That We All May Be One

At its recent meeting, the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church received and approved its writing team’s response to the Draft Anglican Covenant the development of which is suggested by the Windsor process. The full text is at

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91392_ENG_HTM.htm 

I am actually quite pleased with most of it! Not least, I suppose, because it incorporates most of what I submitted to the committee as my personal response and concerns!   See my input below:                

 Responding to the Draft Anglican Covenant   Question:  

 (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?

 Depending on the form and substance of such a Covenant, I believe it could be helpful. Just as we have entered into simple covenants ecumenically (the Bonn Agreement, Called to Common Mission, etc.) we should be able to craft one for the Anglican Communion.  

“An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant”

This part of the report presents an initial theological introduction to the Draft Covenant

which is to follow immediately afterwards. Its focus is on the nature of communion that

we Anglicans share.

(2) How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the

development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?

 The third paragraph of “An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant” makes adequate reference to Scripture and Tradition but, once again, omits any inclusion of the third leg of the famous Anglican triad – Reason. The Windsor Report was similarly deficient.  

“An Anglican Covenant Draft”

1. Preamble

Section one is the Preamble and sets out the rationale for an Anglican Covenant.

(3) Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?

 I think so and particularly the phrase maintaining “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”  

2. The Life we Share

Section two seeks to articulate aspects of the faith and order shared by all of the churches

of the Anglican Communion. Note that Items 2-3, affirm the first three points of the

Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, specifically: the Holy Scriptures, the creeds, and the

sacraments of baptism and Eucharist.

(4) Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding

of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?

 Why not simply use the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in its entirety for this section?  

(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 they should be? Why or why not?

 No. Both the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP reflect perspectives and battles of the 16^th century Reformation and, as such, are not timeless documents. The Articles are in the right place in our Prayer Book: Historical Documents. The drafters may think this is covered by the phrase “…led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to…” but I think this is not clear.  

The Covenant could simply say, “…Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Book of Common Prayer, and the various Ordinals.”

3. Our Commitment to Confession of Faith

Section three posits five specific commitments of each Church in the Anglican

Communion based upon the faith and order described in part 2.

(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, Number 1 is very problematic with developments in our understanding of divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, perhaps even the ordination of women.Number 2 is OK.Number 3 is OK in that includes bishops and synods and “building on our best scholarship”Numbers 4 and 5 are OK. 

4. The Life we Share with Others

Section four outlines some common elements of the Anglican Communion as we seek to

work together in service to God’s mission in the world. Note the vision articulated here

is consistent with that offered by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Mission

and Evangelism in their report to ACC XIII “A Communion in Mission” and underscores

the “Five Marks of Mission”5 articulated by the Anglican Consultative Council at their

meetings of 1984 and 1990.

 (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?

Yes, I actually think this is very important section on mission. It is the best part of the entire Draft Covenant in my estimation. 

5. Our Unity and Common Life

Section five describes some of the structural aspects of an emerging polity (the

organizing of our common life) of the Anglican Communion. Note the first affirmation

picks up the fourth point of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral – the historic episcopate.

The second affirmation, involving paragraphs 2-6 of this section, concerns the “mutual

loyalty and service” to which the several churches of the Communion are called and thus

lays out an understanding of the role of four “Instruments of Communion” (the

Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council,

and the Primates Meeting).

(8) Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and

respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?

 No, it does not give attention to the recent development of these “Instruments.”They may be very good, or even essential, but they are still evolving and that needs to be acknowledged.  The description of the Archbishop of Canterbury is OK.The Lambeth Conference is a conference – not an instrument to “guard the faith and unity of the Communion.”The Primates’ Meeting is a meeting. Mutual support and counsel,  yes. Monitoring global developments, fine. But what does it mean to “work in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications?” Too much power here in the hands of a few bishops/primates.The Anglican Consultative Council definition is too weak. If any instrument is to be strengthened it should be the ACC.    

6. Unity of the Communion

The churches of the Anglican Communion are mutually responsible and interdependent

but autonomous. To date there has not been an “executive” or “judicial” body for

resolving disagreements or disputes.

 The Draft Covenant proposes a new process by which the Instruments of Communion

can be both supported and utilized when areas of disagreement and/or difficulties

between churches in the Anglican Communion arise.

 Section six also refers to “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .”

(9) Do you think there needs to be an executive or judicial body for resolving

disagreements or disputes in the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be

the Primates Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.

 No. There probably needs to be a point of reference outside the Provinces, but it should be the ACC, made up of lay persons, bishops, priests and deacons – not the Primates. 

(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .”

mean to you?

 Well, clearly, we all seek the mind of Christ. Corporate discernment takes time and we may need to learn the value of consensus before taking decisions that threaten to be communion-dividing.    

7. Our Declaration

The final section is a proposed signatory declaration by which each church of the

Anglican Communion would commit to this proposed Covenant.

(11) Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?

 Yes, with some major tweaking of language as indicated above. 

(12) What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in

the Draft?

 I think we will give up a certain amount of autonomy for the sake of interdependence. However, if we want to be taken seriously as a global communion, something like this will have to happen sooner or later. The devil is in the details and we have to be very careful and consult fully with our closest partners – Canada, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, Brazil, etc. However, I think the time has come for something like this.  

 Concluding Questions:

(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?

 I do not agree with that statement. There is much that is “new” here for Anglicanism. It may be evolution of the Communion and necessary, but it is new.  

(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?

The Preamble is helpful.

1. The Life We Share – should replace sections (2) and (3) with the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in its entirety.  Section (5) should either be omitted or refer to “historic formularies such as the 39 Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the various Ordinals of the Provinces.”
2. Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith is helpful.
3. The Life We Share with Others is very helpful.
4. Our Unity and Common Life is largely not helpful. Work needs to be done on this. The Primates are given too much authority; the ACC not enough.
5. Unity of the Communion is not helpful. I would prefer to see “matters in serious dispute” be taken up by all 4 Instruments of Communion, as a kind of checks and balances system. Again, the ACC should have the central role here – since it is a somewhat representative body and could become more so in the future.
6. Our Declaration is helpful.

  Additional comments: We should fully engage in this process, consult broadly, and make our contribution to the shaping of this Covenant. Then, if at all possible, we should sign it.     

 

“The Primates and provincial secretaries of Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de American (IARCA), La Iglesia Anglican de Mexico, Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil, and the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, along with Bishop Edward W. Neufville of the Episcopal Church of Liberia and Sandei Cooper, Liberian diocesan treasurer, addressed the council during its October 27 afternoon plenary session.”

The above line from Episcopal News Service summarizes what was a pretty amazing day at our Executive Council meeting in Detroit. I call this web log “That We All May Be One” and the topics usually revolve around the ecumenical movement for church unity or efforts to preserve the unity of our Anglican Communion.

What must never be forgotten, however, is the unity in mission we already enjoy with so many overseas partners. In addition to our dioceses in Central America and South America, Taiwan, and Europe who are full members of our House of Bishops and General Convention (therefore part of The Episcopal Church) the dioceses listed in the first paragraph above have special covenantal links with The Episcopal Church, receive some level of support from us, and enrich us in return by their faithfulness in mission.

The amazing stories of such mission in war-torn (now “post war”) Liberia were particularly moving, but the commitment and zeal of our covenant partners in Central America, Mexico, Brazil and the Philippines also inspired and encouraged us.

Whatever “Anglican Covenant” we may eventually come up with (and a special task force of Executive Council has written a very thoughtful response to that Covenant Process — about which more, soon),  let us pray that it can be mission-focused like the covenants we have with the churches listed above. Most of them are not so much interested in some kind of “confessional statement” which has the potential of defining some of us “in” and some of us “out” of the Anglican Communion.

Rather, they (and we) hope for a Covenant which can facilitate the mission to which we are called. God’s mission of reconciliation…in all the world! 

  

On the Feast of St. James of Jerusalem we read a selection from Acts 15 in which he presides over what has come to be called the “Council of Jerusalem.” The issue, of course, is whether or how to accept Gentiles, alongside Jews, into the early Church.

We still use scriptural accounts like this to help us wrestle with contentious issues in the Church today. Let me share a brief selection from “To Set Our Hope On Christ” — the little book submitted as part of The Episcopal Church’s response to the Windor Report. Referring to Acts 15, the authors wrote:

“The point of these accounts in Acts is that a particular part of the Church (Peter and his friends) has an experience of the Spirit that prompts them to question and reinterpret what they would previously have seen as a clear commandment of Scripture, not to associate with a particular group of people who were considered unclean.  After careful deliberation and much discussion (Acts 10-15) the Church as a whole agrees.”

“Not everyone agrees, however. The New Testament itslef reflect a number of patterns of Christian life with varying degrees of openness to Gentiles — Paul and Mark reflect clear openness while Matthew and Revelation are more guarded. What seems to have convinced the rest of the Church is Peter’s  credibility as a witness (on behalf of Cornelius and the rest) that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were indeed present among [the Gentiles], that that they were living lives of holiness, understood differently, but holy lives nonetheless.  The Church as a whole gradually shifted its position, but only after careful reflection. In the meantime, there was room for a diversity of lifestyles, which were all understood as committed to seeking holiness in the Lord.”

“In summary, these reflections on the Scriptural witness to early Christian life highlight two crucial features of our tradition.  First, we have always believed that God opens hearts and minds to discover yet deeper dimensions of Christ’s saving power at work, far beyond our limited power to conceive it.”

“Second, tradition tells us that by God’s grace we ought not to let discouragement at disagreements jeopardize our common work for God’s misssion in the world. If God the Holy Spirit can hold the early followers of Jesus Christ together, even when they disagreed over so central a question as who might come within the reach of the Savior’s embrace, then surely we must not let Satan turn our differences into divisions.”

“May we hold [those differences] all the more humbly before Christ, that he may bless our proclamation of the Gospel in all the many and differing places and conditions of the whole human family.” (To Set Our Hope On Christ, pages 15-17)

May we indeed do that. Hold our differences humbly before Christ.  And let us pray for the leaders of the Church today that they may be granted the wisdom and abilities of St. James of Jerusalem, Brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Martyr!    

Sometimes Anglicans and Roman Catholics are described as experiencing a “real but imperfect communion” in their relationship because of the many things we share…and yet the many differences which have developed during the 400-plus years of our separation. That kind of communion is never more evident for me than when the Anglican – Roman Catholic dialogue in the United States (ARC-USA) gathers for its twice a year meetings.

We just completed the final meeting of this round in the Washington DC area. We began on Thursday October 18 with a public lecture at Georgetown University in which two longtime participants shared their perspectives on the contributions of the dialogue over some four decades. Dr. Ellen Wondra, Professor of Theology at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, and Fr. Frank Sullivan, SJ, former Professor at the Gregorian Institute in Rome and later Boston College brought fascinating perspectives and hopefully those remarks will be published in the not-too-distant future.

The evening continued with a poignant Liturgy of the Hours and Office of the Dead offered in memory of Fr. George H. Tavard, A.A. — another longtime member of ARC-USA who died unexpectedly this year in a Paris airport. Bishop Ted Gulick of the Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky preached the homily and co-officiated with Bishop Edward Clark, Auxiliary Bishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles. We were all then hosted by Georgetown University with a lovely reception in the Hall of Cardinals (surrounded by — usually austere! — portraits of Jesuit cardinals staring down at us from the walls.)

Our meeting then shifted to the Virginia Theological Seminary where two days of hard work allowed us to complete a brief educational piece for Spanish-speaking Episcopal and Roman Catholic congregations, setting out the similarities and differences between our two churches and the fruits of our many years of ecumenical dialogue. Once translation is completed this brochure will receive wide distribution in both churches.

We were also able to complete a joint response to the relatively new text “Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ” crafted by the Anglican – Roman Catholic International Comission (ARCIC), our colleagues on the international level. Once again, this response along with MGHC itself and two fine commentaries (one Anglican, one Roman Catholic) will be available soon.

As always we participated morning and evening in the Daily Office of our two churches and celebrated the Eucharist together each day, alternating the Episcopal and Roman Catholic rites and respecting the disciplines of our two churches with respect to sharing the Sacrament. (We serve as lectors and intercessors at the other’s Mass and come forward for a blessing at the time of Communion; the Roman Catholics do the same for us). Painful…but honest as to where we are right now on the journey.

There were many tears this time as the new round of talks beginning in 2008 will bring on new participants and take on a fresh topic.  There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that we could each join in this prayer for each other — a prayer that was the primary reading at George Tavard’s service:

“We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in our prayers for you because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love you bear toward all the saints — moved as you are by the hope held in store for you in heaven.  You heard of this hope through the message of truth, the gospel, which has come to your, has borne fruit, and has continued to grow in your midst, as it has everywhere in the world.” (Colossians 1:3-6a)