The Constitutionality of an anglican Covenant

THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF AN ANGLICAN COVENANT

I am struck by the number of people who have referred to the statement several of
us who are both bishops and lawyers had written for the House of Bishops and
asked me, in effect, “Are you guys for or against the Covenant?” Well, let me
„splain that this way.

I have the great pleasure of working right now with Bishop Musonda Trevor
Mwamba of Botswana. We are writing a book on this subject, by Skype, and we
spend an inordinate amount of time laughing at each other and especially at our
cultural assumptions and narrowness. When we shared how many times we were each being asked
basically the same question, “Are you guys for or against the Covenant”, I offered that a Cajun joke might
help “s’plain ‘dat.”

Alphonse and Gaston, ‘de sit themselves at ‘de Bad Boudreaux Bar and Grill overlookin’ de Bayou
Lafourche, eatin’ oysters and crayfish, when Gaston, he say to Alphonse, “Mon ami, I got to tol’ you ’bout
the course I took at the Nichols State. N’ite course, for after-education. Cher, it changed my life, I
guarondamntee you ‘dat.

“Oh yeah?”

“It’s called the logique.”

“Me,” say Alphone, his eyes wide on account of curiosity, “I don’t know ‘dat logique. You gotta’ have done told me ’bout it.

Gaston, he ready, “OK, let me ‘splain it light ‘dis. You got a dog?”

“Course. You know I got my dog. We hunt and all wi’d it, together, us.”

“OK. You got a dog, now: you got a dog house?”

“Shore’ nough,” quick say back Alphonse at Gaston. “You know I got that dog took care of wid’ the pin and lill’ house and all.”

“OK, you got a dog and a dog house, you got a house?”, axed Gaston.

“Well, com’on. Oh, oh, oh, I t’ink I start’in to see. Yeah, I got a house.

“Yeah man,” and Gaston, he hurrin’ ‘fore its too late, “Now, you got de house for yoself, do you got some windows in ‘dat home?”

” ‘Course.”, Alphonse nodding yeah in cooperation and enjoying himself, ’cause him, he already done catchin’ on.

“And in those windows, you got some curtains?”

“Yep, I got curtains in ‘dem windows.”

Gaston can’t wait to say, “Ah, You married. See. See how ‘de logique work?”

Now some time, it passes, and one day Alphonse is standing on the corner in Thibodaux and says to his frien’ Tee-Curt, “Say, do you know ’bout the power of the logique?”

Tee-Curt, he say no to ‘dat, but real polite lik’ he axed him what ‘dat logique, it is.

Alphonse say, “OK, let me ‘splain it ‘dis way: you got a dog?”

Tee-Curt answer back, “No, I don’t have a dog?”

Alphonse, he declare, “Ah, you gay!”

We have no objection to having Anglicans seek and articulate agreement in a time of conflict, but we do not appreciate any leap to an assumption that we are not already constituted, that is, that we do not already hold in common certain very real and definable principles and understandings that formed us, brought us together, holds us together, and distinguishes us from other branches and churches of Christianity. It is our contention that we have an Anglican Constitution, albeit unwritten and, most happily, unenforceable, but nevertheless very real and effective. We analyze it analogically to the
international constitution serving the community of nations. It is a denial of reality to take an incredible and illogical leap to the notion that there is a vacuum from which we must – that a new majority, perhaps
a new hegemony, has the right to – start from scratch in defining who we are.

We have no objection to holding an in depth debate about human sexuality and morality, such as at
Lambeth in 1998, but we do not appreciate any leap from there to demands for the most radical change to
the very identity of Anglicanism, placing at stake what it is that makes us a church together, our
ecclesiology.

We have no problem in recognizing that the North American Provinces have engaged in theological
innovation, for the decisions to open the fullness of the church‟s life to the participation of women,
children, and gay and lesbian persons required just that, and nor do we rue from being taken to task by
that solid majority who disagree, and most seriously disagree, but we do not appreciate any leap to
assertions that such innovation is contrary to Anglicanism itself and is a violation of the standards of
membership in the Communion, or breaks baptismal and eucharistic bonds.

We have no objection to seeking to overcome disagreement, but we do not believe that disagreement is so
important in itself that a resolution always has to found in every case – usually to be imposed on those
who disagree with the majority.

We have no objection to a statement of simple agreement, but we do not appreciate any leap to the
establishment of mechanisms to enforce it that can very easily lead to a juridical ecclesiology, dominated
by a clerical hierarchy, within a monolithic church that attempts to ignore or suppresses cultural realities.

We have no problem with the movement, which began only very recently, to recognize certain offices and
institutions as “instruments of unity”, but we do not appreciate any leap to establish them as instruments
of government.

I suppose I could go on with these leaps of logic that are uncalled for, unacceptable and ill-logical, but the
point is that we would not be against some form of a compact or agreement regarding our life together,
but only with full and proper account being taken of that which is already constitutional. If we must have
a covenant to clarify the identity of Anglicanism why aren‟t we trying to protect the central principles of
Anglicanism that are under attack?

You tell me:

If we no longer believe that what makes us members together of the Anglican Communion it is our
common worship in which we offer the same prayers no matter how differently we may interpret them
and our sharing in the sacraments, but instead choose to reduce Anglican comprehensiveness, the Via
Media, and Lex Orandi Lex Credendi to a conforming set of doctrines, will we be the same church, the
church each of us chose?

If the Anglican Communion decides that scripture must be read literally with imposed conformity to a
single interpretation when there is disagreement, perhaps without attempting objective regard for critical
scholarship, will it be the same church?

If the Anglican Communion continues to increase its use of bishops as signs of division, or of conformity,
rather than as signs of unity, will it be the same church?

If the Anglican Communion comes to accept as a common practice the refusal of Christians to share
communion with fellow baptized Christians, including collegial bishops, will it be the same church?

If the Anglican Communion allows the creation of jurisdictions that cross provincial and diocesan
boundaries in order to satisfy those within a given jurisdiction who disagree with the episcopal authority
and the majority decisions of the duly constituted decision-making bodies of that jurisdiction, or if it
allows extra-jurisdictional episcopal authority to be exercised at personal whim, will it be the same
church?

If the Anglican Communion creates, in effect, a Communion-wide teaching office, a magisterium,
requiring and perhaps enforcing doctrinal conformity without regard to cultural and experiential
differences among provinces, enabling it to overrule decisions duly made by a province, perhaps by
independent mediation or some other “process”, will it be the same church?

If Anglicanism decides to put justice on the periphery as but one among several facets of the gospel, and
sets religious observance and spirituality apart from love of neighbor, not making nice, but seeing that
justice is provided to those who otherwise would be without, as we would have justice done for us, will it
be the same church?

I am pointing to traditions that are under serious attack, and they are a definitive part of what constitutes
Anglicanism, that is, they are “articles of the Anglican Constitution”. How does the Design Group hope to
define and protect Anglicanism without protecting them?
These firmly established and crucially realities of Anglicanism that are being challenged in word and
deed, challenged in the statements and demands and actions that have characterized the present conflict,
challenged with the contradicting precedents that are being set, these constitutive elements are not being
affirmed in the process, and certainly not in the draft document of the covenant. In that, is its most
dangerous possibility.

Please take note of this: legal training instructs the interpreter to look, not merely at the face of a
document, but to discover what it actually means and establishes in the light of its history.

The text of a
law or a constitutional document must take into account the legislative history, that whole background out
of which it emerges and against which it stands in relief, all that has gone into selecting and excluding
precise words and statements and formularies, and most especially the impetus that drove its production
and passage or acceptance. What we see in the process of being produced, the background of the whole
conflict with its radical demands and overwrought proclamations, frightens us. It threatens to change our
identity.

So far, in my opinion, too many, perhaps including some on the Design Group, are not taking cognizance
of the most glaring reality: that which is already in place. I was very pleased, following the meeting in
New Orleans, to hear our Archbishop of Canterbury begin to make reference to the “constituting elements
of Anglicanism.” That had a most hopeful sound, to me.

We must not allow radical agents of change to take us, simply stepping around them, to leave behind
those traditions and principles that have made Anglicanism so distinctively valuable. Such constitutional
changes cannot be made with a simple majority vote, or imposed by authority that is newly recognized by
a mere majority. They have to be protected by constitutional safeguards recognized in the civilized world.

Let me say that we do not want to get bogged down in legalistic concerns. What we call the Anglican
Constitution you may prefer to term it as classical Anglicanism, commonly held Anglican agreements and
suppositions, our Anglican birthright, or the combination of ethos, customs, ideals, precedents, shared
memory of experience, and inviolate traditions that shape the Anglican consciousness. We find the tools
of constitutional law enormously helpful and most exact, bringing to bear a well honed tradition. But who
cares. The bottom line is, we care about our identity, what makes us so special and ecumenically valuable,
what makes us Anglican.

Our Archbishop of Canterbury has shown me such warm personal support and pastoral care that, even
where I feel that we may disagree, I rejoice that he is our leader at this moment in history. I think it was
significant that Rowan Williams turned, as the primary source of his first major speech to the British
people and the Church of England — back in 2004, I believe — to a history of International Constitutional
Law: a book titled The Shield of Achilles, by Philip Bobbitt (a Texas Episcopalian who teaches at
Columbia Law School). You can bet that I conformed my analysis to the modalities of interpretation
found in that book, an analysis I am sure the Archbishop recognized.

I wonder how many people may be making the assumption that the Anglican Communion must change in
some measure during this age of globalization because of the changes taking place in the relations within
the international community of nations, especially regarding the decreasing independence of sovereignty
enjoyed by nation-states. My only cautionary word to the leadership of our Communion at this juncture is
first, that the are misreading these signs of the times, and second, that we must not make radical changes
to our constitution without the overwhelming support and compelling sense for new dispensation that has
always been necessary for constitutional change internationally, as well as within the nations ruled by
parliamentary democracy.

We look forward to the ongoing conversation; we offer our gratitude to the members of the Design
Committee for their good labors; we simply caution: watch that slippery slope of logic; recognize, protect,
and stay true to our Anglican Constitution; or, just say “no”.
Bp. Doss served parishes in Louisiana and California as an Episcopal priest, and the Diocese of New
Jersey as Bishop. An attorney with a background in civil rights, he recently wrote, with five other bishops
who are also licensed attorneys, The Constitutional Crisis 2007, on the subject of the proposed Anglican
Covenant. He is working on a book version for Church Publishing with Bp. Musonda Trevor Mwamba of
Botswana. He is currently involved in post-Katrina rebuilding efforts in Louisiana. At the Threshold is
an organization fostering reform in the church. He is the author of two plays and three books, including
Songs of the Mothers: Messages of Hope for the Future Church (Church Publishing 2003).

Source www.gts.edu