The Primates

When God makes changes He calls forth courageous leaders. The orthodox Primates of the Anglican Communion are such. Particularly we want to thank the Primates of the Global South for their un wavering faithfulness to Holy Scripture, without which the results of Dar es Salaam would have been totally different. That a group including two such opposed groups (revisionists and orthodox Anglicans) could function at all is nothing short of miraculous. The Primates of the Global South, we know, will continue their uncompromising leadership as we move forward.

The Primates Meeting: the Communique and Proposed Covenant:

The Communique

The Communique seeks to create an interim arrangement in which TEC and the orthodox within TEC can live together within the Anglican Communion until a Communion Covenant is adopted. We do not need to explore here all of the arrangements stated in the Communique concerning the Pastoral Council and the Primatial Vicar. If TEC does not honestly meet the intended requirements of the Communique by September 30 either by action of the House of Bishops or Special Convention, those arrangements will be moot.

In addition since the Anglican Communion Covenant must be to be strong enough to enable revisionist Provinces to self-select out, the adoption of a faithful Covenant would also render such arrangements moot.

What is the strength of the Communique? The chief strength is that it actually faced and began to attempt to deal with the sin and dysfunction in TEC. This is quite a departure from the denial and evasion which has so often characterized our international meetings and pronouncements. A typical case would be the subcommittee's report on TEC's response to the Windsor Report. The subcommittee's evaluation was shockingly inadequate. It is a matter for thanksgiving and praise that the authors of the Communique broke free from the grip of the control of the usual handlers of such statements.

Wherein is the Communique weak? I will mention only four important areas. First, for whatever reason, the really terrible theological state of TEC is not really addressed. We have said time and time again that the key issue is not the obvious issue of human sexuality but rather TEC's unfaithfulness to Scripture and the apostolic Faith as Anglicans have understood it from the beginning. This failure to address the whole problem and the deeper issues is important, since the remedy must correct the actual condition.

The heart of the condition is that in TEC there are no theological limits or norms. Neither Scripture, nor Creed, nor 1979 BCP Catechism, nor the "Historical Section of the BCP" is treated as normative in TEC.

Take the place of Scripture for example: in the Righter Trial, the Court ruled that we could not appeal to the teachings of the Scripture but only to the Canons. This clearly renders the Scriptures silent and overtaxes the Canons. If the Scriptures are so treated one can imagine how the other authorities fare. "Each one does what is right in his own eyes". Only diocesan boundaries, assessments and the pension fund payments are treated with discipline. The state of the teaching in most of the Seminaries is well known and only feeds the sad state of things.
Frankly, for the Communique to ask orthodox congregations and individuals to remain in any form of fellowship with TEC or to hope for its reform is both naive and wrong.

Given the terrible state of TEC, one can only hope that TEC will not falsify it's response in September 30, just to keep its "prophetic" voice in the Communion. Honesty on the part of TEC may be too much to hope for. Here are the words of the Bishop Mark Sisk of New York, taken from an interview by the BBC, as he considers compliance with the Communique: "BBC : But they(same-sex blessings) are taking place in your church. Clearly what most of the Anglican Primates want you to do is stop such blessings. Do you think your church will be prepared to do that? +MS I do not believe that that is clearly what is being asked. The statements that were continually we being made were "Will you refrain from authorising?" We clearly decided at our last General Convention not to authorise such actions." In short, Bishop Sisk even though he has not authorized same–sex blessings, has not forbidden such blessings nor does he intend to stop those that are being done.

Second, the Communique did not address the fact that the state of affairs existing in TEC characterizes all of the Western Provinces of the Anglican Communion and also those Provinces of the Communion which the Western Provinces have corrupted. This wide-spread condition only makes the self-selecting role of the Covenant utterly crucial.

Third, the Communique does not face the fact that it is not appropriate for Primates who hold the Apostolic Faith and affirm the biblical teaching of Lambeth1:10 to sit down and seek to write common statements with those who hold revisionist views. That affords no real possibility of faithfulness to Scripture. If one can't take communion with such, how is one to write theology with the same? We have tried to do this far too long.

Fourth, the request by the Primates of TEC to drop legal action against orthodox congregations and visa versa is far too weak. It would have been much better had the primates established a binding mediation process for the Anglican Communion so that the Church could handle its own disputes and forbid legal action in the secular courts. No doubt this was too ambitious an undertaking to be done at a Primates Meeting but it should be done and made part of the Communion Covenant in its later stages.

The Proposed Covenant

With the Covenant we come to "Holy Ground". Much in the Proposed Covenant is quite good. No doubt people will have various suggestions for items to be tweaked or added, I mentioned one above. However there is one matter to be corrected that is absolutely crucial. If we do not get this right then the entire Covenant would not be worth the powder to blow it up. It is no good devising all sorts of ways to take council together unless at the heart of the matter there are: 1. clear standards that define what Anglicans believe in core matters and 2. a body to deal with any Province that departs from them by commission or widespread omission of discipline.

I refer to 2/5 in the Proposed Covenant, where the historic Formularies are referred to. We read that each member Churc h affirms "that it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formulae: the 39 Articles of Religion, the 1662 BCP and the ordering of Bishops, Priest and Deacons". The reference is in the past tense and in the indicative. The historic formulae are neither in the present tense nor given normative authority. This is clearly evasive and unsatisfactory. Such a citation falls short of the initial status of the Articles in the Church of England, and it falls short of their status in many Provinces of the Anglican Communion today. For many Provinces to sign on to this Covenant would be a step in the wrong direction. Unless one can show that the 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP and Ordinal are unbiblical, or have lost their relevance, which they have not, we have no good or responsible reason to reduce them to a former witness or to seek to provide some new formulation in their place. Needless to say, we dare not have a vacuum in their place. The state of TEC and the state of a fairly large number of Provinces are clear evidence of the consequences of having no clear norms.

I would propose the following statement based upon the language of Canon 5 of the Church of England as a proper statement of the historic formulae's place at the heart of the Anglican Communion Covenant: "Each member Church affirms that Anglican doctrine, departing in no essentials from the Faith and Practice of the whole Christian Church, is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, the Word of God, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Catholic Creeds, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal of 1662. These formularies affirm that the Church is under the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and state how Anglicans understand the Scriptures on central matters. Those who teach and preach in the Church are to do so in accord with the Scripture as interpreted by the formularies listed above."

I know that a few will raise objections to giving the historic formulae their due place, so let me address the two complaints one hears, especially concerning the Articles; 1. Some say we are a counciliar body and not a confessional body. That however is a false dichotomy for Anglicans have always been both at the same time. It is unavoidable. We make a number of clear theological statements that we confess in the covenant as presently written. Chief among them is that the Scriptures are our chief and supreme authority. No Church fails to confess its deepest convictions that it expects all its members to hold. All Anglican clergy confess at ordination that the Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary for Salvation. The question then is not whether but what to confess as the norm and basis from which to approach contemporary issues.

Anglicans historically have confessed the Scripture, Creeds, the theology found in the 39 Articles, the 1662 BCP and Ordinal, and have consulted and given counsel about their application through the Lambeth Conference and other settings. That combination of confession and consultation is biblically faithful and wise and it has worked well when it has been taken seriously and when discipline has been applied. The neglect of doing that has led us to our present sad and incoherent state within various Provinces and in the Anglican Communion as a whole.

2. The second objection is that the Articles are too restrictive for the Anglo-Catholic stream of our Communion. I would suggest that if that be felt to be true, then let us face that and make such adjustments to the subscription to the Articles as will allow Anglo-Catholics to engage in such liturgical actions as they and the local Bishop deem fit, so long as these actions are in agreement with the theological intent of the Articles and biblical principle. Perhaps this could be done by elucidations as is often done in ecumenical declarations. This should have been done in the 19th Century and is long overdue. Our previous failure to address this has led to the neglect of the Articles and a lack of theological discipline on the part of many.

One last point, who will hold the Provinces accountable to be faithful to the designated norms of theology? This must be clearly stated and a process for doing it set forth in the Covenant.

Our Part in the great work that God is doing

For the first time in history we stand at a point of becoming a unified, Global Anglican Communion. We have an opportunity and responsibility to do the right thing. We dare not be satisfied with anything less that a true, godly, and faithfully Anglican Covenant. Each of us and all of us together must refuse to sign or be part of any dodge or evasion in the Covenant. One senses, it is now or never. Let us all read carefully the proposed draft Covenant and make known our deepest convictions to our Bishops, the Primates and the draft Committee. And above all, let us restore the historic formulae to their true Anglican status. Then let the Provinces who will sign the Covenant. We will no doubt be smaller but we will be Christians and Anglicans and coherent.

This is an urgent matter. If we miss this opportunity it might well prove the end of the Anglican Communion. The realignment of the Anglican Communion must be done prior to the next Lambeth Conference. It would be best if by September 30, 2007, not only TEC but all Provinces were given an opportunity to accept or reject a truly faithful Anglican Communion Covenant and those so willing to be part of that Covenant be invited to the next Lambeth Conference, wherever it might be held.

END