The more I think about the extraordinary decision of the Sydney Synod recently to affirm the principle of diaconal presidency AND to assert the right to implement the principle in practice on a point of grammar (albeit with precedent within the Oz Anglican context), the more I think they will pull the plug on GAFCON if they proceed.
GAFCON's pretext or presupposition for existing as an Anglican body with some punch and some power, so that, for example, it has arranged its life to be led by a 'Primate's Council', and it is party to talk of promulgating a new province, is that it represents 'orthodox Anglicanism'. But what is 'orthodox Anglicanism'? It is a mixture of Scripturally sound theology in tune with the ancient creeds, the decisions of the first four ecumenical councils, and expressed through the BCP, the Ordinal, and the 39 Articles, and of traditional Anglican practice in harmony with the mainstream of Anglican practice stemming from ancient apostolic times, reformed through the 16th and 17th centuries, developed in the anglo-catholic movement of the 19th century (itself, however distant from the intent of the reformers, a desire to re-find and renew ancient practice), and, if it recognises one modern innovation, or at least professes (as GAFCON does) to be indifferent to one new thing, that is the ordination of women. But even that ordination of women introduces no difference into the usual understanding of the ministry of deacons, priests, and bishops.
Now there are some variances in understanding of the precise nature of Anglican ministry, mostly around the ministry of deacons (church facing or world facing? temporary apprenticeship before priesthood or permanent state?), but there is no variance of normative Anglican orthodox around eucharistic presidency: this is the ministry of priests/presbyters and bishops.
Sydney's decision, should they not realise the impact and implications of it and revoke it forthwith, is a departure from Anglican orthodoxy. It may be the right decision according to Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and pragmatic needs of the Diocese, but that is not the point here! The point here in this age of GAFCON is that there is Anglican orthodoxy and there are those charged with revisions of it to the point that there is a feeling that the Anglican Communion would be better off without the revisionists. But for one of the leading players of GAFCON to itself embark on revising Anglican orthodoxy at this time is to undermine the very foundations on which GAFCON stands as it makes its judgement call on Anglican revisionists.
Is Sydney pulling the plug on GAFCON? If it denies that it is doing so, on what grounds is GAFCON to argue that revision should not take place within the Anglican Communion? It certainly cannot be on the grounds that local bishops and synods ought to consult the wider body of Anglicanism before instituting an innovation in doctrine or practice, for that is precisely what one of its key players has itself just done!
There are times when one admires Australian independence and insularity, but this may not be one of them!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Does acceptance of lay preaching imply acceptance of lay presidency?
A commenter on my previous post on lay presidency/diaconal presidency/Sydney draws attention to these issues, which also feature in discussion elsewhere re Sydney/presidency re lay presidency:
"In truth, I can't get too exercised about 'lay celebration' in a church that allows, nay encourages, 'lay preaching'. I have a hunch which of these - preaching or communion - impacts more on the life of a church. Does an Anglican priest exercise sole 'eldership' over a congregation, as you seem to imply, Peter? If he or she can share the preaching and leading of worship, why not 'presiding' at communion as well?"
Lay preaching and lay presidency: there is an attractive logic to the argument, if the parish priest can delegate the preaching duties to lay preachers, why not also the presiding duties ... especially if our underlying 'value' system refuses to prioritise 'word' over 'sacrament' and vice versa. I suggest, however, that this argument involves a confusion between 'gift' and 'office'. Lay preachers are appointed because in the distribution of gifts of ministry in the body of Christ they have been discerned as having appropriate gifts ("prophecy", "speaking") which enable them to serve the body of Christ in this way. (Incidentally in my view of things, lay preachers should preach ordinarily, and not just when the vicar is on holiday or cannot be in two places at once). The presiding at eucharist is not about who is gifted to do so, but about the character of the event which is the church gathering in communion for a symbolic meal. In Anglican understanding (IMHO) of the church gathering in fellowship for this meal it gathers around its local bishop as president, except when the bishop is not present it gathers around one of those with whom the bishop shares his or her presidency, namely one of the bishop's presbyters/priests. Thus the office of president of the eucharist is filled by the bishop, or a licensed presbyter/priest. This is our 'order' and this order should not lead to a deacon or lay person presiding, should there be a shortage of presbyter/priests, but could lead to new priests/presbyters being ordained.
Thus in terms of the comment above it is not a question of whether a priest exercises sole 'eldership' over a congregation but whether we share an ecclesiology in which the bishop and his/her college of presbyters/priests share eldership over a diocese. On this understanding it is entirely appropriate for a priest/presbyter from elsewhere in the Diocese to travel to another church to preside at the eucharist.
Nevertheless my thinking here can be objected to in this manner: the essential issue is 'order', order flows from the leadership of the bishop, and this order could extend from the bishop to include licensed lay presidents. Given that already in many parts of the world lay people are authorised to distribute communion (e.g. into the homes of the sick and infirm) and (perhaps less widely, but certainly in Aotearoa NZ) to preside over a communion service with appropriate words authorised from a prayer book and with elements previously consecrated, why could authorisation not extend to full presidency? Is the hesitancy to do this just an anglo-catholic hesitancy rather than a hesitancy shared more widely by Anglicans of other hues and stripes?
Again, I find this a reasonably attractive argument, and (to be honest) a compelling one re 'emergency' situations: if "even a lay person" can baptise an unbaptised person in an emergency, why could a lay person not preside at communion when all reasonable alternatives to securing the services of a licensed priest have been pursued?
Setting emergencies aside, I find I am not persuaded (or, not yet persuaded!!) by such an argument. If lay presidents are regularly used at the eucharist, and lay persons regularly preach, what use do we then have for priests/presbyters? If we say, 'well, none really, if we pursue the logic rigorously', then (effectively) we create a new version of priesthood in which the "new style priests" are licensed to minister but not ordained. If we say, 'well, we ordain priests/presbyters to the ministry of leadership', it does seem strange to me that such leadership is not primarily focused on leading communities of faith in the central act of worship, communion together in obedience to Christ's command.
Indeed I often observe a paradox in Anglican talk about lay presidency: since it is never talk of a Plymouth Brethren kind (i.e. any adult lay member of the congregation may, as the Spirit leads, step forward to preside over Communion) but always about an episcopally authorised lay person presiding, which, inherently, is about a lay person with the confidence of both parishioners and of bishop, the qualifications for lay presidents pretty quickly look very like the qualifications for being a priest/presbyter! If more presidents are needed for our eucharistic life, why not ordain more?
"In truth, I can't get too exercised about 'lay celebration' in a church that allows, nay encourages, 'lay preaching'. I have a hunch which of these - preaching or communion - impacts more on the life of a church. Does an Anglican priest exercise sole 'eldership' over a congregation, as you seem to imply, Peter? If he or she can share the preaching and leading of worship, why not 'presiding' at communion as well?"
Lay preaching and lay presidency: there is an attractive logic to the argument, if the parish priest can delegate the preaching duties to lay preachers, why not also the presiding duties ... especially if our underlying 'value' system refuses to prioritise 'word' over 'sacrament' and vice versa. I suggest, however, that this argument involves a confusion between 'gift' and 'office'. Lay preachers are appointed because in the distribution of gifts of ministry in the body of Christ they have been discerned as having appropriate gifts ("prophecy", "speaking") which enable them to serve the body of Christ in this way. (Incidentally in my view of things, lay preachers should preach ordinarily, and not just when the vicar is on holiday or cannot be in two places at once). The presiding at eucharist is not about who is gifted to do so, but about the character of the event which is the church gathering in communion for a symbolic meal. In Anglican understanding (IMHO) of the church gathering in fellowship for this meal it gathers around its local bishop as president, except when the bishop is not present it gathers around one of those with whom the bishop shares his or her presidency, namely one of the bishop's presbyters/priests. Thus the office of president of the eucharist is filled by the bishop, or a licensed presbyter/priest. This is our 'order' and this order should not lead to a deacon or lay person presiding, should there be a shortage of presbyter/priests, but could lead to new priests/presbyters being ordained.
Thus in terms of the comment above it is not a question of whether a priest exercises sole 'eldership' over a congregation but whether we share an ecclesiology in which the bishop and his/her college of presbyters/priests share eldership over a diocese. On this understanding it is entirely appropriate for a priest/presbyter from elsewhere in the Diocese to travel to another church to preside at the eucharist.
Nevertheless my thinking here can be objected to in this manner: the essential issue is 'order', order flows from the leadership of the bishop, and this order could extend from the bishop to include licensed lay presidents. Given that already in many parts of the world lay people are authorised to distribute communion (e.g. into the homes of the sick and infirm) and (perhaps less widely, but certainly in Aotearoa NZ) to preside over a communion service with appropriate words authorised from a prayer book and with elements previously consecrated, why could authorisation not extend to full presidency? Is the hesitancy to do this just an anglo-catholic hesitancy rather than a hesitancy shared more widely by Anglicans of other hues and stripes?
Again, I find this a reasonably attractive argument, and (to be honest) a compelling one re 'emergency' situations: if "even a lay person" can baptise an unbaptised person in an emergency, why could a lay person not preside at communion when all reasonable alternatives to securing the services of a licensed priest have been pursued?
Setting emergencies aside, I find I am not persuaded (or, not yet persuaded!!) by such an argument. If lay presidents are regularly used at the eucharist, and lay persons regularly preach, what use do we then have for priests/presbyters? If we say, 'well, none really, if we pursue the logic rigorously', then (effectively) we create a new version of priesthood in which the "new style priests" are licensed to minister but not ordained. If we say, 'well, we ordain priests/presbyters to the ministry of leadership', it does seem strange to me that such leadership is not primarily focused on leading communities of faith in the central act of worship, communion together in obedience to Christ's command.
Indeed I often observe a paradox in Anglican talk about lay presidency: since it is never talk of a Plymouth Brethren kind (i.e. any adult lay member of the congregation may, as the Spirit leads, step forward to preside over Communion) but always about an episcopally authorised lay person presiding, which, inherently, is about a lay person with the confidence of both parishioners and of bishop, the qualifications for lay presidents pretty quickly look very like the qualifications for being a priest/presbyter! If more presidents are needed for our eucharistic life, why not ordain more?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A Down Under Muddle?
At its recent Synod the Diocese of Sydney agreed that deacons could preside over the eucharist (they also agreed that laypersons can do so, but I am not going to discuss that, save for one observation below, because for the time being the Archbishop of Sydney is not going to authorise laypersons to actually do so, whereas deacons are up and running already as licensed ministers). Bishop Alan Wilson (CofE) offers some interesting critique, and throws in a bonus, quite superb image of the true character of Anglicanism as evangelical software running on catholic hardware, while reminding us that Hooker and co consciously chose not to shape the C of E as a Zwinglian sect!*
Personally I discern at least two things going on in the (collective) mind of Sydney. First is a clever way through some issues not going away about women in ministry: "Sydney does not ordain women" is not true - in fact, women are ordained as deacons, but not as priests or bishops. Diaconal presiding enlarges the scope of women's ordained ministry while preserving what has become fundamental to Sydney's 'identity', that is, no woman has authority over a man (since only priests become rectors (equivalent to vicars), leaders of the leadership in parishes). The cynic might see this as a bone thrown to women to keep them happy; the via media Anglican might see this as an honourable and astute compromise.
The second thing going on is a way of thinking about being Anglican which pays little or no attention to the unfolding character of Anglicanism as a matter of historical reality while asserting the right to define Anglicanism in terms of a brief point in Anglican history, around about 1549-1552, when one form of biblical understanding drove the reform of the Church of England. In Alan Wilson's terms, this way of thinking thinks that the C of E should have become a Zwinglian sect, and regrets that it did not. Since the Bible says very little about the precise nature of church order, it is possible, by ignoring the history of the Church of England, to decide that deacons may preside at the eucharist.
But it is precisely at this point of clear thinking about the Bible and what it does or does not prescribe about ministry that we have the possibility of a Down Under muddle! As long as Sydney is in communion with Anglicans outside of itself, as it most certainly is post-GAFCON, it is part of a wider grouping of Anglicans embroiled in a debate about what may or may not be 'revised' within Anglican theology, ethics, and practice. Given that one of the catch cries of the conservative groups within this debate is 'revisionism' when it responds to the ordination of a gay man as bishop or to the blessing of a gay couple, it is mighty strange that Sydney would choose this time to 'revise' its understanding of who may preside at the eucharist.
And it is a revision they are making: the presiding over the eucharist is the role of one ordered to undertake this solemn and sacred action, which role has always been that of the priest or bishop in Anglican understanding and practice, and most definitely not that of the deacon. Moreover, this is a revision which is being undertaken unilaterally which, again, is a striking feature, since part of the charge against 'revisionists' is that they have acted without consulting the wider Anglican Communion, let alone sought the agreement of the wider Communion.
I happen to think that only priests should preside at the 'ordinary' eucharist (with appropriately authorised deacons and lay ministers able to extend the properly ordered eucharist into other parts of a parish or into the homes of the sick and the elderly) because the priest is one of the community set aside for 'eldership', a particular role of leadership of the community of faith delegated by the 'overseer' or bishop, and thus expresses that leadership through presidency of the special eucharistic gathering of the community. But the point here is much less who may do what in the church, and much more whether our thinking is coherent in respect of a set of issues which engage us at this time. As a Down Under Anglican I am struggling to see the coherency in the thinking at this time of my brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Sydney!
*Ruth Gledhill also posts about the decision, but in one respect I think her instincts lead her to a wrong conclusion. She writes,
"Just as making women deacons was a first step to the priesthood, everywhere except Sydney that is, surely making deacons celebrants can only be a step to lay presidency in full, especially in Sydney." This misunderstands that Sydney has been one step - the signature of the Archbishop - from lay presidency for ages, and the recent motion changes nothing in that respect. If anything diaconal presidency steers the Diocese further away from lay presidency because it relieves certain pressures to embrace it, such as a shortage of priests, and, perhaps with unintended irony, reinforces the principle that ordination is necessary for presidency.
Personally I discern at least two things going on in the (collective) mind of Sydney. First is a clever way through some issues not going away about women in ministry: "Sydney does not ordain women" is not true - in fact, women are ordained as deacons, but not as priests or bishops. Diaconal presiding enlarges the scope of women's ordained ministry while preserving what has become fundamental to Sydney's 'identity', that is, no woman has authority over a man (since only priests become rectors (equivalent to vicars), leaders of the leadership in parishes). The cynic might see this as a bone thrown to women to keep them happy; the via media Anglican might see this as an honourable and astute compromise.
The second thing going on is a way of thinking about being Anglican which pays little or no attention to the unfolding character of Anglicanism as a matter of historical reality while asserting the right to define Anglicanism in terms of a brief point in Anglican history, around about 1549-1552, when one form of biblical understanding drove the reform of the Church of England. In Alan Wilson's terms, this way of thinking thinks that the C of E should have become a Zwinglian sect, and regrets that it did not. Since the Bible says very little about the precise nature of church order, it is possible, by ignoring the history of the Church of England, to decide that deacons may preside at the eucharist.
But it is precisely at this point of clear thinking about the Bible and what it does or does not prescribe about ministry that we have the possibility of a Down Under muddle! As long as Sydney is in communion with Anglicans outside of itself, as it most certainly is post-GAFCON, it is part of a wider grouping of Anglicans embroiled in a debate about what may or may not be 'revised' within Anglican theology, ethics, and practice. Given that one of the catch cries of the conservative groups within this debate is 'revisionism' when it responds to the ordination of a gay man as bishop or to the blessing of a gay couple, it is mighty strange that Sydney would choose this time to 'revise' its understanding of who may preside at the eucharist.
And it is a revision they are making: the presiding over the eucharist is the role of one ordered to undertake this solemn and sacred action, which role has always been that of the priest or bishop in Anglican understanding and practice, and most definitely not that of the deacon. Moreover, this is a revision which is being undertaken unilaterally which, again, is a striking feature, since part of the charge against 'revisionists' is that they have acted without consulting the wider Anglican Communion, let alone sought the agreement of the wider Communion.
I happen to think that only priests should preside at the 'ordinary' eucharist (with appropriately authorised deacons and lay ministers able to extend the properly ordered eucharist into other parts of a parish or into the homes of the sick and the elderly) because the priest is one of the community set aside for 'eldership', a particular role of leadership of the community of faith delegated by the 'overseer' or bishop, and thus expresses that leadership through presidency of the special eucharistic gathering of the community. But the point here is much less who may do what in the church, and much more whether our thinking is coherent in respect of a set of issues which engage us at this time. As a Down Under Anglican I am struggling to see the coherency in the thinking at this time of my brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Sydney!
*Ruth Gledhill also posts about the decision, but in one respect I think her instincts lead her to a wrong conclusion. She writes,
"Just as making women deacons was a first step to the priesthood, everywhere except Sydney that is, surely making deacons celebrants can only be a step to lay presidency in full, especially in Sydney." This misunderstands that Sydney has been one step - the signature of the Archbishop - from lay presidency for ages, and the recent motion changes nothing in that respect. If anything diaconal presidency steers the Diocese further away from lay presidency because it relieves certain pressures to embrace it, such as a shortage of priests, and, perhaps with unintended irony, reinforces the principle that ordination is necessary for presidency.
Voting
Our NZ General Election is looming - so is the US election (or should that be THE US election?). Here is a column published in our latest Diocesan Witness:
How should Christians vote in the forthcoming General Election? If we take the whole of the Bible into account then I suggest that the strongest influence on our party vote should be our understanding of how each party would work for justice after the election. When speaking about justice, the Bible is not limited to considerations of criminal law and the consequences of breaking it. Its concern is for just relationships between people, including social and economic dimensions to relationships, as well as for just relationships between people and God. The least important matter for us should be how much money a prospective winner will put in our back pockets; the most important should be how the poorest and weakest members of our society will be brought into just relationships with the richest and strongest.
The economics of just relationships in society are complicated. It’s a dangerous over-simplification to assume that all is made well by larger benefit payouts or by insisting on a higher minimum wage. Wealth has to be created for it to be distributed; and employment is only sustainable where the cost of labour is reasonable relative to the affordability of the resulting product. The sociology of just relationships is also complicated. It’s good to welcome refugees to our land of opportunity, for instance, but how many can we welcome without creating some new injustice in respect of access to education and health services? Broadly speaking parties on both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ offer a political programme with justice in the broadest sense as the long-term goal of the programme. Thus our challenge as Christian voters is to find time and energy to engage with the details of what each party is proposing. The much debated question of tax cuts, for example, involves important questions of economic stimulus, availability of government services, long-term impact on national debt servicing and the like.
There are other aspects of justice to consider when weighing up who to vote for. Truth-telling is an important part of justice, as is respect for human dignity. The way some of our politicians treat other politicians should give us pause for thought as to why they should be entrusted with political responsibility. Sometimes ‘single’ issues such as abortion or military adventurism dominate our decision-making, but there is always a danger that deciding how to vote on the basis of a single issue will distort the process of achieving justice for all. Finally there is the matter of who to vote for as our local member of parliament. I do not know about you, but I find it a strange and troubling quirk of MMP that my two votes can be split between two parties!
How should Christians vote in the forthcoming General Election? If we take the whole of the Bible into account then I suggest that the strongest influence on our party vote should be our understanding of how each party would work for justice after the election. When speaking about justice, the Bible is not limited to considerations of criminal law and the consequences of breaking it. Its concern is for just relationships between people, including social and economic dimensions to relationships, as well as for just relationships between people and God. The least important matter for us should be how much money a prospective winner will put in our back pockets; the most important should be how the poorest and weakest members of our society will be brought into just relationships with the richest and strongest.
The economics of just relationships in society are complicated. It’s a dangerous over-simplification to assume that all is made well by larger benefit payouts or by insisting on a higher minimum wage. Wealth has to be created for it to be distributed; and employment is only sustainable where the cost of labour is reasonable relative to the affordability of the resulting product. The sociology of just relationships is also complicated. It’s good to welcome refugees to our land of opportunity, for instance, but how many can we welcome without creating some new injustice in respect of access to education and health services? Broadly speaking parties on both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ offer a political programme with justice in the broadest sense as the long-term goal of the programme. Thus our challenge as Christian voters is to find time and energy to engage with the details of what each party is proposing. The much debated question of tax cuts, for example, involves important questions of economic stimulus, availability of government services, long-term impact on national debt servicing and the like.
There are other aspects of justice to consider when weighing up who to vote for. Truth-telling is an important part of justice, as is respect for human dignity. The way some of our politicians treat other politicians should give us pause for thought as to why they should be entrusted with political responsibility. Sometimes ‘single’ issues such as abortion or military adventurism dominate our decision-making, but there is always a danger that deciding how to vote on the basis of a single issue will distort the process of achieving justice for all. Finally there is the matter of who to vote for as our local member of parliament. I do not know about you, but I find it a strange and troubling quirk of MMP that my two votes can be split between two parties!
Friday, October 24, 2008
The art of narrative theology in the Book of Job
Preparing for a class on Job last evening at Bishopdale Theological College (motto: the smallest college with the biggest vision in the Anglican Communion), I saw something I had not seen before. The writer of Job tackling the problem of suffering recognises a prior issue in the doctrine of God: is God one supreme power or a significant rival power to at least one other power, the source of evil? With an Isaianic grasp of the oneness of the one God of the universe the writer nails down the issue: Satan the source of evil acts dependently with God's permission; he is not a rival power, nor an independent one.
Thus in Scripture an awe-ful paradox is named: God is, ultimately, the author of good and evil, even though God is wholly good, and purposes to destroy Satan and all his works.
Resolving this paradox is one of the great issues of the Bible, and involves God in Christ suffering the sufferings of Job the innocent one. In this resolution the God who is good is revealed as the God who is love.
But right now I am in awe of the narrative art of the writer of Job: naming an immense theological issue with the simplicity of a story the youngest reader can understand!
Thus in Scripture an awe-ful paradox is named: God is, ultimately, the author of good and evil, even though God is wholly good, and purposes to destroy Satan and all his works.
Resolving this paradox is one of the great issues of the Bible, and involves God in Christ suffering the sufferings of Job the innocent one. In this resolution the God who is good is revealed as the God who is love.
But right now I am in awe of the narrative art of the writer of Job: naming an immense theological issue with the simplicity of a story the youngest reader can understand!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A few more reflections on church statistics
A few weeks ago I posted some thinking on our Diocesan attendance statistics - currently in a period of decline. I have been thinking some more!
- to take a high point of a decade or so ago and make a comparison can be important to highlight change across a significant period of time; but that was then and now is now: for example, in our Diocese I realise that the high point of a decade or so ago might be due to a combination of factors largely unrepeatable, such as a particular combination of ministerial 'stars'; further, some services being held then (particularly in the evening) are not being held now - which, OK, is a sign of decline; but is also a sign of different forms of commitment; and then, as many point out these days, once a fortnight attendance is the new 'weekly' attendance ...
- which leads to the point that we need to also measure the 'health' of parishes, not only their attendance figures: here I see financial viability as an important indicator (we are doing quite well on that one), plus 'visible' evidence of a range of generations being present - the mix of children, youth, parents is pretty important to subjective factors such as 'energy' in a congregation, as well as being significant 'attraction' factors (again, I think we are probably doing as well now as a decade ago). In another words attendance statistics measure something, but the true measure of a parish's strength lies in gaining other information, some financial, some anecdotal.
- then there is also an intriguing factor re age of congregations: statistics tell us that Anglican churches tend to have older congregations compared to other churches. But that means we should expect more to die sooner. In turn, however, that means that if we are holding our numbers (as some of our parishes are doing) then there is a form of growth through 'replacement'.
But I still worry about the core of the Christian faith, the gospel, our message of life in Jesus, and whether we understand it for our day, and even if we do, whether we are communicating it effectively.
- to take a high point of a decade or so ago and make a comparison can be important to highlight change across a significant period of time; but that was then and now is now: for example, in our Diocese I realise that the high point of a decade or so ago might be due to a combination of factors largely unrepeatable, such as a particular combination of ministerial 'stars'; further, some services being held then (particularly in the evening) are not being held now - which, OK, is a sign of decline; but is also a sign of different forms of commitment; and then, as many point out these days, once a fortnight attendance is the new 'weekly' attendance ...
- which leads to the point that we need to also measure the 'health' of parishes, not only their attendance figures: here I see financial viability as an important indicator (we are doing quite well on that one), plus 'visible' evidence of a range of generations being present - the mix of children, youth, parents is pretty important to subjective factors such as 'energy' in a congregation, as well as being significant 'attraction' factors (again, I think we are probably doing as well now as a decade ago). In another words attendance statistics measure something, but the true measure of a parish's strength lies in gaining other information, some financial, some anecdotal.
- then there is also an intriguing factor re age of congregations: statistics tell us that Anglican churches tend to have older congregations compared to other churches. But that means we should expect more to die sooner. In turn, however, that means that if we are holding our numbers (as some of our parishes are doing) then there is a form of growth through 'replacement'.
But I still worry about the core of the Christian faith, the gospel, our message of life in Jesus, and whether we understand it for our day, and even if we do, whether we are communicating it effectively.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Communion or Church?
Mark Harris of Preludium, critiquing Bishop Bob Duncan ('the Moderator') says this:
"The Moderator wants "to be part of a global church." As far as he is concerned the current Anglican Communion structures and systems are unequal to the task. In that he is right. That is because the Anglican Communion is not a global church. It is a fellowship of churches.
If the ACC authorizes three provinces in North America - the existing two on the one hand and the Common Cause Partnership Province on the other - with it being clear that the CCP exists because of the "the American situation and the American outrage" and that it is not in communion with the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada - the ACC will contribute to the end of the Anglican Communion as we know it."
If the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches and not a global church then it can be a fellowship of churches with as many as it wishes to fellowship with, including two churches existing in the same geographical location. If it makes a rule as a 'Communion' re the basis for fellowship, then it seems to be acting like a church (because a gathering needs to take place for the rule to be made)!
If it is a global church it could make a rule: only one diocese or province counted 'in' per geographic region. It could make a rule with exceptions: only one diocese or province per location except for the two dioceses in Europe, and the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia (which has two (jurisdictionally distinct) bishops per location in most of its territory and three in metropolitan Auckland). It could extend its exceptions to include a new province (a.k.a the Common Cause Partnership) for North America.
Either way it is reasonable for Bishop Bob Duncan to explore possibilities of a new dimension to the Anglican Communion. Note that, whether the ACC or any other body or whatever decided to include a new dimension such as a new Anglican province for North America, the Anglican Communion has ended as we have known it, for it is now a Communion with a new dimension of dispute in its midst (cf. the new and old Dioceses of Pittsburgh; and various ways in which (effectively) different parts of the Communion are not in fellowship with other parts)!
In fact the Anglican Communion is at a turning point. If it is a 'fellowship of churches' then this is no longer its reality, for various Anglican churches are out of fellowship with each other. The Communion is a conglomerate of churches with some affinity for each other which is in a state of exploration of its true character. It could be that from this exploration the reality of an Anglican global church emerges. It may be that this global church as an Anglican church sits alongside, but not in fellowship with other Anglican churches such as TEC or the Episcopal Church of Scotland, or sits alongside, but out of fellowship with an entity called 'the Anglican Communion' which is vastly smaller than its current listed membership.
Mark Harris worries, "More importantly it will make of Anglicanism an ideology, pure and simple, but one with a flawed center."
But do we not already have that at work in his analysis of the state of the Communion? Driving his critique of Bishop Bob Duncan is an ideology in which the Communion is this not that, the Common Cause Partnership should do this but not that, and the decisions of TEC's General Convention are sole arbiter of 'true' Anglicanism within TEC's territories.
There is a flawed centre here! I happen to think it is the inability of TEC's General Convention to recognise any constraint in its determination of what constitutes Anglicanism.
But somewhere in here is another flaw: TEC may decide what it likes as a self-contained, self-regulating assembly of believers. What it may not decide are the terms by which the Anglican Communion accepts churches into its fellowship or organises itself as a global church. That level of decision-making is through the means of the governance of the Communion. Currently we have no means of governance recognised by all the governed (the ABC is not a pope; Lambeth Conference resolutions we are told, ad nauseam, are non-binding; the ACC is for consultation; the Primates shouldn't really have the role they have claimed for themselves). The mess, the muddiness for both Mark Harris and Bishop Bob Duncan is that neither of their visions for the Anglican Communion can be readily fulfilled under current conditions.
Hence the importance of the Covenant Design Group and our submissions to it: an outstanding opportunity for an evolutionary step to take place on the way to the Anglican Communion becoming a body capable of discerning the true character of its constituent parts and of making decisions about membership, especially when one member is in dispute with another or with a prospective member.
"The Moderator wants "to be part of a global church." As far as he is concerned the current Anglican Communion structures and systems are unequal to the task. In that he is right. That is because the Anglican Communion is not a global church. It is a fellowship of churches.
If the ACC authorizes three provinces in North America - the existing two on the one hand and the Common Cause Partnership Province on the other - with it being clear that the CCP exists because of the "the American situation and the American outrage" and that it is not in communion with the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada - the ACC will contribute to the end of the Anglican Communion as we know it."
If the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches and not a global church then it can be a fellowship of churches with as many as it wishes to fellowship with, including two churches existing in the same geographical location. If it makes a rule as a 'Communion' re the basis for fellowship, then it seems to be acting like a church (because a gathering needs to take place for the rule to be made)!
If it is a global church it could make a rule: only one diocese or province counted 'in' per geographic region. It could make a rule with exceptions: only one diocese or province per location except for the two dioceses in Europe, and the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia (which has two (jurisdictionally distinct) bishops per location in most of its territory and three in metropolitan Auckland). It could extend its exceptions to include a new province (a.k.a the Common Cause Partnership) for North America.
Either way it is reasonable for Bishop Bob Duncan to explore possibilities of a new dimension to the Anglican Communion. Note that, whether the ACC or any other body or whatever decided to include a new dimension such as a new Anglican province for North America, the Anglican Communion has ended as we have known it, for it is now a Communion with a new dimension of dispute in its midst (cf. the new and old Dioceses of Pittsburgh; and various ways in which (effectively) different parts of the Communion are not in fellowship with other parts)!
In fact the Anglican Communion is at a turning point. If it is a 'fellowship of churches' then this is no longer its reality, for various Anglican churches are out of fellowship with each other. The Communion is a conglomerate of churches with some affinity for each other which is in a state of exploration of its true character. It could be that from this exploration the reality of an Anglican global church emerges. It may be that this global church as an Anglican church sits alongside, but not in fellowship with other Anglican churches such as TEC or the Episcopal Church of Scotland, or sits alongside, but out of fellowship with an entity called 'the Anglican Communion' which is vastly smaller than its current listed membership.
Mark Harris worries, "More importantly it will make of Anglicanism an ideology, pure and simple, but one with a flawed center."
But do we not already have that at work in his analysis of the state of the Communion? Driving his critique of Bishop Bob Duncan is an ideology in which the Communion is this not that, the Common Cause Partnership should do this but not that, and the decisions of TEC's General Convention are sole arbiter of 'true' Anglicanism within TEC's territories.
There is a flawed centre here! I happen to think it is the inability of TEC's General Convention to recognise any constraint in its determination of what constitutes Anglicanism.
But somewhere in here is another flaw: TEC may decide what it likes as a self-contained, self-regulating assembly of believers. What it may not decide are the terms by which the Anglican Communion accepts churches into its fellowship or organises itself as a global church. That level of decision-making is through the means of the governance of the Communion. Currently we have no means of governance recognised by all the governed (the ABC is not a pope; Lambeth Conference resolutions we are told, ad nauseam, are non-binding; the ACC is for consultation; the Primates shouldn't really have the role they have claimed for themselves). The mess, the muddiness for both Mark Harris and Bishop Bob Duncan is that neither of their visions for the Anglican Communion can be readily fulfilled under current conditions.
Hence the importance of the Covenant Design Group and our submissions to it: an outstanding opportunity for an evolutionary step to take place on the way to the Anglican Communion becoming a body capable of discerning the true character of its constituent parts and of making decisions about membership, especially when one member is in dispute with another or with a prospective member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)