The Application of The Virginia Report Model in the Covenant Drafts

An Anglican Covenant was suggested by the Lambeth Commission in paragraph 119 of The Windsor Report. The Covenant can be considered the application of The Virginia and

Windsor Reports as exploratory models. The preparation of a final text for a Covenant is still

in progress at the writing up stage of this thesis. The Covenant will be a valid subject for academic study in the future, and its effect on the Communion is unknown, so any study at this stage is both limited and temporal. As such, the final judgement on the usefulness of the Covenant and, by extension, the fruitfulness of The Virginia and Windsor Report model, will not be fully known for some time. However, there are indications as to the fruitfulness of the model as an exploratory model, in the acceptance or otherwise of the three drafts of the Covenant submitted to the Communion by the Design Group. The aim of this section is to

146

Adam Kahane, Solving Tough Problems – An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New

Realities (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2004). Kahane shows the complete fallacy of imposing thought out

solutions to human conflict.

147 _{Norman Doe, An Anglican Covenant – Theological and Legal Considerations for a Global Debate}

offer a brief history of the development of the drafts and to focus on the discussion on the place of the model in the text.

Three drafts of an Anglican Covenant have been presented to the Communion. In 2005 the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates‟ Meeting took up the proposal for a Covenant and commissioned a paper entitled “Towards an Anglican Covenant” that commended moves towards the development of a text.148

The next meeting of the Joint Standing Committee appointed a Covenant Design Group to further the project. Five of the nine members of the Design Group had either been members of the Lambeth Commission on Communion or of IATDC. The chair, Drexel Gomez, had

participated in writing The Windsor Report, as had the consultant Norman Doe and the secretary Gregory Cameron. Victor Atta-Baffoe and Katherine Grieb had contributed to The

Virginia Report and were continuing members of IATDC. The first draft, the Nassau

Draft,149 was presented to the Primates‟ Meeting in February 2007.150 It was circulated for study along with an introduction, commentary, and appendix. A year later the Design Group met again and produced the St Andrew's Draft.151 Due to the unavailability of two members of the original group, Ruby Nottage, who had been on the Lambeth Commission, and Eileen Scully, a member of IATDC, participated in the second round of drafting. The St Andrew‟s Draft was presented to the Lambeth Conference later that year. The next meeting of the Design Group, at Ridley College, Cambridge, focussed on the comments received from the

148 _{“„Towards an Anglican Covenant.‟ A Consultation Paper on the Covenant Proposal of The Windsor}

Report” (2005), The Anglican Communion Official Website,

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/consultation/index.cfm.

149 _{“An Anglican Covenant Draft prepared by the Covenant Design Group” (2007), The Anglican}

Communion Official Website, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/report/draft_text.cfm.

150

“The Communiqué of the Primates‟ Meeting in Dar es Salaam 19February 2007,” The Anglican

Communion Official Website,

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/communique2007_english.pdf.

151 _{“An Anglican Covenant - St Andrew's Draft Text” (2008), The Anglican Communion Official Website,}

bishops and in a document entitled “A Lambeth Commentary.”152 This document

encouraged further study around the Communion and a consultation process that ended with the preparation of the Ridley Cambridge Draft (RCD).153 The intention was for ACC –14 to approve the text for adoption in the provinces. However, the Council called for further consideration of section 4 and established a small working group, which is to report to the Standing Committee of the Communion in December 2009.154

The history of the development of the text is also required to understand the

significance of section 4. The introduction of the Nassau Draft maintained the meta-narrative style of both The Virginia Report and The Windsor Report, and placed the context of the Anglican Communion in the saving purposes of God.155 The final paragraph of the “Report of the Covenant Design Group” claims that this process is not a new way of being Anglican, but a statement of what has always been. However, in the introduction it says “This

(Anglican) Communion provides us with a special charism and an identity among the many followers and servants of Jesus.”156

This is an innovation. Anglicanism has never previously claimed a special charism and identity separate to the Church Catholic.157 The drafters appear to suggest that the Covenant will establish the Anglican Communion as a “Church” with an identity and charism, rather than a temporal expression of the one Church Catholic.

The Nassau Draft was composed of 7 sections. Sections 1 and 7 were a preamble and a declaration, which were omitted in the following drafts. Sections 2 to 5 described the reality of the Communion and evolved through the redrafting process into three sections in

152 _{“A Lambeth Commentary on the Saint Andrew‟s Draft for an Anglican Covenant” (2008), The Anglican}

Communion Official Website,

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/docs/a_lambeth_commentary.pdf.

153

“An Anglican Covenant - The Third (Ridley Cambridge) Draft” (2009), The Anglican Communion

Official Website, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm.

154 _{ACC –14, “Resolution 14.11: The Anglican Communion Covenant.” The Standing Committee of the}

Communion was formerly the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates. The change was made at the same ACC meeting.

155 _{Nassau, “An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant,” first paragraph.} 156 _Ibid.

157 _{There are many texts to substantiate this claim. A good selection of them are found in Colin Podmore,}

both the St Andrew‟s and Ridley Cambridge drafts. In his address to ACC-14 Archbishop Gomez indicated that these sections had won the overwhelming support of the

Communion.158 The subsections are linked by references to the historic formularies and sources of the Anglican Communion, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Chicago- Lambeth Quadrilateral,159 to other significant documents in the life of the Communion resulting from Commissions, the ACC, and Lambeth Conferences,160 and to texts from the ecumenical movement.161 This gives them grounding in the traditions of the Church and, through that, to the biblical witness.162 There are questions as to the sufficiency of the models that shape this section, but there is recognition that such models are required.

In contrast, section 4 of the RCD has proved contentious. It is the key section for this thesis as it attempts to answer the question of how geographically and culturally separated churches might live together in one communion. The purpose of this study is to understand if the exploratory models used in the formation of the section are based upon reliable and relevant explanatory models. This process is more difficult as, in contrast to sections 1-3, there are no references made to external texts. The Covenant struggles with the complexity of allowing autonomous churches to live a common life of witness and worship.163 Section 3 proposes a method that includes spending “time with openness and patience in matters of theological debate and reflection, to listen, pray and study with one another in order to

158

“When you look at the Ridley Cambridge Draft, I think there is every reason why you at this meeting of the ACC should be able to agree with the bishops at the Lambeth Conference that the description of our Anglican inheritance and our Anglican mission is largely straightforward and uncontroversial.” From “The Covenant: an Introduction by Archbishop Drexel Gomez. Address to ACC-14” (2009), The Anglican

Communion Official Website,

http://www.aco.org/acns/enclosures/Covenant%20Presentation%204%20May%20handout.pdf.

159 _{RCD, 1.} 160 _{Ibid., 2 and 3.} 161 _{Ibid., 3.} 162

The Nasau Draft included a list of Bible verses at the beginning of each section. These were criticised in the response to the Covenant by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as Presidents of the General Synod of the Church of England: “(6) The biblical texts currently at the beginning of each section of the Covenant should be omitted. They suggest a way of handling the biblical material that not all Anglicans share and it is not always clear how the texts relate to the material that follows. It would be better for biblical references to be integrated into the body of the text as in the case of the IATDC report on the Covenant.” “Church of England Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant” (2008), The Church of England,

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr0108.html.

163

discern the will of God.”164 This has roots in the traditions of the ACC,165 and through that in the biblical witness. The following three sections speak of seeking a shared mind though engagement with the Instruments and Commissions of the Communion,166 acting with care and caution167 and, in situations of conflict, to participate in mediated conversations.168

Section 4 of the RCD is intended to seek ways forwards when these actions break down. The following actions are proposed:

(4.2.1) The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Primates‟ Meeting, or any body that succeeds it, shall have the duty of overseeing the functioning of the Covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion. The Joint Standing Committee may nominate or appoint another committee or commission to assist in carrying out this function and to advise it on questions relating to the Covenant.

(4.2.2) If a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, or of compatibility to the principles incorporated in it, should arise, the Joint Standing Committee may make a request to any covenanting Church to defer action until the processes set out below have been completed. It shall further take advice from such bodies as its feels appropriate on the nature and relational consequences of the matter and may make a recommendation to be referred for advice to both the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates‟ Meeting.

(4.2.3) If a Church refuses to defer a controversial action, the Joint Standing Committee may recommend to any Instrument of Communion relational consequences which specify a provisional limitation of participation in, or suspension from, that Instrument until the completion of the process set out below.

Such a process retreats from the more detailed procedures set out in the St Andrew‟s Draft and shifts the responsibility for making decisions to implement “relational

consequences” to the Joint Standing Committee rather than the Primates‟ Meeting or the ACC. 169 However, it retains the notion of a centralised response to conflict, in line with the implications of subsidiarity as an exploratory model. The reliance on subsidiarity is made explicit in paragraph 55 of the Windsor Continuation Group Report to the Archbishop of

164 _{Ibid., 3.2.3.} 165 _{ACC –3, 55.} 166 RCD, 3.2.4. 167 _{Ibid., 3.2.5.} 168 _{Ibid., 3.2.6.} 169

Submission to the Primate‟s as an external council, which was implied in the Nassau draft, had been regarded as “unlawful” for the Church of England. See “Church of England Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant”: “From a Church of England perspective, Stephen Slack has confirmed that it would be unlawful for the General Synod to delegate its decision making powers to the Primates, and that this therefore means that it could not sign up to a Covenant which purported to give the Primates of the Communion the ability to give „direction‟ about the course of action that the Church of England should take.”

Canterbury,170 which was quoted by Archbishop Gomez in his address to ACC –14.171 The principle of subsidiarity remains the only discernible exploratory model underlying section 4 of the RCD. It has been shown that the principle of subsidiarity has no biblical basis, is not argued for theologically, has not been tested within the Christian tradition, and has not had universal consent in the secular world, but it is the driving force for section 4. As such Section 4 of the RCD is unlikely to be a sufficient explanatory model for mission relationships within the Anglican Communion.

Conclusion

The aim of this chapter has been to seek to understand the sources of models for the Anglican Way, or “communion,” and to offer a critical commentary in order to see if they are sufficient as exploratory models. The analysis of historical developments demonstrates a desire to form theological models. The Virginia Report, even though it was not accepted by the 1998 Lambeth Conference, has acted as the model in style and in content for The

Windsor Report and the Covenant design process. The Virginia Report acts as an abstract

exploratory model based upon an approach that emphasises a biblical meta-narrative. It also offered the principle of subsidiarity as a model without reference to any biblical basis. As such The Virginia Report is not a single model but is treated as such.

This study has raised questions over the reliability of the model as an explanatory model. There is a lack of transparency in the process that led to the formulation of the model presented to the Communion. The real objects and interactions used to formulate abstract and impersonal statements are not open to investigation. In contrast there is evidence of a trend to use selected proof texts in the formulation of the meta-narrative. There is evidence also of a failure to engage with the fullness of Christian tradition when considering the use

170

“The Windsor Continuation Group Report to the Archbishop of Canterbury” (2009), The Anglican

Communion Official Website,

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/windsor_continuation/docs/WCG%20Report%20Final%2009 0105.pdf.

171

of adiaphora, and the failure to discuss the complexity of political thought surrounding subsidiarity. This raises questions as to whether the process of formulating The Virginia

Report has been in the Anglican Way of discerning the mind of Christ as defined in the

report itself. The Virginia Report defines the distinctive nature of the Anglican Way as accepting the authority of Scripture understood by tradition and reason. It is by no means clear that the riches of Christian thought have been fully applied to the consideration of Anglican identity.

In the previous chapter the declared aims of the PiM process were identified as an appropriate measure to judge the effectiveness of the process. It was shown that the process had failed to achieve these goals. This led to the conclusion that any model based on the process, such as the “Ten Principles,” was unlikely to be a useful exploratory model. It is not so simple to measure the model presented by both The Virginia Report and The Windsor

Report. The full measure will be seen in the effectiveness of the Covenant, especially if the

element of subsidiarity is incorporated into the final text. However, the lack of consensus over section 4 of the RCD indicates that there are potential problems ahead for the widespread adoption of the Covenant as it presently stands. This would represent some indication of unease with the underlying model.

In considering the failure of both mission partnership and Anglican identity we have seen that the failure to construct an adequate exploratory model from real objects and interactions has been a hindrance to both the process of forming mission partnerships and to developing an understanding of Anglican identity. The original architects of the modern Anglican Communion, Warren and Bayne, attempted to construct such a model, but the missional model was not communicated sufficiently well to enable planning and to critique action, and Bayne admitted to failing to offer any form of model for Anglican identity.

The missiological perspective is that Anglican identity and Anglican mission are interrelated. This is supported by William Temple‟s famous statement that “The Church is

the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members.” The point is emphasised by Emil Brunner who said: “The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission there is no church.”172

Identity and mission are intrinsically linked, and a model that works for one but stifles the other is unlikely to be fruitful. A consideration of partnership across the boundaries of geography, culture and unequal economics is a consideration of both mission and identity. The boundaries between the mission and identity are impossible to define, as where there is no mission there is no church.

The proposal of this thesis is that the Anglican Communion requires a biblical model of partnership across the divides of geography, economics and culture for both identity and mission. The construction of such a model cannot be by the simple application of proof texts, but has to take seriously critical methods of engagement with New Testament texts. This is the challenge for the following chapters in this thesis. In addition, as an effective exploratory model, any model will have to be fruitful in enabling planning. The aim is to develop an explanatory model that is applicable as an exploratory model for partnership across churches divided by geography, culture and economics in order to have a critical tool to consider the present situation and a tool for planning for future relationships.

172