by Greg Jones
What the formation of a new self-styled Anglican church for North America signifies is the beginning of a new self-styled Anglican Communion for the globe. This new communion is almost certain to consist of Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, and the Western Hemispheric ecclesiastical humunculus of Southern Cone/ACNA. Whether others join the new-Anglican Communion remains to be seen. Probably many individuals, clusters, pieces and parts will leave the remaining 33 provinces of the old-fashioned Anglican Communion and enter into the new entity.
Even still, for those of us who remain faithful members of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion, we nonetheless represent a wide-ranging body of folks. We do not all agree on the presenting question of human sexuality, or on liturgical questions, or on doctrinal questions, etc. Moreover, we continue to exist in a polarized World - in which there will always be more opportunities for high-level conflict, animosity, and future breakages of union.
For the sake of mutual love in Christ Jesus, I still believe in the value of a covenant-making process in which the Anglican Communion forms and reasserts its bonds and boundaries of identity and mutual service.
As I have said before, this covenant needs to contain a minimum degree of confessional commonality, a minimum degree of structural novelty, and no teeth. This is not legalism, this is not centralization, this is not a prenuptial agreement. Covenant making does not require cursing and anathema to be effective and faithful.
In our covenant we need a declaration of intent, a proclamation of shared Scriptural, doctrinal and ecclesiological values, an exchanging of vows, and provision for ongoing life as a Eucharistically defined and sustained missionary organization with One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
The departure of those who would not have us is a tragedy for all. And it's the sort of tragedy that we should ever seek to avoid at all faithful costs. I believe it takes a bigger representation of the Body of Christ than a few provinces (let alone one) to claim to be capable of discerning what is faithfulness, what are faithful costs, and what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church should look like in all its diverse array. This is why we need the Anglican Communion, why it needs us, and why we need a covenant to help us clarify who we are and what binds us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
A well-written piece about why we need an Anglican covenant, Greg. I'm almost persuaded. But I still pretty much agree with what I wrote back in August (which I wrote after reading another of your blog pieces):
"Why can't we simply reaffirm what we've already affirmed as Anglicans: the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and 'The Five Marks of Mission'? Why can't what we've already agreed upon - what is already part of our inheritance as a global communion - be the sufficient basis for a 'covenant'?
I've been struggling with the proposals for an 'Anglican Covenant,' and the more I think about it, the more I think that between 'The Five Marks of Mission' and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the primary reason for insisting on anything else is to gain leverage to exercise some kind of power and control over others (particularly those with whom one disagrees)."
I still have these concerns.
I can see what Bryan Owen is saying and the force of his position. On the other hand, I think the problem has moved beyond his solution. We have schism and a fraying of the bonds of affection, not just unity. I think 500+ years of Anglicanism has mostly served us well, but sometimes we need to reaffirm certain things. Have there not been centuries of synodal meetings by our Catholic and Orthodox brethren to do this very thing? I don't view an Anglican Covenant of what the AC confesses as its faith tradition and heritage is inherantly a suspect action founded on some sort of unspoken, nefarious intention. I think that we would assert the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, along with Sacred Scripture (its place in our faith, not whether to read it literally or not), Sacred Tradition and Reason are the things all Anglicans can agree on. A big obstacle might actually turn out to be apostolicity and its meaning, in addition to agreeing on the import of the sacraments. It seems some of things occurring down under would be discussed in that vein. Perhaps I am a bit too hopeful and naive.
Thanks Bryan and Shawn - I think the three of us are largely on the same page regarding the need for creedal/ecclesiological affirmation and reassertion in the Communion. I would be fine if the Quad and Five Marks were the 'meat' of a covenant.
In disagreeing with my proposal that, instead of coming up with something new, we Anglicans should reaffirm what we've already agreed to as the basis for a Covenant, Shawnbm writes: "We have schism and a fraying of the bonds of affection, not just unity. I think 500+ years of Anglicanism has mostly served us well, but sometimes we need to reaffirm certain things. Have there not been centuries of synodal meetings by our Catholic and Orthodox brethren to do this very thing?"
It's quite true that there have been many synodal meetings to reaffirm shared norms and beliefs. But that point about the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches only strengthens my point about the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the 5 Marks of Mission. And especially with regard to the former, for it has been repeatedly reaffirmed by successive meetings of the Lambeth Conference and the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. And that happened during times when we did not have the kind of schism and fraying of the bonds of affection that we do now.
On what basis can we trust that we can do better than this now that we do, indeed, have the problems of schism and a fraying of the bonds of affection? And at a time when many on both the Anglican Left and the Anglican Right are more interested in promoting their own narrowly-conceived agendas than the generous orthodoxy of documents like the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the 5 Marks of Mission?
It seems to me that the logic of Shawnbm's reasoning mitigates against supporting anything beyond what has already been affirmed as normative for the Anglican Communion. And so I remain unpersuaded that we need something new. Indeed, I am very concerned by the precedent we may be setting if we do so - a precedent which may entail a shift that moves us (however subtly) away from being a creedal tradition to being a confessional tradition.
Greg, I find myself agreeing with most everything you've written in your posts on "schism." I would ask one question that perhaps you could reply to or develop in a future post. When you speak of what a covenant should contain, what do you mean by the phrase "no teeth"? It seems as if the essence of our difficulties (inter-Episcopal Church and inter-Anglican Communion) is that everything has the status of a "suggestion," and that there is little or nothing that is required. Granted, as you say, "Covenant making does not require cursing and anathema to be effective and faithful"; but is there not some need for some "teeth"? My guess is that I don't know enough of what you mean, so I would be grateful if you could elaborate. Thanks, Kip Ashmore
Post a Comment