Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:30:42.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Covenant and Communion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2012

John Rees
John Rees
Affiliation:
Registrar of the Province of Canterbury Legal Adviser to the Anglican Consultative Council
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers some of the controversies that have troubled the Anglican Communion during the past 25 years, and some of the approaches that the Churches and central Instruments of the Communion have used to maintain communion in the face of threatened division. In particular, it looks in detail at the terms of the proposed Anglican Covenant, its provenance and its legal significance. It points out the usefulness of the Covenant as a mechanism for resolving disputes between the Churches of the Communion, but questions the assumption that its adoption as, in effect, a contract between the Churches would of itself turn the Communion into a ‘two-tier’ body, or change in a fundamental way the nature of the relationships between the Churches. Finally, it notes that communion between the Churches of the Anglican Communion, with or without the Covenant, consists (as it always has done) in a wide range of relationships at very many different levels, far beyond the central structures of the Communion as they have developed during the last 150 years.

Type
Articles
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , May 2012 , pp. 235 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The full text of all the Conference resolutions is available online at <http://www.lambethconference.org/index.cfm>, accessed 13 February 2012. For a printed copy of the resolutions from 1867 to 1988, accompanied by a masterly assessment by Owen Chadwick, see Coleman, R (ed), Resolutions of the Twelve Lambeth Conferences 1867 to 1988 (Toronto, 1992)Google Scholar. The fuller reports of the Conferences are also available in a number of different published series now long out of print, and should be consulted for valuable background reports of the discussions that led to the resolutions themselves.

2 It should be remembered that relatively few bishops in the Anglican Communion attend more than one Conference. The result is that the pattern of resolutions is more kaleidoscopic than in most provincial or diocesan synodical structures or in secular parliamentary affairs.

3 In this article, resolutions will be identified as ‘LC’, prefixed with the year and suffixed with the relevant resolution and paragraph number. Most LC resolutions are lengthy and nuanced. The footnotes will quote only those extracts that focus most sharply the approach that the bishops took on each occasion to the controversies that have served to threaten communion between the Churches. On the issue of women bishops, the 1988 Conference (1988 LC 1) resolved:

1. That each province respect the decision and attitudes of other provinces in the ordination or consecration of women to the episcopate, without such respect necessarily indicating acceptance of the principles involved, maintaining the highest possible degree of communion with the provinces which differ.

2. That bishops exercise courtesy and maintain communications with bishops who may differ, and with any woman bishop, ensuring an open dialogue in the Church to whatever extent communion is impaired …

5. Recognises the serious hurt which would result from the questioning by some of the validity of the episcopal acts of a woman bishop, and likewise the hurt experienced by those whose conscience would be offended by the ordination of a woman to the episcopate. The Church needs to exercise sensitivity, patience and pastoral care towards all concerned.

4 At the 1998 Conference, the bishops committed themselves ‘to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and … to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ’ and called on all Anglicans ‘to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation’; but they made clear that they ‘cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions’ (1998 LC 1.10). The bishops attending the 1988 Conference had taken a rather more open approach: building on a 1978 resolution that had sought for ‘deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality’ (1978 LC 10.3), they had urged that such study ‘take account of biological, genetic and psychological research being undertaken by other agencies, and the socio-cultural factors that lead to the different attitudes in the Provinces of our Communion’ (1988 LC 64.2).

5 The intensity of the controversies that had arisen over the previous decade was such that another group of Anglican bishops had met in Jerusalem a month or so earlier for the Global Anglican Futures Conference (though a significant number of the bishops attended both Conferences). The 2008 Conference departed from the traditional pattern of passing resolutions, and (partly in response to issues raised after 1988 and 1998 about the problems facing bishops unfamiliar with Western patterns of parliamentary debate) was instead designed to emphasise listening rather than speaking. As the official report stated: ‘This conference has taken on a new form – the form of indaba – based upon an African ideal of purposeful discussion on the common concerns of our shared life. It is a process and a method of engagement as we listen to one another. An indaba acknowledges first and foremost that there are issues that need to be addressed effectively to foster ongoing communal living. It enables every bishop to engage and speak his or her mind and not to privilege the articulate or the powerful’ (2008 LC Reflections, para 14).

6 See Stephenson, A, The First Lambeth Conference (London, 1967)Google Scholar; Stephenson's longer history of the Conferences, Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conferences (London, 1978), is very valuable as a reflection on the significance of the Conferences written in preparation for the 1978 Conference. There is an understandable propensity for authors to publish in anticipation of forthcoming Lambeth Conferences: see, for example, Platten, S, Augustine's Legacy (London, 1997)Google Scholar; Jacob, W, The Making of the Anglican Church Worldwide (London, 1997)Google Scholar; Hassett, M, Anglican Communion in Crisis (Princeton NJ, 2007)Google Scholar and Hill, M (ed) Communion, Covenant and Canon Law, special issue of the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church (2008), vol 8, issue 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 On contraception, the flexibility of Anglicanism as compared with other approaches in western catholicism may be illustrated by contrasting 1908 LC 41 (‘The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare’) with 1958 LC 115 (‘The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations’).

8 There is no shortage of academic reflection on the nature of authority in Anglicanism, among the most interesting in the period we are considering being Sykes, S (ed), Authority in the Anglican Communion (Toronto, 1987)Google Scholar; Sachs, W, The Transformation of Anglicanism (Cambridge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Douglas, I and Lui-Lan, K (eds), Beyond Colonial Anglicanism (New York, 2001)Google Scholar and Radner, E and Turner, P, The Fate of Communion (Grand Rapids, MI, 2006)Google Scholar. The proliferation of websites during this period has provided a multiplicity of platforms for comment, academic or otherwise. Most are highly partisan on the issues that divide the Churches (eg those that can be found under the names of David Virtue, Anglican Mainstream or Thinking Anglicans), while others are more obviously rigorous and reflective – though nevertheless remaining distinctive in their theological outlook (for example, the comments of the Anglican Communion Institute on its website). All should be treated with caution.

9 Rees, J, ‘The Anglican Communion – does it exist?’, (1998) 5 Ecc LJ 14–17Google Scholar.

10 The concept of DNA in relation to the mission of churches has become common coin during the period we are considering (it underpins much of the mission thinking around the Fresh Expressions movement in the Church of England – see, for example, the Archbishops' Council, Mission-shaped Church (London, 2004)), and seems to this writer to have particular resonance in relation to a network of Churches whose relationships are essentially genetic and historical in the absence of a central jurisdiction.

11 For more detail, see J Rees, ‘Some legal and constitutional considerations’ (prepared for the Primates' Meeting in 2003), <http://www.acclawnet.co.uk/docs/2003_pm.pdf>, accessed 13 February 2012.

12 At the time of writing (January 2012), the Church of England is in the process of an ‘Article 8’ reference of the issue of women in the episcopate to the dioceses of the Church, with a view to making a decision on specific draft legislation on the issue in July 2012.

13 See the insightful and apparently well-informed account given by Bates, S in A Church at War (New York, 2004)Google Scholar. The best account in print of this alliance between socially and theologically conservative elements (which need not, and probably do not, otherwise share common views either socially or theologically) is Hassett, Anglican Communion in Crisis.

14 See above, n 4.

15 During this period, a number of cross-diocese interventions occurred, in which bishops from Africa or elsewhere were invited by American or Canadian parishes to have oversight of their life, seeking in effect to supplant the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, in contravention of historic LC resolutions (from 1867 LC 12 onwards, and during our period notably 1988 LC 72 and 1998 LC V.13). The consecration of bishops for ministry in the Unites States as part of a movement called ‘The Anglican Mission in the Americas’ (AMiA) by the Archbishops of Rwanda and South East Asia in 2000 (Singapore) and 2001 (Denver) brought matters to a head, and was followed by the creation of further connections with North American parishes by the Province of Nigeria (associated with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America – itself not to be confused with the Anglican Church in North America, a separate but related co-ordinating group headed by the former Episcopal Church bishop of Pittsburgh, now Archbishop Robert Duncan). In a recent development, AMiA itself appears to have divided over the issue of women's ordination, and the majority of its membership appears to have disassociated itself from the original sponsoring diocese of Rwanda (see <http://www.theamia.org/new/news/>, accessed 13 February 2012).

16 Robinson was elected by the Diocese on 7 June 2003. Those who appeared before the Lambeth Commission in 2004 argued strongly that it would have been improper for the General Convention or the House of Bishops to have overridden the democratic decision of the local electoral college (a colourful account of the proceedings at the General Convention is given in Bates, A Church at War, ch 11).

17 The warning was expressed in the strongest possible terms: ‘If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves out of communion with the Episcopal Church (USA)’ (Primates' Meeting, ‘Communiqué’, 2003). There is an interesting disregard in this statement of the fact that at this point there was already (and still remains) a significant degree of impaired communion between those Churches that recognised and welcomed the ministry of women bishops, and those that did and do not.

18 R Williams, ‘The structures of unity’, 100 New Directions (September 2003), <http://trushare.com/0100Sep03/TR100COVE.htm>, accessed 1 February 2012; quoted in Shortt, R, Rowan's Rule (London, 2003), p 287Google Scholar.

19 1978 LC Report, p 123.

20 This may be seen, for example, in relation to Rwanda in the resolution of the (subsequent) meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), in 1996 (ACC-10, Resolution 15.5): ‘we offer our continued support and encouragement … to take such future initiatives as they think necessary, consulting where possible the Primates of the Communion’.

21 A fascinating and instructive study could be made of the development (and tensions and undercurrents) of the Primates' Meeting during our period, evidenced by: 1988 LC 18.2(a), which ‘urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates' Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters'; 1988 LC 52 (‘This Conference requests the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council to give urgent attention to implementing the hope expressed at Lambeth 1978 (and as confirmed by recent provincial responses) that both bodies would work in the very closest contact') and 1998 LC 3.6, which ‘reaffirms Resolution 18.2(a) of Lambeth 1988 … asks that the Primates’ Meeting, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, include among its responsibilities positive encouragement to mission, intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies; [and] recommends that these responsibilities should be exercised in sensitive consultation with the relevant provinces and with the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) or in cases of emergency the Executive of the ACC and that, while not interfering with the juridical authority of the provinces, the exercise of these responsibilities by the Primates' Meeting should carry moral authority calling for ready acceptance throughout the Communion, and to this end it is further recommended that the Primates should meet more frequently than the ACC'.

22 Notably in Gomez, D and Sinclair, M (eds), To Mend the Net (Carrollton, TX, 2001)Google Scholar.

23 Rees, ‘Some legal and constitutional considerations’.

24 See 1998 LC IV.13, and Rees, ‘Some legal and constitutional considerations’, para 8.4.

25 The full terms of reference of the Lambeth Commission are set out on page 13 of the Windsor Report.

26 Several of the recommendations in Appendix 1 regarding the operation of the Instruments have been put into effect, notably with regard to the integration of the Primates Standing Committee into the Standing of the ACC. See Windsor Report, Appendix 1, para (2), and the official report of the subsequent ACC Meeting (2005, ACC 13.4).

27 The proposal for a ‘Council of Advice’ (Windsor Report, para 111) was never fully explored in the terms in which the proposal was made. However, over the years 2005–2007 a group was called together by the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider various complaints laid by disaffected parishes and other groups concerning episcopal oversight. This group worked in pairs to investigate and report on the causes of the problems brought to them, and issued a series of reports and recommendations. However, its work was highly controversial and in some cases lacked the forensic rigour that such investigation demands. After 2007, it faded quietly away.

28 For example, the proposal that the Primates' Meeting be restructured to become the ‘Standing Committee of the Lambeth Conference’ (Windsor Report, para 104 and Appendix 1, para 5).

29 The first draft of a text for the Covenant is set out in the Windsor Report, Appendix 2; but the Report emphasises that ‘This is only a preliminary draft and discussion document, and it would be premature at this stage for any church to adopt it’ (Windsor Report, para 118). There was real concern among the members of the Commission that there might be Churches that would misconstrue the purpose of the text and sign up to it prematurely, simply as an expression of their solidarity with the Communion, but without having considered the wider issues of mutuality and before some of the necessary components envisaged in that draft were in place (eg the Council of Advice – see draft Article 26, and the reference to this proposed body (see above, n 27)).

30 Many of the submissions made in response to the Windsor Report can still be found on the ACC website; a great deal of the material initially gathered as part of the response to the Report went on to be used in the continuing consultations leading to the formulation of successive editions of the draft Covenant, which may also be found there.

31 Mexico, Burma, West Indies, Papua New Guinea and the Southern Cone have all endorsed it in full, Ireland has ‘subscribed’ to it and South East Asia has ‘acceded’ but on a conditional basis. Dioceses of the Church of England are currently considering it, ahead of debate in the General Synod as soon as it can be brought on to the agenda. At the time of writing, four dioceses have approved it and four have voted against its adoption. A majority of dioceses must vote in favour for it to proceed to adoption by the General Synod.

32 Although the Introduction is not an operative part of the Covenant text it ‘shall always be annexed to the Covenant … [and] be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant’ (Anglican Covenant, Art 4.4.1).

33 Anglican Covenant, Introduction, para 4.

34 Ibid, para 5. ‘Bonds of Affection’ is a phrase with particular resonance within the Communion, emphasising its historic and genetic heritage, on the analogy of a ‘family’ of churches. It was the title of the ACC meeting in Capetown, 1993 (ACC-9).

35 Interestingly, the Church of England formulation is itself not ancient, deriving from controversy about subscription to the 39 Articles in the mid-twentieth century. It was drafted by a clergyman and a lawyer who were both at the time members of the General Synod. See Podmore, C, ‘The Church of England's Declaration of Assent’, (1999) 5 Ecc LJ 241–251Google Scholar.

36 There is a very specific reference to the fact that the historic formularies were ‘forged in the context of the European Reformation’.

37 Anglican Covenant, Art 1.1.2.

38 The ‘Quadrilateral’ is a summary of foundational commitments intended to be as much ecumenical as Anglican, if not more so, in keeping with Anglican self-understanding as being only a part of the whole catholic tradition. It dates from resolutions passed by the Convention of the American Episcopal Church in Chicago in 1886, endorsed by the bishops at the Lambeth Conference two years later (1888 LC 11) and subsequently expanded and reaffirmed in a more pronouncedly ecumenical vein after the end of the First World War, this being the first Lambeth Conference following the great ecumenical conference held in Edinburgh in 1910 (1920 LC 9.VI).

39 Henry Chadwick has described the Quadrilateral as providing ‘an iron-ration ecclesiology … a minimum starting-point for an approach to Christian reunion’: Chadwick, H, ‘Introduction’, in Draper, J (ed) Communion and Episcopacy, (Oxford, 1988), p 1Google Scholar. This series of essays, compiled to celebrate the centenary of the Quadrilateral, is an accessible introduction to its significance for Anglicans and for issues of wider church reunion.

40 Anglican Covenant, Art 1.2.

41 Ibid, Art 1.2.4: ‘… attentive and communal reading of … Scripture by all the faithful, by the teaching of bishops and synods, and by the results of rigorous study by lay and ordained scholars …’.

42 Ibid, Art 1.1.6: ‘… the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of the Church’.

43 Ibid, Art 1.2.7: ‘… as we strive under God for the fuller realisation of the communion of all Christians’.

44 Ibid, Art 2.1.1.

45 Ibid, Art 2.2.2; for further background on the provenance of the ‘Five Marks’, see the summary report of MISSIO (an ACC Network), Anglicans in Mission (1999). See below for a brief consideration of a very recent and highly creative illustration of the way that Churches around the Communion are informing each other and the wider world of the work they are doing in social action around the world through the Anglican Alliance.

46 Anglican Covenant, Art 3.1.4 sets out in some detail the nature and operation of the four Instruments, noting that ‘each may initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches’.

47 Ibid, Art 3.1.4, introductory paragraph (before itemising the Instruments, each of which has a separate sub-paragraph).

48 Ibid, Art 3.1.2.

49 Ibid, Art 3.2.2. It should be remembered that a worldwide Anglican Congress of laity and clergy, as well as bishops, was convened in 1963 (only the second of its kind during the lifetime of the Communion), under the theme ‘Mutual responsibility and interdependence’. A further Congress, scheduled to take place in 2008, was actively considered for several years between 1998 and 2004, but had to be put to one side for financial reasons.

50 Ibid, Art 3.2.5.

51 Ibid, Art 3.2.6.

52 Before 2003, Primates' Meetings were treated as private and minutes are not available. But see the brief report of this discussion in the Windsor Report, para 115.

53 The Windsor Report, para 117; as Legal Consultant to the Commission, the present writer had drawn attention to the difficulty (to be seen, for example, in Canons B 43 and B 44 of the Canons of the Church of England) that arises when attempts are made to insert detailed provisions into the Canons, which are normally lapidary in nature.

54 Ibid, para 119.

55 Ibid, para 117, speaks of ‘the adoption by each church of its own simple and short domestic “communion law”, to enable and implement the covenant proposal’.

56 Some mechanisms carrying greater weight than others See, for example, the Church of England's decision to deal with the adoption of the Covenant by an Act of Synod (2010 GS 1809); an Act of Synod is a formal resolution of the General Synod, which is solemn and binding but falls short of having the force of a Measure or Canon (though in this case it was nevertheless decided that it should be referred to the diocesan synods for majority approval as ‘Article 8 business’ under the Synod's constitution). Other Provinces and Churches will have their own mechanisms under their own constitutions for dealing with the process of adoption. These will have different levels of binding force and permanence, depending both on the terms of the relevant resolution and on the terms of the constitution in question.

57 See above, n 54. It should be noted that the members of the Commission were very aware that this would represent a major departure from traditional understandings, however presented in legal terms. Nevertheless, it was considered important in the immediate context in the Communion in 2004 to ensure that this proposal was put squarely before the Churches of the Communion as an option that they should consider.

58 Anglican Covenant, Art 4.1.2.

59 Ibid, Art 4.1.3.

60 Ibid, Arts 4.2.3 and 4.2.4. See below for discussion of the nature of this body.

61 Ibid, Art 4.2.5.

62 Ibid, Art 4.2.5. In practice, this is what happened on a voluntary basis at the ACC Meeting in Nottingham in 2005 (when American and Canadian representatives withdrew from attendance as members, but were present as observers, and made presentations to delegates about their respective Churches in relation to the Robinson ordination and issues around same-sex blessings).

63 Ibid, Art 4.2.6.

64 Ibid, Art 4.2.7.

65 Ibid: ‘Each Church or each Instrument shall determine whether or not to accept such recommendations’.

66 Art 4.3.1.

67 Ibid, Art 4.2.8.

68 Articles of Association of the ACC (Company Number 07311767), Art 7.3.

69 Anglican Covenant, Art 4.2.4.

70 The Windsor Report ended on a stark and graphic note: ‘There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together … [if so] we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart’ (para 157).

71 Which included addresses by two notable participants in the Lambeth Commission and Windsor Continuation Group, Canon (now Bishop) Gregory Cameron and Professor Norman Doe. See Faulds, I, Report on ‘Anglican Communion: crisis and opportunity’ Conference, (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 222–224Google Scholar.

72 See Cameron, G, ‘Ardour and order’, (2007) 9 Ecc LJ 288–293Google Scholar; Doe, N, ‘The contribution of common principles of canon law to ecclesial communion in Anglicanism’, (2008) 10 Ecc LJ 71–91Google Scholar.

73 Hill, Communion, Covenant and Canon Law.

74 Notwithstanding all that is said in this article about the legal essence of the Covenant being a dispute-resolution mechanism for those Churches that sign up, politically it is bound to count for more.

75 Noting that this includes the possibility that the Covenant identity they signed up to might itself change over time, with or without their consent – see Anglican Covenant, Art 4.4, which provides for alteration of Covenant provisions by a three-quarter majority of the adopting Churches.

76 Ibid, Art 4.1.5: ‘The Instruments of Communion may invite other Churches to adopt the Covenant using the same procedures as set out by the Anglican Consultative Council for the amendment of its Schedule of Membership …’. Despite some speculation at the time when the Covenant draft was finalised, the Anglican Church in North America (see above, n 15) seems unlikely to apply, as many of the conservative Churches with which it has had close association have expressed misgivings about what they see as the weakness of the Covenant's disciplinary provisions.

77 Sykes, Bishop Stephen put the dilemma for some ecumenical partners succinctly in his Foreword to Communion, Conflict and Hope: the Kuala Lumpur Report of the third Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission (London, 2008)Google Scholar: ‘the diversity of Anglican churches is prominently displayed – to the extent that they appear to be virtually incoherent as a world-wide Christian body’ (p 5).

78 Anglican Covenant, Art 4.2.9.

79 At its most basic, the fact that clergy may serve in other Churches of the Communion without being re-ordained, and that lay members may receive communion without being reconfirmed, is the bedrock of our communion with one another within the Anglican Communion.

80 At a meeting of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers' Network in Canterbury, 2002, later published as ‘Church, communion of Churches and the Anglican Communion’, (2002) 6 Ecc LJ 352–374Google Scholar. Bishop Hamid takes up a theme that was more prominent in the ministry of both Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Archbishop Robert Runcie, about the ‘provisionality of Anglicanism’. Partly because of the growth in numbers of Anglicanism worldwide, and partly because of the controversies that have beset the Communion, this theme has receded somewhat in the last two decades, and the emphasis has been rather more on the structures needed for maintaining and managing worldwide Anglicanism.

81 See Rees, J, report on the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers' Consultation, (2002) 6 Ecc LJ 399–401Google Scholar.

82 The present writer is the convener of the group. Its website (<http://www.acclawnet.co.uk>, accessed 14 February 2012) gives the names of its founder members, who were all senior legal advisers recommended to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the archbishops, presiding bishops or moderators of the Churches of the Communion.

83 Anglican Communion Legal Advisers' Network, Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion (London, 2008)Google Scholar.

84 Synod of the Diocese of Huron v Delicata et al., (2011) ONSC 4403 Ontario Superior Court.

85 C Hill, ‘The principles of Anglican canon law: an ecclesiological perspective’, Ecclesiastical Law Society London Lecture, 16 November 2011.

86 See Doe, ‘The contribution of common principles’; Hill, M et al. , ‘A decade of ecumenical dialogue on canon law’, (2009) 11 Ecc LJ 284–328Google Scholar (a report of the work of the Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers).

87 See above, n 47, Anglican Covenant, Art 3.1.4. Another body that has been identified as an Instrument of Communion in recent years is the Mothers' Union, and anyone familiar with Anglican meetings on the continent of Africa will attest to the formidable influence of the ‘white-robed army’ of the MU in the most unlikely places.

88 See <http://www.anglicanalliance.org>, accessed 14 February 2012.

89 As David Edwards and Grace Davie put it, in another context: ‘To serve the world and the gospel, the Church will need to unlearn the fatal mistake of the early centuries when it was seduced by the Roman army. The metaphor of the Body, as Paul used it, slid almost imperceptibly into a metaphor of the Roman army, with its hierarchical chain of command’ (Edwards, D and Davie, G, ‘Zeal for reform as numbers slide’ in Chadwick, H (ed) Not Angels but Anglicans (Norwich, 2000), p 284Google Scholar).

90 The title of an influential work by the Most Revd Cyril Foster Garbett, Archbishop of York in the 1950s.

91 Williams, R, Anglican Identities (London, 2004)Google Scholar.

92 Ibid, p 7. This book should be read in conjunction with Williams, R, Why Study the Past? The quest for the historical Church (London, 2004)Google Scholar, as a corrective to the somewhat bleaker contemporaneous interview mentioned above, n 18.