Much ado has been made recently regarding the
Communiqué from the Primates' Meeting in Tanzania last month, as well as the draft of a
Covenant for the Anglican Communion. I, too have been taking it all in, reading all of the commentary, trying to make sense of what exactly a Covenant would mean for our Episcopal Church, and for me personally. Whenever I hear the word 'covenant', I automatically remember my Baptist upbringing (funny that I don't think of the Abrahamic Covenant or the Mosaic Covenant). Following is the text of the covenant that I (unknowingly) agreed to when I was baptized at age 12:
Having been led, as we believe, by the Spirit of God, to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior, and on the profession of our faith, having been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, we do now, in the presence of God, angels and this assembly, most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another, as one body in Christ.
We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love; to strive for the advancement of this Church, in knowledge, holiness and comfort; to promote
prosperity and spirituality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the Church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.
We also engage to maintain family and secret devotions; to religiously educate our children; to seek the salvation of our kindred and acquaintances; to walk circumspectly in the world; to be just in our dealings, faithful to our engagements and exemplary in our deportment; to avoid all tattling, backbiting and excessive anger; to abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, and to be zealous in our efforts to advance the kingdom of our Savior.
We further engage to watch over one another in brotherly love; to remember each other in prayer; to aid each other in sickness and distress; to cultivate Christian sympathy in feeling, and courtesy in speech; to be slow to take offense, but always ready for reconciliation, and mindful of the rules of our Savior to secure it without delay.
We moreover engage that when we remove from this place we will, as soon as possible, unite with some other Church, where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God's Word.
Now what this covenant does not tell you is that for violating any of the clauses, including the one about drinking (oops), the church may withdraw fellowship from you (a.k.a. excommunicate you). The draft Anglican Covenant also seems to indicate this in the last paragraph of section 6, but it is quite vague and open to interpretation (imagine that: something relating to the Church is open to interpretation). The member churches of the Anglican Communion will either decide that this means they can exercise their autonomy at will and say "I'm sorry" after the fact in some sort of open-ended "process of restoration and renewal." Or they will decide that other churches are in violation of the Covenant and declare them out of Communion. I think we did this once before in the 11th century, Western bishops excommunicating Eastern bishops and vice-versa. How'd that work out for us?
The fact that everyone seems to be ignoring, or perhaps just avoiding, is that this covenant is making a bold move toward centralizing authority in the institutions of the Anglican Communion. I don't want to go screaming "Fire" in a crowded cathedral, but this covenant makes me nervous. I am especially concerned with paragraph 3 of section three, which declares that each church commits itself to: "ensure that biblical texts are handled faithfully, respectfully, comprehensively and coherently, primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods, and building on our best scholarship, believing that scriptural revelation must continue to illuminate, challenge and transform cultures, structures and ways of thinking."
Frankly, I don't buy it. This clause is not allowing scripture to inform our ways of thinking, or change our cultures and structures. This clause is allowing authorized persons or groups to determine how the Church interprets its scriptures. Episcopalians expend a great deal of effort trying to convince themselves (I mean, ourselves) that we are "both Protestant and Catholic." The fact of the matter is, we are very much Protestant, catholic (with a small 'c') though we may claim to be. To relinquish our claim to an educated, well-informed and broad interpretation of Holy Writ is decidedly un-Protestant. Besides, if we haven't been able to come to a consensus about certain biblical principles at this point, what about this Covenant will make that process any easier, or lessen the tension?
The Archbishop of Canterbury noted in his
address to the General Assembly of the Church of England, that in the current back-and-forth over biblical interpretation there is a danger of
"a virtual fundamentalism which simply declines to reflect at all about principles of interpretation and implicitly denies that every reader of Scripture unconsciously or consciously uses principles of some kind. And there is a chronological or cultural snobbery content to say that we have outgrown biblical categories. These positions do not admit real theological debate. Neither is compatible with the position of a Church that both seeks to be biblically obedient and to read its Scriptures in the light of the best spiritual and intellectual perspectives available in the fellowship of believers. And the possibility of real theological exchange is made still more remote by one group forging ahead with change in discipline and practice and [the] other insistently treating the question as the sole definitive marker of orthodoxy."
So, the question before us is: In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the Anglican polity, do we embrace the same sort of fundamentalism that composed the covenant above? Do we narrow our own vision of biblical interpretation to keep the other provinces of our church happy? Or do we affirm what we consider a prophetic movement, with a competing, but no less biblically-grounded approach?
I will decline to make suggestions on this point, since my opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things. I am content for the time being to wait and see what results from the conversation in the rest of the Communion over the next couple of years. I don't see how, at this point, we can return to our reliance on the Instruments of Communion, but I also do not see myself jumping on board with a covenant that will begin to introduce dogma into a traditionally creedal church.
