Reaffirming our Vows and Rekindling our First Love:
the Sanctification of the Anglican Communion
A response to my fellow Anglican presbyter Andrew Goddard
by Michael Poon, Singapore
republished with permission from the Global South Anglican site
I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God , which is in you through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-control. (2 Timothy 1:6-7)
Sanctify then by the truth; your word is truth. . . . I have given hem the glory hat you gave me, that they may be one as we are one. (John 17:17, 22)
The walls of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14)
I thank Dr Andrew Goddard for his response to Anglican Mainstream (AM) on The Advent Letter 2008 of the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the least because AM’s convictions precipitated – astonishingly within two weeks of the issuing of the Letter – the calling for the Global Anglican Future Conference in June 2008. Andrew Goddard’s considered response merits wide discussion by fellow Anglican presbyters and parishes in the Southern Hemisphere.
My aim in this brief response is to take up Goddard’s invitation at the end of his essay: to encourage “serious discussion” and “common discernment” together. He observed:
A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at present seems to presuppose that any change from our current deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined. I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as we think and pray our way through Advent.
The challenge in the months leading up to GAFCON and Lambeth is whether those who share AM's concerns about the Advent letter will accept and act on the basis of these assumptions or whether there is room for serious discussion about the important issues AM raises and a common discernment together as to the way forward for the Communion as a whole.
In making this public support, I ask fellow presbyters across the Communion to join in to reaffirm the responsibilities we received at our ordination and rekindle the gift the Holy Spirit has endowed us, that we may find refreshed vision to labour for the sake of the Communion at this finest hour in our Communion’s history. We can be confident in this undertaking because our Lord Jesus Christ has sanctified us with his Word and has called us to communion with the triune God. This offers us the secure basis upon which we can engage in “serious discussion” and “common discernment” together . God’s Word sanctifies human speech, and makes truth-speaking possible. We thus believe, and so we boldly speak; and in so doing share in the divine calling to effect the sanctification of the Communion and of the wider world that God has redeemed in Christ.
Significant shifts from classical understanding of Anglican traditions in worship and theology are taking place in the Anglican Communion. I am not merely referring to the question on sexuality, important though it is; but to perhaps wider and deeper shifts that are changing the character of our fellowship within the Communion that mitigated against open discussion and discernment. Such calls for a renewed dedication among ourselves.
1. Reaffirming the parish as the heart of our vocation
Are we on the way of dispossessing a spiritual home for our congregations? The historic formularies – the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and the Ordinal – are foundational to the Communion because they cohere together to promote a godly order for England’s society. The provision of the Bible in vernacular language and the compilation of the Homilies were the hallmark in the English Reformation. The doctrinal and liturgical reforms had in mind the revitalisation of the parish life – where ordinary people worship, live and build their homes, raise their families, and pass on their faith to their children’s generation. The Second Collect in Advent underlines this spirituality: “Grant that we may in such wise hear [the Holy Scriptures], read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them; that by patience and comfort of thy Holy Word, we may embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life.” The central calling for presbyters is for parish ministry (cf. Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor).
We witness however in the present-day a growing reliance upon institutional and clerical powers to chart the future of the Communion. For the past sixty years, we see a series of rapid increase of ecclesiastical structures: be it the creation of dioceses, provinces, and national churches; the instruments of unity, the Anglican Communion Office, and new expressions by which bishops and primates exercise their ministries. All these have drained considerable energy from church leaders from devoting themselves to their central calling in their own churches and parishes. A whole new web of communication and authority-relationships emerge at the international level that have little bearing on the diocesan and parish life – the concrete realities of the Communion.
The Communion map is astonishingly drawn and divided according to positions that top church leaders assume. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the Bishop of New Westminster at least can appeal to synod decisions for their controversial decisions. The Communion reaches a new level of incomprehensibility when primates – one of which is even the Chair of the Communion’s theological education commission , a centerpiece of Canterbury’s policy – make plans for holding a Conference on the Communion’s future and ordaining bishops to regions outside their proper jurisdictional boundaries, without even consulting all their fellow primates. Such actions undermine their own authority and any appeal to Lambeth Resolutions and primatial communiqués, and leave the Communion in confused state.
So supposedly the decisions of top clerics dictate whether parishes and presbyters can relate in or out of communion with others in the same city, across the nation, and with churches in the wider world. This is fratricide. Some may be astonished that I seem to succumb to a liberal position. I am not. The freedom we defend here is that which is purchased by the blood of Christ. The communion that Lord Jesus Christ give us – in discerning and working together – has been replaced by a communion propped by ecclesiastical decisions. Truth has turned into ideology; theology into partisan positions. Speech no longer sanctifies and has become rhetoric. Sadly, top clerics then also see every honest but inconvenient question as a challenge to their authority.
2. Rekindling the zeal for faithful teaching in our churches
Are we on the way of abandoning proper ministerial formation for our clergy? Part of the difficulty in the present Communion crisis is that – as Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East observed – people across the divides may be speaking different (theological) languages. The difficulty does not lie in the multiethnic and sociopolitical contexts we are in. (Missionaries in the past were among the best cross-cultural interpreters.) Perhaps the problem is more basic. Anglican clergy from a few generations ago would have undergone a more or less standard path of ministerial formation. Though they might be nurtured in different theological tradition, they would have covered a more or less same syllabus. In other words, they should all be familiar with the great themes in the Bible and in the Christian tradition. It is however unclear whether this is so in today’s world. Most clergy outside of the United Kingdom and America receive their initial ministerial formation in union/ecumenical colleges. More importantly, often no clear and agreed process in ministerial formation exist by which a person is ordained and advanced into higher offices. The process in initial formation may have little bearing on the canonical vows that clergy take upon their ordination. With the tendency in abandoning canonical examinations, congregations are left unclear what their vicars believe in and whether their priests are properly trained to carry out their teaching responsibilities. If churches in the Communion continues to ignore this problem, we are entrusting the Communion’s future to top clerics who themselves have little idea in what Anglican traditions are about, let alone to cherish and defend them. It would be better if the defence of biblical orthodoxy and sexual morality can be translated into intentional teaching programmes for parishes. Sadly, this is not the case. Ordinary Anglicans in the Southern Hemisphere are as ignorant of the Bible as perhaps of those in the North America.
The Roman Catholics since Vatican II have made great strides in quipping their priests in fulfilling their catechetical responsibilities. John Paul II’s two Pastoral Exhortations Catechesis in our Time and On Priestly Formation summarized the sustained reflections in synodical deliberations and culminated in the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, and the revisions of Programme for Priestly Formation. Today when we meet a Roman Catholic and a catholic priest, we know what they stand for, and the training (human, spiritual, pastoral, and intellectual development) they have received. I am not sure we can make similar claims for Anglicans. Priests are made and Anglicans added to our fold without intentional programme of initiation and on-going formation.
Here I warmly appreciate Canterbury’s focus in making theological education a top priority in his tenure. At the same time, without a clear understanding of what Anglicans stand for (that is, a catechesis), I am unclear what the Anglican Way leads to. I am also unclear whether the heart of the matter is not merely theological education, but ministerial formation. In today’s world, “theology” is often taken to be merely one discipline that stands alongside others in a liberal arts programme; “education” is similarly regarded as technical training for the sake of self-improvement. This is why I suggest ministerial formation (the forming of properly equipped lay and clergy for ministries in the parish) to be a central task for the Communion today. The resources that churches in the Communion urgently need are very basic: the Book of Common Prayer, a Hymnal, a catechism, and perhaps thoughtful pastoral letters that bishops and priests today would find time to compose for their faithful.
3. Reclaiming our common heritage
Are we removing landmarks from our apostolic heritage? Saint John unfolded the vision that in the glorious coming of Jesus Christ, the names of the twelve apostles (even those who are not well known -- would all be engraved on the walls of the new Jerusalem. Earlier in the Book of Revelation he recounted the twelve tribes of Israel as among those who received the seal of the living God (Revelation 7:1-8). The lots of the twelve tribes – and of the twelve apostles as they are sent out to the four corners of the world – worked out differently in God’s redemptive purposes in history. But no one is forgotten; all will be remembered. All find their vocations cohere together at the end.
Isaiah also pointed to the remnant of God – written off by earthly powers – to be the carriers of God’s promise. The righteous will live by faith! (Habakkuk 2:4). It is remarkable that numerical strength between churches in the Communion suddenly takes on such importance in recent discussions on the Communion’s future (e.g. the rationale that underlies the calling for GAFCON by numerically-strong churches). To determine the Communion’s future without regard for vulnerable churches is to deny the apostolic origin of such churches. St Paul – the apostle to the Gentiles – could have all the reasons to abandon the Jewish Christians and turn his attention to the Gentile world. He never did. The material offering to the saints in Jerusalem was a tangible way to recognise the oneness in Christ. Looking back to our Communion’s mission history, were not missionaries sent to far-flung places for the sake of Christ? Are not fellow Anglicans still standing up for the faith in challenging situations in remote places? Do we not have a vision of common possession in the Lord? Yet sadly, churches in struggling situations are forced to make immediate choices and take stance on Communion issues. Their own integrity and identity are threatened and swept away in the new Cold War waged by power-brokers in the Communion.
What does it mean for us to be fellow Anglican presbyters today? To take up our vows and to rekindle the charism God has given us, we need to enter into “serious discussion” and “common discernment” that Dr Goddard reminded us. Such take place not only in the safe havens of blogspheres, but in our own parishes, in the pulpit, in clergy meetings, in synods, in our classrooms – in short, where discipleship is set in concrete and costly terms. In all circumstances we need to continue to engage and support one another to speak the truth with love in our own churches, refusing to let ourselves become isolated by the ideological divides. The Word of God assumes concrete form and sanctifies the world. Truth alone can bring about the sanctification of our Communion.
I end with the Biblical passage John Paul II cited at the beginning of his Exhortation on Priestly Formation: “I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding” (Jeremiah 3:15). May every congregation find this promise answered in the parish priests the Great Shepherd has entrusted to their care.
______________________________________________________
The Revd Dr Michael Poon is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia, Trinity Theological College, Singapore, and convenor of the Global South Anglican theological formation and education task force
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 13 January 2008 - 11:47pm
Thanks, Simon. I take your point about lowering the temperature of discussions by the appropriate choice of words. However, I was quoting Andrew Goddard's words - and even left out his word 'seriously' - from Neil's quotation of them:
In addition to its rather cynical tone, this description seriously distorts the role of that group according to the letter.
I agree with Andrew.
BTW, thanks for your earlier discussion with John Richardson about changing the designation of Fulcrum, on his Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream site, from 'Liberal Evangelical' to 'Open Evangelical'. Effective and much appreciated.
Posted by: Simon Heron
Sunday 13 January 2008 - 11:24pm
Graham, I've been having a short but so far fruitful discussion with John Richardson of AM Chelmsford, part of which has been to do with the languge that we choose to use when discussing the position we perceive that the other party is taking.
Many times we use words which are pejorative, and make the mending of fences between evangelicals harder than it ought to be.
My point (finally), is that if your final sentance in your previous post had been:-
'Andrew Goddard does helpfully return people to the text itself and questions the Anglican Mainstream reading of the Advent Letter.'
I wouldn't find myself staying up this late to make a post I shouldn't need to.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 13 January 2008 - 11:04pm
Thanks, Neil. I suggest that people wait until the names of this group are made public before being cynical about it.
What makes it different from the Panel of Reference? The Lambeth Conference does. It concentrates the mind of the Communion.
Andrew Goddard does helpfully return people to the text itself and questions the Anglican Mainstream distortion of the Advent Letter.
Posted by: Neil
Sunday 13 January 2008 - 10:39pm
"The proposed alternative is one AM describes as the creation of a “hand-picked team of supposed specialists to determine the future life of the Communion in all its representative bodies”. In addition to its rather cynical tone, this description seriously distorts the role of that group according to the letter."
Andrew rightly spots the cynical tone and lack of faith in the proposal: after the complete farce of the Panel of Reference, one wonders what would make the outcome any different with this group?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 13 January 2008 - 08:53am
We have just published on Fulcrum:
Andrew Goddard, 'A Response to Anglican Mainstream on the Advent Letter 2008'
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=264
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Saturday 22 December 2007 - 08:27pm
Thanks. Recognition or frustration or what? I don't know. Some time, maybe, and, if so, quietly, depending on what happens or doesn't happen.
Posted by: Deleted user 974
Saturday 22 December 2007 - 04:43pm
Another fascinating, absorbing and up-;ifting piece from you Pluralist ! Thank you ! I always find your historical (& other posts) deeply moving, as well as intersting. I think that is because one feels the depth of your devotion and thinking.
As far as I am concerned, you are already a minister-priest, profound teacher and mystic ...
I wonder if you do need any further recognition (you don't for me --but maybe you need some such rite de passage -- if so, please invite me !)
Praying for your path and your you ...
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Saturday 22 December 2007 - 03:36pm
You can call me what you want, Graham. Pluralist is a web name held since 1998 and is drawn from an identity at that time and before within the Unitarians. It is well established now, plus I pay for it in terms of the domain name. It also indicates something of my viewpoint.
Of course F. D. Maurice was another Unitarian who became Anglican. A great many did. Traffic went both ways. Jospeh Blanco White was one who started out as a Roman Catholic priest, became an Anglican priest in 1814 and declared he was a Unitarian in 1835 (quite late for his liberal views, questioning biblical inspiration, the atonement and divinity of Christ in 1818). Blanco White taught Pusey the use of the Roman breviary. Stopford Brooke moved from the Anglican Church into Unitarianism in 1880. He started as an evangelical, and moved to a broad Church postion thanks to Raplh waldo Emerson's transcendentalism, amongst other influences (Emerson was evicted out of North American Unitarianism) but James Martineau (friend of many a broad Church cleric) was a long time influence, from 1857 in terms of starting with his writings.In 1861 Martineau famously wrote: "The Incarnation is true not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally and God everlastingly", and in 1867 Stopford Brook wrote: "The whole of humanity is penetrated by the Divine. This is the foundation stone of the Gospel of Christ... and we call it the Incarnation." When Stopford Brooke asked Dean Stanley if the Church of England could broaden to allow James Martineau to be Archbishop of Canterbury, Dean Stanley said, "Not in our time" and as a result Stopford Brooke decided to leave the Church of England.
As for me, little me, some 130 years after Stopford Brooke moved, I am pondering my own position. I am quite happy in the local church I attend - fully involved in several of its groups, even on the PCC, and take a full place in the worship for a lay person, and seem to get on with many very well. But the Archbishop of Canterbury in this Advent Letter has annoyed me no end, yet another piece of incredulity about him, and like his "I should think so" in the BBC Radio 5 Live interview about the historicity of Bethlehem over a census or pilgrimage, when he knows perfectly well about these historical matters. It is complicated by a very long time and sense of seeking ordination, and its probable exhaustion now. An academic priest who says he recognised a sense of calling in me back in the eighties wonders now if God has walked away and left the Church of England to bibliolatry, and I just see this Archbishop and a great many others dancing to this tune. It is now so far gone into sectarianism that, even if I did put myself forward, it would be into a changing institution that no longer has the diversity that it did back in Stopford Brooke's day, never mind developed in the 1960s and 1970s. This means I am thinking around lots of different options and possibilities, like local support in one direction and ecclesiastical support in another, or one of the many tiny groups that now exist.
This brings me to mention two particular important individuals for me - one is Ulric Vernon Herford and another is J M Lloyd Thomas. Both were Unitarian, and both acquired liberal Catholcism that took them into a Free Catholic direction. Herford was part of a family of Unitarian ministers, but set up a monastic congregation for a while in Oxford, and was seen cycling around and quite a saintly cleric, a spiritual approach to animal welfare too before many, who became a bishop under the Thomas line of apostolic succession, and has given rise to many episcopi vegantes since. His Liberal Catholic approach, with origins in Unitarianism, was different from the one started ten years later by those who joined Old Catholic Christianity and Theosophy. A few years on Herford as bishop ordained the congregationalist W. E. Orchard, part of the Free Catholic Society, that was really Unitarian in origin and taking Martineau into the creedless sacramental, also influenced by the breadth side of Richard Baxter, the Presbyterian Puritan, of whom J. M. Lloyd Thomas was an expert biographer. There are now a few groups and individuals who look back to these folks as important, as I do. I have made contact, but I am going slowly if in that connecting direction at all.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 21 December 2007 - 03:45pm
Thanks, Adrian (aka Pluralist) - how about changing your name on this site to Adrian 'Pluralist', and then we won't have to keep using 'aka'?
S T Coleridge moved from 'unitarianism' to 'trinitarianism' and, it seems to me, flourished in the development of his theological imagination, from which we greatly benefit.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Friday 21 December 2007 - 02:38pm
My point is that there are different perspectives in a religion.
Karl Barth was of the view that revelation came from God, and humankind could not meet or find God. Others gave a view that humankind could go part way or all the way to find God. Karl Barth did not accuse them of having a different religion. Of course I have a different perspective: I am a through and through liberal and that makes a considerable difference, and I am like those of the nineteenth century Broad Church who did interact with Unitarian theologians. Incidentally there is also a great deal in the way of Buddhism in my theology, but it is a Buddhist Christianity because (and I have been within Western Buddhism) it involves a clear difference from actual Buddhist views. I will refer to God and transcendence in a way a Buddhist finds irrelevant or harmful. Because I have that Buddhism in the Christianity does not mean I am a Buddhist.
I agree with Graham about TEC. No way is it a form of Unitarian diversity (understand that Unitarianism is not a theological position, it is the concept of an evolving faith - unitarian (small u) is a theological position and whilst most Unitarians are unitarian some are not - some Unitarians (and I have met some) are trinitarians, and some so close they may as well be.
Posted by: Deleted user 1143
Friday 21 December 2007 - 02:04pm
Thanks, Graham. Given that 'religion' is very hard to define, I guess it's good to be clear about what we mean. I assume there's a category for those of us who think TEC and ACC preach a new religion with the understanding that (a) they could be right and that (b) by new religion we simply mean something we don't recognize as Apostolic Christianity. Evidently they do see basic continuity there, so to some extent we'll have to leave the jury out on that and (as Adrian invites us to do) work out some amicable way to get a divorce.
Given your ecumenism vs. inter-faith, distinction, what's to be done when the distinction is very blurry? Say, as with our friend Adrian? In conversation with him, are we involved in the first or the second? Again, no slur intended at all, but given his theology of revelation I think it's very safe to say we're engaging mostly in the second. And the humility you're calling for in all our pronouncements can remain: Pluralist could be right. God may very well be captive to creation, truth may very well be something we have to come up with on our own. I just hope and trust it's otherwise.
I think the same applies to the TEC and ACC of today. Yes, the liturgy may provide an anchor, but we must acknowledge that the same words and formulas can be used but with entirely different meanings. (In any case, room is made for 'expansivist' language, so that God is both Father and Mother, etc.) The illuminati are assured that, e.g., 'ascended into heaven' no longer means what we thought it meant. Then there comes a point where the new interpretation is generally received, the error has hit 'the citadel' in Calvin's language, and the orthodox reading is considered obscurantist. Clearly you don't think we're anywhere near that, and I wonder if it could have something to do with the fact that Anglicanism here in Britain is relatively more hospitable to orthodoxy.
Best,
Steve
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 21 December 2007 - 10:33am
The Anglican Communion Institute has published a perceptive article by Christopher Seitz, Philip Turner and Ephraim Radner, 'The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter of 2007:The Significance for Anglican Communion Life':
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/126/1/
It is a very positive response to the Advent Letter and encourages people to read the early theological sections before considering the proposals. In particular, the following paragraphs are significant and urgent:
It seems to us that the courses of action proposed and the guidelines provided all serve the principle of mutual subjection. The remaining question is what to do as the process plays itself out. In this respect, the Archbishop notes that the parties most affected by the current conflict rejected the proposal made by the Primates to find an interim solution. We are firmly convinced that some interim solution must be found quickly if further fragmentation of the Communion is to be prevented during the process of finding answers to the difficult questions the Communion faces.
The Archbishop himself acknowledges the need to find a way for those within TEC who support the direction marked out by the Windsor Report to differentiate themselves from the present leadership of their church. At present both they and the Communion are faced with a bad choice, namely, between the forces represented by the National Headquarters of TEC and those represented by Common Cause Partners. The clear implication of the Advent Letter and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is that a solution to the issue of differentiation internal to TEC is the proper way forward. It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found. It is our hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishops of TEC and the leaders of the Windsor Bishops will devote their energies to this issue and find a mutually acceptable solution with all deliberate speed. We fear that if no such action is taken both TEC and the Communion as a whole will be faced with a battle between opposing forces that may well simply tear fabric of our communion apart.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 21 December 2007 - 09:23am
Thanks, Steve, for your comments, and also, Adrian (aka Pluralist), for yours.
Steve, when you say that 'you can have two Christians who belong to different religions or worldviews', you are using the word 'religion' is a sub-set of Christianity and assuming that it is similar to 'worldview'.
Now, for sure, Christians have varied worldviews, but I think it confuses matters to say that Christians has varied religions.
You go on to say that 'No slur is intended whatsoever'. Well, in your thinking that may be the case. In the thinking of those who have used the 'Two Religions' language about The Episcopal Church, it is not the case. More than a slur is intended. It is outright rejection - beyond denominational rejection to 'they follow a different religion' - let the reader understand - from Christianity.
The difference between 'ecumenism' and 'inter-faith relations' may clarify this discussion. 'Ecumenism' concerns relationships between Christian churches or denominations; 'inter-faith relations' concerns relationships between different 'faiths' or 'religions'. This is the accepted language of discussions.
Now, this being the case, to say TEC is 'another religion', is to put it outside of Christianity. Granted, there are some in TEC who do not hold to the divinity of Christ, or the Trinity, but as an body that is not the case. Liturgy is an important safeguard in this matter.
So, evangelicals are not agreed that the TEC is 'another religion' - some use that language others consider that language and the meaning given to it to be inappropriate. The latter still see the vital importance of the sort of 'boundary drawing' of the Windsor Report, the Covenant process and the Advent Letter. The former tend to dismiss all of these as not effective. We shall see.
There was an earlier Fulcrum thread on this very subject:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?thread=3656
Posted by: Deleted user 1143
Friday 21 December 2007 - 12:12am
My point, Adrian, is simply that you can have two Christians who belong to different religions or worldviews. No slur is intended whatsoever. It's the same as saying, e.g., that there are Roman Catholics who think like Protestants, Jews who think like Buddhists, or Trinitarians who think like Unitarians. It's a matter of trying to identify someone's basic language, so as to know on what basis to communicate, since 'Christian' can mean very little (Unamuno said that 'anyone who invokes Christ's name with reverence is a Christian'). From your comments, and from the liturgy you've put together, it's pretty clear that you're not interested in promoting the Gospel of Jesus as a worldview given 'from above'. As far as I can tell that notion is next to meaningless for you. So, assuming that we both take our worldviews seriously, I hope you'll change your mind, just as I expect you would invite me to consider your pluralistic form of Christianity as preferable to classical, credal orthodoxy.
What has me puzzled is the fact that fellow evangelicals seem eager to deny that TEC and ACC are embracing a new religion. I thought we were agreed on that, generally speaking, but just differed on what to do about it.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Thursday 20 December 2007 - 10:48pm
How on earth are they embarking on a different religion for goodness sake when they worship the Trinity and come under the various creeds as historic documents?
You may as well say that this is the case with individuals who have a critical view of the Bible, understand that tradition is humanly constructed, and use reasoning (and can be critical even of reasoning). They still are in the same religion, surely. Back in the late nineteenth century Unitarians were still regarded as Christians, even though they were Free Christians in every sense. You might say that those who use Buddhism, or Paganism, or Humanism now are not, and so would they, but any reading of say the Unitarian Christian Association material leaves one in no doubt that they are Christians. The Episcopal Church worships according to stronger formularies than the Unitarian Christians do. It is almost a slur, is this, to be blunt.
So is it to be assumed then that anyone who joins the new group Affirming Liberals is to be regarded as following a different religion? What religion? TEC is far more mixed than that - it is not a uniform liberal Church by any means. When you get to the Liberal Catholic Church International, which has apostolic succession, Catholic mass, the sacraments, grace... Ah, it has a few extras and other imports, but is it a different religion?
No - it is just that Christianity is far broader than some evangelicalism. Meanwhile, do look at my blog, because if what I have received is right then some of you folks are making a big mistake with the outcome of the Advent Letter, if not even its intention.
Posted by: Deleted user 1143
Thursday 20 December 2007 - 09:13pm
I'm just wondering, Graham, if any of those who claim that TEC and ACC have embarked on a different religion (as I do) are actually claiming or implying that one cannot be saved while remaining in those churches. If there are such folks, I think your appeal to Hooker would be right on. But I just haven't heard anyone actually claim that.
Hooker did acknowledge that those within popish superstition and heresy (his words) might be saved, but the whole thrust of his argument was that it would be in spite of their religion rather than within it as such. I fully agree that TEC and ACC are still churches, indeed Christian churches, in the same sense that early gnostic sects were still Christian sects. So I'm not sure why you hesitate to refer to ACC or TEC's form of Christianity as a different religion. If you recognize that Christianity has here or there become blended with another world view (and we can all concoct our own blends, as Newbigin has noted), what's wrong with pointing it out? If Mexican Roman Catholicism is blended, here and there, with witchcraft, don't we do well to issue a warning to those who think they're continuing in the Great Tradition?
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Monday 17 December 2007 - 10:43pm
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said before that he is not revisiting Lambeth 1998 1:10 and the agenda does not have this here. Secondly, he is drawing on the Instruments of Communion and he wants them to be clearer as part of the Covenant making process. So whilst he says that there is no central authority, he obviously behaves as if there is this central authority, and futhermore wants this clarified. Notice that the foundation of the argument is not centralised - it is that other Churches of Anglicanism expect a local Church in the area to be representative, and thus they cannot invade the space. But the basis of being representative is one reading of the Bible according to Lambeth 1:10, but if a Church innovates its reading of the Bible then it is up to the Instruments of Communion to decide that it has and also up to the Instruments of Communion to organise intervention.
This is nothing if not centralisation: it is saying not only is there a Roman Catholic principle (applied to Instruments of Communion) but a savagely narrow interpretation of scripture in selective places (not applying elsewhere).
This breaks the autonomy of Churches, it takes away the basis of coming together which is voluntary and on bonds of affection (it is club rules - more and more rules to obey to be a member of the club), it makes a mockery of critical biblical scholarship, it ignores other Catholic methods of association and disassociation.
It also sets up strict rules for even attending a meeting. That different Covenants could emerge is reduced by fixing already the basis of reading of scripture and clarifying the centralising role of the Instruments of Communion. So it is not a level laying field.
In any case, it is all done under a purple haze. The reports of the meeting that produced Lambeth 1:10 are similar to the reports of the later parts of the Dar es Salaam meeting. These do not represent a consensus but a manipulation. It is a manipulation to exclude, and to fix, in order to placate a constituency that wants to impose its narrowness on the rest of Anglicanism.
Now until 14 December my personal view was that, as is its ethos, those concerned for inclusivity should go to Lambeth, even though I opposed a Covenant. Lambeth 2008 was just a process, and not the end point. I certainly opposed the Covenant on the basis that it was either restrictive or unnecessary. Now the rules of attendance have been so tightly drawn, and the outcome so linked to these Instruments of Communion, that my personal view is that those who are concerned for historical Anglicanism should probably stay away.
The fundies said they'd boycott it and have their own meetings and structures. The conditions for boycotting are still there, but they may turn up anyway. If they did, and produced a horrible result, there is no way that Churches like TEC and Canada, and a number of others, will accept the result of international decision taking. Crumbs, the international level is even going to discuss whether TEC has the right kind of episcopal authority and what it should do about that. How about mind its own business?
So the Archbishop, again, sees a solution to the problem of difference as centralising. At some stage it will not work, but better to have the failure to work earlier than later. Same as the way this Covenant was edged on and on, like no decision yet so what's the worry? Well the worry was and is indeed set out that it is all a fixed set up all the way down the line.
At some point some primates are going to have to say, "If the Advent Letter means this, and this, and this as an outcome, then it can never be acceptable." Hopefully, if such is said, then the whole thing will bomb. Which is what it deserves.
Posted by: Philip Wainwright
Monday 17 December 2007 - 02:39am
Where does Pluralist see the Archbishop ‘pushing the centralising argument’? The letter says ‘we have no single central executive authority’, and I see no evidence that he wants to provide one. Nor do I think he is telling anyone ‘that there is only one way to read the Bible’. What he seems to be trying to do is to ‘state what common ground there is’ now, and all he says about Lambeth 1998 1:10 is that it ‘is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands.’ That this is the case now seems to me to be a fact; I don’t see him ruling out the possibility that at some time in the future the common reading might be different. The idea that at Lambeth are gathered ‘the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice’ surely implies that the ‘common reading of Scripture’ can be looked at again. What he appears to want is as many people to be of the same mind at the same time as is possible, and the teaching of the church not to change without a general consensus that it is right for that to happen, which is what ‘communion’ means. I personally applaud that as in keeping with the guidance of our Lord. I don’t see that our common reading of Scripture on the issue of sexuality can ever be other than it is, but if I did I still don’t think I’d see the Archbishop’s letter as making that impossible.
Philip Wainwright
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Monday 17 December 2007 - 12:36am
Well why, Graham? You hope that those who said they would not turn up, who wanted at first a meeting of primates, will nevertheless turn up, in order to put their foot on the Communion Churches in order to centralise and control.
This reminds me of Mikhail Gorbachev just before the putsch - he veered to the right to include those critics who were undermining him, whilst at the same time the reality was taking place behind the treaty to produce the Commonwealth out of the old Soviet Union. He took aboard the critics - that is, he fed the crocodile but found that the crocodile wanted more and more bites and eventually betrayed him.
Rowan Williams has basically taken on the right wing argument in order to claw back the schismatics. Should he succeed, they will eat him up - but the result is that those for whom such an Anglicanism is an anathema will resist it most strongly, being the Americans, Canadians, Scots, Welsh, many Australians, New Zealand, split English and the issue of autonomy is not so easily overridden.
In the Soviet Union the putsch came up against stronger forces, and the central institutions were not co-ordinated or committed, and collapsed. My point over and again is that if Rowan pushes the centralisation argument he will end up causing a collapse.
This time though the collapse will be because he could not rely on the liberal end putting up with more hostile intervention, this time from the centre. Significant provinces will feel betrayed and will likely leave, to create their own arrangements. Many may cheer at this, that those fundies who were leaving and being 'alternative' were turned around so that those leaving were now those they had wanted "disciplined". But in such a setting even the Archbishop won't be able to do his nuanced narrative theology or interfaith talks, because he'll have created a nasty Anglicanism that excludes all such expressions (on the basis of the one way to read the Bible, the mutual expectations of Churches depending on this, etc.). Indeed, those whom he placated are then, once they have control over the bigger animal rather than their purist sect, are likely to shove him out, in that they owe him nothing.
Posted by: Graham Kings
Sunday 16 December 2007 - 09:42pm
Thanks for your comment, Pluralist.
I agree with you that the Advent Letter 'is a turning point all right for Anglicanism'. But I disagree with the rest of your post and its implications. I think that, as a result of this Advent Letter, the Lambeth 2008 will be large and very significant.
Posted by: Deleted user 1222
Sunday 16 December 2007 - 01:42pm
It was my view that we had Conservative Evangelicals led by Chris Sugden and Martyn Minns, as import merchants of African magical fundamentalism, going off and doing their own thing, and that for all their threats they would splinter off and form their own alternative Communion of Nigerians, Ugandans, Rwandans, Kenyans, Sydneyites and Southern Cones (NURKSS) busying themselves in the United States, Canada and any other province they cared to pick off, including York and Canterbury. Opposed to the Covenant, it would conk out with them gone anyway.
Now, with them still going, the Arhcbishop of Canterbury tells us that there is only one way to read the Bible, and that is via the settled Lambeth 1998 1:10, that this forms expectations of local Churches on other local Churches, and that if a local Church innovates its reading and/ or ministry, then it is for the Communion to decide on intervention - indeed the Communion to validate faith, order (it can recognise bishops and dioceses loyal to it that bypasses a local Church) and everything centralises to these Instruments of Communion - they to be made ever more clearer and explicit as the Covenant is made. Plus only those bishops who support the Covenant can go to Lambeth 2008, with others of perceived scandal or boundary crossing excluded. Even after TEC and New Orleans, the Archbishop plans to put TEC into a form of counselling, and plans to have even fewer primates assist the clarification of the narrow Instruments of Communion. This is a nasty, narrow, combination of Protestant frozen belief and Catholic centralism. After all this TEC could still be put into quarantine, presumably Canada now (subject to bounary crossing), Wales, Scotland, England in places, New Zealand, parts of Australia...
Well there are one or two bishops at least who are opposed to the Covenant from the liberal end, who might form a useful function by staying away from Lambeth 2008, never mind the fundies who'd stay away. It was never a liberal view to stay away from Lambeth 2008, and indeed some like InclusiveChurch harboured the fantasy that a broad and inclusive Covenant can be designed - well not if Lambeth 1998 1:10 has this status it should never have.
This is not the Anglican Communion of fraternity and bonds of affection, but something that overturns its whole basis and history. Anglicanism with its Churches was always more like Eastern Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism, but now these Communion Instruments become like a new Pope.
This is a turning point all right for Anglicanism, and one where the brakes need applying rather hard. Once again, you do not solve a problem of a specialisation of religious stances by banging on centralisation - you loosen up and look for as many agreements as you can between Churches.
If some liberally minded bishops (inclusivity and passivity, and even fear might demonstrate otherwise) can themselves give a principled no to this putsch from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and oppose the agenda of Lambeth 2008, then there might be some receptivity for the marginalisation of Churches in the future.
Perhaps liberals should not be afraid of their own Communion either, one that is generous, inclusive, loose and about bonds of affection.
I know I speak here on foreign territory - that Fulcrum favours the Archbishop and his actions in narrowing the boundaries somewhat - but I am not the only one who regards this Advent Letter as an unAnglican disaster by someone who cannot seem to get off his centralising Catholic tricycle, and who is in danger of ending up not only with few around him, but possibly in the end with the damage all around on his own logical road to Rome.
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/12/resist-canterbury.html
Posted by: Philip Wainwright
Saturday 15 December 2007 - 11:01pm
This is a very impressive document, and a lot more thought has gone into it than into most of the comments on it I've seen. I think it will be read and re-readover the next few years, perhaps even longer, and will repay the effort each time. His continued refusal to be stempeded by the thoughtless urgencies on the left or theright will pay off in the end. He is also right to concentrate on what makes communion possible, not who is right orwrong about the issue of the day. I think he has his eye on communion in a larger sense than the merely Anglican.Judging by the comments on the blogs, it won't prevent an at least temporary split in the Communion. But it just might lay a foundation for something bigger in the ecclesiological sense, closer to the mind of Christ, than what we have now.
It's an old cliche that heresies are half-truths; I think what we are seeingin those working for realignment is half an ecclesiology, or, by the standards theArchbishop lays out, a third of an ecclesiology. I see less reason than ever forrealigning. Certainly not until 'the Communion together had in some way concluded,not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking.'
I hope all of us in the US who intend to remain in communion with General Convention in the coming years, no matter what our opinions on other things, can work for the way forward proposed by the Archbishop in this letter.
Philip Wainwright
Posted by: Graham Kings
Saturday 15 December 2007 - 06:56pm
I have just posted online our Fulcrum Response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter 2007:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=256
It begins:
We welcome this careful, decisive articulation of the mind of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop’s key new initiative of forming a small coordinating body of Primates and others.
It concludes:
In the writing of his Advent Letter, the Archbishop of Canterbury has opened up the possibility of a large Lambeth Conference in July 2008. We pray that all those bishops who are willing to work together with implementing the recommendations of the Windsor Report, including the development of a Covenant, respond positively to the invitation.
Posted by: Ken Sawyer
Saturday 15 December 2007 - 11:18am
It is worth reading Kendall Harmon's (of TitusOneNine) thoughts.
He begins: This is a thoughtful, prayerful letter and deserves to be treated as such by all Anglicans. It cannot possibly have been easy to put together.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8377/#more
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 December 2007 - 06:49pm
Dale Rye, a thoughtful author on the Covenant site, has just commented perceptively on the Advent Letter on TitusOneNine:
After reading it through once, I feel like I need to read it again. However, my initial reaction is that it is a plea for the Church to act as a Church and not as a secular political society. Part of that is a need to recognize the tension between a fruitful diversity and the need for limits. As Anglicans historically have, the Archbishop calls for a “both/and” solution to the degree that is possible, rather than taking the easy road of an “either/or.”
Any solution to the present problem (like the one suggested by many in TEC) that favors diversity over mutuality is as bad as a solution (like the one suggested by many in the Global South) that would draw limits to eliminate diversity. The problem with absolutely privileging diversity is that it makes it impossible to define any limits for the mutual recognition of mission and ministry (indeed it regards the drawing of any limits as an illegitimate exercise). Anybody can call himself an Anglican theologian and nobody can disagree.
The problem with absolutely privileging boundary-setting is that it is impossible to find any consensus place to draw the lines short of excluding all those who regard diversity as legitimate. Today it is Lambeth I.10, but tomorrow it would (not just could) be women’s ordination; see the recent discussion on T19. The day after it could be a rematch of the High Church/Low Church wars in the 19th century or a demand for the uniform treatment of charismatic gifts or remarriage after divorce. Schism would follow schism as fast as one month follows another.
The only real alternative (as groups like Fulcrum, the ACI, and the Covenant authors recognize) is to come up with some way to define agreed limits of diversity without excluding anyone who falls within those limits. In the fuzzy areas along and across the boundaries, there must be some way to preserve the maximum degree of communion (mutual recognition of mission and ministry) possible, as well as ways to pursue joint ministries where that is consistent with integrity. The Windsor Report and the subsequent ACC and Primate discussions have been directed towards those goals, and in particular the definition of an Anglican Covenant to implement those goals.
Anybody who is willing to participate in that process will be welcome at Lambeth. There are some, however, whose very presence would represent either the triumph of diversity over mutuality (e.g., Bp. Robinson) or the triumph of unilateral line-drawing over mutuality (e.g., the AMiA and CANA bishops). Others will either self-select or be filtered out because they cannot conscientiously choose mutuality over either diversity (e.g., some in TEC) or exclusivity (e.g., some in the Global South). That is a tragedy, because it represents an unwillingness to take up the cross of self-denial (if not a greater Cross), but it may be a tragedy that the health and even survival of the Anglican Communion demands.
So, as we might have expected, Archbishop Williams has refused to take one of the easy ways out. I haven’t checked any of the reappraiser web sites yet, but I imagine that both are hot with criticism that the Archbishop has not taken their side, but has chosen to continue his middle course. Certainly that is what I am hearing here.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/8374/#158240
Posted by: liddon
Friday 14 December 2007 - 06:41pm
Where is Henry ii when you need him?
Posted by: Graham Kings
Friday 14 December 2007 - 06:04pm
I copy below the long-awaited Advent Letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of the United Churches by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
It is very significant indeed. As Fulcrum has hoped, it reiterates clearly the passage in his original letter of invitation to the Lambeth Conference 2008:
I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.
The full text is as follows:
To: Primates of the Anglican Communion & Moderators of the United Churches
Greetings in the name of the One 'who is and was and is to come, the Almighty', as we prepare in this Advent season to celebrate once more his first coming and pray for the grace to greet him when he comes in glory.
You will by now, I hope, have received my earlier letter summarising the responses from Primates to the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. In that letter, I promised to write with some further reflections and proposals, and this is the purpose of the present communication. Although I am writing in the first instance to my fellow-primates, I hope you will share this letter widely with your bishops and people.
As I said in that earlier letter, the responses received from primates differed in their assessment of the situation. Slightly more than half of the replies received signalled a willingness to accept the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement, but the rest regarded both the statement and the Standing Committee's comments as an inadequate response to what had been requested by the primates in Dar-es-Salaam.
So we have no consensus about the New Orleans statement. It is also the case that some of the more negative assessments from primates were clearly influenced by the reported remarks of individual bishops in The Episcopal Church who either declared their unwillingness to abide by the terms of the statement or argued that it did not imply any change in current policies. It should be noted too that some of the positive responses reflected a deep desire to put the question decisively behind us as a Communion; some of these also expressed dissatisfaction with our present channels of discussion and communication.
2.
Where does this leave us as a Communion? Because we have no single central executive authority, the answer to this is not a simple one. However, it is important to try and state what common ground there is before we attempt to move forward; and it is historically an aspect of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to 'articulate the mind of the Communion' in moments of tension and controversy, as the Windsor Report puts it (para. 109). I do so out of the profound conviction that the existence of our Communion is truly a gift of God to the wholeness of Christ's Church and that all of us will be seriously wounded and diminished if our Communion fractures any further; but also out of the no less profound conviction that our identity as Anglicans is not something without boundaries. What I am writing here is an attempt to set out where some of those boundaries lie and why they matter for our witness to the world as well as for our own integrity and mutual respect.
The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.
So a full relationship of communion will mean:
The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith', in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another 'standing under' the word of Scripture. Because of this recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process. Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.
The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks – of teaching and pastoral care and admonition, of assembling God's people for worship, above all at the Holy Communion. The principle that one local church should not intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God provides what is needed for each local community.
The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News. When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to support each other's efforts to win people for Christ and to serve the world in his Name. Communion thus means the sharing of resources and skills in order to enable one another to proclaim and serve in this way.
It is in this context that we must think about the present crisis, which is in significant part a crisis about whether we can fully, honestly and gratefully recognise these gifts in each other.
The debates about sexuality, significant as they may be, are symptoms of our confusion about these basic principles of recognition. It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' the welcoming of homosexual people in the Church. The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name. But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.
This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church, it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far they are still speaking the same language. And because what one local church says is naturally taken as representative of what others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered.
Where such a situation arises, it becomes important to clarify that the Communion as a whole is not committed to receiving the new interpretation and that there must be ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed. This is important in our relations with our own local contexts and equally in our ecumenical (and interfaith) encounters, to avoid confusion and deep misunderstanding.
The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.
Successive Lambeth Conferences and Primates' Meetings have, however, cautioned very strongly against such provision. It creates a seriously anomalous position. It does not appeal to a clear or universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church's ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance. The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking. Without such a condition, the risk is magnified of smaller and smaller groups taking to themselves the authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour's ministerial life or spiritual authenticity. The gospels and the epistles of Paul alike warn us against a hasty final judgement on the spiritual state of our neighbours.
3.
While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.
Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent advice of the Instruments of Communion. The repeated requests for clarification to The Episcopal Church, difficult and frustrating as they have proved for that province, have been an attempt by the Communion at large to deal with the many anxieties expressed in this regard. The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion. The practical challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful, sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own province and with the wider Communion.
That challenge is not best addressed by a series of ad hoc arrangements with individual provinces elsewhere, as the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué made plain. The New Orleans statement, along with many individual statements by bishops in TEC, expresses the anger felt by many in the US – as also in Canada – about uncontrolled intervention, and it is evident that this is not doing anything to advance or assist local solutions that will have some theological and canonical solidity.
I believe that we as a Communion must recognise two things in respect of the current position in TEC. First: most if not all of the bishops present in New Orleans were seeking in all honesty to find a way of meeting the requests of the primates and to express a sense of responsibility towards the Communion and their concern for and loyalty to it. It is of enormous importance that the Communion overall does not forget its responsibility to and for that large body of prayerful opinion in The Episcopal Church which sincerely desires to work in full harmony with others, particularly those bishops who have clearly expressed their desire to work within the framework both of the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions, and that it does not give way to the temptation to view The Episcopal Church as a monochrome body. Second: it is practically impossible to imagine any further elucidation or elaboration coming from TEC after the successive statements and resolutions from last year's General Convention onwards. A good deal of time and effort has gone into the responses they have already produced, and it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.
The exact interpretation of the New Orleans statements, as the responses from around the Communion indicate, is disputable. I do not see how the commitment not to confirm any election to the episcopate of a partnered gay or lesbian person can mean anything other than what it says. But the declaration on same-sex blessings is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the name of the Church at large.
A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected. Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué expressed profound disquiet on this matter, addressed to all parties.
A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.
The exchange between TEC and the wider Communion has now been continuing for some four years, and it would be unrealistic and ungrateful to expect more from TEC in terms of clarification. Whatever our individual perspectives, I think we need to honour the intentions and the hard work done by the bishops of TEC. For many of them, this has been a very costly and demanding experience, testing both heart and conscience. But now we need to determine a way forward.
4.
The whole of this discussion is naturally affected by what people are thinking about the character and scope of the Lambeth Conference, and I need to say a word about this here. Thus far, invitations have been issued with two considerations in mind.
First: I have not felt able to invite those whose episcopal ordination was carried through against the counsel of the Instruments of Communion, and I have not seen any reason to revisit this (the reference in the New Orleans statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'expressed desire' to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire misunderstands what was said earlier this year, when the question was left open as to whether the Bishop, as a non-participant, could conceivably be present as a guest at some point or at some optional event). And while (as I have said above) I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimised by the Communion overall.
I acknowledge that this limitation on invitations will pose problems for some in its outworking. But I would strongly urge those whose strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are prepared to offer for the sake of a Conference that will have some general credibility in and for the Communion overall.
Second: I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.
How then should the Lambeth Conference be viewed? It is not a canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation. It is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice. It is also a meeting designed to strengthen and deepen the sense of what the episcopal vocation is.
Some reactions to my original invitation have implied that meeting for prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry is somehow a way of avoiding difficult issues. On the contrary: I would insist that only in such a context can we usefully address divisive issues. If, as the opening section of this letter claimed, our difficulties have their root in whether or how far we can recognise the same gospel and ministry in diverse places and policies, we need to engage more not less directly with each other. This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be.
And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection. We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples. I do not think this is either an incidental matter or an evasion of more basic questions.
This means some hard reflective work in preparation for the Conference - including pursuing conversations with each other across the current divisions. There will also be a number of documents circulating which will feed into the Conference's discussions, in particular the work of the Covenant Design Group, the resources available from the dialogues with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Report of the Doctrinal commission and the papers coming from IASCER. Also significant will be the papers on the core elements of Anglican ministerial education and formation prepared by the group advising the Primates on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the paper on the theology of inter faith relations prepared by the Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON), Generous Love.
But direct contact and open exchange of convictions will be crucial. Whatever happens, we are bound to seek for fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others. Whatever happens, certain aspects of our 'relational' communion will continue independently of the debates and decisions at the level of canons and hierarchies.
Given the differences in response to The Episcopal Church revealed in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between TEC and other provinces. Much work remains to be done. But – once again, I refer back to my introductory thoughts – that work is about some basic questions of fidelity to Scripture and identity in ministry and mission, not only about the one issue of sexuality. It is about what it means for the Anglican Communion to behave with a consistency that allows us to face, both honestly and charitably, the deeply painful question of who we can and cannot recognise as sharing the same calling and task.
5.
Finally, what specific recommendations emerge from these thoughts?
I propose two different but related courses of action during the months ahead. I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.
I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the moment, the question of 'who speaks for the Communion?' is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded. The principles set out at the beginning of this letter will, I hope, assist in clarifying what needs to be said about this. Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship. I continue to hope that the discussion of the Covenant before, during and beyond Lambeth will give us a positive rallying-point.
6.
A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at present seems to presuppose that any change from our current deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined. I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as we think and pray our way through Advent.
The coming of Christ in the flesh and the declaration of the good news of his saving purpose was not a matter of human planning and ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience of Mary and whose effect was to create a new community of God's sons and daughters. As we look forward, what is there for us to do but pray, obey and be ready for God's re-creating work through the eternal and unchanging Saviour, Jesus Christ?
'The Spirit and the bride say, "Come"... Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen' (Rev.22.17, 20-21).
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/12/14/ACNS4354
Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum
|
|
The Bishop of Woolwich has said he is "deeply saddened and distressed" to hear of a fatal machete attack on a man in south-east London.
Christian Today. 22 May 2013
22 May 2013
Iran has launched a public crackdown on dissent before next month's presidential election, executing two men charged with espionage and waging war against God, arresting a group of activists, including Christians, and summoning campaigners for questioning. Political prisoners in some of the country's most notorious jails have had their parole or visiting rights withdrawn and some transferred to solitary confinement.
Saeed Kamali Deghan Guardian 21 May 2013
22 May 2013
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby honoured at his fellow Primates installation. ACNS, 20 May 2013
20 May 2013
Thanks, Bowman. And does this - the pleasantness of compliance to God's order and commands - not apply not only to aspects of the law given to Israel, which we are not obliged to keep, but also to the traditions of the apostles, which we are instructed to hold on to, and pass on to the next g...
I quite like Bowman's point that there is potential danger in bringing the women bishops issue into Ephesians 5 (if I can put it like that), which is about marriage. If we want to know 'how we should conduct [ourselves] in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pilla...
Bowman, you say that the only distinguishing quality of the relationships: Christ:man, man:woman, God:Christ, and Christ:church, husband:wife (I have added one there), is coinherence. Surely, there is a hierarchy of authority visible here. Jesus submits to the Father, the church submits to the Lo...
Michael Bourdeaux gives us a new insight into Margaret Thatcher
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
|
