Am going to be away from my online connection for the next few days when meetings in Chicago announce the new North American province and then the GAFCON Primates meet with the ABC in Lambeth (presumably to ask the ABC to recognise the new province).
I am intrigued by the thought of a new province based on 'theology'. Ostensibly this gladdens the heart of an Anglican evangelical. But in an Anglican setting the question has to be asked, 'what theology?' and 'who rules over this theology?' Theology always involves difference of view - including in the New Testament itself. Theology requires judgement: is this theology acceptable? compatible with that theology? able to co-exist alongside another theology? The role of the church is to make that judgement. The question for any ecclesial body is who makes that judgement and how? I am simply unclear how the new province will proceed as a 'theological' province.
I am aghast at a comment reported from one of the new province leaders along the lines of 'if the ABC recognises us he will incur the wrath of TEC; if he does not recognise us he will incur the wrath of others'. What kind of language is this to use of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why is he envisaged as being constrained to one and only one binary choice?
I am watching TEC closely, particularly through Mark Harris' Preludium blog (accessible off the sidebar here). It seems to me very clear that TEC is taking a hardline stance: good-bye not au revoir to the dioceses and parishes seceding from it; and, looking forward to General Convention 2009 when we can cement a few things in place (e.g. clarification of the role of the Presiding Bishop; commitment to GLBT matters). Ironically one of my questions re 'theology' as the foundation of an Anglican church is whether TEC is 'anti-theological' relative to the new province's 'theological' approach. (See note below).
Advice for the ABC: either recognise the new province alongside TEC and ACCan or suspend recognition of all North American Anglican/Episcopal churches until after GC 2009!!
PS Mark Harris is very observant and makes the point - to be noted by those who think the ABC should just recognise the new province and be done with it - that the new province incorporates an amalgam of Anglican entities and episcopal figures not all of which and whom are as well 'ordered' as others!
TEC's 'anti-theological' approach:
Here is a motion to the forthcoming convention of the Diocese of Los Angeles looking ahead to the General Convention (Hat-tip to Titus One Nine):
"Resolution regarding the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033
Resolved, that the One Hundred Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles call upon the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church to abide by the canons of The Episcopal Church; to respect the responsibility of each diocese to discern prayerfully the will of God in calling leaders; to refrain from restricting the potential field of candidates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation; and thus to retract General Convention 2006 Resolution B033.
Submitted by: Mr. Jim White
Chair, Diocesan Deputation to General Convention
All Saints’ Church, Pasadena
Explanation
In 2006 the 75th General Convention concurred in the adoption of Resolution B033, which “call[ed] upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” The language of the resolution was widely understood to refer to gay and lesbian persons with same sex domestic partners. Several considerations compel the retraction of General Convention 2006 Resolution B033:
1. In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate. “God is not one to show partiality.” (Acts 10:34-35) The gifts for ministry are given by God’s grace to all members of Christ’s body. (Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians: 4:4-16).
2. Because we are baptized in Christ, our gifts are the result of God’s grace given to us as members of Christ’s body, independent of other distinctions.
3. The Canons of General Convention (Title III, Canon 1, Section 2) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation: “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons.” General Convention 2006 Resolution B033, if interpreted to mean that a person living in a same-sex partnership should be excluded from consecration, stands in conflict with Title III, Canon 1, Section 2."
The 'anti-theology' here is the appeal to egregious error ("In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate" - yet Jesus discriminated, e.g. between disciples and would-be disciples, between those who believed in him and those who did not, between 'the Twelve' and the larger group of disciples); the absence of engagement with the possibility that holiness of life might also be determinative alongside consideration of 'gifts'; and the appeal to law (the Canons of General Convention) ahead of appeal to the whole of Scripture).
6 comments:
"I am aghast at a comment reported from one of the new province leaders along the lines of 'if the ABC recognises us he will incur the wrath of TEC; if he does not recognise us he will incur the wrath of others'. What kind of language is this to use of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why is he envisaged as being constrained to one and only one binary choice?"
Heaven forfend, Peter! 'Choose this day ...'? etc etc...
Hi Anonymous
Why should 'wrath' be falling on the ABC over a choice between two imperfect forms of the church (even if, arguably, one if more imperfect than the other)? By whose authority is it deemed that the ABC must endorse one and not both? 'Choose you this day etc' was a particular choice Joshua confronted Israel with: is the same choice before the ABC today? Perhaps ... but whose argument is to convince him? Radner or Duncan?
Peter, it seems that much of African Anglicanism, as well as the numerically tiny Southern Cone and the financially strong Diocese of Sydney, have detached themselves emotionally from the ABC; seeking his 'endorsement' matters less and less in a postcolonial world - and British colonialism is the only justification for Anglican structures as the currently exist. For thirty years now the Roman Catholics have cast off Italian ownership of the papacy. If the office of the ABC is to mean anything in the future of world Anglicanism, it will have to be detached from the poliitcs of the Church of England. It's absurd that Anglicans in Singapore, Bolivia, Myanmar - let alone NZ - should somehow be beholden to the decisions of the English monarch.
As for winning the ear of Rowan: Ephraim Radner is a very learned man but he has lacked the courage or initiative to do what conditions require.
Hi Anonymous
The endorsement of the ABC matters little if the Communion is a 'federation' and not a 'church'. But if Africa, Sydney, Pittsburgh, or myself wish to work on the Anglican Communion being a worldwide church, then I suggest somewhere at the apex of its structure it needs a leader or a figurehead of one. In which cases there are some good reasons (IMHO) for it being the ABC. Ipso facto its worth paying the office some respect.
But perhaps being a federation is the most realistic possibility for a collection of churches which agree on so little ... just to mention the conservatives!!!
"But if Africa, Sydney, Pittsburgh, or myself wish to work on the Anglican Communion being a worldwide church, then I suggest somewhere at the apex of its structure it needs a leader or a figurehead of one."
Peter, forgive my geometric pedantry, but the 'somewhere at the apex' IS the apex. An acceptable ecclesiology if you live in the High Middle Ages when there was one church, one faith and one pope (well, three popes at one time: one in Avignon and two slugging it out in Italy). The Orthodox seem to get by without a pope. Anglican ecclesiology has always seemed rather 'post factum' to me, a fortiori with the recent (and now collapsing) theory of 'instruments of unity', which was only institutional rationalization. Rome's concept of authority and unity has historically rested on the Magisterium, the Orthodox on Holy Tradition - IOW, doctrine before structures. The Anglican 'pyramid' is upside down. It's plain that whole swathes of 'Western' Anglicanism - esp. TEC and AC Canada (and tell it not in Gath, a good deal of the leadership of ACANZP) is pretty heterodox in historic terms. Can you imagine the RCs or the Orthodox allowing someone like Dean Randerson as a leader?
Hi Anonymous
Fair geometric point!
Yes, Anglican hierarchical leadership is in a mess in more ways than one; and, indeed, may be upside-down relative to what is required for these times.
In part my point was simple: any half-decent organisation has a committee/executive/board running it, and the chair/president/CEO of that group is at the apex ... and in the Communion's case I think there are good arguments (though not necessarily irrefutable ones) for the ABC being at the helm.
Perhaps our problem is that (a) we do not have one executive committee running the Communion (b) we do not have many bishoprics of standing, equivalent to the patriarchies of the Orthodox churches.
Here is a solution (possible): we appoint the (arch)bishops of the following bishoprics to run the show: Canterbury, Sydney, Nigeria, Capetown, Singapore, New York, Uganda, Melanesia. After all, anything they could agree on must be important!
Post a Comment