June 4, 2007. Below are the answers Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh submitted in response to the Executive Council’s “A Short Study Guide to Aid the Episcopal Church in Responding to the Draft Anglican Covenant as Prepared by the Covenant Design Group.” More information about PEP’s response can be read here.
 

 (1)      [Report introduction] 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?

We do not believe that an Anglican Covenant is necessary. The Anglican Communion already has an adequate framework for working together cooperatively, and it has built into it the tolerance necessary to contain controversy. If the Communion had insisted that its members live up to existing agreements on the structure of the Communion and the autonomy of provinces, the last four years could have been focused on doing God’s work in the world. If there must be a covenant, however, it is not at all clear that it should resemble the one currently proposed. If the communion decides a covenant is needed, its primary goal should be the removal of obstacles to ministry. Such is not the case with the current draft. This draft appears to propose lessening conflict by inhibiting the autonomy of the various provinces without providing any means to counter the “tyranny of the majority.” Rather than lessening conflict, this draft is likely to increase conflict by permitting one province to interfere within the boundaries of another. 

Any covenant adopted should be one that strengthens Anglican provinces’ shared work on the church’s mission to bring good news of abundant life and hope in Christ to help heal the world’s manifold ills. A covenant would also do well to concentrate our attention on ways to mitigate the harmful effects of globalization and inequality, preserving Anglican interdependence by protecting each province’s autonomy. It should set forth again the ancient rule of having geographic dioceses only, and only one bishop with jurisdiction per diocese. It should, without exception, prevent provinces from interfering in each other’s internal life or to each other’s diminishment and fragmentation, regardless of the motivation or perceived justification behind such interfering. Most importantly, any covenant should be designed in such a way as to leave room for growth and response to the leading of the Holy Spirit. 

As drafted, however, the Anglican Covenant would do none of these things. It would not strengthen our shared work as Christians. It would enshrine theological differences in structures of division, and extend the authority of one order of ministry—that of bishops—at the expense of the others. It would enmesh provinces in their own and others’ theological and political conflicts, foster authoritarian exercises of church power, and lead to further fragmentation. None of these things is wise or needed.

 (2)      [Draft text introduction] How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?

The Anglican Communion, in our view, is a fortuitous historic accident and presents an opportunity. Growing primarily from English emigration and settlement, and then in step with worldwide British colonialism, the Anglican Communion has no historical raison d’être apart from them. It should remain what it has been: a loose confederation of independent churches sharing a common heritage, as well as a wide range of needs to address and an ongoing commitment to address them.

As such, the Anglican Communion has worked best when its bonds have been those of affection, not authority. It is most effective when its collective work concentrates on mission, relief, and development, not doctrinal codification or enforcement. Hitherto, it has not tried to enforce a single expression of Christian faith any more than it has sought to mandate the use of a single English dialect or idiom. This should continue. Where a different path than this has been chosen, we can discern little but an increase in anxiety, fragmentation, and misery.

Anglicans’ opportunity for the future is a charism not based on identity, but on community. Such a community would still involve millions of persons of all kinds and conditions. It would be shaped as much by the differences that inevitably grow in the midst of living faith traditions as it is by those things shared in common.

 (3)      [Covenant draft: 1 Preamble] Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?

It is unclear in what ways the covenant, as drafted, would achieve the ends stated for it in the preamble, worthy though they may appear. It is far from clear how a document that limits the church’s capacity for growth can simultaneously increase our effectiveness in proclaiming God’s grace. We consider that concrete steps furthering particular shared goals and objectives better address the world’s needs. They would demonstrate in action the work of the gospel, the Spirit, and the fruits of peace.

 (4)     [Covenant draft: 2 The Life We Share] Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?

A statement of catholicity should, at the very least, aspire to the comprehensive universality that the word “catholicity” embodies. These six affirmations do not do this. By contrast, the covenant we make at baptism—catholic as well as apostolic—does. It is all the confession that we need—and has been so for generations. The Anglican Communion agreed long ago on the statement of faith that is made at Baptism – The Apostles’ Creed. It has long agreed that the Nicene Creed contains a complete statement of our faith. We need no additional statement.

As far as apostolicity and confession go, the two concepts are at odds. A church that is acting to further “the apostolic mission of the whole people of God” is in no need of an additional confession of its faith. The apostles in the midst of their ministries did not need one. We, at our baptisms, do not. The Chicago Lambeth-Quadrilateral defines the uniqueness of the Anglican tradition by setting forth what cannot be sacrificed in a search for unity. This covenant is still adequate for the Communion.

 (5)     [Covenant draft: 2 The Life We Share] 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?

We can think of no reason why either the 39 Articles of Religion or the 1662 Book of Common Prayer should be made authoritative for The Episcopal Church in 2007, particularly since the church saw no need to make them such in 1789 or before. These documents have their rightful place as historical record, memory, and inspiration, and as a record of some of the ways God works among Anglicans. Were there no conflicts now besetting the Anglican Communion, few in our province would seriously entertain the thought of now making these documents authoritative. Why then should anyone expect them to be useful in resolving the current disputes?

To grant these documents now an authority in The Episcopal Church that they have never had would serve only to make them into weapons for use against people in their discernment, discipleship, and ministry. Whatever genuine benefits are to be had from these artifacts may be obtained by maintaining their current and longstanding place within the life of our church.

It should also be mentioned that, at the 1888 Lambeth Conference, a resolution was passed that expressly stated that new provincial members of the communion were not required to accept the 39 Articles of Religion. The 1968 Lambeth Conference recommended that ordinands not be required to subscribe to the 39 Articles and that, where such subscription was required, it be done “only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.” The authority assigned by this draft covenant in Section 5 to the Lambeth Conference in its role of “guarding the faith and unity of the Communion” is unclear, but the conflicts of previous conference resolutions both with the covenant and with one another are likely to be an ongoing source of confusion, if not conflict within the Communion.

 (6)     [Covenant draft: 3 Our Commitment to Confession of the Faith] 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?

The commitments asked of each church in this section are clear only in the sense that they bind each church to concepts that are so vague as to offer a source of disputes for the foreseeable future. These concepts include: “the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition;” “biblically derived moral values;” “the vision of humanity received by and developed in the communion of member Churches;” “the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods;” “our best scholarship;” “prophetic and faithful leadership and ministry;” “the transformative power of the Gospel in the world;” and “a common pilgrimage with other members of the Communion to discern truth.” If we are to bind ourselves to particular propositions, we should, at a minimum, require that those propositions be formulated so as to provide some guidance as to what they mean.

Moreover, we do not understand who is empowered to determine and enforce the meaning of these phrases. Indeed, many of the conflicts among Anglican provinces at present do not involve one side’s rejecting them while the other accepts them. They involve prophetic and faithful, but distinct and at times incompatible, understandings of these things. We find it, incredible to assert the primacy of bishops and synods over the handling of biblical texts while claiming to respect scholarship. Bishops are called for reasons and skills other than their great scholarship. The Communion has a long tradition of profound lay scholarship as well as of ordained theologians not called to the episcopacy. Rather than serving as a cure for the current abuses of power, this proposal would increase the potential for such abuses, and would encourage denunciations of any variation from the norm.

The exercise of power envisioned in this draft, and that by which The Episcopal Church works, are quite different. In the latter, no power is wielded without the possibility of check or revision. The supreme authority, the General Convention, includes all orders of ministry, and is itself accountable through diocesan and provincial elections to the entire province. The covenant would supplant that by granting supreme authority to a group of individuals, some of whom are appointed by secular, rather than ecclesial, authorities. It is difficult to see how this provides any improvement over the current situation in our church.

 (7)     [Covenant draft: 4 The Life We Share with Others] 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?

If we are to consider the Anglican Communion as a gift from God, we must also consider its provinces’ historic independence as integral to that gift. To diminish that autonomy would be an unwise innovation.

Furthermore, the enumerated elements of the Mission of Christ, though unobjectionable in themselves, are sufficiently vague that they might apply to almost anything. They may also too readily be turned to serve specific and narrow political agendas. The list raises unanswered questions, such as: Who is to judge which of society’s structures are unjust, or what might best transform them? What acts truly “safeguard the integrity of creation?” Why should we “teach, baptize, and nurture” simply “new believers,” and not all believers?

 (8)     [Covenant draft: 5 Our Unity and Common Life] Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?

The role of bishops, and particularly those who are primates, is greatly enhanced in this draft Anglican Covenant. In expanding the role of bishops and primates over the functions of the Anglican Communion, the draft covenant conflates legislative, juridical, and executive power into a single body that is accountable, if at all, only to itself.

In raising this order of ministry above those of the laity, priests, and deacons, the draft covenant invites the bishops, and especially the primates, to act more like a College of Cardinals than like a meeting of bishops of autonomous churches. Indeed, the covenant grants to the Presiding Bishop powers that she currently lacks. Such a centralization of power is not something our church wants or needs.

Most disturbingly, the covenant advances an agenda that the Anglican primates have pursued at least since Lambeth 1998 of enhancing their own power and influence in the Anglican Communion at the expense of the other Instruments of Communion and of ordinary Anglicans generally. The Lambeth Conference’s own role is expanded in this draft, giving it authority it has never had. This move is comes with the tyrant’s excuse that “we are doing this for your own good” and to protect us all from dangers they, and often they alone, notice and fear.

At the very least, if Anglicans are to have an international court of sorts passing binding judgment over their common life, that body should not be identical with the one that wrote the laws it adjudicates.

As laid out in this section, the Anglican Consultative Council would have its portfolio greatly diminished, as well as having its lay and priestly voices lessened by the inclusion of the primates on the ACC. The ACC has hitherto been the chief means by which the churches in the Anglican Communion do their collective work day by day, year by year, and decade by decade. The proposed diminution of the role of the ACC serves greatly to decrease the ability of laity, priests, and deacons to participate in church governance, as the ACC is the only Instrument of Communion that includes representatives from these groups. This is not only contrary to the spirit of the polity of The Episcopal Church, but it also is theologically questionable in its diminution of the priesthood of all believers.

All told, in this draft covenant, the greatest power to decide matters of import in the Anglican Communion is given to the Primates’ Meeting, which is the single Instrument of Communion with the least accountability to the rest of the Communion, having the greatest distance from its day-to-day operations, and having the least demonstrated ability to act in a collegial, respectful, and uplifting fashion. We believe that failure to resist this attempt by the primates to seize virtually unlimited power would be irresponsible.

 (9)     [Covenant draft: 6 Unity of the Communion] 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.

In cases in which certain Anglican provinces develop a pattern of intervening in the life of others, it may be that it would be wise to have an executive or judicial body within the Anglican Communion to correct the matter. However, we consider that each province should, prior to this, be encouraged by all Anglicans to enforce its own constitution and canons against those who would diminish or divide it. Particularly, in recent times, it would have been helpful to The Episcopal Church to have had the active and consistent support of each Instrument of Communion, as well as the other Anglican provinces, to help it discourage this activity. However, except for this instance, we can think of no case in which a legal body of the Anglican Communion could play a useful role in the internal life of the provinces. Moreover, since a small but influential segment of the primates have actually fostered the intervention—and suffered no consequence for doing so—we have little confidence in the Communion’s Instruments of Communion’s being able to address such a matter.

We also think it important to emphasize that the proposed covenant essentially places all power in the hands of the primates. Although there appear to be provisions for all the Instruments of Communion to participate in discussion of matters of concern, a close reading of the covenant discloses that the primates are actually empowered to make and to execute all decisions, with there being no check, balance, or oversight to the exercise of their powers. It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which it would be advisable for any province to concede such powers to this group. In recent years, the primates have arrogated more and more power to themselves with no obvious benefit to the Anglican Communion. How will they behave if and when the powers provided under the covenant are actually ceded to them?

(10)     [Covenant draft: 6 Unity of the Communion] What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern…” mean to you?

“A common mind about matters of essential concern” can mean one of two things. It can mean the sum total of collective wisdom and insight among a group of equals who have come together freely and in faith to discern their understandings of vital matters both individually and together, without imposing view on one another. In this way, people could learn together in freedom and without anxiety where their common mind subsists. Thus, the more important a matter is considered to be, the more voices should be heard concerning it. It may be, in the end, that the more essential a concern is, the more a “common mind” about it may actual denote a process of tolerating and learning from several different understandings of that concern.

This phrase, conversely, could mean something quite different. It could mean a seeming but false consensus imposed by a powerful minority, or even a single tyrant, on everyone else. That tyrant, or that minority, would consider itself enabled by virtue of its office or its power to speak the mind of everyone else. Such a consensus emerges not from reasoned dialogue among equals resulting in a complex, but harmonious, range of understandings. Instead, it is imposed by the powerful on the weak, resulting in a monotony that eventually deadens the faith it seeks to enliven.

This latter approach appears to us to be the model that the draft covenant envisions. It is contrary to the gospel of Christ and to Christ’s mission in the world. This judgment may be made by those who find it convenient to do so, even when a consensus demonstrably does not exist. It may then be used as a weapon to instill conformity and to maintain control. Insofar as the Anglican Covenant draft advances a model of communion that seeks this kind of common mind, we judge it to be unacceptable for Christian people, and certainly beyond the pale for The Episcopal Church to consider adopting. The “common mind” that a proper covenant should seek is one which arises from the shared views of the members of the Anglican Communion, not one that is imposed upon those members from the uppermost levels of a hierarchy.

We also add that, historically, the “matters of essential concern” have been summarized and embodied in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. They have served us well for the past seventeen centuries. Those who worry that modern innovations could corrupt “the faith once delivered to the saints”—which, we should point out, was received with such a poor understanding that several centuries would pass before a clear and universally acceptable expression of it could be made—would do well to ponder whether the proposed grant of legislation, adjudication, and execution to the primates would not, in itself, create a greater danger to the faith we share.

(11)     [Covenant draft: 7 Our Declaration] Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?

We cannot affirm the fundamental shape of the covenant as drafted. It does not address adequately key problems concerning provincial interventions in each others’ lives. It profoundly alters the relationships among the four orders of ministry in the church. It seeks to constrict the life of faith to formularies that are deadened by their being used as instruments of enforcement rather than as tools for spiritual growth. The draft covenant does not create structures that would facilitate international work on key mission priorities. Instead, it seeks to diminish the influence, efficiency, and efficacy of those that currently exist.

Most significantly, the covenant asks the churches of the Anglican Communion to cede their historic and life-giving autonomy, and the particular opportunities for mission that it fosters. In doing so, the churches are asked to submit, not to Christ, but to a body of bishops who cannot be held accountable for their actions or their inaction.

(12)     [Covenant draft: 7 Our Declaration] What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?

Signing the covenant, as drafted, would be like signing away one’s rights, freedoms, and integrity in order to submit to an ecclesiastical body that could easily devolve into tyranny. We suspect that few Christians around the world desire, in truth and in faith, to submit in this fashion. We pray that Christ’s healing, in hope of the resurrection, may be brought to those who do. We prefer to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not to be bound again with the yoke of bondage; the proposed covenant is not only unwise, it is unscriptural.

Were The Episcopal Church to accede to this draft, it would surrender its autonomy. This would have implications in court; intentional or otherwise. Acceptance of the covenant necessarily entails ceding control of the church’s property, a goal that that segment of The Episcopal Church most closely aligned with the “Global South” has sought for some time. It would enable one to argue that The Episcopal Church was no longer the highest ecclesiastical authority over itself. It would give credence to the assertion that The Episcopal Church could be held accountable, in secular court, to the judgments and dictates of the Instruments of Communion. It would put this church at risk of losing all control or influence over its own ministries. It would effectively disenfranchise most of the clergy and all of the laity. It would seriously hamper this church’s ability to minister in its local contexts effectively and with integrity.

Last, but by no means least, it would leave the role of women clergy, gays and lesbians in all orders of ministry, and all who speak out on matters of faith in conscience, at the mercy of people they did not elect to govern them or their church, who are accountable to none but themselves, and who, of late, have demonstrated both ignorance of, and disdain for, The Episcopal Church. The history of the church is, to a large extent, the history of spiritual, faithful individuals standing up to entrenched powers both within and outside the established power structure of the church to do God’s will, especially in movements such as the abolition of slavery and recognition of civil rights. Ecclesiastical authorities have rarely led such movements and have often actively opposed them. Endorsement of the covenant would be a most effective method of preventing similar faithful action from taking place in the future.

(13)     [Covenant draft overall] 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?

Much is new in the covenant, and that which is new is not helpful. The draft is not made more palatable by the disingenuous claim that “nothing new” is offered therein.

(14)     [Covenant draft overall] 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?

Calling Anglicans to mutual accountability (which is a very different thing from being subservient to a common authority), helping them recognize how their churches depend one upon another, and seeking to envision how best they may work together to do Christ’s work in the world is both wise and welcome. Were this draft of an Anglican Covenant to have done these things, it would have done well. However, nearly all of the specifics in its recommendations, insofar as they propose differences in how the Anglican Communion has operated up to this time, lead us in the wrong direction as followers of Christ. This troubles us, and we think it should trouble Episcopalians and other Anglicans around the world. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that it would be preferable to be no longer a part of the Anglican Communion than to be in a Communion that is bound together by this covenant; either of these two choices would result in a situation which is different from and inferior to our current position. Neither alternative improves on maintaining the Anglican Communion as it has, until recently, existed. The covenant draft, the design process itself, and the rushed approval process are flawed at their deepest level.

Since the Communion has no effective means to dissuade any of its provinces from doing what the others disliked, the covenant attempts to provide one. The only things the covenant seeks either to give or to withhold are: 1) membership in the company of churches that agree to it, and 2) the ability to intervene in the internal workings of Anglican provinces by means of granting or withholding that membership. Let us examine these for a moment. The first thing is something that The Episcopal Church already has in the Anglican Communion and cannot lose except by its own decision. As a founding constituent member of the Anglican Communion, and as predating it by more than a century, The Episcopal Church is one of those organizations without which the Anglican Communion does not, and could not, exist (at least in any form that would be readily recognized by its current members).

Furthermore, The Episcopal Church is already suffering from an unprecedented degree of interference without a covenant in place. This is so despite the church’s clearly expressed opposition to it, and despite the opposition of the current Instruments of Communion. As this church has found these interventions to be destructive and divisive, even at this level, what benefit to it would a greater degree of intervention offer?

As followers of a risen Christ, it is our duty to bear hope for the future we share, and to work that all might live as abundantly as Christ would have them live. We trust that The Episcopal Church, inspired by the Spirit of that same Christ, will be able not merely to lay aside what is amiss in this draft of an Anglican Covenant, but also to continue to work with its Anglican Communion partners in the areas of mission, relief, development, and healing that it has discerned to be its ministry to our world.