The approved text of the Anglican Covenant is already serving as a lens through which individual Anglican churches are inevitably and accurately being measured in terms of their character as “Communion churches.”  Thus, in ways not yet properly noted by all, the text endorsed by the Anglican Consultative Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Joint Standing Committee in May 2009 has already raised and to a large extent provisionally answered the question “who can adopt this Covenant?”  It is the purpose of this paper to explain why and how this is so, and to do this in relation particularly to The Episcopal Church, although it should be noted that the Covenant’s defining substance can be applied analogously to other Anglican churches as well.

The substantive sections of the Anglican Covenant, Sections 1-3, are now in final form. They will be sent to the churches of the Communion for adoption within a few months. A fourth section containing procedural provisions will be added to the other three at that time, but it remains subject to further review and “possible revision.” Section 4, however, either as it now stands or as revised, will not change the fundamental substantive commitments given by the covenanting churches. The scope of the fourth section is purely procedural.

This cuts directly against the claim of some “progressive” elements that it would be perfectly possible for The Episcopal Church, as it stands and even with the recent General Convention decisions in mind, to sign the first three sections. Following the recent reflections by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the actions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church, some in the Communion are urging TEC to sign the Anglican Covenant even while continuing to reject the teaching of the communion on same sex ordinations and blessings and the moratoria that now have been affirmed by all four Instruments of Communion:

The Episcopal Church in Anaheim passed various resolutions which reaffirmed its inclusive polity and brought greater clarity about the way forward TEC may take. In that context, and having passed those resolutions, what is to stop TEC signing the Covenant? We are awaiting a further draft, but unless it contains radical strengthening of any judicial measures, it seems to me that TEC would be able to sign it, as a sign of its mutual commitment and in the context of its present policy of ensuring that it is open to LGBT people both single and in relationships.

To be sure, this same contradictory response was anticipated by the actions of General Convention itself.  On the one hand, it passed a resolution authorizing the development of liturgical resources for same sex blessings and, pending church-wide approval of a specific liturgy, encouraging bishops to offer a generous pastoral response to same sex couples that was explicitly intended to authorize public liturgies of blessing.  The chairman of the committee presenting this resolution to the House of Bishops explained that “the committee had considered adding a specific provision for liturgies, but believed it best not to enumerate the forms pastoral generosity might take so that ‘liturgies could be included’ without being named.”  The Convention also declared all orders of ordained ministry open to persons living in same sex relationships, concluding they reflect “holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God” and that people in such relationships have responded to “God’s call” to the ordained ministry “on behalf of God’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  The official explanation attached to this resolution states that “These standards thus provide guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate.”

The rejection of Communion teaching on human sexuality is clear. In the words of one member of the House of Bishops:

The battle over homosexuality in the Episcopal Church is over. The vote at the last General Convention was overwhelming. The sacred unions of gay and lesbian people are to be blessed and enfolded into liturgical patterns in the same way that the sacred unions of heterosexual people have been honored for centuries. The ministry of this church is to be open to gay and lesbian people who are qualified and chosen in the process by which this church makes such decisions.

On the other hand, The Episcopal Church professes to continue to consider the Anglican Covenant, resolving to “study and comment” on the approved text of the Covenant (and “any successive drafts”) and requesting a report with “draft legislation concerning this Church’s response to an Anglican Covenant” at the next General Convention.  It should be noted that as originally moved this resolution called on The Episcopal Church to “make a provisional commitment to abide by the terms of the Anglican Covenant,” but the clause calling for a provisional commitment was removed.

That the actions of General Convention constitute instead a provisional rejection of the Anglican Covenant is manifest. This paper will support this conclusion in detail:

1. We begin by considering the substantial and well-developed body of Anglican thought utilized in expressing the commitments in the Covenant text. This body of precedent includes the articulation of several foundational concepts used in the Covenant, including “shared discernment,” “accountability,” “autonomy,” and the comprehensive term “Communion with autonomy and accountability.”

2. We then examine the specific commitments in the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant and show that they require (i) that there be Communion-wide decisions (“shared discernment”) on issues affecting the unity of the Communion and (ii) that all covenanting churches then recognize the decision reached by the Communion’s shared discernment.

3. We will then show that the shared discernment of the Communion on the issue of human sexuality is unequivocal. All four Instruments of Communion have spoken with one voice for over a decade, both in terms of general teaching and through specific recommendations.

4. We will conclude with a discussion of the function of Section 4 in the Covenant as a whole. On one level, Section 4 is not necessary, as some seem to think, to introduce meaningful consequences into the Covenant. Profound consequences are already entailed by the first three sections. Rather, a robust Section 4 is necessary in order to provide agreed procedures that all churches can trust. Without effective procedures in Section 4, others will emerge but they will not be ones that have been accepted in advance by all.

In this light, the actions of General Convention repudiating the teaching of the Communion on human sexuality can only be seen as the repudiation of the Covenant itself. The Communion and its shared discernment cannot be separated.

Read it all and download a PDF with footnotes….
View the original post

This is a must read for anyone seriously concerned with the future of TEC and its relationship to the Angllican Communion, regardless of whether you support or decry the actions of General Convention 2009.  It provides an excellent primer to the thinking behind and the specifics of the Anglican Covenant that has already been endorsed by the Anglican Consultative Council, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Joint Standing Committee and will soon be sent to the provinces for approval.  Moreover, it helps to show why the Communion Partners’ Initiative is so important to those who treasure both their commitments to TEC and their identity as Anglicans in the great stream of disciples from the Benedictines, through Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes, the Wesley brothers, the Oxford Tractarians, and Ramsey.  Take the time to study it and share it with your friends!

I quote one important section for the benefit of Covenant readers:

When shared discernment in the communion is required but a local church nonetheless decides to act independently of the communion, the local church has perforce taken itself outside the communion. It has broken communion. The break in communion is not a punitive response by the communion or other churches, but the inherent consequence of such independent action in a communion of churches. This is the thrust of the Windsor Report’s metaphor of “walking apart.” The church choosing to act independently is not “pushed aside” by the others; it places itself apart by its purposeful act of independence.  It is no longer a church-in-communion; it is an independent church with all that entails.

Part of the concern of the drafters of the Covenant, it seems to me, is not simply to propose an individual solution to the present crisis in Anglicanism (though, dear Lord, it is sorely needed), but to articulate a vision of the Church that our Ecumenical Partners—particularly those who claim a similar share in Apostolic Succession—can make sense of.  Thus, the Covenant must be biblically faithful, rooted in antiquity, yet part of the progression of the ongoing life of the Church.  Our conversation in this regard is with both the Church of our past (Apostolic Fathers) and with the broader Church of today (our Ecumenical Partners).

William Reed Huntington puts the issue facing The Episcopal Church vis a vis the Anglican Covenant this way:

If our whole ambitions as Anglicans in America be to continue a small, but eminently respectable body of Christians. . .if we care only to be a countercheck and not a force in society then let us say as much in plain terms, and frankly renounce any claims to Catholicity. We have only in such case, to wrap our robe of dignity about us, and walk quietly along in a seclusion no one will take much trouble to disturb. Thus may we be a Church in name and a sect in deed.

—The Church Idea, p. 152

Hi Craig,

I found that same section to be of interest, particularly the portion “with all that entails”.  I have to wonder what that means exactly.  What do the writers of this document believe are the “inherent consequences of such independent action”?  Does it mean the legitimization of another province in North America for example?  Does it mean TEC will no longer be able to send representation to the Instruments of Communion?  Does it mean that TEC will no longer support the Instruments of Communion?  Or will the Instruments of Communion still accept TEC’s financial support while not having representation on them?  Does it mean that the various companion relationships between TEC and other dioceses will cease or continue?  Will it mean that individual diocese within TEC will be given the authority to sign onto the Covenant while TEC as a whole is not given this authority?  How will that work exactly if these writers are suggesting that TEC as a whole cannot sign onto the Covenant? 

As I said before with the release of the essay on the locus of authority supposedly residing with the diocese and not General Convention, this essay will only further strain relationships.  To me, it is suggesting a fete accompli.  It seems to be suggesting that TEC ought not even consider the Covenant since the resolutions passed at General Convention have made any participation in the Covenant null and void.  (I would once again remind us all that NO ACTIONS have been taken since 2003.  No other bishops in same-sex relationships have been consecrated, and no public rites blessing same-sex relationships have been authorized by any dioceses within TEC.  Yet, such authorization has occurred in ACoC with little notice from the Anglican Communion, and cross-provincial interventions have not ceased with little attention from the AC.)  In my mind, this will only inflame the non-Covenanting extremes of the Church on both the left and right who do not see the value of TEC signing onto the Covenant.  The moderates will undoubtedly once again scratch their heads and wonder if it is all worth it or not.  If TEC cannot even sign, then what’s the point?  Or is this yet another attempt to schism TEC by saying that it cannot sign as a whole but that individual dioceses have the authority to sign on?

Unfortunately, it seems this same cadre of individuals, Dr. Radner, Bishop Wright, etc., cannot seem to learn their lesson.  They continue to write inflammatory essays like this one that only make the process harder.  After so many repeated attempts, one has to begin to wonder if they are really that unable to recognize the effects of their writing or if they are indeed attempting to create further schism within TEC.

In Christ,
Shawn

I will repeat what I have written elsewhere.

Until the final section of the proposed Covenant is ready for study, it is far too soon to speculate about the responses of any of the member churches of the Communion. In other churches the adoption of the final document may occur fairly soon after its release, although I think that is unwise and that an Anglican Covenant is not something “to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently,deliberately….” The General Convention will not be able to consider this until 2012, which will give plenty of time for study, discussion, and prayer. I expect some diocesan conventions will adopt resolutions urging the Covenant’s adoption by General Convention.

We are already experiencing the consequences of the actions that have been taken by General Convention and other bodies within TEC. However many tiers or tracks there may be in the Communion, TEC cannot fairly be assigned to any tier until after the 2012 GC.

Fr. Daniel,
I invite correction on this, but I note that twice now you have used the language of “assigned to any tier.”  That seems to me to suggest that someone will actually do some assigning.  That’s not my understanding of Rowan’s intention.  My understanding is that each church will assign itself by virtue of its relation to the Covenant and that a shifting of relationship between churches will happen organically so that there is a natural realignment that ultimately results in what Rowan has described in terms of two tracks, both of which are Anglican.

Your notion of “assignment” to a particular tier seems to me inconsistent with Rowan’s notions of freedom and the Church.  I think this a very important point theologically.

Sean,

I think the point of the discussion re General Convention and the Covenant is that General Convention as a whole knew they were passing D025 and B056 as resolutions that would indicate that TEC intends not to honor the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion. It’s really okay to say that. It’s also pretty clear that voting down those two resolutions would have evidenced the kind of self-restraint on the part of General Convention that was requested by the moratoria.  The same kind of self-restraint that would have been exercised by GC defeating those two resolutions is the same kind of self-restraint that would be required for GC to approve the Anglican Covenant.  Each action would be tantamount to GC saying that the prerogatives of our autonomy are more important than the relationships of our community.

I really don’t think that is a far stretch.  To say that no actions have been taken is simply to ignore the reality of what was intended.  Go read the official explanation.  I can tell you that the committee’s intention with respect to D025 was to move ahead with the consecration of persons to the episcopate living in a (homo)sexual relationship outside marriage.  Evidently you, the Presiding Bishop, and the President of the House of Deputies are the only three people I know of who think otherwise.

Let’s admit that these two resolutions have opened the door to blessings of same sex unions and the ordination of persons living in sexual relationships outside marriage.  And let’s deal with that reality, because that certainly was both the intention of those who voted for those resolutions, and that will be the net effect.  And, let’s deal with the implications of those actions and “with all that entails.”

Craig Uffman - 04 September 2009 01:10 PM

Fr. Daniel,
I invite correction on this, but I note that twice now you have used the language of “assigned to any tier.”  That seems to me to suggest that someone will actually do some assigning.  That’s not my understanding of Rowan’s intention.  My understanding is that each church will assign itself by virtue of its relation to the Covenant and that a shifting of relationship between churches will happen organically so that there is a natural realignment that ultimately results in what Rowan has described in terms of two tracks, both of which are Anglican.

Your notion of “assignment” to a particular tier seems to me inconsistent with Rowan’s notions of freedom and the Church.  I think this a very important point theologically.

Craig,

I used the passive because it is not at all clear at this point about how or by whom the assigning will be done. You may be right that the matter of will be clear to each member church of the Communion as a consequence of their decision about the Covenant. Perhaps the fourth section will spell that out. What remains clear, I hope, is that if there is a two-tier system, it will not go into effect until all the member churches have decided whether or not to adopt the Covenant. While the Archbishop has authority to exclude from Primates meetings and the Lambeth Conference the Primates and bishops of churches that decline to adopt the Covenant, he does not have the authority to remove the representatives of those churches from the Anglican Consultative Council. That authority belongs to the ACC alone and I have real doubts about that happening.

Daniel

Perhaps I am alone in hearing Rowan this way, but I do follow him closely.  I don’t think there is any need for him to exclude from Primates’ Meetings or the Lambeth Conference if the Covenant becomes the marker I believe it intends to be.  Though there are many who feel that TEC’s action ought to warrant such exclusion, this notion seems to me inconsistent with the idea of two tracks.  Perhaps he will exclude, but it seems unnecessary in the framework within which Rowan thinks.  The Covenant - and not his invitation - becomes the defining benchmark over time of shifting relationships, the content of which is shared ministry and support.  Yet we continue to recognize each other as part of a single family in which one track has discerned that autonomy trumps interdependence on certain issues of great importance, and the other has discerned the opposite.  There is no need to destroy one another or which the other ill in such a framework, nor any need to coerce.  Over time there is a natural realignment that does not of necessity rupture all bonds.

My own experience in my parish suggests that there is great wisdom in this.  Forcing division at a church level is wrong because the church itself is multivariegated, and such coercion would rip apart parishes and dioceses.  Far better to allow the time for the shifting to happen peacefully and for new structures to arise that bear the mark of the Spirit.

Hi Canon Michell,

I will be clear that I pray for the day when gay and lesbian persons will be able to enjoy full status in the Church.  And I do agree with you that those resolutions have opened the door.  But as of yet, no one has walked through that door.  It will still require a majority vote from either the HoB and Standing Committees or General Convention to consecrate a bishop.  As we have all seen with the bishop-elect of Northern Michigan, that is not a guaranteed shoe-in.  And as far as I know, it still takes an act of General Convention to authorize public rites.  I could be wrong about that, but that’s my understanding.  Thus far, no public rites blessing same-sex relationships have been authorized.  Whatever pastoral measures that are being taken were not the subject of the original Windsor Report.  However….what was in the original Windsor Report was a moratorium on cross-border interventions.  Not only have very specific actions been taken by some provinces against that moratorium, they continue to be taken.  In fact, they have extended to the formation of the ACNA.  Yet, I hear not a peep from the leaders of the Anglican Communion regarding these actions.

In Christ,
Shawn

Hi Craig,

While I treasure your non-violent approach to this conflict (and I mean that very sincerely), I don’t understand how your scenario could play out.  If provinces who do not sign onto the Covenant (whoever they may be) continue to participate fully within the Instruments of Communion, then what is the point?  What is all this fuss about?  Why don’t we just get back to the work of mission?

In Christ,
Shawn

I disagree with both Dan and Shawn since I believe the point of the ACI piece is that they believe that regardless of the possible section four, TEC is in de facto violation of the agreed upon parts of the Covenant. Section four will delineate some kind of process probably.  It matters not if TEC signs on - Dan I agree that 2012 is the earliest possible date if the Leaders act in conformity with what they say they believe about GC as the only body with authority (about which I strongly disagree).  The hot air from Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Schori to the contrary, it is clear that TEC is marching forward with its agenda and will include gay partnered bishops and will bless, eventually with liturgies, such relationships.  Meanwhile section four is moot according to the ACI argument - with this I agree.  If one of the gay candidates in either CA or MN is elected and given the necessary consents then the discussion/conversation is over.  From the early warning not to tear the fabric of the Communion to the concept of a province “walking away” to the present where the ABC has been very clear about the effect and consequences of the GC 09 resolutions - we are faced with “de facto” (since 03) becoming “de jure” due to putting facts on the ground when after 6 tortuous and very painful years the attitude of the instruments/organs of the Communion are clear and actions will have consequences.  It is the actions of TEC which will place it on track two not any voting upon the Covenant.  I believe that the AC will simply ignore, in the best British tradition,  those who are so distasteful in their conduct - in spite of their riches.  TEC will be shunned.

Shawn, you can make the point that this is what you wish under “full inclusion” but that - when official (and it is not yet) - will be the end in my mind of TEC being remotely part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  This means that it will be in my mind little more than a universalist sect that mouths conformity and clings to its apostolic heritage as one does to a wet paper bag.  Those who have left are very clear that it is this walking away of TEC from its Apostolic Tradition that is the scandal.  It is possible for such as I to cling to certain bishops and even certain congregations who in our mind maintain orthodoxy.  How many will wander into the wilderness with TEC?  Who knows!  I worry about the “souls” being led astray by this “new” teaching - indeed “new religion.”

The folk at ACI, Bp. Tom Wright, Communion Partner bishops and rectors are doing their best to remain Apostolic.  However, and I quote anonymously a CP bishop, “I wonder when they will come for me?”

Ian Montgomery - 05 September 2009 09:07 AM

The folk at ACI, Bp. Tom Wright, Communion Partner bishops and rectors are doing their best to remain Apostolic.  However, and I quote anonymously a CP bishop, “I wonder when they will come for me?”

I have on the wall of my office a version of the statement that Pastor Niemoller made: “First they came for the socialists and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist. They they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.” The comment that Ian quoted reminded me of that statement and I hope the CP bishop was not drawing too close a parallel. However much some conservatives in TEC have suffered over the past decade, it is not worth comparing to the Shoah. Niemoller didn’t include at least two groups that the Nazis came for - Roma people and gays.

Hi Ian,

In your dreams, how would you like all of this to play out?  What would you like to happen to TEC?

In Christ,
Shawn

REFORM - I would like TEC to subscribe to the 39 Articles, BCP 1662.  I would settle for 1979 rite 1,  no women bishops and no blessing of homoerotic activity at all.  Given that this will not happen then TEC should develop some grace and let congregations and dioceses leave with the property that they have maintained if not paid for. Drop law suits.  Allow people to choose and have a kind of no fault divorce as the two sides cannot be reconciled in this generation or even several yet to come.  The way of the civil war years is apposite, separation without rancor and then there was the possibility of coming back together which is what happened.  Let TEC go the way of the Unitarian Universalists if they wish..  Leave those who continue to maintain Apostolic Christianity/tradition to continue in communion with the Communion.  TEC can set up its own mini communion.  In that communion it can avow non Biblical practices like those espoused in the ordination and blessing resolutions of the last GC.  It can assert its own traditions at the expense of Biblical theology and the mind of the Church Catholic.

Meanwhile those of us who are Communion minded (as in Communion Partners, which I was as a CP rector before retirement and the mission field) will be able to rejoice in the uninterrupted communion with the rest of the AC.  Learning especially from the growing parts of the Communion such as Africa, Asian and South America.  We will continue in a robust Apostolic and evangelistic that is our true Anglican heritage.

The most telling of the resolutions of GC09 was the changing of wording from abandoning communion to abandoning TEC.  TEC has already set itself up as independent, autonomous and is set to become a monoblock of a certain ideology, apart from the Church Catholic.  Let it be honest and not try to say yes when it means no and no when it means yes.

You asked!