Toward an Anglican Convenant: the Ridley Cambridge Draft

Today the Covenant Design Group has released the newest draft Anglican Covenant. As with previous drafts, this one is designated, because of where the Group met, as the Ridley Cambridge Draft. You can find the text here, and the text with attachments here.

Having spent significant time reflecting on the Nassau and St. Andrews Drafts, I found this one also interesting to read. I won’t do a line by line analysis. I’m sure others will get to that point. However, there are some changes for this draft that stand out quite clearly.

The Ridley Cambridge Draft includes a Preamble and four sections. This is roughly comparable with the St. Andrews Draft, which included three sections and an Appendix. The structure of the document is really much the same, with the issues addressed in the St. Andrews Appendix – addressing and perhaps resolving differences between and among member churches of the Communion – being addressed in Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft (albeit significantly differently). The Draft is also published with an Introduction. Moreover, the Draft addresses within its text the authority of the Introduction:

(4.4.1) The Covenant consists of the text set out in this document in the Preamble, Sections One to Four and the Declaration. The Introduction to the Covenant Text, which shall always be annexed to the Covenant text, is not part of the Covenant, but shall be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant.

The Preamble is brief.

We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments. As people of God, drawn from "every nation, tribe, people and language" (Rev 7.9), we do this in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God revealed in the gospel, to offer God's love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God's people to attain the full stature of Christ (Eph 4.3,13).

I find it interesting and helpful that the Draft speaks of “our different contexts.” However, by beginning, “We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, solemnly covenant together…” the Draft raises the question of whether a national or regional church must participate in the Covenant to participate in the Anglican Communion. In fact this is addressed later in the Draft, as I will note below. However, by distinguishing in 4.4.1 between the Preamble, which is part of the Covenant, and the Introduction, which is “always annexed” but is not, this Draft might raise an issue parallel to one we have considered regarding the Episcopal Constitution and Canons as to the authority of material in a Preamble.

Section One is titled, “Our Inheritance of Faith.” It includes a section of affirmations and a section of commitments. The language of affirmations in this new Section One is changed in reflecting explicitly the language of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. In addition, there are references to “shared patterns of our common prayer and liturgy,” and “participation in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God.” There is also a reference to “The historic formularies of the Church of England, forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, [which] bear authentic witness to this faith.” However, these “historic formularies” are, for this Draft, more “historic” and less “formularies” for the Communion in their import and authority.

The Commitments in Section One are also largely unobjectionable, which is a change in its own right. It is balanced in interesting ways. So, the commitments to “to uphold and proclaim a pattern of Christian theological and moral reasoning and discipline that is rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the catholic tradition,” and “to ensure that biblical texts are received, read and interpreted faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently,” are balanced with commitments to “to hear, read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures in our different contexts, informed by the attentive and communal reading of - and costly witness to - the Scriptures by all the faithful, by the teaching of bishops and synods, and by the results of rigorous study by lay and ordained scholars” (emphasis mine), and “to encourage and be open to prophetic and faithful leadership in ministry and mission so as to enable God's people to respond in courageous witness to the power of the gospel in the world” (again, emphasis mine).

Section Two is titled, “The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation.” It, too, has both affirmations and commitments. I was especially struck in the affirmations by this item:

(2.1.3) in humility our call to constant repentance: for our failures in exercising patience and charity and in recognizing Christ in one another; our misuse of God's gracious gifts; our failure to heed God's call to serve; and our exploitation one of another.

While not taken from it, this language is to me remarkably like portions of the Litany of Penitence from the Proper Liturgy for Ash Wednesday in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

The commitments in this section are interesting, not so much in content, as in the effort to footnote almost each commitment to Scripture, to a broadly supported theological document (including reports to the Anglican Consultative Council and the World Council of Churches), or to both. There are commitments to evangelism, to serve the poor, and to proper care of the earth. There is also a commitment ‘"to seek to transform unjust structures of society" as the Church stands vigilantly with Christ proclaiming both judgment and salvation to the nations of the world.’ In an interesting coincidence, the Rev. Francisco Silva, General Secretary of the Anglican / Episcopal Church in Brazil, wrote asking “Could be human rights a criteria for to be part of the Anglican Communion?” (and thanks to Mark Harris for pointing this out). The Rev. Silva is not hopeful; but this particular commitment seems to point in that direction.

Section Three is titled, “Our Unity and Common Life.” Again, there are both affirmations and commitments. What is remarkable about this draft is that this section affirms repeatedly both explicitly and implicitly that the Anglican Communion is “a Communion of Churches. Each Church, with its bishops in synod, orders and regulates its own affairs and its local responsibility for mission through its own system of government and law and is therefore described as living ‘in communion with autonomy and accountability.’” There is a helpful clarification of the proper histories and roles of the Instruments of Communion, and elimination of the expanded role of the Primates Meetings. Consequently, each member church commits “to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole” (emphasis mine). There are commitments “to seek a shared mind with other Churches,” and ” to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion.” At the same time, there is also a commitment “to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection, to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. Such prayer, study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as its seeks to be led by the Spirit into all truth and to proclaim the gospel afresh in each generation.” Many of us in the Episcopal Church feel that if other churches had spent “time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection, to listen, pray and study with one another,” as we have done within the Episcopal Church, we might have been able to manage our current differences with clearer communication and greater grace.

Section Four of the Draft is titled, “Our Covenanted Life Together,” and it is this section that will require the most reflection and consideration within the Episcopal Church. As I have already noted, this section parallels in subject the Appendix to the St. Andrews Draft. However, it is broader, in that it includes discussion of adoption of the Covenant; and less juridical in discussing how difference between and among member churches might be addressed. Unlike the complicated framework through which such differences might be brought through various of the Instruments of Communion, in this Draft “The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates' Meeting, or any body that succeeds it, shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion.” Focusing such work in the Joint Standing Committee simplifies responsibility, and also better balances the importance of the Anglican Communion Council with the Primates’ Meeting in the life of the Communion. This is confirmed in that “the Joint Standing Committee may make a declaration concerning an action or decision of a covenanting Church that such an action or decision is or would be ‘incompatible with the Covenant’” only “On the basis of advice received from the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting” (emphasis mine). So, both “the Primates and Moderators [who] are called to work as representatives of their Provinces in collaboration with one another,” and the ACC, which “is comprised of lay, clerical and episcopal representatives from our Churches,” must be involved in any decision that an action of a member church is “incompatible with the Covenant.” That makes the process both slower and more measured, and also more representative broadly both of all member Churches and all orders of ministry.

At the same time, there is again affirmation of the autonomy of each member Church. So, “Nothing in this Covenant of itself shall be deemed to alter any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any Church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance. Under the terms of this Covenant, no one Church, nor any agency of the Communion, can exercise control or direction over the internal life of any other covenanted Church.”

(4.1.4) Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, is invited to adopt this Covenant in its life according to its own constitutional procedures. Adoption of the Covenant by a Church does not in itself imply any change to its Constitution and Canons, but implies a recognition of those elements which must be maintained in its own life in order to sustain the relationship of covenanted communion established by this Covenant.

There are two interesting items in this section. The first is,

(4.1.5) It shall be open to other Churches to adopt the Covenant. Adoption of this Covenant does not bring any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion. Such recognition and membership are dependent on the satisfaction of those conditions set out by each of the Instruments. However, adoption of the Covenant by a Church may be accompanied by a formal request to the Instruments for recognition and membership to be acted upon according to each Instrument's procedures.

One wonders who these “other Churches” would be. This would suggest the possibility that the Anglican Church of North America could also adopt the Covenant, and request recognition by one or more Instruments of Communion. One wonders what the consequences would be of ACNA adopting the Covenant, even if not recognized by any of the Instruments; especially as one of the commitments in Section One is “to seek in all things to uphold the solemn obligation to nurture and sustain eucharistic communion….” How would that prepare the ground, as it were, for a challenge from ACNA to some action of the Episcopal Church, whether or not ACNA was recognized by Instruments of Communion?

The second item is this:

(4.3.1) Any covenanting Church may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. Although such withdrawal does not imply an automatic withdrawal from the Instruments or a repudiation of its Anglican character, it raises a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, and of compatibility with the principles incorporated within it, and it triggers the provisions set out in section 4.2.2 above.

Once again, there is this interesting distinction made between participating in the Covenant and participating in the Instruments of Communion. Looking back at the question implied in the Preamble, one can wonder what the relationships are among “participating in the Covenant;” “recognition by the Instruments of Communion;” and “membership in the Anglican Communion.”

I think there’s a lot to commend the changes that have been made between the St. Andrews Draft and the Ridley Cambridge Draft. As they note in their communiqué, the Covenant Drafting Group has listened to the comments they have received, including clearly those from member churches not considered part of “the Global South.” It remains to be see whether these changes would be enough for the Episcopal Church to participate; or whether they would be too much for some “Global South” churches to participate. It will be interesting first and foremost to see how the Anglican Consultative Council addresses this Draft when it meets next month. After that, it will take some time for member churches to consider this draft according to their constitutional and canonical processes and to decide whether they can participate or not – in the case of the Episcopal Church, at least three years. Over time, we’ll see whether and how this or some other draft Covenant will become part of the life of the Communion; and if so, what changes it will bring.

The Church of England Responds to the Draft Covenant

The General Synod of the Church of England is meeting, and has discussed the Draft Covenant proposed by the Covenant Drafting Committee. So, this is the resolution passed in the current meeting:

‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;
(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and
(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’

As you might guess, weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth has begun, coming from all quarters. (Thanks to Thinking Anglicans for this; and scroll down through the posts there for the past week or so to see position statements pro and con.)

However, it seems to me that this is actually quite a measured and even minimal response. “To engage positively with… a process designed to produce a covenant,” is little more than the Episcopal Church committed to in General Convention in 2006: ” as a demonstration of our commitment to mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion, [to] support the process of the development of an Anglican Covenant that underscores our unity in faith, order, and common life in the service of God’s mission....” (Resolution A166) It expresses a commitment to a process, without presuming whether the actual result will be acceptable or accepted.

That next point is also worth noting. The General Synod resolution emphasizes more than any other statement I recall that no Covenant can be presented as final by any of the “Instruments of Communion.” Not even passage by Lambeth or the Anglican Consultative Council establishes a new Covenant. Only “the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion” can establish any Covenant as in any sense “official.” It’s not clear whether that would require all, or at least a majority of the Provinces, but it would certainly be true for any individual province.

Finally, the designated response from the Church of England is arguably quite minimal. There is a commitment for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, with consultation from the House of Bishops, to “agree to the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group.” While this does not rule out a proposal to accept the current Draft as is, neither does it rule it in. Indeed, there has been sufficient disagreement among voices within the Church of England as to make it difficult for a “considered response” to make such a commitment.

It appears there are folks who would have been just as happy if the General Synod has said nothing at all, if in the best and most formal language. This statement is certainly not “nothing;” but neither is it capitulation to any specific draft of an Anglican Covenant, including the one currently presented. This commitment from the General Synod is not really so different from that of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. That similarity is remarkable, in and of itself – remarkable, and perhaps reassuring. The General Synod has called the Church of England to be measured, considered, and not hasty in response to the Covenant Process, and especially to this Draft.

It is said that the Mullah Nasruddin was once overheard bragging that he was such a good teacher that he could teach even a donkey to speak. This was reported to the king, who called the Mullah before him and demanded on pain of death that he prove his outrageous claim. The Mullah bowed low and agreed, but noted that he needed ten years for the process. The king accepted this and sent him away.

Later a friend came to commiserate. “Surely you are terrified! If you don’t accomplish the impossible task you will surely die.”The Mullah replied that he was not that concerned. “We are old, the king and I,” he said, “and ten years is a long time. In ten years the king may die, or I may die, or the ass may learn to speak.”

The General Synod has committed the Church of England to think and respond, to participate in a Covenant Process to produce a Covenant that will take years to be received through the Communion. In the time that will take a number of other events may well supersede the concerns we have today.

Some Scholars Respond

In a post in March I published a letter to the Dean of the School of Theology of the University of the South, of which I am an alumnus. I asked that the faculty speak to the Draft Covenant and make their response public.

In bouncing around the blogosphere tonight, I found out that they had - indeed, were when I was publishing my post. You can link here to the statement of some members of the faculty of the School of Theology. (Thanks to The Confessing Tiger for posting it, and to titusonenine for pointing to it.)

I will admit I'm somewhat disappointed with the statement. It's accurate, and its points are well made. Perhaps it could have taken on the relations among the Instruments of Unity and the accession of power to the Primates. Perhaps it could have done some analysis of the various scriptural references. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps....

However, I asked for a response, and they were responding even as I wrote. Credit where due.

Responding to the Study Guide: Questions 13 and 14

This is the last piece on the Study Guide. I will be sending off the opinions I have written, and trust the thoughts of others who have answered more thoroughly than I have.

(13) Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or why not?

(14) In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not-helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?

Since both Questions 13 and 14 address the Draft Covenant as a whole, I will address them together.

There are clearly “new things” in this Draft Covenant.

• First, there is the clear sense of urgency underlying the entire Covenant effort. It fixes the effort in a specific historical context – this historical context – and so undermines any effort to establish a relationship open to the future.
• Second, the Draft Covenant would establish the “Instruments of Communion” as structures of the Communion. To this point, the “Instruments” have been forums for maintenance of relationship and cooperation in mission. The Covenant in this Draft would establish them as agencies – as structures having in themselves moral and juridical agency – for the Communion.
• Third, within those the Covenant would establish the Primates’ Meeting as the “gatekeeper” to determine what issues might call for consideration by the other Instruments of Communion, and what positions might express “a common mind.”

In assessing the Draft Covenant as a whole, I do not believe it will help us. While much of the language is attractive, the essence of the document is an effort, driven by a sense of urgency, to establish structures that will centralize authority for decisions and reception for the Communion at the expense of the autonomy of individual Provinces. Driven by the perception of urgency, I fear such a Covenant might be embraced in haste, but would certainly be repented at leisure. It will not add to our capacities in individual Provinces to respond to our unique cultural circumstances.

From the lessons for Trinity Sunday: “Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” (Romans 5:1-2) I could have chosen other lessons to make the point, but this is apropos both in content and in timing. This is a clear statement of how, by God’s grace in Christ, we are in communion with God in Christ and so with one another. If this is not sufficient basis for Anglicans to be in communion, no covenant we negotiate will result in meaningful communion, much less cooperation in the ministry that God has given us.

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 10

Continuing to respond to the Study Guide....

(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .” mean to you?

This question relates to the commitment in this section “to seek with other members, 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.” It is an attractive image, and one we could imagine when we might be one as Jesus and the Father are one.

That said, I fear that “a common mind about matters of essential concern” may be as much an eschatological hope as true unity with God in Christ. In our current difficulties we are not of a common mind about what matters are of essential concern. We can hardly expect to come to a common mind about the matters themselves.

To speak of “a common mind” seems to me to speak to a process of consensus and reception. Thus, to determine what matters are “of essential concern,” and then work toward “a common mind” would require a process of shared discussion and shared experience. Indeed, I can imagine “a common mind on matters of essential concern” would require communion, rather than being a requirement for it. If reached at all, it would only be reached in time and in lived relationships.

That would preclude, then, calling a decision reached by majority vote “a common mind.” That is, if there are grounds to publish a separate “minority report,” the mind can hardly be called “common.”

Perhaps that seems too high a standard. After all, many decisions are reached by majority vote, and we commonly consider those decisions reached by majority vote as more “valid” than those imposed by a small contingent. This is the case, for example, of actions of General Convention. At the same time, we do not assert that actions of General Convention are “the mind of the Communion,” or that all such actions deal with “matters of essential concern.” Indeed, as we value within our own midst diversity of opinion, we are quite limited and specific in describing the various actions of General Convention. In my own use, I say, “General Convention has said…” rather than, “The Episcopal Church teaches….” The second statement I reserve for those actions that affect the content of the Book of Common Prayer, and to a lesser extent of the Hymnal and of services for trial use.

We continue to be led, we believe, by God’s living and active Spirit. At the same time, we do not believe any of us is perfectly able to hear or to follow the leading of the Spirit. Differences among us arise literally in good faith, in honest efforts to follow God in Christ. If we are to reach a “common mind,” it will be by the power of the Spirit, in and through the communion we share, however imperfectly. We cannot hurry that process by our own will, any more than we can by our own will add a cubit to our height. Until so led by the Spirit, we can struggle to recognize matters of essential concern, to wrestle with them together, and to reach decisions; but in those circumstances we must recognize that our decisions are incomplete, and our “mind” rarely “common.”

Responding to the Study Guide: Questions 8 and 9

Well, I'm not going to get them all done, but I've continued to work. You can check my other Study Guide posts under Labels.

(8) Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?

This question relates to the section “Our Unity and Common Life.” The section calls for member Churches to affirm certain structural measures for ordering processes for decision and reception when there are issues of concern in the Communion. It emphasizes the role of bishops as “custodians of faith, leaders in mission, and as visible signs of unity.” Unfortunately, it does so in a way that establishes and consolidates decisional authority in new and unhelpful ways.

To put it concisely, this section asserts authority for Instruments of Communion that they have not previously held: for the Lambeth Conference to “guard the faith,” and for the Primates’ Meeting to “work… in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” These gatherings have been consultative, and neither prescriptive nor definitive. At the same time, the Anglican Consultative Council has been limited to coordinating “aspects of international Anglican ecumenical and mission work.” Thus, the one Instrument that represents all orders of ministry in the Communion is largely excluded from processes of consultation and/or reception in any issues “that have Communion-wide implications.”

This, of course, is more than is accorded to the Archbishop of Canterbury. While the office is “accorded a primacy of honour and respect as first among equals,” he is reduced to his functions: “He calls the Lambeth Conference, and Primates’ Meeting, and is President of the Anglican Consultative Council.”

(9) Do you think there needs to be an executive or judicial body for resolving
disagreements or disputes in the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.

The most problematic aspect of the Commitments under the title of “Unity of the Communion” is the establishment of the Primates’ Meeting as the gatekeepers for the other Instruments of Communion in determining the importance of issues among Provinces of the Communion. Moreover, the process as outlined is troubling. First, the Primates will determine “that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated,” and only on that basis “seek it with the other instruments and their councils.”

To reach to the Primates’ Meeting might seem convenient. They have met in recent years more frequently than any other corporate “Instrument of Communion.” They have been able to do so in no small part because of their small size, and because they do not have any structure, any constitution, to determine how often they can meet. At the same time, this is not a necessary solution. First, there is no structural reason that the Anglican Consultative Council couldn’t meet more frequently. Certainly, they are somewhat larger; but unlike the Lambeth Conference, not so much larger to suggest they couldn’t meet more frequently. The ACC also has the clear benefits of representation of all orders of ministry; of a constitutional foundation for acting; and of historical seniority.

More important, there is no clear reason that issues dividing Provinces of the Communion need resolution more quickly than the pace of the ACC’s triennial meetings. There is certainly a sense of urgency in our current difficulties; but that has largely been manufactured. If an important (and all too largely ignored) aspect of our current discussions is a listening process, it is our willingness to take time, and not to rush to judgment, that best serves us.

The Primates’ Meeting has been serving in an ad hoc capacity. Unfortunately, much of that “service” has been of questionable value, emphasizing “interdependence” – asserting practical “dependence” – over autonomy, and the Evangelical in the Anglican tradition almost to the exclusion of the Catholic and Latitudinarian perspectives. In light of the results of their ad hoc activities, I would question the value of establishing the Primates as the functional power center of the Communion

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 5

I'm continuing to work on the Study Guide for the Anglican Covenant. (Again, you can see previous posts under "Study Guide" in the Labels.) At this point I know I won't finish all fourteen questions. However, I think this one is important, and wanted to finish it before skipping ahead.

(5) The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (of the Church of England) are not currently authoritative documents for The Episcopal Church. Do you think they should be? Why or why not?

This question is specifically in response to the statement “that, led by the Holy Spirit, [the Anglican Communion] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” The context is that this is among statements that “Every member Church, and the Communion as a whole, affirms,” as part of our “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith.”

It is relevant that the Episcopal Church shaped much of its first Book of Common Prayer not on the 1662 book but on the “Wee Bookies” in use in the Scottish Non-juror churches. While parts of the 1662 Book were included, according to Marion Hatchett, “A motion to use the 1662 Book as the basis for the deliberations of the convention of 1789 was defeated, and a copy of the [1786] Proposed Book was sent to the printers along with some sheets of instructions on changes to be made from the 1786 edition in the printing of the new Prayer Book.” (Commentary on the American Prayer Book, p. 10)

Thus, for some time the 1662 Book has not been something “every member Church, and the Communion as a whole, affirms.” This is not to say that the American Church has disparaged it. It has, however, always looked at it critically in the scholarly sense. So it was that the American Church agreed in the first American Prayer Book with the “Scottish Bishops” who

cannot help ardently wishing that Bishop Seabury would endeavour all he can… to make the celebration of this holy mystery [the Eucharist] conformable to the most primitive doctrine and practice in that respect, which is the pattern the Church of Scotland has copied after in her Communion Office, and which it has been the wish of some of the most eminent divines of the Church of England, that she also had more closely followed than she seems to have done since she gave up her first reformed liturgy, used in the reign of King Edward VI, between which and the form used in the Church of Scotland, there is no difference in any point, which the Primitive Church reckoned essential to the right ministration of the Holy Eucharist. (Documents of Witness, Armentrout and Slocum, eds, p. 16)

So, here we have two member Churches, as it were, who in that time were critical of the Eucharistic liturgy of the 1662 Book.

I can appreciate that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is important to many Provinces of the Anglican Communion. It continues to be the definitive Book of Common Prayer in some, and even in the Church of England, the Alternative Services Book and Common Worship notwithstanding. At the same time, that is an argument from familiarity and convenience, and not per se from principle. We might more reasonably argue for the 1549 or 1552 Books, or especially the 1559 Book in which so many items of 1549 and 1552 were simply merged. These Books have historical precedence over the 1662 Book, and represent a root that might be affirmed more substantially by all Anglicans, whatever Books have shaped their tradition.

A similar argument might be made about the Articles of Religion. Hatchett notes that the Articles were disliked and resisted by different parties within the Church of England at different periods of that Church’s history. He also notes that they were not included in the Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church until 1801, and only then with “alterations and omissions. Further,

The convention of 1804 sought to require specific subscription to the Articles, but the journal records: “A proposed Canon, concerning subscription to the Articles of the Church, was negatived, under the impression that a sufficient subscription to the Articles is already required in the 7th Article of the Constitution.”

So, in the sense that the Articles are authoritative for the Church of England, they have never been authoritative for the Episcopal Church.

Perhaps the real question returns to the statement to be affirmed: “that, led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons1”; and in the footnote intended to interpret it: “This is not meant to exclude other Books of Common Prayer and Ordinals duly authorised [sic] for use throughout the Anglican Communion, but acknowledges the foundational nature of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 in the life of the Communion.” Why would this affirmation be included, only to require this interpretation? Perhaps because a much more juridical authority has been asserted for these documents, especially for the Articles of Religion. Some have suggested that these “foundational” documents should specifically exclude “other Books of Common Prayer and Ordinals duly authorized,” including the 1979 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church.

That would indeed seem to be the problem here. I argued in answering question 4 that we should not affirm as part of our “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith,” assertions that did not include the historic episcopate. The inclusion of this statement regarding the 1662 Book and the 39 Articles in this list of affirmations seems to elevate these documents at least as essential interpreters of, if not equivalent to, Scripture, the Creeds, and the Sacraments as they are also included in the affirmations. Notwithstanding the interpretative footnote, this goes well beyond suggesting that the 1662 Book and 39 Articles are “foundational,” to say that they are essentials of doctrine.

This is particularly true of the Articles themselves. They are historic documents in both senses. Certainly, they are a part of our history. At the same time, they also represent a specific historic period and specific issues. As Bishop Moorman wrote, “These articles… are not meant to be a formulary of the Christian faith. They are a statement of the Church of England’s attitude towards the doctrinal disputes which were convulsing Europe at the time, including such doctrines as Predestination and Transubstantiation.” (A History of the Church of England, p. 214) Indeed, the first reference Bishop Moorman makes to subscription to the Articles of Religion is the Church Discipline Act of 1840. “This Act instituted legal tests of orthodoxy and obliged all clergy to ‘assent and consent’ to the Book of Common Prayer and to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.” (p. 384) It may be that the Articles were in some sense obligatory for Church of England clergy before 1840; but the requirements that shaped many other Provinces of the Communion were not in that form until long after the formation of the Episcopal Church.

I am quite happy to appreciate the Articles of Religion and, to a lesser extent, the 1662 Book as “foundational” for the Communion and for the Episcopal Church. On the other hand, I can’t accept that they are essential, nor so “foundational” as to be separated out from other important documents in our history. On that basis, I could not agree that they should be more “authoritative” in the Episcopal Church than they are at present, important and formative documents in our history. They have been tools that the Churches of the Anglican tradition have used to bear witness to Christian truth, under the guidance of the Spirit. They were not the first, nor will they be the last; and I could not recognize them as essential for the Episcopal Church.

Responding to the Study Guide: Lionel's Responses

Lionel Deimel of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) has been instrumental in assembling the resources they have offered to assist in reviewing the Draft Covenant and responding to the Study Guide. Lionel has now completed his own responses to all fourteen questions, and has made them available on the web. I encourage you to review his responses yourself.

I would also encourage you once again to make your own. You may not answer all fourteen questions - at the pace I'm going, I may not answer all fourteen in time for the deadline - but it's important that you answer as many as you can, and perhaps focus on the last two summary questions, and then send them in by the deadline. (To see the progress I've made, click on Study Guide in the Labels to your left.) The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church has asked our help in the process. Let's show the rest of the Communion the commitment of individual Episcopalians to our Church, and to the process of moving forward in the life of the Anglican Communion.

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 4

And the beat goes on....

Let me continue my reflections on the Draft Anglican Covenant. (You can look in the Labels under "Study Guide" to see what I've written already.)

(4) Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?

This question refers to Section 2 of the Draft Covenant, titled “The Life We Share: Common Catholicity, Apostolicity and Confession of Faith.” The section is short enough that, once again, I will quote it in full.

Each member Church, and the Communion as a whole, affirms:

(1) that it is part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;
(2) that it professes the faith which is uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures as containing all things necessary for salvation and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith, and which is set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation;
(3) that it holds and duly administers the two sacraments ordained by Christ himself – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with the unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the elements ordained by him;
(4) that it participates in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God;
(5) that, led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons 1;
(6) our loyalty to this inheritance of faith as our inspiration and guidance under God in
bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to our
societies and nations.

The footnote for question (5) is included in the draft, and says, “This is not meant to exclude other Books of Common Prayer and Ordinals duly authorised [sic] for use throughout the Anglican Communion, but acknowledges the foundational nature of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 in the life of the Communion.” (Question (5) and its footnote are the specific focus of Study Guide question 5, and I will come back to it in responding to that question.)

Let me say first that the scriptural citations are not that helpful, although that’s largely because they’re confusing rather than problematic, with one exception I note below. There are some that seem meaningful in asserting faithfulness to the faith once received. Some seem remarkably oriented toward the ministry in the world that the Episcopal Church has worked to highlight (in contrast to the calls from other provinces for doctrinal purity), but perhaps that addresses “the apostolic mission of the whole people of God.” Most citations seem poor or unclear choices for the topic at hand.

The Study Guide, in setting up questions 4 and 5 notes that “Items 2-3, affirm the first three points of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, specifically: the Holy Scriptures, the creeds, and the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist.” In looking at the items of the Draft Covenant, it is worth noting the intent of the Quadrilateral. The Resolution of the House of Bishops, in speaking of pursuing unity, spoke of

principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence, which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

It then described the four marks of the Quadrilateral as “inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom.” (Book of Common Prayer, p. 877)

If we will stipulate that as the position of the Episcopal Church on the Chicago Quadrilateral (to distinguish it from Resolution 11 of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, which endorses the Quadrilateral, but without context or explanation), failure to include the historic episcopate is worth noting. Looking ahead, the Draft Covenant in fact embraces the historic episcopate, and does so in the language of the Chicago quadrilateral. However, it separates it, speaking to the symbolic unitive function of the episcopate. Does this mean that the framers of the Draft Covenant do not consider the historic episcopate part of our common catholicity and apostolicity?

That seems an even more remarkable in that so much of our current disagreements are about the episcopate, and the qualities, role, and functions of bishops (and especially primates). Now, we may argue about whether the disagreements are about sex or power or scriptural hermeneutic or ecclesiology. However, the issues we fight about have to do with the episcopate. The tipping point was the election, confirmation, and ordination as a bishop of a gay man in a committed relationship. (And, really, the issues regarding blessing same-sex unions in Canada have caused nowhere near the same stir. Whether they would have without that election is moot.) And the other critical steps in the division of the Anglican Communion have involved bishops:

• the election of the first bishops of the Anglican Mission in America (even before Bishop Robinson’s election);
• efforts to redefine the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates, and the Primates’ Meeting;
• arguments within the Episcopal Church whether a bishop can take a diocese out of the Episcopal Church;
• disagreements whether to accept the election of the first woman Presiding Bishop and Primate;
• disagreements whether a Primatial Vicar is acceptable (to dissenters) if vicarious of the Presiding Bishops or (to the structures of the Episcopal Church) if somehow vicarious of the Primates;
• the incursions of foreign bishops to support dissenting congregations in the Episcopal Church;
• the address of the Tanzania Primates’ Meeting to the Episcopal House of Bishops, rather than to the General Convention;
• and most recently the election and installation of a bishop for a missionary district of another Anglican province to serve within the territory of the Episcopal Church.

Whatever might be the causes and causes celebre of our current disagreements, the critical events, whether in perceiving division or possible courses for reconciliation, are all about the episcopate. (Perhaps this is the context in which we should consider the inclusion in the scriptural citations of Hebrews 13:17: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you” – consider and worry.)

Considering the efforts made by the Episcopal Church, once separated from the Church of England, to have not only episcopate but the historic episcopate received through the English succession, no Episcopalian can dismiss the importance of the episcopate as part of our common catholicity and apostolicity. William White, in “The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered” (1782; see Documents of Witness, Armentrout and Slocum, eds, pp. 2-14) argued that the episcopate was so important that they should be elected by presbyters until such time as they could seek the Anglican succession. The Church of England did not provide bishops to serve in the colonies; and so it cannot be argued the Episcopal Church chose to be Episcopal either from convenience or habit. (Nor, of course, was it through the Church of England that the first Episcopal bishop was consecrated. Bishop Seabury was consecrated by Nonjuror bishops in Scotland.) If the American church limits the functions of bishops in ways that perhaps other provinces do not, neither do we take them for granted. We might argue whether bishops are of the esse or the bene esse or the pleni esse of the church. We do not argue that we can or should have a church without them.

Thus, from an Episcopal perspective, this section is deficient. The historic episcopate is, we believe, part of the faith as we have received it. We must surely see it as part of our “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith.”

Responding to the Study Guide: Some Help

I have spoken of the importance of the opportunity to respond to the Draft Covenant, and have made some responses of my own. Now, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) has prepared a worksheet with instructions to help others respond. The forms are in Word, and are also available as self-extracting archive documents for PC and for Mac. If you haven't yet started your responses, take a look they. Time is short, and every response, even if partial, is important; and if this makes it simpler for you to make your contribution, it's well worth the effort, and something for which we can all be grateful.

Updated Thursday, 5-17-07:

PEP has provided some additional resources to help respond to help us all respond to the Study Guide and the Draft Covenant. There's a lot in it - the complete Draft Covenant with annotations, the Windsor Report and it's draft covenant, and more - making it a big document. However, it provides the broadest spectrum of literature collected in one place to help us work through this important process for the Episcopal Church.

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 3

There have been some interesting distractions, but it's time to get back to the work of responding to the Study Guide questions about the draft Anglican Covenant. (You can also read my earlier thoughts on the process, and on questions 1 and 2.)

(3) Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?

This question refers to the Preamble to the Draft, a paragraph short enough that it can be included entire:

“We, the Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ , solemnly covenant together in these articles, in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the Grace of God revealed in the Gospel, to offer God’s love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity in the Spirit in the bond of peace, and to grow up together as a worldwide Communion to the full stature of Christ.”

Provided with this is a series of scripture citations. It must be supposed that these illustrate the understanding the Covenant Draft Committee has of the Preamble: “(Psalm 127.1-2, Ezekiel 37.1-14, Mark 1.1, John 10.10; Romans 5.1-5, Ephesians 4:1-16, Revelation 2-3)" (Italics in the original)

With regard to the question specific to the Study Guide, let’s look first at the Preamble text itself. The statement is at first glance unobjectionable enough. It hits certain notes that I think are important: “to proclaim in our different contexts the Grace of God;” “to offer God’s love… to the needs of the world;” and “to grow up together… to the full stature of Christ.” (Emphases mine.) We might explore what the Committee means, and what we might mean when we say, “in the bonds of peace.” These days both “bonds” and “peace” seem matters of some dispute.

At the same time, I wouldn’t want to place too much emphasis on the content of a Preamble. This has, after all, become something of a question with regard to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church. When we say in the Preamble to our Constitution, “The Episcopal Church… is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion,” some have wanted to make that statement foundational rather than descriptive, hoping perhaps to retain an Anglican “concession” that the Episcopal Church might lose if excommunicated by Canterbury or the Anglican Consultative Council. If we are clear that the Preamble of our Constitution is about intent and not content, as it were, we can hardly require more of the Preamble of a Covenant.

So, one could argue that the Preamble is a reasonable rationale, and not require too great a measure of “sufficiency.” However, I think that could be reasonably measured against the scriptural passages that are offered, again, presumably as foundation or interpretation.

And there’s the rub. I think we can appropriately question some of these scripture passages. For example, I wonder about the citation of Mark 1:1. Certainly, it emphasizes that we proclaim “the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” At the same time, it provides no content.

I have more concern about several of the selections that seem more oriented toward the current atmosphere of controversy, and less about growing together into the future. Consider the passage from Ephesians. It has much to commend it. It speaks of the unity of the body, formed by “grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” It speaks to the varieties of gifts and culminates in the image of the growing into the body of which Christ is the head. At the same time, to embrace this image we are also called to embrace verse 14: “We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.” This approaches all too closely, and all too unfortunately, those allegations that the Episcopal Church has introduced some “new religion” or fallen into heresy. In that context, “speaking the truth in love” in verse 15 becomes reproof within the community, and not proclamation to the world. Similar images from 1 Corinthians 12 would have offered images of unity in diversity in one body without the defensive connotation.

This is reinforced by the selection of John 10.10: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” There is much to be embraced in the “Good Shepherd” passages in John 10. Selecting verse 10, to the exclusion of so much of the rest of the “Good Shepherd” parables, seems clearly contentious, focused on the thief. What about verse 9: “I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.”? And what about verses 14 through 18?

"I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father."

With so much to choose from that speaks of our unity in one flock, and the servant leadership of Christ the Good Shepherd, to raise up only verse 10 seems quite pointed.

The citation of chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation raises concerns. These chapters are the messages of the Spirit to the seven churches. With only one of them is God pleased: the Philadelphians, of whom the Spirit says, “I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God.” (3:12) Each of the other churches has something to repent, whether it is the weak faith of the Laodiceans (3:15), or the weak love of the Ephesians (2:4), or the Thyatirans’ tolerance of “that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants” (2:20; surely something to raise eyebrows in the American church). There is no image of unity here. Instead we have a call to repentance and accountability to God. Perhaps the intent was to uphold for the entire Communion all those things of which we might repent. However, it does not bear any apparent relationship to the text of the Preamble itself. Instead, it offers temptation: each may say, “I am with the Philadelphians. Who are you?”

Even the Valley of Dry Bones from Ephesians would require some explication. Certainly, it provides that wonderful image of the faithful resurrected, called to new life that is visceral, tangible, through the power of the Spirit. At the same time, who in this context is the dead community? It should speak of all Christians, and certainly all in the Anglican Communion. If we are a body, if we are alive either as individuals or as a Communion, it is through God’s breath moving in and through us. In context of these other lessons, however, it might be construed to indicate the Episcopal Church, dead now and waiting for the correct, the true prophetic word that can give life again. We must be clear that any embrace of this passage to illuminate the intent of a covenant that it applies equally to all, as all are fallen save for Christ’s indwelling spirit; and not only to some.

Thus, while the language of the draft Preamble seems straightforward enough, the scriptural references on which it is supposedly based, or by which it should be illuminated and understood, take a different tone. Rather than coming together “to proclaim… the Grace of God revealed in the Gospel, to offer God’s love…, to maintain the unity in the Spirit in the bond of peace, and to grow up together…to the full stature of Christ,” these passages suggest a covenant focused subtly on resisting thieves and Jezebels, and repenting weak faith and false teaching. I’m not opposed to resisting thieves and Jezebels, and repenting weak faith and false teaching, once we have some shared understanding of our categories. However, that seems a clear reflection of one perspective on our current difficulties and struggles. These lessons illustrating the draft Preamble focus the intent of the Covenant on a specific time and a specific concern. If we are to grow together as a Communion, we must reflect intent focused on an open future, and not on a specific historical “problem.” The text of the draft Covenant on its own may well have something to offer. The theme of the illustrating lessons is theologically and historically quite limited to our current time and our current situation; and that is certainly not a sufficient rationale for entering into a covenant.

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 2

(2) How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?

This question is responding to “An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant,” a brief theological reflection. It is, as the Study Guide says, an “initial theological introduction to the Draft Covenant which is to follow immediately afterwards.”

Perhaps the goal of the Covenant Design Group was explicitly brevity. Sadly, as a result of the brevity, this Introduction says almost nothing about the actual development of the Anglican Communion, and little about the Communion’s vocation.

Indeed, this Introduction would apply equally, I think, to all Christian bodies; and certainly to any that would fall within the historic bodies that might meet the standards of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. It asserts a “Communion of Anglican churches,” through which we are provided “with a special charism.” I think for all of us who would call ourselves Anglicans we believe these statements to be true. However, there is nothing in these assertions that distinguishes our “special charism” or even the parameters of our “Communion of Anglican churches” from the charisms of the communions of Roman and Uniate, or Orthodox, or Lutheran churches.

Perhaps there is more specificity on these questions in the further development of the Draft covenant. Still, it would seem to me that our understanding of our charism would be critical in developing the content of an Anglican Covenant. To give an (admittedly overly simplistic example), such possible perspectives as “to bring the world to Christ,” or “to participate in the building of God’s kingdom, “ or “to be co-creators with God in the restoration of creation” are arguably all connected, and perhaps inextricable. However, each statement predisposes a different understanding of mission, and of means. We have long spoken of ourselves as a “bridge,” embracing both catholic and reformed elements within the Christian tradition. However, we have wrestled for four centuries on how to balance those catholic and reformed elements. Those different perspectives, reflecting different approaches to Biblical hermeneutics, to understanding history and our place in it, and to the formation of theology and doctrine, are not clearly reflected in this brief Introduction.

Thus, the contrast is unclear between the “coherent testimony” that “our faith embodies, “ and “the wider Church.” Since the implication is that “the wider Church” is the body of Christ beyond the “Communion of Anglican churches,” and since the Introduction asserts “interdependence among ourselves and [also] with the wider Communion,” distinguishing our “special charism” and our “coherent testimony” would seem particularly important.

The Introduction asserts together, and implicitly equates, “the need for mutual commitment and [also for mutual] discipline.” We wrestle now with the question of just how much mutual discipline is necessary to demonstrate mutual commitment. Thus, it seems presumptuous to link the two without qualification. I would indeed agree that we must work out together how we will “be faithful to God’s promises through the historic faith we confess [as loaded as the word 'confess' might be here], the way we live together and the focus of our mission.” However, I believe we must be clear that the most important expression of “the faith we confess” must be “the focus of our mission;” and that it is out of that emphasis that we then determine “the way we live together.” That, I think, would be the proper sequence, and not the sequence as expressed.

Again, all these questions may arise out of the intent that the Introduction be brief. They will, I expect, be addressed in the body of the Draft Text. However, to respond to the Study Guide question as stated: I do not believe this Introduction clearly addresses the “development and vocation of the Anglican Communion.” The lack of even minimal specificity about what it might mean to be Anglican in the context of “the wider Church” prevents this from being adequate.

Responding to the Study Guide: Question 1

I have already posted the release by the Executive Council of a Study Guide on the Report of the Covenant Design Group and the Draft Covenant. Let me begin my own process of responding to the Study Guide.

(1) Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?

I have considered the possibility that a covenant document might help clarify relations and means of relating between Provinces of the Anglican Communion. I am one who has suggested that a concordat might be better, especially in light of several existing concordats that seem to be functioning well ("Call to Common Mission," for example).

However, this is an answer only in the abstract. I am concerned by the Report of the Covenant Design Group, even prior to the Draft Covenant, in that the Group’s inclination seems less to strengthen than to harden the Communion.

First, let me question the “particular factors” that moved their proposal.

1. Content
The text of the Covenant would need to hold together and strengthen the life of the Communion. To do so, it need not introduce some new development into the life of the Communion but rather be the clarification of a process of discernment which was embodied in the Windsor Report and in the recent reality of the life of the Instruments of Communion, and which was founded in and built upon the elements traditionally articulated in association with Anglicanism and the life of the Anglican Churches.

The problem I see with this factor is the failure to acknowledge that the Windsor Report and any Windsor Process are themselves “new developments into the life of the Communion.” Those portions of the Windsor Report that speak of “elements traditionally articulated in association with Anglicanism” seem the portions least observed.

2. Urgency
While a definitive text which held all such elements in balance might take time to develop in the life of the Communion, there was also an urgent need to re-establish trust between the churches of the Communion. The faithfulness of patterns of obedience to Christ were no longer recognised across the Communion, despite Paul’s call to another way of life (Romans 14.15), and its life would suffer irreparably if some measure of mutual and common commitment to the Gospel was not reasserted in a short time frame. We were mindful also of the words of the Primates at Oporto, “We are conscious that we all stand together at the foot of the Cross of Jesus Christ, so we know that to turn away from each other would be to turn away from the Cross”.

This paragraph harks back to an earlier statement:

It was also recognised, however, that the proposal for a covenant was born out of a specific context in which the Communion’s life was under severe strain. While the group felt that it was important that the strength of a covenant would be greater if it addressed broad principles, and did not focus on particular issues, the need for its introduction into the life of the Communion in order to restore trust was urgent.

It is the very sense of urgency that should cause us to pause and reflect. It is a truism that “big cases make bad laws;” and this is the risk we run here if we allow a sense of urgency to overtake us. Certainly, we have experienced this sufficiently here in the United States in light of the threats to individual conscience and liberties that came in poorly crafted laws in reaction to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Indeed, there is an inconsistency within the paragraph of the second “factor.” If indeed, “to turn away from each other is to turn away from Christ,” can we trust our “measure of mutual and common commitment to the Gospel” to rest on “patterns of obedience?” At best that is an urge toward standardization across the Communion that would undermine our cherished respect for expressions of the faith (not to mention episcopacy) adapted to local needs and conditions. At worst it is essentially works righteousness. If the alternative it “to turn away from Christ,” how much grace must we be willing to offer one another? Have we not been called to forgive one another "seventy times seven?" Here, however, the call of some perceived urgency pushes for “common commitment” defined by “common patterns of obedience.”

And yet, other crises have not met this sense of urgency. Despite the distorted, sadly optimistic presentation in the Windsor Report of the process of reception of women in orders, that issue remains unsettled, and the Communion divided. This division was highlighted by those primates who refused to receive communion with Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, not because she was Episcopalian, but because she was a woman. We are only now exploring a process of discerning the variations in hermeneutics in the Communion, surely a prior, pressing issue in determining “authentic Anglicanism.”

More critically, we have not determined what we mean by “interdependence,” or “autonomy,” or “ bonds of affection.” We suggest at various times that all of these are desirable, and worth some preservation, and yet we are not agreed on their meaning or parameters. These are surely critical understandings that would precede any effort to agree on topics that are not matters of core doctrine.

Thus, while I might think in abstract that some form of agreement might “strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion,” a poorly formed agreement, entered in haste, will surely threaten either the “dependence” or the “inter-“ concepts in interdependence. The life of the Communion will be harder and more brittle, but hardly stronger. If it is indeed our prayer “that God will redeem our struggles and weakness, and renew and enrich our common life,” we cannot deny our weakness by avoiding struggles – struggles that cannot, must not be rushed or preempted. An agreement formed and entered in haste will surely be repented at leisure.

Brainstorming for Everybody: Responding to the Draft Anglican Covenant

I want to return to my brainstorming theme. In my first post on brainstorming, one thought I had was that the House of Bishops might suggest its own draft for an Anglican Covenant. As I said then,

That could only be seen as active interest and participation in the Covenant process, without seeing any previous model as privileged. It could describe the House’s understanding of how autonomy and responsibility are balanced in “interdependence.” It might express an opinion on the relative authority of statements of Primates meetings and of actions of the Anglican Consultative Council. It could conceivably be available for the June meeting of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada and the July meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England.

This could well be undertaken by the Bishops’ Theology Committee. With the announcement that the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council will attend the September meeting of the House of Bishops, presenting a draft at that meeting would be especially significant. Certainly, it could be offered by the House as evidence of a desire to remain in the Anglican Communion,

What brought this back to mind is the release by the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Church of a Study Guide on the Anglican Covenant Draft released as a part of the Tanzania Communiqué. A subcommittee of the International Concerns Standing Committee of the Executive Council has published the Study Guide in English, French, and Spanish.

Perhaps the most important part of the Study Guide is this paragraph:

All Episcopalians, including Deputies to General Convention, Bishops, members of Committees, Commissions, Agencies and Boards of the General Convention, as well as Standing Committees of Dioceses are encouraged to send their responses to: Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant, Offices of the General Convention, The Episcopal Church Center, 815 Second Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 by June 4, 2007. The Executive Council will then use these materials to inform its response to the Draft Covenant, which will be prepared by its October 2007 meeting. It is hoped that the views of all concerned will be expressed and reflected in the report produced by Executive Council.

This is exciting. One aspect of most Episcopal responses to the Tanzania Communiqué has been an emphasis on participation of all orders of ministry in determining God’s call to the Episcopal Church. (And remember that, according to the Book of Common Prayer, there are four, with Laity first. It’s on page 855.) That has been the reason for our insistence, affirmed by the Bishops, that only General Convention, and not the House of Bishops independently, could respond to issues of the consequence of participation in the Anglican Communion.

Now the Executive Council is asking all Episcopalians in all orders to respond. This is a real opportunity for all of us to be involved in brainstorming, or at least in the deliberative process. I certainly think this would be good grist for the blog mills, and I expect I’ll do some of that myself. In that conversation all of us might take part, whether Episcopalian or not. However, I think it more important that as many Episcopalians as possible send responses to this invitation, and to send thoughtful responses to the Executive Council.

Now, perhaps this seems a large task. The Study Guide itself is six pages, and has a series of questions. It looks in its way like an open-book final from seminary. On the other hand, this is not one of those tasks where “only those forms fully completed will be accepted.” I think there’s every reason to take it one question, one subject at a time, and send in what you do as you finish it.

So, let’s not let this opportunity pass. The Episcopal Church needs you – at least your thoughtful opinion – and is publicly asking for it. These are certainly important issues for our life together as Episcopalians and as Anglicans. Don’t leave it up just to us in the blogosphere, or the “chattering class.” Get in there: read, mark, learn, inwardly digest, and then write and send.