Intercommunion with Roman Catholics by Casuistry?

I recently e-mailed a former parishioner who is now on active duty in Iraq. Like many military personnel who are Anglo-catholic, the standard-issue Protestant service on most military bases just doesn't cut it. The best alternative is the Roman Catholic service, which as I understand it, is always available. (Are there bases where there is no Roman Catholic chaplain? Given the dearth of vocations, I would suppose this might be the case, but no one has ever told me of a situation where mass wasn't available.)

Of course, the problem with going to the Roman Catholic service (liturgical sensibilities aside) is that the Roman Catholic Church does not allow intercommunion, that is, the reception of the Eucharist by non-Roman Catholics from a Roman Catholic priest. (The RC Church also officially forbids the reverse.)

There is one chink in the theological armor against intercommunion, however, and that's where theology meets pastoral care.

If there's one thing I admire about the Roman Magisterium, it's the Magisterium's "charism of clarity." Their documents are not written to fudge issues (as are Anglican documents, quite often), but to provide concrete theological and pastoral guidance. (If there's one thing I have problems with about the Magisterium, it's also its "charism of clarity," which leads it to pronounce final answers to questions I don't think can be answered with the sort of precision and clarity the Magisterium purports to possess. But that's neither here nor there...)

With regard to Intercommunion, the Vatican put out some years ago one of my favorite documents, entitled THE DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM. That Vatican really knows how to come up with a catchy title!

In its section entitled "IV. COMMUNION IN LIFE AND SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY AMONG THE BAPTIZED" (which quickens my pulse just looking at it), we find this sub-heading, provocatively titled "B. SHARING SPIRITUAL ACTIVITIES AND RESOURCES," under which we find the section entitled "Sharing in Sacramental Life, especially the Eucharist," which leads to pay dirt under "b) Sharing Sacramental Life with Christians of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities."

Are you ready for the scintillating prose? Herewith, IV.B.b):

129. A sacrament is an act of Christ and of the Church through the Spirit (n. 130). Its celebration in a concrete community is the sign of the reality of its unity in faith, worship and community life. As well as being signs, sacraments—most specially the Eucharist—are sources of the unity of the Christian community and of spiritual life, and are means for building them up. Thus Eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial communion and its visible expression.

At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church (n. 131) and that "baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn... is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ" (n. 132). The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ.

It is in the light of these two basic principles, which must always be taken into account together, that in general the Catholic Church permits access to its Eucharistic communion and to the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick, only to those who share its oneness in faith, worship and ecclesial life (n. 133) For the same reasons, it also recognizes that in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities (n. 134).

130. In case of danger of death, Catholic ministers may administer these sacraments when the conditions given below (131.) are present. In other cases, it is strongly recommended that the diocesan Bishop, taking into account any norms which may have been established for this matter by the Episcopal Conference or by the Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches, establish general norms for judging situations of grave and pressing need and for verifying the conditions mentioned below (131.) (n.135). In accord with Canon Law, (n. 136) these general norms are to be established only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the other interested Church or ecclesial Community. Catholic ministers will judge individual cases and administer these sacraments only in accord with these established norms, where they exist. Otherwise they will judge according to the norms of this Directory.

131. The conditions under which a Catholic minister may administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, of penance and of the anointing of the sick to a baptized person who may be found in the circumstances given above (130) are that the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community, ask for the sacrament of his or her own initiative, manifest Catholic faith in this sacrament and be properly disposed (n. 137).

Footnotes:
130 Cf. CIC, can. 840 and CCEO, can. 667.
131 Cf. UR, n. 3.
132 UR, n. 22.
133 Cf. UR, n. 8; CIC, can. 844, 1 and CCEO, can. 671, 1.
134 Cf. CIC, can. 844, 4 and CCEO, can. 671, 4.
135 For the establishing of these norms we refer to the following documents: On Admitting Other Christians to Eucharistic Communion in the Catholic Church (1972) and Note Interpreting the "Instruction on Admitting Other Christians to Eucharistic Communion Under Certain Circumstances" (1973).
136 Cf. CIC, can. 844, 5 and CCEO, can. 671, 5.
137 Cf. CIC, can. 844, 4 and CCEO, can. 671, 4.A

Now that's good clarity!

Of course, even such clear prose requires some degree of interpretation. And so this is what I have counseled military personnel:

Given that my former parishioner is serving in a war zone, he is in constant "danger of death" (cf. 130). Since this is so, because he is "unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or her own Church or ecclesial Community," (i.e, there's no Episcopal, and certainly no Anglo-catholic chaplain anywhere in sight), as long as he "ask[s] for the sacrament of his...own initiative, manifest[s] Catholic faith in this sacrament and [is] properly disposed," (cf. 131) he may in good conscience receive communion from the RC chaplain.

Now, to be fair, 130 provides for stricter criteria to be put in place by the proper authority, and service in a war zone may not constitute the "danger of death" envisioned by the document's authors, but even without an immanent "danger of death," the Directory does allow for the possibility of "other cases" that would be judged individually by the competent authority.

I thus advised my former parishioner to have a conversation with the Chaplain to find out how he would apply the principles and norms in the field.

Now here's where I get really casuistic: For my own part, I believe the Directory is sufficient grounds to quell any doubts about freely receiving communion in any Roman Catholic Church, provided the recipient

1) lacks recourse to a minister of his or her own church
2) asks for the sacrament of his or her own initiative
3) manifests Catholic faith in the sacrament
4) is properly disposed

As for 1), whenever a lay Episcopalian is in a Roman Catholic Church, s/he lacks recourse to a minister of his or her own church. Even if there's an Episcopal priest present at a Roman Mass, it's unlikely that priest will have a pyx handy. (Though you could always ask, I suppose, just to be sure you're doing things "by the book"--or at least following the spirit of the Directory.) In fact, even as a priest myself, as long as I don't have a stocked pyx, or unconsecrated elements and at least one other person who will communicate with me (following the BCP rubric that a priest can't celebrate the Eucharist without a congregation), I don't even have recourse to a minister of my own church! Besides which, what am I going to do, go to a side chapel and use one of the many unused East-facing altars one finds in RC churches? I would rather worship with the assembly than try and carve out my own space...seems less rude...

As for 2), I construe "ask" broadly as "comes up for communion." As long as the idea to go up for communion is one's own initiative, that is, no one's forcing you, then 2) is easily taken care of; "asking," after all, has a symbolic dimension: when I make that little "bird's nest" with my hands and hold them up to the priest, I am asking to receive communion. The fact that I am asking is established by the fact that I might be refused.

As for 3), if you're an Anglo-catholic or believe in the Real Presence, you're covered. Forget about that Transubstantiation stuff--the Catholic faith in the Sacrament is much more than the doctrinal category of transubstantiation can encompass. But I do think you ought not receive in an RC Church if you think it's just snack time, or wafers and wine, or a nice thought about Jesus. I agree that one's faith should be in line with that of the faithful assembled for the mass, or at least with the theology assumed in the celebration of the rite.

As for 4), if you practice the same preparatory disciplines that modern Roman Catholics practice and are otherwise similarly disposed by participation in the Liturgy, then go ahead. In fact, if you're a hard-core Anglo-catholic, it's more likely that you will be more rigorous in your discipline than many of your RC co-communicants. (Even if the absolutions granted in Anglican penance are regarded by official RC theology to be invalid, the efficacy of personal repentance and intention to amend one's life is not thereby denied.)

So, there: I have found the Achilles Heel of Roman Catholic theology. If you can squeeze your conscience into accepting the four criteria outlined above, even if you're not in immanent danger of death, you should feel free to receive communion in the Roman Catholic Church. After all, we're all in danger of death, insofar as we shall all die.

Might as well stock up on the viaticum any way you can between now and then.

Here ends my casuistry.

Q.E.D.

Mutual Subjection & Basic Commitment

Philip Turner (Full Disclosure: who was my dean when I was a student at Berkeley Divinity School at Yale) has written a commentary on the St. Andrew’s draft of the proposed covenant entitled A Self-Defining Moment for the Anglican Communion, which describes the ecclesiology that underpins the Windsor Report (WR) as "conciliar ecclesiology." As he writes in Section V of his commentary:

[T]he Saint Andrew’s Draft should not be evaluated or amended apart from careful linkage both to its “Introduction” and appended “Commentary” The “Introduction” (like WR) roots the enterprise of drawing up a covenant firmly in the soil of a particular form of conciliar ecclesiology. This form of ecclesiology joins unity and truth as essential and inseparable elements of the life of the church. It joins them also as necessary forms of witness to and participation in the life of God. The calling of the church is to unity and truth, and apart from them the church cannot make in an adequate fashion the witness to the world it is called upon to make. Further, the “Introduction” makes clear (#3) that “the manifold wisdom of God” that calls for the unity of all things in Christ is manifest concretely in the “faithfulness, honesty, gentleness, humility, patience, forgiveness, and love…” that God wills take form in the common life of the church. In similar manner (again like WR) the “Commentary” makes clear that the proposed covenant is intended to provide a structure that will serve this very purpose, namely, provision of a space in
which the peace, unity, and faithful witness of the church can be sustained and protected in the midst of the conflicts history inevitably engenders.

As outlined above, the main feature of this conciliar ecclesiology, in Turner's reading, is what he calls "mutual subjection" (a phrase he uses sixteen times in his commentary). It struck me that "mutual subjection" is not all that different from my notion of "basic commitment," except that it enshrines a particular form or method of commitment, "subjection," that is akin to the infamous Thesis 21 of Conflict Ecclesiology, namely:

21. The primary task of the Church in conflict is to discern that which is edifying to the Church, and to engage in that; likewise, the Church must discern what is unedifying to the Church, and however good or true such a thing may be in and of itself, must be refrained from unless (or until) it can become edifying to the Church.

This method, which I have called elsewhere the Windsor Method, is intended, as Turner writes above, to provide "a space in which the peace, unity, and faithful witness of the church can be sustained and protected in the midst of the conflicts history inevitably engenders." Indeed, as Turner writes in Section VI:

[T]he covenant ought to call specifically for mutual subjection that entails not taking such an action until such time as the larger body has recognized it as one in keeping with faithful Christian belief and practice.

And what's wrong with that?

Only this: that such a "space" increasingly seems to me to stack the deck in favor of conservatives and the status quo. It provides a "space" wherein to "test the spirits," as I John 4:1 commands, but the danger is that it does not provide enough "space" for the Spirit to work in, and thus breaks the command to "quench not the Spirit," as I Thessalonians 5:19 puts it.

The task of Conflict Ecclesiology has always been to provide a "space" wherein one can "test the spirits" while being careful to "quench not the Spirit." The first part of this delicate balancing act is made easier when there is forebearance, patience, and mutual subjection, as Turner commends. But it's getting that second part right that's the tricky part. My Thesis 21 and Turner's "mutual subjection" perhaps makes it easier to test the spirits, which is an essential feature of discernment in the common life of the Church, but unless we can figure out a way not to quench the Spirit at the same time, that discernment is unlikely to be fruitful.

The problem I keep running into, which Turner seems to recognize in the liberals' arguments, is that scandal is not necessarily unedifying to the Church if a scandal is aligned with that most central scandal of all: The Cross. Our job is to discern whether such scandals do indeed align with the scandal of the Cross, but we are blinded by our sin, stupidity, and lack of charity.

The Windsor Method is a step in the right direction on the "test the spirits" front, but I have not yet seen a method for not quenching the Spirit that works in conjunction with the Windsor Method.

Of course, I'm open to suggestions.

BASIC Training

When I was in college, I came in contact with a charismatic campus ministry called BASIC, which stood for "Brothers and Sisters in Christ." I was reminded of this clever acronym the other day while thinking about basic commitment and catechetical ecclesiology. I have it in mind to write a "Chatechism of the Church," and if I do, I will steal that acronymn and call it "BASIC Training." Among the chief questions it will answer are:

Who are my brothers and sisters in Christ?

What responsibilities do I have toward them?

What responsibilities do they have toward me?

If any of my brothers and sisters in Christ fail to live up to their responsibilities toward me or any other brother or sister, do they cease being brothers and sisters in Christ?

If I fail, do I cease being a brother or sister in Christ?

I thought I ought to jot this down now.

Postscript: A Radically Redacted Anglican Covenant

A Radically Redacted Anglican Covenant
Nathan J.A. Humphrey

[The original placement of text lifted from the St. Andrew's Draft may be found in brackets.]

(1.0) By our participation in Baptism and Eucharist, we are incorporated into the one Body of the Church of Jesus Christ, and called by Christ to pursue all things that make for peace and build up our common life. [3.1.1]

(2.0) Therefore, each church of the Communion commits itself: [1.2b and parallels]

(2.1) to live in a Communion of churches; [3.1.2]

(2.2) to seek in all things to uphold the solemn obligation to sustain Eucharistic communion as we strive under God for the fuller realisation of the Communion of all Christians; [1.2.3]

(2.3) to pursue a common pilgrimage with other churches of the Communion to discern the Truth. [1.2.6]

(2.4) to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. [See footnote below][3.2.3]

(2.5) to seek with other churches, through the Communion’s shared councils, the Mind of Christ in all things. [3.2.4]

(2.6) to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to maintain the highest possible degree of communion, which never admits of any compromise of the aforestated solemn commitments. [3.2.6]

[Footnote to 2.4.] Such prayer, 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. Any issues that may arise, therefore, must and will be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church. [3.2.3]

***

Such a radically redacted covenant may be supplemented by procedural appendices for how to put it into action. I would recommend that it take its place alongside the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral in a "Historical Documents" section of each province's BCP. I would further recommend that no person except by dispensation by the bishop for sufficient cause (such as mental defect) be allowed to be confirmed in the Anglican Communion without either memorizing both the Quadrilateral and the Covenant and/or passing a comprehensive catechetical examination on them, to be issued by the Anglican Consultative Council or some other Instrument of Communion so appointed. The Covenant should be an essential part of any catechesis on the nature and purpose of the Church.

The St. Andrew's Draft: An Executive Summary

What follows is a sort of "executive summary" of my several posts on the St. Andrew's Draft of an Anglican Covenant. It is not a complete outline or synopsis of the posts themselves, as the purpose of this summary is to outline the "action items" and other constructive suggestions I have made throughout the series. To read the whole series in order, click here and start from the bottom.

On the Introduction

The foundational assumptions of Communion Ecclesiology may be inadequate to the task of addressing challenges that face a church when in significant conflict. The Covenant Design Group should assess whether Communion Ecclesiology can actually do the job it has been called upon to do.

The Covenant should state explicitly that the edification of the Church equips the Church for carrying out its mission more effectively in the world.

The Covenant needs an explicit statement of regret for past and current acts of schism perpetrated by Anglican churches, including those acts that made the Church of England an entity separate from Roman jurisdiction. At the same time, it should make clear that the subjection of the present-day Anglican Communion to Roman jurisdiction would not “heal” the schism, as a mutual repentance on the part of Rome and Canterbury would be necessary, and should indicate a willingness to enter into mutual dialogue on the shape of this repentance with the Roman church.

The Covenant should avoid any language that papers over the Anglican Communion’s own complicity in the sin of schism. It should adopt a tone of humility that recognizes that the Covenant is addressed by schismatics to other schismatics, with the hope of serving the fuller visible communion of the whole Church.

The Covenant must thus maintain a “penitential” tone throughout and avoid any tendency to regard the churches in communion with Canterbury as somehow less schismatic than those that are not.

The following statement from paragraph 5 is central to the purpose of a Covenant:

[W]e recognise the importance of renewing our commitment to one another, and our common understanding of the faith as we have received it in a solemn way, so that the "bonds of affection" which hold us together may be affirmed. We do this in order to reflect in our relations with one another God’s own faithfulness in his promises towards us in Christ. (2 Cor 1.20-22)

Yet it is not clear how such a renewal can be effectively catechized or enforced by means of the Covenant itself.

We give ourselves as servants of a greater unity among the divided Christians of the world. May the Lord help us to "preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Cor. 4:5).

The words above from paragraph 6 articulate well and with humility what the "special charism" of Anglicanism from an ecumenical perspective might include. It also expresses that our life together needs to be oriented to mission, without which the Church cannot be what God in Christ calls her to be.

On Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith

For the purposes of a Covenant, 1.1.1 through 1.1.4 are rather axiomatic. 1.1.5, on common prayer, gets more to the heart of what holds the Anglican Communion together, and 1.1.6 gives a necessary "nod" to its ecumenical context. I am not convinced that any of section 1.1 is essential to the Covenant, though it begins the pattern of affirmations and commitments that follow. Doe the Covenant Design Group really want to weigh down the text of the Covenant with indisputed truisms, or is there some sense that these statements that appear axiomatic to the contemporary reader, may at some later date prove disputable? What is the real function of 1.1?

1.2.1 is such an amorphous statement that I wonder what it really accomplishes. It appears likely to me that one church could accuse another church of violating 1.2.1 for just about any reason. Does 1.2.1 do anything more than add fuel to the fire? How is it a constructive contribution to a Covenant?

Likewise, 1.2.2 begs the question of how any of these standards are determined or upheld. Since there is no structure within Anglicanism currently for determining with any authority what is "rooted in and answerable to the teaching of Holy Scripture..." or what constitutes "holiness," what function does 1.2.2 fulfill?

1.2.3 should be amended to read:

1.2.3 to seek in all things to uphold the solemn obligation to sustain Eucharistic communion as we strive under God for the fuller realisation of the Communion of all Christians.

1.2.3 should not mention "existing canonical disciplines" because this is far too vague. Perhaps this notion could be explicated in the Commentary as a gloss on 1.2.3, but it should not by any means make it into the final text of the Covenant.

In fact, I might suggest that the Covenant Design Group's remit is entirely fulfilled by 1.2.3 as amended. Is there any other commitment that is required in these times? Is not sustaining Eucharistic communion under all circumstances ("in all things") the entire point of having a Covenant? The Group should consider whether a minimalist text (shorter perhaps than the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) might suffice for an Anglican Covenant, with 1.2.3 as the centerpiece.

The double-edged nature of the ambiguous statements found in 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 smack of a text politically cobbled together in order to address (if not satisfy) the anxieties of liberals and conservatives. I wonder whether they are necessary at all to a Covenant.

1.2.6 gets at the heart of the purpose of a Covenant in commiting the churches to "pursue a common pilgrimage with other Churches of the Communion to discern the Truth."

On Section Two: The Life We Share with Others

The affirmations of 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 are unnecessary to the central purpose of a Covenant.

If 2.1.3 is to be retained, the phrase "all the saints" in the last line should be replaced by an ecclesiologically less ambiguous phrase such as "all the baptised" or a more fully ambiguous prase such as "all Christians."

On its own, section 2.2 is either woefully underdeveloped or redundant, though it does put some flesh on the commitments in section 1.2. In A Radically Redacted Anglican Covenant (see Appendix at the end of this post), section 2.2 might better serve as a footnote or part of a commentary or study guide.

On Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life

Section 3.1.1 and the first clause of 3.1.2 are central to the purpose of an Anglican Covenant.

The Draft gets into hot water when it begins to employ the phrase "a common mind" as a goal of conflict resolution, and detracts from the purpose of an Anglican Covenant during those times in which "a common mind" eludes the Communion. While a Covenant might be seen as creating the conditions under which "a common mind" might be sought, putting this forward as an explicit goal may be setting the Communion up for failure. For if the Communion is unable to come to "a common mind" even under the guidance of a Covenant, the value of the Covenant itself may be called into question. If, however, the purpose of the Covenant is to reinforce mutual commitment whether or not the Communion has "a common mind," then referring to this goal may be counterproductive, laudable as the goal is in and of itself.

If the goal of the Instruments of Communion is a catechetical and missional one: to teach and equip us for living together as we proclaim the Gospel, even in the midst of our disagreements about the very content of the Gospel and how that Gospel is to be lived out (i.e., our conflicts over faith and morals), then the Covenant is indeed a worthwhile project. I would go so far as to say that it is essential to the practice of being the Church.

A more theologically and ecclesiologically adequate description of the goal of the Instruments of Communion, therefore, is that they are to equip the churches to maintain communion even in the midst of conflict.

As the current crisis in the Anglican Communion demonstrates, bishops are not, contrary to the bald assertion in 3.1.3 "a visible sign of unity." It would be nice were they visible signs of unity, but bishops historically have been catalysts of and lightning rods for conflict, whether they initiated the conflict or not. The Covenant should reflect a thoroughly unsentimental, realistic, and historically-based view of the episcopate as it has been experienced in the fragmented churches.

The language of "the common good" in 3.2.1 is vague and possibly misplaced. An appeal to "the common good" is unlikely to forestall or resolve any conflict, and thus has no purpose in an Anglican Covenant.

An Anglican Covenant would be unnecessary if the balancing act called for in 3.2.2 could be fulfilled by a simple commitment. It thus has no purpose in an Anglican Covenant.

3.2.3 is at the heart of the purpose for an Anglican Covenant:

to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. Such prayer, 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.

3.2.3 should not only be retained in its entirety, but its implications should be drawn out in greater detail, either in the text of the Covenant itself or in a commentary or study guide.

I am concerned that elsewhere in the text of the draft, it is possible to detect what might best be termed "escape clauses." A covenant with escape clauses, however, is not a covenant. Further, a covenant with escape clauses can never prevent schism or protect against schism.

No matter how many covenants we have, there will always be people who are unwilling or unable to live into the essential feature of shared discernment that is necessary if the Church is to avoid schism. That is, schism is always avoidable in theory, but in practice it is inevitable. One cannot compel someone to stay in relationship. The best one can hope for, then, is to become healthy enough so that one doed not become unwilling or unable to live into this "essential feature." The responsibility is each individual's personally to model how to be in communion when the Church in conflict. The best thing a covenant can do is make explicit what this responsibility entails and outline how this responsibility might be put into action. Such a function is primarily catechetical.

The one thing a covenant can never do is enforce responsibility. It is unlikely to serve as an effective tool for church discipline. Discipline only works when people first recognize that they have a responsibility to commitment. But if people absolve themselves of this responsibility, there is no discipline in the world that can prevent schism.

Thus, I find 3.2.4's commitment to seek "a common mind" deeply problematic for the reasons outlined at the beginning of this section of the executive summary. Further, the introduction of the idea that "a common mind" should be sought "about matters understood to be of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches" poses several problems.

Since "essential" gets us into a potentially fruitless debate over what is and is not "adiaphora," it would be better simply to say that the aim of the shared discernment of the Anglican Communion is to seek together with other churches the Mind of Christ on matters of concern that arise in its common life.

The term "consistent" opens an entirely different can of worms. It begs the question of whether it is possible to be "consistent" in the first place when it comes to reconciling various interpretations of "the Scriptures, common (!) standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches." The language here obscures rather than clarifies the main thrust of the concern, which is that whatever we are to do, we are to do it together.

If 3.2.4 is to be retained in the next draft, it might better be re-written as "to seek with other Churches, through the Communion’s shared councils, the Mind of Christ in all things." In this regard, canon law might be more of a hidrance in attaining the Mind of Christ than it is a help. At the very least, this does not appear to me to be the proper place to mention canon law.

3.2.5 places the burden squarely on those who challenge the status quo, whcih is almost by definition a "threat" to "the unity of the Communion." (The only thing that doesn't make change automatically a threat to unity is that it must be judged "in the view" of some group to be so; thus, nothing is a threat until there's been a reaction against it.) Further, "effectiveness" and "credibility" are very difficult criteria by which to measure the impact of any "threat" to unity.

This section has a defensive, reactionary tone that is in danger of undercutting the eariler emphasis on "common discernment" as "an essential feature of the Church." The overall tone is one of suspicion rather than hope, of fear rather than confidence. It is almost as if 3.2.5 is recommending that we become slaves of other peoples' prejudices rather than seek out freedom in common discernment. Compared to other parts of the St. Andrew's Draft, this part of 3.2.5 is entirely too cowardly.

As for 3.2.5.a through 3.2.5.e, there is nothing remarkable about the processes in a-d; this commitment merely enshrines business as usual. But 3.2.5.e introduces something entirely new, in that if, at the end of the rather lengthy processes laid out in the appendix, there is no satisfactory resolution, it contemplates the "relinquishment...of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose," at least until an offending Church should "re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches."

This leads me to wonder what exactly is "the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose." It would appear that 3.2.6 provides the answer: "to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to seek the highest possible degree of communion." But this very "purpose" begs the question of what exactly is the highest possible degree of communion in any given circumstance. If the covenant itself assumes that "degrees of communion" is a theologically adequate concept, it appears to me that the "force and meaning of the covenant's purpose" is to define, as clearly as possible, what the responsibilities of communion entail.

3.2.6 should therefore not be about "seeking" but about "maintaining," and should make clear that the proper maintenance of communion is accomplished through following, with God's help, the commitments enumerated in the covenant itself.

On the Commentary and the Appendix

My commentary on these is itself an executive summary of sorts and needs no further distillation.

A Brief Commentary on the Commentary and Appendix of the St. Andrew's Draft

What follows are a few notes on the Commentary and the Appendix of the St. Andrew's Draft for an Anglican Covenant. I will not go over it point by point, as the Draft itself has been my main focus. Nevertheless, a few observations are in order.

THE COMMENTARY

The Commentary on the St. Andrew's Draft begins by noting the lack of formal responses to the Nassau Draft and addressing the usefulness of the term "covenant." The Group responds that

At a time of fragmentation, a covenant is a basis for mutual trust and reduced anxiety. Habits of civility and mutuality of respect have taken us a long way in the past. We are now in a place where our structures must provide a framework for the context of our belief.

The Group then addresses the question of what (positive) difference a covenant will make, and why the [Chicago-]Lambeth Quadrilateral isn't a sufficient basis for Anglican unity. Their answer, essentially, is that it will provide "sufficient accountability." In their opinion, the [Chicago-]Lambeth Quadrilateral can't do this.


The Covenant is to have a missionary element and "a way of life 'in communion' that is faithful to the form of our Gospel vocation." It is also to reflect an ecumenical concern, without being too rigid in adopting any one ecclesiological model.

The Group believed that "the signatories needed to affirm their own self-understanding, and not their view of other churches, and therefore the covenant itself must be limited to simple affirmation." I think this is a very healthy way of approaching the task, as defining others is always more contentious than affirming one's own identity.

The Group also expresses the univeral-local relationship of the Church thusly:

The unity of the universal Church is the communion in faith, truth, love and common sacramental life of the several local churches. The catholic Church exists in each local church; and each local church is identified with the whole, expresses the whole and cannot exist apart from the whole.

The Group notes that all four elements of the Lambeth Quadrilateral are now in the opening section (1.1.4) as well as each of the four Instruments of Communion. (I might add here that one of the speakers at the conference I attended at the Tutu Center, An Anglican Covenant: Divisive or Reconciling? noted tongue-in-cheek that the only Instrument of Communion that doesn't explicitly exist for the sake of mission in the text of the draft covenant is the Archbishop of Canterbury!)

The importance of Common Prayer as one of the defining characteristics of Anglicanism and of our common bonds in 1.1.5 has been added, a glaring omission from the Nassau Draft.

The Group re-states the principle that "there is an obligation to work to sustain Eucharistic communion even where there is conscientious objection." The fact that this principle is not the centerpiece of the Covenant remains a weakness in my opinion.

The Group also states that "The central role of bishops as a visible sign of unity was recognised in The Windsor Report (para. 64) where it was stated that, 'Bishops represent the local to the universal and the universal to the local.'" I have already noted how unrealistic it is to view bishops as "visible signs of unity," so I will simply pass this by without further comment.

The Draft does not "canonize" the four Instruments of Communion and allows for their development and for the existence of other informal instruments and links. I think this is an important point that might well be incorporated into the covenant text itself.

The Group notes with characteristic understatement that Section 3.2. "was the most contentious section." And they claim that there was

...no intention to erect a centralised jurisdiction...the Instruments of Communion cannot dictate with juridical force on the internal affairs of any Province. However, since Communion is founded on the mutual recognition that each Church sees in the other of our Communion in Christ, we recognize that it cannot be sustained in extreme circumstances where a Church of Province were to act in a way which rejects the interdependence of the Communion's life.

Indeed.


The Group then notes that the Appendix is "provisional" and designed to facilitate "common discernment and reconciliation." Whether it does so, however, will be addressed in the next section on the Appendix itself.

Finally, "The commitments close with the renewal of the commitment to seek to live into the fullness of Communion into which we are called by our Lord." Again, I believe this ought to be the central thrust of the Covenant itself.

THE APPENDIX

It's always nice when someone does my work for me, and in this case I'm happy that I waited long enough to see David of Ayia Iluvatar put this flow chart out there.

As I read the chart, there is no follow-up in the Appendix to a three year mediation (7.2) of an issue between two churches that the Archbishop of Canterbury initially judges to be "No Threat" (3.4.d). This is a serious oversight, as it neglects the fact that even if the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks something is "No Threat" to the Communion, failed Mediation might result in an escalated conflict that was a threat! As the Appendix (and chart) stand now, it's assumed that after three years, things will have resolved themselves.

I think the Appendix should be amended along these lines, so that the chart would look like this (a Version 1.1, so to speak):

Add three arrows and two boxes after "Parties appoint mediator 3 years" (7.2) at the bottom righthand corner. The first arrow would point to a box labeled "Mediation Successful," and then the arrow would go from there to "Stop." The second arrow would point to a second box labeled "Mediation Unsuccessful," and the third arrow would point from that box to the top box on the chart (2.1)--in other words, return to "Start." The process would then repeat until it ends up in either 8.3 (Rejection compatible with covenant) or 8.4 (Rejection incompatible with covenant), with their attendant consequences.

As I read the Appendix itself (follow along with the flow chart in order for this to make any sense), there is no provision for an aggrieved Church (Y) to withdraw from the Covenant over disagreement with an Instrument's positive judgment regarding the compatibility of Church (X) with the Covenant! That is, if (Y) doesn't like the fact that the ACC moved (X) along to 8.3, can (Y) simply "voluntarily relinquish the covenant," as (X) has the option of doing under 8.4.a? Further, if (Y) doesn't stop making trouble for (X) after 8.3 has been determined, can the ACC declare (Y) to have relinquished the Covenant?! This, too, is a serious oversight on the part of the drafters of the Appendix, and would have to be addressed in a Ver 2.0, since the chart merely reflects what the Appendix itself states.

David points out that "As far as the provision for an aggrieved church leaving, I think it's implicit that at any time a province may decide as a body to 'voluntarily relinquish the covenant.' (Therefore begging the question as to whether this is really a covenant in Biblical terms) That provision for X at the end of the chart is kind of like the custom of providing a military officer with a loaded pistol before their execution. It's a way to 'save face.'"

To which I replied that David's "image of the officer and the gun is rather like saying that the best way to 'save face' is to blow it off, isn't it? Not exactly my preferred course for the Anglican Communion, which is why I share your concern that the proposed process as outlined in the Appendix might indeed betray the theology of 'covenant' itself.

Hence, while the Appendix does a good job of trying to set forth standard operating procedures during periods of more intense conflict, I am suspect it detracts from the intended purpose of the Covenant itself.

In my final post on this topic, I hope to outline an "executive summary" of actions I think the Design Group might take to improve the proposed covenant.

Commitment and Communion: A Response to Monologistos

Over at Stand Firm, an interlocutor named "monologistos" has made a substantive comment on something I wrote there. You may read the entire thread here, my comment here, and monologistos' reply in full here.

Herewith, my response:

Unity is relational at its core; it is ontologically rooted in the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, and since the Word is the Second Person of the Trinity, unity through baptism into Christ joins us to the Father and the Holy Spirit in their divine love-life (perichoresis). Theology, such as the stuff I just trotted out above, functions to serve communion. When theology ceases to serve communion, it ceases to be good theology. There is no good theology that would allow for schism, and just because one's opponents may have repugnant theology (whether in the practice of faith or morals or both), this does not absolve theology's primary task of serving communion.

I apologize for not being clear about the underpinnings of my principle of mutual (or "basic") commitment--which you can read up on (if the Spirit moves you) here. Mutual commitment is to Jesus through a recognition that we each have been validly baptized into Christ's death and resurrection and thereby incorporated into the Church which is his Body.

The baptized may gravely err, and one cannot presume that the Just Judge at the eschaton will excuse all of our sins (this would be hubris), but as long as we exist in the Pilgrim Church, our unity is an ontological-relational unity whose good theology serves communion and whose bad/defective theology cannot break it.

I hope in what I've just written to put you at ease about any confusion between Christian and Jewish identity you may have detected in the ambiguities of my writing. Such was not my intent.

I do not view the Eucharist as either the ends or the means to unity, but simply as the offering of Christ's Self to the Church, to which we have access by baptism. As we continue in lifelong catechesis, our particpation in the mystery of the Eucharist deepens, though we never fully "know" it. I am in favor of open intercommunion amongst all those who have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as a means to unity but because no schismatic church has custody of the Eucharist. And in conflict ecclesiology, every church is schismatic. (As you can read here.)

Worship indeed is our highest form of catechesis but Christians are to worship what they know. Worship is our Christian response, a form of theology, to God’s self revelation.

I agree entirely, though I also always try in my theology to leave room for the apophatic--that is, the notion that we cannot "know" everything about the God whom we worship. As Jesus tells the woman at the well (John 4:22-24), "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Still, this "knowing" is not an absolute/rational knowing, but a transrational participation in the Truth that is God. (Following Alexander Schmemann's reasoning in For the Life of the World.)

God is certainly capable of acting outside the Church but that He does cannot mean everything and everywhere is Church else ‘Church’ cease to mean ‘Body of Christ’. I understand some make this move claiming all Creation is the same as Christ’s Body ... they are pantheists.

I agree wholeheartedly that Church is Church and cannot be conflated or understood as coterminous with Creation, and would add that the Kingdom is the Kingdom, in which the Church participates, but the Kingdom is the eschatological hope and reality of what the New Creation will be when God is "all in all." We certainly aren't there, nor can any of our efforts make it so! Thank you for this clarification.

Intention matters. We must mean what the Church means else we do not participate in the Church’s sacraments. Sure, if we have not reached the age of reason or we ar past it, we are capable by virtue of family of particating in sacramental reality.

Yes, indeed, intention matters, and if we do not intend to mean what the Church means, we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves, which will be given at the Eschaton. Yet I also believe that no one has perfect intention, which is why your third sentence is so crucial to an orthodox ecclesiology: the family of the church itself enables true sacramental participation even for those with some defect of intent, otherwise none of us would be capable of receiving the grace mediated to us in the sacraments.

But belief is a form of behavior. Behavior matters. There is much more involved in Christian baptism than water and a basic idea of washing away spiritual dirt. Christian baptism is a sacrament. Through it, we participate in the Baptism of Jesus, in his death and resurrection. It is this one Baptism, not simply John’s baptism but John’s baptism of Jesus that is the one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. This is what the Church means. Within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, it may be sufficient to talk about baptism and confession of Jesus but that is within realized unity.

I agree with the overall tenor of this statement. I think where we differ is that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC) is a "realized unity." My foundational claim is that schism cannot break the ontological unity of the OHCAC. When we insist that we cannot share communion until we have "realized unity" in the Pilgrim Church(es), this can tend to a sort of Pelagianism that denies that the grace of God is operative in effecting unity and communion between particular Christians and communities even when Christians as a whole persist in the sin of schism. Were it impossible to live into communion, "realized unity" of any kind would be an impossibility. So it is neither an ends nor a means, but a participation in something that already exists apart from our paltry efforts.

Finally, you sum up your position nicely when you write:

Unity with God is exclusive. We cannot have unity with God and with Mammon. Therefore, I would assert the opposite claim: schism is a reality, yes, but unity with Christ requires separation from heresy. IMHO, those who chose unity with TEC diminish their unity with Christ because within the communion of TEC are bishops who are heretics and atheists ... and some persons whom Scripture warns us will not inherit the Kingdom unless they repent. It does no one a service to give false assurance while people are working on excluding themselves from salvation and Life Eternal.

Evangelical persistence in a mixed field does not "give false assurance" if one is clear about one's proclamation of the truth as one understands it in Christ, offered in humility and love. It does no one a service to separate from heretics because such separation is ontologically impossible--you would have to separate yourself from yourself, because not only is the Church a mixed field of wheat and weeds, but each of us individually is a mixed field. This is why ongoing personal repentance and amendment of life are necessary for every Christian. I agree that we cannot have unity with "God and Mammon," but I don't see how you can equate TEC with Mammon. If by "Mammon" I correctly understand you to mean idolaters, all sin is idolatry, and we are all idolaters in the process of redemption by God's gracious loving initiative in Christ. I cannot accept that "Unity with God is exclusive," except in an eschatological sense, when the Judge of All may exercise the prerogative to respect people in their stubborn refusal to acknowledge him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, because the very purpose of the Incarnation was to draw all humanity to God's self in Christ (as John proclaims). That some of humanity may eternally reject this embrace is an eschatological probability, and there is some warrant to believe that this has been predicted in many places in Scripture (hence I am no universalist). But unity in Christ is derived not through the isolation of the "pure" orthodox from the "impure" heretics, but through participation in God's own "pure" life. (As my theses make explicit.)

We cannot diminish our unity with Christ through association with the "unpure" because nothing can separate us from the love of Christ (as these "prooftexts" so eloquently put it)--not even my or other peoples' heresies or schismatic tendencies. Absolute separation (schism) is a self-justifying reaction that has no warrant in Scripture, although temporary separation within the one differentiated Body for the purpose of discipline does. Schism is an anxious response to a temporary dilemma. Discipline, love, perseverance, these build up the Church and serve communion.

As for your last note on eschatology, I think I already clarified that the Church is not the same as Creation. My problem with your thesis that unity with Christ requires separation from heresy is that it usurps the eschatological prerogative of judgment that is Christ's alone, ignoring as it does that we are all heretical even when we don't want to be, and we are all schismatics. Of course, I am not trying to excuse my own heresy and schism--Conflict Ecclesiology includes a call to repentance as a part of the catechesis of mutual commitment to Christ--but just because I'm a repentant heretic and schismatic does not give me the right to pass judgment on the unrepentant heretics and schismatics. Were I to do so, I would be following the example of the Pharisee who prays, "God, I thank you that I am not...like this tax collector" (Luke 18:9-14), and not our Saviour, who prays, "Father, forgive them..." (Luke 23:34). (Besides which, the Pharisee of the parable assumes that the Tax Collector is "unrepentant," while the secret prayer of the Tax Collector proves otherwise. Hence it is rarely "safe" to judge who is "unrepentant," and thank God, that is rarely in our job description.)

Many thanks for an engaging dialogue.

The Diner and the Dinner

I was particularly struck by this succinct comment by DaveG at Stand Firm:

I am a Christian, my siblings are not. I love them. I pray for them. I enjoy their company. We have great times together. But what I don't do is worship with them. I won't ignore God nor agree that He be remade in my siblings' image. When it comes to matters of faith, we go separate ways. I won't stop caring for and about them but we do not share a common faith. I feel the same about the folks who choose to follow the path set before them by TEC's leadership. I love you and I pray for you but we cannot worship together. We do not share a common faith. I will meet you at the diner for a sandwich but not at the altar for the Lord's Supper.

The analogy is arresting because what DaveG seems to be saying is that "the folks who choose to follow the path set before them by TEC's leadership" aren't Christians, just as his siblings are not. (In all of this, I have to assume that DaveG means that his siblings are avowed athiests, agnostics, or practicioners of another religion or religions. If he means that his siblings are Roman Catholics or Missouri Synod Lutherans or Baptists while he is an orthodox Anglican, then the analogy doesn't hold; even if they aren't good Christians, if they are baptized and have not renounced the Christian faith in toto, they are still Christians.)

Now I am more than familiar with the argument, made by Peter Toon and others, that The Episcopal Church's doctrine as espoused by some of its top leadership constitutes a different religion, perhaps ecclesiologically best analogous to Mormonism in many peoples' minds. As a committed practicioner of the Nicene faith within the Anglican Way, however, I cannot recognize that an entire church is no longer Christian because of the teaching and actions of even a majority of its leaders and people. A Christian Church is a Christian Church by virtue of its baptismal life in Christ, not by virtue of the doctrinal or moral purity of its members. To insist otherwise is simply Donatism.

Donatism broadly speaking is the tendency to "unchurch" people because of their association with people who are impure or contaminated. Both liberals and conservatives "unchurch" each other in this way, though conservatives tend to be a bit more straightforward and self-conscious about it in my experience.

In my reading of DaveG's comment, his analogy doesn't hold with regard to even the most arch-heretical Episcopalian. For a heretic is still a Christian. The difference between a heretic and an apostate is that the apostate has disavowed Christian identity altogether, while a heretic insists that his or her understanding of Christian faith is legitimate. You cannot have non-Christian heretics, however, because if they weren't Christians, they wouldn't really pose any ecclesiological problem.

So the real question is: Is it permissible to worship with those whose views of God one regards as heretical? DaveG apparently believes it is not, because to do so would be to "agree that [God] be remade in my siblings' image." But Common Prayer assumes no such thing. The beauty of Common Prayer is that as long as the forms are agreeable (that is, regarded as orthodox by those who insist that they are orthodox), it doesn't matter what the other person understands to be the truth about God or whether that other person crosses his or her fingers during certain parts of the Creed (well, maybe the filioque...), because even the willfull denial of certain tenets of Common Prayer doesn't change the nature of God. God cannot be remade in anyone's image--including the image of those who consider themselves orthodox!

Within the context of Common Prayer, heterodox or downright heretical or immoral preaching is also irrelevant to the common reception of the Sacraments, because the recitation of the Creed cancels out any error in the proclamation of the preacher (a fact I am grateful for every time I mount the pulpit, error prone as I clearly am), and the morality of the minister of the Sacrament does not affect its validity or potential efficacy (a fact I am grateful for every time I face the altar, prone to sin as I am).

The orthodox have no need to prevent the heterodox from communion if the heterodox are determined to avail themselves of the Sacrament. The only thing necessary is godly admonition not to "eat and drink judgment" upon one's self--an admonition the orthodox themselves must keep in mind if they are to "judge not" lest they be judged.

The orthodox have no need to fear that Common Prayer, including intercommunion, with the heterodox will lead to contamination, for purity of doctrine and of the moral life is a gift of grace. Jesus' own purity is derived not through isolation from the impure but through communion with God. So, too, the orthodox derive their purity through the act of Sacramental communion, whether this is in the presence of the heterodox or not.

The orthodox do have reason to be concerned that erroneous teaching and immoral practices not be taught to their children and that weaker brothers and sisters not be led astray, but this is countered through right teaching and godly example, not through isolation from the impure. Sin and wickedness and evil are common to both the orthodox and the heterodox, so "contamination" has already happened. Repentance and amendment of life can be pursued even in a mixed field of wheat and weeds, because each one of us individually is such a field.

Thus, I am happy to meet any baptized person at the diner for a sandwich and at the altar for the Lord's Supper, for even if a baptized brother or sister has chosen to follow a path that is not orthodox, the best way to get them back on the right path is by associating with them, just as Christ was made flesh so that he could associate with us.

In short, love casts out all fear and empowers us to self-differentiate while drawing near to the misguided and the lost, trusting all the while that we, too, are misguided and lost about something, otherwise a chariot of fire would have taken me away by now.

Post Four on Section Three of The St. Andrew's Draft of An Anglican Covenant: Our Unity and Common Life

Finally, we get to the commitment that most directly addresses the conditions under which this draft has been written, though it can hardly be described as "direct" in the fullest sense of that term. The churches commit:

(3.2.5) to act with diligence, care and caution in respect to actions, either proposed or enacted, at a provincial or local level, which, in its own view or the expressed view of
any Province or in the view of any one of the Instruments of Communion, are deemed to threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission...

This commitment continues with an outline of "principles and procedural elements," which with the exeption of the last one are rather unremarkable. But before I proceed to these procedural elements, I would like to pause and consider the emotional impact of the above few lines.

The operative words are "diligence, care and caution;" "threaten;" and "effectiveness or credibility."
The first clause places the burden squarely on those who challenge the status quo. There is a palpable fear that upsetting the status quo is very dangerous. In fact, upsetting the status quo is almost by definition a "threat" to "the unity of the Communion." (The only thing that doesn't make change automatically a threat is that it must be judged "in the view" of some group to be so; thus, nothing is a threat until there's been a reaction against it.)

I am not convinced that approaching change in this manner is going to be very profitable. There's a defensive, reactionary tone here that does not ring true; it seems to me to undercut the eariler emphasis on "common discernment" as "an essential feature of the Church."

Secondly, anything can "threaten the unity of the Communion" if someone wants to make an issue of it, and "effectiveness or credibility" are very difficult criteria by which to measure the impact of anything. (As a proponent of "edification," I recognize that I haven't exactly proposed an easy measure, either.)

I'm left feeling that this commitment has started off on the wrong foot, one of suspicion rather than hope, of fear rather than confidence. It is almost as if we are willing to become slaves of other peoples' prejudices rather than to seek out freedom in common discernment. Compared to other parts of the St. Andrew's Draft, this section is entirely too cowardly.

In any event, 3.2.5. continues:

...and to consent to the following principles and procedural elements:

(3.2.5.a) to undertake wide consultation with the other churches of the Anglican Communion and with the Instruments and Commissions of the Communion;

(3.2.5.b) to accept the legitimacy of processes for communion-wide evaluation which any of the Instruments of Communion may commission, according to such procedures as are appended to this covenant;

(3.2.5.c) to be ready to participate in mediated conversation between parties, which may be in conflict, according to such procedures as are appended to this covenant;

(3.2.5.d) to be willing to receive from the Instruments of Communion a request to adopt a particular course of action in respect of the matter under dispute. While the Instruments of Communion have no legislative, executive or judicial authority in our Provinces, except where provided in their own laws, 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.

In other words, those who enter into this covenant consent to play by the usual rules of fair play that is the Anglican Communion's default mode in conflict: commissions, reports, dialogue, and the like. A commitment to such ground rules in and of itself would be a more-or-less good thing: it would reinforce that the way we live out our commitment to each other is by putting up with the seemingly endless processing that Anglicans do.

But then we get this:

(3.2.5.e) Any such request would not be binding on a Church unless recognised
as such by that Church. However, commitment to this covenant entails an acknowledgement that in the most extreme circumstances, where a Church chooses not to adopt the request of the Instruments of Communion, that decision may be understood by the Church itself, or by the resolution of the Instruments of Communion, as a relinquishment by that Church of the force and meaning of the covenant’s purpose, until they re-establish their covenant relationship with other member Churches.

So, this leaves us with the question: What exactly is "the force and meaning of the covenant's purpose?" Perhaps this is the answer:

(3.2.6) to have in mind that our bonds of affection and the love of Christ compel us always to seek the highest possible degree of communion.

My question is: Is this good enough? I shall end this post where I began my blog, Communion in Conflict, the day after my thirty-third birthday, when I wrote:

What does it mean to have "communion in conflict?" Simply this: the highest degree of communion possible in times of conflict is full communion. In fact, nothing less will do. Nothing less is Christian. Nothing less reflects the catholic and evangelical heart of the
Gospel.

The basic premise of conflict ecclesiology is that in times of conflict, our commitment to relationship with each other in the community of the church must remain steadfast--if not increase--in order for the discernment of God's will to be facilitated most effectively. The erosion of commitment to relationship with each other in the community of the church vitiates our ability to discern God's will, without which a conflict can only devolve into schism.

Just as a married couple can best sort out any differences they might have if they are equally committed to and convinced of the commitment of the other to the relationship, so too commitment and confidence in the other's basic commitment to relationship is indispensible. Commitment cannot be conditional on agreement; one must first be committed, and then common discernment can follow. Without that basic commitment, mistrust, suspicion, ill-will, and division inevitably follow.

The basic grounding of our commitment to each other is not confidence in either our own or the other's rightness, but in our confidence that God is best heard in relationship with each other. Communion is the precondition for the discernment of God's will in conflict, not the end-goal. Thus, communion in conflict is not about conflict resolution so much as it is about how the church continues to be the church even in the midst of conflict.

It bears repeating, I think.

I plan two more posts on this topic: a brief commentary on the Commentary and Appendix that are found at the end of the St. Andrew's Draft, and a post that gives an "executive summary" of my recommendations regarding the future shape of the covenant.

Post Three on Section Three of The St. Andrew's Draft of An Anglican Covenant: Our Unity and Common Life

The St. Andrew's Draft's third section, "Our Unity and Common Life" continues with this commitment by the churches:

(3.2.3) to spend time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection to listen, pray and study with one another in order to discern the will of God. Such prayer, 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.

Would that the full implications of this commitment were spelled out! The way of being the Church in conflict described here is aptly termed "essential." At the same time, this "essence" is counterfactual: which church on earth does this? The framers of this draft Covenant have put their collective finger on the one thing that true communion consists of: being together across time and space, "always and everywhere," as some of our Eucharistic prayers put it. And yet, the Church historically has been unable to live into this essential feature of "shared discernment." The history of schism is the history of the churches failing to be the Church.

The antidote for schism is both simple and impossible: commit unconditionally to each other, just as God is unconditionally committed to us. This is, of course, impossible without the grace of God. But I tend to believe that this grace is always available to us, and that it is our failure to cooperate with this grace that leads us astray.

Our failure to cooperate with the grace of mutual commitment is grounded in our tendency to condition our commitments. Perhaps it is simply impossible for sinful human beings to abide in Christ's unconditional love. Perhaps it is inevitable that most, if not all, of us, have at least unconscious conditions that we place on our commitment to the Church. I call these conditions "escape clauses."

Were this draft simply to say that "shared discernment" as sketched out in 3.2.3. is to be the primary feature of ecclesial life together, then much of the rest of the Covenant might be unnecessary. As it now stands, however, I think I detect "escape clauses" being built in to the very Covenant that is intended to protect the Anglican Communion from schism.

Let me put this as bluntly as possible: A covenant with escape clauses is not a covenant. Further, a covenant with escape clauses can never prevent schism or protect against schism.

The sad fact, I believe, is that no matter how many covenants we have, there will always be people who are unwilling or unable to live into the essential feature of shared discernment that is necessary if the Church is to avoid schism. That is, schism is always avoidable in theory, but in practice it is inevitable. This is because one cannot compel someone to stay in relationship. The best one can hope for, then, is to become healthy enough so that you do not become unwilling or unable to live into this "essential feature." The responsibility is mine personally to model how to be in communion when the Church in conflict. The best thing a covenant can do is make explicit what this responsibility entails and outline how this responsibility might be put into action. Such a function is primarily catechetical.

The one thing a covenant can never do is enforce responsibility. So while I have great respect for my elders who are looking at the covenant as an instrument for church discipline, the prospects for successful church discipline are grim. Discipline only works when people first recognize that they have a responsibility to commitment. But if people absolve themselves of this responsibility, there is no discipline in the world that can prevent schism.

Thus, I find the following commitment deeply problematic:

(3.2.4) to seek with other Churches, through the Communion’s shared councils, a common mind about matters understood to be of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures, common standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches.

I have written elsewhere of my objections to thinking that "a common mind" is any sort of attainable goal--though let me be clear that I have no objection to pursuing a common mind, understood as the Mind of Christ, as a part of shared discernment. (That is, "a common mind" is an eschatological hope, attainable by grace, but not locatable or measurable in the present. It is a reality, but as elusive as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist--elusive in the sense that we cannot possess the Mind of Christ; we can only hope that the Mind of Christ will possess us.) But here, what concerns me are the words "essential" and "consistent."

The first word, "essential," opens the can of worms that is the debate over what is "adiapora" (Greek, "things indifferent") and what is "fundamental." "Understood to be of essential concern" is a nice fudge for "what we think is essential in the here and now," but as I've argued elsewhere, since anything can be either church-making or church-breaking, it would be better here simply to say that the aim of the shared discernment of the Anglican Communion is to seek together with other churches the Mind of Christ on matters of concern that arise in its common life.

That second word, "consistent," opens an entirely different can of worms. It begs the question of whether it is possible to be "consistent" in the first place when it comes to reconciling various interpretations of "the Scriptures, common (!) standards of faith, and the canon law of our churches." The language here obscures rather than clarifies the main thrust of the concern, which is that whatever we are to do, we are to do it together. I might re-write (3.2.4) as "to seek with other Churches, through the Communion’s shared councils, the Mind of Christ in all things." In this regard, canon law might be more of a hidrance in attaining the Mind of Christ than it is a help.

In my fourth (and final) post on Section Three, I will address the final two commitments of this section, which get at the heart of the sort of methodology that informs the entire Windsor process.