Avis v Goddard

The article by Paul Avis I drew attention to last week has had a reply by Andrew Goddard, in The Living Church, which you can read here. In my assessment of this response I acknowledge some very helpful thinking from a correspondent who wishes to remain anonymous.

Paul Avis makes this critical observation about the s-called Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (as I cited last week):

"THE core proposal is to demote the see of Canterbury and to promote the Primates instead. One goes down, and the other comes up. The NCPs want to delete “in communion with the See of Canterbury” in the benchmark Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and insert in its place “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury”, thus removing the reference to “communion” and to the unity of episcopal sees.

This follows from the claim that baptism, not holy communion, should be a sufficient future basis for the Communion, and that “Communion” in the term “Anglican Communion” should be understood as at least baptismal communion. Baptism is the ground of communion, but it comes to fulfilment in holy communion, and that is how “communion” in the Anglican context has been understood hitherto."

The tin says "Anglican Communion". The contents of that Anglican Communion tin should be identifiable as "Anglican" (connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury) and Communion (in communion with the Archbishop and with each other). 

What is not in the tin called "Anglican Communion" is a bunch of commestibles such as "a historic connection with the See of Canterbury" (Methodists could claim that! Roman Catholics too!! Tourists visiting the Cathedral in Canterbury could claim that, especially if they made a donation to its upkeep as the seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury!!!) or some link via baptism (which could include all Christians).

Andrew Goddard has responded to Paul Avis' concern with this, in my view, as the key statement he makes:

"He [Avis] opens with an account of IASCUFO’s mandate and here he fails to acknowledge a key element of the mandate that sheds light on his fundamental disagreements. The ACC resolution which he quotes not only referred to the need to “address our differences in the Anglican Communion” (3(a)). It also affirmed “the importance of seeking to walk together to the highest degree possible, and learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully.”

This recognition of the need to acknowledge degrees of communion among the churches of the Communion and to accept we now have to consider some form of “good differentiation” (the resolution’s title), learning from ecumenical conversations, is part of the mandate. It seems Avis is unwilling to countenance these steps as regrettable necessities even as he recognizes that the Communion is “currently fractured and dysfunctional.”

It could be argued that these steps have for some time been necessary, but they became even more pressing once a growing number of provinces in the Communion felt unable to continue in full communion with the see of Canterbury (a core feature of the historic 1930 description of the Communion) amid Prayers of Love and Faith as made clear in, for example, the 2023 Ash Wednesday Statement by Primates of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA)."

On the face of it, this is all entirely reasonable: the family union of Anglican provinces has become frayed and faulty, we are now in a relationship marked by "separation", in varying degrees, from all but "divorced" (Gafcon) through to "separated" but in complicated ways if one measures things such as who will turn up to which meetings with whom and so forth, and, consequently, the terms of reference for get togethers, who sits at the head of the table for family meals and so forth, need adjusting towards the reality of being an unhappy and divided family.

But, when was ecclesiology "reasonable"?  Church as the body of Christ is unreasonable. Disparate individuals form one entity, by virtue of sharing bread and cup together in which Christ is actually present, with bonding via the unseen glue of the Holy Spirit, flowing with unedingly patient love (1 Corinthians 10-13). That's irrational. 

What Andrew Goddard proposes - taking account of differences between provinces, varying degrees of willingness to meet together or even to not meet together at all, fracturing of the whole body of the Communion into sub-body networks and conferences such as Gafcon and Global South - makes reasonable allowance for the reality of our frayed and faulty Communion. But it pays a price in doing so. The price it pays is the giving up of a wonderful theology of communion underpinning the meaning of "Anglican Communion" (pace 1930 Lambeth Conference etc) for a barebones, "what is the minimum we can agree on in order to keep some semblance of connection with each other as provinces of an entity called the Anglican Communion?"

I would also make the point that talk of "degrees of communion" is unfortunate. Communion is something you are either in, or not in. If you are not in full communion - completely and unreservedly willing and able to share in the bread and wine of communion - then you are not in communion.

Now, let's be clear, Goddard's support for the NCPs is support for the Communion failing as a communion and Avis's support for the Communion being a communion is potentially support for a very slimmed down communion with (in my view) some danger that it is a very "white Anglican" dominated Communion.

Neither outcome is inspiring.

But the advantage is to Avis: he advances the theology of being "Anglican-in-Communion", and that theology is historically coherent with the Church of England - the one church for the whole nation, in all its diversity and difference, the church in which Evangelicals, Broad Church and Anglo-Catholics found themselves at home - a Protestant church with Catholic vision for its indivisibility and for its universal reach to the whole of society.

Goddard is, to be sure, wholly realistic and fulsomely pragmatic. Things are in a sorry state and we just have to make the best of it. But "the best of it" is neither Anglican (IMHO) nor Communion, yet there is no proposal to change the name on the tin.

What might be different?

I would like to see from both the modern apostles of Anglicanliness, Paul and Andrew, that there is a call back to Anglican first principles, an appeal to the better hearts of Anglicans around the globe, that is, a cry to re-find our unity in our differences, sharp though they are, to renew commitment to communion as Christ's inclusive fellowship with those whom he has called to follow him (remember, Judas took part in the last supper, as did denying Peter, and doubting Thomas), and to refresh our love for one another a la 1 Corinthians 13 with its strenuous code which spares no effort to truly, deeply, lastingly love the other. 

In sum, an appeal to be Christian in a manner coherent with the English form of being Christian - a form of being Christian which has borne many challenges and found ways to adjust to and live with change but seemingly in the late 20th and early 21st century hit a rock and founded.

I would also like to see a re-think, on all sides, on the question of how and why, of all possible issues to found the good ship Anglicana upon, it is the issue of humans unable to marry in the usual way seeking nevertheless a pathway to permanent, loving, faithful partnership. 

Why has this issue, and no other issue, become the rock on which the ship Anglicana has crashed? Should we not be re-addressing this issue and possible ways to live with our varied responses to it rather than completely re-configuring what we think being Anglicans-in-communion means? As best I understand the NCPs, if followed through and agreed to, we would be revising what the Anglican Communion means to the point where we would be an association of Anglicans, but without the courage to re-name ourselves accurately and honestly.

So, in the battle of proposals, in the field of Anglican dreams, Avis is the winner.