The conversation around the proposed Anglican Covenant appears to be surfacing two discernible streams: those who are in favor of its adoption rather immediately, and those who favor a cautious skeptical approach. Few if any are against a Covenant outright. Having reviewed the St. Andrew's draft of the proposed Covenant, I had originally concluded that it was pretty serviceable. I viewed the abundant appendices as perhaps a sly way of weighing the thing with such cumbersome processes of application that effectively it would be a moot exercise. I no longer hold to this position. As serviceable as it may be, the proposal is less about a covenant of relationship than it is about a description of a juridical process. I believe this renders the proposed covenant a detriment to the vitality of the Anglican Communion, and certainly to the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church.
The effectiveness of any covenant is only as good as its signatories. I'm aware that many of the bishops who have been speaking vigorously in favor of 'the Covenant' are also those bishops who, in 2005, signed their names to the House of Bishops Covenant Statement, then promptly abandoned that covenant by simultaneously sending a secret message to the Archbishop of Canterbury claiming that the very existence of the covenant statement was itself evidence of the terminal fracturing of the Episcopal Church. One can only wonder how quickly these same bishops, and those of similar mindset, will abandon any Anglican Covenant that fails to meet their exacting legalistic standards or fails to meet out to their chosen enemies the punishment and condemnation they long to impose.
It seems to me that the process by which a covenant has been originated is irretrievably flawed. Of all the many recommendations of the almighty Windsor Report that received response, this is the only one that has gained momentum. This, despite the fact that the Primates themselves at their meeting in Dromantine noted their own reservations about the establishment of any sort of covenant. While the Archbishop of Canterbury seems determined to listen to the cranky bigots of that body who are determined to press ahead, he seems uninterested in those more moderate voices urging caution. Those who authored the first covenant as it was presented in Dar es Salaam were aiming with a legalistic approach at reinventing the Anglican Communion and shifting its seat of authority. Their targets were first TEC, then the Anglican Church of Canada, then the Church of England. Despite the changes to the proposed Covenant, then, one rightly wonders whether or not the original intentions have changed at all. I think not. The Archbishop of Canterbury, whom some approach as their Anglican pope, has given them no motivation to change. Quite to the contrary, Rowan Williams is fueling a dismissive disregard for the polity of TEC and an exalted view of bishops and primates as dictatorial headmasters of an infantilized laity.
The underlying motivation for an Anglican Covenant seems oriented less around unity and more around unanimity. Yet, no covenant will promote mutual accountability. Relationship does this already. And if relationship does not exist, then nothing mutual exists, either. The Covenant reads like a tool for enforcement and punishment, and if adopted, the Anglican Communion will be very much like that single denomination that the so-called "conservatives" like to describe it as already. Personally, I see no reason to recreate what already exists in the Roman Catholic Church. The only possible reason for a revised Anglican Communion would be to afford particular persons access to the exercise of power that their departure for the Roman Church would not bring them. The autonomy of the national provinces of the Anglican Communion is Anglicanism's unique gift to the wider body of Christianity. No reasonable argument can be made that a covenant will not thoroughly undo this. Thanks be to God, the Communion already has unity amongst those who choose to embrace and engage the challenges and blessings of Anglicanism.
I'm both glad and sad to know that our Diocese of Texas deputation to General Convention will be meeting to discuss the Covenant. As good as this might seem, there has been here no real effort to gather the diocesan community around a study of the proposed covenant. Such an effort would have meant getting the people involved, having to deal with a variety of view points, and admitting to the existence of disagreement. These are phenomena that our current diocesan administration avoids with phobic determination. Instead, an extremely small number of individuals will ‘discuss’; they will not contest the bishop's a priori affection for a covenant (remember: he was in favor of adopting the far more extremist version of the covenant from Dar es Salaam), and they will allow him to pretend for General Convention that his opinion represents that of the entire Diocese of Texas. I'm glad that at least a few people are meeting to discuss the Covenant. I'm sad that little that will be original or productive is likely to come of it.
The Church of England never had a covenant. The Episcopal Church purposely has never had a covenant. No Church constituent of the Anglican Communion has ever adopted a covenant. Presumably, we have all experienced the grace of catholicity, i.e. the wisdom of doing without any more covenant than the Creeds of the Church. The very phrase 'Anglican Covenant' is virtually a contradiction in terms. Personally, I hope and pray that the idea of an Anglican Covenant will wither and die, and that those of us who appreciate the blessing that is the Anglican Communion will press on with our respective and collective mission and ministries.
Jim +
No comments:
Post a Comment