by The Board of INTEGRITY-Houston, June 1, 2007
Major author is James Cowan, a member of INTEGRITY-Houston, and a communicant of Trinity Episcopal Church in Houston.
[The Covenant Design Group (CDG), appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, has prepared a “Draft Anglican Covenant”. Every Province (Church) of the Anglican Communion has been asked to respond to this Draft by January 1, 2008. The response on behalf of the Episcopal Church as a whole will be made by the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church—the report to be prepared at the Executive Council's October 2007 meeting. A Short Study Guide was prepared to assist all Episcopalians to participate in the development of our Church’s response to the Draft Covenant. That guide included a series of questions on various aspects of the Draft Covenant, answers to which had to be sent to the Episcopal Church Center in New York by June 4th just past. The document that follows was sent by the Board of INTEGRITY-Houston as its reponse to that process. Having a copy of the Short Study Guide to hand will help set the context in which the various questions are asked]
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?
No. The parts of the Covenant that are not new (e.g., the Creeds, the Quadrilateral, the Instruments of Communion) already exist and need no additional reaffirmation. The new elements of the Covenant (e.g., expanded de facto executive and juridical functions for the Primates’ Meeting, mechanisms to enforce the “mind of the Communion” on member Churches, the threat of ejecting member Churches who “choose not to fulfill the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion”) would serve only to formalize a process for exclusion and control which we do not find to be Christ-like or useful to forging stronger bonds of communion.
2. How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?
This view of communion seems more legalistic and coercive than the Anglicanism we deeply love. We understand and experience Anglican Christianity to contain broad streams of belief and practice, which enrich and correct each other through the power of love, the spirit of tolerance, and the desire for the greatest possible inclusivity.
3. Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?
No. We believe that the elements lined out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (Holy Scriptures containing all that is necessary for salvation, the historic creeds, and the ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons) provide sufficient simple and clear guidance that defines our common mission and belief. Additional qualifying or narrowing language is neither helpful nor truly catholic. We also question what is meant by the hope that we might “grow up together as a worldwide Communion to the full stature of Christ.” If this is intended to point toward a world-wide church with confessional standards, hierarchical international structures, and discipline imposed on member Churches based on those standards by those structures, then we find the concept of a Covenant to be unhelpful and un-Anglican.
4. Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?
Although there is much to agree with in this section of the draft, we would object that paragraph 5’s reference to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Order of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons seems to give historical documents a preeminent role and uniquely authoritative status in the Churches that inhibits the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit amongst both ordained and lay orders.
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 that they should be? Why or why not?
No. First, these documents have long been held to have historic significance to our Church, as they are products of our Reformation heritage. However, our doctrine and practice continue to develop over time. The intervening years have greatly enriched our worship and our faith through, among other things, additional scholarship about the primitive church, the Anglo-Catholic revival, the liturgical reform movement, our own experience as American Christians, and the ongoing movement of the Holy Spirit. We fear that this provision in the covenant is intended to “freeze” the Church at a specific point in time (or perhaps more accurately turn back the clock) and discard the intervening action of the Spirit in the life of the Church.
6. Is each of these commitments clear and understandable with respect to what is being asked of the member churches and are they consistent with statements and actions made by the Episcopal Church in the General Convention? Why or why not?
No. Although we affirm the “catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, [and] biblically derived moral values” we are troubled that we seem to be asked to agree to be bound to some unspecified common “vision of humanity” and some unstated, but implicitly common, understanding of what specific meanings those terms have as “received by and developed in the communion of the member Churches.” The question of who will decide what these phrases causes us concern.
We welcome the recognition that ours is a “common pilgrimage with other members of the Communion to discern truth,” and we encourage the expansion and intensification of the process of listening to the experiences of gay, lesbian, and transgender Anglicans.
7. Is the mission vision offered here helpful in advancing a common life of the Anglican Communion and does this need to be a part of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
While we do not believe the Draft Covenant necessary to their expression, the emphasis of this section that the challenges and opportunities we face are local, regional, and international is helpful. We especially appreciate the recognition that our common history provides unique opportunities to work together for God’s Kingdom. We also appreciate the ecumenical impulse embodied in the last clause.
8. Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion?” Why or why not?
In and of themselves, these descriptions do not seem to be problematic as a general statement of the current functions of our ever-developing Instruments of Unity. However, we question the wisdom of enshrining the newly named Instruments of Unity as currently understood in a Covenant designed to bind the member Churches from this time forward. One of the greatest strengths of our Communion is its flexibility and its ability to bend rather than break. We would prefer that the Communion maintain its ability to respond to changing needs with the generosity and willingness to listen to God that has been its hallmark, rather than rely on a rigid framework of international governance.
9. Do you think that there needs to be an executive or juridical body for resolving disagreements or disputes within the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates’ Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.
No. We believe that international executive or juridical authority at the Communion level would be unhelpful and likely harmful to our Church and our understanding of our role in our community and in the Communion. As a preliminary matter, our roots in the Reformation and the American experience teach us to be wary of subjecting ourselves to the authority of overseas church leaders who are not accountable to the will of the Holy Spirit as discerned by our church in General Convention. Moreover, we do not presume to dictate faith, discipline, or morals for Anglicans outside the United States in their respective contexts, nor are we are willing to invite them impose the same upon Anglicans whose cultural contexts differ from their own. We believe that God has called The Episcopal Church, in all its imperfections, to stand for the wholeness and inclusion won for us by the ministry, teachings, cross, and empty grave of Jesus Christ. We fear that expanded executive or juridical power will be used to prevent or limit our full proclamation of the victory of Jesus over the forces of injustice, sin, and death.
The Primates are particularly unsuited to provide executive or juridical leadership for the Communion, as is borne out by their attempt to assume powers not delegated to them in Dar es Salaam, and their unprecedented demands to intervene in this Church’s polity. Their willingness to resort to the tactics of coercion and exclusion do not bode well for a Communion governed by the Primates. In addition, given our distinctive polity, we have grave doubts whether a body composed solely of bishops is sufficiently representative of the breadth and variety of views within the Church to exert such unchecked power.
10. What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern …” mean to you?
Ideally, the term would refer to matters of the inclusive love of Christ. We are troubled that the drafters seem to intend to include questions of sexual morality as matters of essential concern to the exclusion of issues of structural communal morality. We disagree on that specific point, but also worry that if sexual morality is declared essential and therefore a proper subject for intervention in member Churches, what other matters will become “of essential concern?” If the definition of “essential” is not exceedingly narrowly drawn, the list of included topics might ultimately include questions of war and peace, the theology and science of creation, abortion, end of life issues, divorce, development, and any number of social or political issues. We believe that Anglicanism should hold essential those things that it has long held essential as laid out in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
11. Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
No. The acceptable and helpful parts of the Draft Covenant are already part of our common heritage and practice. They need no reinforcement or reiteration. The parts that are new material appear to be designed to be punitive and exclusionary (with an eye to setting up schismatic elements in our Church to acquire property as they leave the Church).
12. What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?
If the document is revised to take out all innovations and accurately sums what Anglicanism is and has been for some time, then it might have the salutary effect of reminding us of what does and does not bind us together. However, if not revised to remove those parts designed to punish and exclude the North American churches, then it will only serve to further rend the Body.
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?
No. See Nos. 1, 2, and 12 above.
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?
We certainly appreciate the hard work that went into the draft, but we fear that its best and most helpful portions are already part of our common life and that the worst features will serve to divide us further. We encourage The Episcopal Church to reject this draft and raise serious questions whether any Covenant is needed or helpful at this time.
Comments