New Anglican Province

Am going to be away from my online connection for the next few days when meetings in Chicago announce the new North American province and then the GAFCON Primates meet with the ABC in Lambeth (presumably to ask the ABC to recognise the new province).

I am intrigued by the thought of a new province based on 'theology'. Ostensibly this gladdens the heart of an Anglican evangelical. But in an Anglican setting the question has to be asked, 'what theology?' and 'who rules over this theology?' Theology always involves difference of view - including in the New Testament itself. Theology requires judgement: is this theology acceptable? compatible with that theology? able to co-exist alongside another theology? The role of the church is to make that judgement. The question for any ecclesial body is who makes that judgement and how? I am simply unclear how the new province will proceed as a 'theological' province.

I am aghast at a comment reported from one of the new province leaders along the lines of 'if the ABC recognises us he will incur the wrath of TEC; if he does not recognise us he will incur the wrath of others'. What kind of language is this to use of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why is he envisaged as being constrained to one and only one binary choice?

I am watching TEC closely, particularly through Mark Harris' Preludium blog (accessible off the sidebar here). It seems to me very clear that TEC is taking a hardline stance: good-bye not au revoir to the dioceses and parishes seceding from it; and, looking forward to General Convention 2009 when we can cement a few things in place (e.g. clarification of the role of the Presiding Bishop; commitment to GLBT matters). Ironically one of my questions re 'theology' as the foundation of an Anglican church is whether TEC is 'anti-theological' relative to the new province's 'theological' approach. (See note below).

Advice for the ABC: either recognise the new province alongside TEC and ACCan or suspend recognition of all North American Anglican/Episcopal churches until after GC 2009!!

PS Mark Harris is very observant and makes the point - to be noted by those who think the ABC should just recognise the new province and be done with it - that the new province incorporates an amalgam of Anglican entities and episcopal figures not all of which and whom are as well 'ordered' as others!

TEC's 'anti-theological' approach:

Here is a motion to the forthcoming convention of the Diocese of Los Angeles looking ahead to the General Convention (Hat-tip to Titus One Nine):

"Resolution regarding the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033
Resolved, that the One Hundred Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Church in the Diocese of Los Angeles call upon the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church to abide by the canons of The Episcopal Church; to respect the responsibility of each diocese to discern prayerfully the will of God in calling leaders; to refrain from restricting the potential field of candidates on the basis of gender and sexual orientation; and thus to retract General Convention 2006 Resolution B033.
Submitted by: Mr. Jim White
Chair, Diocesan Deputation to General Convention
All Saints’ Church, Pasadena
Explanation
In 2006 the 75th General Convention concurred in the adoption of Resolution B033, which “call[ed] upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” The language of the resolution was widely understood to refer to gay and lesbian persons with same sex domestic partners. Several considerations compel the retraction of General Convention 2006 Resolution B033:
1. In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate. “God is not one to show partiality.” (Acts 10:34-35) The gifts for ministry are given by God’s grace to all members of Christ’s body. (Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians: 4:4-16).
2. Because we are baptized in Christ, our gifts are the result of God’s grace given to us as members of Christ’s body, independent of other distinctions.
3. The Canons of General Convention (Title III, Canon 1, Section 2) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation: “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons.” General Convention 2006 Resolution B033, if interpreted to mean that a person living in a same-sex partnership should be excluded from consecration, stands in conflict with Title III, Canon 1, Section 2."

The 'anti-theology' here is the appeal to egregious error ("In modeling Jesus Christ, as a Church and as Christians, we do not discriminate" - yet Jesus discriminated, e.g. between disciples and would-be disciples, between those who believed in him and those who did not, between 'the Twelve' and the larger group of disciples); the absence of engagement with the possibility that holiness of life might also be determinative alongside consideration of 'gifts'; and the appeal to law (the Canons of General Convention) ahead of appeal to the whole of Scripture).

Do not give ACC a Covenant role

The Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream site is carrying notes from a recent talk given by Christina Baxter, Principal of St John's Nottingham and general luminary in the C of E. In the course of these notes we find the following telling paragraph:

"ACC meets and makes progress reports, does work for Anglican Communion. Most presiding bishops don’t go. ABC is always there as he calls and chairs it. Generally others are not there.

You might be the one person who has gone from your part of the world, eg as a layperson from Japan, and you alone speak for your Province at the ACC. You are struggling to understand. You are a senior layperson, but your Province may not have Synods as frequently as we do, you may not be familiar with your own Province’s personnel or policy. But this is the group which, under proposals of the Covenant, would have to make difficult decisions. It is not fit for purpose."

I have long wondered about the viability of ACC as a comprehensively representative body of the churches of the Anglican Communion. If we are to have a body which implements and applies the Covenant (here I am deliberately choosing not to use words like 'impose and police'), then it needs to be a body in which has the confidence of the whole Communion for the task given to it.

Perhaps we need a new body (e.g. a joint meeting of Primates and ACC) or a new formation of the ACC?

Outstanding argument in support of the new North American province

Not, perhaps, from the source you would expect ... hat-tip to Thinking Anglicans for the link. An excerpt from an article by George Clifford:

"Until two weeks ago, I strongly advocated the Anglican Communion refusing to establish a new province in North America and mandating that provinces cease violating provincial boundaries by conducting ministries or establishing congregations within the Episcopal Church’s jurisdiction.

Then I read that the Episcopal Church had spent in excess of $1.9 million in 2008 on lawsuits connected to the departure of parishes and dioceses from this Church. Daily I read about critical needs for healthcare, food, sanitation, and shelter in the United States and abroad. I see the spiritual illness and death that afflict so many. I remember that Anglicans have wisely never claimed to be the only branch of the Christian Church.

I started to wonder, Was I wrong? Why not another North American province?

Geographic boundaries, I realized, are not as sacrosanct as we who value tradition might wish they were. Within the Anglican Communion, geography has historically defined provinces and dioceses. The same is true of Anglican parishes in England, although not in most other provinces. Yet nowhere in Scripture can one find a God-given plan for the organization of parishes, dioceses, and provinces. Indeed, the whole concept of provinces seems extra-biblical. The geographic model for parishes and dioceses emerged naturally because of physical proximity, administrative practicality, and political identity."

Read here for the remainder

An overpowering bleakness

When will the madness end and the terror be over?

Cricket is pretty important to me, but does not make many appearances on this blog! There is a great site called Cricinfo which enables me to keep up with scores in matches all over the world, and to read some great cricket writing. The site's editor is Sambit Bal. Here's an excerpt from a piece he has written on the terror in Mumbai:

"I was on the streets of Bombay covering the communal riots in 1992, and the serial bomb blasts in 1993. I have seen a mob with swords chase a man and sever his arm from his body; I have seen rioters set an old man alight after garlanding him with car tyres; and I have faced the prospect of being burnt alive myself. For days I left home kissing my small child goodbye with thoughts of the worst. Those days return to haunt me sometimes even today.

But somehow I felt I understood what was happening then. I couldn't relate to it, but I understood the thirst for retaliation and revenge, the hatred and the frenzy that temporarily consumed ordinary people. I even wondered about a foreseeable future when I could sit down with some of the rioters and talk about what drove them to such madness.

But this is simply beyond my comprehension. Every time I see the photograph of the young man - who looks not a lot older than my son - dressed in jeans and t-shirt, carrying a machine gun as casually as he does the satchel over his shoulder, bearing a sinister glee in his eyes, I am reminded of Barack Obama's words about the killers of 9/11: "My powers of empathy, my ability to reach into another's heart, cannot penetrate the blank stares of those who would murder innocents with such serene satisfaction." "

Read all of it - no knowledge of cricket required, just love for humanity!

PS Followers of NZ cricket generally have some insight into Sambit Bal's theme, An Overpowering Bleakness.

Hooker's purple prose

Every so often I dip into Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. He is good for the soul, especially one's Anglican soul, bracing up flagging spirits with faultless logic and penetrating insight into God's holy mysteries.

In the midst of a section in which he elucidates the understanding of Anglican eucharist, steering a clear path through the challenges of Lutheran, Roman and other understandings he says these things in such a manner as ranks him 'up there' with the greatest of writers in the English language.

'... they saw their Lord and Master with hands and eyes lifted up to heaven first bless and consecrate for the endless good of all generations till the world's end the chosen elements of bread and wine, which elements made for ever the instruments of life by virtue of his divine benediction ... They had at that time a sea of comfort and joy to wade in, and we by that which they did are taught that this heavenly food is given for the satisfying of our empty souls, and not for the exercising of our curious and subtile wits.' (5.67.4)

Benedict edges Rome closer to Anglicanism

Work it out for yourselves whether rapprochement between Rome and Canterbury is closer following this report in the NY Times:

VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI may change the sequence of the Catholic Mass, including the sign of peace exchanged between worshippers, in order "to create a more meditative climate" of worship, a senior Vatican official said.

Cardinal Francis Arinze said the pope had asked all bishops for their views on whether the sign of peace, which is currently shared before Communion, should be moved to an earlier point in the Mass.

Arinze, who heads the Vatican body in charge of liturgy and sacraments, made the announcement in the Saturday (Nov. 22) edition of the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.

"The meaning of this gesture is often not fully understood," Arinze told an interviewer. "It is thought to be a chance to shake hands with friends. Instead it is a way to tell those nearby that the peace of Christ, really present on the altar, is also with all men."

Under the contemplated change, Arinze said, the sign of peace would instead take place at the "offering of the gifts" when the Eucharistic bread and wine is brought forward.

Pope Benedict has more than once expressed concern about the disruptive potential of the sign of peace when performed in an inappropriate fashion.

In a 2007 document, he called for "greater restraint in this gesture which can become exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly before the reception of Communion."

Arinze gave no indication of when Benedict might decide on the possible change. [END]

We all know that night follows day, and summer follows spring. The prophetic foresight within me sees validation of the content of our Anglican liturgies following this acceptance of our liturgical order. Validation of our ministerial orders is just around the corner ...

Is the Anglican Communion a church?

I guess until recently my mind was a little hazy about whether the Anglican Communion is a church or not. I think I would have said 'yes, of course, it's the worldwide Anglican church.' But increasingly I realise this is not so. (Yes, some of my friends would remind me that they pointed this out to me ages ago)! The Communion is a fellowship of Anglican churches. Each of these churches has a constitution and a governance structure, including a means of securing legally binding decisions around matters of discipline and doctrine. Each of these churches thus has the means of being a church in the sense of Article 19, 'The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.' That is, the constitution, governance structure and means of securing legally binding decisions around matters of discipline and doctrine ensure that each Anglican church preaches the 'pure Word of God' and duly ministers the Sacraments, albeit according to the understanding of each church.

But the Anglican Communion has no constitution, governance structure and means of securing a legally binding decision. It has the semblance of a constitution and governance structure through its 'Instruments of Communion', at least to the extent that individual member churches of the Communion comply with the lead of the Instruments. But it has no means of legally binding any member church (let alone individual Anglican). So in the end the Communion cannot ensure that the pure Word of God is preached (having no means of declaring authoritatively what an impure Word might be) and the Sacraments duly ministered. It is not a church though it might reasonably be called an ecclesial community or ecclesial body.

The push towards a Covenant is, ultimately, a pressing of the question, Will we become a (world) church? And that question inevitably raises the question of authority: who will be our governors? Those agin such governors readily put the question, 'Oh, so we are going to have a Curia, are we?' Useful to invoke our anti-Roman Catholic heritage when it serves us!

Its been very painful to have to consider these questions in the last decade, but, in hindsight its easy to see that the questions needed to be put at some point. A generally expanding Church of England on the back of colonialism with a series of ad hoc decisions along the way about setting up Synods not subservient to the British Parliament and appointing bishops not signed off by the British monarch, along with a series of fortunate developments such as the Lambeth Conference, and a huge amount of goodwill have taken us so far ... but they have not established a world Anglican church.

Do we want to become a worldwide church?

That's not an easy question to answer. But if we either say 'no' or put off answering, then there are some consequences. First we simply have to accept as beyond legal redress, the 'provincialism' which has led the Diocese of New Hampshire with the support of TEC in one direction and the Diocese of Sydney in another in respect of previously unchallenged aspects of Anglican order (i.e. on the one hand that bishops will be celibate or married; on the other that only priests and bishops will preside at communion). Secondly, there will be ongoing competition by different groupings within the Communion (and beyond it) to assert either 'we are the best expression of Anglicanism' or 'we are the true expression of Anglicanism'. Thirdly, there is no reason not to accept the right of two or more Anglican churches to exist in the same territory. Neither is accountable to some higher Anglican world authority; each may enter into fellowship with other Anglican churches as is mutually agreeable; each may claim to be the 'best' or the 'true' expression of Anglicanism - the sole judge with any kind of authority will be the popular following they gain. Indeed each may be valued by the wider Communion as valuable expressions of Anglican characteristics otherwise submerged if contained within one Anglican church.

But the hardest to measure consequence will be to the mission of God in the world. Will it be helped or hindered by the Anglican Communion not becoming a church?

Finally, if we do not become a church, it is by no means guaranteed that the Anglican Communion will continue more or less as it is. The inauguration in early December of a new province for North America will pose a very sharp challenge. Will the Archbishop of Canterbury recognise this new province? If he does there may be an eruptive reaction from TEC; if he does not there may be a (complete) loss of confidence in the office of Canterbury by GAFCON and Global South churches. How does the Anglican Communion proceed if (say) half its provinces recognise the new province and half do not? It may be able to live with the ambiguity (a specialist Anglican trait)! But it could prove to be a bridge too far in attempting to join the disparate streams of Anglicanism together.