Wednesday, August 1, 2018

The Trinity Has Set Sail in the Visible Ark That is the Church

Christopher Wells has a great article here in The Living Church and the title of this post is excerpted from the article.

The article concerns the nature of the church and the investment God makes in the church as the instrument of God's plan for the world.

Now, to be sure, the specific locus of the article is the events of the recent TEC General Convention and of the recent GAFCON 2018 conference in Jerusalem and much technical detail in the article derives from these major Anglican events of 2018. And that provides an overwhelming temptation to keep arguing That Topic (which is carrying on quite nicely, thank you, here).

Please resist that temptation (e.g. by continuing to comment there).

What I am interested in are your comments on what it means to be "church" and to be "Anglican church" with respect to matters such as "catholicity," "authority", "order", and "visible communion." How can we Anglicans be a global communion when we present ourselves both as GAFCON and as "Anglican Communion." We are scarcely in that territory where outsiders will spontaneously say, See how these Anglicans love each other!

Consider these paragraphs from Wells' article (my bold):

"If God still has a vocation for Anglicans the world over, bound in love as one family to hasten wider unity and reconciliation within the one Church, praise the Lord. Just this hope should be our aim; that is, we must not fail to place even the steps of a General Convention within the comprehensive, world-historical frame of the gospel. Our church — I speak as an Episcopalian — is a very small part of the movement of Christ-followers across time and space, but it may still serve as a site for the formation of evangelical and catholic disciples. When we lose our way, repentance, conversion, and re-initiation should be sought! And this is a good word for us now: to pray for pre-catechumenal humility, in the hope of learning the way of wisdom and following it. 

To be clear, I am not asking, like some of my friends, “Is the Episcopal Church a true church, or part of it?” Yes, and yes. Given that God has placed me here, where I can still serve with real affection for my fellows and for our broadly Anglican tradition of holy teaching and saintly sacrifice, my question concerns how we may non-idiosyncratically answer the call of Catholic truth and unity, holding the two together. And how can we respect those with whom we disagree — and, respecting them, learn to enjoy and love them, not wishing they were other than they are — while at the same time giving one another sufficient space for potential “flourishing,” should the Lord desire it (1 Cor. 3:6)?"

And:

"Faced with Donatist heresy, Augustine simply urged return to the visible communion of the Catholic Church for all seeking salvation — not because outward membership in the Church guarantees eternal life (it does not), but because “outside the Church there is no salvation”: broken communion is surely a deal breaker (see On Baptism 5.27.38–5.28.39). 
Had St. Augustine attended the recent GAFCON Assembly in Jerusalem, he could have agreed to its impassioned warnings against false teaching, and he might have spoken in favor of councils of the Church designed “to consult, to decide, and if necessary to discipline.” 
He would have blanched, however (supposing that an Augustinian understanding of Anglican ecclesiality is imaginable), at GAFCON’s encouragement “to recognize confessing Anglican jurisdictions” willy nilly, absent wider adjudication and authoritative consensus about visible boundaries. If the hand of God is indeed “leading us toward a reordering of the Anglican Communion,” as GAFCON’s “Letter to the Churches” asserts, it will be orderly, as an agreement about the Catholic faith by the instruments of Anglican communion. “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13), truth and unity being identical in God. 
And we should say something more. 1,600 years after Augustine and downstream of countless divisions, we have learned to accept that the Church is wounded, with semi-permeable bounds. In a Roman Catholic idiom, multiple “communities” may faithfully bear their members unto salvation, though they be in less than full communion with one another. How so? Baptismal unity has grasped us, which bestows a character, and commonly shared faith follows. So far, so Augustinian. 
But because, “often enough, both sides were to blame” for our unhappy divisions, the sin of schism is transposed into separated brethren doing the best they can with what they have inherited (Decree on Ecumenism 3; Catechism of the Catholic Church §817). The communion of the Church is impaired, therefore, but we might say only in the sense that the normal rules of Catholic life apply (see Lumen Gentium 48). On the one hand, “there have to be factions [lit. heresies] among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine” (1 Cor. 11:19). 
On the other hand: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor. 12:21). The work of inter-ecclesial reconciliation is the work of intra-ecclesial reconciliation, and vice versa — a providentially imposed both/and to aid picking up the needed “discipline” that may save us from final “condemnation,” “but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 11:32, 3:14). A gracious, cruciform regimen, therefore, for formation in holiness. 
In this familiar Corinthian situation, Anglicans and others may find again an opportunity for imaginative charity in discernment, including discernment about faith and order, which require boundaries, permeable and otherwise, and a readiness to teach confidently about Christian things. Resolution B012 secured something of this in its ecclesial layering, called by the Communion Partner bishops a “helpful space of differentiation, set within the wider communion of baptism and faith that we continue to share, however imperfectly” (“Austin Statement” §9). GAFCON is right to seek common counsel and common standards in accord with Scripture, in service of the Church’s unity and orthodoxy, which go together (just as heresy and schism are finally indistinguishable). None of this is optional for any Christian church seeking apostolic authenticity. GAFCON is wrong, however, to try to button things up too neatly — even within the one universal Church, and all the more within the Anglican Communion — in lieu of the Lord’s subsequent sifting. “Let both of them grow together until the harvest” (Matt. 13:30)."

So Wells drives forward to a somewhat complex solution re global Anglican futures (which I won't cite here - you will have to read the whole article).

Is it too complex? Is being Anglican in the 21st century too hard? There is something admirably straightforward and (in the best sense of the word) simple re both GAFCON's vision for future Anglicanism and that progressive vision which drives TEC foreword, a vision which has no fear of marrying gospel with (the best of) liberal culture.

Thoughts?

(BUT PLEASE NOT A RE-RUN OF "THAT ISSUE". We can discuss Wells' ecclesiology in general terms rather than particular. His great question concerns how the church lives with difference and disagreement. The issue at stake here, from my perspective, is how we do that with ANY ISSUE? How do we do that in an ordered manner, with respect for due authority (what is due authority?) while continuing visible communion?)

35 comments:

Bryden Black said...

I agree Peter this article is well worth digesting. However, it has a context which helps to better appreciate it, and which is perhaps even more significant:
http://communionpartners.org/the-way-of-anglican-communion-walking-together-before-god/

Once one has got one’s bearings via these two, there may be some implications for ACANZ&P, and the aftermath of M7/29, notably around any so-called Christian Community (CC) and GAFCON’s imminent establishment in NZ, and the possible interrelations between these two.

If any CC is meant to help shore up ‘unity’ among ACANZ&P, then its due form and nature better not be that of a patsy, devoid of any true strength. Sure; the Motion seeks to already ‘tame’ the whole idea somewhat: its “Visiting Bishop to have influence and advocacy but not authority.” All the same, if AFFIRM manages to pass through the various hoops that no doubt will strew its way in the following months ahead of its probably establishing a CC, and if indeed the eventuating reality does not match certain expectations and hopes, then the HoB of ACANZ&P had better look to those “possible interrelations between these two”, as above, pretty carefully. For rather than M7/29 establishing some sort of “container” (Abp PR) for our pitiful dilemmas in NZ, it will have proven to have only constructed a colander, with various folk and various ministry units slipping through the various holes at various times and for various reasons. For mark well: what M7/29 has actually done, given our adversarial synodical culture of deemed ‘dispersed authority’ which currently prevails in Anglicanism, is to divide our church.

Peter Carrell said...

I note your prophetic voice, Bryden!

Father Ron Smith said...

re Bryden's comment here; our Church is already divided - not by any action of GS 2018, but by the divisive tactics of GAFCON/FOCANZ - who, without assistance from ACANZP, has decided to form their own ecclesial community.

Our local Anglican community just needs to take stock of itself and move forward more speedily with its provision for accommodating the real needs of the society around us - without buckling under pressure from intentional schismatics. If GAFCON/FCANZ wished to start their own church, then they must be allowed to do so - but not under the umbrella of the existing structure of the Anglican Communion, which has a valued and justice-based heritage to uphold.

Anonymous said...

Should the 10% who voted against the motion be viewed as a dispensable minority or as an inalienable fellow pilgrim? Put another way, if the 90% accommodates that 10% to some degree, is this justice or charity?

BW

Peter Carrell said...

My immediate reaction, Bowman, is that it may be neither (at least in this instance). Might it be humility? (We the 90% think we are right but perhaps the 10% are right so shouldn't we continue together ... in some form.)

My own difficulty, here in ACANZP at this present time, and perhaps due to being a bear of small brain, is when (I will stick with your figures, it is a debate for another time what the precise figures are) 90% accept a proposal to live with disagreement and 10% choose to walk away from the possibility of living with disagreement. Have the 90% (effectively) chosen to view a minority as dispensable or the 10% have chosen to alienate themselves from the possibility of "fellow pilgrimage"?

Father Ron Smith said...

Dear Bowman, though I totally agree with your suggestion that the majority shouyld be willing and concerned to include the minority withuin ACANZP, that is not really the issue here. The 10 percent - though offered accommodation within the majority - have, themselves chosen schism (where your gracious alternative was rejected).

Make no mistake, Bowman; I, like Peter, would have preferred the more 'catholic' outcome, which would have held together the 'Unity in Diversity' that is more truly 'Anglican'. What has happened, sadly, is that extant Anglican Tradition is no longer accpetable to the 10 percent, who feel they cannot live with the inclusive majority

Craig Liken said...

In completely unrelated news, I can report (from my office window) some significant progress in Cathedral Square. Workers are removing all the hard-fill in front of the Cathedral (apparently it has asbestos or something), and we can now see the steps that were/are about 15-20 metres in front of the Cathedral - I had forgotten completely about them. This is like watching an archaeological dig in the Middle East or somewhere - very exciting.

Despite all the current dramas, as a born-and-bred Christchurch person this is all very encouraging and uplifting - at least for me. It feels like we are getting our city back.

Bryden Black said...

Aha ... local figures maybe one thing. International ones quite another…

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Craig
That might be the most exciting news ever reported on ADU!

Unknown said...

Fathers Peter and Ron, my query at 4:01 was about not blame but order. A third way of asking the same question is: in the sight of God alone-- no godless secular political theory allowed!-- should a church always follow whatever 50% + 1 will to do or are there occasions for doing only what it can do in substantial unity?

BW

Bryden Black said...

Dear Ron: In response to your comment August 2, 2018 at 8:26 AM.

Some 12 years ago now ATF included a contribution of mine to Brian Edgar & Gordon Preece, eds, Whose Homosexuality? Which Authority? Homosexual practice, marriage, ordination and the church (ATF Press, 2006). It was entitled, “Whose Language? Which Grammar? ‘Inclusivity’ and ‘Diversity’, versus the Crafted Christian concepts of Catholicity and Created Differentiation”, pages 151-167.

This Australasian collection sought to promote a variety of perspectives and understandings of a “double-bunger of an issue in the churches and society”. Published as a double issue of Interface, it was the fruit of a conference held in Melbourne in 2004, and was deliberately styled as a follow-up to an earlier collection from New Zealand, edited by Murray Rae and Graeme Redding, also published by ATF Press, in 2000. My own extract seeks to frame the debate in a way that delves far more deeply into the archaeology and genealogy of two key forms of discourse, which, it is claimed, are not only in the end incompatible, but which renders one as being far more satisfactory and robust a form of discourse than the other.

Much confusion and not a little manipulative power-play may be avoided if Christians were to actually care far more about the actual language they subscribe to ...

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bowman
There are definitely occasions for waiting for a much higher percentage, but is that 90 or 95 or 98 or 100%?

On the other hand I am wary of committing to consensus in all situations as that can be a recipe for a minority to hijack for ever.

Bryden Black said...

Thank you Bowman. You are pursuing a very helpful line of observations. But alas! I fear they might very well fall upon deaf ears.
For what it’s worth, here is my considered opinion on our own particular state of affairs (after being actively engaged here these last 14 years. And of course, prior to that I had previously been explicitly engaged for 20 years in both Australia and UK.)
In the setting of our adversarial Parliamentary synodical context, I have been forced to conclude: we collectively have neither the theological (and/or intellectual) firepower, nor the moral calibre or fibre, nor certainly the spiritual resources to address these issues, let alone answer them. The upshot: a deemed pragmatic political (non) solution ...
Harsh? Perhaps. Yet the reality hereabouts is tragically a harsh one.
Just so, all power now to those Communion Partners and others flagged in Peter’s first post and my first response. Yet even here “synodality” sits too abstractly without due regard to forceful cultural winds of socialisation unfettered by sufficient Christian counter formation.

Unknown said...

Peter, if n = the percentage of a synod required for consensus, then, over the set T of trinitarian numbers--

n = (7 * 70) * (1 = 3)

My notation is crude, but your readers will doubtless recall the proofs.

BW

Unknown said...

"consensus in all situations... can be a recipe for a minority to hijack for ever"

How so? If even a large majority cannot impose its will on the whole, then, apart from persuasion, how could a minority do this?

BW



Unknown said...

As you have pointed out in a recent comment, Peter, majority rule is a method for distributing power whilst consensus is a method for discerning truth. Indeed, we intuit that majority rule is just in matters proper to the exercise of power, provided that a body's majorities are fluid, changing in composition from measure to measure.

But matters of truth should not be settled by power. And a consistently polarised body in which power always flows to the preferences of a fixed majority cannot exercise power justly. God's governing providence uses all things for his purposes, but he never speaks with the voice of loveless injustice.

As it happens, the Anglican Communion is struggling with truth-questions and these are being decided by bodies polarised by blocs with long histories and endowed institutions.The most outspoken of these bodies has an undisputed pattern of majoritarian cruelty to its minority.

A broken clock is right twice a day. Even if we happen to sympathise with this or other majorities, thus far, there is no reason to believe that either the Body or her Lord are speaking through them.

BW

Unknown said...

So yes, Peter, as you say, a body for discerning consensus is first of all listening to God to discover truth. And it is important to note that whilst scripture offers more precedent for casting lots than for counting votes, it is easy to show the harmony, if not the identity, of NT ecclesiology with the workings of consensus discernment.

Obviously, there is no majority or minority in listening to God. Open-hearted discerment uses none of the procedural machinery by which majoritarian bodies distribute power. Seminally, they deliberate, not on externally-generated proposals for the use of the power of the whole, but rather on concerns of the whole for which God's will is sought. And the Body's responses to these concerns are gathered from all corners of the room without prejudice. What emerges as the decision of the whole is whatever the whole can agree to. This means that the body prudently establishes areas of agreement as it can whilst living with the harder questions.

BW

Unknown said...

So yes, Peter, as you say, a body for discerning consensus is first of all listening to God to discover truth. And it is important to note that whilst scripture offers more precedent for casting lots than for counting votes, it is easy to show the harmony, if not the identity, of NT ecclesiology with the workings of consensus discernment.

Obviously, there is no majority or minority in listening to God. Open-hearted discerment uses none of the procedural machinery by which majoritarian bodies distribute power. Seminally, they deliberate, not on externally-generated proposals for the use of the power of the whole, but rather on concerns of the whole for which God's will is sought. And the Body's responses to these concerns are gathered from all corners of the room without prejudice. What emerges as the decision of the whole is whatever the whole can agree to. This means that the body prudently establishes areas of agreement as it can whilst living with the harder questions.

BW

Father Ron Smith said...

Dear Bowman and Bryden.

re your theories on concensus v. majoritie:

Even Scripture is clear about this

(1) "Let us cast lots for it" (Jesus' cloak) (replacement disciple for Judas)

(2) "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (the disciples in conclave)

If the Church (in Provincial situations where governance is experienced) is not local in context (ACANZP) it may not be effective - thus; synodical!

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Bowman
Your comments are catalysing/provoking a separate post on consensus/universality - hopefully over the weekend - which now needs to take into account the Pope's "unilateral" decision re prohibition of capital punishment: is he speaking for a consensus across the whole church (without need for a synodical decision)!?

Father Ron Smith said...

Another thought on the subject of 'overruling majorities'. How does this compare with the GAFCON/FOCA claim to represent the 'majority of Anglicans' in the Communion?

I suspect that, in this case, the decisions of GAFCON/FOCA might be made more by the strident leadership than the Faithful Laity.

Father Ron Smith said...

Bryden said:

" I have been forced to conclude: we collectively have neither the theological (and/or intellectual) firepower, nor the moral calibre or fibre, nor certainly the spiritual resources to address these issues, let alone answer them. The upshot: a deemed pragmatic political (non) solution .."

And, conversely, GAFCON/FOCA have such resources? Is this why they reject the collegiality of the rest of us in the Anglican Communion?

I'm afraid, Bryden, that 'theological (and/or intellectual) fire-power' might not have been very evident in the struggles for survival in the life of the first Apostles. Was this why Jesus deliberately chose simple fishermen and others to preach and live out the implications of His mission? "Blessed are you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for revealing these things to the simple".

Intellectual rigour, unfortunately, does not always lead to wisdom. It is often based on the ego (Richard Dawkins?) - a fact the Jesus recognised: "Where are your wise men, now?" - Yesterday's Feast of the saintly St.Chad reminded us of the simplicity with which this Man of God helped to build the community of the Kingdom of God in the N.E. of England

Unknown said...

Thank you, Fathers Peter and Ron for your continued engagement with these observations.

Perhaps this is the place to reconcile Peter's passion for pluralism with Ron's insistence on an Anglican three-legged stool. The consensus sought in discernnent need not be as systematic as some (eg confessional Reformed, neo-Thomists before the nouvelle theologie) have believed. But it is *one conversation* in which each tendency earns its place at the table by engaging the others in enough depth to mature beyond what it was in isolation from the Communion. Peter emphasises the multiplicity of these perspectives; I emphasise that they must outgrow cherished immaturities merely to be disciples of Jesus; Ron emphasises the scripture, tradition, and reason by which iron sharpens iron until all can apprehend the truth. That one conversation is possible only with divine assistance, and has intrinsic authority for believers in the Trinity, whether it happens in a synod or a theological faculty or a seaside resort.

BW

Bryden Black said...

“I'm afraid, Bryden, that 'theological (and/or intellectual) fire-power' might not have been very evident in the struggles for survival in the life of the first Apostles.” Ron @ August 3 at 11:06

Ah but Ron - it was!! And in spades! Most evident! It just took a different form from what some of us might construe as such “fire-power” - more’s the pity. See notably Richard B Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Baylor, 2017). Their writing up of the Jesus Story was awesomely sophisticated, employing tools already supplied by their Covenant God and now put to elaborate novel use. And as for that writer of most of the canonical Letters: what a beautiful mind (and naturally, a heart and will and spirit and body) at the service of his Master and Lord!

"Anglicanism (ask Mr Hooker) is based on the 3-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Sweet Reason. Any theological basis contrary to this - such as the Gafcon ethic - is not truly Anglican, as agreed by the Toronto Accord." Ron @ July 12, 8.02 pm, and now seemingly repeated here on this thread - twice (including BW).

Please please please Ron, might you desist with this non historical red herring. Or do you wish simply to resist the wise judgment of the likes of Rowan Greer? Viz: “My suggestion will be that the idea [of the “Triple Cord”/“Three-legged stool”] is less helpful than it appears and that it proves impossible to argue that Hooker’s view really illustrates it or that the Caroline divines after Hooker follow his views”. See Anglican Approaches to Scripture: From the Reformation to the Present (Crossroad, 2006), page 14.

Just so Bowman: what I suggest needs reconciling is a more authentically Christian form of not pluralism but created differentiation amidst a due catholicity.

Father Ron Smith said...

Bless you, Bowman. Your last comment brings joy to the heart and wisdom to the simple. My wife and I say this collect as part of our daily prayers:

O God, forasmuch as without you we are not able to please you, mercifully grant that, in all things, your Holy Spirit rule and direct our hearts and minds, so that the fruit we bear may be pleasing to you, glorifying of your Name and helpful for the coming of your Kingdom; through Christ our Lord; to whom, with you and the Holy Spirit all glory be given as is most justly due, now and forever. Amen

Unknown said...

Looking back through the centuries, Peter, we often encounter figures-- abbots, popes, princes, etc-- whose authority is unthinkable apart from a small body that they consult and a larger one that must informally approve a decision for it to have much effect. Where decisions are understood to be discovering order, not making it up, the informality of consultation and consent makes more sense. Our Anglican difficulty is that a secular tradition of positive law as the promulgated will of the sovereign leads many to agitate and campaign where believets should take counsel and discern.

BW

Bryden Black said...

... and to underscore Bowman’s point: that = The General Will of the People (with apologies to J-J Rousseau) ... Little reference there to discernment. Thanks BW for making our dilemmas and their roots so clear.

Glen Young said...


Hi Peter,
What were the numbers/percentages of people worshiping the "golden calf" when Moses returned to the camp. What were the number of Germans supporting Hitler? Does numbers equate to Christ's RIGHTEOUSNESS?

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Glen
In part you need to wait for my next post!
But, in very general terms, I am not sure why majorities are a problem.
A majority voted for the Nicene creed.
A majority were very keen on Jesus until ... they were not.
A majority voted for the National Party in the last election here but it is not as though a minority led government is exceedingly "right" because it is not a majority.
That majorities re the golden calf and in 1930s Germany were wrong doesn't mean, does it, that we give up on majority voting as a preferred system of a human community making a decision?
Not going that way brought us Lenin and Stalin and perpetuated Castro.

Father Ron Smith said...

Glen said:

" Does numbers equate to Christ's RIGHTEOUSNESS? "

Precisely, Glen!

When GAFCON claims 'the numbers' of Anglicans in their bailiwick; does this mean that they are right, and the minority (others) wrong?

Righteousness includes involves justice-seeking, humility and LOVE.

Unknown said...

Our discussion of corporate discernment is uncovering a few first-order, credal questions. For example--

What must participants in discernment today believe about the work of the "Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" and about our sanctified knowledge of that work?

To what extent is the *one conversation* identical with the Body of Christ?

How do bishops (cf Ten Easy Lessons, esp. 07) properly participate in the *one conversation*?

How are we to understand the Holy Spirit's work of enabling participation from each point of view by inducing those who hold it to mature beyond its prior position?

BW

Anonymous said...

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

--Cecil Frances Alexander*, Hymns for Little Children


"I am not sure why majorities are a problem [for representative bodies in secular society]."


(1) Oppression. Majority rule in a polarised body (eg American South during the Jim Crow era, TEC in the period of sexual revisionism) is usually called "Oppression." The abstract moral intuition that majority rule is fair depends on a concrete condition that cannot always be met in practice-- a fluid majority to which nearly everyone in the body belongs at some time or another. When that condition cannot be met-- ie when the body is consistently polarised-- the just alternative to Oppression is either turn-taking when the polarisation cannot be overcome, or else consensus rule that allows the polarisation itself to be challenged and dissolved.

(2) Railroading. Much as the Tudors controlled both the investigation and trial *and* the verdict and sentence in criminal prosecutions, so majority rule similarly gives the majority control of both deliberative procedures and power-distributing outcomes. As in the former case where the execution of the accused can be assumed a priori, so in the latter the whole proceeding is expected to give those with power what they want with as little delay as possible. Abstractly, when decision-makers consider only the option they already like, they unwisely and unjustly ignore other unfamiliar options that may better serve the interests of all.

Of course, Railroading can and does happen without Oppression. But Railroading is even more peremptory when there is a polarisation in the body that permanently disempowers some of it.

(3) Self-Righteousness. The procedures of majority rule encourage persons in majorities to believe that their preferences-- indeed they themselves-- have been, not lucky, but validated as moral propositions. Alas, this encourages them to see minority preferences and those who hold them as less sound, less moral, etc. The attributed virtues and vices change; the hauteur is perennial.

Again, majorities can be Self-Righteous when not Oppressive. But *ceteris paribus,* a body comprising two or more polarised constituencies will be still more Self-Righteous.

Anonymous said...

To be clear, I take (1), (2), and (3) to agree with the settled knowledge of social psychology, just as a number for the age of the earth might approximate the settled knowledge of geology. What is persuasive here are not the feelings that we may have about the majorities to which we belong. (And, not to put too fine a point on it, those not accustomed to being in majorities are measurably less fond of them.) Rather, data-- lab experiments, fMRI scans of brains in choosing tasks, generations of experience with polls and surveys, qualitative studies of voting behaviour, etc-- better show the difference between the assumptions of a certain social class and the properties of the universal human mind.

Such better secular knowledge of our nature can suggest and has suggested better ways of deliberation and decision-making. Communities who want to make reality-based decisions will use them without much hesitation. (Happily, that seems to be the temper of the Millennials I know, and it is interesting here up yonder to see fresh arguments for reform of our dysfunctional Federal constitution.)

But that is only to do as the pagans do, and from the Body of Christ much more than that is expected. If the Church is the visibility of the Holy Spirit reconciling all things in the Son to the glory of the Father, to take an ecumenical view of it, what has dividing the Body into winners and losers to do with that?

The dilemma for Anglicans is this-- C19 church constitutions copied state practices that were deeply revered at the time by the sort of people then writing church constitutions-- and hymns-- but that do not seem congruent with the ecclesiologies that have always motivated such churchly practices as eucharist, preaching, catechesis, diaconal care, etc. If following these state practices were not shredding the Communion, we might just bumble along with their inconsistency ourselves. But as things actually are, how can we not give governance doctrine the scrutiny we give eucharistic doctrine?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Frances_Alexander

BW

Father Ron Smith said...

Bowman said:

"How are we to understand the Holy Spirit's work of enabling participation from each point of view by inducing those who hold it to mature beyond its prior position?"

I guess, Bowman, some words of the old hymn could possibly be the answer to your question: "Experience will decide, how blest are they and only they who in the Lord confide".

It was actual experience of the ministry of women priests that turned my opposition into a more kindly attitude and eventual support. Rooted Prejudice can only be overcome by prayer, openness, thanksgiving - and a willingness to listen to the voice of the Spirit of God in one's heart and in the Eucharistic community.

Bryden Black said...

Re “governance theology”: my necessary encounter with K. A. Locke, The Church in Anglican Theology: A Historical, Theological and Ecumenical Exploration (Routledge, 2016), since it was the only element of theology smuggled into our Provincial Working Group’s Final Report, has pretty well convinced me our present Anglican practice (coupled with most Anglican theological tendencies) of “governance” is on a hiding to nowhere. This does not bode at all well frankly ... And our recent NZ experience these past six years or so merely proves it.