wannabepriest

So the Meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion in Tanzania has concluded and the draft text of the much discussed Covenant (no, no that one) has been released along with a Communiqué that provides the conclusions of this set of meetings. There appears to be much to be thankful for – not least the fact that they didn’t kill each other. There was the odd remarkable development (American Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori elected to represent the Americas on the Standing Committee) as well as a carefully worded Communiqué to which everyone has been able to sign up. In itself, all this is no mean feat.

I am no expert, I want to say that and underline it three times over, but for those slightly mystified by the process, the results, the weight of documentation now flying around the web, I humbly offer my immediate thoughts and reflections as well as a bit of a beginner’s guide to the whole thing.

The Covenant

The first thing to emerge yesterday evening was the draft text of The Covenant. For the uninitiated, this document was first requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury a while back (based on the findings of the Windsor Report) to try and provide some kind of foundation to relations within the Anglican Communion.

In itself it is reasonably solid but also not something with which anyone can really disagree. There was a bit of a gap between the draft Covenant being published and the subsequent Communiqué last night. In that gap, there was a lot of initial comment on blogs that subsequently changed as more became known. As a result there’s not much to which I can link. However, it was interesting to see the initial reaction in the blogosphere from the more liberal end of the Church was positive. Some conservatives were less happy despite it being pretty standard stuff.

Ultimately, there is nothing much in the Covenant at present that would need to be said with your fingers crossed for anyone. Of course, this is only a first draft and it may well change significantly by Lambeth 2008 let alone by the time it’s actually in place and being used, but for the moment it’s all pretty bog standard save for the extra weight given to the Instruments of Communion (see below).

The document uses language from the 39 articles, the ordination services of the BCP (upon which much of our modern rites are still based), the five marks of mission that were developed by the Anglican Consultative Council between 1984 and 1990, and other key aspects of Anglicanism that no-one is really going to baulk at. Pretty standard fare as you might expect for a document of this nature that needs to please everyone and to which everyone is going to be asked to sign-up.

However, the key for now is that it does articulate more clearly the four Instruments of Communion and give some weight to those Instruments’ authority. Indeed, the authority is made more explicit to the point that if a Province chooses not to fulfill the substance of the Covenant, they will be considered to have moved themselves ‘out’ of the Covenant (notice they would have done the moving rather than other provinces turfing them out) and would need to engage in restoration and renewal to ever get back into such a covenant relationship.

The Communiqué

Quite rightly, the Communiqué doesn’t solely focus on the situation with The Episcopal Church in America (TEC) and runs through various other things that came up for discussion at the Primates meeting. As well as the Millennium Development Goals (or MDGs) that we’ve heard very little about here in England but are a big thing in the US and elsewhere, the Primates also refer to some interesting projects relating to Theological Education and Hermeneutics. I don’t know enough about either to really comment and I’m not a seasoned Anglican Communion or Primates watcher so I’m not sure of the history, but I find it fascinating to see them looking at such matters and initiating a project ‘to proceed with a worldwide study of hermeneutics (the methods of interpreting scripture)’.

As has been said on many occasions, the gut of much of the current troubles both in the Anglican Communion and closer to home with the “Own-Goal not really a covenant Covenant” boils down to how we all as Christians interpret Scripture and how we view its authority. Whether this study is able to achieve anything, we’ll have to wait and see but it’s interesting for the Primates to be recognising and engaging at the roots of the problem and not just trying to deal with the tangle of branches.

Of course, the big story in the Communiqué is the situation surrounding TEC. If the Covenant gave the liberal end of the Church significant hope that we could all unite and still do our own thing, the publication of the Communiqué a few hours later must have been a bit of a kick in the teeth.

Key threads

1. Both the North American churches (USA & Canada) not holding to the previously agreed Lambeth standards on human sexuality AND the behaviour of other Churches, Provinces, Primates and Bishops who have intervened across boundaries in reaction to the situations in North America were criticised in the Communiqué. The document also noted that while some Primates and Provinces have ‘lost trust’ in TEC over the whole situation, it was also crucially noted that some in TEC have ‘lost trust’ in the Primates and other bishops because they seem ‘all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity’ of TEC. In other words, it’s not just TEC that have behaved inappropriately in terms of the different Churches’ relations to each other within the Anglican Communion.
2. The Primates had previously asked TEC to look at three specific things from the Windsor Report:
   1. to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection had been breached
   2. to hold a moratorium on the election and consent of any candidate for the episcopate living in a same-gender union until some new consensus emerged in the Anglican Communion
   3. to hold a moratorium on public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions

   TEC were pulled up in the Communiqué for only meeting two of those three criteria. They failed to satisfy the Primates on point three because there is a ‘lack of clarity’ about TECs stance in relation to authorising Rites of Blessing. While nothing explicit is provided at national level, stuff is going on locally with specific Bishops’ consent.

   In addition, some of the Primates (no prizes for guessing which ones) were not keen on General Convention’s Resolution B033 which related to the second request regarding a moratorium on electing gay Bishops. The resolution they passed called for Standing Committees and Bishops in TEC to ‘exercise restraint’ rather than hold a moratorium. Some of the Primates feel it does not give the assurances that were asked for.

3. Ultimately, the Primates were not able to declare that TEC has mended its broken relationships. If it was a school report, it would say something like “Must try harder”.
4. Because of the complexity of the situation pastorally, the Primates have set out a more detailed plan for the future than they might have preferred to have done. In that plan…
   1. The Covenant will be key and the long-term future but that will take time (years) to agree so something needs to be done in the meantime.
   2. So, a Pastoral Council is to be established, essentially as a working party of the Primates to provide an outside body that can mediate between the various factions in TEC to try and ensure pastoral care for all and also regulate the cross-border interventions of other provinces into the US. Lastly, this group will police and ‘monitor the response’ of TEC to the Windsor Report.
   3. In conjunction with the Pastoral Council, TEC Bishops who become part of the scheme (i.e. those who dissent from the mainline of TEC and the oversight of Katharine Jefferts Schori) will nominate a “Primatial Vicar” from amongst their number who shall report to the Council (and presumably therefore not to the Presiding Bishop).
   4. Once both the Council and the Primatial Vicar are in place, other Provinces and Primates must cease all cross-border interventions.
5. The real kicker for TEC was in the final paragraphs. They were asked to further clarify their response to the three specific things from the Windsor Report described above here in point two. By the 30th of September this year, they have to:
   1. Covenant not to authorise any Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions
   2. Confirm Resolution B033 does mean that a candidate for episcopal orders in a gay relationship won’t receive necessary consent

   If they fail to meet that deadline, there will be ‘consequences to the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion’ – which basically means (I think) that TEC won’t go to Lambeth 2008 and may find them excluded from various other elements of Anglican Communion life.

In an interview on Premier Radio with Archbishop Orombi of Uganda today, he called the Communiqué ‘one last chance given’ to TEC and it does feel very much like that. They are being really held over a barrel now and it will be interesting to see what response is made.

An unplayable delivery?

Not that I’m a huge Cricket buff, but you sometimes hear commentators talk of a bowler bowling ‘an unplayable delivery’. I am sure similar terms must be used in Baseball for a ball that the batter simply cannot hit. To use another sporting analogy from American Football, it’s like the Quarterback throwing the ball to the corner of the endzone where the defending player can’t get near it. It feels to me that TEC are faced with such an ‘unplayable delivery’ now.

I am not quite sure how they can promise or ‘covenant’ to authorise any same sex blessings by 30 September as they have been asked to do. TEC haven’t authorised any same sex blessings and, indeed, the 75th General Convention declined to take further a number of resolutions which had been drafted to support their introduction. It’s hard to know what more they could do nationally to show more willing on this issue than they already have done.

Of course, the reason they are still being asked to do something is because some of their dioceses are exploring and experiencing such liturgies apparently unchecked. My big question on this one is does TEC have any kind of mechanisms for calling such dioceses and bishops into line? I’m told by those who know more about these things than me that this is a real issue for TEC and one that has been an issue for some time.

Having said that, I’m also told by those who know more about such things that there are only ten out of 110 dioceses that do allow same-sex blessings. If some or all of those ten dioceses refuse to back off, is it really fair to punish the whole of TEC for the actions of a few?

In regard to the moratorium on electing someone in a gay relationship to the episcopate, again I don’t see what TEC can do. I was interested to discover in talking to friends in TEC that their process for electing bishops is very different to the one in England. Whereas it is all high level committees, Prime Ministers and the Queen over here, TEC have a very different system.

Now, I may not be talking very knowledgeably here so I apologise if I’m wrong and I will happily correct this article if someone spots errors. As I understand it, TEC goes through a process whereby a new bishop is elected by the Convention of the Diocese concerned. It would be like the Diocesan Synod for Rochester deciding who the next Bishop of Rochester will be. It’s a democratic election and who knows what the ‘people’ might choose to do. However, that election then has to be confirmed by a majority of the bishops and diocesan standing committees of the national church. If the election occurs 120 days or less before a General Convention, the confirmation occurs at General Convention.

So, given that process, what can TEC do? Imagine the scenario… the good people (clergy and lay) who form the Convention of Diocese XYZ decide candidate A should be their Bishop. Candidate A is gay and in a gay relationship. The TEC Presiding Bishop and House of Bishops then have to decide between the wishes of the diocese concerned (and ratify the election) or the wishes of the Anglican Communion (and do not). Talk about being between a rock and a hard place – either way they can’t win.

The bishops do have the ability to block an appointment. If there is no consent from a majority of the bishops, there can be no consecration. However, such a block would be at considerable cost within TEC itself. In that sense, much like the actions of Katharine Jefferts Schori at the Primates meeting, TEC’s road has a certain cross-shaped look to it. It seems they want to remain in the Communion and function as a sort of loyal opposition but to do so they will have to walk a road that will cost them within.