by Christopher Seitz
In his lectures delivered at Wycliffe College, Toronto, last month, Ephraim Radner has given an historical account of conciliarism and has described how Anglicanism developed over time a set of Instruments intending to maintain unity of faith in the light of missionary expansion and the emergence of nations in the New World (among other things). This did not happen from ‘the top down’ or by an anticipatory prophetic template. The relationship between the Instruments, and their relative weighting, interplay, etc, is due to a slow process of interrelationship and maturation, and flows from the fact that mission and growth is in God’s hands: this requires constant prayer and reflection in the area of accountability and mutual forbearance, provision for which cannot be given beforehand by ecclesial fiat or one-size-fits-all polity design. This also prevents one from simply historisicing the Instruments, on the one hand (the first is more important than the last), or seeing them as matters of preference or choice - competitors for our politicking - on the other. (There are 4; the oldest is best. There are 4; #3 is my favorite.) Or, it should do.
If this historical, or providential reality, is grasped, then it is less surprising, if not still disturbing, that the Communion is in a difficult time. This is all to do with the fact that Anglican Christianity has been a successful missionary movement, spanning the globe whilst maintaining - it has been hoped - an Anglican catholic face. What is required is that we understand how to preserve and steward what God has provided. But this must be done in accordance with certain basic assumptions about the character of Christian life provided by the Scriptures, and not in the name of institutional survival or peace-keeping only - two sure-fire ways to get in the way of God’s purposes in the church, even in, or especially in, times of stress and strain. Ironically, these ‘peace-keeping’ instincts are now shared on both ends of the theological spectrum: autonomy arguments on the part of national churches seeking to accommodate a new understanding of sexual ethics, on the one side; and on the other, efforts of individual dioceses and parishes, linked to individual Primates, to carve out zones of confessional purity and integrity - the zeal for which is in proportion to perceptions of how dire the situation is, or the knock-on effect of how pressured their existence appears to be, given efforts to move out of TEC and form new structures.
In the case of TEC, moreover, the issue is complicated by a polity that seeks to frustrate the maintenance of any stance which views women’s ordination in strict terms of reception, not done-and-dusted acceptance: that is, as an innovation being tested and received - or not. Because TEC has rejected this understanding, and because a PEV (provisional Episcopal visitor) scheme was not adopted, the traditional position has been maintained not across the geographical spectrum (as in the UK; or as in the Communion at large), but in specific dioceses of TEC: dioceses which now feel they have nowhere to go but into zones of special integrity and survivalism - and into the company, though they may not say it too loudly, of those who are chiefly friends of expedience and not of core ‘catholic’ principle.
I mention this because in TEC, while there may be a general spirit abroad for carving out a special province in the light of theological innovations by ‘the revisionist majority,’ the number of bishops actually seeking such a solution are relatively few at present (perhaps the three hard-pressed anglo-catholic dioceses; and Pittsburgh). This is because hope still exists on the part of a number of bishops, and of a large number of parishes outside their dioceses, that another way forward is possible. This may be due to not liking what they are seeing - legally, emotionally, morally, practically - when dioceses seek to move out of TEC or otherwise form a new province or structure; it may be for lack of having a clear sense of what to do, for godly or for less salutary reasons; it may have to do with belief in a communion accountability that simply will take more time, at a time when time feels short all the same.
On this account, then, the ‘waiting’ of conservatives is for several things:
- an adjudication of TEC’s response to the Dar es Salaam communiqué. While others have announced this a foregone matter, and have used this to justify their actions, other bishops are still waiting, if with diminished hope or worry or both. Such an adjudication would entail, in the very end, it is hoped, a decision by those who made the requests, the Primates, and a conviction that even should he be viewed as opposed to this - a view I do not share - or worried about it, the Archbishop of Canterbury will nevertheless be in no position to usurp the will of the Communion at its widest expression: the Primates (and perhaps even the ACC). That is, there is hope for the eventual good ordering accomplished by Communion Instruments in the providence of God (which is not the same as Eastern Standard Time). The Primates will, when all is said and done, be the arbiters of the situation. The reasons for this are varied, but inhere with the reality that the Primates as a totality are representative of the Communion at its widest expression, they have been given ‘enhanced responsibility’ by the other Instruments, and the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot set himself up in opposition to that, and has not so done, and in our view has no intention so to do.
- a clarification of the invitations to Lambeth, pursuant to the ABC’s stated, if compressed, remarks in the initial account of his intentions about Lambeth Conference. This is all the more crucial, and to my mind was always tied up with, the need for an assessment of TEC’s views in the light of the DES communiqué. Despite lots of speculation, we do not know and will not know until he declares it, what the invitation list and its footnotes will look like. For that matter the Archbishop’s own declarations about the actual character of the conference itself were sufficiently controversial to require revisiting, and this is tied up in the nature of the matter with the character of invitations proper. In short: do all come and all ‘fight it out’ regarding the neuralgic issue of sexual teaching (put the proverbial ‘skunk on the table’); or do those come, and only those, who are prepared to accept the teaching of the last Lambeth conference (and perhaps its latent but real synodical character, to boot) and to say so before their respective constituencies.
- the covenant process itself, as the means by which individual provinces describe the character of Communion life, such that some will be able to embrace this wholeheartedly, and others less so, if at all. On this, see the Windsor Report.
Naturally, waiting is hard, and all the more so when, due to the tsunami of information and the tidal waves of speculation, expectations get ratcheted up and deadlines are made to perform as final clearing stations. This then does not happen according to expectation, new deadlines appear on the horizon, and the need to check the newest news - the breaking flash that sorts things out, or tidies up just one mess anyway - borders on an obsessive compulsive disorder. And of course, sometimes the waiting seems wrongly or deceitfully protracted, and that makes things worse. People weary and decide that ‘enough is enough.’ The system is being manipulated. As of course it is, in the nature of the thing. Systems are like that (read any account of Nicaea).
During such a period, it becomes crucial to be able to identify and differentiate. Recently the Archbishop of Canterbury assured the Diocese of Central Florida, through a letter to its concerned Bishop, that it was the diocese, not the ‘national church’, that was the foundational sacramental unity. Here was an effort to assure based upon a long-accepted view of the status of Bishop and Diocese - though it appears to have been challenged almost immediately, if obliquely, by the same ‘national church’s’ insistence that any diocese seeking to leave, not just differentiate, would be open to serious - legal, canonical - challenge. So what kind of differentiation is possible - if for nothing more than morale’s sake - if it is not leaving, but equally if it can hope to wait in hope, as surely God would desire?
We may see the partial answer to this by a kind of default, or bank-shot. If a Bishop of a Diocese seeking to differentiate by leaving/forming new structures is deposed, or if they run into deep challenges within their own regions (costly, preoccupying, etc), the attractiveness of that view of things may diminish. There is a certain outraged attractiveness to leaving and moving on (it is deep in the DNA of the United States), but when one looks at the precise details of this, the legal ramifications, the ability to get all on board - consider the trouble that an organized minority in Pittsburgh can cause - the conclusion can be sobering. I believe this is what Bishop Howe has been trying to suggest, even sympathetically, in Central Florida. This game may be ‘zero sum’ with a vengeance.
Probably more crucially, and this question has been posed already, is the character of the alliance of the common causers as such, particularly in the long haul. How truly ‘common’ is it, and how likely is it that movements which began for diverse reasons, from diverse causes of concern, sponsored by diverse forces with their own diverse constituencies, can remain a viable ‘detached’ unity? One can ask this question without for a second questioning the seriousness of the circumstances and the perceived need to find a way forward, after critical - in some cases irreversible - steps have been taken.
On the positive side, though, what might differentiation look like if it is not the formation of separate structures? In the United States, one has rightly asked what the actual role is of the Presiding Bishop, in terms of polity and canon. Must he or she visit dioceses? Must he or she preside as chief consecrator? Can individual bishops not conduct their affairs - form bonds of cordial alliance, prayer and catholic faith - without any serious objection or hindrance as it now stands? Long has been the practice of dioceses determining the nature of financial giving. Bishops are not obliged to support seminaries, attend meetings, fund projects - and what is in fact a long list of voluntary associations of various kinds. The one place where there is a clear pinch of impingement is consents for new Bishops, and so rightly the anglo-catholic dioceses have feared for their own circumstances in the absence of any meaningful Episcopal visitor arrangement, as have others (South Carolina). And the other chief area of concern would be parishes in dioceses whose bishops have signaled whole-hearted acceptance of teaching and practices still not approved in the Communion as a conciliar reality. What of them?
It is here that the pressure of waiting, and a lack of confidence about catholic adjudication, makes itself felt. No one is denying that, least of all ACI.
But precisely at such times one must weigh the choices very carefully and move with resolute prudence. Our instinct is for the formation of a non-juridical alliance of Bishops, compliant with Windsor and the ‘Camp Allen principles’ (see the Dar es Salaam Communique). This would require no approval of the House of Bishops or any canonical ingenuity or manipulation. Consistent with the spirit of the Primatial Communique from Dar es Salaam, we would also urge the assistance of a group of ‘Communion Associates.’ These would be Primates from various parts of the Communion. Their appointment would happen in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury. These Associates would visit, along with the Bishops of the alliance, their own and fellow dioceses, in order to demonstrate the maximal degree of Communion fellowship and forbearance. The point is to make clear their commitment to live in the highest degree of Communion fellowship and not to major in disputes with those who happen, at this juncture, to exercise more political power in TEC.
They would also entertain requests from parishes outside of the alliance and would ask the Bishop in question for permission to visit: to teach, preach, encourage, and where permitted, perform sacramental acts. The character of ‘episcopal visitation’ would be allowed to take form and gather momentum, without need of any juridical structures or mechanisms. If the character of Communion Association could be modeled within Dioceses aligned with such a concern, and in parishes in other dioceses where requests have been made and approved, it would be difficult to understand the reasons such visitations might be turned away elsewhere. And that fact would of course find its way into the public reckoning, as we now live in a world with few dark corners. And so, if proper, consistent and Communion-ordered life could be modeled within TEC, perhaps the matter of consents and of the integrity of anglo-catholic life would become better published concerns, capable of broader adjudication - certainly than presently exists within a region concerned with autonomy as a sort of end unto itself.
There is another aspect to this. As we contemplate the reality - and it is a spiritual reality for sure - of waiting, we must also reckon with the march of time in other respects. Clearly there are bishops, dioceses, parishes which have concluded that Lambeth 1.10 and the requests of Communion life are too burdensome, or just wrong. There is no evidence this ‘witness’ will change and every evidence it will increase in intensity and in clarity. It will therefore be a fact on the ground that will have to be processed through the Instruments of Communion.
In the meantime, if there are alliances of Communion association and hope, these will be able to stand and wait with better resolve and with a better sense of spiritual discernment, as the other forces at work in the individual provinces - in the US and in Canada - are allowed to declare their intentions. To repeat, this is a time not for forming new structures and detaching, but for staying, and for maximizing those spiritual and practical resources that build up and manifest what the Anglican Communion has been about in quieter days, when other stresses and strains were presenting different kinds of challenge.
There are further serious ramifications to consider. ‘Leaving’ may seek to take the form of ‘belonging’ - to another section of the Communion. But this is potentially to dislodge the struggle from the point where it must be joined, with charity and with grace, if the dispute is not to be prolonged indefinitely. It is to spread the struggle far and wide, to broaden its scope, and so to magnify, and not to resolve, its intensity. What looks for some like a ‘rescue’ in the American region is yet another example of the American Church monopolizing the Communion’s attention and dictating the terms of its becoming, at this critical time. There are, in other words, not just practical difficulties of leaving and starting new structures; there is also the ecclesial chaos that results, with dioceses and provinces claiming to be in Communion with Canterbury (or rejecting this altogether) but not with one another.
Let us therefore lean with hope into the larger missionary success story and trust that God will preserve what is of his will, and let other realities fall to the side as people declare their wishes. For this is required a disciplined waiting and a belief that the Anglican Communion has sufficient instrumentality to carry us through the difficult season we are in. Time - God’s Time - is not on the side of those who have sought to adjust his truth or the received teaching of the church consistent with that truth. The Communion is his gift and it is our conviction that the instruments guarding that gift will, in God’s Time, provide the resolution we so ardently seek.
7 November 2007
The Revd Professor Christopher Seitz is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Wycliffe College, Toronto, and President, The Anglican Communion Institute
These posts are by guest authors for Fulcrum