City of Saints

I've just tripped over, in the Google way, a puff for a building development in Grahamstown, South Africa.

With its elegant English heritage and beautifully preserved architecture, Grahamstown is one of the best-preserved Victorian colonial towns in the world. It is also the City of Saints, a diocese of the Anglican Church in South Africa and home to many faiths, whose church spires and buildings of worship define the skyline. But Grahamstown is better known as a centre of education, arts and culture, the host of the popular annual National Arts Festival and home to some of the country’s finest institutions of learning, including Rhodes University, St Andrews College, The Diocesan School for Girls, Graeme College and Kingswood College.

What I especially liked was the conjunction of  '... the City of Saints, a diocese of the Anglican Church in South Africa and home to many faiths, whose church spires and buildings of worship define the skyline.'

Could such a place be really possible - Saints, Anglicans, and many faiths all enjoying the South African sun together?

Perhaps only in a sales brochure. Though the housing development is called Lindisfarne so, perhaps, anything's possible.

Archbishop Makgoba endorses a Covenant

Archbishops in unity - but it looks as though
others have been cropped out
from what was once a group.

The Archbishop of Cape Town, the Most Rev. Thabo Makgoba, has written to the Archbishop of Canterbury to tell him that the Covenant is A Good Thing.

I strongly suspect that Thabo Makgoba was asked to write. I am sure that not every letter from a fellow Archbishop is put on Rowan Williams' own site so promptly. And I see the Anglican Communion News Service gives the letter a sub-head: 'A Necessary Covenant'.

I have a lot of time for the Archbishop of Cape Town from what I've read on his site and heard on the radio. I think the Covenant he is talking about (see an earlier post) is a Covenant he deeply believes in and would long to see enacted.

But it's not the Covenant that's on the table.

1) Archbishop Makgoba cites support for the Church in Zimbabwe and for the Church in South Africa in the days of apartheid. As case studies they make a very powerful case for the unified support of the Anglican Communion, in prayer and practical help.


But, unfortunately perhaps, the Covenant would have made no difference had it been in place. Kunonga has been expelled from the Anglican Church. Most churches stood in solidarity with the church in South Africa. What more could or would a Covenanted Communion achieve?

The reason the Covenant cannot help is because it is designed to fight the last war - a civil war within the Church. It sets out conflict resolution procedures between provinces.

The conflicts in Zimbabwe and in South Africa were, first, within the Church's concerned and, second, conflicts between the church and political forces. Nothing in the Covenant adds anything to the coherence currently in place when it comes to addressing either of these dimensions of conflict.

2) Despite the sub-head on the ACNS posting, in fact the Archbishop's support for the Covenant seems conditional:

Yet such mutuality cannot be taken for granted, and indeed, the way that our disagreements on human sexuality have played out suggests we had already begun to drift from that particular sense of belonging to God and to each other, within the wider body of Christ, which was so strong in Southern Africa’s great time of need. It seems to me that the Covenant is entirely necessary, in recalling us to ourselves. Only in this way can we continue to grow in bearing this rich fruit that comes from living the life which is both God’s gift and God’s calling.

Chad Gandiya
Bishop of Harare

Only if the Covenant recalls the Communion to mutuality, to a reinvigorated 'sense of belonging to God and to one another, within the wider body of Christ' will it meet the good Archbishop's aspirations for it.

Sadly, he has forgotten, or chosen to gloss over, or persuaded himself that it will never happen - that one significant purpose which led to the Covenant was the desire of Maurice Sinclair, Drexel Gomez and others to expel the North American churches from the Communion. Therefore the Archbishop does not comment on the power - which did not exist when the South African and Zimbabwean Churches received global support - to ostracise and exclude a part of the Communion.

Yet, for all the rhetoric of communion, unity and interdependence, the power to divide is built into the Covenant. It is not there by chance but because it embodies some people's desire to divide the Communion.

3) The Archbishop addresses the critics of the Covenant (I've split up his paragraph):

Arguments that the Covenant is ‘not fit for purpose’ (for example through ‘going too far’ or ‘not going far enough’) are too often predicated upon an inadequate model of ‘being church’ and what it means to live as members of the body of Christ.

Implicit, it seems to me, is a diminished view of God’s grace, God’s redemptive power and purposes, and God’s vision and calling upon his people and his Church, and so of Anglicanism’s place within these.

Our sense of who we are, and called to become, should not principally be conveyed through legal prisms, whether of some form of centralising authority, or of Provinces’ constitutions and canon law which must be ‘safeguarded’ from external ‘interference’. Nor should we primarily look to structural or legal solutions to our undeniable difficulties or for regulating our relationships.

I think it's the other way round. An inadequate model of 'being church' is articulated in the Covenant. Specifically, it reflects a model of 'being church' which is driven by the conviction that those who disagree with the majority should be subject to law-like processes with the ultimate sanction of expulsion. This is quite the contrary to the Archbishop's visions (see section 5 below).

The Covenant we have in front of us is not a spiritually or theologically rich tapestry of unity-in-difference. On the contrary, it exalts an ecclesiology of bureaucrats.

The Archbishop's experience, his passionate and spiritual commitment to real unity in God - neither denying our differences nor denying the validity of those who hold different views - is immensely appealing. I long for such a church.

From More in Heaven and Earth

But the fact is that 'structural or legal solutions to our undeniable difficulties [and] for regulating our relationships' is precisely what the Covenant contains. It's very nature is that of a document which sets out the skeleton of conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms.

And, yes, it is an utterly impoverished vision of what the church could and should be. And, yes, it does express a preference for the human preference for relying on their own planning than on God.

So I can't see that signing up to it in the hope that it's something else is a very good plan at all. I embrace the Archbishop's vision - I just can't see why he thinks this Covenant is even in the same line of sight.

And I note that he, like almost all advocates of the Covenant, argue for it in very general terms. I have no quibble with the generalities - but when I look at the detail, the actual words, of what we are being asked to sign up to, I despair.

4) Our failure, he says, as a communion, to fully accept our interdependence is a deeper malaise than the symptomatic conflict over sexuality (again, I've split his paragraph).

Therefore, to ask if the Covenant is ‘fit for purpose’ should be to ask whether it helps us address the foundational question of growing together in faithful obedience within the body of Christ. And it seems to me that, above all else, the Covenant does indeed do this, in the way it places God’s vision for God’s Church and God’s world centre-stage; and then invites us to live into this as our ultimate and overriding context and calling.

It does not create new structures or authorities, nor alters constitutions; and scope for individual action remains considerable (as your letter underlines).

The Covenant does indeed set out ways of 'growing together in faithful obedience within the body of Christ'. It also has ways of forcing some to walk apart. The former I endorse; the latter I repudiate.

The Covenant does create new structures in that 'Each Church undertake to put into place such mechanisms, agencies or institutions, ...' (4.2.9) ensure the Covenant is implemented in its own location and to liaise with the Instruments of Unity.

I also believe it will alter constitutions. In the first place there will be a need to change to the constitution of the Anglican Communion which does not, at present, mention the Covenant nor have any mechanism for excluding members. Scope for individual action does remain considerable.


5) (yes, my dividing up again)

Where we are apprehensive about our ability to ‘lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Eph 4:1-2), then it is reassuring to note that St Paul is under no illusions as to how difficult it can be to relate to those who are different within Christ’s body.

Members who are otherwise completely mutually incomprehensible (as seeing is to the ear, hearing to the eye – 1 Cor 12:17) can nonetheless hold together, if they can recognise that Christ lives in the other.

This is something we learnt in the past in Southern Africa, and continue to experience across vast ethnic, cultural, political and socio-economic differences. More than this, we have found that, even in painful difference, we are better able to discern God’s truth together than apart. 

All this is why we hold together in ongoing debate across the whole spectrum of views on human sexuality – we do not agree, and our differences are sharp and painful, but we will not turn our backs on brothers and sisters in Christ and instead will keep wrestling together. This is why we are proceeding towards adopting the Covenant.

Yes. But why then endorse a Covenant which does envisage turning 'our backs on brothers and sisters in Christ', a course of action propounded by the Chair of the Covenant Design Group?
==========

The Archbishop's letter is a powerful plea for the Covenant and I have no doubt that Rowan Williams was very pleased to receive it. It is a plea as much to the Churches of the Global South as to western liberal critics.

But it is all predicated on the Covenant being something that is not actually present in the text: a unity based on mutual love that transcends our differences, of a love of God greater than our grasp of God's truth.

If the the Archbishop of Cape Town can mould the Covenant in the image of his vision I'd be delighted. I'd vote for him to be Archbishop of Canterbury, if anyone asked. But I fear the reality is far from his generous, loving and wide embrace.

A richer Covenant

The Most Revd Thabo Makgoba, the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town and Metropolitan of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.

 The Province of South Africa has partly endorsed the Anglican Covenant - it has passed the first stage of the constitutional process and will be brought to the next Provincial Synod for ratification.

The resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority, although some speakers who supported it expressed reservations. The Revd Drake Tshenkeng of the Diocese of Kimberley and Kuruman asked whether the Church was not giving “centralizing power” to the communion's Standing Committee. The Dean of Grahamstown, the Very Rev Andrew Hunter said the covenant raised the questions: “How far does diversity stretch, who defines diversity and who sets the boundaries?”

The sadness from my perspective is that Archbishop Thabo Makgoba has a rich understanding of covenant and its potential, a vision I would delight in - but unfortunately it's a vision I don't see in the Anglican Covenant on offer today.



Covenant and South Africa

Thabo Makgoba discusses the idea of Covenant in relation to the South African State and its Constitution.  There is too much to set out here in full - I recommend the Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture: ‘Constitution and Covenant’ and 'Moral State of the Nation Address'. 

In the Harold Wolpe lecture he addressed the current state of South Africa.  

In South Africa, we have to learn how to become a democracy, and all of us who stood together in the past, are still feeling our ways into the new relationships appropriate to constitutional democracy. Government, political parties, the private sector, academia, the media, civil society, faith communities and so forth, now each have our distinctive and separate contributions to make to the life of the nation as a whole. We are still learning where we should stand in solidarity, and where we should be critical. We are still learning what it means to hold and to exchange legitimately diverse perspectives. We are still learning both how to deliver and how to receive criticism that is constructive. The way to pursue such maturing democracy is to abide by – or, in the words of St Paul, be subject to – our Constitution.

There is a clear parallel with the Anglican Communion (setting aside the democracy bit).  Just how Anglicans stand together and criticise one another, how we hold and exchange legitimate and legitimately diverse perspectives, is the driving issue behind the Anglican Covenant.


He sets the question in scripture and in Noah's Covenant with God:

This is a covenant for all of humanity, and for all of creation. It is a covenant about the sanctity of human life, about the integrity of the created world, and about the dignity of difference, symbolised by the rainbow. God says that people matter. God cares that his beloved children should have adequate food, clothing, shelter and so forth. God cares that everyone should be treated with complete respect by everyone else, with no-one marginalised, excluded, voiceless in the ordering of our common lives (which is, of course what democracy is all about).

Amen. Amen.  Again, the contrast of the Church with a democracy is significant.


The Archbishop draws on Chief Rabbi Sacks' speech to the Lambeth Conference which contrasted Covenant and Contract. He summarised the contrast as:

Contracts concern our interests, while covenants concern our identities. · Contracts deal in transactions, while covenants deal in relationships. · Contracts benefit, while covenants transform. · Contracts are about competition – if I win, you lose; while covenants are about cooperation – if I win, you also win.

He then talks about the right and need of the government to govern - and, vitally, the duty to listen. The government, he argues, has a duty to create and sustain a space for free public debate - and to accept criticism as well as praise. He calls for 'the effective participation of all, at every level.'  This is not easy and (he doesn't say this, I do) the experience in so much of Africa directly contradicts this vision.


The Archbishop says:

But, whatever the limitations of experience, mature democracy requires mutual acknowledgement that political opponents seek the good of the country and its people, however great the policy disagreement on the best means for achieving this. We must accord everyone freedom of speech: freedom to debate issues, to put differing arguments, to propose alternative policies, and to persuade – but never to coerce. Anyone who threatens, or intimidates – or stands by while their supporters do so – is not worthy to be a leader. Anyone who incites violence, or advocates harm to their political opponents – or allows others to do so – is a disgrace to democracy and deserves only our contempt. Anyone who pursues power to further their own interests, or the interests of those around them, is unfit to hold office.

In fact, he says,

Let me put this in other words. Effective democracy needs ubuntu. Ubuntu says, ‘I am because we are.’ Ubuntu says ‘My full humanity is dependent on your full humanity.’ Ubuntu is shared covenantal living – living through loving and caring, honesty and respect, compassion and trust. Ubuntu is upholding good morals. Ubuntu is helping those in need. Ubuntu is saying that if any other person is diminished, then I too am diminished.

And, from 'Moral State of the Nation Address'

Covenant is entirely ubuntu-shaped – we find our humanity through the humanity of others – we flourish through promoting the flourishing of others. SePedi has a proverb for this: Mphiri o tee ga o lle – one bangle makes no sound. But working in harmony can create a beautiful symphony!

The Anglican Covenant
The South African initial adoption of the Covenant may have been overwhelming but it was not enthusiastic.  

As I said in my Charge, this is not a perfect document, but it certainly offers a way of affirming our desire to live together as Provinces, within our global family;  a means of getting the balance right through an autonomy that is neither imposed uniformity, nor unbounded independence.  My prayer is that we will now be able to share our unique experiences of letting Christ hold us together in difference, within the life of the Covenant, and help it to work as well as possible. (Here)

The earlier Synod of Bishops had supported the Covenant with the observation 'It can be a tool for healing and for helping the Communion move forward.'


This is a vote for a hope.  And if such hope is realised I will happily welcome it.  


But, in my view, all the signs point in the opposite direction.  Fundamentally there is no democracy, nor any desire for effective participation, nor any valuing of the ideals of democracy.  There is no evident desire of the international leaders of the Communion to create and sustain a public space for diversity and difference, criticism and praise.


The Covenant grew from a desire to expel TEC from the Anglican Communion - an exercise of force, not the recognition that opponents seek the good of the community - and who started it is the politics of the playground, not of an adult community.


The process by which the Covenant has come about is deeply anti-participatory.


The Covenant we are presented with is a contract - a mutually binding deal by which we all focus on the things we distrust and dislike in one another.


It is not ubuntu.  

A slow journey

At first I thought this was a good news story:

Once whites-only S. African church has first synod with blacks

The Gereformeerde Kerke in Suid-Afrika, or Reformed Churches in South Africa
(GKSA), began their annual general synod on 4 January in Potchefstroom ...

The Synod will begin by

commemorating the 150th anniversary of its institution in the then Boer republic
of Transvaal. ... it later supported theological justifications for
the apartheid ideology of racial separation after the Second World War. This led
to the expulsion of the three churches from international ecumenical bodies.

However, now

At least one district of a regional synod of the GKSA, Greater
Johannesburg, currently has a minority of white congregations. One of its
congregations has a Congolese minister who preaches in English and French, a
departure from the traditional dominance of Afrikaans.

About 20 of the 240 delegates to the general synod are black. At the
Sunday service on 4 January the Rev. Abel Modise, a black pastor who serves
congregations in the former townships of Kwa-Thema and Ratanda near
Johannesburg, which were black dormitory towns under apartheid, was elected as
one of two assistant "skribas" (scribes) of the general synod.

While the main medium at the synod remains Afrikaans, a language
derived from Dutch, translation services in English are provided. The synod
opened with the singing of psalms in Afrikaans and Tswana, two of South Africa's
11 official languages, the latter spoken by most black GKSA members.

I guess it is good news really, once you realise what a low base the church is starting from:

Some observers have speculated that the presence of delegates from black
communities renowned for more lusty singing during church gatherings, will bring
a new dimension to worship. Another controversial issue is allowing women to
preach from the pulpit.

emphasis added.

Allan Boesak resigns in protest

Dr. Allan Boesak

Cape Argus (Cape Town) 8 October 2008

Activist and theologian Allan Boesak says he will continue his work as an extraordinary professor at the University of Stellenbosch after resigning all positions from the uniting reformed church in southern Africa.

Boesak resigned on Friday in protest at the church synod's opposition to his recommendation that gay parishioners be allowed same-sex unions.

It emerged today that the church may request Boesak to reverse his resignations, but Boesak said he would resist.

He said he had been dismayed at views expressed within the synod which denied gay people's rights "as normal, dignified human beings".

He accused members of the synod of "almost Mugabe-like views - that homosexuals are like dogs and animals not worthy of human consideration", as "monsters, as if they have some incurable disease".

Boesak said one synod member had, for example, said gay people had the same psychological disorders as kleptomaniacs.

Having resigned, Boesak said he would continue his work at Stellenbosch on the "globalisation project", dealing with links with German churches for the Beyers Naudé Centre for Public Theology, which dealt with important social issues, like the debates around homosexuality within the church.


Co-founder of the United Democratic Front, Boesak dismissed speculation that he could have a role in a possible ANC breakaway group - which would supposedly have strong links with the defunct United Democratic Front.