A Covenant for the Anglican Communion
Not a Biblical idea
Remind yourself of all the ways in which the word “Covenant” is used in the Bible. The dominant idea, seen from Noah and Abraham through to Jesus is of a God initiated plan to bring sinful human beings back into relationship with him. The prophets, speaking in God’s name, refer to “my covenant”.
Then think about the prophetic commentary on the content of those covenants, including the extensive legal commentaries or penal provisions, which indicates how easily human beings revert to the letter of the law, rather than honouring its spirit – and apply that law to others, rather than applying it to themselves. We say that we are saved by grace, not by law, and yet it is so easy to act as if the opposite is true. What did Jesus say about such things?
I am reminded of Tony Hancock’s reworking of the film “Twelve angry men” – “Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?” Is this document with which we are faced worthy of being put alongside the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, of which we remind ourselves at every eucharist?
If legislation or formal documentation had been sufficient to restore relationships, our Biblical narrative would be very different, and have a different trajectory. In fact our salvation in Jesus points us in a wholly different direction, and reminds us that we cannot legislate for good relationships, only to mediate the arguments which happen in bad ones.
Because the direction of this “covenant” does not match the Biblical plan for restoring relationships, it will not work, and in fact will draw us away from the true Biblical path which we need to follow if we are to follow Jesus.
Mark Bennet
22 October 2011
Amen! Mark makes an excellent case against the covenant from an evangelical view. I have nothing to add to Mark's wise words.
Mark Bennet is a priest in the Church of England, an open evangelical, and member of Fulcrum.
Um...dare I disagree with this concept of "covenant" as only concerned with "sin"?
ReplyDeleteActually, in most non-evangelical Biblical interpretations (i.e., those not concerned with the soteriology commonly associated with small "e" evangelicals), "covenant" is nothing more than a binding agreement, what we might call a "contract."
The covenant with Abraham has nothing to do with "sin." Nor does the covenant with Israel through Moses, nor the renewal of the covenant after the Exile.
Not to say "covenant" should be used with regard to the Anglican Communion (into that discussion I will not step), but this idea that "covenant" is some kind of crabbed and punitive concept for bringing the willful into line with Jahweh's divine (but apparently not omnipotent) will is, well, something up with which I will not put!
Or at least with which I will politely disagree! :-)
And the secret word is: "Angelme!" (Well, almost)
Rmj, of course you can disagree. Dissent is allowed here. Perhaps I should say the evangelical view, rather than the biblical view.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm pleased about is finding an ally against the Anglican Covenant from the evangelical side.
You are an angel. ;-)
RMJ says:
ReplyDeletedare I disagree with this concept of "covenant" as only concerned with "sin"?
But Mark does not say that it's 'only concerned with sin'. He says that the idea of a covenant tells 'of a God initiated plan to bring sinful human beings back into relationship with him'. That's to do with more than sin; it's to do with reconciliation.
Tim and RMJ, I'll leave you gentlemen to the discussion. You should not underestimate my lack of knowledge of theology and the Bible, which, as you see, doesn't keep me from speaking out about things biblical and theological. ;-)
ReplyDelete