Category: Anglican

The communion that Anglicans share is a precious gift. The present crisis in the Anglican Communion constitutes an opportunity to re-commit ourselves to one another in renewed obedience to God’s call. A covenant which expressed that commitment would not be something entirely de novo but rather a development of the ‘bonds of affection’ which bind us to one another. In making such a covenant at the present time we would be acknowledging that in specific situations, especially situations of conflict, threat or opportunity, God calls his people to discern his will afresh and to re-commit themselves to him and to one another. There is much we can learn here from the annual Methodist Covenant Service as it has been incorporated into the Church of North India.

In a situation of conflict the discernment of God’s will for his people is not an easy task. It demands fresh study of scripture, the careful presentation of arguments, patient listening to one another and preparedness to wait in uncertainty and hope until a clearer understanding of the truth emerges. All of this will, for God’s people, be grounded in love for one another, trust that we are together committed to seeking God’s way, and hope that the Holy Spirit will indeed lead us into all truth (John 16.13). This need for patience with some person, or with an entire body, that expresses contrary views is expressed very clearly by Augustine, when he says,

Let him, again, who says, when he reads my book, ‘Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true’, assert, if he pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And if he do this with charity and truth, and take the pains to make it known to me (if I am still alive), I shall then receive the most abundant fruit of this my labour. … Yet, for my part, ‘I meditate in the law of the Lord’ (Psalm 1:2) … hoping by the mercy of God that he will make me hold steadfastly all truths of which I feel certain; ‘but if in anything I be otherwise minded, that he will himself reveal even this to me’ (Philippians 3:15), whether through secret inspiration and admonition, or through his own plain utterances, or through the reasonings of my brethren. This I pray for … (De Trinitate 1.1.5).

Augustine speaks of a commitment to truth that entails dialogue with the other – who is my sister or my brother in Christ. He speaks of an increasing understanding of truth within the Body of Christ and of the human grasp on truth as corporate and fallible. Within the communion of the Church he looks to the other as someone through whom he may grow in knowledge of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In the same Spirit, Anglicans, bound together in communion, need each other in order to grow in faith, knowledge and love (cf. 2 Peter 1.5-7). We are committed to encouraging one another and to learning from one another’s experience of discipleship in particular situations. Since we are weak, fallible and living in a fallen world, there is always the need for humility and mutual forgiveness. Anglicans, like all Christians, have to face honestly the ways in which hurt has been given within the Body of Christ, for example, through colonialism, patriarchy and other mechanisms of exclusion. We know that truly to discover the mind of Christ we have to go by the way of self-emptying, humility and obedience which is also the way of the cross (Philippians 2.5-11). A re-affirmation of our commitment to one another in covenant would thereby become a re-commitment in hope of the reconciliation of all things in Christ, who has established our peace by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1.20).

Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission Responding to a proposal of a covenant October 2006

For the first time in recent memory, Anglican conservatives have something to cheer about. Ever since the Episcopal Churchâ??s general convention in June, things have been moving rapidly in the Anglican world, and this past week was no exception. There were not one but two events sure to shape the future of Anglican polity and doctrine, following fast on the heels of a major statement by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. But instead of the almost obligatory gloominess of conservatives in response to, well, any significant action of their church, there is today a powerful sense of hope among many of the Anglican faithful, thanks to the long-awaited convergence of Canterbury, the Global South, and a substantial number of orthodox American bishops.

The case for hope starts with Abp. Williamsâ?? pastoral letter of September 15, addressed to the global primates. Just as in his previous letter to the primates, Williams affirmed the orthodox theological position on sexual ethics, recognizing it to be the mind of the Communion. Likewise, Williams duly noted that the actions of the Episcopal Church in convention could at best be called a â??mixed responseâ?? to the requests of the Communion, thus posing some â??very challenging questionsâ?? for the upcoming primatesâ?? meeting in February. At the same time, the archbishop cautioned conservatives against impatient and hasty actions that could lead to further schism. There is, he warned, no â??rapid short-term solutionâ?? to the current crisis capable of bypassing the need for Communion-wide discernment. The long-term solution, however, he made quite clear by his appointment of Archbishop Drexel Gomez, a conservative primate from the West Indies, to chair the forthcoming Anglican Covenant design group. It bodes very well indeed for Anglican identity that the Covenant, which will ultimately become a condition of full Communion membership, is to be overseen by a primate committed both to theological orthodoxy and Communion unity. And, not least, it bodes well that the Archbishop of Canterbury firmly wishes that it should be so.

Viewed as a whole, Archbishop Williamsâ?? actions and words can only be seen as positive from the perspective of those who hope to see the catholic substance of Anglicanism preserved. The Church of England is quite clearly not willing to give up either her children or her heritage, and while many conservatives have been understandably impatient at the seemingly glacial progress of Canterbury, it must not be forgotten that Williams is unable to jump ahead of decisions that can ultimately be made only by the entire Communion. Canterbury moves slowly by its very nature, but the irrevocable logic of the Covenant process guarantees its forward motion. So long as the majority of the Communion is dedicated to the preservation of Anglican catholicity and identityâ??and it isâ??the time will come, and soon, when the Covenantâ??s promise of mutual ecclesial subjectivity will entrust orthodoxy to that upon which it has always dependedâ??the Spirit-guided sensus fidei of the whole body of believers, living prayerfully under the authority of Scripture.

Jordan Hylden First Things

It is a rule of this blog that stating the blooming obvious is a valuable public service. It is a very useful thing to put the basics in writing. And this is just what Theological Education for the Anglican Communion (TEAC) has been doing. It has just published a set of outlines of what Christians – and Christian leaders, clergy and bishops – can expect, what help they can ask for, and what is expected of them.

It is much easier to point out what is missing if we have a written account of what we can expect in the first place. Then we can ask whether the proper expectations of Christians, set out in these public documents, are being met.

Let us use the non-Christian language of rights and talk like consumers for a moment. It is the right of Christians to be taught. Those who are not being taught are being short-changed – robbed, even. If Christians have their ‘rights’ written down, perhaps displayed prominently at the back of church, they can complain to the management when too much of the listed service is not made available. If they do not get satisfaction there they can ask to have their case referred to some Church ombudsman, or bishop.

We have inspection of every public institution and monitoring of public satisfaction of every other aspect of life. Our schools and universities are inspected and their reports published on the internet. How about the same in the Church of England? Then with our simple TEAC check-list we can ask: Is catechesis taking place ?

Are all being:

‘taught key Bible stories: Creation, the Patriarchs, Moses and the Law, key players in Israel’s story; the life and teachings of Jesus; key incidents from Acts, and other New Testament writings’

YES or NO?

Are all

‘encouraged and helped to explore further basic Christian doctrines at an appropriate level (eg. Apostles’ Creed, Commandments and Lord’s Prayer)’

YES or NO?

Are all

‘helped by consistent preaching, teaching and reflection to interpret the Scriptures with relevance, and to listen for the word with faithfulness and a thirst for learning’

YES or NO?

All right, that is enough worldliness now. The point is that documents such as these produced by ‘Theological Education for the Anglican Communion’ provide a very handy charter or covenant. The next step is to make these documents well known in churches, and hope that they are welcomed as an aid to honest talk, and so as good for us all. Can we have such documents introduced in bishop’s letters, read from every pulpit, and displayed at the back of every church please?

The Anglican Communion Institute has done a detailed compare-and-contrast job to analyse whether the resolutions of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA-TEC) meet the demands of the Windsor Report. Here is the ACI’s conclusion:

‘It cannot be disputed that many people, especially those on the Special Commission and the General Convention Committee, worked hard to frame a response to Windsor from ECUSA. Many of them aware of the importance of a clear and faithful answer to Windsor’s carefully worded analysis and recommendations. Although the three general resolutions from GC clearly express a desire to be committed to the Communion and to Windsor, the responses to the three specific questions asked of ECUSA (along with the treatment of other resolutions by GC) make clear that such a commitment is being made only on ECUSA’s own terms and these fall significantly short of those sought by the Communion as a whole. Astonishingly, the answers given in the resolutions passed at GC 2006 at no point explicitly refer to any of the specific actions which violated Communion teaching, led to the Lambeth Commission, and were explicitly addressed in the Windsor Report and its requests to ECUSA.

Archbishop Rowan Williams in his recent reflection spoke of the fact that ‘no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them’. Having undertaken such unilateral action in 2003, GC 2006 appears now to wish to redefine the terms of walking together which the Communion has articulated and commended in the Windsor Report as a remedy for the earlier unilateralism.

Despite the claims and wishful thinking on the part of some, there is therefore only one conclusion that can be drawn: ECUSA has ‘walked apart’, and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates must say so and likely will say so early in 2007, if not before. The Instruments of Communion must also take the consequent actions, however difficult, which will enable those within ECUSA who wish to remain loyal to Windsor , and hence to the Communion, to be recognised as full constituent members of the Communion. In preparation for that response it is important that those bishops and parishes loyal to Windsor clearly declare their allegiance and commit themselves to the disciplines of life together in communion with one another and with Anglicans around the globe.’

The Anglican Communion Institute General Convention, The Windsor Report and ECUSA’s Relationship to the Anglican Communion

If in a few years time we are looking seriously at the practical possibility of women ordained as bishops – what will the ecumenical cost be? We know it will in many ways be heavy and serious. But granted that, what will be the ground on which we pursue ecumenical conversation and relationship from that point on. I would like to say that the ARCIC documents do give us a theology which we need to return to and try to make sense of in that long-term view, because we do there have a remarkably rich deposit of reflection on the ordained ministry, agreed between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches over the last thirty years…

Archbishop of Canterbury Speech given during a debate in the Church of England’s General Synod on Women in the Episcopate

We have claimed to be Catholic, to have a ministry that is capable of being universally recognised (even where in practice it does not have that recognition) because of its theological and institutional continuity; to hold a faith that is not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised; to celebrate sacraments that express the reality of a community which is more than the people present at any one moment with any one set of concerns. So at the very least we must recognise that Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties…

My commitment and conviction are given to the ideal of the Church Catholic. I know that its embodiment in Anglicanism has always been debated, yet I believe that the vision of Catholic sacramental unity without centralisation or coercion is one that we have witnessed to at our best and still need to work at.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Address to the General Synod of the Church of England

Al Kimel of Pontifications has set out the theological issues around ordination and Church unity with his usual clarity and patience.

In a recent post he takes a look at the response of the Anglican bishops of Durham and Salisbury, Tom Wright and David Stancliffe to Roman Catholic Cardinal Kasper, and explains what is at stake in this issue of who may be a bishop. In his address to the bishops of the Church of England (June 2006) Cardinal Kasper pointed out that the leaders any part of the Church chooses are leaders of the whole Church, and have to represent that wholeness of the Church, and the wholeness of its teaching. Its choice of leaders therefore demonstrates the degree to which the Anglican church understands, or does not understand, that it is its wholeness and indivisibility that makes Church’s distinctive witness to the world. The Church is one, and holy, because God is one, and holy.

The context is the desire of Anglican and Episcopalian parts of the Church to operate in isolation from the Church as a whole, and to choose leaders who do not represent the wholeness and distinctiveness of the Church. But the whole Church must insist that such parts do not operate unilaterally, and so it must give these (Anglican and Episcopalian) churches and their leaders a refresher course in ecclesiology and theology, to remind them of the distinct identity of the Christian people and the extraordinary privilege it is to be that people, for the world’s sake.

Here is Al Kimel:

‘Bishops Wright and Stancliffe are convinced that Scripture authorizes the ordination of women to priestly orders, but they disagree with each other on whether Scripture authorizes the blessing of same-sex unions. Bishop Wright was a member of the committee that drew up the Windsor Report, a report which rebukes the American and Canadian churches for breaking from the received moral tradition before the creation of a new consensus within the Anglican Communion. But should not the same reasoning be applied to the question of women’s ordination? Should not the Anglican Communion be rebuked for moving ahead on women’s ordination before the creation of wider catholic consensus. Why, in this age of ecumenism, does the opinions of only Anglicans count? Does it not matter to Anglicans that by embracing the ordination of women to the presbyterate and episcopate they are effectively negating the possibility of ecclesial reunion with the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church?’

Pontifications The death of Anglican/Catholic ecumenism?

Bishops Wright and Stancliffe have responded to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s request for no unilateral Anglican decisions about ordaining women bishops until a Church-wide consensus develops. But their response is not quite as rigorous as they hope:

‘One of the most important points at which Cardinal Kasper seems to us to misrepresent the Anglican situation comes at the point where he indicates that he and others look to the Church of England as holding a place of decisive significance within Anglicanism, so that despite the fact that there are already women bishops in some Provinces of the Anglican Communion the decision of the Church of England would somehow be key or crucial. That may be an accurate indication of how we are perceived, but the Church of England does not occupy the place in the Communion that the Vatican does in our sister church. Indeed, that imperial model – Ecclesia Anglicana telling the colonies how to behave – is precisely what we have done our best to avoid for several generations. As set out in the Windsor Report, we have a modus operandi according to which a potentially contentious issue can come to the Lambeth Conference, to the Anglican Consultative Council, and to the Primates’ Meeting. To put it simply, if the Lambeth Conference gives a green light to a proposal, it is then up to an individual province to decide whether to adopt any new development for itself. We must not for a moment collude with the impression that the Church of England occupies a position analogous to the Vatican and that the Lambeth Conference is merely an expensive piece of window-dressing. This tells heavily against the argument, sometimes advanced from within Anglicanism itself, that the decision we now face in the Church of England is the real defining moment. The Lambeth Conference has already given the green light to ordaining women to the episcopate; all we are being asked now is whether we, in our Province, want to adopt for ourselves something to which worldwide Anglicanism has already given approval, and which can therefore not be seen within our own inter-provincial polity as communion-breaking.’

Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, and David Stancliffe, Bishop of Salisbury Women Bishops:A Response to Cardinal Kasper

My understanding of catholicity is that it involves every part of the church in subordination to every other in love, and therefore also in obedience and truth. This does involve us in waiting for one another, and so it always has a cost: it is in fact Christian suffering. None of us can just do what we want; we are not servants or priests or bishops by right: we cannot make ourselves leaders of the church; we cannot unilaterally make decisions for ‘our‘ part of the church. We have to wait for the rest of the Church to see in us those gifts the Lord has given to us. The rest of the Church really is in authority over us. Those outside the Church might call this ‘imperialism’, but catholicity is what we call it.

Collegiality always requires a single authority, which involves an central office, an institution with a budget – a magisterium. This is what Canterbury (in my case) represents – despite Canterbury’s own denials – and beyond Canterbury it is all the other Archbishops and Patriarchs, gathered in mutual deference and love, around some single Patriarch, which, out of habit or tradition if for no other reason, means in effect Benedict in Rome. We Anglicans should try to keep up with Benedict – and of course gently and constantly offer our Reformed and evangelical correction to the Roman curia. There is no either-or about Canterbury and the rest-of-the-Church-conveniently-represented-by Rome. Rome does not threaten our Anglican identity – it only threatens our endless readiness to endanger the catholicity of the whole Church by our pursuit of every worldly agenda.

This Christianity lark is not easy: all this controversy is part of the suffering that comes as we are formed together in Christ. Let us be thankful for one another and for all on the other side in each of these struggles for the identity of the people of Jesus Christ.

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Archbishop Rowan William Reflections on the Anglican Communion