the Primates are not a group of alien beings flown in from Alpha Centauri to take over the Communion. They are simply the senior bishops of the churches of the Communion and all they are being asked to do is to exercise the leadership role that is proper to their episcopal office.
In episcopal churches, such as the churches of the Anglican Communion, the role of the bishops, individually and collectively, as the 'chief pastors and teachers of the churches' is to provide leadership in the light of consultation with the other clergy and with the laity. What the draft Covenant is proposing is simply that the senior bishops of the Communion, acting on behalf of the other bishops as the executive committee of the Lambeth Conference, should exercise this leadership role with regard to the Communion as a whole. In ecclesiological terms this is exactly the right. The Primates are the right people to exercise this function.
Even though there is an overwhelming case for the Covenant proposal in terms of accepted Anglican ecclesiology, there are two specific objections to the role proposed for the Primates that need to be considered.
The first objection is that the Covenant proposal would give undue influence to the conservative Primates from the Global South.
There are two points that need to be made in response to this objection.
(a) In terms of the way that the Primates' Meeting works, the Primates from the Global South do not have any more influence than other Primates. Each Primate has one vote. Furthermore, what has happened in Primates' meeting has in fact been that conservative and liberal Primates and those in the middle have had to reach a consensus in order to determine an agreed way forward for the communion as a whole. Worries about a Primates' Meeting dominated by conservative bishops are simply not justified on the basis of the facts.
(b) It is true that the Global South has come to exercise more influence in the life of the Anglican Communion since the Lambeth Conference 1998. This reflects the fact that in the Anglican Communion, as in world Christianity in general, the centre of gravity has now moved from the declining churches of the North, which are largely though not exclusively liberal, to the burgeoning churches of the Global South, which are predominantly conservative. This is something that liberal Christians in the North are just going to have to get used to. There is no longer any good reason why they should dominate the life of the Communion in the way that they have done in thre past. The churches of the Global South have come of age and they rightly want their voice to be heard.
The second objection is that the fact that decision making will be concentrated in the hands of the Primates means that henceforth the 'mind of the communion' will be whatever is decided by a majority vote in the Primates' Meeting.
This objection fails to recognise two key features of the Covenant proposal. First, that according to 6(3) what is determined to be the common mind of the Communion will have to be: 'consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the cannon law of our churches.' This means that the Primates' will not be able to decide what they like, but will have decide in accordance with the Scriptures and existing Anglican standards of faith and practice. Secondly, according to 6(5)2, where a common mind does not already exist the Primates will have to seek it: '...with the other instruments and their councils.' This means that in terms of the Covenant anything decided by the Primates will have to be agreeable to the other Instruments as well. The Primates will not have the authority to declare unilaterally what the mind of the Communion is on any given topic.
In addition to be objections being raised about the proposed role of the Primates' Meeting, exception has also been taken to the suggestion in the final clause of section six that in extreme circumstances those who choose not 'fulfil the substance of the covenant' as understood by the Instruments of Communion should be considered as having 'relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose.' The key point here is that being part of the Covenant means choosing to engage in a process of jointly discerning the mind of God for His people and responding to God in united obedience. If a church decides that it no longer wishes to be part of this process then it is, of course, free to do so, but it cannot do so while at the same time wanting to remain within the Covenant. As Archbishop Gomez has said: 'If you go this way, you put yourself out.' To put the matter in sporting terms, if you are not willing to play by the rules you cannot expect to be part of the game.
(VI) And finally....
The final point that needs to be made with regard to the Instruments of Communion is that, as we have already said, they are only secondary instruments of communion, with the primary instruments of communion being the word and the sacraments. This means that although the Instruments of Communion have a proper authority it is a derived and limited authority.
The Instruments of Communion have the God given role of enabling those of us who belong to the churches of the Communion to jointly discern the gift and demand made by God through the word and the sacraments so that, as those who share the life of God, we should be holy as He is holy (Lev 19:2. I Pet 1:15-16). They therefore have an authority that we should respect. The command given to us in Heb 13:17 is relevant here: 'Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping a watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account.'
However, their authority is a derived and limited authority, because it exists only in so far as they perform their God given role. If they step outside this role then their authority ceases. This is a point made with great clarity by Article XX of the Thirty Nine Articles 'Of the Authority of the Church.' This declares that: 'The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith,' but it also goes on to explain that, nevertheless:
: ...yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
There is a limit to what the Church, and hence the Instruments of Communion can say, and that is what God Himself has said and continues to say to the Church by word and sacrament.
The fundamental theological reason why the English Reformers rejected the claim to authority of the Western Medieval church was that they felt that it had transgressed this limit and this is what is in the background to Article XX. However, this is not just an historical issue.
It is clear for example, for example, that the decisions that have been taken within the Episcopal Church to ordain practising homosexuals or to bless gay and lesbian partnerships have lacked proper authority even if they have been taken lawfully in terms of being taken by the properly appointed leaders of the church in accordance with its constitution and canons. Because the acceptance of homosexual practice is 'contrary to God's word written' what the Episcopal Church has done can never have authority no matter who has done it or on what legal basis.
It is also clear that any decisions taken in future by the Instruments of Communion to move away from Lambeth 1.10 by agreeing to ordain practising homosexuals or bless same-sex partnerships would also lack proper authority for the same reason.
The authority of Lambeth 1.10, that is to say, lies not just in the fact that it was produced by the Lambeth Conference and has been endorsed by the other Instruments of Communion as Anglicanism's current teaching. If this were the case, the Instruments would have the authority to revise or repudiate 1.10. The authority of Lambeth 1.10 lies in its fidelity to what God has said to his people and for that reason, I would argue, it is un-revisable. The Instruments have no more authority to revise what God has said about sexual morality than they have the authority to say that Christ did not die for our sins or that He did nor rise from the dead. There are some things that the Church and its Instruments of Communion simply cannot do.
The principle that the Church is subject to what God reveals through word and sacrament and that this places a limit on the authority of the instruments of Communion is arguably implicit in the affirmations and commitments in sections 2 and 3 of the draft Covenant and in statement in 6(3) about the common mind achieved by the Instruments of Communion needing to be consistent with Scripture, but it needs to be made explicit in section 5 (2) or in a subsequent section 5(3). It needs to be made explicit so that those involved in the work of the Instruments are constantly aware of the proper limits under which they operate and so that theologians and the faithful in general will be aware that they have the right and the duty to challenge any decisions made by the Instrument that transgress these limits.
Only if this is the case will the Anglican communion be able to live up to its calling to be an ecclesia reformata semper reformanda and by an ever deepening obedience to the will of God enter every more deeply into the communion of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit so graphically portrayed by Rublev in the Icon with which this paper. began.
M B Davie 2.7.07
Questions for group discussion:
1) Does this paper give an adequate account of the nature of communion? If not, what needs to be added or changed?
2) Do you agree with the distinction made in this paper between the 'primary' and 'secondary' instruments of communion?
3) Do you agree with the account given in this paper of the nature and function of the secondary instruments of communion in the Anglican tradition?
4) Are you convinced by the defence made in this paper of the proposals about the role of the Instruments of Communion in section 6 of the draft Covenant?
5) How do you respond to what is said in the final section of the paper about the authority of the Instruments of Communion and the limits to that authority?
