|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/715
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Windsor Process / Anglicanism, Church of England Other articles by Graham Kings are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 19 comments on this article Communion Connections:Web of Mutuality or Fragmentation?by Graham Kings, Bishop of Sherborne
On Wednesday last week a group of bishops of the Church of England, with Justices of the Supreme Court, pondered these words in our hearts. We were being shown round the new court in Parliament Square, London. The words are etched in glass, by Richard Kindersley, one of a series of quotations, in the library. I remember reflecting on their connections to current discussions about the Anglican Communion Covenant. The Covenant was designed as a ‘web of mutuality’ across the Anglican Communion: a balance of provincial autonomy with world-wide interdependence and accountability. The Covenant sets out an orderly process towards the resolutions of conflicts to replace the chaotic, hastily arranged meetings of the past, which too often have led to a barrage of curses and contested statements. Tragically, last Saturday, the Covenant was voted down in three dioceses of the Church of England and now cannot be debated and voted on in General Synod next July. It needed over half of the 44 dioceses to vote for it positively. So far 23 dioceses have voted no, and 15 yes. Interestingly, the total number of votes, so far, is slightly over half in favour and, amongst the bishops, nearly 80% were in favour. Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of History of the Church at the University of Oxford, has accused the bishops of being out of touch with the rest of the church. There may be other explanations of our votes. First, a foundation of our calling is providing a focus of unity in the dioceses and a web of connections across space and time. Thus a Covenant which reflects a ‘web of mutuality’ is attractive and nourishing. Second, bishops experience the depth and challenge of relationships in the Communion through the Lambeth Conference, which meets every 10 years, and through regular visits to partner provinces and dioceses across the world. We have found that in encouraging clergy and lay people to join in with these partnerships, they are also invigorated with the vision of interdependence. Third, bishops have followed the Covenant closely over the last 8 years or so and seen its developing improvements. The English vote may have an impact on, but cannot bring to a halt, the Covenant movement in the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as well as being ‘Primate of All England’ is also one of the ‘Instruments of Communion’. He presides at the Lambeth Conference, the Primates' Meetings and the Anglican Consultative Council (the latter has clergy and lay people as well as bishops) as an ‘Instrument of Communion’, rather than as ‘Primate of All England’, and so will continue to fulfill these roles. The consequences of last Saturday’s votes are being discussed across the Communion. Andrew Brown of The Guardian has written about ‘The Anglican Schism’ and sees Saturday’s vote as a key date. Andrew Goddard’s Fulcrum article, ‘The Anglican Communion Covenant and the Church of England: Ramifications’ is particularly perceptive. He shows that the Covenant will continue to be considered around the Communion, that eight provinces have embraced it and the next Anglican Consultative Council (27 October to 7 November 2012 in New Zealand) will take stock, but cannot end the process. So, despite the English decision, other provinces are being encouraged to adopt the Covenant. I have argued that the Anglican Communion may be described as a ‘bunch of grapes’ as opposed to a ‘bag of marbles’: personal interdependence, organically connected, rather than isolated autonomy, merely juxtaposed. Sadly, the majority of the diocesan synods of the Church of England, but not the majority of the voters, has opted for a bag of marbles. It seems to me that there are three options for the future shape of the Anglican Communion. First, the ‘web of mutuality’ manifested in the Covenant, which provides autonomy and interdependence with accountability. This is the broad centre ground of those who vote for the Covenant, and includes the leaders of the Communion-minded Global South Anglican movement, based in Singapore. Second, ‘confessionalism’, gathered around the Jerusalem Declaration of the conservative Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), the follow up group to the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON). Based currently in Nairobi, FCA hosts a conference in London from 23-27 April, at which some members of the Global South Anglican Movement will also attend. Third, ‘independent autonomy’, following the radically liberal current leaders of The Episcopal Church, in the USA, (TEC). Following further likely controversial decisions of TEC’s General Convention in July, there may well be more fragmentation between the first two and the third options. These decisions, together with the English vote, may lead to the Anglican Communion declining into a Federation or Association. To counter this doleful demotion, we need to hold onto the long term vision of interdependence and autonomy in the first 3 sections of the Covenant and find another way to express accountability. This hope may be inspired by words from another letter written from prison. They provide a tantalizing mission, tantamount to a way forward amidst the fragments. Saint Paul, in Rome, wrote to the Church at Ephesus in the early 60s AD: ‘But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knitted together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.’ (Ephesians 4:15-16) _____________________________________________________________ Dr Graham Kings is Bishop of Sherborne and theological secretary of Fulcrum
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Tuesday 3 April 2012 - 12:54am I doubt it Nersen, but then they probably all wore long dress-like garments much like the vestments (or at least Jesus does in the films). But no I agree with you; a lot of this pomp and ceremony is just religious nonsense! Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 31 March 2012 - 08:22pm Would Christ and his apostles recognise the vestments, ceremonies and Lord's supper rules some Anglicans insist upon? Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Saturday 31 March 2012 - 12:02pm I'm afraid, Dave, that my experience is different. However it is London centric so maybe its different in parishes outside of London. Here evangelical vicars don't wear vestments, unlicensed people serve communion, there is hardly any liturgy and even I don't know what you mean by baptism policy! It really is much like baptists or independents. Posted by: Dave Friday 30 March 2012 - 07:59pm Origen Adam, I think most adults in an Evangelical Anglican church are at least aware of the liturgy, vestments, baptism policy. the view of membership and that the vicar is somehow responsible to the archdeacon and bishop. Very different from baptists and independents. Dave Posted by: Bowman Friday 30 March 2012 - 07:50pm Thanks, Origen Adam, for your reply. My question is about the global interrelations of Anglican churches. I can't make out your point, but your description of your parish is interesting nonetheless. In my own experience, it has been rare for Episcopalian congregations to be so mildly differentiated from their neighbors, even when they are in the "Bible Belt" states. A Baptist or Methodist is definitely aware that stepping into an Episcopalian church is stepping into something different, even if the congregation tends to be evangelical. Those who join the Episcopal Church from these backgrounds often treat it as a conversion experience, sometimes write books about it, and often have the sense that they have found a place with a solid center but fuzzy enough edges to accommodate them. Is this really unknown in England? Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Friday 30 March 2012 - 12:57pm @Bowman From my experience of 20 years in an evangelical parish church, most people who sit on the pews don't really care. They've never even heard of GAFCON/FOCA and are hardly aware that they are part of the Anglican Communion. Most people who come along think they're just attending another evangelical church which for all intents and purposes could be a baptist or independent church! Posted by: Bowman Friday 30 March 2012 - 04:33am Taking a calm global view of this, which includes not just TEC but GAFCON/FCA, and not just sex but other kinds of issues-- how is one to avoid the conclusion that, absent an operative Anglican Communion, the partisans on the edges are just polarizing the middle, pressing people into lesser alliances at rather unanglican extremes? Hi Jeremy, thanks for your kind reply. I was not criticizing your point of view, nor your feelings about the Covenant. I do see the latter differently, and think you may regret your opposition to it someday, but I am still listening. In fact, you made two worthwhile points in a recent post that I hope to comment on soon. Meanwhile, my question is not rhetorical and is carefully worded. If someone has evidence that the purple clause is false, it would be important-- and quite pleasant-- to see it. Centrists are rare in the village of Fulcrum, but I can't think of a practising Christian posting on the threads who would like the lived reality of a global Anglicanism without a vibrant communion of centrist churches. No leg of the stool is strong enough to carry that weight alone. As you have seen yourself, however, there are those who see any stumbling block to the Covenant as strengthening the hegemony of GAFCON/FCA. Feelings about the English episcopate aside, are they right? Posted by: DavidW Thursday 29 March 2012 - 01:01pm JeremyP, Well the beliefs are the beliefs of the CofE. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, it’s a secondary sacrament or rite. It is in line with what the Bible says and Lambeth 1.10. You wrote “There are parishes that share their viewpoint - fine. Let them make a home there. “ Not so. This is the word of God and the Christian belief of the CoFE, if you don’t like it you could always leave, but you are welcome to stay and share the faith of the church in Jesus Christ. Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Thursday 29 March 2012 - 12:46pm Nersen, I refer you to Martin's quote from Dr King's wife and the following from The King Center: "Racism – prejudice, apartheid, ethnic conflict, anti-Semitism, sexism, colonialism, homophobia, ageism, discrimination against disabled groups, stereotypes…" http://www.thekingcenter.org/king-philosophy#sub1 Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Thursday 29 March 2012 - 11:13am Bowman it rather depends what the partisans at the edges are wanting to do. As someone rather on the edge, I have no objection to DavidW, Nersen and all those who take a fundamentalist view of things being part of the Church of England. There are parishes that share their viewpoint - fine. Let them make a home there. But when that partisanship means that they want to eject, demonise and banish all the LGBT members of our church, then you must hardly be surprised when partisans from my end of the spectrum, who have been used to the whole institution not making space for us for a very very long time, now find that we are saying a loud and long NO! The Covenant seems like an insitutional way of enshrining that rejection - therefore we have and will fight against anything like that. Posted by: Bowman Thursday 29 March 2012 - 08:56am 1 Corinthians 11:29. Next up-- Communion for the unbaptised. How will the marbles roll? Posted by: Bowman Thursday 29 March 2012 - 07:32am 1 Corinthians 11:29. Next up-- Communion for the unbaptised. How will the marbles roll? Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 10:15pm Origen, I do enjoy seeing the Tactic of claiming support from all who had the moral high ground..... You, of course, have evidence that dr King rejected what the bible teaches about immorality, as mentioned in Lambeth 1.10? Posted by: Martin Reynolds Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 09:41pm "Has the man no shame?" Apparently not! "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." Coretta Scott King, November 2003. Posted by: Bowman Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 06:24pm Taking a calm global view of this, which includes not just TEC but GAFCON/FCA, and not just sex but other kinds of issues-- how is one to avoid the conclusion that, absent an operative Anglican Communion, the partisans on the edges are just polarizing the middle, pressing people into lesser alliances at rather unanglican extremes? Posted by: Deleted user 2383 Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 01:13pm How shocking it is that Graham Kings uses a quote from Martin Luther King to further injustice! Has the man no shame? Posted by: Deleted user 4293 Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 11:22am Graham - Four thoughts about this: 1. I think that the bishops need to have a good long hard look at why their leadership has failed so spectacularly over the covenant. It is not clear to the rest of us quite how "whipped" the voting of the College of Bishops was - there are reports and rumours of bishops who have voted in favour expressing relief that the Covenant has failed. So if a number of you were voting for something they were not convinced about, why should they expect people to follow them? Certainly, a significant number of your colleagues have failed to persuade either the clergy or the laity of their dioceses of the wisdom and good sense of voting for the covenant. In one example, St Albans, it is said that the bishop told the diocesan synod that they could cheerfully ignore the results of votes from deanery synods (who had voted against it in large measure) and take his word for it that the Covenant was a good thing. They declined to take his word for it, and both clergy and laity voted it down. The way the vote was managed in a number of places was heavily skewed towards a yes answer: as you know, there are widespread reports of only pro-covenant material being presented, and another diocese where a "presentation" was made, questions were permitted for 10 minutes and then a vote was taken - hardly an open and fair process - so the solidity of the percentage of the yes vote has to be substantially in question. What kind of confidence did the bishop in that diocese have in his leadership that he had to resort to such tactics to get a "yes" result? This is a great and disturbing example of "episcopally led and synodically governed". What are you all going to do to recover a connection with, despite the crude figures, the more than 50% of your dioceses who think the covenant is such a bad idea that they were not even ready to see it taken back to General Synod? I think ++Rowan's last video was a bad mistake - it was not a good idea to accuse the anti-campaigners of misleading people. One of the things that the anti campaign (with which I am not connected, by the way!) did do was to raise a host of questions to which there were no clear answers. Episcopal leadership did not properly prepare this whole business, even if it has been going on for eight years. The processes of Section 4 were not clear - no one could see if they thought it would be fair and transparent; the presentation of something as "the only way forward" was a huge miscalculation - people might be able to be signed up in Mexico by a Primate acting alone, but they are not going to be rail-roaded like that in England. Nothing is ever "the only way forward". I don't know how you are going to regain the trust and confidence of your dioceses - but, because of the multiple ways in which the whole process has been managed, I think this is a big task, bigger, perhaps, than some of you have yet realised. 2. It is profoundly unhelpful of you to continue using your bunch of grapes, bag of marbles analogy. You need to listen to the commitment of many who were anti-covenant to the Communion as a whole. There are a lot of clergy and laity who voted no, who have profound experience of international Anglican relationships. There are many parishes which have a long-standing commitment to partner churches around the world. Those relationships are not being repudiated in any way at all. Please do not read the rejection of the covenant through this lens. Try instead to see that no to the covenant, yes to the communion is exactly what people wanted to say in very many cases in their no vote. I am not yet clear as to why anything needs to be done to "fix" the Anglican Communion. Centralising attempts to control difficulties are clearly not the way forward, as they will be not tough and centralising enough for some (GAFCON) and too much so for others. The Episcopal imperative towards unity is not the only imperative that controls your action. You do have to stand up for what you see to be the truth as well. That will mean that bishops in different parts of the world will see how the faith is to be incarnated in their provinces differently. I don’t think enough energy has been put into articulating a theology of unity in difference. The translatability of Christian faith in her Anglican expression is one of the gifts we have received and I would hope will seek to preserve. It is a different way of doing Christianity from either Rome or Geneva or Constantinople. And introducing covenants that can be thought to be more centralising or have internationally applicable sanctions is not, I suggest, a way to solve the problems of Anglicanism’s diversity. 3. Describing the provinces who have accepted the Covenant as having “embraced” it is disingenuous. Mexico is in there because it has been signed up by the Primate, the Church of Ireland has “subscribed”, but not adopted (which is somewhat confusing). So the picture is hardly one of Provinces “embracing” anything. Moreover, there are all the GAFCON provinces for whom the covenant is nowhere near tough enough, who have to be put on the other side of the scales, and then the provinces like England who have voted against. The picture is therefore very mixed, and not, I suggest, particularly encouraging to those who want to see the whole thing embraced and up and running in a solid way. It is not yet clear how the English decision will affect, if it does at all, the mood of international Anglicanism, though it would hardly be surprising if other provinces looked at it and thought “If the Archbishop of Canterbury can’t even persuade his own church that this is a good idea, why should we adopt it?” 4. Like a good many commentators (Dairmaid MacCulloch, Alan Wilson, Benny Hazlehurst etc), I think the project should be accepted as dead as far as England goes. Unlike Ben Guyer, I think it is clear that the Covenant is precisely about arguments over human sexuality. And the answer? Not to try and fix anything or close conversations, or produce knee jerk responses to the proper decisions of any one province or group of provinces, but to get on with living and sharing the gospel where we are, and rejoicing in the relationships that we have with other Anglicans around the world, in a Communion based on the Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Gloucester model is a good one. If that is too loose for some, then perhaps Anglicanism is not really where they want to be. This whole sorry business has been brought about by exaggerated responses to a development in one or two places – New Hampshire and New Westminster – and English bishops could have brokered a more moderate response internationally. They didn’t, because their own attitudes to social changes which are now impacting on the church more and more in England have been so inadequate. I hope for less talk of covenants and a steady commitment to the partnerships that we all already have, and signs that the College of Bishops will show signs of looking more seriously at the theology of sexuality than they have in the last ten years. Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 09:27am I do not think that the Bishops are out of touch, rather they are very in touch with what it takes to keep parishes running at a distance. Of course a Bishop is a Bishop after many years of ministry, during that time of ministry most will have had successes and failures, failures come at a price and for most Bishops once bitten twice shy might come into play. But also according to training and ability to relate rather than to administrate (from a distance) has something to do with this. What I am trying to say before you burn me at the stake lol is that making administrative decisions impacts on the ministry which is able to be given which in turn affects communion.. For even simple decisons affect the general running of any Cathedral or Church, this then affects the stewards and vergers who in turn can in some instances be over zealous in their duties in a bid to "do the right thing by the Bishop" The result is always going to be hurt feelings embarrassment and in some instances anger. All of this leads to the "undermining" of progress. Some see Progress as the breaking down of standards, which of course is not true. The grape and marble analagy Grapes are soft and associated with a touch of luxury and being served, and if they are trodden on turning to wine, (a bit like an alchoholic) Marbles are hard and make a noise as they clash, our son has a game called marble run, he constructs plastic tubing into all sorts of shapes and puts the marbles in the top and they manouvre their way through the openings, a good game for budding engineers, get the tubing wrong and the marbles will not go through because there is a blockage. The point i am making is grapes need to be treated with respect and marbles are no use on their own, you just tread on them and fall over, they need a container , or a clearway to travel on their journey.The marbles will always sqash grapes if they are in the same container, but at least you can drink the wine after the grapes have been squashed.!! So Unity in covenants is like trying to get labour and conservatives to sing from the same song sheet and mean the same thing, but like marbles they make the same noise but roll in the opposite direction..So the Bishops are in touch, but they mirror the Government, which is not always helpful if they are undermining one another. There are many Bishops all are different so its more about having the right Bishop in the right place, the only way that can happen is if they are a regular face in the community. Most people never see a bishop if they do not go to Church, and i wonder sometimes if the Bishops really want to see the people in this country. By the time you are a Bishop you are usually looking further a field and there are only so many hours in a day. Thats it now off with my head 
Posted by: Graham Kings
Wednesday 28 March 2012 - 12:01am
We have just published on Fulcrum my article, 'Communion Connections: Web of Mutuality or Fragmentation?' Looking forward to discussions on this thread. |
LATEST
|
