Tuesday, December 30, 2008

The Episcopal Church and the 'Anglican Covenant'

TEC and a Covenant
As we of TEC press on in post-Lambeth Conference processes that will give much attention to the proposal of our formal adoption of an Anglican Covenant, it may be wise for us to remember our history more accurately than romantically. Specifically, let us remember that the Church of England (not "the Anglican Church;" there is not such thing) was an accompaniment to the colonizing efforts of England around the world of the 17th and 18th centuries. There was no original intent to create a Communion of autonomous and autocephalous Churches. As a phenomenon the Anglican Communion is an accident of history; it is an adaptation of the former colonies of England.

When the United States won its independence from England, there was no Anglican Communion in existence. The Church in the United States decidedly did not seek to sustain communion with the See of Canterbury. Instead, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America sought only to maintain apostolic succession. Most of us know that England was unwilling to cooperate, and so our Church's first bishop was consecrated not by the Church of England, but by the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Afterward, in reaction to our initiative, it was the Church of England who sought a cooperative relationship with the ECUSA, not vice-versa. Inasmuch as England had hopes of reclaiming her former North American colonies (war of 1812), preserving a British connection to them in the Church no doubt seemed prudent. The point being that the history of the inception of our Church fails to demonstrate any deep and abiding affection between ECUSA (now TEC) and the Church of England. It seems again rather an accident of subsequent history, especially through WW2, that our two Churches have been perceived, and perhaps have perceived themselves, as somehow especially allied.


Thus, it seems to me that TEC will be wise to resist further participating in an inaccurate mythology. The Anglican Communion, as a concept, is hardly even 150 years old. And in its modern manifestation, it dates back to no later than 1968, when the Anglican Consultative Council was formed. These realities present some hard questions that need to be asked before TEC and others participate in actions that will permanently alter the way this Church functions in the world. Harkening back to its origins, ECUSA was concerned with apostolic succession, not with communion with Canterbury. With the relatively recent formal establishment of the "instruments of communion (unity)," and with the trend toward greater mechanisms to urge, then enforce, unanimity, I think TEC will do well to revisit its inaugural choice: apostolic fidelity or fealty to England?

Ironically, I find myself agreeing, though not sympathizing, with the self-proclaimed orthodox of Africa and the Southern Cone who have already raised the question: why do we need Canterbury anymore? It seems that their only use for the see of Canterbury is to transform it into a trans-provincial entity of jurisprudence. It seems also that Canterbury has its own use for them in return, namely: allowing them to succeed in their effort, in the name of unity. I suggest that if Canterbury's only or main relevance to the Anglican Communion is to serve as a tool of enforcement, then it is time to gather up that same Reformation energy that compelled Tudor England to question those claims of authority that were coming form Rome, and now place that same challenge before Canterbury. TEC will do well to lead the way in requiring Canterbury to do far better than trying to ram through the post-Lambeth processes a Covenant in order to convince us that Canterbury is still relevant to the practical mission and ministry of the autonomous Churches of the Communion.

A Covenant presumably will be something in which the Churches agree to participate. Should a Church not agree, then it will be a second-tier member, and eventually be considered for removal. Thus, it seems to me time to acknowledge the latest accident of history, namely: that the Anglican Communion is in fact already a voluntary federation of Churches, not a single denomination under the authority of even a titular head. Rather than seek greater enforcement of uniformity, it is time, perhaps, that the Churches accept the reality of their wider diversity. The Churches already participate in varying degrees with one another, more with some, less with others. A covenant won't change this. Primates and Houses of Bishops of certain Churches that have claimed to reject other Churches won't be changed by a covenant. The reality is what it is. There are established processes by which a proposed province or Church accepts membership in the modern version of the Anglican Communion, as prescribed by the Anglican Consultative Council. And this involves far more than simply being invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury. If Canterbury is to remain relevant, then let the Archbishop there continue to invite bishops to Lambeth, but the invitation should be to ALL bishops of all Churches who voluntarily affiliate with the Communion. The ABC should cease presuming to play referee. And the Churches should cease regarding the ABC as such.

TEC is already part of a voluntary association of autonomous Churches that share an appreciation for the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral, the Book of Common Prayer, and the heritage of English Reformation theology and ecclesiology. The role of the ABC is rightly subsumed under the latter; it does not (any longer) belong in an elevated position above it. I pray TEC will not surrender its original autonomy nor compromise its witness and ministry for sake of fealty to a mythological Anglicanism that has never really been. I pray my fellow Episcopalians will move with healthy suspicion and skepticism as we consider further the peculiar notion of an "Anglican Covenant."

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 Stockton +

No comments:

Post a Comment