Comments on the Covenant

What is wrong with the proposed Covenant?

Its origins are shallow, being primarily the Windsor Report, and the “recent life of the Instruments of Communion;” that is, rather than drawing upon our scriptural and larger tradition sources, the Covenant is based on a recently prepared report that has immediately gained authoritative status usually only granted documents tested by time, and upon recent experience of a body of leaders of the Communion.

Related to this last point, the Covenant was drafted in response to urgency, a sense of ‘severe strain.” While at times we must recognize genuine emergencies and respond with rapidity, in crafting guidelines intended to direct the inter-life of the vast, sprawling Anglican Communion over time, we should hope for a creative climate of peace, of dynamic shalom, rather than stress and anxiety.

A creation whose origins lie in contention, anxiety, and even, I would venture, implicit violence, will manifest these origins throughout its being. Like a human ego that forms around an early psychic wound, the Covenant that results from origins such as those described above will have a final shape reflecting these originating conditions.

Finally, in terms of a critique of the proposed Covenant document, under part 6, section 5, I think it is an unavoidable interpretation that the draft Covenant makes the Primates the final arbiter in disputed areas. As many have said, such an establishment of a centralized power in the Communion would be a drastic departure from the shape of our historic polity, and one that I think should be resisted.

What would a healthy Covenant look like?

A healthy Covenant would point us to be, at the global level, the embodiment of the teachings in Matthew 25 on recognizing Christ in the dispossessed. The fact that Matthew 25 begins with a cosmic “judgment of the nations” is a setting that should not be forgotten as the dramatic scene unfolds – you might say that the Episcopal Church, for instance, is called by Christ to recognize his presence in the Church of Nigeria, despite our differences (and without erasing those differences as they negatively affect the lives of others).  Can we learn to recognized Christ in cultural expressions very different from our own? Can we learn to see the image of God in not only individuals who come from different parts of the Communion, but also in the whole community these individuals represent?

You might challenge the idea of the Episcopal Church, or the Church of Nigeria, as representing the dispossessed. Here I think we must seek to understand the real meaning of “poverty of spirit” that some follower of the Way added to extend, and deepen, to express the meaning intended by Jesus of Nazareth when he said, “Blessed are the poor.” This teaching of Christ guides us to seek the “God center” in all, as my late spiritual director did so beautifully. I take this “all” to mean not only individuals, but communities and cultures as well, with their differences that can challenge our sense of right and wrong.

One of the greatest challenges in this apprehension of the spirit of Christ in all is, as I indicated above, not confusing acceptance and love with the smoothing over of injustice for the sake of getting along. The “third way of Jesus” is not simple, it demands that we become fully human, differentiated in the moral dimension from many of our brother and sister species on the Earth.

Sticking with the Jesus of Matthew’s gospel, a healthy Covenant would also direct us to baptize and make disciples of all nations. I would translate this into being Christians in the world in such a way that people are enabled to let go of ways of life that damage and destroy the creatures of God, and from the point of new  birth, open a path into conformity with the image of God planted in them.

Recognizing the God center in all; enabling people to enter new life; and walking with others towards the full Image of Christ – this is the Covenant I would choose.