Anglican Covenant - Rest in Peace

One of the most striking memories I have of General Synod was a conversation with Bishop Colin Buchanan – a veteran Synod member and wonderfully maverick Bishop.

He was a Bishop who was fully committed to the Synodical structure of the Church of England and a campaigner for truly democratic processes in the church.

He said to a group of us who had just been elected to General Synod that, “The first duty of members of General Synod is to try to defeat the platform!”

His words shocked more than a few of us!  But there was great wisdom in what he said.  The ‘platform’ of the great and good are the ones with the appearance of power in General Synod.  Ensconced in almost magisterial isolation, set above the rank and file of Synod members, the temptation is to believe that they must be right when they tell you something is good, or something is bad! This is particularly true when speeches from the platform are made with such Anglican politeness and distinguished reserve that anyone who might try to question them runs the risk of seeming untrusting and churlish, reactionary or revolutionary (hardly Anglican traits!)

Yet the duty of Synod members is not to meekly bow down to the received wisdom of church dignitaries, however deep their shade of purple or however many Boards and Committees they sit on.  The duty of Synod members is to question and scrutinise – to examine the substance behind the smoke screen of polished presentation.  The duty of Synod members is to probe beneath the surface of reasonable acceptability to see if the Emperor does indeed have clothes to cover his embarrassment.

This is what Diocesan Synods have done with great courage and perception over the last few months.  They have not been taken in by the great and good standing up in true Tony Blair fashion saying ‘Trust me!’  They have wanted to hear both sides, and to make their own minds up. It has been Synodical Government at its best.

The fact that so many clergy and lay people voted against their Bishops showed that when they really looked beneath the surface of the proposed Covenant, they found it wanting.  And in doing so time and time again, they defeated the platform.  And where Bishops had the courage of their convictions and voted against, they found themselves at one with their flock, rather than trying to drag them along in humble submission.

There are those who are still trying to pretend that the Covenant is still alive, desperately trying to breathe life into its limp body, while claiming still to feel the faintest pulse.  They are mistaken.

What is needed now is to recognise the will of the Synodical process, and express deep and sincere thanks to those who genuinely tried to find a way forward for the Anglican Communion in the form of a Covenant – and to let it now Rest in Peace.

Having led hundreds of funerals since my ordination over 20 years ago, I know that the best funerals are those where the mourners gather to say a loving good bye – and the worst are those where the grievers meet in a kind of desperate denial.

For the good intentions of those who tried to square this circle, the Anglican Covenant deserves a good funeral which will enable us all to move on and find new ways of living together as the living Anglican Body of Christ.

The Anglican Covenant – RIP.

A self-defeating Covenant

One thing is for sure - among Anglicans, views on The Anglican Covenant are very divided.

For example, I live in an area of Salisbury diocese where our local Bishop, Graham Kings, is vociferously in favour of the Covenant.  He has devoted much time and effort in writing, speaking and arguing for it - yet in this same diocese our new Diocesan Bishop voted against the Covenant in Diocesan Synod, as did Graham Kings predecessor, Bishop Tim Thornton in his diocese of Truro.

Around the world, some in the Anglican Communion are saying they won't adopt it because it is too restrictive - others are rejecting it because it's too loose!  So far, 8 provinces of the Communion are in the process of ratifying the Covenant, whereas 9 appear to be moving towards rejection (not counting the CofE).

Even global neighbours see the Covenant in very different ways.  The Province of South East Asia has 'acceded' to the covenant but wants to make it stronger while the The Episcopal Church in the Philippines has rejected it 'saying the proposal to centralise authority in London was an “un-Anglican” attempt to “lord it over” the Communion’s national provinces'.

So how can the Covenant possibly succeed?  If a framework that was designed to foster unity in the Anglican Communion is itself the cause of such division, what hope can there be that its aspirations will be realised?

In the Church of England, our dioceses are divided with 10 dioceses having voted in favour and 17 voting against (updated 11th March).  All this fatally undermines the ideals which were the motivation behind this Covenant - the desire to promote unity, not division.

Some, like Bishop Graham Kings have tried to portray it as a marriage, while others have said it sounds more like a pre-nuptial agreement between partners whose relationship is already in trouble, even before the wedding.  Still others have likened it to a shot-gun wedding motivated more by the fear than loving commitment.

Canon Richard Franklin, in the General Synod debate of 2010 said,

"A troubling expression that has been used to describe the purpose of the Covenant is that it is ‘to make explicit and forceful’ the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the Churches of the Anglican Communion; but communion is not something that can be forced by human means."

At the end of the day, the Anglican Covenant has shot itself in the foot.  Even if somehow the Church of England and others adopted it, it would simply leave the Communion limping along nursing its wounds and looking for someone to blame.   The divisions which it has engendered make it precisely the wrong solution to the problems facing the Anglican Communion.

As the Bishop of Lincoln said in General Synod,

"I therefore leave you, Madam Chair, with the wise words of the American philosopher H.L. Mencken, with which you may be familiar.

‘For every difficult and complex problem there is a solution which is simple, straightforward and wrong.’

As an answer to a difficult and complex problem, this Covenant is simple, straightforward and, I still believe, probably wrong.

There is too much religion in the world and not enough faith, and I think this Covenant seems to be more about factory-farm religion than free-range faith."

With 17 more dioceses still to vote, it is time to gently and humanely put the Covenant down, thanking those whose intentions have been to strengthen our Communion, but recognising that it is already more dead than alive.

It is a self-defeating Covenant.

Gays, Damned Gays, and Pro-Gays!

Ok , it doesn't have the same ring as 'Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics'  which came to mind as I thought about a title for this blog, but it does exhibit the same progression that is found in parts of  the Christian church.  In fact, it is fascinating to see how more conservative church attitudes to homosexuality are developing the same kind of hierarchy in levels of distrust.

On the first layer are gay people themselves (I use the word gay - by the way - as shorthand for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered - which I always find a bit of a mouthful).

This is the layer of openly gay people who are not currently in a same-sex relationship.  On the whole they are tolerated by the Church.  They are conditionally welcomed into most churches - conditional that they don't get into a relationship, of course.  They are permitted to contribute to most areas of church life - join a home-group, read the Bible and lead intercessions.   They are sometimes supported pastorally - mostly to keep  them from getting into a relationship. 

They are a slight cause of anxiety or concern,  but are often used as an example in saying "We have gay people in our church", so our church is not homophobic.   Dig down a little, however, and they are often viewed as a ticking  time-bomb, which one day might explode with damaging consequences.

The next layer up are 'Damned Gays' who are the ones who are 'practising' homosexuals - whatever that means! 

They are the ones who have  the audacity to turn up to church with their partner.  They are made to feel much less comfortable.  They are often welcomed with that tense, surprised and nervous look by clergy and church officers who live in fear of what their presence might mean for their well-ordered church and congregation.  They  are often not allowed to join home-groups, not allowed to stand up and speak at the front of church, not allowed to be involved in lay ministry, but nevertheless are told that their presence is welcome as long as they don't rock the boat too much or talk to anybody.  They are reminded from time to time however, that according to 1 Corinthians 6:9 they will not be inheriting the Kingdom of God - hence the title, "Damned Gays".

But there is another layer of mistrust which is gaining ascendency among conservative churches.  And this layer is causing much more concern for those from a more conservative theology of sexuality.  The name of this last category...  Pro-gays!

They are being feared more and more, because of the damage they are doing to the Gospel.  On the one hand there is less to attack.  They are straight, often happily married, with families.  They are amongst us as clergy, church wardens, deacons, or even Bishops.  They are respectable people, not like those gays!  They might be evangelicals, anglo-catholics, or just good old broad church CofE. England'.

But beneath this layer of respectability, they are more dangerous than Gays or Damned Gays because they have the audacity to be Pro-Gay.  They are the real threat because they have no vested interest in seeing the church become more inclusive,  and their presence is increasingly finding its way into the cross-hairs of conservative focus.

The appointment this week of Rev Nicholas Holtam as the new Bishop of Salisbury is just such a case.  He is straight,  married with children, and the vicar of a hugely successful church in central London.  Surely such an appointment could not upset anyone?

But there is a darker side to Nicholas Holtam - he is Pro-Gay!  And worse still - he has said so publically, is a member of Inclusive Church, and has welcomed such people as Bishop Gene Robinson to speak at the church!  He has had the audacity to challenge the homophobic statements of the global south, and to genuinely welcome gay people in ministry and worship.  Worst of all he has had the nerve to suggest that the biblical scriptures against homosexual practise simply do not apply to "baptised people in loving and faithful same-sex relationships".

And indeed the reaction from those who react to these things has been predictable.

The Church Society says...

"The appointment of the Revd Nicholas Holtam as the next Bishop of Salisbury is a regrettable and retrograde step.  In his public ministry Mr Holtam has actively promoted erroneous teaching on the issue of human sexuality, which puts him at odds with the declared mind of the House of Bishops, the General Synod of the Church of England and the 1998 Lambeth Conference, makes him unfit for ministry in the Church of England let alone as a Bishop.

While Rev John Richardson, writing in the Telegraph says that,

"If I were a minister in the Diocese of Salisbury today, therefore, I would be faced with a real crisis of conscience."

You do not need to be a church dignitary of course to attract such questioning.  In a comment to one of my recent blogs on same-sex marriage, the same Rev John Richardson wrote:

"When it comes to an issue as contentious as changing our entire theology of marriage and sexuality, the tradition should be our starting point, from which departure should only be made after careful, serious and collective deliberation. Importantly, this is one of those cases where private judgement must not be allowed free rein.

And that brings me to my question. You acknowledge standing outside the tradition (laid out in the BCP). But you are required to take the Declaration of Assent and stand under Canon A5, and I just want to know how you can do this. If you have changed your mind, fair enough, but should you not therefore change your allegiance?"

These are the kind of views which make many of us deeply suspicious of the Anglican Covenant - not for its intentions, but for the way in which it might be applied.  Under the Covenant, Anglican Provinces which  are perceived by some to have stepped out of line in their theology, practice, or indeed appointments could be similarly asked to consider 'changing their allegiance' but in a much more official way.

Such reactions do not, of course reflect the views of the majority of Anglicans in the UK who, despite wide diversity in their views on sexuality, treat each other with the acceptance and respect that Christ encouraged.  They know that to have 'serious and collective deliberation' in the way John Richardson describes, requires people to be there to deliberate - not ejected or asked to change their allegiance.

As a member of the Clergy in Salisbury Diocese, I am happy to say that I am facing no crisis of conscience following the nomination of our new Bishop - just a sense of rejoicing that the Church of England has listened to the diocese and God in this appointment, despite what others might try to say.

An Antidote to the Covenant




Cartoon by Dave Walker  http://www.cartoonchurch.com/

 

Over the last few weeks as controversy around the Anglican Covenant has intensified, a story has come to mind that I heard as a young teenager. 

It was told by a young Argentinean preacher called Jaun Carlos Ortiz, and it made a deep impression on me when I was a young Christian.  His book 'Disciple' made a deep impression on many Christians in the late 1970's and I still have a copy on my bookshelf.   So I clearly remember going to hear him preach on a UK tour.

The story relates to what happened whenever he used to come back from time away from home.  On his return, he used to be greeted by his children with their tennis rackets, asking him to play tennis with them.  "We have been waiting for you - we can't play tennis when you are away" they would complain.

"But why don't you play tennis with each other?" he would ask, but they both came up with excuses.  "She's hopeless - she always misses" one would say.  "He hits the ball too hard" the other would complain.

So what did he do?

He played tennis with one, and then with the other - but he couldn't help wishing that they would find a way to play with one another.

The point of his story is that we are exactly the same with God and each other.   We fall out with each other as Christians and Churches so easily.  We won't play with each other, even though God wishes we would.  So He plays with each of us, but longs for us to play together.

As I pondered this modern parable, I wondered what had become of this young insightful preacher, so I 'Googled'  his name, and found that despite a number of personal challenges and tragedies, he is a senior Pastor and teacher at The Crystal Cathedral - one of California's evangelical mega-churches.

As I dug a little deeper, I found a chapter in one of his books which spoke to me so clearly about the mess we are getting ourselves into, as we try to define who is and who is not a proper Anglican.

The Book is "Living with Jesus Today" and Chapter 14 is called "We cannot choose our brothers" 

Here are some excerpts from it:

The problem really isn't the denomination itself.  We are fooling ourselves if we believe that. We are the problem! The denomination is just another excuse for our flesh to become enmeshed in division, which it likes to do....

Most denominations begin in the same way. In a church, one group of people barks at another group, dividing over a particular issue. The other group then barks back. It takes two to fight. So we bark at one another, and division follows...

Really, we shouldn't speak of the church as divided.  You can divide the number ten into ten ones, into two fives, or into five two's. You can divide a group of five into two groups (three and two) or into five ones. You also can divide two into two ones. But you cannot divide one. The church is one, and it cannot be divided. You can only break one.   When they amputate your leg, you don't say, "They divided my body." You say, "They cut off one of my legs." So, too, the church is not divided; it is broken in pieces...

Today we are not under Christ, but under other banners. So we have a broken church that is fractured into hundreds of denominations. But Jesus does not have many churches.  The church is the bride of Christ, and He is not a polygamist. He is going to marry just one church...

The church has a tendency to be a Christian club. A club is an institution in which all of the members agree to certain principles... 

When we gather together around principles or doctrines, that's a club. Anything that is centred in a set of rules or concepts is a club. But when we gather together around a living person whose name is Jesus, we are a church...

When Jesus comes to church, He does not find joy in our doctrinal divisions.   He commands us to repent of our hatred of one another.  And when He lives within us and we are led by His Spirit, we will accept each other as members of His body not because of doctrines, but simply because He has accepted us. We will be one church because we all share one common life—the life of Christ in us.

In the current climate of the Anglican Communion, Covenant and GAFCON, perhaps this is just the challenge we need.  There are probably many things he preaches which I would not agree with today (and vice versa) but that is exactly the point.  We are one church, no matter how much we try to divide ourselves against each other.  We are one church, with one faith, with one Lord, Jesus Christ.

If only we would play tennis with each other...

(You can read the whole Chapter at Called to Be Free)