Various readings in the last few days leads me to make this reflection: the Anglican Communion either continues moving forward to become a universal church or it will shrivel.
It has no future in which it looks like what it was before 1998. If, for example, the Communion wishes to insist on one episcopal jurisdiction per territory (certain territories such as these islands as exceptions), then it can only enforce this by becoming a universal church. The Communion as an informal fellowship with as few written rules as possible and intentionally weak authorities will never prevent rival Anglican jurisdictions. Failure to prevent these inevitably will create two or more Anglican networks, none of which will be as strong as the Communion pre 1998.
Similarly, a Communion which refuses to engage with the Covenant and where it might take us, will be a Communion asserting the autonomy of provinces which, in the end, will be a Communion unstitching itself. Provinces may continue to send delegates and representatives to meetings of Anglicans, but there will be no more pretence that any substantive meaning will be attached to the word 'Communion' for Anglicans. There may be 'Communion' among these (say, progressive Anglicans) or these (say, conservative Anglicans), but that will not have the substantive promise the Anglican Communion once held that we were an ecclesial community with something to offer the world, a modus operandi for very wide diversity being in union.
There is work to be done, to be sure, if we are to become a universal church: will we be led conciliarly or otherwise, what teaching will be common among us, what consistency of practice in ministry and in life itself will mark us out as distinctive? But there needs to be a will to become a universal church if the work is to be worth doing.
I do not wish to be pessimistic, but I struggle to detect that will ... whether on 'the left' or 'the right' ... and 'the centre' seems silent!
Perhaps there is no will to become what we have the potential to become. But do not be deceived about that: the Communion without the will to become a universal church will shrivel on the vine.
11 comments:
"...the substantive promise the Anglican Communion once held that we were an ecclesial community with something to offer the world, a modus operandi for very wide diversity being in union"
Peter, I like that depiction of what we have been at our best, and may yet be again. But how do you get from there to "the Anglican Communion either continues moving forward to become a universal church or it will shrivel"?
The first quote depicts a fact of grace. It is true that at times in the past the diverse group of Anglican provinces (and dioceses for that matter)have shown a commendable amount of cohesion across our diversity, despite our low-grid approach to international structure.
Your second idea is quite different, being programatic and demanding. We must become something we are not, and never have been. Otherwise we face a sort of death, as though God's grace has deserted us in an unprecedented hour of crisis.
And what is this new thing we must become? "A universal church" ... hmmm. I though there was only one of those, the Body of Christ, created and supported by grace, invincible against all foes, and greater than any of its component parts. Anyway, how can there be more than one universal church?
Recognizing the one Church, and its one Lord, in those with whom we disagree is the precondition of all negotiations for greater unity. Refusing to recognize one another, or making that recognition conditional on greater mutual compliance, is where our troubles begin. I believe this is the truly destructive "innovation" that has crept among us recently, and it is a triumph of law over grace, a shrivelling of the heart.
Hi Howard
'A universal church' might not be the best of phrases ... perhaps I should talk about 'a worldwide church'.
I take it that the grace of God at work in the church is a work towards greater unity in truth. If we are not moving forward to that unity in truth we will go backwards.
You hit the nail on the head when you say,
"Recognizing the one Church, and its one Lord, in those with whom we disagree is the precondition of all negotiations for greater unity. Refusing to recognize one another, or making that recognition conditional on greater mutual compliance, is where our troubles begin. I believe this is the truly destructive "innovation" that has crept among us recently, and it is a triumph of law over grace, a shrivelling of the heart."
But this works both ways! In the background to all current troubles was the move TEC made (around 2000 I think it was) to compel dioceses to ordain women. At that point law not only triumphed over grace but also became a threat about the future: permitting blessings of same sex partnerships would not be an option ... so some Episcopalians took not only fright but flight post 2003. When they sought the support and assistance of the wider Anglican Communion they found it had little to offer save the possibility of a process by which we might take steps to be a worldwide church ... this is being mightily resisted ... thus I feel bleak about future prospects for the Communion: it will not be a place in which dissenters find support (to be clear, that is, dissenters from the left and the right). Rather support will be given to whichever party is in majority in provinces, irrespective of whether their will is in accordance with God's will.
"Rather support will be given to whichever party is in majority in provinces, irrespective of whether their will is in accordance with God's will."
Peter, you had me largely agreeing with your response until that last clause. Why put that one in? It seems to imply that you or I or anyone have such a clear knowledge of God's will for others that we could say that in some cases outside support for a majority provincial position was justified but not in others.
I actually think that the official relationships within the Communion need to relate mainly to majority positions within each province. If our General Synod makes a decision, I want the Communion to take that as our official ACANZP position, regardless of my own convictions on the matter. That is, I want other provinces to respect our canonical processes, even when I believe they may not yet have arrived at "God's will".
Whether it is true that TEC took a policy on women's ordination that forced all dioceses to ordain women is for others to verify or refute. I would like some pointers towards further evidence, given recent inflamatory conservative allegations in the UK (that all parishes would be legally obliged to conduct same-sex mariages).
As for your use of "universal church". I did wonder if you meant something more like "worldwide church". However this more careful phrase doesn't carry the same overtones. Why should God's blessings and protection be given more to worldwide bodies than to local expressions of the one Church? Wider expressions are desirable, in missional terms, because they manifest our unity; but are counterproductive when they suppress adaptations to local missional imperatives... which is why the Nigerian and American churches are at loggerheads! I don't want a Communion structure that gives one province a veto over another's life.
You have yourself quoted on your sidebar the words of the late Richard Neuhaus: "where orthodoxy becomes optional, it will sooner or later be proscribed."
The fact that opponents of WO have been squeezed out of or refused opportunity to minister in Anglican churches in NZ, Tec and the UK, and in Lutheran churches in Germany formerly controlled by Margot Kaessmann, is bearing out this new law of ecclesiastical politics. It is all about power.
James Jones in England is the latest one to muddy the waters by substituting his own weak ideas for theological reason and he has further fractured any facade of evangelical unity.
This illustrates yet another of those Anglican conundra that made Edward Norman and many others jump ship.
George Carey in his retirement is wringing his hands in despair.
See also, Anonymous, a brief post on James Jones on Hermeneutics and Human Dignity ...
Further, here's Philip Ashey's reprot on 400+ "depostions" in Tec under Schori - nothing like this since the Restoration Ejections!
http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Resources/TEC-Canonical-Abuses.pdf
Could you please expand on what you mean by some of your terms. What do you mean by “become a universal church”? I thought Anglican understanding is that the universal church is fully present in the diocese?
There does appear a tendency amongst pro-covenant people and possibly, hence, within the covenant itself, to have the whole Anglican Communion become what a diocese is now. This is much more the Roman Catholic model of “universal church” in which the pope is effectively the bishop of the whole Roman Catholic Church. It functions and conceives of itself more like one diocese in the Anglican model.
How does the “Anglican Communion insist” on anything at all? Where does the Anglican Communion “insist on one episcopal jurisdiction per territory”? In what sense will there be the “creat[ion of] two or more Anglican networks” when there have long been many “Anglican” networks?
There seem very very strong assertions in this post, without clarification what the words mean, or explanation of why these assertions are being made.
Hi Anonymous
By 'universal church' I mean an entity which thinks itself as a worldwide church - in contradistinction to various pundits I have read who say (something like) 'the Anglican Communion is not a church'.
The 'universal church' may be present in a diocese, but even a diocese is recognised as such by something outside itself ...thus we do not find that ACNA dioceses have simply and immediately been recognised by Anglican churches or the Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Communion in various ways and through various of its bodies (e.g. the ACC) does make insistences about who is a member church of the Anglican Communion or not. A significant part of the reluctance to admit ACNA as a member church is adherence, generally, to the idea of one church per territory.
I could have been clearer about 'networks' as, yes, there are many Anglican networks. Here I mean Anglican provinces choosing to join with each other in some kind of association while clearly dissociating from other provinces.
You continue to use words so loosely that it is very difficult for some of your readers to understand what you mean. Please can you clarify what, for example, you mean by “recognise”? I know of no Anglicans, for example, who question the validity of the orders or sacraments of ACNA.
Your ecclesiology is hard to discern. You want the Anglican Communion to be “a church” (singular), but you also speak of “Anglican churches” in the plural. You claim, without reference, that “Anglican bodies” do not allow more than “one church” per territory (implying, in my reading, that you understand there are plural “churches”). What do you make, then, of ACANZP’s work in Australia, CSI in USA, TEC in the Diocese in Europe, etc. which appear to contradict your unreferenced point?
Hi Anonymous
ACNA is not recognised as an Anglican church by churches such as TEC or ACCan and the C of E has placed the question of recognition with its Archbishops for further study, and it is not a member church of the Anglican Communion. It is highly likely that clergy ordained in it since its inception will not have their ordinations recognised by a number of member churches of the Anglican Communion.
Yes I would like the Anglican Communion to take the step of being a worldwide Anglican church albeit composed of provinces (and dioceses within those provinces). Then it might be simpler to cease to talk about Anglican churches plural (i.e. the Anglican church of Australia, of Chile etc) .
"What do you make, then, of ACANZP’s work in Australia, CSI in USA, TEC in the Diocese in Europe, etc. which appear to contradict your unreferenced point?"
In the first case that work is with the approval of the Anglican Church of Australia, that is, there is one jurisdiction in power there and if ACANZP's work there turned to custard that approval might cease. I assume something similar would be the case in respect of CSI in America. The two Anglican networks in Europe is an unusual situation in which I sense neither network claims jurisdiction of the territory but both work together amicably.
Would that ACNA, TEC and ACCan might do that in North America.* But when I have raised that on other blogs I have been told in no uncertain terms that it ain't happening anytime soon!
(*That is, on my ecclesiological vision, as three overlapping provinces authorised to work Anglicanly by 'the Anglican church')
One possible suggestion maybe if the Porvoo communion was to rolled out across the entire Anglican Communion and Lutheran World Federation,plus the Old Catholics,Roman Catholics,Eastern Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox,Nestorians,and any other Apostolic Successionist Churches around as a global set of common rules.We could have the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Anglican Patriarch plus any other ideas to be floated.You could see the Church of England Bishop of Europe David Hamid blogsite-type eurobishop in your search engines and get in touch there also.
Post a Comment