Anglican Vassalage?

Browsing in the library at Silver Bay on Lake George, where I am relaxing this Memorial Day weekend, I took down the volume on Matthew from The Anchor Bible series and began reading.  Not far into the introduction, I read the editor's description of what "covenant" means in the Bible:

It is clear that "covenant" in the Old Testament (and, pari passu, in the New Testament) describes an arrangement in which a sovereign Lord lays down the conditions under which he is prepared to accept the vassalage of, and aford protection to, those who seek his aid and wish to enter his dominion.

Now if the Anglican provinces from the Global South (who concocted and promoted the proposed Anglican Covenant) are indeed comitted to Biblical faithfulness, this must be what they envision.  If we are meant to accept vassalage as a condition of staying within the dominion of the altered Anglican Communion, then I think our response to the Covenant must be a resounding "no."

Comments

[Harriet Warnock-Graham]

Just for the record..."no".

The discussion of a so called covenant has not improved the the notion over time. One of many problems I have with the covenant is that it plays merry hell with the authority of our House of Deputies. If that were the only reason to vote against it, it would be enough.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

I was not proposing that the 39 Articles be reinstated as the ultimate doctrinal standard for the Anglican Communion — only that they once held that role. Anglican doctrine, especially regarding the Eucharist, has been a moving target over the centuries. John is correct in pointing out that the Articles reflect their 16th century context.

Yet, I often get the feeling that in today’s church the Articles have been put out of commission, like a creaky wooden battleship that no longer has anything to contribute to the needs of the day. This is a mistake. Having recently finished a two year course of lectures for the Sisters of St. Mary on the Articles, I believe that they have much to teach us, even if they do not say all that needs to be said.

The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was not intended to supplant the Articles. Rather it offers a framework by which Anglicans propose to enter into union with other churches. In specifying four areas of faith and practice that we regard essential, it provides a sort of sketch, and without getting into doctrinal specifics. While critical to Anglican self-understanding, it too does not say everything that needs to be said.

[John White]

The Rev. Dr. Brown says that “the challenge has always been locating the line that separates essentials from inessentials. Traditionally, the 39 Articles played that role.” The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says that the 39 Articles was the C of E’s “attempt to define its dogmatic positions in relation to the controversies of the 16th century.” Rather than a statement of definitive Christian doctrine, they were “short summaries of dogmatic tenants, each dealing with some point raised in current controversies”. According to the Oxford Dictionary, some of the articles are characterized by “masterly ambiguity.” This seems a rather thin, and culturally dated, guide to distinguishing the essentials of our faith! A much more concise and relevant guide to the essentials of our shared faith can be found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, which is also a part of the historical documents in our Prayer Book. Only in recent decades have the polemical Articles been reasserted, largely by conservatives disaffected from the Anglican mainstream, and asked to carry greater doctrinal weight than they can bear.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

Most likely GC2012 will just say no -- which will only deepen existing divisions since it will demonstrate an unwillingness to be accountable within the wider Anglican family.

So far as “uniformity of belief” is concerned, Anglicanism has always distinguished between essentials and what the Reformers called “adiaphora,” or matters of secondary concern about which we can differ without breaking fellowship. This important distinction has allowed Anglicanism to maintain unity of faith without the imposition of rigid doctrinal uniformity.

The challenge has always been locating the line that separates essentials from inessentials. Traditionally, the 39 Articles played that role. Now, however, the field is wide open. Unless we want to say that the content of our preaching and teaching and ethical practice simply doesn’t matter, the Anglican family must find ways to come to some kind of consensus over what those essentials are. Otherwise this classic distinction ceases to have any practical value.

The Anglican Covenant offers a fair and judicious process to seek a functional consensus about essentials and inessentials.

[Robert T Dodd]

Fr. Brown: "The Anglican Covenant is simply about mutual accountability."

I wish that were true! The Covenant in fact proposes to establish and enforce common standards for Anglicanism. Those who support it confuse uniformity of belief with unity of faith, two very different concepts.

The Anglican Communion wisely avoided that error at its inception (the Colenso affair)and has done so at other crucial points in its history. I hope it will do so again: The Covenant is not only useless as an instrument for unity -- a "chocolate teapot" as +Alan Wilson put it -- but a wedge to produce deeper divisions.

"Just say no" is my advice to GC 2012, perhaps adding "please" for the sake of Anglican civility.

ROBERT T DODD

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

Yes, early Middle Eastern covenants were suzerainty treaties between stronger and weaker nations, and these modeled Israel's covenant with the Lord.

But there were other sorts of covenants. Consider the friendship covenant between David and Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:3). Neither is vassal to the other.

What about the covenant of marriage? Who is vassal to whom?

The Anglican Covenant is simply about mutual accountability.

[lorrie]

Thank you. I didn't realize that in the bible covenant means an agreement between 'underlings' and the power under which they serve. The Episcopal Church, nor any other Church within the Anglican Communion should be subserviant to any other.