Source: Religious Intelligence
Update: The Fulcrum link to the article is here.
By: Andrew Goddard.
The writing and publication of ‘A Covenant for the Church of England’ was intended to draw attention to problems in the wider church that need addressing and to offer a constructive response.
It has itself now become a problem, especially among evangelical Anglicans. The reasons for this tragedy are revealed by answering five questions –- Who? What? How? When? Why? -– in the light of which we can ask Where now?
Who?
The document’s provenance remains unclear but of the nine men initially named as providing leadership, five are on the Reform Council and others believe women shouldn’t lead churches. Having taught at an evangelical college for seven years I know that despite their many qualities such a group is unrepresentative. Their claim to speak for evangelical Anglicans arises from two intertwined ‘networks of networks’ –- the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and Anglican Mainstream (AM). However, serious questions remain unanswered as to how these two groups were fully consulted in the framing and supporting of the covenant. Certainly, some of the networks involved, and most evangelical bishops, were not consulted.
While this was in part due to leaks destabilising the process and respect for Lambeth’s request for confidentiality, it is increasingly clear CEEC and AM are not fully representative of evangelicals and a small number of leaders are not listening to all their constituency but excluding those who don’t share their vision. This raises serious ethical questions about trust, power and accountability, issues at least as important for Christian discipleship as questions about sex.
What?
The document proclaims itself a ‘covenant’ though the word appears nowhere in the text, which reads more as a declaration. To use such a theologically rich term for such a theologically poor document (its inadequacies are powerfully revealed in the Bishop of Durham’s response on Fulcrum) would be bad enough. Given that the Communion is carefully preparing its own covenant, the term currently has a significance which makes its use here even more unacceptable. This is sad because the five issues highlighted -– mission, appointments, fellowship, money and oversight –- are important ones where all orthodox Anglicans should work together and some evangelicals have specific concerns. These concerns must, however, be precisely stated and constructive proposals and procedures for dealing with them widely discussed. The ‘covenant’ offers broad-brush complaints and sweeping rhetorical statements of what ‘this means’, such as no longer associating with church leadership advocating teaching contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures. The overall impression (eg by unsubstantiated references to bishops behaving ‘unreasonably’ and ‘justifiable’ impaired communion) is one of claiming to be judge and jury and issuing an ultimatum that ‘we will now do what we want, in the way we want, what are you going to do about it?’
How?
This impression highlights the document’s tone. Evangelical friends, many sympathetic to its concerns, read it as ‘divisive’, ‘bullying’, ‘ungracious’, and ‘focussed on the negative’. For a document claiming to be a covenant to advance the gospel of grace such initial reactions from evangelical readers signals a major flaw in presentation and perhaps a deeper sickness.
When?
In February the Primates respond to the US church’s inadequate response to Windsor and General Synod debates issues relating to sexuality. The strength of Anglicans committed to Lambeth I.10 and Windsor is clear in the Communion and the Church of England. We have problems in some dioceses but nothing equivalent to North America or the Reading crisis (and yet the ‘covenant’ goes much further than anything proposed at that time). Why then was this necessary now and how does it uphold Communion teaching by strengthening and extending the broad orthodox coalition in the Church of England?
The ‘covenant’ offers no explanation why ‘we’ can ‘no longer’ (a phrase used in four of the five ‘implications for action’) continue to behave as we have done for centuries as evangelicals in the Church of England. It therefore reads not as, apparently intended, a measured attempt to chart a consensual path through the choppy waters ahead or to start a conversation but rather as an unjustifiable and disproportionate response that threatens to divide the church.
Why?
There are at least two genuine reasons why the ‘covenant’ was issued. One is broadly objective and structural. There are real theological (especially missiological and ecclesiological) issues we must address in the Church of England and real practical problems for a few parishes with their diocesan bishop. The other is more subjective and relational. Some evangelicals feel they are not being heard, represented or taken seriously by other Anglicans, including most of their fellow evangelicals.
Where now?
If these are the problems then working back through the questions may help develop a gospel-shaped response to this debacle.
When? We must respond urgently given the concerns of those behind the ‘covenant’, the real pressures we will all face after February, and the need for all Communion-minded Anglicans to remain united, persuasive and focussed on the real challenge.
How? We need more serious listening and genuine common discernment marked by the gospel virtues of grace and humility. This means fewer public declarations that appear as divisive power-plays and more personal conversations, confessions of failings, and bridge-building.
What? We need to think seriously about what constitutes godly episcopacy and how, based on the gospel, to relate to difficult or hostile bishops (not a new phenomenon!). This will help us examine specific alleged instances of ‘false teaching’ or ‘unreasonable’ constraints on mission and ministry and seek responses within existing structures or by persuading the whole church to develop new ones. We must also accept that some episcopal constraints on what we want to do are reasonable and some we think unreasonable may need to be suffered rather than responding in a way that further damages the body of Christ.
Who? As Anglicans committed to episcopacy, we need the many evangelical bishops -– and the larger Communion-committed group within the House –- to provide a lead through these problems. Other ‘evangelical leaders’ must step back and consult, listen to, represent and genuinely serve the full breadth of Anglican evangelicalism.
Above all what is needed at this time is for all Anglicans to act maturely for the good of the whole church and in a manner worthy of the gospel: thoughtfully, co-operatively, prudently and patiently.
The Rev Dr Andrew Goddard is editor of Anvil and on the Leadership Team of Fulcrum.