CAN THIS COVENANT BE RESUSCITATED?

Cartoon by Jonathan Hagger (aka MadPriest)

A memory supplied by Facebook from four years ago. The cartoon is, for the most part, an insider for Episcopalians and Anglicans about the odious Anglican Covenant that former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and certain other Primates in the Anglican Communion attempted, unsuccessfully, to foist on the rest of the churches in the Communion. The rest of us were, in the main, not having any of it. The coup de grâce was delivered by diocesan vote in the Church of England, Rowan Williams very own church, a sweet victory.

Archbishop Justin Welby summoned the Primates of the Anglican Communion to a meeting at Canterbury in January 2016, and, according to The Living Church, there are those who will try to resuscitate the covenant as a primatial option at the meeting. Of course, the primatial option will be meaningless in the Episcopal Church in the US and in many other churches in the Communion.

Something very much like the Covenant remains, in Oliver O’Donovan’s memorable phrase, “the only game in town” (originally said of The Windsor Report), for the simple reason that it delivers a synthesis of Anglican thinking about the Church wrought as a vision for the future. The alternatives to the Covenant school are amnesia at best, innovation at worst — of an invisibilist or otherwise weakened sort that perceives the Church as simply affective gathering in mission across difference. In ecumenical terms, the pressure to opt for mere “Life and Work” would have us surrender the upward call to a common “Faith and Order,” as if the two are separable.

I'll just say the covenant is not for everyone and refer to Mark Harris at Preludium for further commentary in his post titled Flogging the dead horse "Anglican Covenant".

So the Anglican Covenant is being touted again as a way forward in deepening communion. Who knows if the Primates meeting will take up again the somewhat tattered and torn text of the Anglican Covenant.  Who knows if that meeting will pay attention to TLC's editorial opinion concerning their work. We shall see. 

In the vein of my earlier statement above:

The notion of a "Preferential option" by the Primates for the Anglican Covenant makes it appear that somehow the Primates could decide on their own to declare for the Anglican Covenant.  I suppose they could. But they cannot declare for their churches.  Oh, in some Provinces where the Primate exercises extraordinary executive authority, I suppose they could. But most Churches are guided in polity questions by some sort of synodical processes. So a "Primatial Option" would be the opinion of the primates. Unless it were a unanimous vote for support it would simply affirm that the Anglican Communion is no where near a place of agreement on the Anglican Covenant. Most disturbing is the idea that this title puts forth: namely that a "Primatial option" even exists. There is no common agreement that statements by the Primates on any matter stand separate from the ACC and the decisions by the member churches. "Primatial option" is a really bad idea. It smacks of a primatial preemption.

Exactly.  The piece in TLC mentions "The Virginia Report" and "The Windsor Report", which are history that I assume the writer wishes were not, and the two are reports, just that, and non-binding on any of the churches in the Communion.  I had to search for "The Virginia Report", from 2007, because I did not know what it was.  No, I did not read it all.

In sum, whatever else happens to the Anglican Covenant, I hope the Primates will spend as little time in trying to revive the horse as possible and more time in such difficult tasks as looking to common core concerns.

Indeed.  Let it be so.

COMMENTARY ON AN ESSAY IN FAVOR OF THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

The Living Church launched Our Unity in Christ, a series of essays supporting the proposed Anglican Covenant, in February 2011. An introduction and complete index to the series are available here.

I've read several of the essays published by TLC, and I find them far less than persuasive. I'd say the essays include some of best defenses of the covenant around, and I suspect that the text of the document itself is a major problem for those in favor of its adoption. Of course, those of you who have previously visited my blog know that I am strongly opposed to the covenant. See the emblem on the sidebar, and, in the interest of even fuller disclosure, I am a member of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition.

My commentary on quoted excerpts from the essay by Bishop Victoria Matthews, Bishop of Christchurch, New Zealand, titled 'Greeting the Saints', in support of the Anglican Covenant follows. Of course, please read the essay in its entirety and make your own assessment.

Bp. Matthews says:

People are sometimes surprised that I support the proposed Anglican Covenant because there is a widespread belief that the crafters of the Covenant intend to stop new developments in the Communion. Similarly, many Anglicans believe that if there had been a Covenant 25 years ago, we would not have both sexes elected and consecrated to the episcopate. (“We would not have women bishops,” they say, without speaking of “men bishops.” Bishop is not a gender-exclusive noun, and women is not an adjective.)

I confess I am surprised. How would we have had women bishops with the covenant in place, unless the churches which decided to ordain women bishops moved forward in the face of objections by other churches who oppose the ordination of women as bishops and risk 'relational consequences' of some undefined sort? When would the churches of the Anglican Communion have come to one mind about women bishops? Who can say?

Also 'women' can indeed be an adjective. So says Merriam-Webster.

It is widely acknowledged that modern communication technologies, and especially the Internet, have complicated the life of the Anglican Communion.

Technology complicates many aspects of life today, not just that of the church. For good or for ill, communication is close to instantaneous, and we all need to adapt to the change. Isn't it about time to stop moaning about technology and start to adapt? The internet with its instant communication is not going away.

I have even heard that it is advisable not to attend certain events, as the coverage at home is always superior to what one learns by attending in person, and by staying at home you don’t have to meet the people who you know are wrong anyway.

I've heard that, too, but think of the logical consequences if everyone took the words to heart and stayed away: There would be no event. At the same time, technology opens up the possibility of meetings without all the participants having to be physically present. Of course, since I'm an incarnational type, I value highly face-to-face meetings, and they are, at times, quite necessary.

What would happen if the provinces of the Communion were equally dedicated to being in relationship one with another, no matter what? Archbishop Rowan commended this to the bishops at the 2008 Lambeth Conference’s opening retreat. The Indaba Group of the Lambeth Conference also attempted to foster it. What if the requirement of the Covenant actually enforced listening and being in relationship? I imagine you cringe at the word enforce, and so do I. But will it happen otherwise? Section 4 of the Covenant exists precisely to ensure the kind of listening, communication, and relationship that is presently missing in the Anglican Communion.

Those churches, Primates, and bishops who choose to boycott gatherings seem not very dedicated to being in relationship. Besides, to use Lambeth 2008 as any kind of model seems ludicrous to me, when the one person who most needed to be included in the Indaba, Bishop Gene Robinson, was not invited to Lambeth by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams because he was a partnered gay man.

Yes, I cringe at the word 'enforce'. To attempt to enforce listening is as futile as the Anglican Covenant's call to force the bonds of affection. You can put people in the same room, but you can't make them listen to each other.

It is my prayer that the Anglican Covenant will act as a midwife for the delivery of a new Anglican Communion, a Communion that has its gestation in relationship and deep listening.

What is the bishop's vision of the new Anglican Communion? I'd like a clearer picture. Whatever her vision, the choice of the Anglican Covenant as the midwife for the delivery seems to me disastrous.

Bishop Matthews serves on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order. I understand that for members appointed to committees by the Anglican Communion Office or the Archbishop of Canterbury the pressure to speak in favor of the covenant must be rather intense. Still, much of what Bishop Matthews says seems to me faint praise. I find it especially telling that so few quotes from the actual text of the covenant appear in the essays in favor of the covenant. Could it be because the covenant is badly written?

And, in passing, the name of the committee on which Bishop Matthews serves makes me cringe, because it reminds me of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, which began life as Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition. As a former Roman Catholic, I know that the Congregation was often used to discipline 'dissidents'. The comparison may be unfair, but I wish the committee had another name.

UPDATE: I meant to link to Lionel's post on Victoria Matthews' essay at Lionel Diemel's Web Log, where I first posted parts of my commentary.