Category: Anglican

Posted on

The Church is necessary for the sake of the gospel

If Anglican evangelicals take the path forged by so many Dissenters before them, not least among them John and Charles Wesley, it will eventually result only in the endless multiplication of denominational factions, just like the Baptists, Congregationalists, and Methodists—not to mention the Plymouth Brethren and the Independents—of centuries past. The Reformation logic of faction leads only to more faction, and as the dismal present status of various denominational entities attests, it does not even necessarily lead to orthodox Christianity. An evangelical exodus would also almost assuredly tip the numerical balance among those who remain with Canterbury to theological liberalism, thus dooming those Christians for whom catholic church order is essential to a sorry fate.

The present hope is that Anglican evangelicals will realize that not only is the gospel necessary for the sake of the Church, but also that the Church is necessary for the sake of the gospel. Historically, evangelicals have not troubled themselves very much with ecclesiology, assuming that the teaching of Scripture is plain, and that the Church is essentially a group of like-minded Christians who band together in fellowship to share the gospel. Unfortunately, the problem with this has always been that people think that Scripture plainly supports all kinds of things, thus leading to a never-ending plethora of denominations. Christ’s body on earth is therefore increasingly fractured and broken, Christian witness is damaged, and our Lord’s prayer that we all may be one recedes ever further into the past.

It is here where the wisdom of the third Anglican group, the catholics, absolutely must be heard this week in Tanzania. These Anglicans, represented best by Rowan Williams and the American theologian Ephraim Radner, believe just as strongly as the evangelicals in the bedrock truths of Christianity, but also think that the Church itself is an essential part of God’s plan for us to discern truth. Being Reformation Christians, Anglican catholics know that sometimes the Church can be wrong, thus needing always to test herself by the standard of Scripture. But they point out that while Scripture itself may be clear, we Christians are sinful and perverse, so that we stand in need of the whole body of Christ to discover God’s will for his Church.

The hope of Anglican catholics, then, for today’s meeting is that Anglicans of all stripes will commit to live in unity under the authority of Scripture, prayerfully seeking the mind of Christ together as the body of Christ. While firmly supporting disciplinary action against the Episcopal Church, Anglican catholics hope to do so within the proper bounds of life together in ecclesial communion. One may hope that Anglican evangelicals will realize that the Gospel is served best in no other way.

Jordan Hylden Anglican Storm Clouds

Posted on

Toward an Anglican Theology in the Spirit of Windsor

I am in the wrong London. It is all happening in London, Ontario, today at Huron University College

Faith Seeking Understanding: The Windsor Report, the St. Michael Report, and the Challenge Ahead

Much has been said and written about the conflicts that have arisen over the past decade in the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church of Canada. This two-day conference for Canadian Anglicans about Anglicanism in Canada will provide an opportunity for clergy and laity to learn, discuss and understand the reality and rhetoric of the recent public documents such as “The Windsor Report” and Canada’s own “St. Michael’s Report,” as well as to discuss such related larger issues as the use of scripture, the theological dimension of human sexuality, and the nature of authority in the Church. As the intent is understanding and not advocacy, the conference will close with a Eucharistic gathering.

Some great papers are promised:

Timothy Connor & George Sumner Toward an Anglican Theology in the Spirit of Windsor

Gary D. Badcock What is a Communion, Anyway?

and in particular

Darren C. Marks Overcoming the New Gnosticism: Re-founding Theological Anthropology

Over the course of modernity embodiment has become a major theme of theology and as such has introduced a theological anthropology that is at variance with its origin in Christology or Christ as the pneumatic human. As a result of this morphing of theological anthropology, sexuality, as echoed in the work of Foucault, has become a dominant dialogue partner in identity let alone theological anthropology by assuming nature as antithetical to spirit. This, I argue, introduces a host of issues that are centripetal to the hope of dialogue with a Christian culture in the Global South that has not undergone this morphing of [sexuality] identity and embodiment. Instead, a re-founding of theological anthropology in Christology, and specifically in the concept that God only knows the human person as sinner (Bonhoeffer), might provide a way forward that proves acceptable to both Western and Global minds, or at least provide a place from which a theological anthropology can initiate a dialogue. Finally, and tethering to the St Michael Report, I suggest that just such a theological assumption resolves the centripetal forces in the document’s conclusions and mixed message on the nature of adiaphora and core doctrine.

Is this the Darren Marks of ‘The Windsor Report: A Theological Commentary’ (Journal of Anglican Studies Vol 4.2 pp157-76)? It is ‘a profound piece of writing influenced greatly by John Webster’ according to my informant. Now I am really am interested – John Webster is one of the UK’s finest – Anglican of course, but I hadn’t noticed a lot of ecclesiology from him yet. Please rush me a copy.

Posted on

Ecumenical failures of the Reformation – Witt

My own theory is that Modernism is divine judgment on Western Christendom for the ecumenical failures of the Reformation. Because both Rome and the Churches of the Reformation were unable to recognize the face of Christ in each other, including even Reformation churches who refused to recognize that face in each other, the divine judgment is that those churches are becoming ones in which the face of Christ is no longer able to be recognized at all.

But in that case, the last thing confessing Christians in all the churches need is once again to draw lines in the sand against one another, to refuse to recognize Christ’s face in those who affirm the same Scriptures and confess the same Creeds. I can only regard the voices of those who ask me to leave Anglicanism for either Rome or Orthodoxy or some other Reformation Church as asking me to deny that the face of Christ can be seen in this Church.

I believe that a sorting out is taking place—that in fact a separation must and will take place between those in the Churches who continue to affirm historic Christian faith, and those who have exchanged Christ for the world’s pottage. The struggle is against apostasy and heresy, and it is both. Those who offer the safety of Rome or Orthodoxy are right about that. But in that struggle, I think it important that those who continue to confess Christ in each Church in which the divine judgment strikes, stand firm and resist the apostasy together. We stand our ground, shoulder to shoulder, where Christ has placed us in the battle.

And, of course, one of the things that Anglicanism shares with both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that, unlike many Reformation Churches, we do not stand alone, but are part of an international Communion, a Communion that has held firm to the faith.

William Witt Why not leave?

Posted on

Ten theses on the Significance of the Episcopal Office for the Communion of the Church

Thesis Four:

The Bishop has oversight (episcope) of the household of God for the good order of the Church.

Bishops are commissioned and sent to be stewards or overseers of God’s household within their jurisdiction. They call the people of God into the full expression of the diverse gifts and ministries given by the Holy Spirit. They oversee processes of discernment and selection of candidates for holy orders, ensuring they are well prepared for their ministries, supporting them pastorally and practically, and providing for the good order of ministry in the diocese.

Oversight includes sharing of responsibilities among clergy and lay people. This involves mutual accountability, good communication and willingness to learn from one another. This reciprocity between bishop and people is reflected in the decision making processes of synodical life. This pattern of working together is empowering for all and is a gift to be nurtured at all levels of the life of the Church.

The bishop has to ensure the well-being (e.g., spiritual, social, economic) of the diocese in service of its mission. Harnessing resources, fund-raising and financial management of diocesan affairs involves complexities of oversight requiring specialized ministries. Providing episcope in this area highlights the administrative and managerial character of the work of a bishop, somewhat akin to a CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of a large organisation. Bishops ought not to underestimate the distorting effects on their oversight of management models associated with the global market economy. This can lead to a management ethos focussed on strategic plans, goal setting, tasks, competition and successful outcomes. This is appealing because it seems to offer clarity and control but the price is often loss of the personal and relational dimension of ecclesial life. The bishop who manages well is one who is aware of the danger of management becoming the basic lens through which episcope is practised. This issue raises a question of how bishops handle matters across diocesan and provincial boundaries. At these levels even koinonia may become a thing to be ‘managed’ at a distance (i.e., avoiding face-to-face relations) rather than resolutely pursued together with patience.

Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission The Anglican Way: The Significance of the Episcopal Office for the Communion of the Church October 2006

Posted on

The way of charity dictates a willingness to forgo for the sake of the church as a whole

The current debate over the suitability of women bishops is one which finds equally sincere people holding opposing and incompatible views. The minority traditionalist ‘integrity’ knows that it has little chance of persuading the majority, but continues to hope that time will show that it has been right to maintain its stand. Its position is rooted in an understanding of Scripture and tradition which is not eccentric or cantankerous, and may yet succeed in winning over the majority to its views. Certainly there is little sign of its dying out in the course of time, or of its becoming restricted to one group or type of churchmanship. Traditionalism on this issue is widely spread across the church, and is present among women as well as men. If it is wrong, as those who favour the consecration of women as bishops clearly think it is, it should be allowed to die of its own accord (as Jewish Christianity did) and not be expelled from the church by a majoritarian imposition of a form of leadership which the minority cannot accept. This willingness to wait for a consensus to emerge is known in theological parlance as ‘the process of reception’. As long as there are two integrities officially recognised in the Church of England, the process of receiving women’s ordination must be regarded as incomplete, and in those circumstances, the consecration of women bishops can do nothing but divide the church still further. The way forward is unclear, but supporters of women bishops should at least understand that unless and until they can persuade the other integrity of the rightness of their own position, the way of charity dictates a willingness to forgo it for the sake of peace in the church as a whole.

Gerald Bray Bishops, Presbyters and Women

Posted on

Ten theses on the Significance of the Episcopal Office for the Communion of the Church

Thesis One:

The Bishop serves the koinonia of the gospel into which the baptised are incorporated by God the Holy Spirit

Through the gospel God calls all people into relationship and establishes a covenant of love, mercy and justice. By baptism the people of God become participants in the visible body of Jesus Christ. The bishop is called to serve this new fellowship by actively fostering the koinonia of the Body of Christ. Just as the eucharist is the focal event which connects communities of faith together so the bishop is the focal person who links communities of faith not only to one another but to the wider Church. As a result the bishop has a universal and ecumenical role. This fundamental theological truth challenges all parochial conceptions of the episcopate that fail to transcend ethnic, social, and cultural realities in which the episcopate is, by nature, necessarily embedded.

Bishops of the Anglican Communion have primary responsibility for Anglicans. However, the nature of the episcopal office means that bishops are called to lead the Church towards a deeper koinonia amongst all God’s people, and in so doing represent the wider Christian community to the diocese. This universal and ecumenical ministry belongs to the bishop’s role as a symbol of unity. Yet this symbol is ambiguous because the Church is divided and torn. In this context the bishop is a sign of a broken Church looking to its Lord for healing and hope through the power of the Spirit.

Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission The Anglican Way: The Significance of the Episcopal Office for the Communion of the Church

Posted on

Theological scrutiny in service of the Communion

Anglicans value being part of a world Communion, but successive controversies have made it increasingly unclear what it is that they have in common. The contention of this document is that Anglican ‘communion’ will be maintained and nurtured, not just by preserving existing ecclesiastical structures but through a renewal of the theological tradition which brought the Communion into being.

To speak in this way of ‘renewal’ does not mean just a reinforcement of that tradition. As will be seen as the argument progresses, Anglicanism has developed by way of faithful responses to the gospel by churches facing concrete challenges in particular circumstances. At critical moments in their history they have been inspired to draw resources from their theological and spiritual inheritance which enabled them to address seemingly new situations in new ways. Such moments of renewal were eventually judged to be consistent with the tradition from which it was drawn, and generally won recognition and support from others who shared its patrimony. It is that sort of response which is required by the Anglican Communion at the present point of its history, as it faces circumstances threatening to disrupt its life and call into question the tradition itself….

A covenant, which rehearses the theological tradition from which Anglicanism has developed, and establishes clear commitments for the way it can maintain its cohesiveness, seems the most likely way to secure its communion for the foreseeable future. The one thing that Anglicans cannot permit at this time is for disputants to refuse to allow their opinion to be submitted to theological scrutiny. Those involved in disputes must not only listen to each other, but also attend to the wisdom of the wider Christian community.

The Anglican theological tradition cannot be content with any claim to communion which separates the gospel of Christ from the reality of his Church.

Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission Summary Argument from the IATD’s ‘Communion Study’ October 2006

Posted on

A covenanted community

Everything about being Christian – worship, prayer, mission, fellowship, holiness, works of mercy and justice – is rooted in the basic belief that the one God who made the world has acted in sovereign love to call out a people for himself, a people through whom he is already at work to anticipate his final purpose of reconciling all things to himself, things in heaven and things on earth (Ephesians 1.10). This is what the creator God has done, climactically and decisively, in and through Jesus Christ, and is now implementing through the Holy Spirit. But this notion of God calling a people to be his own, a people through whom he will advance his ultimate purposes for the world, did not begin with Jesus. Jesus himself speaks of the time being fulfilled, and his message and ministry look back, as does the whole of earliest Christianity, to the purposes of God in, through and for his people Israel. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus as the story of how God’s purposes for Israel and the world reach their intended goal. Paul writes of the gospel of Jesus being ‘promised beforehand through God’s prophets in the holy scriptures’, and argues that what has been accomplished in Jesus Christ is what God always had in mind when he called Abraham (Galatians 3; Romans 4). The earliest Christian writers, in their different ways, all bear witness to this belief: that those who follow Jesus, those who trust in his saving death and believe in his resurrection, are carrying forward the purposes for which God called Abraham and his family long before. And those purposes are not for God’s people only: they are for the whole world. God calls a people so that through this people – or, better, through the unique work of Jesus Christ which is put into effect in and through this people in the power of the Spirit – the whole world may be reconciled to its creator.

* * *

A covenant for the Anglican Communion should reflect the memory of Anglican historical traditions and also summarise our present understanding of ‘the Anglican way’. In addition, it should provide a way forward, a way of re-committing to the whole project of an Anglican Communion understood as God’s gift and God’s commandment: a vocation to be realised rather than a fact already achieved. The covenant as a vision for mission both stresses the importance of the work to be done and binds its members to one another for greater effectiveness in accomplishing it.

Most importantly the covenant envisioned for the Anglican Communion is not static. Instead, it is a dynamic process like a marriage covenant. Just as the marriage partnership grows as it is tested by unforeseen circumstances and new situations, so the provinces of the Communion can expect to change and grow in ways they might never have expected. In a marriage, the partners grow together, walking alongside one another into the unknown future. So also in the Church ‘we walk by faith and not by sight’.

Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission A theology for the life of a covenanted community

Posted on

The call to communion springs from the reality of the body of Christ

The question of how, with whom, and to what end the Church makes decisions is not a secondary one; it gets to the core of the Gospel (not the only thing that does this, of course; but still it is an essential). Bp. Wrightâ??s vehemence is understandable, whether well or poorly expressed: he feels as if those with whom he has shared faith and ministry â?? â??my companion, my own familiar friend, with whom we took sweet counselâ?? (Ps. 55:14f.) â?? are now working to undermine the very vows of pastoral oversight to which he was asked to subject himself, and within which he has labored. He is a bishop for the whole church, after all. Something we have tried hard, with little effect, to tell TEC bishops. But that is part of his point: you canâ??t have it both ways, calling people to the accountability of the whole church, and then throwing that wholeness out when it doesnâ??t suit you.

â??Congregationalismâ?? does indeed bother many of us and deeply. There are, after all, real reasons why many of us are not â??free churchâ?? evangelicals; it is a conscious choice, in fact, since most free-church evangelicals are a lot better at hosting bible studies, mission outreach, church growth, and the rest than are evangelical Anglicans, and if those were our priorities before all else, we would certainly be in the wrong place. â??Communion orderâ??, however, is something we believe is biblical, Christ-called, and therefore a primary imperative. It is not something way down the totem pole on the list of â??nice things to do if you have the timeâ??. The call to communion â?? and the disciplines involved, which include the ordering of the Church life in common counsel, honesty, and mutual accountability, rather than simply declaring independence when things get rough â?? springs from the reality of the Body of Christ, and hence it is bound up with the essential doctrines of the Son of God. It is in this light that Paul writes what he does in Philippians 2:1-18, where â??being of the same mind, having the same love, and being in full accord and of one mindâ?? are images of the God who became the servant of those who are weak, disobedient, and dying, that we might exalt him as our Lord, and ourselves, in following His way and being transformed in His Spirit, may act as â??lightsâ?? in a perverse world. The forces pressing Anglicans into congregationalism are ones pressing Anglicans into a contradiction of the Apostleâ??s desire and command, and into a drifting away from Christ Jesus himself. So I believe, at any rate.

It continues to astonish me that so many conservative Anglicans think that their witness is so weak and so unsupported by Godâ??s promises that continued, ordered, and loving efforts at discerning and embodying â??one-mindednessâ?? in Christ with those who are in error, are leading people to hell. I suppose there is no guarantee that such engagement will not do damage; but there is just as good (better to my mind) reason to believe that the whole-scale throwing over of our common commitments to an ordered life in Communion is producing scandals that are ruining the faith of Christâ??s â??little onesâ??. I know of no conservative congregation that has scandalized the faithful by preaching, teaching, and witnessing faithfully, even within the Episcopal Church, or even more certainly, within the Church of England. There are good reasons people might give to leave TEC at this time, to be sure; but they tend either to be based on a firm conviction that Anglicanism itself (and not just TEC) is a failed ecclesial experiment, or on the personal and particular levels at which conflict can be tolerated. I do not consider â??Scriptural faithfulnessâ??, which Wright properly sees to be a wax nose in these kinds of polemics, to be such a reason, since in its substantive sense such faithfulness can be upheld even in the lionâ??s den.

Ephraim Radner – comment to Bishop Tom Wright’s ‘A Confused Covenant’ Titus 1.9

Posted on

Don't pretend it's Anglican

Bishop Tom Wright responds to ‘A Covenant for the Church of England’, issued by Paul Perkin and Chris Sugden and others

So to ‘action’. This is divided into five areas: mission, appointments, fellowship, money and oversight. I am delighted that this document begins with mission; one of the great gains of the last decade has been to shift the whole church into a mission focus. But the six points made under ‘mission’ seem scatty and uneven, and turn out not to be about mission as such – indeed, it has nothing creative to say about mission at all, and appears to lack any engagement with the fresh and lively thinking on the subject that has gone on in the last decade or two – but about the politics of a ‘mission’ which wants to clone certain types of churches at the cost, if necessary, of driving a coach and horses through normal Anglican life. The first point, quoting the ‘great commission’, is fine so far as it goes, though what sort of renewed force it has in our post-Christian society is not explored. If it had been, quite different things might have emerged. Instead, we are projected at once into what appears to be the real agenda of the whole document: a break away from any normal ecclesial practice and into a free-for-all. This is justified by the claim that ‘as is being increasingly recognized [by whom, we might ask?], the historic focus [clergy, buildings, etc]…is now inadequate by itself…etc’ – in other words, we can’t do what we want in the existing structures so we shall go elsewhere. The third point, which is put in quotation marks though without a reference (‘Existing ecclesiastical legal boundaries should be seen as permeable’) is not, in this context, a way of saying ‘we are working within the framework of Mission-Shaped Church, but is rather, in this context, a way of saying, ‘we intend to plant churches wherever we like and claim that they are Anglican’. This becomes clear in the fourth point: ‘there cannot be any no-go areas for gospel growth and church planting’. Here, I’m afraid – and this is not a cynical interpretation, but the reflection of a reality I have witnessed – ‘gospel growth’ means ‘the spread of our particular type of church’. The attempt to hook this agenda back into the official parlance of the contemporary church (‘we will support mission-shaped expressions of church…’) is disingenuous, as becomes clear in the final clause, ‘even when official permission is unreasonably withheld.’ The report in question was quite clear that mission-shaped church doesn’t mean ‘churches which do their own thing and cock a snook at any bishop who questions them’. But that, alas, has sometimes been the reality.

But the real shocker is the next section, ‘Appointments’. This begins with a breathtaking statement of congregationalism: ‘The local congregation is the initial and key seed-bed for recognizing, authorizing, raising up and releasing new leaders.’ Recognising, perhaps. Raising up, quite possibly. Authorizing? Not within any recognizable Anglican polity. The authors should read Article 23 once more: ‘It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.’ The rest of the Articles make it clear that ‘Congregation’ here cannot mean ‘the local church, doing its own thing’. The following sentences (points 2-6) concede that wider recognition and authorization are needed, but say, in effect, ‘since we don’t trust the church to select, train and ordain, we’ll do it ourselves.’ Fine, if that’s what you want to do; don’t pretend it’s Anglican, and don’t be surprised when Anglicans, including a great many evangelicals, regard you as radically out of line. It is no surprise, reading the seventh point (‘If the local Bishop unreasonably withholds authorization, we will pay for, train and commission the ministers that are needed, and seek official Anglican recognition for them’), that the two principal authors of this report were present and supportive at the irregular ordinations – with a bishop from the ‘Church of England in South Africa’, a body with whom the Church of England is not in communion – which took place in the Southwark diocese a year or so ago. Basically, this section is a way of declaring UDI and must be seen as such. Is that really what the constituency of CEEC and the other relevant bodies want? Have they reflected on the consequences of such a move – not least for those of us who don’t live in the affluent parts of the country where ‘we will pay for this’ is a cheerful, sometimes even arrogant, statement of social status?

Bishop Tom Wright A Confused ‘Covenant’