Pictures from New York May 2011 by Rachel Marszalek
These thoughts are my thoughts alone and do not represent my diocesan team or the Indaba project.
Away with the Episcopal church, I more obviously saw the gospel incarnating itself, becoming contextual, becoming relevant to the lives of diverse and disparate people. This is a church happy with uncertainty, aware of the mystery and frustrated by doctrinal correctness. l have a yearning to look wider, think bigger, calm down a bit, take more time....
l am not sure how all of this will play itself out. l feel more invited into a life that is distinctive because actions speak prophetically in a church that welcomes, is accessible, journeys with people, takes time... becomes conscious of its unnecessary barriers.
l have also been thinking about the Anglican Covenant.
Goddard explains (2008, 164) how the Covenant is not only causing Anglicans to think through a theology of human sexuality, it is drawing out 'contrasting and potentially incompatible understandings of what it means to be Anglican.' Anglicanism went hand-in-hand with British colonial expansion. Harris (2011, 37) describes how towards the end of the eighteenth century, the Anglican Communion grew out of the 'Church of England’s willingness...to give the ... gift of episcopal orders to emerging churches beyond its own sphere of governance.' The first nineteenth century Lambeth conference accorded 'primacy to the Church of England as the mother church while reducing other member churches to.... “provinces,”' (Kater, 2008, 86). According to the Anglican Communion Official Website today, the Communion comprises 'more than 85 million members in 44 regional and national member churches around the globe in 160 countries.' Podmore (2005, 124) warns against assuming an ‘Anglican ecclesiology.’ Article 34 of the 39 promotes inculteration of the gospel message so that church in one province will look very different to church in another. Moreover, ‘no church has a systematic body of “communion law” dealing with its relationship of communion with other member churches . . . inter-Anglican relations are not a distinctive feature of provincial laws, (The Windsor Report: 115). Many are asking whether 'the Anglican Communion is in any sense a ‘church’ ... or is it a looser federation of communities?' (Hind, 2008, 4). The Covenant is sensitive to this. Each covenanting church is to 'resolve to live in a Communion of Churches,' (Anglican Covenant, 3.1.2). The Covenant seeks to articulate what it means to be Anglican in its introduction.
I am wondering whether we need to guard carefully the various contextual expressions of the gospel for the sake of mission. With the Episcopal church, I want to think about whether action is isolationist or just keen in its response to its own situation for the better, for the sake of mission.
'To covenant together is not intended to change' (Anglican Covenant, Intro. pt. 5) but to reaffirm identity. In horizontal and vertical relationship, to be 'conformed together to the mind of Christ' (Anglican Covenant 3.1.2) and have a 'shared mind with other Churches' (Anglican Covenant 3.2.4), the introduction to the Covenant reaffirms the four-point expression (Chicago-Lambeth Quadilateral) of the Communion's identity through the Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Episcopate. There are also four Instruments of the Communion ( Res. 2 of ACC 13) in which the life of each church is called to participate. The Anglican Covenant reaffirms the importance of the See of Canterbury, the decennial Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting in Section 3.1.4 about 'Our Unity and Common Life.' It is the case, however, that the 'ecclesial communion... is maintained by non-juridical bonds of affection,' (Doe 2008, 72). The instruments advise; Anglicanism is not confessional (like the Lutheran Church) and it has no magisterium (like the Roman Catholic Church). It is these 'bonds of affection' that are strained and particularly by the Episcopal attitude to those in same-sex relationships.
Atherstone describes how the Anglican Communion's centre of gravity is now with the Global South and laments the West's liberal drift. He finds a church that is divided even against itself, citing women's ordination as an example of how recent innovations undermine clarity about the very ministries the church recognises. He believes that the church has been forced by the recent furore over its blessing and consecrating those in homosexual relationships, to now 'seek unity in common structures and a common legislature,' (2004, 248). He considers the instruments of the communion synonymous with 'a policy of centralism [which] began soon after the Second World War.' But if we think, that for Atherstone, this might be the answer to a fracturing communion, his conclusion, depressingly, is that, 'a central legislature would … enforce a universal version of lowest-common-denominator Anglicanism... at the expense of vibrant biblical Christianity,' (Atherstone, 2004, 249-50). Atherstone writes for Churchman, he is conservative. I wonder how he might define 'vibrant biblical Christianity.'
Rowan Williams is aware of shifting patterns of power, regretting that 'language of colonialism has been freely used of existing patterns...But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power’ (Williams, 2008, 1246). He lamented Orombi's withdrawal from the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and the actions of churches choosing to locate their spiritual head away from Canterbury. The Ugandan “The Road to Lambeth” stated 'We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution [1.10] are also invited...' and Orombi explains, 'An instrument of communion must also be an instrument of discipline in order to effectively facilitate meaningful communion among its autonomous provinces,' (Orombi, 2007, 4300). It is this call for centralisation and discipline, for a strengthening of the Communion's apparatus that some suspect the Covenant has been created to satisfy. It is leaving many wondering if the Via Media envisaged by Richard Hooker, that so defines Anglicanism, is under threat. Whilst I was in the US I followed the Ugandan shifts in terms of the illegality of homosexuality, it made for frightening reading.
Two turning points
In the history of the Communion there are two important turning points affecting churches like that in Uganda under Orombi. The first occurred with the development of a new attitude to churches beyond England as the British Empire came to an end and the second occurred with the Lambeth Resolution 1:10 in 1998.
The first symbolised 'the rebirth of the Anglican Communion,' (Bayne, 1964, 6):
The turning point of the Communion … was the 1963 Anglican Congress in Toronto and its far-reaching imperative known as “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”... MRI proposed a radical reorientation … stressing equality among all Anglican churches. (Chiwanga, 1999, ACC -11 Chairman's address)
The Anglican Communion moved on from its very English 'cultural confessionalism.' (Bayne, 1964, 129-30). Lambeth 1968 then passed a resolution resulting in the formation of the ACC as an instrument of common action so that emphases coming out of Toronto on 'mutuality' and 'interdependence' might lead to action. Ultimately, documents like the MRI introduced the language of 'mutuality' and interdependence' which runs through the Virginia Report and the Windsor Report and are obvious in the Covenant too, as they bid for greater unity. Ironically, whilst there is reluctance to strengthen authority in a church accused of colonialist attitudes, there is also a call from churches birthed through colonial evangelical missions for the communion to discipline provinces breaching the evangelical orthodoxy by which they are characterised.
The next turning point: Lambeth 1:10
Interdependence and mutuality are also a by-product of the globalisation to which the Anglican Communion is not immune. 'The bliss of ignorance, distance, and time can no longer be relied upon to hold the Communion together.' (The Church Times Guide, 2011, 19). The Church responds very differently across the Communion to arising issues which are communicated immediately across the internet for everyone's comment. Rowan Williams (2006, 621) acknowledges 'a number of large issues about provincial identity and autonomy [that are] raised for all of us.' Cameron (2008, 70) wonders 'what are the limits of diversity which can be held tolerably within one family?'
1998's Lambeth 1:10 brought to a head the developing crisis over the 'limits of diversity'. Resolution 1:10 (1) rejected 'homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture,' pronouncing that bishops 'cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.' It also seemed to 'strengthen some Lambeth Conference Resolutions to become “definitive teaching of the Anglican Communion,”' (Douglas, 2005, 572). Reaction ran high with parts of the church describing this as 'an exercise in ecclesial tyranny,' (Cameron, 2008, 70).
Strains on 'bonds of affection' began prior to Lambeth 1998. Before Lambeth 1978, provinces like Hong Kong, Canada, the United States and New Zealand were ordaining women to the priesthood with further provinces accepting it in principle. The Eames Report reflected on how the Communion's koinonia could be preserved in the light of diverse views. Future Lambeth Conferences explored this issue further but were dominated by attention to issues in human sexuality. The next incident placing not just a strain on the Communion but threatening to 'tear' its 'very fabric' (Williams, 2003, 653) was TEC's consecration in 2003 of a divorced man in a same-sex relationship. Eames headed up the Lambeth Commission on Communion to explore how communion could be maintained in the light of current circumstances. Relationship with those ‘Two Thirds World’ bishops whose presence marked Lambeth 1988 flourished with churches reeling from the actions of TEC so that fellowships formed identified by a shared high view of scripture and opposition to liberal innovations. The Virginia Report led to the Windsor Report with its moratoria on same-sex blessings, and the ordinations and consecrations of active homosexuals. It also sought to persuade against the new alliances' revision of episcopal oversight. The Windsor Report, 2004, called for the US Episcopal Church, whose behaviour had caused other churches to seek alternative episcopal oversight to ‘regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached.'(2) This it did express but with no regret over the consecration of Gene Robinson. The Windsor Report called for the creation of the Anglican Covenant.
Goddard (2008, 162) notices how the document ‘Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ’ ... lies at the heart of The Windsor Report and it appears that the content of any covenant is going to embody this tradition of thinking.' It is interesting that the words 'mutual', 'interdependent' and 'responsible' occur 8, 11 and 9 times respectively in the Covenant. The method for fostering such admirable and biblical aims will come through the strengthening of current apparatus: 'The instruments of communion, which are a gift of God to the Church, help to hold us in the life of the triune God. These are the instruments which we seek to renew within the Anglican Communion,' (The Virginia Report, 1:14).
The Covenant asserts that it only reaffirms what has always been so but innovations are discernible. In describing 'the Anglican Communion, which provides a particular charism and identity among the many followers and servants of Jesus,' (Anglican Covenant, Intro. pt. 5) it seems to be claiming an identity less in continuation with the Catholic church out of which it came. The Covenant might also be criticised at point 3.1.2 for saying that its 'Instruments of Communion' 'enable' it to be 'conformed together to the mind of Christ,' rather than the scriptures, reason and tradition that have been articulated as achieving this in the past.
Rowan Williams insists that due attention be paid to sections like 4.1.3, that 'commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction.' But that the covenant 'should not be thought of as a means of excluding the difficult or rebellious,' (Williams, 2008, Address) is not appeasing those who have already experienced exclusion prior to the Covenant being released. At its 13th meeting,(3) the Anglican Consultative Council passed a resolution endorsing the Primates' request that 'in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council, for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.'
Such action meets the approval of people like Bishop Akao who argue that 'watered down through successive drafts, the Covenant now offers no threat to recalcitrant provinces and is consequently no longer fit for its purpose,' (Church Times Guide, 2011, 19). Other critics of the Covenant are suspicious that the 'Standing Committee will monitor the functioning of the Covenant with the support of other mandated committees,' (Anglican Covenant 4.2.2) Adams believes that 'for a national Church to covenant means that it commits itself to ... mandatory caution that denies innovations institutional expression... on pain of “relational consequences”...' (Church Times Guide, 2011, 21). The Covenant is not vague about these 'consequences' which will include exclusion from the Communion's decision-making processes, (Anglican Covenant 4.2.5). Many see this as a form of punishment: 'When we start to discuss the need for legislative instruments for monitoring and punishment, it is because the theological meaning of the word "communion" has already lost out to political interests,' (Calvani, 2008, 108).
Perhaps it is better to concentrate on the theological meaning of the word Covenant than the word Communion, after all, Covenant is what God called us into, with communion being just an aspect of that relationship. Goddard (2008, 157-164) is wary of critics who view 'all legal formulations as antithetical to Anglican ecclesiology... Covenant, biblically... is an initiative of grace to a situation of disobedience, uncertainty and mistrust.' Stipulations are a common feature of all OT and ANE covenants and treaties. Seitz (2008, 89-90) points out that, 'stipulations envisioned in a Communion Covenant... - the ‘Thou shalt not’... in Christ becomes the ‘It is my joy not to do’ … [they] are always open to both our disregard and God’s will to restore.' His is perhaps an answer to Calvani, who would abandon any attempt to covenant, because ...[the] perfect church, containing full unity of thought or even ethics, has never existed...'
Rowan Williams is no idealist. It is his hope that the Covenant is 'a practical, sensible and Christian way of dealing with our conflicts, recognising that they're always going to be there,' (Williams, (2009, 2687). The Covenant aims for Anglicans to be 'in communion with autonomy and accountability,' (Anglican Covenant 3.1.2). This means that any autonomy churches enjoy has relational foundations. Autonomy is linked to subsidiarity because Anglicanism champions the particularity of each expression of the gospel, with the caveat that gospel-distinctives are not to be compromised. We have to be clearer perhaps about what gospel distinctives are, perhaps this lies at the heart of the problem. Williams insists that the Covenant 'does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority...' (Williams, 2010, 3056). Section 3.2.5 of the Covenant asks that churches 'act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action … which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission'. Innovations are to be weighed by the entire communion first whose instruments advise in the hope that churches will heed such advice. Ultimately, the Anglican Covenant preserves the Anglican Way by inviting churches into its life. This invitation can be and is being declined. In this way churches are not being excluded, they are in effect excluding themselves from the Communion. Committee IV of the 1930 Lambeth Conference (The Lambeth Conference, 155) described prophetically how, 'this freedom naturally and necessarily carries with it the risk of divergences to the point even of disruption.' I wonder whether decisions are being made which focus on the contextual expression of the gospel with an unwillingness to sacrifice this for the sake of sameness across the communion.
A Covenant for a clashing Communion
The Anglican Communion contains within it those who call for an orthodoxy which requires the disciplining of parts of the church in breach of moratoria, particularly over breaches of traditional teaching about sexual expression outside marriage. The Anglican Communion also contains within it those who seek to protect what they understand as 'the Anglican Way.' They defend openness as a characteristic of a 'Communion which, practically from its inception, has always stood opposed to the notion that its hierarchy might have a magisterial authority to declare what its "current teaching" is.' (Bartel, 2007, 418) This can sometimes mask a more liberal attitude towards issues in human sexuality, which is, in itself, part of a theology of inclusiveness. What is interesting is that those who see this as symptomatic of the societies of the West and their attitudes to human rights, have also to contend that the global South's attitude to homosexuality concurs with that of the majority of societies there, where the homosexual act is largely illegal. Whilst both parties use scripture and their understanding of Anglicanism to defend their attitudes, their cultures are, no doubt, impacting attitudes too.
Conclusion
Where both sides claim faithfulness to the 'Anglican Way', the Covenant addresses ambiguity over Anglican identity by re-articulating what characterises the faith. I suspect that with a Covenant calling for the recognition of an apparatus teaching that a particular sexual expression is also concordant with that Anglican Way, those who continue to ordain, consecrate and bless people in homosexual partnerships are right to refuse to sign up to the Covenant. It could be that Atherstone (2004, 250) proves prophetic with his advice that we 'face facts and have two churches.' It is to be regretted that however honourable the Covenant be in theory, it will speed the fracture of the communion. The only remedy might be a patient waiting on both sides. Are those articulating a traditional stance on issues in human sexuality characterised by as much an attitude of indaba (4) as those in breach of the communion's teaching on issues in human sexuality? Rowan Williams (Williams, 2009, 2502) seems prepared for the 'most painstaking biblical exegesis' on the issue because he is open to changes supported by 'a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding. ' Whether that consensus and solid theological grounding will ever be found, only time and the Holy Spirit can tell. The Covenant will not cause any of these problems to go away. Ironically, it might simply be another way through which new alliances will form as churches who can not adhere to it because they disagree with Lambeth 1:10 make allies, where they least expected, with churches that do adhere to this controversial resolution but feel that the Covenant fails to fully articulate the Anglican generosity they hold dear.
'To covenant together is not intended to change' (Anglican Covenant, Intro. pt. 5) but to reaffirm identity. In horizontal and vertical relationship, to be 'conformed together to the mind of Christ' (Anglican Covenant 3.1.2) and have a 'shared mind with other Churches' (Anglican Covenant 3.2.4), the introduction to the Covenant reaffirms the four-point expression (Chicago-Lambeth Quadilateral) of the Communion's identity through the Scriptures, Creeds, Sacraments and Episcopate. There are also four Instruments of the Communion ( Res. 2 of ACC 13) in which the life of each church is called to participate. The Anglican Covenant reaffirms the importance of the See of Canterbury, the decennial Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting in Section 3.1.4 about 'Our Unity and Common Life.' It is the case, however, that the 'ecclesial communion... is maintained by non-juridical bonds of affection,' (Doe 2008, 72). The instruments advise; Anglicanism is not confessional (like the Lutheran Church) and it has no magisterium (like the Roman Catholic Church). It is these 'bonds of affection' that are strained and particularly by the Episcopal attitude to those in same-sex relationships.
Atherstone describes how the Anglican Communion's centre of gravity is now with the Global South and laments the West's liberal drift. He finds a church that is divided even against itself, citing women's ordination as an example of how recent innovations undermine clarity about the very ministries the church recognises. He believes that the church has been forced by the recent furore over its blessing and consecrating those in homosexual relationships, to now 'seek unity in common structures and a common legislature,' (2004, 248). He considers the instruments of the communion synonymous with 'a policy of centralism [which] began soon after the Second World War.' But if we think, that for Atherstone, this might be the answer to a fracturing communion, his conclusion, depressingly, is that, 'a central legislature would … enforce a universal version of lowest-common-denominator Anglicanism... at the expense of vibrant biblical Christianity,' (Atherstone, 2004, 249-50). Atherstone writes for Churchman, he is conservative. I wonder how he might define 'vibrant biblical Christianity.'
Rowan Williams is aware of shifting patterns of power, regretting that 'language of colonialism has been freely used of existing patterns...But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power’ (Williams, 2008, 1246). He lamented Orombi's withdrawal from the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and the actions of churches choosing to locate their spiritual head away from Canterbury. The Ugandan “The Road to Lambeth” stated 'We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution [1.10] are also invited...' and Orombi explains, 'An instrument of communion must also be an instrument of discipline in order to effectively facilitate meaningful communion among its autonomous provinces,' (Orombi, 2007, 4300). It is this call for centralisation and discipline, for a strengthening of the Communion's apparatus that some suspect the Covenant has been created to satisfy. It is leaving many wondering if the Via Media envisaged by Richard Hooker, that so defines Anglicanism, is under threat. Whilst I was in the US I followed the Ugandan shifts in terms of the illegality of homosexuality, it made for frightening reading.
Two turning points
In the history of the Communion there are two important turning points affecting churches like that in Uganda under Orombi. The first occurred with the development of a new attitude to churches beyond England as the British Empire came to an end and the second occurred with the Lambeth Resolution 1:10 in 1998.
The first symbolised 'the rebirth of the Anglican Communion,' (Bayne, 1964, 6):
The turning point of the Communion … was the 1963 Anglican Congress in Toronto and its far-reaching imperative known as “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”... MRI proposed a radical reorientation … stressing equality among all Anglican churches. (Chiwanga, 1999, ACC -11 Chairman's address)
The Anglican Communion moved on from its very English 'cultural confessionalism.' (Bayne, 1964, 129-30). Lambeth 1968 then passed a resolution resulting in the formation of the ACC as an instrument of common action so that emphases coming out of Toronto on 'mutuality' and 'interdependence' might lead to action. Ultimately, documents like the MRI introduced the language of 'mutuality' and interdependence' which runs through the Virginia Report and the Windsor Report and are obvious in the Covenant too, as they bid for greater unity. Ironically, whilst there is reluctance to strengthen authority in a church accused of colonialist attitudes, there is also a call from churches birthed through colonial evangelical missions for the communion to discipline provinces breaching the evangelical orthodoxy by which they are characterised.
The next turning point: Lambeth 1:10
Interdependence and mutuality are also a by-product of the globalisation to which the Anglican Communion is not immune. 'The bliss of ignorance, distance, and time can no longer be relied upon to hold the Communion together.' (The Church Times Guide, 2011, 19). The Church responds very differently across the Communion to arising issues which are communicated immediately across the internet for everyone's comment. Rowan Williams (2006, 621) acknowledges 'a number of large issues about provincial identity and autonomy [that are] raised for all of us.' Cameron (2008, 70) wonders 'what are the limits of diversity which can be held tolerably within one family?'
1998's Lambeth 1:10 brought to a head the developing crisis over the 'limits of diversity'. Resolution 1:10 (1) rejected 'homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture,' pronouncing that bishops 'cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.' It also seemed to 'strengthen some Lambeth Conference Resolutions to become “definitive teaching of the Anglican Communion,”' (Douglas, 2005, 572). Reaction ran high with parts of the church describing this as 'an exercise in ecclesial tyranny,' (Cameron, 2008, 70).
Strains on 'bonds of affection' began prior to Lambeth 1998. Before Lambeth 1978, provinces like Hong Kong, Canada, the United States and New Zealand were ordaining women to the priesthood with further provinces accepting it in principle. The Eames Report reflected on how the Communion's koinonia could be preserved in the light of diverse views. Future Lambeth Conferences explored this issue further but were dominated by attention to issues in human sexuality. The next incident placing not just a strain on the Communion but threatening to 'tear' its 'very fabric' (Williams, 2003, 653) was TEC's consecration in 2003 of a divorced man in a same-sex relationship. Eames headed up the Lambeth Commission on Communion to explore how communion could be maintained in the light of current circumstances. Relationship with those ‘Two Thirds World’ bishops whose presence marked Lambeth 1988 flourished with churches reeling from the actions of TEC so that fellowships formed identified by a shared high view of scripture and opposition to liberal innovations. The Virginia Report led to the Windsor Report with its moratoria on same-sex blessings, and the ordinations and consecrations of active homosexuals. It also sought to persuade against the new alliances' revision of episcopal oversight. The Windsor Report, 2004, called for the US Episcopal Church, whose behaviour had caused other churches to seek alternative episcopal oversight to ‘regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached.'(2) This it did express but with no regret over the consecration of Gene Robinson. The Windsor Report called for the creation of the Anglican Covenant.
Goddard (2008, 162) notices how the document ‘Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ’ ... lies at the heart of The Windsor Report and it appears that the content of any covenant is going to embody this tradition of thinking.' It is interesting that the words 'mutual', 'interdependent' and 'responsible' occur 8, 11 and 9 times respectively in the Covenant. The method for fostering such admirable and biblical aims will come through the strengthening of current apparatus: 'The instruments of communion, which are a gift of God to the Church, help to hold us in the life of the triune God. These are the instruments which we seek to renew within the Anglican Communion,' (The Virginia Report, 1:14).
The Covenant asserts that it only reaffirms what has always been so but innovations are discernible. In describing 'the Anglican Communion, which provides a particular charism and identity among the many followers and servants of Jesus,' (Anglican Covenant, Intro. pt. 5) it seems to be claiming an identity less in continuation with the Catholic church out of which it came. The Covenant might also be criticised at point 3.1.2 for saying that its 'Instruments of Communion' 'enable' it to be 'conformed together to the mind of Christ,' rather than the scriptures, reason and tradition that have been articulated as achieving this in the past.
Rowan Williams insists that due attention be paid to sections like 4.1.3, that 'commitment does not represent submission to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction.' But that the covenant 'should not be thought of as a means of excluding the difficult or rebellious,' (Williams, 2008, Address) is not appeasing those who have already experienced exclusion prior to the Covenant being released. At its 13th meeting,(3) the Anglican Consultative Council passed a resolution endorsing the Primates' request that 'in order to recognise the integrity of all parties, the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council, for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.'
Such action meets the approval of people like Bishop Akao who argue that 'watered down through successive drafts, the Covenant now offers no threat to recalcitrant provinces and is consequently no longer fit for its purpose,' (Church Times Guide, 2011, 19). Other critics of the Covenant are suspicious that the 'Standing Committee will monitor the functioning of the Covenant with the support of other mandated committees,' (Anglican Covenant 4.2.2) Adams believes that 'for a national Church to covenant means that it commits itself to ... mandatory caution that denies innovations institutional expression... on pain of “relational consequences”...' (Church Times Guide, 2011, 21). The Covenant is not vague about these 'consequences' which will include exclusion from the Communion's decision-making processes, (Anglican Covenant 4.2.5). Many see this as a form of punishment: 'When we start to discuss the need for legislative instruments for monitoring and punishment, it is because the theological meaning of the word "communion" has already lost out to political interests,' (Calvani, 2008, 108).
Perhaps it is better to concentrate on the theological meaning of the word Covenant than the word Communion, after all, Covenant is what God called us into, with communion being just an aspect of that relationship. Goddard (2008, 157-164) is wary of critics who view 'all legal formulations as antithetical to Anglican ecclesiology... Covenant, biblically... is an initiative of grace to a situation of disobedience, uncertainty and mistrust.' Stipulations are a common feature of all OT and ANE covenants and treaties. Seitz (2008, 89-90) points out that, 'stipulations envisioned in a Communion Covenant... - the ‘Thou shalt not’... in Christ becomes the ‘It is my joy not to do’ … [they] are always open to both our disregard and God’s will to restore.' His is perhaps an answer to Calvani, who would abandon any attempt to covenant, because ...[the] perfect church, containing full unity of thought or even ethics, has never existed...'
Rowan Williams is no idealist. It is his hope that the Covenant is 'a practical, sensible and Christian way of dealing with our conflicts, recognising that they're always going to be there,' (Williams, (2009, 2687). The Covenant aims for Anglicans to be 'in communion with autonomy and accountability,' (Anglican Covenant 3.1.2). This means that any autonomy churches enjoy has relational foundations. Autonomy is linked to subsidiarity because Anglicanism champions the particularity of each expression of the gospel, with the caveat that gospel-distinctives are not to be compromised. We have to be clearer perhaps about what gospel distinctives are, perhaps this lies at the heart of the problem. Williams insists that the Covenant 'does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority...' (Williams, 2010, 3056). Section 3.2.5 of the Covenant asks that churches 'act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action … which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission'. Innovations are to be weighed by the entire communion first whose instruments advise in the hope that churches will heed such advice. Ultimately, the Anglican Covenant preserves the Anglican Way by inviting churches into its life. This invitation can be and is being declined. In this way churches are not being excluded, they are in effect excluding themselves from the Communion. Committee IV of the 1930 Lambeth Conference (The Lambeth Conference, 155) described prophetically how, 'this freedom naturally and necessarily carries with it the risk of divergences to the point even of disruption.' I wonder whether decisions are being made which focus on the contextual expression of the gospel with an unwillingness to sacrifice this for the sake of sameness across the communion.
A Covenant for a clashing Communion
The Anglican Communion contains within it those who call for an orthodoxy which requires the disciplining of parts of the church in breach of moratoria, particularly over breaches of traditional teaching about sexual expression outside marriage. The Anglican Communion also contains within it those who seek to protect what they understand as 'the Anglican Way.' They defend openness as a characteristic of a 'Communion which, practically from its inception, has always stood opposed to the notion that its hierarchy might have a magisterial authority to declare what its "current teaching" is.' (Bartel, 2007, 418) This can sometimes mask a more liberal attitude towards issues in human sexuality, which is, in itself, part of a theology of inclusiveness. What is interesting is that those who see this as symptomatic of the societies of the West and their attitudes to human rights, have also to contend that the global South's attitude to homosexuality concurs with that of the majority of societies there, where the homosexual act is largely illegal. Whilst both parties use scripture and their understanding of Anglicanism to defend their attitudes, their cultures are, no doubt, impacting attitudes too.
Conclusion
Where both sides claim faithfulness to the 'Anglican Way', the Covenant addresses ambiguity over Anglican identity by re-articulating what characterises the faith. I suspect that with a Covenant calling for the recognition of an apparatus teaching that a particular sexual expression is also concordant with that Anglican Way, those who continue to ordain, consecrate and bless people in homosexual partnerships are right to refuse to sign up to the Covenant. It could be that Atherstone (2004, 250) proves prophetic with his advice that we 'face facts and have two churches.' It is to be regretted that however honourable the Covenant be in theory, it will speed the fracture of the communion. The only remedy might be a patient waiting on both sides. Are those articulating a traditional stance on issues in human sexuality characterised by as much an attitude of indaba (4) as those in breach of the communion's teaching on issues in human sexuality? Rowan Williams (Williams, 2009, 2502) seems prepared for the 'most painstaking biblical exegesis' on the issue because he is open to changes supported by 'a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding. ' Whether that consensus and solid theological grounding will ever be found, only time and the Holy Spirit can tell. The Covenant will not cause any of these problems to go away. Ironically, it might simply be another way through which new alliances will form as churches who can not adhere to it because they disagree with Lambeth 1:10 make allies, where they least expected, with churches that do adhere to this controversial resolution but feel that the Covenant fails to fully articulate the Anglican generosity they hold dear.
Ultimately, the Covenant might do the very thing that it was set up to prevent: further divide an already divided church.
Appendix
Indaba
"We have given these the African name of indaba groups, groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it."
Archbishop's Reflections on Lambeth Conference 2008 at The Lambeth Conference official Website [online at
Appendix
Indaba
"We have given these the African name of indaba groups, groups where in traditional African culture, people get together to sort out the problems that affect them all, where everyone has a voice and where there is an attempt to find a common mind or a common story that everyone is able to tell when they go away from it."
Archbishop's Reflections on Lambeth Conference 2008 at The Lambeth Conference official Website [online at
http://www.lambethconference.org/lc2008/news/news.cfm/2008/4/23/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Better-Bishops-for-the-sake-of-a-better-Church]
Bibliography
Anglican Consultative Council, (1997). The Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, The Virginia Report, London: The Anglican Communion Office. Retrieved from www.lambethconference.org/1998/documents/report-1.pdf
Anglican Communion Covenant. Retrieved from The Anglican Communion website: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm (Accessed: April 2011)
Atherstone, A., (2004). “The Incoherence of the Anglican Communion,” Churchman 118. pp. 235-55.
Bartel, T. W (2007). Adiaphora: The Achilles Heel of the Windsor Report , Anglican Theological Review, 89:3, pp. 401-419.
Bayne, S.F.B. (1964). Anglican Turning Point, An : documents and interpretations. Austin, Texas: Church Historical Society.
Calvani, C., E., (2008). 'From Modernity to Post-Modernity: Inclusiveness and Making the Myth of Anglican Communion Relevant Today ,' Anglican Theological Review, 90:1, pp. 103-117.
Cameron, G. K.(2008) 'A Tortoise in a Hurry: The Ordering of the Anglican Communion', International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 8: 2, 69 — 80
Chiwanga, S,. (1999) “Chairman's Address ACC- 11,” Retrieved from The Worldwide Faith News archives website: http://www.wfn.org/1999/09/msg00250.html
Church Times, (2011, March 18th). 'The Anglican Covenant. A Church Times guide.' pp. 19-30.
Doe, N., (2008). 'The Contribution of Common Principles of Canon Law to Ecclesial Communion in Anglicanism ,' Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 10, pp. 71– 91
Douglas, I., T., (2005). 'Authority, Unity and Mission in the Windsor Report,' Anglican Theological Review, 87:4, pp. 567-74.
Goddard, A., (2008). 'Communion and Covenant: A Theological Exploration.' International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.155–170.
Harris , M., (2011). 'The Historic Episcopate Locally Adapted...: The Episcopate in the Anglican Communion , in The Genius of Anglicanism, Chicago, IL:The Chicago Consultation.
Hind, J., (2008). The Idea of an Anglican Covenant: A Faith and Order Perspective , International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church , Vol. 8, pp. 112–123
Kater, J., L., (2008). 'Anglicanism Past and Future: Myths, Dreams, and Realities,' Anglican Theological Review, 90:1, pp. 85-102.
Lambeth Conference, 1930 (1930). Lambeth Conference,1930:the encyclical letter from the Bishops together with the resolutions and reports. London / New York: SPCK / Macmillan.
Lambeth Commission on Communion, (2004). The Windsor Report 2004, London: Anglican Communion Office.
Orombi, H., L., (2007). What Is Anglicanism? Retrieved from The Anglican Communion website: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/7/13/ACNS4300 (Accessed:April 2011)
Bibliography
Anglican Consultative Council, (1997). The Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, The Virginia Report, London: The Anglican Communion Office. Retrieved from www.lambethconference.org/1998/documents/report-1.pdf
Anglican Communion Covenant. Retrieved from The Anglican Communion website: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/final/text.cfm (Accessed: April 2011)
Atherstone, A., (2004). “The Incoherence of the Anglican Communion,” Churchman 118. pp. 235-55.
Bartel, T. W (2007). Adiaphora: The Achilles Heel of the Windsor Report , Anglican Theological Review, 89:3, pp. 401-419.
Bayne, S.F.B. (1964). Anglican Turning Point, An : documents and interpretations. Austin, Texas: Church Historical Society.
Calvani, C., E., (2008). 'From Modernity to Post-Modernity: Inclusiveness and Making the Myth of Anglican Communion Relevant Today ,' Anglican Theological Review, 90:1, pp. 103-117.
Cameron, G. K.(2008) 'A Tortoise in a Hurry: The Ordering of the Anglican Communion', International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 8: 2, 69 — 80
Chiwanga, S,. (1999) “Chairman's Address ACC- 11,” Retrieved from The Worldwide Faith News archives website: http://www.wfn.org/1999/09/msg00250.html
Church Times, (2011, March 18th). 'The Anglican Covenant. A Church Times guide.' pp. 19-30.
Doe, N., (2008). 'The Contribution of Common Principles of Canon Law to Ecclesial Communion in Anglicanism ,' Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 10, pp. 71– 91
Douglas, I., T., (2005). 'Authority, Unity and Mission in the Windsor Report,' Anglican Theological Review, 87:4, pp. 567-74.
Goddard, A., (2008). 'Communion and Covenant: A Theological Exploration.' International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.155–170.
Harris , M., (2011). 'The Historic Episcopate Locally Adapted...: The Episcopate in the Anglican Communion , in The Genius of Anglicanism, Chicago, IL:The Chicago Consultation.
Hind, J., (2008). The Idea of an Anglican Covenant: A Faith and Order Perspective , International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church , Vol. 8, pp. 112–123
Kater, J., L., (2008). 'Anglicanism Past and Future: Myths, Dreams, and Realities,' Anglican Theological Review, 90:1, pp. 85-102.
Lambeth Conference, 1930 (1930). Lambeth Conference,1930:the encyclical letter from the Bishops together with the resolutions and reports. London / New York: SPCK / Macmillan.
Lambeth Commission on Communion, (2004). The Windsor Report 2004, London: Anglican Communion Office.
Orombi, H., L., (2007). What Is Anglicanism? Retrieved from The Anglican Communion website: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/7/13/ACNS4300 (Accessed:April 2011)
Podmore, C., (2005). 'A Tale of Two Churches: The Ecclesiologies of The Episcopal Church and the Church of England Compared.' International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church , Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 124–154
Seitz, C., (2008). 'Canon, Covenant and Rule of Faith – The Use of Scripture in Communion ,' International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 81–92 .
The Thirty Nine Articles, Retrieved from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/acis/pdf/Thirty %20Nine%20Articles%20Religion.pdf (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2003). A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth Palace, London, on October 15th and 16th 2003. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/653/primates-meeting-2003-final-statement (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2008). The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Full Presidential Address. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/media/pdf/n/0/Lambeth_20opening_20address.pdf (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2008). Archbishop of Canterbury responds to GAFCON statement. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1246 (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2009). A message from the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Anglican Communion Covenant. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2687
(Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2009). Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future.
Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502 (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2010). Archbishop's Presidential Address - General Synod November 2010. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/3056 (Accessed: April 2011)
1 “Resolution I.10 Human Sexuality,” The Anglican Communion Official Website, http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm
2 The Windsor Report 2004,
3 Resolution 10: Response to the Primates' Statement at Dromantine, ACC-13, Nottingham, England, June 19-28, 2005, online at http://www.aco. org/acc/meetings/accl3/resolutions.cfm#slO.
4 Appendix defines indaba.
Seitz, C., (2008). 'Canon, Covenant and Rule of Faith – The Use of Scripture in Communion ,' International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 81–92 .
The Thirty Nine Articles, Retrieved from http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/acis/pdf/Thirty %20Nine%20Articles%20Religion.pdf (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2003). A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth Palace, London, on October 15th and 16th 2003. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/653/primates-meeting-2003-final-statement (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2008). The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Full Presidential Address. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/media/pdf/n/0/Lambeth_20opening_20address.pdf (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2008). Archbishop of Canterbury responds to GAFCON statement. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/1246 (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2009). A message from the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Anglican Communion Covenant. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2687
(Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2009). Communion, Covenant and Our Anglican Future.
Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2502 (Accessed: April 2011)
Williams, R. (2010). Archbishop's Presidential Address - General Synod November 2010. Retrieved from The Archbishop of Canterbury website: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/3056 (Accessed: April 2011)
1 “Resolution I.10 Human Sexuality,” The Anglican Communion Official Website, http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm
2 The Windsor Report 2004,
3 Resolution 10: Response to the Primates' Statement at Dromantine, ACC-13, Nottingham, England, June 19-28, 2005, online at http://www.aco. org/acc/meetings/accl3/resolutions.cfm#slO.
4 Appendix defines indaba.
