Drell’s Descants

After reading the reaction of the Diocese of Southeast Florida’s rejection of the covenant and taking a gander at the Diocese of Virginia’s rejection, I think we can safely predict the Episcopal Church will reject the draft covenant. Virginia and Southeast Florida could hardly be considered hard core liberal Dioceses like Newark or California.

I’ve written my own commentary on the draft covenant. Without getting into how some folks feel about the 39 articles, let’s just look at the arguments regarding structure. Both Virginia and Southeast Florida decry the structure the proposed covenant contains. What structure is this? Let’s take a look, with my comments:

Each Church commits itself

1. in essential matters of common concern, to have regard to the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy, and to support the work of the Instruments of Communion with the spiritual and material resources available to it.

Rationale: Unilateral action by the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have strained the Anglican Communion to the brink of schism. The brink of schism is not a good place to be for the church for obvious reasons.

2. to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and discernment to listen and to study with one another in order to comprehend the will of God. Such study and debate is an essential feature of the life of the Church as its seeks to be led by the Spirit into all truth and to proclaim the Gospel afresh in each generation. Some issues, which are perceived as controversial or new when they arise, may well evoke a deeper understanding of the implications of God’s revelation to us; others may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith: all therefore need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.

Rationale: Rather than unilateral action, common commitment to listening and discerning is what is necessary for the Anglican Communion to remain as one.

3. to seek with other members, through the Church’s shared councils, a common mind about matters of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.

Rationale: Our common life would be easier if we seek to have a common mind on matters of essential concern and to have common standard of faith. Otherwise, there is no basis for common mission.

4. to heed the counsel of our Instruments of Communion in matters which threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness of our mission. While the Instruments of Communion have no juridical or executive authority in our Provinces, we recognise them as those bodies by which our common life in Christ is articulated and sustained, and which therefore carry a moral authority which commands our respect.

Rationale: While legally the Anglican Communion can’t force anyone to do anything, certain things have to be done to maintain relationship, such as in a marriage or friendship.

5. to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:
1. by submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.

Rationale: This provides a VERY MINIMAL structure to resolve our differences.

6. We acknowledge that in the most extreme circumstances, where member churches choose not to fulfil the substance of the covenant as understood by the Councils of the Instruments of Communion, we will consider that such churches will have relinquished for themselves the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, and a process of restoration and renewal will be required to re-establish their covenant relationship with other member churches.

Rationale: If the covenant relationship is not observed, then the covenant will be broken, much like a marriage is broken when a party to it breaches the mutually agreed upon obligations of the marriage. While it is not illegal to breach a marriage covenant, it does mean the marriage is over.

Is this a Roman Curia? No. In fact, I frankly find this structure to be inadequate. Why? Because, frankly, this is the structure we already have in the Anglican Communion and we have seen how it works in the current crisis. It doesn’t.

This, of course, makes sense. If the covenant is passed, it will require TEC to acknowledge the structures that are already there, which, to date, it hasn’t. Every time the Primates have asked anything of TEC, TEC has refused to acknowledge their authority to even ask for anything.

One other last point: no one seems to understand the Anglican Consultative Council. It is a charitable foundation to support the Anglican Communion, nothing more. While it has been used to do thing like declare sees vacant in Rwanda to allow reorganization of the church, that was never its original or intended function. However, that precedent would seem to allow the Anglican Communion to intervene into the affairs of TEC, which I am sure TEC would not want. If we want a synodical body for the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Consultative Council will need to be reworked. Until then, doctrinal discipline will rest where it rests even in the Episcopal Church - with the Bishops - thus the name of the church and the function of bishops within their Diocese which stems from the promises made at consecration of a Bishop.