Reconciliation is emerging as the great theme of Archbishop Justin Welby's tenure as ABC. He is making waves as he goes about this. A recent wave has been the appointment of an ACNA clergyman, Tory Baucum as one of six 'Canterbury Preachers.' One ripple on the beach is this exchange at the CofE GS this week. But if that perturbed 'Communion watchers' who view any positivity towards ACNA as a surf patroller views a shark's fin moving towards swimmers at the beach, note the alarm with which other watchers are reacting towards a Welby wave this week. That wave is a press release celebrating Oxford University awarding an honorary DD to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. 'What was Justin Welby Thinking?' is one of the kinder responses. I am grateful that ++Justin celebrates things about her leadership which can be celebrated. At least he didn't say she was a notable theologian ...
What about the dots to be joined up? Astute observers have noted that across the Atlantic, as TEC's Executive Council does some work on budgets, some new money to fund Communion conversations is being proposed, with a specific signal from ++KJS that this is 'in recognition of greatly improved relations with the Communion.'
So, there we have the big picture of ++Justin's reconciliation vision for the Communion as the dots are drawn up. In one word, 'inclusion.' ACNA gets a crumb from the table. TEC remains seated at the table. Absent members (whether choosing to stay away for the time being, or kept away by local trauma as in South Sudan) will be visited (recall the flying trip to GAFCON).
Incidentally, ++Justin's presidential address to his GS is worth the read, whether in a word cloud there or full transcript here.
To cite one thing only, but connected with reconciliation, here is ++Welby taking on his critics:
"The Church of England is not tidy, nor efficiently hierarchical. There are no popes, but there is a College of Bishops and there are Synods and collections and lobbies and groups and pressure and struggle. When it works well it works because love overcomes fear. When it works badly it is because fear overcomes love. The resources for more fear lie within us and the resources for more love lie within God and are readily available to all those who in repentance and humility stretch out and seek them. With Jesus every imperative rests on an indicative, every command springs from a promise. Do not fear.
Already I can hear the arguments being pushed back at me, about compromise, about the wishy-washiness of reconciliation, to quote something I read recently. But this sort of love, and the reconciliation between differing groups that it demands and implies, is not comfortable and soft and wishy-washy. Facilitated conversations may be a clumsy phrase, but it has at its heart a search for good disagreement. It is exceptionally hard edged, extraordinarily demanding and likely to lead in parts of the world around us to profound unpopularity or dismissal.
This sort of gracious reconciliation means that we have to create safe space within ourselves to disagree, as we began to do last summer at the Synod in York, and as we need to do over the issues arising out of our discussions on sexuality, not because the outcome is predetermined to be a wishy-washy one, but because the very process is a proclamation of the Gospel of unconditionally loving God who gives Himself for our sin and failure. It is incarnational in the best sense and leads to the need to bear our cross in the way we are commanded. "
9 comments:
"At least he didn't say she was a notable theologian ..."
- Peter Carrell -
Maybe not, Peter, but a very good advocate for the God of Love in Christ Jesus towards LGBT people.
Her Gospel outreach is not unlike that of those who reach out to the poor and disenfranchised.
Theology, unaccompanied by radical compassion, may not honour God. I'm glad that Oxford University has given Bishop Katharine their honorary D.D. She deserves it.
As for the Baucum business; it does seem a little like opening up to the schismatics, when it might be more appropriate for them to 'come home to Mother'. Tony Baucum was encouraged by the TEC Bishop in Virginia, but was quickly brought back into line by ACNA.
Fr. Ron,
I disagree with the idea that ++KJS has been a 'very good advocate for the God of Love in Christ Jesus towards LGBT people.'
She has been a very good voice for those who wish to continue in this lifestyle unabated, but I have not heard her proclaim that those who are GLBTX ought to remain chaste, not even once.
If St Paul is correct when he writes in 1 Cor 6:9 & 10 'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.'
Would it not be a very good advocate for the God of Love in Christ Jesus towards LGBT people to warn them that their behaviour (please not, I'm not saying orientation) is putting their eternal future at risk, and calling them to repentance, just as we would for idolaters, adulterers,thieves, the greedy, drunkards,revilers,and swindlers?
Unless you can show me with 100% certaity that the Apostle Paul is mistaken here, I would much rather love the GLBTX community by sharing the Good News of the love of Jesus that is freedom from sexual immorality than to say "there, there, all is well" and send that person on the wide path to eternal damnation.
To pair wholesale acceptance and love is a misguided approach.
I spent a bit of time reading various blogs yesterday around: CoE GS, York and Canterbury statements, responses, the money cow, "the reward", & Honorary Doctorates.
There is sadly a common theme here, on all sides. And it does not bode well (IMHO) for the health of the Church of God. The one good thing is that we've seen the like before - or at least, God has! And his patience and compassion should not be mistaken for 'tolerance'. In the end, He is not mocked ... Kyrie eleison!
"some new money to fund Communion conversations is being proposed, with a specific signal from ++KJS that this is 'in recognition of greatly improved relations with the Communion'."
Yes, that was interesting. If I was in TEC, I'd be increasing payments to the Anglican Communion Office too!
I hope ACNA doesn't get too distracted by this Anglican Communion business. Its success in North America is directly connected to its church-planting activities.
All ACNA has to do is continue planting congregations, growing them, and establishing viable dioceses - then all other issues will take care of themselves.
The speech as a whole is certainly conciliatory. At the end ABC states:
"So I come back to where I started. We live in a world of courageous churches, not only the ones I saw last week but churches like the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Kenya and the Church of Uganda and many, many others, South Africa, I could go on and on who live out the reality of a costly discipleship and somehow managed to find love in the midst of it. They are not sinless but they are heroic."
That is significant in view of the response by the Archbishop of Kenya on 1 February 2014 to the communique of ABC and ABY - see http://acl.asn.au/gafcon-chairman-responds-to-the-statement-by-the-archbishops-of-canterbury-and-york/. It perhaps indicates that ++Welby does not intend to bite back at Gafcon's criticism of him, but just let it pass in hope of moving on.
However, ++Welby makes clear that the main point of his speech is the women bishops measure in CofE. Everyone understands the problem - the last measure didn't get the 2/3 majority required in each of the houses of Synod to pass. The house of laity knocked it back, essentially because some liberal representatives joined conservatives delegates to vote against it, through concern that it didn't do enough to assure protection for congregations opposed to women bishops.
Now the bishops have re-worked the measure to take advantage of the rule that allows a rejected measure to be re-put. The changes they have done have been minimal, no doubt to avoid a legal challenge on the basis that it isn't really the same measure.
But that in itself carries a different risk, that the dissenting delegates will not be won over, or even that other waverers may move to a No vote. If the re-worked measure is seen as pandering too much to the conservatives, even hard-line liberals like WATCH may torpedo the measure.
Either way, ABC and his bishops are in a difficult situation: If the measure is not carried this time, then they will certainly have to start the whole process again - a minimum of three years.
Yet on the other hand, if the conservative evangelicals aren't convinced that the protections offered are realistic they may decide on separation. But that won't mean they just leave - Church of England polity is such that determined and self-sufficient parishes can just ignore their bishops if they want, whilst not paying most of their fees. They would be virtually impossible to shift. At the same time, the tendency of some conservative evangelical churches to establish church plants outside of the CofE may spread.
Justin Welby is walking a tightrope, with nasty consequences if he falls off either side. Plus, by deriding him for being "wishy-washy", many are in effect shaking the rope….
Hi Ron
I want to learn fast some lessons of discussion here recently and be a better moderator. Thus the comment you seek to publish here is okay in respect of this:
""All ACNA has to do is continue planting congregations, growing them, and establishing viable dioceses - then all other issues will take care of themselves."
- MicahelA -
From the records, the history of schismatic breakaway churches from TEC hasn't been too encouraging in the past. Neither will the AMiE faction get very far in the U.K. "
But when you go on to say this, "They're far too single issue-centred. People want the Church to include everyone, not only the ritualistically pure." you move over into harsh judgment. (A) I know of no evidence that AMiE are "far too single issue-centred": they are interested in a range of issues and offer churches catering to an array of people. (B) What on earth does "ritualistically pure" mean in respect of the Anglican churches you are discussing? Do that have rituals regarding cleanliness? Do they restrict their membership to non-sinners? I think not. So this last part of your comment is the kind of sweeping unevidenced judgment that has caused concern here.
Now, I have had enough of moderating such comments. In future they will simply be deleted without comment, explanation or notice that they have been deleted. Please focus your comments on the kind of thing you say in the first half of your comment (which, let's face it, is quite critical ... but it is fair comment to make). And please refrain from sweeping pejorative comments such as made in the second half.
Fr Ron wrote:
"From the records, the history of schismatic breakaway churches from TEC hasn't been too encouraging in the past."
That is certainly true of the groups that broke away in 1977.
However ACNA after less than 5 years is going strong. It has over 900 parishes organised into 29 dioceses. It is recognised by over half the provinces in the Anglican Communion (with the vast majority of baptised members). Its leader has presided over communion for the leaders of 20 provinces. I would call that very encouraging indeed.
Even better, ACNA is determined not to stand still. It is working hard on evangelism, often in areas where the withering away of TEC has meant the loss of any Anglican presence.
"Neither will the AMiE faction get very far in the U.K"
If wishes were fishes... ;)
"What on earth does "ritualistically pure" mean in respect of the Anglican churches you are discussing? Do that have rituals regarding cleanliness? Do they restrict their membership to non-sinners? I think not. So this last part of your comment is the kind of sweeping unevidenced judgment that has caused concern here."- Peter Carrell -
I think, Peter, that in terms of what you do allow on your blog - of material that 'puts down' the Presiding bishop of TEC, and other aspects of liberalism in Ekklesia Angicana, my remarks you quote as unacceptable are quite mild.
Your seeming lack of understanding of the meaning of the term 'ritualistically pure' seems a wee bit odd; considering the fact that the whole anti-Gay theme is based on such a premise - of impurity raised to the level of ritual.
Certainly, from where I am in this argument, it seems that LGBT people are unwelcome in the ethos of Con/Evo church life. Am I wrong in this? And is not the sin they are most concerned with, the sin of supposed 'Gay' impurity? If not, I would welcome a statement that this is not their intention.
Hi Ron
I know of no con/evo church which is unwelcoming.
What is your evidence for the lack of welcome that you allege? Is there some kind of passport control at the doors of these churches?
Post a Comment