Read previous essays on the St. Andrew’s Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant. (Sections 1, 2, 3, the appendix and the future of the covenant.)
By W. Nicholas Knisely
In this essay, as my title suggests, I consider the Appendix to the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Proposed Anglican Covenant. What I have said in other places, I repeat here. I am truly open, as an Episcopalian, to doing what might be difficult for us as Episcopalians so that we might be able to be partners with other Anglican Provinces. I am willing to give up some of our autonomy if such a gift of submission to the larger body will allow it to continue to grow into the full stature of Christ that God intends for us.
That said, I am also aware that I can only speak for myself and that what I might be willing to do others in the Episcopal Church would be unwilling to do or unable to do. I am aware of the fact that I speak as a person of position within the structure of the Episcopal Church and as a person of privilege within American society. As such what seems of little import to me, is of critical importance to my brothers and sisters in the Church. If they cannot follow where I might think we should go, I would be very very reluctant to strike off without them.
I say all this because it is in the Appendix of the St. Andrew draft of the Covenant where the details and suggested machinery of the Communion are to be found. And it is here that a sifting of Provinces within the Anglican Communion and individuals within the Episcopal Church would happen. We are no longer in the realm of the hypothetical when we analyze the Appendix, we are looking at specific events and rulings that will create a Communion with insiders and former insiders. The Appendix is ultimately concerned with the methods of division. We are treading on very rocky ground here and I think it is important that we recognize this as we carry out our examination.
Before we examine the Appendix, it seems to me that there is a basic question that needs to be answered. Does the Appendix function like the Historical Documents section of the Book of Common Prayer or is it seen, flow charts and all, as an integral part of the Covenant? If the second statement is true then must the Appendix be fully acceded to when a Province ratifies the Covenant? If the first, then is this just a suggestion of what a process might look like? By definition an Appendix is supplemental material and not considered a core component. Yet in this draft of the Covenant, the Appendix actually explicates the steps to which the third section of the Covenant only alludes and seems to be rather critically connected to the rest as a result.
If the material is really just supplementary, and the proposed process in the Appendix is not set in stone, then I’m a little concerned about its inclusion without clear statements to this effect. There’s been a great deal of energy already expended on this document as it has been read and commented upon by various groups around the Communion. Much of the critique has centered around the Appendix. If it is just a possible structure and not the required structure, then it has served, probably unintentionally, as a stalking horse which has drawn most of the vitriol of those opposed to the Covenant while perhaps diverting us away for a more careful examination of what is implied to Anglican practice in the other sections.
But, this is not the first Appendix that the Communion has been offered. There was additional material attached to the Windsor Report which contained the first pieces of what has since become the full blown Covenant process. If the prior experience of the Communion with the Windsor Report is a guide, this Appendix is not just for discussion purposes, but is a glimpse into the forms that are being envisioned. According to this way of thinking, the Appendix may not represent the final form of the adjudication process when disputes arise in the Communion, but we would expect that the Appendix represents substantially what the final form would look like.
For my part, speaking as a deputy to General Convention and therefore one who would reasonably expect to participate in the Episcopal Church’s decision making process vis-à-vis the Covenant, I would very much first like to know what is the relationship of the Appendix to the rest of the St. Andrew’s Draft.
Once that relationship is determined, then it is right to turn our focus to the broad details of the Appendix. I don’t think it’s helpful frankly to focus too carefully on the details, given that these may change in subsequent drafts and as the Provinces of the Communion weigh in with their feedback on this draft.
My primary impression of the draft, with its complicated flowchart and multiple branching procedures, is that there’s not a great deal of room for God in the envisioned process of working through our present and future conflicts. This proposed structure of conflict referral, decision branch points and resolution bears the marks of a bureaucratic mind. Such a mark is not in of itself reason to reject the Covenant because the issues it seeks to decide upon are necessarily raised and being decided by bureaucratic structures. But still, I’m aware of little room, other than perhaps in the deliberations of a special commission should one be warranted by a decision of the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three “Assessors”, for the voice of the Holy Spirit to be heard. This may strike many as a good thing given that there a number of people within the Communion who believe that revelation from the Holy Spirit is not an ongoing process or must never be seen to contradict an earlier revelation. Yet, it is a curious gap in a document that is addressed to a Communion in the process of listening to the voice of God as it seeks to determine its course.
Next, I’m struck as well by the specificity of the proposed timelines in the Appendix. The shortness of these timelines seems unrealistic. How often do we seriously expect a situation to arise that will have created a controversy that is too complicated for parties within the life of the Communion to decide without adjudication? If a decision about a situation could be made as quickly and as efficiently as the Appendix envisions than the issue would seem to me either to be either one with a broadly obvious answer, or would represent only a small symptom of a much larger and more complicated theological question. I suppose the framers of the Appendix had in mind the question of the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson as a test example as they created this structure. Yet the controversy in the Communion surrounding Bishop Robinson’s election and ratification are an expression of a much deeper theological question about human sexuality and the sources and norms of moral theology. Simply issuing a ruling on his election would do little to respond to the underlying questions of the full inclusion of GLBT Christians.
If the issue that presents itself to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his team of Assessors is serious enough to require action, it seems obvious to me that the issue will require careful and deliberative thought, inviting participation from as many members of the Communion and all orders of ministry as possible. Such a process is going to take a great deal of time. Given that, are the suggested deadlines of the Appendix realistic? If not, why then should they be specified?
I do have some additional specific concerns that I do not see being addressed in the Appendix.
First, how are the rights of minority viewpoints within the Communion to be protected? One of the great weaknesses of democratic government is that it can quickly lead to a tyranny of the majority imposed on the minority or powerless. Here in the United States our Founders attempted to create a Republic with explicit checks and balances between the government’s branches in an attempt to avoid this issue. Additionally the rule of the Senate of the federal government are so structured as to make it difficult for anything but a supermajority to be able to impose its will on others. Where are the mechanisms of such protection in the details of Appendix? The decision branch points are controlled by four people at most, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the three Assessors. It isn’t until the end of the process when the decisions are being made by the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) that a broadly based body enters the picture. But even then, I’m not clear about how the rules of the ACC would function to address the issue of the protection of minority views. I’m not sure that this was a concern of the drafting team. I think it should be, and I’d hope that future revisions might address it.
Secondly, the Appendix in its present form does not seem to allow for a process of reception within the body of the faithful. What happens when a new understanding begins to arise among the faithful? One would expect that any new understanding would engender controversy. Certainly this has been the historical experience of the Church. Yet the Appendix would only allow for a Commission to study a question as its singular method of allowing a process of reception to unfold. Of course the Archbishop of Canterbury might, acting on his own, decide not to take action on a question in an attempt to allow a process time to come to fruition, but that would be hardly different from the present controversy surrounding human sexuality. And Rowan Williams willingness to go slowly in this situation is part of the cause of the calls for the creation of this Covenant and Appendix. Why would a future reluctance to act quickly be seen any differently?
Thirdly, who exactly are envisioned as possible mediators, should mediation be deemed a solution? (The Appendix envisions a request for resolution of a situation to be either routed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the other Instruments of Communion—most likely the Primates Meeting—or to a determined by need mediation process.) Would the mediators be appointed by the Archbishop after approval and/or nomination by the aggrieved parties or would they be at the discretion of the Archbishop alone? Would the mediators be expected to come to a swift decision or would they be asked to work through a process of reconciliation between the parties? The latter seems most agreeable to biblical and prayerbook teachings yet the former is more in keeping with the specific deadlines laid out in the rest of the Appendix.
My final broad concern about the Covenant, specifically as it is expressed in the details of the Appendix, is that it represents a paradigm shift within the governance and polity of the Anglican Communion that has not been fully thought out. The detailed decision making envisioned in the Appendix would move us from a relationship that has more of the feel of a club governed by relationship, tradition and consensus to a new model for Anglicanism that is based on a winner-take-all up and down vote on matters of our common life. Speaking as an American, I have seen the end result of life that is governed in such a manner. I suppose it’s the best form of secular government given the fatal flaws of all the other alternatives. But the Church is meant to be a new creation and the sign of the Kingdom of God. I would hope that she would be able to manage her life in a more elevated way.
To me, we as Anglicans would be in danger of losing something precious should we move to adopt this new paradigm. I’d even go so far as to suggest that such a loss would be an inevitable consequence of adopting the present form. I’d be willing to do this though, but I do want to ask us to consider what we would be gaining by such action. As best I can tell, we would gain a clarity of teaching and the ability to cull the makers of difficult situations from our community. Is this gain of more value than the loss? Is there a way that might allow us to fortify our conciliar governance that would not require us to lose or radically reconstitute our relationships to each other? That seems to me to be the fundamental question we should be asking of the Appendix.
The Very Rev. W. Nicholas Knisely, dean of Trinity Cathedral in Phoenix, is a deputy to the 2009 General Convention from the Diocese of Arizona. He is chair of the Standing Commission on Episcopal Church Communication, and blogs at Entangled States.