The Flawed Covenant: A Conservative Viewpoint

 The Rt. Rev. John H. Rodgers Jr. of AMiA

 In a recent post I reported on the apparent reluctance of diocesan representatives to talk about the Standing Committee's endorsement of the proposed Anglican Covenant.  I speculated that one reason for their shyness might be the desire to distance themselves from the Standing Committee's action.  If the diocese feels any pressure to rethink the Standing Committee's endorsement, that pressure might be coming from outside sources usually allied with diocesan positions.

Virtue Online recently (Feb. 6) printed an essay by The Rt. Rev. John H. Rodgers Jr., identified as "a bishop with the Anglican Mission in the Americas."  The good news is that the bishop came to the independent conclusion that the Covenant is flawed and "will do more harm than good."  The reasons for this conclusion are more problematical, though.  Bishop Rodger regrets the Covenant's rejection of any "serious form of a magisterium that could discipline the wayward provinces who have departed from the plain teaching of Scripture."  The bishop ends his piece by praying "that the meeting of the Global South this April in Singapore will consider this matter and offer clear leadership to the Communion as a whole."  To this conservative bishop, the Covenant is no longer the chosen vehicle to punish The Episcopal Church and the other liberal Anglican provinces.  That task had better be left to representatives of the Global South, who have already expressed their willingness to take on the project.

Virtue Online is recommended reading in our diocese, and Bishop Love has commended it as a source of news.  This blog by David Virtue is linked to from the diocesan website.  Its opinions are valued in Albany.  Another blog that regularly reports on events in the Diocese of Albany is Transfigurations, by Pat Dague from Syracuse, NY.  Transfigurations also reprinted the opinion piece by Bishop Rodgers without further comment.  It appears that Pat Dague, whose voice is also listened to in the DoA, is sympathetic to the anti-Covenant argument.

Clearly, critics of the proposed Covenant do not only come from the liberal wing of The Episcopal Church.  Conservative bloggers, who might otherwise be expected to champion the positions taken by the Diocese of Albany, have already rejected the Covenant in its proposed form.  If the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Albany will not listen to the voices of their moderate to liberal members who express grave doubts, perhaps they can be swayed from their decision by the growing criticism from conservative friends.

Comments

[Dennis Wisnom]

What this diocese needs, or more accurately, what Bishop Love needs is a Bishop Suffragan. I realize that Bp. Love needs to see the need for such an election, however, even though we don't agree on everything, I am concerned about his overall health and well being. Bishop Bill is a good man and is an excellent pastor to his sheep, even those sheep with whom he disagrees and I appreciate this very much.
Ideally, I would like to see a Bishop Suffragan who can balance Bishop Love out theologically and politically, just as Bp. Vince Pettit did as Assistant Bishop of Albany from 1993-1997.

[Dennis Wisnom]

I think what this diocese needs to do is move the convention back to the cathedral, JUST FOR THIS YEAR, or at the very least, have the convention at the Cathedral of All Saints or Christ the King Spiritual Life Center every other year. Each year, I'm told, that the diocese loses more and more money by having the event at Camp of the Woods. How much money is lost and why can't the diocesan leadership be up front about the losses?

[Dennis Wisnom]

The best thing to happen in the Diocese of Albany right now to restore trust, healing and renewal is for the Bishop of Albany, +William H. Love, to convene a series of Deanery meetings across the diocese to openly discuss the proposed Anglican Covenant. I'm a regular at our Diocesan Convention in Speculator and I doubt very much that we will have any sort of open and honest debate. Why is this diocese so afraid of discord and ambiguity in its discussions? I think one reason is, a spirit of Anglican comprehensiveness is absent. How will that be restored? I'm not sure, but I'm open to hearing what my faithful conservative brothers and sisters have to say. I am willing to listen and hear you.

[Robert Dodd]

"Our Church has remained healthy and numerically strong under Evangelical dominance, Catholic dominance, but not under liberal dominance."

Fr. Hartt’s strong statement requires more justification than reference to an unidentified "historical review." What did his authority identify as "our Church?" TEC? The Church of England? The Anglican Communion? And over what time period?

Using TEC’s published membership data for 2000 to 2008, we can explore whether diocesan prosperity is now correlated with theology. Right-leaning South Carolina and Fort Worth grew by about 20%, but the similarly inclined Dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Albany shrank by 5-10% and Quincy by about 40%. Moderate to liberal dioceses, e.g. New York, Long Island, and Los Angeles, lost 10-12% of their members, but Washington grew by 2% under the progressive leadership of Bp. Chane. No clear pattern here!

"What are we going to do about it?" Fr. Hartt asks at the end of his comment, without making clear what "it" is. Absent more information, it’s hard to evaluate his suggestion that the covenant is answering "it."

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

William Hammond notes that "one can read too much into ‘perfect, exact, and absolute in itself.’”

I agree.

But that is not to empty Hooker's assertion of its force. The quotation remains characteristic of Hooker's conviction about the primacy of scripture, and of the subsidiary role of reason and tradition as tools that we bring to bear in the necessary task of interpretation. Neither reason nor tradition (contra traditional Roman Catholicism) is an autonomous source of revelation.

[Rev. Paul Hartt]

The "Three Legged Stool" can also be seen as corresponding to modes of churchmanship.

Roughly speaking, Scripture grounds the Evangelical expression of our Church, Tradition the Catholic expression, and Reason/Experience grounds the Broad or Liberal Church.

None of these three expressions of churchmanship has ever functioned in complete isolation from the others. However, a review of Anglican Church history will show that there have been times in which one of the three has come to dominate and this historical review also supports the following:

Our Church has remained healthy and numerically strong under Evangelical dominance, Catholic dominance, but not under liberal dominance.

Now the interesting question is: Why? But the important question is: What are we going to do about it?

The important question is being answered by the Covenant.

[William F. Hammond]

Fr. Brown,

I think one can read too much into "perfect, exact, and absolute in itself". For example, I trust that by Hooker's time few believed that the "firmament" was actually real.

There is also this line from Hooker, to which I alluded earlier: "What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth." In fact, this is quoted in your article with url "news/episcopalian/061105.html" in the Diocesan website.

A further reference is at the Diocese of New York website, "Let the Reader Understand" -- a guide to Scriptural interpretation, http://www.dioceseny.org/pages/372-let-the-reader-understand

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

I wouldn’t make too much of the apparent lack of emphasis on reason by so-called “reasserters.” Among Anglican conservatives, “experience” is regarded with far more suspicion than reason, although even here, there is a degree to which experience inevitably shapes theological discourse. The issue is: where does the primacy of authority lie?

Consider the following quote from Richard Hooker, in which he stresses the “perfect, exact and absolute” character of scripture, to which reason is not a supplement, but rather an instrument for interpretation:

“Unto the word of God, being in respect of that end for which God ordained it perfect, exact, and absolute in itself, we do not add reason as a supplement of any maim or defect therein, but as a necessary instrument, without which we could not reap by the scripture's perfection that fruit and benefit which it yielded.”

[William F. Hammond]

The "Scripture, reason and tradition" formula is indeed common sense. But I note that a number of "reasserters" in current discussions cite only Scripture and tradition. Perhaps that is why Scripture, reason, and tradition is given prominence in resolution A074, "Endorse Theological Statement on Interreligious Relations", from the 2009 General Convention.

[John White]

I look forward to Canon Brown’s comments for their creative and thought-provoking arguments. He is right that the Anglican formula of the Three Legged Stool is simply “common sense.” The problem, he asserts, is that some, presumably “TEC progressives,” seek to “play one against the other” in a game of “second opinion.” Such a practice would represent both intellectual dishonesty and theological chicanery. Is that the charge that is being leveled here? Let me propose that another problem arises when critics in positions of authority refuse to recognize the intellectual honesty or theological rigor of conclusions that are not in accordance with their favored orthodoxy. Because church theologians or even informed laypersons may interpret God’s will differently does not imply a misuse of the discernment process. To suggest otherwise would be demagogic.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

William Hammond has more than once spoken of an "Anglican method of theology" in the use of Scripture, Reason and Tradition. Recognition of the place of Scripture, Reason and Tradition within theological reflection is a common sense insight that is hardly limited to Anglicanism, although certainly prevalent within Anglican tradition. The problem arises when the so-called “Three-legged Stool” is treated as a threefold divine revelation that allows us to play one against the other if we are uncomfortable with what the scripture says. It becomes a sort of theology of the “second opinion,” much as one might seek the advice of another doctor if we are uncertain about the first.

There really is not one “Anglican method” of theology. Anglican evangelicals are traditionally Calvinist in their theological method and outlook, classic Anglo-Catholics were basically Thomists. Anglican “Broad Church” liberals tended to embrace the approach of Frederick Schleiermacher, and his privileging of the role of experience. Today’s orthodox-minded evangelical catholics – folks like N.T. Wright, Ephrem Radner, Philip Turner, Chris Seitz – are essentially Barthian, often influenced by the “Yale School” approach of George Lindbeck, Brevard Childs and Hans Frei. Contemporary TEC “progressives” are strongly influenced by Liberation Theology.

[William F. Hammond]

In the Anglican tradition the method of theology is Scripture, reason, and tradition (in that order if one bases it on the standard line from Richard Hooker).

In the Roman Catholic tradition, as I understand it, the corresponding distillation of the method is Scripture, tradition, and magisterium. Magisterium is foreign to Anglicanism.

But note that the John Paul II encyclical entitled "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)" holds that correct doctrine cannot stand in contradiction to knowledge established by reason.

[Grandmère Mimi]

Virtue Online recommended reading on the diocesan website? Oh dear!

[Robert Dodd]

The case against the proposed Anglican covenant is really quite simple: Given trust and respect among Anglicans in different circumstances and with different views, it is unnecessary. Absent trust and respect -- both of which are in very short supply today --it cannot bring us together and will likely drive us farther apart.

The covenant is a bad idea, made worse in the Diocese of Albany by our leaders' leaping to endorse it before the ink was even on paper, much less dry.

[Fr. Christopher Brown]

For decades, John Rogers was one o f the most respected evangelicals in the Episcopal Church. He taught theology at Virginia Seminary (a thoroughly mainsteam Episcopal seminary), and was then dean at Trinity School for Ministry for many years. He is a gracious and well-spoken academic and pastor. A founding bishop of AMiA, his loss was a significant indictment of the Episcopal Church and the direction it has taken in recent decades.

John Rogers obviously has no hope at all for the Episcopal Church -- and little, perhaps, for the Anglican Communion apart from the GAFCON contingent. It is no surprise that he has rejected the Anglican Covenant. For orthodox folk (evangelicals, catholics, charismatics, traditional Episcopalians) who remain within the Episcopal Church and the mainstream of the Anglican Communion, it offers a way ahead -- though not without ambiguity or uncertainty.

Conservative opposition to the Covenant illustrates a point I have made in the past: those who support the Anglican Covenant stand (in this case, anyway) with Archbishop Williams in the doctrinal center of the Anglican Communion. It is the true “via media” position.