During the past few days I have come across two well-written reflections on ACC-19, recently held in Belfast, Northern Ireland (i.e. within the provincial territory of the Church of Ireland). These are by no means the only reflections you could read if you google further, but they are two that I appreciate, one because it is a bit uncomfortable for me to read, the other because it is both comforting to read and explains something I hadn't quite understood about where the NCPs were seeking to take the Anglican Communion. That is, too far in the direction of "impaired communion" which, Kelvin Holdsworth, author of one of the two reflections, points out is something the CofE has gotten used to, but just maybe the rest of us (excepting Oz?) have not and do not want to get used to either. (The title of this post reflects a neat line within the Holdsworth reflection).
So,
Anthony Atherstone writes at The Living Church, "Hope for the Communion? Reflections on the Anglican Consultative Council's 2026 Meeting"
Among some criticisms of what went along, which could be summed up (in my words) as "for all the talk of "full communion" there was plenty of acknowledgment that communion in the Communion is "impaired"," we could offer the following as illustrative from what Atherstone writes:
"Another significant resolution thanks IASCUFO for their work on the NCPs and reaffirms
“the vocation of all member Churches of the Anglican Communion to seek to walk together to the highest degree of communion possible one with another, and to learn from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully.”
By implication, if communion between Anglican provinces is a matter of “degrees”, it is not always “full”. This resolution was brought early in the week, on the first full day of business, but was poorly explained and many delegates felt bounced into giving their assent. This further example of bad process was rightly challenged by Kelvin Holdsworth of the Scottish Episcopal Church, so the resolution was put again at the end of the week, enabling a counted vote on this important affirmation, with 67 votes in favour (including the Archbishop of Canterbury), 7 against, and 3 abstentions. The concept of “degrees of communion” is now increasingly embedded in our descriptions of the Anglican Communion. By naming this reality, we admit our brokenness, an important first step towards healing our wounds."
And,
Klevin Holdsworth writes on his personal blog, "ACC-19 - The Anglican Consultative Council in Belfast".
Perhaps, following up Atherstone's point about "impaired communion" above, it is worth quoting what Holdsworth says on the same theme:
"A further reflection from me is that the idea of being in degrees of communion (or being in impaired communion) is one that needs a good deal more thinking about. I realised during my week in Belfast that it is a phrase that means very different things to different people. We don’t have the idea of being in impaired communion within the polity of the Scottish Episcopal Church. I learned last week that there are plenty of other churches that don’t have this idea within them either. However it is the very stuff that the Church of England is built from. One way of seeing the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals is to see them as somehow taking the deeply flawed (some would say heretical) theology that one can be in impaired communion within your own church and make it normative in the Anglican Communion. The Church of England may think it is acceptable to have dioceses in which bishops are not in full communion with their clergy or indeed with one another – it is quite another thing to get people who don’t have this idea to think that it is in any way a force for good. I’m glad that ACC-19 had no enthusiasm for this way of thinking. So far as I can see the words “being in impaired communion” within a church are little more than a euphemism for denying the legitimacy of ordained women. Many from around the Communion had not grasped that this is the reality of the Church of England.
As I reflect on these conversations, it is my hope that the Church of England will become more like the other churches of the Anglican Communion. That is a far better thing to hope for than that the Anglican Communion should become like the Church of England."
We should note - kind of a marker for a possible future - that I have seen comment since ACC-19 that the Global South movement is setting out a pathway for departure from the Communion (or rearrangement of the Communion?) which is considered and subtle (in contrast to the more abrupt manner of Gafcon).
Cue, perhaps, heading to the whole of Holdsworth's reflections which cover the wonderfulness of the Communion in all its diversity, breadth, growth meeting together with deep common identity and prayfulness.
12 comments:
Sorry, have deleted last post - just too long! Who has time to read liberal epistles!
I've had two different thoughts to to reading these articles and thinking about the "Great Search" for religious truth and community in the Western World today:
1. To hear and accept Holdsworth's comments of the goodness of the Anglican Church - face to face, on the ground, in its reality, frustrations, localness, contradictions and diversity. This seems one answer to my own yearnings for a better church - a pragmatic answer that highly values the ordinary relational bonds that comes from mixing with a diverse group of people while letting go of some of our higher ideals and deeper longings for change and religious truth.
2. The second is to wonder if denominations are obsolete now. Once upon a time, denominations stood for claims to religious truth - among other things.
But increasingly global Christianity has realigned/is in the process of realigning in ways that may make denominations quite obsolete.
Isn't that what GAFCON etc are straining to do? Wouldn't it be more honest to say this isn't a fight over what is Anglican but what it means to be a Christian and follow God at this point in our evolving global and spiritual history? And we have some truly divergent visions of that. It might be foolhardy to expect denominations to contain this great movement.
Hi Mark
I would not want to say that denominations are not obselete - history might prove me soundly wrong if I do so :).
There is also a variety of kinds of realignments going on in global Christianity, though there is much messiness: to give one example, if GAFCON is an aligning of "conservative Anglicans" and SSPX is an aligning of "conservative Catholics", I do not see any common cause being found between them. In that sense, denominations are far from obselete - they are multiplying :).
Nevertheless, I think it worth looking at realignments because there are alignments emerging in which many Christians are not prepared to go in "more" conservative directions, nor, for that matter, in "more" progressive directions ... and, just maybe, there is some common cause to be found in such alignment.
Nevertheless, there is lack of alignment between Christians who wish to be (say) moderate-and-prayerbook-liturgical and those who wish to be moderate-and-not-prayerboo-liturgical ...
Best,
Peter.
Yes, that's a good point: some conservative movements are deeply denominationally based. GAFCON and SPPX aren't breaking bread together anytime soon!
It's easier to see this in Protestant terms where many conservative "community" Presbyterian, Anglican, and Baptist churches espouse a similar, almost interchangeable reformed theology. This is often attractive to new Christians as it is grounded, developmentally, in earlier stages of faith. Organizationally, and in terms of their use of media, these churches often leave moderate and liberal ones for dead. They are very clear about their vision and purpose - being non-moderate! - and in a sense that makes for better marketing and group commitment/cohesion.
As a liberal, I'm not sure what "moderates" find "too progressive". Very often it seems to come down to the personality and skills of those leading the church whether to challenge a church community to think about how it talks about God, in terms of worship and hymns, or whether the leadership pulls back from such potentially energizing "reform" for fear of offending "moderates", which are often - to use the Book of Common Prayer's vocabulary - Christians of "a riper age".
But sometimes we imagine there will be opposition to reform when there is not.
I attended a prominent Anglo-Catholic Church with a friend on the weekend. His mother, a long standing, loyal parishioner, asked me if 8lI liked the service. I said I loved the beauty of the liturgy there, and how it appeals to all our major senses. I loved the sense of sacred tradition. It gives a liturgy such depth and connection with the past and the larger Body. But that I also struggled with so many aspects of its language - for example, referring to God in exclusively male language.
She replied: Tell me about it! I've had to put up with that all my life!
I think denominations are alive and well but their members are quite likely drawn from a number of different denominations via multiple paths, which muddles the statistics a bit. People probably find the denomination that suits their particular practice and stage of faith at different times of life.
I am also involved in several interdenominational groups with an evangelical focus, so I guess conservative in faith and practice, but which have a strong sense of unity. So I am definitely a low church Anglican!
I'm not sure that everyone would see denominations being "alive and well" in NZ, and the Western world! However, if we're not too caught up on *quantity*, here's an interesting reflection from a Church of England vicar on Thinking Anglicans:
"I’ve just done two baptisms today, one last week and one coming up next month. Far fewer than I did more than 25 years ago when I first became a vicar. But they feel more meaningful in that baptisms happen where there is real faith and participation in church life much more these days than when I was first ordained, when in some strata of society a ‘christening’ was a cultural expectation. There are pros and cons to all this. But more pros than cons in my estimation."
Oh I am not thinking of quantity! But most of the mainstream denominations have churches in many of the larger NZ towns, though of course, the Uniting churches are probably increasing.
I appreciate that vicar’s comment. As an ex-Baptist, it worried me to see parents and godparents making statements of faith and commitment that might not be genuine, though that was a judgement that I probably shouldn’t make… I do understand the grace of God being active in the baptism of a child whether or not the parents and godparents believe. The faith of the gathered congregation brings the Holy Spirit into the service.
Interestingly, I have attended an Anglican adult baptism in a river twice in the North Island. In the last two years, I have been at two Anglican adult baptisms in the sea here, complete with the liturgy.
Gosh, the House of Bishops in the Church of England's General Synod just voted down the following, um, realistic statement, after it was passed in the Houses of Clergy and Laity:
"That this Synod
a) affirm that all baptised, believing and faithful persons regardless of sexual orientation are full members of the Body of Christ;
b) delight in the lives and ministries of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church of England;
c) recognise a legitimate range of theological perspectives, held in good conscience, across the Church of England, on the right ordering of committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationships, and;
d) recognise that this includes views that affirm and views that reject the position that there are no fundamental objections to being in such a relationship and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship and ministry."
What on earth could be contentious in that wording?
It seems it might have been the word "legitimate" in (c) above: that bishops (or a very small majority of them) may have felt the Church's teaching - as codified in the canons of the Church - is the only form of "legitimacy", or trump's other views, and it would be too confusing to say there are legitimate views that are odds with the Church's current teaching, although that is by far and away the most accurate description of reality.
Somehow, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, NZ, and Polynesia were able to navigate this issue and admit there are "two integrities" without changing the canons (yet) with regard to marriage.
Another sad day for the C of E. This amendment was meant to be an affirming pastoral statement for rainbow Christians savaged by ongoing church failure to include them more equally in church life, as well as a clear statement of reality for where the C of E now is.
Oh, and some seemed to have a problem with the word "intimate", too. Throw one's hands up in exasperation emoji!
Oh, and some had problems with "LGBTQ..." etc etc being not representative enough as a term.
It seems this amended notion that failed suffered from having too many causes, thus inviting problems.
The original motion from Prof Helen King was briefer and more clear:
"That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.”
But it was amended to the more "pastoral " complex version for reasons I do not yet understand.
Hi Mark
I have just noticed this:
https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/helen-kings-motion-for-general-synod-outcome-and-assessment/
(which I askcnowledge is from a "conservative" CofE perspective.
Post a Comment