Fourth Reflection on the Lambeth Conference.

From +Martin

Bishop of Argyll and The Isles

‘The Covenanters’?

I’ve changed my mind! I had planned to write about my experiences of the liturgy and the worship of the Conference, the addresses in Canterbury Cathedral and in Kent University. (Oh…. And most important… the making of new friends!) These, I believe, will make a better rounding-off of the series. So…

The title of this reflection might suggest that the whole body of Anglican bishops were in support of the creation of a Covenant. That is not the case, of course. The concept of a, Anglican Covenant has been wandering around laptops, emails, committee rooms and synods of the Anglican Communion for some time. The image that the word ‘covenant’ suggests, for some Scots, takes them back to the 16^th and 17^th centuries, when Presbyterians bound themselves by religious and political oaths to maintain the cause of their religion. For Scottish Episcopalians, of course, the word has an ‘edge’ to it. As a result of Charles I attempt to introduce the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, The National Covenant was widely signed in 1638 as a ‘protestant’ reaction to it. Some 30 years later, when Presbyterians were persecuted in Scotland, further covenants were signed.

One of the keynote addresses in the Conference, was given by the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. Here was someone who spoke with passion, with intellectual depth and that Jewish sense of humour framed by the ability to allow a primordial smile in the face of tragedy. He spoke of ‘Covenant’ in two forms. There was a Covenant of Fate in which the people of Israel facing persecution, exile and even extinction hold firm to their sense of the mystery of God even in the tragedy itself. The other Covenant is that of Faith, in which God creates an intimate union with his people in order to fulfil his loving purposes for and in history. So, for me, the concept of a Covenant to address the fragile dislocations of the Anglican Communion seems somewhat removed from the sheer ‘gravitas’ which the word covenant assumes. Even in law, where the word is also used, there is a solemnity to the word which has binding significance. Anglicans already have such depth in the threefold ownership of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. The draft Covenant seems to me to be offering the basis of a series of protocols which are gentle attempts to hold the Provinces together in some common discipline. Whether or not there will be an agreement about an agreement (!), I am not sure. However, in the Conference I sensed the desire that the Communion should work together towards some improved methods of communication and good practice that honoured the autonomy of Anglican Dioceses and yet also recognised that there are responsibilities that that autonomy brings in relation to the rest of the Communion..

In some ways, the group that has been asked to develop a ‘Draft Covenant’ for the Anglican Communion, has been trying to provide means by which Anglicans can unite round a commonly held series of statements. The reason for this was and remains because of the increasing sense that the issue of same-sex relationships was not only potentially divisive but could rupture the Communion. Further, there is also a feeling that other hugely divisive issues are not far across the horizon that could be just as disruptive, if not more so. For example, Lay Presidency of the Eucharist. Knowledgeable commentators have shrugged their world-weary shoulders and added that in the history of Anglicanism, there have always been schisms from which it has recovered. I might add wryly, that we are good at division!

To be honest, ecclesiastical drafting of documents doesn’t fill me with huge delight, let alone excitement….and there was a good deal of that at the conference. These Documents have now been published in a Lambeth 2008 booklet called ‘Lambeth Indaba: Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Conference’. These are part of an organic process of development which I believe honours the attitudes and process of the Conference itself. In the section ‘Human and Social Justice’, this process is beautifully captured:

“God’s mission is holistic; its orientation is toward the redemption the whole of creation. For Anglicans, indeed the whole Church, the Gospel is not just the proclamation of individual redemption and renewal, but the renewal of society under the Reign of God; the ending of injustice and the restoration of right relationship with God and between human beings and between humanity and creation.”

As I have already suggested, there were Bishops at the Conference, particularly from the African and Indian sub-continent, who were anxious to be able to take back the message that the Anglican Communion was going to hold firm against the ordination of any in same-sex relationships to the episcopacy. Others, including priests and lay people in the Scottish Episcopal Church, are anxious to know when there will be agreed openness to such ordinations. The Lambeth Conference studiously avoided making resolutions, let alone decisions. We were constantly brought back to the purpose of the Conference which was to deepen our understanding of the nature of what it is to be a Bishop – ‘Equipping Bishops for Mission and Strengthening Anglican Identity.’

After lunch each day, ‘Hearings’ were held. This gave Bishops the opportunity to make critical comment on the Anglican Communion as it rises to the challenges of a deeper understanding of Mission, Justice, the Environment, World Religions, and, of course, the Covenant. I felt that these occasions were inclined to mirror Synodical debate. The work of the Indaba and the Bible Study Groups created the atmosphere of engagement at a deep level. The Hearings to my observation moved us back into the advocacy of position and not the engagement of the heart. I maintain that issues of the heart are not up for debate. They are to be lived with, struggled with, loved, because they are mystery.

Because I felt so inarticulate about the Covenant I went to several ‘self-select’ sessions which looked at the text in detail. Perhaps I am a hostage to fortune in trying to summarise what the Covenant seems to be about. It is a suggested agreement between all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion that we have foundational principles of faith, that we have Christian practice in devotion, spirituality and reason in common. These divine treasuries are based on scripture, the sacramental life of the Church, and the tradition of teaching that comes down to us principally from the early Fathers of the Church. If there is a whole-hearted ‘ownership’ of this Anglican dynamic, what arises for those who are proposing the Covenant, is a methodology of mediation, where there is conflict in the Church. Where conflict seems to be difficult to resolve, and where a diocese chooses to continue its ‘own’ path, then mediation would reveal to all concerned that the Diocese has chosen of itself to have less integrated relationship with the Communion.

In conversations with bishops from The Episcopal Church (the United States), there was some undoubted hurt that Bishops from other Provinces, particularly from Africa intruded in the life of the Diocese, often without notification, permission or courtesy and exercised their sacramental episcopacy, if the congregation was out of agreement with it’s own Diocesan Bishop. This has led not only to strained relationships between provinces, but to Churches wishing to ‘leave’ their own Diocese with all the legal and financial implications affecting the life and mission of the Diocese. To have strong views is one thing; to have lack of courtesy and pastorally sensitivity is entirely another.

Elspeth and I were invited by American Bishops to a talk given by Gene Robinson, elected to be Bishop of the Diocese of new Hampshire. He is in a committed relationship with his partner, Mark Andrew. What impressed me, was Bishop Gene’s clarity, gentleness and his articulate enthusiasm, not only for his task as a Bishop but also as a communicator of Christ’s presence. At the talk was a fellow-bishop, invited to speak who had not supported Bishop Gene’s election. However, he made it clear that the vote having taken place, then the clarity of the way forward was obvious. If I have a criticism of this experience, it is of the over-individualising of being a Bishop. Our addiction to ‘personality’ has created the tendency for us to look for ‘characters’ or ‘stars’, which combined with a corporate, apostolic understand of episcopacy may be an advantage. Personality by itself can become an ephemeral instrument for a cause which can distort the primary task of the Christ-like for others. This danger is also seen among bishops who oppose Bishop’s Gene’s consecration, privatising their episcopacy for their own self-justified exercise of power. However, I do acknowledge that perhaps ‘pioneering’ for a cause of any kind calls for ‘big’ personality.

I sensed throughout the conference what I can only describe as a shifting of ‘the centre of gravity’ in the Anglican Communion. The Church of England no longer holds automatically a central place in the consciousness of the Communion. Simply being another province, albeit the only one that has such a national role, seemed to be an uncomfortable realisation to some of the Church of England bishops. There are, of course, ‘bonds of affection’. There is a sense of historical roots in the Church of England. However, as Scottish Episcopalians, to name but one Province, influenced by the Church of England though we may be, our roots are distinct from those of many Provinces in the communion, including the Church of England. The call to Mission at the Conference was a call towards adjusting to new realities and a letting go of old norms of assumption.

I am constantly struck by how smartly dressed are Roman Catholic Bishops and Cardinals. No exception was Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for promoting Christian Unity, who lead a ‘self-select’ session on unity. With no intentional play-on-words, the Cardinal was immaculately ‘groomed’, on which my mother would have commented, pointedly glowering at me! He was polite and well-prepared in his lecture, delicately mentioning but ‘body-swerving’ his way round the ecumenical sensitivities created by the ordination of women to the episcopacy in the Anglican Communion, for example. Keeping the doors of friendship and conversation ajar, nevertheless there was behind his diplomatic posture a slight chilly breeze, if not a wind. Here’s a question. If there is to be significant unity with the Roman Catholic Church, since it is ‘Catholic’ and, therefore, universal, what basis other than within itself does it conceive of unity?

However, between Christians whether Roman Catholic or Anglican, there is not only increasing friendship but desire to work together in the depths of spiritual growth and response to crises that now press on us all. The presence, throughout the Lambeth Conference, of Fr Timothy Radcliffe, a Dominican Friar, and Brother Guido from a religious community in Italy, as personal guests of the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave for me a different ‘feel’ of Roman Catholicism: less structurally bound and willing to recognise the ‘Catholicity’ that lies at the heart of the Anglican Communion.

Let me recommend thoroughly the lecture given by Dr Jonathan Sacks at the Lambeth Conference, which you can access through the Conference Website. If you prefer, then do get in touch with me and I will send you a copy of his text. The next reflection will be the last in the series.