Covenant Week
Section One: Claiming our inheritance

This is the first of five articles examining the St. Andrew's draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant. A study guide from The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church is also available. This article considers Section One of the covenant. Future articles will consider Sections 2-3, the appendix, and the future of the covenant process.

By Tobias S. Haller

Section One of the Saint Andrew’s Draft Anglican Covenant begins with a series of affirmations. These should be familiar to Episcopalians, as they echo the language of the Creeds and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The creedal phrases in the first clause remind us that our unity with each other stems from our unity in Christ, who prayed that the disciples would be one even as he and the Father are one. Our unity is a reflection of the unity of the Trinity, the inner relationship of the Father with the Son in the Holy Spirit. God in Christ confers a share in the divine unity upon us as a gift and an inheritance.

The Quadrilateral is an important focal point in Anglicanism. It was first conceived by an Episcopal priest (and deputy to thirteen consecutive General Conventions!) William Reed Huntington. He intended it to mark out the four secure boundaries within which he hoped churches from outside Anglicanism’s fold would be able to find ample pasture to share — as a means toward the reunion of Christian traditions divided since the Reformation. So it is fitting to see the four articles of the Quadrilateral — Scripture, creeds, sacraments and the episcopate — reappear in a new context, as a way to affirm unity within Anglicanism. The healing of breaches that have arisen within our family of churches, in affirming the unity we have inherited, will make our common witness as a communion of churches — and our apostolic mission together — more effective, as we continue to work with those of other traditions and communions outside our own.

The closing articles of this first part remind us of the importance of that common mission and common worship, which are both means to and signs of unity, in spite of differing contexts and traditions within a global communion, and as shared beyond that communion with the wider church. The old Benedictine motto: ora et labora — pray and work — is a means of keeping peace and promoting harmony in the household, even the household of God.

The second part of this section turns to the implementation, and shows how the inheritance might best be put to work. We, in this Episcopal corner of the Anglican pasture, have been given a share of our inheritance, and charged with wise stewardship in its employment. It is no talent to be buried in a field, no treasure to be wasted in prodigal excess, but rather invested and put to work towards the common good.

This inheritance also comes with conditions: we commit to make use of it together with the rest of the large family of which we are members; for it is an inheritance we share. It is in this part of the draft that we agree to commit to covenant promises made to one another, to our brothers and sisters in this Anglican family.

The commitments grow out of the articles of the Quadrilateral, and flesh them out in practical ways. We are to read the Scripture faithfully within the context of the church’s historic tradition and creeds, but also to employ all of the tools of scholarship and reason at our disposal, always in keeping with the principle that Scripture’s purpose is to reveal and teach salvation, and that it is sufficient to that end. We are to maintain and share in the sacramental fellowship which is both our privilege and our duty, both the sign of unity and the means to nourish it. We are, as faithful people of God, to take counsel together with our bishops in study and prayer, as we engage with each other in our common life. We are also to be open to the prophetic voices that challenge us to meet the needs of a suffering world, in mission and outreach. Finally we are committed to journey together with our fellow pilgrims within the Anglican Communion, as we live out our call to fulfill the reality with which this Covenant began: that all may be One, even as God is One. This places our task upon a firm foundation — ultimately the only foundation on which a secure churchly enterprise can be built, the sure and firm foundation of Jesus Christ himself.

Tobias S. Haller, Vicar of Saint James Episcopal Church, Fordham in Bronx, N. Y, is a life professed member of the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory and a clerical deputy to the 2009 General Convention. He blogs at In a Godward Direction.

Comments (5)

I am guessing that those who pushed hardest for an Anglican Covenant are those who are boycotting Lambeth in favor of Gafcon. Is this correct?

If so, why even bother to proceed with the Covenant? It is superfluous and foreign to the ecclesiastical polity established by Richard Hooker.

Sister Gloriamarie Amalfitano
San Diego

I think those who are saying they will boycott Lambeth (whether they do or not remains to be seen) are not among those most interested in a Covenant, at least one like the present Draft. Some of them have openly said that they have no need for Canterbury.

Hooker was primarily interested in defending English church government from claims that it was not faithful to the Scripture on one hand, or to the Tradition. He defended a model of church government based on reason -- noting that Scripture provided an inadequate and unspecific model, and the Tradition had been deformed by political and historical processes. Were he around today, I think Hooker would take a similar approach to proposals for a Covenant to bring some order and structure to the Anglican Communion -- putting into a written document some of the bits and pieces that have been assumed to be guiding principles, but about which there is plainly some disagreement. The issue now for the Communion, as it was then for Hooker in a church upset by dissensions, was to find an orderly way to work together -- one which all can agree to. TEC, at GC 2006, committed itself to engage in that process. I do not think it is a waste of time if it serves the needs of the church and its members. If it turns out not to serve the church well, we need not continue to pursue it.

The caution, even anxiety, some of us feel about the covenant is that it is (or was) being created to be used as a club, and all the rest is so much windowdressing.

If there are nobler purposes, what are they? How is it not superfluous? Who is asking for the covenant?

I confess I have not given the drafts any close examination. I look forward to reading all five articles.

I think the "higher purpose" we can pursue is "the highest level of communion possible," and especially among these provinces that have much more in common than separates them. I think the "Covenant process" and the "Windsor Process," of which the Archbishop at least thinks the Covenant is a part, can work toward that goal. Indeed, I think working through the process can support "the highest level of communion possible," even if it doesn't result in a paper Covenant, or in one that we can actually sign on to.

The experience of the way Lambeth 1998 was high-jacked by conservative bishops and the text of Resolution 1.10 violently substituted for the original proposal, the way it was all aided and abetted by +Carey, and finally the way it has attained a life of its own and has been elevated to almost the canon of scripture, has left a bad taste in the mouths of many of us throughout the Communion.

Fear of a repeat of that process looms largely for us. We do not trust that the text of a Covenant, aided and abetted by Canterbury's incumbent, especially considering his approach to the special charism of the episcopacy, is not in the making.

David
Diocese of Northern Mexico

Add your comments
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Advertising Space