"Maybe we should leave the covenants to God." (The Rev. Winnie Varghese, Episcopal Chaplain at Columbia University, in Episcopal Life, September 18, 2007)

*************************************************

After Part I of the present essay was released earlier this week, a number of individuals responded as if its purpose was to resume a running critique of the '79 BCP thirty years after the fact. It was like going back in time resuming an old argument and reliving some of the same war stories. My point was not to open an old wound or beat a dead horse. A renewed critique of the '79 Book is sorely needed and is surely coming -- one which seeks to base an authentic Anglican witness on the historic Anglican formularies -- the 1662 BCP and ordinal and the 39 Articles -- as the ACN, AMiA, and others have recently stated. But this is not that critique.

The point of the present article is neither to take up an old argument nor to launch on the new, but simply to draw attention to the present moment, lest it go unnoticed. In New Orleans, surrounded by a cloud of episcopal witnesses, the Archbishop of Canterbury publically cited the American Baptismal Covenant (TBC) as a legitimate formulary in its own right, comparable to -- and in the present instance superseding -- the classic authorities of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. He called attention to it as the hermeneutical key that reveals TEC's present understanding of the gospel. And while that understanding is radically different from that of the rest of the Communion (all of whom lack TBC in their official BCP), it all makes perfect sense in light of TEC's unique experience of reciting and reflecting on the Baptismal Covenant. The Communion is thus reprieved, and old and new Provinces can go on their way rejoicing with business as usual.

In the course of a day or two's "conversation", the ABC had drunk deeply of his fellow American bishops' heartfelt sincerity as they shared personal testimonies -- not of Damascus Road encounters with the Risen Lord, but of being "born again" to social consciousness under the banner of the Baptismal Covenant. In the Episcopal Church, as on Oprah, heartfelt confessions are deemed to be self-authenticating. In a post-modern world where we have no recognized truth, powerful emotions rule the day, even among those who might be considered intellectually sophisticated. This may be one reason why, in an eleventh hour maneuver, a minority faction at Lambeth '98 attached a mandate for "conversation" to Resolution 1.10, the historic affirmation of the Christian doctrine of human sexuality. The strategy was for the majority to place a fox in its own henhouse. In 2007 as the Anglican Communion counts down to Lambeth '08, Dr. Williams has demonstrated the effectiveness of that strategy.

Before the present moment completely fades or is missed altogether, I would like to offer further reflections on the psychology driving the Baptismal Covenant, which illustrates the place of liturgy in a revisionist religion -- that is, in a tradition which showcases its own history as a Dark Age in order to contrast its own present enlightenment. In this TBC is typical not only of the '79 Book as a whole, but of all the experimental services that have been generated since.

Dr. Peter Toon of the Prayer Book Society has done most the heavy lifting in the social and theological critique of the Baptismal Covenant. It appears that no one else is eager to take it up. All liberals and most conservatives are very much at home with TBC, and each group has accommodated it to its own understanding of the gospel. Hence it is convenient to pass off Dr. Toon's critique in a cursory fashion, as if it were driven merely by nostalgia and sour grapes.

Toon's most critical observation is that TBC is an outgrowth of the American 60's counter-culture, and that it was intended at the outset as a basis for reformulating the Christian religion as a template for protest -- whether the issue was civil rights, women's rights, environmental rights, gay rights, or any cause that shows potential as an icon for righteous indignation. I would add the following observation: that in a liturgical setting these social stereotypes are contrived to mediate a distinct psychological and emotional response, one which itself calls for theological and spiritual evaluation.

The protest stereotype rings true for the liberal wing of TEC very easily. But how do conservatives share the acclaim and enthusiasm for this new rite, as they have in every conservative congregation I've visited? Because the real payoff of TBC is not in the advancement of social causes. The Cause is only the "outward and visible sign" inserted into the template. Conservatives have their special Causes, and they are not loath to savoring feelings of indignation. For liberals and conservatives the "inward and spiritual grace" -- the real payoff -- is the feeling of self-validation and assurance that comes with being on the correct side of a moral issue. A warmed-over radical from the 70's can feel righteous because he's on the right side of the anti-war movement or the abortion movement or the environmental movement. At the same time a shell-shocked Southerner, still thumping his Bible but smarting from the angry accusations of the Civil Rights era, can assure himself, "See? I'm not a racist after all!" And conservatives who reject female clerics can find solace in embracing "justice and peace" in the abstract, even if they reject the particular claims of modern feminism. Thus the Baptismal Covenant offsets the stigma attached to being a conservative in present day American culture.

But what does TBC actually say? In a word, nothing new -- or rather, nothing at all. It doesn't add anything of substance to the baptismal promises in the historic Prayer Books. The one exception is the final one about "striving for justice and peace", but not based on what the words actually state. Based upon the simple meaning of the words this promise is redundant following the previous one "to love and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself." "Justice and peace" are pure abstractions. It is impossible, or rather meaningless, to "strive" for them. By contrast one might very well promise "to love and serve Christ in all persons." Still sound a bit abstract? Let's bring it down to earth: love your neighbor as yourself.

The difference is that "justice and peace" carries with it the triumphalism of the '60's counter-culture -- an emotional response which ever since has been reckoned as righteousness. The vagueness of an abstract promise allows the worshipper to savor the emotion associated with the utopian dreams of that era, without contemplating any concrete action. The Golden Rule is pitifully mundane and not sufficiently social-conscious. This Covenant drama is heady stuff.

The worst part is not that the baptismal liturgy creates an opening for leftward leaning politics. The worst part is that the focus of liturgical enactment has been hijacked and its proper object displaced. Baptism has been reframed as a liturgy of self-validation, and this validation is a "salvation" in which God has no necessary role. The repetition of the liturgical enactment over time has now changed the theology of baptism. The grace of the sacrament is mediated not to the baptismal candidate, but to the witnesses who participate in the liturgy of Covenant reaffirmation. TBC has become the sacrament.

The most obvious confusion -- or deception -- of TBC has to do with the added name "Covenant". The word echoes the solemn names of the Old and New Covenants and invokes their authority. And while it is true that one is baptized into the New Covenant, holy baptism is not that Covenant. The broken body and poured out blood of the Messiah ARE the New Covenant. Neither the church as a whole, nor the baptizing priest, nor the parents or sponsors, nor the baptismal candidate has initiated this Covenant, nor could they. God has graciously initiated the New Covenant, and the candidate can only respond.

Many churches explain the obligations of baptism in terms of a covenant, and some use the expression "baptismal covenant". In such instances it is generally clear that "covenant" is used in the sense of "solemn obligation", just as a will is considered a final "testament" or "covenant". In the Episcopal Church, as Dr. Williams has now born dramatic witness, "baptismal covenant" is far more than a convenient metaphor for a list of obligations. It is invariably invoked with force and with the intent to bind the conscience, not so much of the baptismal candidate as those participating in the service. This was dramatically demonstrated in the National Cathedral last year at the enthronement of the Presiding Bishop. After the Lady Primate modestly announced the simultaneous dawning of her new ministry and God's new age of Shalom, assisting clergy walked through the cathedral aisles sprinkling the gathered worshippers with water, reminding them of their Covenant obligation to save the world. Still sound a bit abstract? Let's add a more vivid term: Millennium Development Goals.

The Goals have been billed as a means of "living into" one's Baptismal Covenant with the promise of certifying and validating those who support them. If you don't support the Goals, you are siding with a former era of colonialism against God's Shalom. In a culture that tends to run short on core values, such political incorrectness is psychologically threatening. Hence conservatives and liberals alike are quick to voice their support for the Goals, without examining how similar U.N. schemes have played into the present era of colonialism. The pressure is on -- not to get the job done, nor to end colonialism, but to show that you're on the "right side" of this issue.

I have never heard anyone mention the Baptismal Covenant when they were not referring specifically to the "justice and peace" mandate. I'm sure many have used it to refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the need to mature in the apostles' teaching, or even to follow the Golden Rule. I find it noteworthy, however, that I for one have not heard such a reference in thirty years of ministry. I have heard it used countless times in a subtle arm twisting fashion by Episcopalians with an agenda, sometimes hidden and sometimes not. Discussions in which TBC is typically mentioned rarely have to do with proving a theological point, but rather with the prospect of gaining or forfeiting the grace of psychological affirmation.

The Baptismal Covenant has proved to be a centerpiece in the postmodern craft of liturgy. The Archbishop of Canterbury has now, perhaps carelessly but nonetheless effectively, elevated it to the status of an authority. The Anglican three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason had grown a bit clumsy in recent years with the addition of Experience. Perhaps with the further addition of the Baptismal Covenant the time has come to retire one or two of the others. Which two do you suppose today's Episcopal Church will be willing to sacrifice?

---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.