Anglican Mainstream

I spent the weekend before last at St Aldate’s Church in Oxford and went from there to a meeting in Pusey House. Those who are familiar with Oxford will know how different these two are from one another – in styles of worship, clergy taste in apparel and church furnishing. And yet I could find the Gospel preached and the faith of the Church lived in each of them. Both, moreover, belong still to the Church of England, held together by its formularies, liturgical provision and, dare I say it, Canon Law. Let us hope and pray that this unity lasts!

It is this kind of unity that we want also for the Anglican Communion. In the past, it has been held together by a common history, similar (though not exactly the same) ways of worship and the so-called ‘bonds of affection’. In a rapidly globalising world and a fast-developing Communion, these are no longer enough. As ARCIC’s Church as Communion has put it, “the Church’s unity and coherence are maintained by the common confession of the one apostolic faith, a shared sacramental life, a common ministry of oversight and joint ways of reaching decisions and giving authoritative teaching (para.39).

The Covenant is one way of ensuring that the common life of the communion is healthy and effective. In both 2005 and 2007 the General Synod has affirmed its desire that there should be unity in the Anglican Communion within the constraints of truth and charity and it has also indicated its willingness to engage positively with the Covenant process as a means of achieving such a unity in truth and love. This means that the Church of England is able to say ‘yes’ to Q1 of the three questions being asked of us. It remains to be seen whether every province, and everyone within every province, will be able to say ‘yes’. If, however, the Covenant correctly identifies the fundamentals of Anglican identity and also provides a basis for deeper and more godly relationships, then we, at least, should say ‘yes’ to it.

The second question asks what synodical processes will be necessary for a Province to adopt the Covenant. The Annex to GS1716 sets out the procedure: it is highly likely that this would be Article 7 and 8 business. This means, among other things, that the adoption of such a Covenant would be in terms approved by the House of Bishops and not otherwise. It means also that the matter would have to be referred to the diocesan synods and to be approved by a majority of them.

It should be said straightaway that such a Covenant would be freely entered into and would not supersede the authority of General Synod or of the Crown in Parliament. It would be comparable to agreements about communion with other churches and, indeed, to some forms of ecumenical commitment into which the Church of England has entered.

In responding to the third question, it is very important to say that the biblical and theological introduction to the latest draft of the Covenant, the St Andrew’s Draft, forms the basis of and the background to the rest of the text and must be regarded as integral to the text as a whole. It is vital for the Covenant to acknowledge the normative authority of Scripture within the apostolic teaching and living of the Church and how this relates to old and new in a plural and changing world. In no way can the commitment being demanded be less than is asked for in the Preface to the Declaration of Assent as found in Canon C.15. This will also show that what is being required in any Covenant is consistent with what the Church of England requires already for its own ordering.
We must take both continuity and development seriously. As the Communion has emerged, it has been necessary, from time to time, to develop common declarations and structures which would assist in the unity and coherence of the body. Such, for instance, are the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, the Lambeth Conference itself, the gathering role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Meeting of Primates, and the Anglican Consultative Council. It is true that the Communion has emphasised the spiritual rather than the juridical nature of the fellowship. Nevertheless, this has been, as Lambeth 1930 declared, in the context of confessing the Catholic and Apostolic faith and basing itself on a common faith and order. It has also seen itself as bound by ‘mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of bishops in conference’ (Resolutions 48 & 49).

There is an internal tension in the draft about the role of bishops in the church which will need to be resolved. On the one hand, bishops are seen as leaders in mission and as guardians and teachers of the faith. On the other hand, the polity of member churches is described by the somewhat hackneyed phrase ‘episcopally led and synodically governed’. In his magisterial paper on governance, now before Synod, Dr Colin Podmore has shown the inaccuracy of this phrase: bishops govern in their diocese in virtue of their office and the House of Bishops has certain responsibilities at the national level. In both cases, however, this happens synodically, that is, in collaboration with clergy and laity.

It is crucial for us to know how the Covenant will finally be agreed at Communion-level. Both the 1988 and the 1998 Lambeth Conferences asked for an enhanced role for the Primates (Res 18 and III 6). This was recognised in the earlier Nassau draft of the Covenant but the present draft provides for the ACC to be the final approver of any text. How far this will carry the confidence of the Communion as a whole remains to be seen. Also, the ACC is the final arbiter in deciding whether a Province or a church has relinquished the force and meaning of the Covenant for itself. Once again, we have to ask whether this is where the final decision should be made. Surely, it should be a body such as the Primates, who, in consultation with the other Instruments of Communion and speaking on behalf of the bishops and their churches, are able to make a decision which sticks.

The main purpose of the Covenant is inclusion rather than exclusion. We cannot forget, nevertheless, that these questions have arisen for us because of the need for adequate discipline in the Communion on matters which affect everyone. Nor, of course, can we forget that discipline is for the purpose of reconciliation and restoration. In the meantime, such discipline will undoubtedly have what have been called ‘relational consequences’. This is a matter of deep sorrow and of repentance for all of us and should lead us to be committed to continue the search for that unity in truth which General Synod has asked for in its previous resolutions on the subject.

In taking note of GS1716 you are:-
i) re-affirming the principle of an Anglican Covenant
ii) noting the procedures which the Church of England will need to go through to adopt such a Covenant
iii) noting the ways in which the present draft can be improved.

I ask you to take note.

+Michael Nazir-Ali
February 2009
 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.