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.
25 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.
Re the Psephizo post shared by +Peter
Right at the end: "The experience of this last, short debate in this recent Synod is, however, a further pointer to the fact that if we do not face this question head-on and with honesty and theological rigour early in the new Synod then ... we are simply preparing for continued unresolvable conflict and pain in the next five years."
So guess what? It's another five years, isn't it? I mean, what have we seen to suggest otherwise? [big sigh from me]
However, there's also this which arrived in my Inbox while I was reading the above, this is an Anglican view on Christian disagreement - from Sri Lanka - by a priest who I started following on Substack while he was studying at the Sewanee university (TEC, Tennessee). I've found myself really enjoying his writing!
Can Christians Disagree Faithfully?
https://jurineszshadrach.substack.com/p/can-christians-disagree-faithfully
Oh YES, Elizabeth, thanks for this article. It points me to God, the Three in One, in whom we are all already united!
I think that truth, which I probably unconsciously recognised, is why I was so distressed when some bishops refused to take communion at the Lambeth Conference with those they disagreed with.
Bless him for this wisdom!
Thanks for the heart-warming response, Moya! You're very welcome.
Thanks Peter. Thanks Liz. Two papers from the conservative angle, hugely overwritten, with the indulgence of words and time, while elsewhere people bleed.
Hate crimes against rainbow and transexual people rising in the UK. More Christian African nations passing laws to persecute and imprison gay people, and those supporting them. In some cases, to execute them. Certainly fanning the fires of prejudice and violence - of murder and death.
The Holy Spirit moves patiently, slowly, says Rev Shadrach. No, the Spirit moves ahead of us, calling us forward. It's the human mind and soul that moves slowly.
Jesus doesn't say to the crowd who wants to stone the woman: let's wait until we are all united in agreement by the Spirit before we object to this stoning (which the law of the time required).
This is how the Church discerns truth says Rev Shadrach. But not on ethical issues that require immediate action. The Church didn't discern truth on slavery this way but through urgent, prophetic witness and impulse.
Many gay clergy and bishops in committed, faithful same sex relationships treated as cattle class. Many gay Christians as lifelong, committed Anglicans, as church wardens, choir directors, food bank coordinators treated as cattle class.
The Bishops of the Church of England unable to simply affirm that that there is a range of theological integrities in the church, currently, that all are made in the image of God, that we delight in the lives and ministries of rainbow Christians in the church - and with no other leadership that a negation of laity-driven initiatives.
It's appalling.
Hi Mark, I have real issues with the CofE and how that church has conducted itself. I think it has huge problems to do with power, status, politics, influence, cronyism and all sorts of ugly behaviour - so there seems to be something terribly wrong with its overall governance.
I stand by Rev Shadrach's essay, written from a very multicultural society, which has experienced plenty of problems. And I think this is key:
"This does not remove the responsibility to make decisions. The Church must eventually teach. She must eventually act. Yet how she arrives at those decisions is itself a matter of Christian witness. A Church that reaches the correct conclusion through contempt, caricature, or the refusal to listen bears a diminished witness to the Gospel. Conversely, a Church that listens deeply, prays faithfully, studies Scripture carefully, and seeks together the mind of Christ offers a powerful testimony, even where disagreement remains."
"For the world is watching not only what the Church decides."
"It is watching how the Church loves."
Moya speaks of distress. I have felt exactly the same about the same thing, and also in the years when I wasn't involved in church at all but saw an ongoing stream of newspaper headlines laying out various vitriolic religious confrontations over the issue of homosexuality - many of them Anglican or Episcopalian.
If Christians actually believed what Shadrach has laid out in the paragraph quoted, then there wouldn't be room for all this toxicity - toxicity that not only scandalizes the world but immensely distresses many of the faithful. If Christ is central to all of us and communion as the Body of Christ is our true desire, then all this contempt and aggression is not compatible with our faith. Christian character matters!
Just looking at another comment of yours above, Mark, I noticed "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,..." and it appears we're both homing in on there being important questions to be asked about church oversight and governance.
Don't think I've read either link in +Peter's original post so I've also got more reading to do! Best ~Liz
But I don't think it's primarily about how Christians treat each other when they disagree, Liz. It's about justice and care for people who are being unfairly treated and often hated and condemned.
Rainbow Christians in the church, and especially the Church of England, have for years been told 'we hear your suffering', 'we are sorry for your pain', while the people who say this continue to practice, perpetuate, and defend the culture, doctrines, and practices that cause such pain in the first place. They have been told: 'please be patient with the church and each other as we work this through' *for years and years and years*. At least three Archbishops of Canterbury have come, and two have gone (Welby and Williams), and nothing substantial has changed. The pain is institutionalized and many have now left the church, such as friends of mine have.
Things are slightly better in the Anglican Church here, but not a great deal. Committed, faithful same-sex couples are still barred from the sacrament of marriage - their relationships are judged as not being good enough, godly enough, if not out-right abhorrent and disgusting to others. Anglican churches every Sunday still trott out well-meaning prayers to love and welcome the stranger, while practicing deep hypocrisy in terms of how they treat their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
Even rugby teams, right wing political parties, and conservative rural community organizations are more advanced in their treatment of sexual diversity than the Christian Church. It is so shameful, painful, and wrong.
Thanks Mark, that's very helpful and I'll sit with it. Perhaps that sounds like avoidance but it's not... I'm feeling confused. Partly because the Church (in general terms) seems to have really botched this issue big-time - despite having so many learned and illustrious big-name leaders/thinkers. And it just seems to come down to each of us as individuals having to think it out for ourselves - and it's a big ask, especially when there's so much else going on in the world. For instance, I'm feeling anxious about ICE activity in the US, the horrendous treatment of detainees, and the US trying to partner with other countries to spread such activity even further.. so it's like, whatever is the world coming to?
Hey Mark.. just a P.S. to my last comment (not on ADU yet, as I write this). Just read an interesting post by a TEC priest recounting a coffee conversation with someone they'd previously met at a Pride parade and what they'd shared with that person.
"Right now, in this moment, the Church must speak with clarity and courage. We cannot afford to whisper the good news that every person is created in the image of God, beloved by God, and worthy of dignity."
https://revjillmorrison.substack.com/p/episcopal-101-why-do-episcopalians
Hi Mark
Whether we deem marriage to be a sacrament (some Anglicans, but without actual doctrinal authority) or a sacramental action (per ACANZP catechism), it is not a question of justice or injustice whether it is reasonable for Anglicans/any Christians to hold the view that marriage is about a permanent, lifelong, faithful, loving partnership between a man and a woman; whatever views they also hold on the sanctity of other permanent, lifelong, faithful loving partnerships; it is also reasonable, consequently, for an Anglican church (such as ours) to not make the push you seek the church to make re marriage and to do so on the basis of justice considerations alone. We may or may not get to where you would wish us to be, let alone to do so sooner rather than later, but I suggest there is a theological consideration, that is, the possibility that a man and a woman are sine qua non to the Christian conception of marriage, which is not to be set aside as readily as some in our church would wish it to be.
Peter, you know as well as I that hardly anyone the progressive side is saying this is a matter of “secular” justice, like free and fair access to dental care. That for decades Christians have been making the case that what is core to “marriage”, or to a committed, faithful relationship (that Christians wish to celebrate with the support and blessing of their church community, and in the presence of God) is love! Love as St Paul describes: kindness, patience, that rejoices in truth etc. Are we saying that same-sex relationships are incapable of such love? Are we saying that God does not delight in the love that is present in such relationships? That such relationships, like straight ones, immeasurably make each person’s lives so much better, and becomes a vehicle for God’s love to flow out further into the world?
And we also know that Christian “marriage” has changed and changed and changed again over the years, from polygamy (or, rather, polygyny) to an arrangement between two men (the fathers of the bride and groom) to a patriarchal relationship with men as “the head” as women as property to the modern, romantic, equalitarian sense of a man and a woman, and, in most parts of the western world, to a faithful, committed, equal relationship between two people who love each other, regardless of their race, sexuality etc. Marriage, including Christian marriage, is not set in stone. Has “changed’ numerous times, with the blessing and support of the church, for both good or ill. In the end, love wins. But not in our church, strangely, yet.
Hi Mark, "In the end, love wins."
Decisions around gender/sexuality in the Church are hugely complex, because any single decision is made within a much larger context - I mean we all know this, right?
There will be a point at which the line gets drawn, in any church, even in TEC which is so often castigated for how "progressive" they are.
I've just read an interesting post by a person who evidently was ordained through TEC but became too liberated even for TEC. Seems this writer anticipated that the process of "accommodation" would just keep loosening the rules and that they'd end up staying inside the church.
When making any decision on one aspect of "love", the whole context needs to be considered as well, I mean we don't want the church flip-flopping on such decisions!
The writer of the post is answering a TEC priest who commented on a previously published post by the same writer - and it's an interesting response to read, offered in a genuinely engaging way:
"You questioned how I can grieve the loss of my ordination and my church while also insisting on being myself, a queer, kinky, polyamorous woman."
https://kerlin.substack.com/p/dear-omar
In Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:1-12, his view on marriage goes back to Genesis and the man and woman becoming ‘one flesh’. I guess that is the deep theological basis for marriage being between a man and a woman, and not easy to contest.
But then his teaching on the sanctity of marriage with no divorce, prompts the disciples to say it might be better not to marry. Jesus replies with a statement to the effect that this commitment can be made only by those to whom it is given.
His statement in v12 talks in terms of eunuchs, which dear Father Ron quoted more than once in this sort of debate, which ends with ‘Let anyone accept this who can’ (NRSV). Maybe the Church needs to take more note of this leniency?
Hi Elizabeth and Moya,
Yes I do accept lines will be drawn in ethical and theological discussions about sexuality. Professor Helen King's recent private members motion (see wording above) in the C of E General Synod is a good example of where most progressives are seeking to redraw those "lines" - not, certainly, in terms of "everything goes". I accept that some relationship configurations are too outside the Christian tradition to warrant inclusion by the whole. But same sex relationships are not of that order IMHO. To the contrary, one couple I know of have been together for coming on forty years and model such devotion and thoughtful care of the other. From my own clinical and general experience (and possibly prejudice), I am not convinced that throuples or polyamorous relationships etc - as well as polygynous relationships, but what do I know - offer the ideal structure for faithful, committed, respectful intimacy.
As to marriage being about the union of a man and a woman, this remains the most likely scenario for *most* of us. But not all. More broadly, in seems to me to refer to the principle of complementarity and wholeness which certainly exists in same-sex relationships.
Post a Comment