Like those from previous encounters, the communiqué or “trumpet” from the fourth Global South to South Encounter in Singapore strives to address at once the Anglican churches of the global south and the wider Communion, and this is as it should be. The communion of Christ calls us both to speak to our own contexts — in this case, to cultivate a conversation among “the vast majority of the active membership of the Anglican Communion” that happens to share many challenges in church and society as well as a largely evangelical theological and missionary idiom — and the larger Body and its members, spread throughout the earth. At the intersection of these two audiences this latest communiqué speaks reflexively of a singular Church, following the theme of the encounter: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ — Covenant for the People, Light for the Nations,” from Isaiah. Unfortunately, the text falls short of the ecclesial confidence, and clarity, that it rightly aims for, even in the narrowed context of specifically Anglican communion.

The thesis of the communiqué may be found in its ninth paragraph: “We encourage Provinces to develop intentional plans and structures for Church growth in the post-Christendom context of today’s world. Above all, we call for a new quest for personal and corporate holiness in the [Anglican] Communion.” The final seven paragraphs, aimed at the wider Communion, break very little new ground, and where new suggestions are made they are underdeveloped, as in the intriguing final sentence of the communiqué proper: “We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.” What precisely is being proposed here? The recently convened Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order has been tasked with this very work, following on and consolidating the foundation of the Covenant text. Are the global south leaders effectively commending this labor, or rather suggesting a parallel, and perhaps quite different, kind of “review”? It is impossible to say. Similarly, the text proposes in a single sentence that “the Primates Meeting ... should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation” because they are “responsible for Faith and Order” (para. 21) — a suggestion that would need to be shown with reference to current Anglican structures or otherwise argued for on independent grounds.

Meanwhile, signs of compromise at best, disagreement or indecision at worst, on the part of global south leaders appear in the carefully worded gratitude for “the recently formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) [as] a faithful expression of Anglicanism,” falling short of full recognition of ACNA as a church. Thus the communiqué expresses only “hope … that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners,” prescinding from a principled or strategic preference for either group of American conservatives. And while the communiqué commends the “courageous” refusal of archbishops Mouneer Anis, Henry Orombi, and Ian Ernest “to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives” from TEC and the Church of Canada are present, it also urges the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the primates’ earlier recommendations for discipline of TEC and the Church of Canada. Sheer evacuation of the given structures of the Communion, including Canterbury as a focus, has not (yet) taken place, notwithstanding the suggestions of some more radical renovators, but something less than business as usual is encouraged.

Finally, the encounter failed “to affirm the Anglican Covenant as the basis in intensifying the ecclesial life between churches in the Communion,” to quote the Global South Anglican Primates Steering Committee’s stated agenda of Dec. 10, 2009. Why? Because the Covenant was found in Singapore to need strengthening — reflecting the fear of some that it has been taken captive by a less than trustworthy Anglican Communion Office and/or Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence the need for an encouraging word from Archbishop John Chew in his closing address to the meeting: “In the communiqué we have talked about the Covenant. Many have expressed their hope and desire for it. I am aware that there are challenges and concerns. But let us deal with it. Because it involves the wider body.”

There are still reasons to be hopeful about the future of the Anglican Communion, that we may manage to reform ourselves along covenantal lines, and so intensify our life together in Christ. Let us not deceive ourselves, however, that there is a unified conservative (or any other) bloc — in the global south, or among Communion-minded cognoscenti the world over — with a clear plan, based on a commonly received and articulated theology of the Church, that will prevail at any moment. Rather, it seems that we remain at a more rudimentary level of discernment, debate, and study, amid competing schools of thought that long for quite different Anglican unities, along more or less “evangelical” and “Catholic” lines; watch how the words structure and institution are used variously and divergently. And the See of Canterbury sits in the crossfire, asked by all sides to act and lead.

Pray for the Church.