"we’re all hoping, wishing, praying for a speedy recovery."
Being a Kiwi I recognise that Australia is a different country. Not only are their animals different to ours, so are their atheists.
Light touches of humour lace this post ...
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Even Atheists Pray?
Julia Gillard, current Australian Prime Minister, is an atheist, and under a bit of attack from archbishops (I understand she has not been sleeping well at nights because of the attacks, and was recently seen quaking in her boots when she saw two crosses like this "++"). But this does not mean she is not a praying person. Speaking about her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, and his dramatic rush to hospital for gall bladder treatment, Julia Gillard said,
Friday, July 30, 2010
Reconstruct the Anglican Communion and Stop the (Mal)adjustments
The recently completed AngComStCom meeting represents a number of things which are particularly poor about the Anglican Communion at the moment. Not least is a "making it up as we go" approach to membership of this potentially very, very important committee. The beginning of the meeting saw tinkering with the constitution of its membership (while the potential new member to be admitted waited outside). Then the meeting signalled desire for further change, but recognised that in this instance even it could not authorise change itself, and so ACC-Kiwi in 2012 will consider the proposal. Adjustment or maladjustment?
Fortunately Archbishop Rowan Williams, who else, has the brains, vision, and voice to recognise that the tinkering needs to stop and a root-and-branch review of Communion structures for the 21st century is required, as reported by George Conger:
"As he has done before, Archbishop Williams questioned whether the Communion’s structures are adequate for the 21st century. He pressed for further review, “So when it comes to looking at the complex questions of the Communion we have a better foundation upon which to build.”"
To help Dear Leader along, I offer the following plan for reconstruction. Broad picture stuff, of course, with many details to be worked out!
A starting and finishing point for this reconstruction begins with observing that in a couple of days Bishop Winston Halapua (currently a bishop of the Diocese of Polynesia, resident in Auckland, where he has also been principal of the College of Polynesia within the College of St John the Evangelist) will be installed as Archbishop of Polynesia, resident in Suva, and responsible for this oceanic diocese which includes Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, and congregations in New Zealand (principally Auckland city). In setting out his task Winston has said this brilliant and easily memorable vision, reported in Taonga, and noticed faraway by Preludium:
"The mission,” he said, “is simply to preach the Gospel, to teach the Gospel, to live the Gospel – and to pass it on."
A new Communion needs to be an appropriate expression of the ekklesia of God for preaching the gospel, teaching the gospel, living the gospel and pass it on. Understanding this is very important, and highlights the need for a Communion which shares a common understanding of what the gospel is. Our future Communion needs to be a 'Common union'. At the moment it has more the feel of a 'Disunited Diversity'!
From this starting point I suggest that the Communion of the 21st century needs structures that 'guard the gospel' in the sense of continually articulating the gospel of Jesus Christ which binds us together and propels Anglican mission forwards, and, where necessary, clearly maintains unity-in-the-gospel through procedures of discipline (i.e. of teaching what the gospel is, and is not).
Yet this is an Anglican Communion we are talking about, and new structures cannot, by definition, involve a 'pope', nor an understanding of the gospel which is narrowly construed on one and only one theological line. New structures, to avoid papalism, and to enhance reasonable, traditional, Scriptural diversity, will necessarily be conciliar, that is, involve councils.
We have some councils already, such as Lambeth and ACC, and, perhaps even the Primates Meeting could be called a council. But they are muddled in their structural relationship to each other, and they lack power because any time a resolution or similar is passed which people do not like, the cry goes up 'but council X has no authority in our realm'! A new Communion, if it is to have meaning as a new Communion will necessarily involve less autonomy for its member churches, and greater authority for its councils. Otherwise we may as well continue as we are.
But there is a theological argument to be considered here, against contentions of the overriding importance of autonomy. Is the Anglican Communion an expression of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of God', a branch, as some hold, of the global church for which other great branches are the Roman and Eastern churches? If it is such an expression, can it meaningfully claim to be 'one' when autonomy counts against common life across the globe? Further, can it meaningfully think of itself as a 'branch' when it entertains possibilities for its understanding of ministry which drive it further away from the other branches, rather than closer together? To be an expression of God's 'one' church, it necessarily needs to be open to greater oneness, to union with other expressions of God's 'one' church, rather than consistently inhibited in both its own unity to say nothing of greater unity with others by propensity to be governed by the value of 'autonomy'.
Cutting to the chase, I would like to see a new 21st century Anglican Communion of member churches from around the whole world, east and west, north and south, binding themselves together as a church of three orders, one common eucharist*, concurring with the ancient church that baptism is admittance to the eucharist, sharing a common lectionary with at least the Roman church, built upon a gospel of salvation from sin in which Christ's death on the cross is the one perfect sacrifice offered once and for all time.
The one point of difference with Rome and Constantinople I would not give away is the ordination of women to the three orders (and I think there is a theological case for this point of difference not being a complete barrier to future unity).
For this global Communion to hold together in contrast to its current spinning apart I suggest the following conciliar structure based on a starting point in which those who wish to belong to the new Communion both agree to a common doctrinal foundation for the Communion, and to this structure and its authority. That is, the role of the new conciliar structure would be to uphold what has been agreed, and to consider proposals for future variation to faith and order.
(1) The Archbishop of Canterbury remains convening bishop for the common life of the Communion, reinforcing the historical base of Anglican life, as that beginning with the Church of England, and before that with the ancient church of the British isles.
(2) The supreme council of the church is the regular gathering of its bishops, i.e. 'the Lambeth Conference', and this council has authority over the common life of the Communion, including admitting new member churches (and, concomitantly, suspending or expelling errant members). To this council, bishops 'bring their dioceses', so the chief route of the voices of clergy and laity are via diocesan synods and general synods of member churches (who should elect bishops who will represent them well, and not elect mavericks or heretics!)
(3) A new feature of conciliar life would be regional councils of bishops held at least once between supreme councils of bishops. These regional councils would play at least this decisive role in global Anglican faith and order: no resolution affecting faith and order would be proposed at the supreme council unless it was proposed by a regional council. (An important detail to be worked out here would be whether some or all matters of faith and order resolved at a supreme council needed to be ratified by regional councils).
That should sort out the gold from the dross, and prevent even a supreme council from being carried away in the emotion of the moment.
I would suggest regions that incorporated diversity such as 'Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa', 'North America, South America, the Caribbean, and North Pacific', 'Central, West and Southern Africa, and West Asia', and 'South-East Asia, and South Pacific'. Actually, even better would be placing TEC, Nigeria, and Uganda in one region. If they could agree on something, it could really fly :)
(4) The 'standing committee' or 'executive council' of the new Communion, meeting on a regular basis between supreme councils of bishops, would be the Primates meeting together. (Member churches: through your general synods of bishops, clergy, and laity choose your primates well, because they will be representing all of you!)
(5) The councils would need to have a unified constitutional basis for operating, be supported by an efficient 'Anglican Communion Office', paid for by all member churches contributing (and not beholden to any one source of finance), and have power to appoint appropriate advisory bodies such as theological and liturgical commissions.
All of this, remember, is for the sake of the mission of God which is, "to preach the Gospel, to teach the Gospel, to live the Gospel – and to pass it on."
*A common eucharist: would it be that difficult to agree to a common eucharist that we could pray together? There could be other eucharists authorised for use (e.g. by continuing currently authorised ones), but would it not be wonderful to have a common Anglican eucharist for the 21st century? Without any bias on my part - of course not! - I suggest the eucharist on page 404 of A New Zealand Prayer Book as a starting draft for such a common eucharist ...
Postscript: any Anglican who says that if we had had this structure in place in the 20th century then X, Y, or Z would not have happened will be summarily excommunicated :) Other arguments against this structure will, however,be considered on their merits!
Fortunately Archbishop Rowan Williams, who else, has the brains, vision, and voice to recognise that the tinkering needs to stop and a root-and-branch review of Communion structures for the 21st century is required, as reported by George Conger:
"As he has done before, Archbishop Williams questioned whether the Communion’s structures are adequate for the 21st century. He pressed for further review, “So when it comes to looking at the complex questions of the Communion we have a better foundation upon which to build.”"
To help Dear Leader along, I offer the following plan for reconstruction. Broad picture stuff, of course, with many details to be worked out!
A starting and finishing point for this reconstruction begins with observing that in a couple of days Bishop Winston Halapua (currently a bishop of the Diocese of Polynesia, resident in Auckland, where he has also been principal of the College of Polynesia within the College of St John the Evangelist) will be installed as Archbishop of Polynesia, resident in Suva, and responsible for this oceanic diocese which includes Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, and congregations in New Zealand (principally Auckland city). In setting out his task Winston has said this brilliant and easily memorable vision, reported in Taonga, and noticed faraway by Preludium:
"The mission,” he said, “is simply to preach the Gospel, to teach the Gospel, to live the Gospel – and to pass it on."
A new Communion needs to be an appropriate expression of the ekklesia of God for preaching the gospel, teaching the gospel, living the gospel and pass it on. Understanding this is very important, and highlights the need for a Communion which shares a common understanding of what the gospel is. Our future Communion needs to be a 'Common union'. At the moment it has more the feel of a 'Disunited Diversity'!
From this starting point I suggest that the Communion of the 21st century needs structures that 'guard the gospel' in the sense of continually articulating the gospel of Jesus Christ which binds us together and propels Anglican mission forwards, and, where necessary, clearly maintains unity-in-the-gospel through procedures of discipline (i.e. of teaching what the gospel is, and is not).
Yet this is an Anglican Communion we are talking about, and new structures cannot, by definition, involve a 'pope', nor an understanding of the gospel which is narrowly construed on one and only one theological line. New structures, to avoid papalism, and to enhance reasonable, traditional, Scriptural diversity, will necessarily be conciliar, that is, involve councils.
We have some councils already, such as Lambeth and ACC, and, perhaps even the Primates Meeting could be called a council. But they are muddled in their structural relationship to each other, and they lack power because any time a resolution or similar is passed which people do not like, the cry goes up 'but council X has no authority in our realm'! A new Communion, if it is to have meaning as a new Communion will necessarily involve less autonomy for its member churches, and greater authority for its councils. Otherwise we may as well continue as we are.
But there is a theological argument to be considered here, against contentions of the overriding importance of autonomy. Is the Anglican Communion an expression of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of God', a branch, as some hold, of the global church for which other great branches are the Roman and Eastern churches? If it is such an expression, can it meaningfully claim to be 'one' when autonomy counts against common life across the globe? Further, can it meaningfully think of itself as a 'branch' when it entertains possibilities for its understanding of ministry which drive it further away from the other branches, rather than closer together? To be an expression of God's 'one' church, it necessarily needs to be open to greater oneness, to union with other expressions of God's 'one' church, rather than consistently inhibited in both its own unity to say nothing of greater unity with others by propensity to be governed by the value of 'autonomy'.
Cutting to the chase, I would like to see a new 21st century Anglican Communion of member churches from around the whole world, east and west, north and south, binding themselves together as a church of three orders, one common eucharist*, concurring with the ancient church that baptism is admittance to the eucharist, sharing a common lectionary with at least the Roman church, built upon a gospel of salvation from sin in which Christ's death on the cross is the one perfect sacrifice offered once and for all time.
The one point of difference with Rome and Constantinople I would not give away is the ordination of women to the three orders (and I think there is a theological case for this point of difference not being a complete barrier to future unity).
For this global Communion to hold together in contrast to its current spinning apart I suggest the following conciliar structure based on a starting point in which those who wish to belong to the new Communion both agree to a common doctrinal foundation for the Communion, and to this structure and its authority. That is, the role of the new conciliar structure would be to uphold what has been agreed, and to consider proposals for future variation to faith and order.
(1) The Archbishop of Canterbury remains convening bishop for the common life of the Communion, reinforcing the historical base of Anglican life, as that beginning with the Church of England, and before that with the ancient church of the British isles.
(2) The supreme council of the church is the regular gathering of its bishops, i.e. 'the Lambeth Conference', and this council has authority over the common life of the Communion, including admitting new member churches (and, concomitantly, suspending or expelling errant members). To this council, bishops 'bring their dioceses', so the chief route of the voices of clergy and laity are via diocesan synods and general synods of member churches (who should elect bishops who will represent them well, and not elect mavericks or heretics!)
(3) A new feature of conciliar life would be regional councils of bishops held at least once between supreme councils of bishops. These regional councils would play at least this decisive role in global Anglican faith and order: no resolution affecting faith and order would be proposed at the supreme council unless it was proposed by a regional council. (An important detail to be worked out here would be whether some or all matters of faith and order resolved at a supreme council needed to be ratified by regional councils).
That should sort out the gold from the dross, and prevent even a supreme council from being carried away in the emotion of the moment.
I would suggest regions that incorporated diversity such as 'Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa', 'North America, South America, the Caribbean, and North Pacific', 'Central, West and Southern Africa, and West Asia', and 'South-East Asia, and South Pacific'. Actually, even better would be placing TEC, Nigeria, and Uganda in one region. If they could agree on something, it could really fly :)
(4) The 'standing committee' or 'executive council' of the new Communion, meeting on a regular basis between supreme councils of bishops, would be the Primates meeting together. (Member churches: through your general synods of bishops, clergy, and laity choose your primates well, because they will be representing all of you!)
(5) The councils would need to have a unified constitutional basis for operating, be supported by an efficient 'Anglican Communion Office', paid for by all member churches contributing (and not beholden to any one source of finance), and have power to appoint appropriate advisory bodies such as theological and liturgical commissions.
All of this, remember, is for the sake of the mission of God which is, "to preach the Gospel, to teach the Gospel, to live the Gospel – and to pass it on."
*A common eucharist: would it be that difficult to agree to a common eucharist that we could pray together? There could be other eucharists authorised for use (e.g. by continuing currently authorised ones), but would it not be wonderful to have a common Anglican eucharist for the 21st century? Without any bias on my part - of course not! - I suggest the eucharist on page 404 of A New Zealand Prayer Book as a starting draft for such a common eucharist ...
Postscript: any Anglican who says that if we had had this structure in place in the 20th century then X, Y, or Z would not have happened will be summarily excommunicated :) Other arguments against this structure will, however,be considered on their merits!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Standing Committee Regrets Consecrations of Robinson and Glasspool
Some of the news from the AngComStCmt meeting of special interest to this blog:
"Progress of the Covenant
Some news of special interest to me and my current role:
"Theological Education in the Anglican Communion
Two major pieces of work for the Working Party on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion over the coming year will be an international consultation for theological college Principals, and the production of a web-based course on Anglicanism. The Principals consultation is aimed particularly at Principals who work in isolated situations. It plans to offer encouragement, support, and sharing of insights about curricula and the spirituality of ministerial formation. The web-based course on Anglicanism will be based on the already available 'Signposts statement' (a concise expression of 'The Anglican Way' published by TEAC in 2007) Members of the Standing Committee acknowledged the importance of theological education in helping to share the life and well-being of the Communion."
Then some more news about covenant/moratoria/governance of the Communion:
"Further discussion on moratoria breach
Um. Wonder what the voting was on that resolution. Did +Douglas and Fitchett, both vocally identifying themselves as representing ACC, not their own provinces, vote for a motion which expressed regret for the consecrations of +Gene Robinson and +Mary Glasspool? (Yes, the motion included other things, including other moratoria, but read these words carefully, "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion." One of those moratoria is the consecration of bishops in same-sex partnerships. Ergo ...).
Still good to see that the Standing Committee, even in its present diminished form, can vote for a motion mildly (but inconsequentially) critical of TEC.
(I remain curious about the logic involved in +Ian Douglas' prominent role on the Standing Committee. Consider this: another breach of the moratoria concerns blessing of same-sex partnerships. These occur in the Diocese of Connecticutt (I recall reading at the time of +Douglas' consecration). In theory the following may have happened, consistent with +Douglas' words reported above: outside of his diocese +Douglas supports a motion critical of breaches of the moratoria in his capacity and commitment as a representative of the ACC, while inside his diocese and member church he supports breaches of the moratoria. If so, there is some interesting logic at play. And if +Douglas voted against the motion, consistent with the situation inside his diocese and member church, the question continues to be underlined for me about the logic of a system of representation within the Communion which includes moratoria-breaching persons on such an august committee, when they are excluded from other august bodies!)
In sum, and to try to clarify my underlying argument through this and yesterday's posts: the governance of the Anglican Communion is being exposed in our generation as at best muddly (note the way the "Standing Committee" here throws certain responsibilities to other bodies) and at worst absurd (as measured by sound organisational practice); there is significant inconsistency at work in the structure of the Communion when certain actions lead to suspension of reps of one member church from some but not all important councils/committees; it is painful to find that instigators of divisive actions seemingly have more say in the running of the Communion than those trying to represent the mind and mood of the majority of the Communion; and it is likely that lack of action on the inadequacies of the current situation will (a) further deepen the rifts in the Communion as presently organised, and (b) lead to new forms of Anglican networking and cooperation outside of, and beyond the control of the present Instruments of Unity.
In sporting parlance, we are in the process of scoring an own goal against ourselves.
If I had my way (!!) I would begin the Communion again.
"Progress of the Covenant
Canon Barnett-Cowan reported that the Anglican Church of Mexico was the first Province to adopt the Covenant. Other Provinces had reported on the process they had adopted and there was much appreciation for the depth of seriousness with which the Covenant was being considered.
There was a further discussion about the role of the Standing Committee with respect to the Covenant which noted that the decision-making bodies with respect to the Covenant were the Instruments of the Communion.
Legal advice on the Covenant
Following a request from the Province of Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia the Committee received legal advice from the ACC's legal adviser Revd Canon John Rees on the scope of Clause 4.2.8 of the Covenant and then requested that it be sent to the General Secretary of The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia." (Full day's report here).Some news of special interest to me and my current role:
"Theological Education in the Anglican Communion
Two major pieces of work for the Working Party on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion over the coming year will be an international consultation for theological college Principals, and the production of a web-based course on Anglicanism. The Principals consultation is aimed particularly at Principals who work in isolated situations. It plans to offer encouragement, support, and sharing of insights about curricula and the spirituality of ministerial formation. The web-based course on Anglicanism will be based on the already available 'Signposts statement' (a concise expression of 'The Anglican Way' published by TEAC in 2007) Members of the Standing Committee acknowledged the importance of theological education in helping to share the life and well-being of the Communion."
Then some more news about covenant/moratoria/governance of the Communion:
"Further discussion on moratoria breach
As agreed, the Committee revisited Saturday's discussion. Dato' Stanley Isaacs delivered a frank and passionate presentation about the distress felt by some parts of the Communion about The Episcopal Church's decision to breach one of the moratoria. He concluded by proposing that rights to participate in discussions of matters of faith and order at the Standing Committee and the ACC be withdrawn from The Episcopal Church.
In the subsequent discussion Archbishop Philip Aspinall reiterated that the Standing Committee did not have the power to undertake such an action. He reminded the Committee that the Covenant had been drawn up to address just these kinds of points of disagreement. It was also stated that the Standing Committee did not have all the powers of the ACC, especially when it came to the Membership Schedule.
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori questioned why the proposal was singling out The Episcopal Church. Bishop Ian Douglas stressed he was present in his role as an elected representative of the ACC, not a member of The Episcopal Church and he desired to always be responsible to the Council. He thanked Dato' Stanley Isaacs for attending the Standing Committee meeting despite his [Isaacs'] feelings about recent events in the Communion. He said that having other elected representatives present who represented a genuine segment of the ACC helped him [Bp Douglas] to be a better member. He added that he missed having Bp Azad's voice at the meeting.
Dr Tony Fitchett agreed that the Committee needed as full a range of views as possible. "I'm conscious I'm not here representing my province," he said. "I'm here because I was appointed by the ACC. My accountability is not to my Province. I expect to continue to serve on the [Standing Committee] even if my Province were ever to be unacceptable to other churches because of its actions."
After what Canon Elizabeth Paver described as "the time, prayer and space necessary for everyone to be heard on this matter" the Standing Committee agreed a resolution that it: "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion; regrets the consequential resignations of members of the Standing Committee which diminish our common life and work on behalf of the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; recognises that the ACC and the Primates' Meeting are the appropriate bodies to consider these matters further."" [Full day's report here].Um. Wonder what the voting was on that resolution. Did +Douglas and Fitchett, both vocally identifying themselves as representing ACC, not their own provinces, vote for a motion which expressed regret for the consecrations of +Gene Robinson and +Mary Glasspool? (Yes, the motion included other things, including other moratoria, but read these words carefully, "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion." One of those moratoria is the consecration of bishops in same-sex partnerships. Ergo ...).
Still good to see that the Standing Committee, even in its present diminished form, can vote for a motion mildly (but inconsequentially) critical of TEC.
(I remain curious about the logic involved in +Ian Douglas' prominent role on the Standing Committee. Consider this: another breach of the moratoria concerns blessing of same-sex partnerships. These occur in the Diocese of Connecticutt (I recall reading at the time of +Douglas' consecration). In theory the following may have happened, consistent with +Douglas' words reported above: outside of his diocese +Douglas supports a motion critical of breaches of the moratoria in his capacity and commitment as a representative of the ACC, while inside his diocese and member church he supports breaches of the moratoria. If so, there is some interesting logic at play. And if +Douglas voted against the motion, consistent with the situation inside his diocese and member church, the question continues to be underlined for me about the logic of a system of representation within the Communion which includes moratoria-breaching persons on such an august committee, when they are excluded from other august bodies!)
In sum, and to try to clarify my underlying argument through this and yesterday's posts: the governance of the Anglican Communion is being exposed in our generation as at best muddly (note the way the "Standing Committee" here throws certain responsibilities to other bodies) and at worst absurd (as measured by sound organisational practice); there is significant inconsistency at work in the structure of the Communion when certain actions lead to suspension of reps of one member church from some but not all important councils/committees; it is painful to find that instigators of divisive actions seemingly have more say in the running of the Communion than those trying to represent the mind and mood of the majority of the Communion; and it is likely that lack of action on the inadequacies of the current situation will (a) further deepen the rifts in the Communion as presently organised, and (b) lead to new forms of Anglican networking and cooperation outside of, and beyond the control of the present Instruments of Unity.
In sporting parlance, we are in the process of scoring an own goal against ourselves.
If I had my way (!!) I would begin the Communion again.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Spinning like a top
""We felt as a group that we were less whole, less representative of the church catholic in all of its many perspectives by the loss of those who have chosen to resign," Douglas said. "While it wasn't always easy for me as a person from the Episcopal Church to hear our brothers' concerns and observations about our life, the fact that they weren't at the meeting diminished us."
The committee agreed that its response to those who'd resigned "would express regret that their voices would be missed and that the committee's work was diminished when it lacked a range of opinion as well as full representation.""
From ENS' report on the winding up of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Read the whole report here.
Let us get this straight: the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic' because it has failed to get on top of the difficulty created by one of its significant (in money, power, loquaciousness) member churches undertaking a strategic course of action which is not representative of the 'church catholic'. It has so failed to get on top of the difficulty that one of its leading committees - the Standing Committee, no less - has lost members from it through resignation. One of them, in the same ENS article is reported thus:
"East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has "no value whatsoever" and that his voice is "like a useless cry in the wilderness.""
Unfortunate though those resignations are, they are not the primary reason why the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic.' The primary reasons lie further back: in the Communion's inadequate and tardy response to the strategic direction TEC has pursued in respect of its gay and lesbian members, to say nothing of the strategic direction itself. (Remember: if that strategic direction had not stretched to include ordaining partnered same sex persons to the episcopacy, we would not be in the situation we are in today!)
The spin here, by +Ian Douglas, is that all would be well if only the resignations had not occurred. But on the reason for the resignations he says nothing.
But there is another spin here. The impression is conveyed that the Communion is in a state of 'diminishment' rather than 'division.' If the SC really thinks we are just a bit diminished at the moment; that the effective loss of Nigeria, Uganda, and the like (including the many parishes in North America they have offered support to), amounts to 'diminishment' and not 'division', then we are not being well served by this committee. At least not as the true global Anglican Communion we could be.
It sounds like we are shrinking downwards to a moderate, middling, mediocre Communion which cannot stomach its more conservative member churches, which prefers to march to the beat of one social democratic cultural drum rather than a multi-cultural one, and which occasionally gets a razz from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but otherwise is really led by the spinmeisters. Is the "official Anglican Communion" really in American hands? Reading elsewhere in the ENS report one could be excused, I think, for concluding that the Millenium Development Goals are now the gospel of the "official Anglican Communion."
Except I do not think that is the whole story. Douglas and co can spin these things like a top, but a whole lot of Anglicans are not for turning. Keep spinning this way, Standing Committee & co, and the "official Anglican Communion" will spiral off into irrelevance to the majority of Anglicans.
Neither truth nor reality can be suppressed ... or spun to be what they are not.
Incidentally, can anyone find in reports of the meeting anything remotely forwarding the adoption of the Covenant?
It should not be surprising if the answer is negative. Some of the leading opponents of the Covenant are on this committee!
Then a final question to end with: if the continuing, active, voting presence of members of TEC is suspended from certain important Communion bodies at this time, why not from all the important bodies?
I know the answer is that the ABC had power to do so for those bodies but not for this one. But the point is that our Communion's rules (such as they are) are stupendously inadequate: suspension should be from all bodies of important, not some.
The Communion has no single set of rules governing all aspects of its governance and management.
The committee agreed that its response to those who'd resigned "would express regret that their voices would be missed and that the committee's work was diminished when it lacked a range of opinion as well as full representation.""
From ENS' report on the winding up of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Read the whole report here.
Let us get this straight: the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic' because it has failed to get on top of the difficulty created by one of its significant (in money, power, loquaciousness) member churches undertaking a strategic course of action which is not representative of the 'church catholic'. It has so failed to get on top of the difficulty that one of its leading committees - the Standing Committee, no less - has lost members from it through resignation. One of them, in the same ENS article is reported thus:
"East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has "no value whatsoever" and that his voice is "like a useless cry in the wilderness.""
Unfortunate though those resignations are, they are not the primary reason why the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion is 'less whole, less representative of the church catholic.' The primary reasons lie further back: in the Communion's inadequate and tardy response to the strategic direction TEC has pursued in respect of its gay and lesbian members, to say nothing of the strategic direction itself. (Remember: if that strategic direction had not stretched to include ordaining partnered same sex persons to the episcopacy, we would not be in the situation we are in today!)
The spin here, by +Ian Douglas, is that all would be well if only the resignations had not occurred. But on the reason for the resignations he says nothing.
But there is another spin here. The impression is conveyed that the Communion is in a state of 'diminishment' rather than 'division.' If the SC really thinks we are just a bit diminished at the moment; that the effective loss of Nigeria, Uganda, and the like (including the many parishes in North America they have offered support to), amounts to 'diminishment' and not 'division', then we are not being well served by this committee. At least not as the true global Anglican Communion we could be.
It sounds like we are shrinking downwards to a moderate, middling, mediocre Communion which cannot stomach its more conservative member churches, which prefers to march to the beat of one social democratic cultural drum rather than a multi-cultural one, and which occasionally gets a razz from the Archbishop of Canterbury, but otherwise is really led by the spinmeisters. Is the "official Anglican Communion" really in American hands? Reading elsewhere in the ENS report one could be excused, I think, for concluding that the Millenium Development Goals are now the gospel of the "official Anglican Communion."
Except I do not think that is the whole story. Douglas and co can spin these things like a top, but a whole lot of Anglicans are not for turning. Keep spinning this way, Standing Committee & co, and the "official Anglican Communion" will spiral off into irrelevance to the majority of Anglicans.
Neither truth nor reality can be suppressed ... or spun to be what they are not.
Incidentally, can anyone find in reports of the meeting anything remotely forwarding the adoption of the Covenant?
It should not be surprising if the answer is negative. Some of the leading opponents of the Covenant are on this committee!
Then a final question to end with: if the continuing, active, voting presence of members of TEC is suspended from certain important Communion bodies at this time, why not from all the important bodies?
I know the answer is that the ABC had power to do so for those bodies but not for this one. But the point is that our Communion's rules (such as they are) are stupendously inadequate: suspension should be from all bodies of important, not some.
The Communion has no single set of rules governing all aspects of its governance and management.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
My enemy's enemy is my friend?
Both Anglican Curmudgeon and Preludium find quarrel with where the Anglican Communion Standing Committee is heading re new representation. In the course of reading their posts you might get a sense of what this august body is up to, even though it is only July. Then again you might not.
In other, and Down Under relevant news, we can read from the ACO site:
"ACC-15
Canon Kearon then reported that during his visit to New Zealand earlier this year he had met with an informal group about the planning of ACC-15. Bishop John Paterson has been selected to Chair an official planning group and the venue has been selected as Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland. The group also identified the strong mission theme of ACC-14 as something they would like to continue."
I think this meeting will be in May, 2012.
Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland is a lovely venue for a conference. Auckland city itself is a multicultural, polyglot of a city. And it has multiple Anglican jurisdictions at work in it :)
In other, and Down Under relevant news, we can read from the ACO site:
"ACC-15
Canon Kearon then reported that during his visit to New Zealand earlier this year he had met with an informal group about the planning of ACC-15. Bishop John Paterson has been selected to Chair an official planning group and the venue has been selected as Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland. The group also identified the strong mission theme of ACC-14 as something they would like to continue."
I think this meeting will be in May, 2012.
Holy Trinity Cathedral in Auckland is a lovely venue for a conference. Auckland city itself is a multicultural, polyglot of a city. And it has multiple Anglican jurisdictions at work in it :)
Sunday, July 25, 2010
It is not looking like there is a conservative evangelical is on the AngCom SC
At least, that is the way I am reading this analysis from Anglican Curmudgeon posted here. Curmudgeon is interested in a range of matters concerning the composition of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. In various ways it is looking quite unbalanced.
Some may say that is because various people have resigned who should have stayed around.
Perhaps.
Why did they resign?
How come TEC has so many bishops on this important committee?
Well, not to worry too much: if they misplay their cards in the game they are playing, there will be consequences.
And a committee to blame!
Some may say that is because various people have resigned who should have stayed around.
Perhaps.
Why did they resign?
How come TEC has so many bishops on this important committee?
Well, not to worry too much: if they misplay their cards in the game they are playing, there will be consequences.
And a committee to blame!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
What is Valid Validity?
A post or two below I had a crack at some words on 'Anglican validity' and a very interesting series of comments has ensued which has got me thinking about this word 'validity'. In connection with the eucharist of course, not my stamp collection. (Actually, the latter is non-existent).
I wonder if we use the same word in different ways and thus making some distinctions could be helpful.
Here are some ways I think may have been touched on in the comments below:
(1) Denominational validity: there are these rules pertaining to the ordering of eucharistic ministry. Sure they reflect great theological insights and powerful Scriptural injunctions and examples, but their sharp edges are provided by the denomination. Thus we Anglicans can entertain thoughts like 'a Methodist celebrating a Methodist eucharist in an Anglican church is offering a valid eucharist, but a Methodist (not having been ordained by a bishop) offering an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church is offering an invalid eucharist.' The measurement of 'validity' at this point is 'our rules'. And, I do not think we are saying such a eucharist is theologically invalid (or, if you like, invalid from God's perspective). I suppose 'invalid' here has a strong sense of 'illegal.' Yet the rules are not rules for rules sake: the rules of denominations re eucharist reflect particular theologies of church, ministry, liturgy as well as eucharist.
(2) Transformational validity: there is a view that something happens to the bread and the wine when the eucharist is held, according to order, presided over by a correctly ordered person (so Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and (perhaps depending who one is talking to) Presbyterians), and, depending precisely on the view held, those holding to the view accept a variety of denominational eucharists as valid, and a potential variety of correctly ordered persons presiding over the eucharist as being okay; and even where we do not think some things are correct we can respect the transformational intention of such churches. But the one thing many holding this view are united on is that a non-transformational intention (e.g. to steadfastly view the bread and the wine as nothing more or less than tokens or emblems) results in an invalid eucharist. Thus most Anglicans (so I understand) view Roman and Eastern Orthodox eucharists/masses/divine liturgy as valid eucharists (the exceptions could be certain evangelical Anglicans); and would see no need for a further ordination to take place of a Roman priest or E.Orthodox priest who (if we can imagine it) was willing to preside over an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church. I understand Romans to view E. Orthodox divine liturgies as valid eucharists, but hold Anglican eucharists to be invalid ... yet I think they respect our eucharists in a way in which they do not (say) a Baptist or Brethren eucharist. It is on this sense of 'validity' that an Anglican might say that a Brethren or Baptist eucharist is invalid.
(3) Scriptural validity: all Christians undertaking eucharistic ministry aim to be faithful to the words of Scripture, both the narratival material concerning the last supper of Jesus, and the instructions of Jesus, reinforced in Paul's teaching. What Christians believe happens, or does not happen in respect of transformation of the bread and wine, and whether or not certain words are said as received by the church through tradition (such as the words known as the epiclesis or calling down of the Spirit), where Christians are faithful to Scripture in their enactment of eucharist, in this perspective, a valid eucharist is performed. Thus, as an Anglican, if I am a participant in a Baptist eucharist or a Brethren eucharist, I think I have been present at a valid eucharist. (I might also find it unsatisfactory in a number of respects and choose not to make it the form of eucharist I regularly attend).
Thoughts?
I wonder if we use the same word in different ways and thus making some distinctions could be helpful.
Here are some ways I think may have been touched on in the comments below:
(1) Denominational validity: there are these rules pertaining to the ordering of eucharistic ministry. Sure they reflect great theological insights and powerful Scriptural injunctions and examples, but their sharp edges are provided by the denomination. Thus we Anglicans can entertain thoughts like 'a Methodist celebrating a Methodist eucharist in an Anglican church is offering a valid eucharist, but a Methodist (not having been ordained by a bishop) offering an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church is offering an invalid eucharist.' The measurement of 'validity' at this point is 'our rules'. And, I do not think we are saying such a eucharist is theologically invalid (or, if you like, invalid from God's perspective). I suppose 'invalid' here has a strong sense of 'illegal.' Yet the rules are not rules for rules sake: the rules of denominations re eucharist reflect particular theologies of church, ministry, liturgy as well as eucharist.
(2) Transformational validity: there is a view that something happens to the bread and the wine when the eucharist is held, according to order, presided over by a correctly ordered person (so Anglicans, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and (perhaps depending who one is talking to) Presbyterians), and, depending precisely on the view held, those holding to the view accept a variety of denominational eucharists as valid, and a potential variety of correctly ordered persons presiding over the eucharist as being okay; and even where we do not think some things are correct we can respect the transformational intention of such churches. But the one thing many holding this view are united on is that a non-transformational intention (e.g. to steadfastly view the bread and the wine as nothing more or less than tokens or emblems) results in an invalid eucharist. Thus most Anglicans (so I understand) view Roman and Eastern Orthodox eucharists/masses/divine liturgy as valid eucharists (the exceptions could be certain evangelical Anglicans); and would see no need for a further ordination to take place of a Roman priest or E.Orthodox priest who (if we can imagine it) was willing to preside over an Anglican eucharist in an Anglican church. I understand Romans to view E. Orthodox divine liturgies as valid eucharists, but hold Anglican eucharists to be invalid ... yet I think they respect our eucharists in a way in which they do not (say) a Baptist or Brethren eucharist. It is on this sense of 'validity' that an Anglican might say that a Brethren or Baptist eucharist is invalid.
(3) Scriptural validity: all Christians undertaking eucharistic ministry aim to be faithful to the words of Scripture, both the narratival material concerning the last supper of Jesus, and the instructions of Jesus, reinforced in Paul's teaching. What Christians believe happens, or does not happen in respect of transformation of the bread and wine, and whether or not certain words are said as received by the church through tradition (such as the words known as the epiclesis or calling down of the Spirit), where Christians are faithful to Scripture in their enactment of eucharist, in this perspective, a valid eucharist is performed. Thus, as an Anglican, if I am a participant in a Baptist eucharist or a Brethren eucharist, I think I have been present at a valid eucharist. (I might also find it unsatisfactory in a number of respects and choose not to make it the form of eucharist I regularly attend).
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)