|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/697
Fulcrum Subject: Anglicanism, Windsor Process Other articles by John Watson are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 13 comments on this article Are we Anglicans or Baptists?The Anglican Communion Covenant:Interdependence or Independence?by Revd John Watson
The result? Unity is better than division. Common ground in Christ is the cement that holds them together. And this cement is more than just pragmatic and surface glue that hides the cracks beneath. It is an attempt to faithfully and radically live out Jesus’ prayer “That they may be one” It is a deep christological and ecclesiological response. For them the way forward is not to act in isolation, but being aware that their actions will have an affect on the other. This is a response that goes to the heart of what being church, being a communion is all about. We are tied to each other in Christ. So an agreement is reached. Certain lifestyle choices will be restricted for the sake of the other. This is the cost of living in communion. Jean Vanier writes that unity “surges up from a life that flows within us and through us all together.”1 This is where the real test of communion is found - we can either seriously take into account the view of the other or we go it alone. This is everything to do with ecclesiology. Communion accountability is about making it real. We live life in the light of a brother and sister who may be different from us. How we express that is at the heart the Anglican ecclesiology and at the heart of the Anglican Communion Covenant. Many years ago I trained and served as a Baptist minister in the UK. At the heart of Baptist ecclesiology is the independence of the congregation.
This is government by the whole congregation…The local congregation is the fundamental unit: no individual official or church body may exercise rights over it. All matters of policy are submitted finally to the judgment of the whole congregation in which the minister, deacons and elders (if any), are on the same level as all the other members. Each congregation is free to interpret the mind of Christ without interference from other congregations or bodies, though in practice most independent churches unite with others in matters of common concern.2 This is one expression of ecclesiology. Here you have a wide number of independent congregational communities who form a union or federation so that there is a common expression and identity among themselves. Fine if your Baptist. Anglican ecclesiology is very different. Independence of a congregation is not the defining stamp. We are gathered into a communion of interdependent Dioceses, within a province which is interdependent with others, globally. This is how it has been expressed and chosen as the Anglican Communion has grown over the years. This is the gift we inherit. This is why we have four Instruments of Communion - not to be an exterior body of control - but to help bring union and communion with each other. Where we hold each other in high regard as each of us are sewn together into the fabric of life in Christ. This is more costly in terms of what it demands - love is costly after all. Yes we already have a Communion - and past actions have shown that difference of opinion, local (and regional) expression of difference have been held in the tension of being a Communion. The Instruments of Communion have helped foster that in the past; like for instance women priests and bishops. But recent actions have seen an abandonment of that commitment to work things through together. Recent actions have shown that for some a Baptist ecclesiology is preferable in working out difference. Back to 1st Century Jerusalem: what happened? did they declare their differences and decide to go it alone? Did they choose independence over interdependence? No they decided that a commitment was needed to express that deep unity and common bond of love. So we too have reached a moment in our Communion history where a commitment is needed to define again our ecclesiology - we are in it together. A No vote for the Anglican Covenant is actually a vote edging us towards another ecclesiology altogether, decidedly un-Anglican at that. A No vote would see us rather than experiencing the joys and frustration of living in Communion, like a bunch of grapes, fragile and yet filled with the potential for new wine, we would in the end become, as Graham Kings said - a bag of marbles - scraping and jostling against one another.
A Yes vote is a Yes to the Communion. A Yes vote is a Yes to Unity with diversity. A Yes vote is a Yes to Anglican ecclesiology.
Notes
1 Jean Vanier, Drawn into the mystery of Jesus through the Gospel of John (London: DLT) 2004, 302.
2 Stuart Blythe, Baptist Practices: Being Church, (Baptist Identity Lecture Semester two) 2007, 3-4.
Revd John Watson is vicar of St Paul's Tupsley and St Andrew's Hampton Bishop, in Hereford Diocese, UK. He is also a member of the Fulcrum Leadership Team. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: WATERANGEL Friday 2 March 2012 - 09:13am When certain questions are asked, cracks begin to show the subsidence of Christianity as the grounds on which it is set becomes more unstable.. For all the "wholeness" in Christ is dependant on not needing to ask such questions. The national and local platforms of "faith" are all over the world in its many guises. It will always be true that contextually and circumstancially the way and place in which a person shares/promotes their faith will carry different risk.There will always be a need for the intensified short term promotion on a public platform alongside the mid and long term promotion through teaching and living. None of them could work in isolation, and when they are pulling in opposite directions they do a lot of harm. enhancing understanding of the particular position that a person is called to in this process is a positive way forward. Unless the promoter sees a person or a persons views as less worthy than their own, rather than a view which has a meaning in its own right to the person who shares it. Christianity is not supposed to mirror the political world of intelectual sarcasm and one upmanship. Christianity is supposed to mirror Christ, did christ agree with everyone NO did christ put people down NO what he did was ask the question "who do you say i am?" So i am going to ask the question is jesus merely an intelllectual exercise or is he a saviour,? Is jesus an issue of denomination or is he an issue of relationship. Did jesus teach any of the disciples to make anyone feel worthless,? As i recall it the gospel tells us "i will prepare the way for you, i will find a place for you" or something along those lines, do i care if my words are exact no i dont, my words are genuine i mean harm to no-one. Have i failed? you decide.. How old were the disciples? they were relatively in todays terms middleaged. They were all working, they were experienced they were not young men. How old was Mary and Martha or Deborah or Sarah for that matter they were relatively older. They had walked the walk in faith. The life of jesus unfolded before some of their eyes. As i prayed for the journalist in syria and the others in war torn places, i thought of this, it is not just about the personal physical and mental suffering of our own, but about the observance of the death and suffering of others, and if it is on our behalf, what have we done to deserve such a sacrifice of Love. Because that is what the mirror of Christianity is "A sacrifice of Love" nothing more nothing less its as simple as that. It crosses all that sacrifice denominations, religions, ages, and races. A sacrifice is a sacrifice, in the period of lent people give up things, for a short while or do things for a short while, it is the beginning of recognising that sacrifice can actually have longevity. Jesus is for life not just for Christmas. True love and sacrifice Anglican or Baptist Covenant or no Covenant Marriage or no Marriage Gay or Straight Jesus is for life!!! Even for the Synod Angela Posted by: Jonathondavid Thursday 1 March 2012 - 10:23pm Origen Adam, Like in any marriage or long term relationship there is always an element of give from one side if the relationship is to work. No relational situation is immune, individually or in a group; psychological conformity studies will support this notion. This leaves individuals in a position where they have little choice other than to do an internal costs/benefit exercise when deciding whether to stay with a church. In the case of the Church of England it’s a fluid exercise as it involves both the local church and our perceptions of how church should mirror itself to the world on a national level. There will always be un-scriptural (worldly) and spiritual forces exerting pressure from within and without. We are in a constant battle (Ephesians 6:12) ! The church on a local level can better support and facilitate the intimate love of our neighbours, brothers and sister, no matter how diverse they are. The church on a national level can better facilitate the issues that can drive the public force of sacrificial love forward, whilst maintaining an image of who Christ really is, which is pure Spiritual holiness and love ( you cannot make Him like us). Coupled with its relation to the state, these factors afford the church a platform for righteousness, not a street corner (Matthew 6:5) Over the centuries that platform of righteousness, even though used as a street corner occasionally, has served the country and the world in a beautiful way. To an outsider looking in on the church, it’s a little like looking at a basket of pure white washed and ironed clothes, not fully realising that the basket below is filled with unwashed, part-washed and well- washed garments of all shapes and colours. Love does cost. Commitment to ‘express that deep unity and common bond of love’ is surely a commitment to the truth of the self against the greater glory of God. The truth of self is pitiful in comparison, a truth that humbly allows us to express Christ’s love, His way and deepen the unity. It’s not about being anti-gay, rather about being pro-purity and unity, which is what Jesus would want us all to be. (click the link) I always think of it like Spock put's it before his sacraficial death 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one'. On the other matter of acting independently as a congregation. This could be seen as following ‘The Spirit’ of God, with the only external testing coming from whether the call fails spectacularly or not in full sight of the wider church. In truth, does it matter ? Not for a Baptist church's 'cause of the day’ perhaps, whose failures and successes are not paraded or of concern to others. It may matter for a church with a platform for the Nation however. In all church constructs there is an interplay of leadership with other personalities, both of which vary from church to church. In a hospital for sick souls, that makes an interesting management experience, especially when the hospital has wards galore, all shepherding, tending and nurturing souls in their own right ! That’s a lot of internal dynamics in process creating a multifaceted but outwardly unified church. Baptists are more like cottage hospitals in comparison, even though they are everywhere too. I once went to a conference where the leader wisely said that the only real failure in God’s kingdom was a failure to try. I think that God delights in our ability to love our neighbours so much so that we will try and try again to ensure they are rescued and reconciled to Him. Sometimes that draws us into a communion that seems far from ideal, yet it is mysteriously bound together. Cords of many strands are not ‘easily’ broken apart. On considering 1st Century Jerusalem, Spirit led delegated people appointed new delegators as the church underwent rapid growth. Leaders roles evolved from being shepherds feeding their flock to overseers of other shepherds. Then man made rules of conformity set in, reinforced by the relentless work of early church fathers who set pen to paper. Those who could not curtail will have broken away from the established church, only to undergo their own conforming processes and re-establishment. Both independence and interdependence, just as it is today. Hey, Iconoclast, I’m an Anglican and I seem to step into plenty of wet stormy waters. :-) Posted by: Dave Thursday 1 March 2012 - 03:17pm John, I think we can accept that by and large those serving on synods at any level in the CofE are good Anglicans. If they were not they would not be bothered with such a tedious exercise. The way they vote on the covenant tells us nothing about the quality of their Anglicanism. The church is often described as having two wings. This is a reasonable approximation as long as the middle is not claiming to be in some sense truer. I would of course claim that the Evangelical wing is truer to the Tudor foundation of the church. In this case the opposition seems to come from the center on the grounds that the covenant is giving more power to the center. The defense of the covenant is that it is merely setting out what was already the case and the changes are merely procedural to allow the communion to do more efficiently what it was already doing. Both views are consistent with Anglicanism as a family of episcopally led national churches with a common liturgical heritage.Nobody need be accused of being baptist Dave Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 29 February 2012 - 12:03pm The Anglican Structure as is being descibed by Tom does not really exist in isolation..Why do i say that? well because the Baptist are also worldwide and the "structure" in both traditions are dependant on the leaders who put them into practice..So the C/E has a lectionary following particular scriptural verses at a particular time, but not all of the C/E follow the same format. What with the upstairs/downstairs approach of high and low church. Yes the C/E is accountable to the Archbishop, and the Baptist have the Baptist Union. But both do the same Job even if the baptist are not recognised in the House of Lords unless the Lord happens to be a baptist that is. The covenant and communion is scripturally based for both traditions, and yes interpretation is both corporate and independent which is in reality the difference between the Baptist and the C/E the C/E are a corporate state run church, which just happens to have the Queen at the head of it. The baptist well mission bred and mission led, depends on the cause of the day. But within the overall heirarchy of both individual clergy do their own thing within reason, even if the structure remains they just add to it they do not change the basic structure. Some add to the good and some to the detriment of the current congregation and leadership, but always they add or take away. Ecumenicasm does have something to do with it, for the communion is a symbol of coming together as one, irrespective of the tradition. "offering ourselves in fruitful service and binding ourselves more closely in the truth and love of christ, to whom with the father and the holy spirit be glory forever." "By the blood of the eternal covenant makes you complete" Which is pretty much a pauline theology as Paul did actually adapt the scripture according to the congregation he was addressing. He adapted the message that those receiving it may understand it and accept it, so that they could keep an individual covenant and be complete in and through the precious blood of Jesus Christ. But mostly i think asking people whether they are Anglican or Baptist is like asking a mixed race person are they black or white or mixed religion couple are you christian or /muslim/hindu/or/jew. The emphasis is wrong all wrong. we are all "The Church /Fellowship of believers.. Anglicanism is very important to Christianity in the same way as Fellowship is important to Jesus . Angela Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Wednesday 29 February 2012 - 11:55am "Good grief Origen Adam - This article is certainly not anti-gay” Well the Covenant is designed to stop people like Bishop Gene Robinson responding to God's calling. And your article is in favour of the Covenant, so how is it not anti-gay?! You also say that “Certain lifestyle choices will be restricted for the sake of the other.” I presume you're not referring to the choice to discriminate against LGBT people! Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 29 February 2012 - 11:32am Iconoclaste.. A wise person does not destroy everything, but keeps that which is good and builds upon it for then they shall surely have firm foundations.. One does not build on dry sand. Angela Posted by: John Watson Wednesday 29 February 2012 - 11:12am Good grief Origen Adam - This article is certainly not anti-gay and neither anti-baptist Timbo!! But I take your point it might be a boring article!! It is neither about ecumenism nor about the strengths and weakneses of either ecclesiology - but a reflection on Anglican eccelsiology as we inherit it. If we cherish it enough as a gift, and I do, then we should live in the light of that. How we speak of structure and where we place authority is important - if we chersih the local congregation as the locus of our authority (i.e who decides what in the light of scripture), then an eccelsiology like the Baptist ( or any other congregationalist denomination for that matter) will be the model we adopt. That is not where Anglican eccelesiology sits however - and it is that which I am getting at in the article. There is plenty of freedom to vary worship styles, tradition, mission, and yes even interpretation of scripture, as we all know, but when it comes to changes that affect the whole Communion (global not local) then we have due processes that allow interaction, differing interpretations, consultations, discernment and finally, and hopefully, decision making. (and this relates not just to the issue of homosexuality but to issues of lay presidency etc) And this is the issue you have Dave with the position on Scripture being the final authority - which I agree with by the way - but it is to do with interpretation - and in the end who has the authroity to define the interpretation for the Church? As a Communion - this is acheived via a lengthy process of listening and conversation - not acting in isolation from one another. When this is side stepped - it creates problems. A Communion ecclesiology is one that bears the frustrations and joys of being together and accountable together. Posted by: Iconoclast Tuesday 28 February 2012 - 04:08pm The main difference between the CofE and Baptists is that Baptists are wet all over. Posted by: WATERANGEL Monday 27 February 2012 - 10:47pm I could make a joke about the C/E being Baptist that have not had a proper bath, but that would be naughty..he he i like being naughty though lol Interdependance or independance , I think we are all a bit of both really, we need to be both..We cannot do it all without Jesus and Jesus with no followers seems a bit pointless.. I am really worried about answering this one, I started off a baptist from the age of 11, somewhat passively but with a growing understanding I took communion, I understood the bare bones like bring things before the lord be sorry for the things you have done wrong and have an earnest desire not to do them again at least not in the next five minutes..But as simple as it sounds i took personal responsibility for that so i guess , that made me independent.. I stayed in the baptist church dipping in and out of different denominations only occassionally usually in the mornings because i didnt like the children in the service when i knew i couldnt have children it upset me. So i went to the C/E in the morning and to the baptist in the evening, the baptist church was home the C/E were like your friends outside. Eventually the C/E became the greater part of my worship time , but my heart i have to say was where my home was/is/was/is/was. The C/E communion for me signified my growing up in Christ if i ever have grown up that is, but it was where i studied academically the history which had been carefully already embroidered into my life by the skilled teachers and one particular preacher, for at this point i could not even use a dictionary didnt know what a lectionary or concordence was and theology was something that just seemed to allude me yet I lived it everyday i lived, i described it but i did not know that what i was doing because i always referred to the application because it was how i understood/stand it. .Jesus was for living with, not visiting.. The thing with the C/E communion was this i had to make a decison to leave the pew and fetch it, now that was new for me , i had previously passively took it or occassionally i left it if there was a spiritual dilemma on the horizon, but to actually get up and walk down the aisle and take it, sometimes i had to be brave to do that..You know why is it if you dont quite feel at one with God or for some reason you are mad at him you feel like your made of glass. Like everyone can see your taking communion and you broke that spiritual rule..I took it that seriously. Then you go through that stage that if you are taking communion all the time, does the overfamiliarity with it lesson its significance..? how often do we remember how often do we repent? if i repented every time i sinned my knees would surely be worn out.. I am not sure which communion you think is interdependent and which one you think is dependent..Baptist or C/E hmm who wants me ?? now theres a question.. Old wine in New wine skins although we are instructed that being born again is about being like new wine in new wine skins, old wine matures and is of better quality, but yes it should stay in its original skin.. Ecumenicasm embraces the concept that it is about being followers of Christ first and foremost..My only concern is how ecumenicasm has been used for each denomination to be dependant for worship but are left in interdependant in responsibility, which translates into no-one taking full responsibility, a bit like a coalition.. I definately think we need both dependance and interdependance..We need to seek the way of unity working together in difference for sure.. I still do not have the answer Anglican or Baptist ...Maybe I am an anglican who has had a proper bath.. Angela Posted by: Dave Monday 27 February 2012 - 03:09pm John, Your question may have a rhetorical appeal to liberals and catholics. For the evangelical, however, the only question should be "Are we we being faithful to scripture?" Your question appeals to a visceral hatred of evangelicalism, fundamentalism, enthusiasm or independence which is unfortunately close to the heart of Anglicanism and needs to be rejected. Baptist ecclesiology is not simply "fine if your Baptist" It is fine for the whole church if it is Scriptural. Your reading of Acts 15 is interesting. More importantly they based their decisions on their theology and what they saw God doing. True Anglicanism insets that : it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, Article 20 and General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Article 21 It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. ... Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying. Article 34 The concerns which have been expressed about the Covenant endorse these principles. Rejection of the Covenant is not a rejection of the Communion. It is simply leaving things as they are. It would not in anysense make Anglicanism "Baptist" Dave Posted by: Timbo Monday 27 February 2012 - 02:46pm Independence or interdependence? Are they really what framed the Jerusalem council? How to live with difference? Not perhaps about the reality of unity in Christ? Surely Acts 15:1 signals that there is something even deeper than competing ecclesiologies are at stake. I'm afraid to say that this article's analysis is so wrong headed and reductionistic as to be laughable. Except that it is also arrogant to put the difference in ecclesiology between fellow Christian believers (Anglicans and Baptists) on the same level as orthodoxy and heterodoxy! What do I say to my brother in Christ, the local baptist pastor, in response this article? 'you're, um, not quite kosher Darrell, being of a different ecclesiology to me, the Anglican, with the right view, and it's because you're just like those judaisers in Acts 15 - sorry buddy but you don't quite cut it.' Just because someone stands against those in authority who want to revise the faith, it doesn't follow that they're Baptist. And the false dichotomy - it's either the covenant or disunity? Come again? There is real unity (and that with real differences too) that does not give over the orthodox gospel to those who'd refashion it in their own image. It was seen at GAFCON. What will it take to overcome what in the absence of coherent argument I can only assume are neocolonial prejudices about 'new perspectives, dynamics and worship' in the service of the orthodox Anglican faith? Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Monday 27 February 2012 - 02:45pm God! Another boring article in favour of the Anglican Covenant. Fulcrum, we get it: you're anti-gay. Next... “Certain lifestyle choices will be restricted for the sake of the other.” Hmm, sexuality isn't a choice – who would actually choose to be gay and Christian?! Women have been denied leadership positions in the Anglican Church for centuries. What you are proposing is that gay people should continue to be subjected to the same prejudice. Is this really what Jesus would do? Posted by: John Watson Monday 27 February 2012 - 01:28pm Dear Friends In the light of the ongoing Diocesan synod debates in the Church of England, we publish my article today that asks the question "Are we Anglicans or Baptist?" in our ecclesiology. Please use this thread to discuss the issues it raises. Grace and Peace John Watson |
LATEST
|
