Anglican Covenant Process

It seems that the Anglican Consultative Council at its recently adjourned meeting in Jamaica has approved the first three sections of the Ridley-Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant. I say, 'bravo.' The controversial fourth section was not sent forward as it stands, and needs more revision. Again, I say, 'bravo.' I think the first three sections are perfectly fine, and more importantly, go a long way to rather sufficiently outlining what the essence of the Christian faith and Anglicanism as a coherent fellowship of regional churches professes and practices. Many on the extreme left have not wanted even that much clarity, but I sense that those of us somewhere in the center of Anglicanism, who primarily are concerned with orthodoxy as much as 'generosity' in orthodoxy, feel that putting the basics down in rather clear form is worth doing. (After all, in a sense, isn't that similar to the Anglican/Episcopalian impulse behind our having a Book of Common Prayer and Hymnal which we can point to and say, "This is what we believe.")

As Suffragan Bishop of New York Cathy Roskam pointed out, and perhaps rightly, the controversial fourth section had the ring of a prenuptial agreement to it - and in that sense goes to undermining the covenantal nature of -- well -- the covenant. As I understand a covenant, there is no 'out' clause.

I was interested by the tenor of critique coming largely from the extreme left and right in recent days. Predictably, both are largely against the Covenant in form or process. The extreme left has always been against it, arguing that we "just don't need" any kind of articulation or clarity in the profession of our faith and identity. Behind much of that, I sense, is that the extreme left (in my view) has coupled two elements -- one is a support for the inclusion of married gay persons into all orders of ministry and the other is a lack of support for ...well... any notion of theological boundaries for the good of the integrity of catholic proclamation. The covenant would be sort of a double-nightmare, because it might both seek to prohibit inclusion of partnered glbt folk from ministry, AND, it would be 'confessional.' On the extreme right (in my view) we have the strong conviction that glbt folks are living in sin when in partnered relationships, that such sin should not be blessed or approved of in any way, AND, they are also quite frequently looking for an excess of precision in confessional statements which often looks more like evangelical/Calvinist protestantism than comprehensive Anglicanism. Both groups also tend to be fairly ambivalent to the value of the Communion anyway, and seem to prefer the idea of either a 'radically autonomous Episcopal Church' or a hermeneutically homogenous Anglican Communion.

Somewhere in the middle of those extremes, however, we find folk who may disagree over the degree and/or timing of inclusion of partnered glbt folks, or their biblical hermeneutic, or their liturgical preferences, but who also can agree that they prefer to remain together and work out the differences. Those, in other words, who are looking for comprehensiveness are willing to compromise -- or fudge (as the extremists always call it) -- generally agreeing to tolerate significant disagreement over important issues. This latter group tend to be the sorts who can remain together despite disagreement over either timing or the principle of the ordination of women, the principle of remarriage after divorce, sacramental theology, or questions of liturgical form.

As I have long believed, the genius of Anglicanism (which transcends any of its member provinces), has to do with identifying and professing a narrow but sufficient bundle of essentials, discerning which very important things are of a secondary nature, and agreeing to tolerate some uncomfortable differences for the sake of the dream that God wishes us to be one.

I think the first three sections of the Ridley-Cambridge draft go a long way in making the essentials clear enough.

What was also interesting in the press conference held by Kenneth Kearon was how conservative interlocutors argued that the ACC, and the leaders of the process, were engaging in word games, a degree of muddledness, and leaving important words vague enough to be understood differently by different hearers. I say this is a funny charge, considering that as I have always understood it, the Nicene Creed itself was the result of such a process. Arguably, it ultimately failed to hold East and West together - but in a way it lasted for a good long time.