Canterbury writes a letter. It is Advent after all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has written an Advent letter in which he maintains (rightly) and at some length that "communion matters."  Of course it does. He points to several important occasions in the life of the Anglican Communion where the various "instruments" of the Communion have been encouraging to Anglicans "on the ground" who have been bearing the load in the heat of the day.

That "Communion matters" does not, however, lead to the next bit of his exposition, namely that because Communion matters we need the Anglican Covenant.  There have been several excellent commentaries on that proposition, and I urge you read them.

Of particular interest to those of us concerned about the current "troubles" in the Anglican Communion are the Archbishop's reflections beginning at section 6 of his letter. In section 7 and 8 he outlines his argument for the Anglican Covenant. Here is section 7 and portions of 8  reformatted as an argument:

(Argument against the Covenant) 

In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body.  

(Argument for the Covenant)  

With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all. 

(1)  It sets out an understanding of our common life and common faith and in the light of that proposes making a mutual promise to consult and attend to each other, freely undertaken. 


(2) It recognizes that not doing this damages our relations profoundly.  

(3) It outlines a procedure, such as we urgently need, for attempting reconciliation and for indicating the sorts of consequences that might result from a failure to be fully reconciled. 


(4) It alters no Province’s constitution, as it has no canonical force independent of the life of the Provinces. 


(5) It does not create some unaccountable and remote new authority but seeks to identify a representative group that might exercise a crucial advisory function.  

(challenge to the argument against to provide a better response to the issues) 

(6) I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. 


(the argument against the Covenant fails to provide such alternatives) 

(7) In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future.


(in section 8 he offers two additional arguments)

These questions are made all the more sharp by the fact that the repeated requests for moratoria on problematic actions issued by various representative Anglican bodies are increasingly ignored.  ...The question remains: 

(8)  if the moratoria are ignored and the Covenant suspected, what are the means by which we maintain some theological coherence as a Communion and some personal respect and understanding as a fellowship of people seeking to serve Christ? 


(9) And we should bear in mind that our coherence as a Communion is also a significant concern in relation to other Christian bodies – especially at a moment when the renewed dialogues with Roman Catholics and Orthodox have begun with great enthusiasm and a very constructive spirit.

The Archbishop then moved on to support his argument by additional observations which reflect rather more strident feelings. First he suggests that the unwillingness to address these questions by adopting the Anglican Covenant might be related to the "old habits in our lives, the "works of darkness."( Just a note: I strongly dislike having objection to the Anglican Covenant connected to "works of darkness." and old habits in our lives.)

(section 9) "... we Christians all have to acknowledge that in many ways we still live as if Christ had not come.  We recognize the marks of the old habits in our lives, the ‘works of darkness’ that the Collect^* speaks of."

Then the Archbishop opines about "authentically biblical" churches and suggests  that those who in one way or another have strayed from the Covenant path  fail the test and are "imperfectly biblical churches."

  (section 10.)    (the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the King James or ‘Authorized’ Version) ... has focused for me yet again the question of what a Church looks like that is authentically biblical.  

(a)  It is clear enough that Christian communities that are vague or lukewarm about the unique miracle of the Word made flesh once and for all in Jesus of Nazareth, and about the revolutionary demands this makes on individual lives and relationships, are imperfectly biblical churches.  

(b) But we should remember too that Christian communities which consistently believe the worst of others who bear the name of Christ and attack or undermine them are also very imperfectly biblical. 

The Archbishop suggests that the "real foundation of a biblical church life" is in communion (in covenant?):

(c) Our shared willingness to give thanks to God together for the inexpressible gift of the Word made flesh once and for all is the real foundation of a biblical church life, turning our attention away from ourselves towards our gracious Lord.     

He polishes off his argument by a return to an earlier theme, the risk of saying "I have no need of you." Churches that don't remember that we need one another are "imperfect churches," and we all live in such churches.

(section 11._    ...Throughout the time of my service as Archbishop I have tried to keep before my own eyes and those of the Communion the warnings given by St Paul about the risks of saying ‘I have no need of you’ to any other who seeks to serve Jesus Christ as a member of His Body.  I make no apology for repeating this point.  Advent is a good time to recall that we all live in imperfect churches, that we all must draw together in hope for the fuller presence of Our Lord, and that we all therefore must be willing to receive from each other whatever gifts God has to give through them. 

 The Archbishop is a fine thinker and his argument is tight enough to where the best place to explore alternatives is to be found in his way of viewing "the problem" churches and their problems with The Anglican Covenant.  (There are perhaps interesting points of debate along the way regarding his argument, but that is for another day.)

He says of the "opposition" in his argument:

"Some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body."

Well, that's true enough. "Some" Anglicans think all sorts of things about the Covenant.  However he doesn't seem to get it that some Anglicans (and perhaps some Anglican Churches (Provinces)) see the structure which is surely there in sections 3 and 4, as the descriptive product of structural changes already made precisely so that the Anglican Covenant would have the means to limit involvement of disobedient and self willed Provinces in the life of the Communion.  

The Covenant is not an agreement about what we will do, it is an agreement to abide by what has already been put in place.  It is a Covenant between Master and Servant, between owner and tenant.  It is not a covenant between equals, but a covenant between Provinces (parts of the Anglican Communion ) and the Anglican Communion.

It was a great mistake to call the churches of the Anglican Communion "Provinces." It set out from the beginning the notion that we are subsets of some larger thing. But the Churches of the Anglican Communion do not belong (at least now) to "The Anglican Communion", they ARE the Anglican Communion. 

The objection to the Anglican Covenant is that it is not (yet) the constitution of a world wide Church, but it will have the effect of a start towards one.

Maybe the Anglican Communion needs indeed to be an Advent sort of body - but we don't need heavy armor, the armor of light is, well, light. The Anglican   Covenant is heavy.