With a welter of opinion going into the Primates' Meeting that it is a kind of 'nothing' meeting (no power, no actual Communion-shaping purpose, merely a sharing of how things are going in respective provinces), unexpectedly 'nothing' has come from it.
Thinking Anglicans has a helpful set of links here to the final day briefing and to some papers produced by the meeting.
I cannot see it, perhaps you can help me by seeing what I do not think is there, but there is no discernible sign of any statement of the primates noting, lamenting, even celebrating the absence of a significant minority of primates from the Primates' Meeting.
Nor can I see any statement addressing the situation the Communion is in.
Now if this nothing meeting was actually a nothing meeting then comment might stop right now. But I notice that the Meeting has issued a series of statements about the situation a number of people are in around the world, troubling, difficult situations, worthy of comment. But no comment about the Communion.
Then I notice that this nothing meeting has made a something statement about the purpose of the Primates' Meetings. You can read it here. It is a marvellous statement. It includes music to some Communion supporters' ears such as this:
"22 The Primates together:
23 ‐ give leadership and support as the Communion lives out the Marks of Mission1
24 ‐ seek continuity and coherence in faith, order, and ethics
25 ‐ provide a focal point of unity
26 ‐ address pressing issues affecting the life of the Communion
27 ‐ provide guidance for the Communion
28 ‐ address pressing issues of global concern
29 ‐ are advocates for social justice in these situations."
But I cannot find where this meeting has done what it has said it is its purpose to do: "address pressing issues affecting the life of the Communion."
There may be an explanation. Further on in the statement we find this:
"We endeavour
30 to accomplish our work through:
31 ‐ prayer
32 ‐ fellowship
33 ‐ study and reflection
34 ‐ caring for one another as Primates and offering mutual support
35 ‐ taking counsel with one another and with the Archbishop of Canterbury
36 ‐ relationship building at regular meetings
37 ‐ being spiritually aware
38 ‐ being collegial
39 ‐ being consultative
40 ‐ acknowledging diversity and giving space for difference
41 ‐ being open to the prophetic Spirit
42 ‐ exercising authority in a way that emerges from consensus‐building and mutual discernment
43 leading to persuasive wisdom
44 ‐ the work of the Primates’ Standing Committee."
Perhaps no consensus emerged as to whether there are, in fact, any pressing issues, let alone what might be said about them.
Whatever happened (or did not happen) in the meeting, from a life of the Communion perspective, we have nothing as a result of the Primates' Meeting.
Have the primates not only dropped the ball but lost it too?
LATER: I acknowledge that ++Rowan's remarks at the press conference do acknowledge the absence of the absenting primates. That he set his expectations of the meeting low enough to be met is unsurprising. Whether he or the primates together have led the meeting to a conclusion which achieves anything meaningful at all about the unravelling life of the Communion is a point which will be tested in months and years ahead. Here I simply note that the meeting offers nothing, save for remarks about continuing commitment to the Communion, which suggests any way or means beyond the impasse. If Lambeth 2018 were to be another Lambeth with a third or so bishops absent are we going to be told that the good thing is that two-thirds were there and everyone, present or absent, is still committed to the Communion?
I suppose I could try that one on my bishop: not turn up for a few key meetings while assuring her that I remained committed to the Diocese. Yeah, right!?
ANGLICAN CURMUDGEON notices things I do not notice about the Primates' Meetings declarations of what they and their Standing Committee are on about. Victory is complete for those whose vision of the Communion is for a talking shop in which we share with each other how different we are from each other and from which the only announcements expressing a common view and value concern the evils of the world, on which we say precisely what concerned non-Christians say!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Pray for the Peace of Cairo
True, the Bible does not say the title of the post (substitute 'Jerusalem' for 'Cairo' and it does, Psalm 122:6), but these days it is just about the same thing, because should Cairo fall into the wrong hands viz a viz the complexity of life, politics, and all that in Palestine/Israel, then the peace of Jerusalem will be imperilled.
I imagine life for Anglicans in Egypt is challenging through these days. As citizens of Egypt they will aspire for good democratic, just government with their fellow citizens; but as realists they will know that should the government of Mubarak topple then it is possible that its replacement (or, eventual replacement) will be an Islamist government. Life is tough enough for Christians in Egypt under the moderate (in respect of religion) government of Mubarak - occasional bombings, lots of subtle and not so subtle anti-Christian pressures (e.g.) restricting church activities and constraining career aspirations of Christian professionals - tougher would be an Islamist government. So praying for the peace of Cairo (the key to Egypt) is praying for a settled state of civic life in which Christians are treated justly, with equal freedom and opportunity as enjoyed by Muslims.
(Bio note: I lived in Cairo, 1982-83, not long after Mubarak began his rule. That vast and populous city was incredibly friendly and safe to reside in. But part of the reasons for feeling safe were the visible signs of military dominated rule: soldiers guarding many buildings. But there were other signs of that dominance such as friendly warnings to take care with what one said because the secret police were anywhere and everywhere. Life was free yet constricted. Many years later the constrictions are obviously chafing).
I imagine life for Anglicans in Egypt is challenging through these days. As citizens of Egypt they will aspire for good democratic, just government with their fellow citizens; but as realists they will know that should the government of Mubarak topple then it is possible that its replacement (or, eventual replacement) will be an Islamist government. Life is tough enough for Christians in Egypt under the moderate (in respect of religion) government of Mubarak - occasional bombings, lots of subtle and not so subtle anti-Christian pressures (e.g.) restricting church activities and constraining career aspirations of Christian professionals - tougher would be an Islamist government. So praying for the peace of Cairo (the key to Egypt) is praying for a settled state of civic life in which Christians are treated justly, with equal freedom and opportunity as enjoyed by Muslims.
(Bio note: I lived in Cairo, 1982-83, not long after Mubarak began his rule. That vast and populous city was incredibly friendly and safe to reside in. But part of the reasons for feeling safe were the visible signs of military dominated rule: soldiers guarding many buildings. But there were other signs of that dominance such as friendly warnings to take care with what one said because the secret police were anywhere and everywhere. Life was free yet constricted. Many years later the constrictions are obviously chafing).
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The Gift of Primacy and the Dereliction of Primatial Duty
It is very nice to see ACANZP's own ++Winston Halapua featuring in an ACNS daily briefing. Briefing 2 (from Day 3) is on primacy. Here is the report re ++Winston's remarks:
"Whatever the similarities or differences between the roles and responsibilities of Primates across the Communion, seeing primacy as a gift rather than a right was a concept expressed by Archbishop Winston of The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia as he explained the concept of ‘Tikanga’.
He said the word meant “The place where you stand”, that your position was sacred ground gifted to you by your ancestors, your people, the environment. He said that the position of Primate was gifted to the role-bearer as a responsibility for a time and for the future. “You don’t own it,” he said, “the place [role] owns you. It’s a gift, not a right. It’s a privilege.” "
I like the idea of primacy as a gift rather than a right. Certainly the three primates of our church (++David Moxon, ++Brown Turei, ++Winston Halapua) conduct their roles with humility and care.
I confess to being slightly puzzled by the definition given of 'tikanga' and would appreciate any assistance ACANZP readers could give me. The definition given sounds to me more like a definition of another word, turangawaewae.
But if a bouquet can be given to ++Winston, should we throw a brickbat at the organisers of the meeting as a whole? Over on 'catholicity and covenant' a little sentence is picked up in the report:
"The question was raised, though not addressed in plenary, about how far Primates had a role in safeguarding the life of the Communion as a whole."
Errm, isn't that what many Anglicans with understanding of what is at stake in this meeting are looking for? A plenary addressing of the big questions about the life of the Communion as a whole, whether the primates do or do not have a role in respect of such big questions ... wouldn't that be a good idea?
Have the primates dropped the ball and been derelict in the duty of primatial care for the Communion?
"Whatever the similarities or differences between the roles and responsibilities of Primates across the Communion, seeing primacy as a gift rather than a right was a concept expressed by Archbishop Winston of The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia as he explained the concept of ‘Tikanga’.
He said the word meant “The place where you stand”, that your position was sacred ground gifted to you by your ancestors, your people, the environment. He said that the position of Primate was gifted to the role-bearer as a responsibility for a time and for the future. “You don’t own it,” he said, “the place [role] owns you. It’s a gift, not a right. It’s a privilege.” "
I like the idea of primacy as a gift rather than a right. Certainly the three primates of our church (++David Moxon, ++Brown Turei, ++Winston Halapua) conduct their roles with humility and care.
I confess to being slightly puzzled by the definition given of 'tikanga' and would appreciate any assistance ACANZP readers could give me. The definition given sounds to me more like a definition of another word, turangawaewae.
But if a bouquet can be given to ++Winston, should we throw a brickbat at the organisers of the meeting as a whole? Over on 'catholicity and covenant' a little sentence is picked up in the report:
"The question was raised, though not addressed in plenary, about how far Primates had a role in safeguarding the life of the Communion as a whole."
Errm, isn't that what many Anglicans with understanding of what is at stake in this meeting are looking for? A plenary addressing of the big questions about the life of the Communion as a whole, whether the primates do or do not have a role in respect of such big questions ... wouldn't that be a good idea?
Have the primates dropped the ball and been derelict in the duty of primatial care for the Communion?
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Theology of the Primate of TEC
It is difficult to know where to begin with a response to this lecture by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori! The context is an Episcopalian leader delivering a lecture to a Roman Catholic college. Quite a bit of hopeful desire for common working together between Anglicans and Romans features in the lecture. Amen to that.
Here are two parts in the lecture which illustrate why some of us have just a little difficulty with this Primate's theology and cannot say 'Amen' to it.
(1) "It’s important to spend some time looking at our history, because many people erroneously believe that the big conflict came at the time of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The differences between Roman and Anglican Christianity have certainly solidified since then, but the roots are much older. The points of difference between our respective communions are, to this day, rooted in different responses to contextual diversity. How shall the faith develop, or be permitted to develop, in the face of differing local conditions, challenges, and gifts?"
Mere plonkers of the Anglican world like me have been taught that there was a local issue of praxis at the time of the Reformation (Henry's marriages) but a universal issue (or set of issues) of theology. What was the gospel? How are people saved? These were universal questions of theology which Cranmer and co tackled. They thought Rome was wrong, not an Italian development which did not translate onto English soil. They succoured continental reformers who brought with them insights into the universal gospel of Christ nurtured in Swiss and French towns. They did not reject those insights because they came into being in differing local conditions across the Channel! I find it amazing that almost the opposite of what I have learned is being taught here. Of course I could be wrong. But what if it is the Presiding Bishop who is wrong in her understanding of Anglican history? Is that not a serious difficulty both for her own church and for the Communion as it seeks to welcome her leadership?
(2) "One of the charisms of Orthodoxy is the sense that God is active in far more than we recognize, that rather than two or seven sacraments, there are dozens or hundreds and even more than we can count or know." Again, we plonkers have been taught there are two dominical sacraments and five sacramental actions, and we have a bit of theological sport with those Anglicans who have sipped from the Tiber and loosely assert there are seven sacraments. But the Presiding Bishop is saying here that we are wrong. There are dozens of sacraments or hundreds and even more than we can count or know. Is this truth backed up by any catechetical statements anywhere in the Communion? [In the light of Bosco Peters' comment below I acknowledge unreservedly that the PB is backed up here by the official teaching of her own church. But that in itself highlights a possible distinction between TEC and the Communion, leading to the question whether it is a widespread Anglican teaching re sacraments which aligns more with Orthodox teaching (see, again, Bosco's comment below for reference) than with the teaching of the Church of England at the time of the Reformation].
In the end I would want to ask this question of PB Jefferts Schori: is there anything special in God's eyes about people who entrust their lives to Jesus Christ? On the basis of the lecture the answer is negative. God is at work everywhere, in all faiths, so much so that the missional task is to seek out partners among non-Christians in renewing and restoring creation. That God might be at work everywhere tilling the soil for the reception of the gospel does not figure in this lecture. That people being saved through religious pathways other than the way of Jesus undermines any necessity for that way seems lost on this lecturer. On the evidence presented here Jesus died to initiate a local rather than universal means of salvation. Note some logical consistency here: ++Jefferts Schori also understands Anglicanism as characterised by developing the faith locally rather than universally.*
Well, the evidence is there for all to see, that there are reasonable grounds for concern about the general theological direction of TEC, as represented in its Primate's articulation of her views. Some of what she says is not true, some of it raises significant questions as to whether it coheres with Anglican theology as broadly subscribed to across the Communion [n.b. italicised words here re worked since original posting], and, in the end, some of it seems at variance with the gospel of Jesus Christ itself.
*The Anglican Communion necessarily becomes a talking shop: how is your local Anglican expression of the localised Christian faith doing? There is no vision of a universal Anglican mission to spread the universal gospel of Christ within this lecture.
Here are two parts in the lecture which illustrate why some of us have just a little difficulty with this Primate's theology and cannot say 'Amen' to it.
(1) "It’s important to spend some time looking at our history, because many people erroneously believe that the big conflict came at the time of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The differences between Roman and Anglican Christianity have certainly solidified since then, but the roots are much older. The points of difference between our respective communions are, to this day, rooted in different responses to contextual diversity. How shall the faith develop, or be permitted to develop, in the face of differing local conditions, challenges, and gifts?"
Mere plonkers of the Anglican world like me have been taught that there was a local issue of praxis at the time of the Reformation (Henry's marriages) but a universal issue (or set of issues) of theology. What was the gospel? How are people saved? These were universal questions of theology which Cranmer and co tackled. They thought Rome was wrong, not an Italian development which did not translate onto English soil. They succoured continental reformers who brought with them insights into the universal gospel of Christ nurtured in Swiss and French towns. They did not reject those insights because they came into being in differing local conditions across the Channel! I find it amazing that almost the opposite of what I have learned is being taught here. Of course I could be wrong. But what if it is the Presiding Bishop who is wrong in her understanding of Anglican history? Is that not a serious difficulty both for her own church and for the Communion as it seeks to welcome her leadership?
(2) "One of the charisms of Orthodoxy is the sense that God is active in far more than we recognize, that rather than two or seven sacraments, there are dozens or hundreds and even more than we can count or know." Again, we plonkers have been taught there are two dominical sacraments and five sacramental actions, and we have a bit of theological sport with those Anglicans who have sipped from the Tiber and loosely assert there are seven sacraments. But the Presiding Bishop is saying here that we are wrong. There are dozens of sacraments or hundreds and even more than we can count or know. Is this truth backed up by any catechetical statements anywhere in the Communion? [In the light of Bosco Peters' comment below I acknowledge unreservedly that the PB is backed up here by the official teaching of her own church. But that in itself highlights a possible distinction between TEC and the Communion, leading to the question whether it is a widespread Anglican teaching re sacraments which aligns more with Orthodox teaching (see, again, Bosco's comment below for reference) than with the teaching of the Church of England at the time of the Reformation].
In the end I would want to ask this question of PB Jefferts Schori: is there anything special in God's eyes about people who entrust their lives to Jesus Christ? On the basis of the lecture the answer is negative. God is at work everywhere, in all faiths, so much so that the missional task is to seek out partners among non-Christians in renewing and restoring creation. That God might be at work everywhere tilling the soil for the reception of the gospel does not figure in this lecture. That people being saved through religious pathways other than the way of Jesus undermines any necessity for that way seems lost on this lecturer. On the evidence presented here Jesus died to initiate a local rather than universal means of salvation. Note some logical consistency here: ++Jefferts Schori also understands Anglicanism as characterised by developing the faith locally rather than universally.*
Well, the evidence is there for all to see, that there are reasonable grounds for concern about the general theological direction of TEC, as represented in its Primate's articulation of her views. Some of what she says is not true, some of it raises significant questions as to whether it coheres with Anglican theology as broadly subscribed to across the Communion [n.b. italicised words here re worked since original posting], and, in the end, some of it seems at variance with the gospel of Jesus Christ itself.
*The Anglican Communion necessarily becomes a talking shop: how is your local Anglican expression of the localised Christian faith doing? There is no vision of a universal Anglican mission to spread the universal gospel of Christ within this lecture.
Inconvenient facts (2)
Another inconvenient fact at this time concerns the question of whether or not the primates represent their respective churches.
Fact: no one anywhere in the Anglican world denies that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori represents the overwhelming majority of her church, TEC. (Some of us would go much further and say that she superbly represents her church, to the point of all but being a living embodiment of its values and virtues).
Fact: some commentators in the Anglican world deny that primates by virtue of their office are representative of their respective churches. Despite processes of election and appointment in order to secure fit and articulate bishops for churches, and further processes by which those bishops (if not bishops, clergy and laity) choose one from their number to be their primate (exceptions, England where the crown decides; and ACANZP, my church, where we choose three), any representative connection between church and primate is denied by these commentators.
Are the commentators right? If so, is PB Jefferts Schori the exception to their ruling?
Is there any just, fair and true understanding in the denial of representativeness? Is it all possible that we are seeing the expression of bias and prejudice over rationality?
In this case the bias is this: 'primate in favour of TEC's innovations = good person, obviously representative of their church' but 'primate not in favour of TEC's innovations = doubtful person (ask question, are they bigoted, homophobic?), obviously unrepresentative of their church.'
Fact: no one anywhere in the Anglican world denies that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori represents the overwhelming majority of her church, TEC. (Some of us would go much further and say that she superbly represents her church, to the point of all but being a living embodiment of its values and virtues).
Fact: some commentators in the Anglican world deny that primates by virtue of their office are representative of their respective churches. Despite processes of election and appointment in order to secure fit and articulate bishops for churches, and further processes by which those bishops (if not bishops, clergy and laity) choose one from their number to be their primate (exceptions, England where the crown decides; and ACANZP, my church, where we choose three), any representative connection between church and primate is denied by these commentators.
Are the commentators right? If so, is PB Jefferts Schori the exception to their ruling?
Is there any just, fair and true understanding in the denial of representativeness? Is it all possible that we are seeing the expression of bias and prejudice over rationality?
In this case the bias is this: 'primate in favour of TEC's innovations = good person, obviously representative of their church' but 'primate not in favour of TEC's innovations = doubtful person (ask question, are they bigoted, homophobic?), obviously unrepresentative of their church.'
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Inconvenient facts (1)
Here is an inconvenient fact for those asserting that All is Well in the Communion: the Anglican Communion as a formal entity posing as the official organisation (or organism) of Anglicans around the world is running the risk of representing only a third of those Anglicans while other bodies rise up to speak for the other two-thirds.
ACI has published a helpful post here explaining how the absentee primates at the current Primates' Meeting in Dublin represent (or, if like Mark Harris at Preludium you dispute that, are drawn from) churches comprised of two-thirds of Anglicans around our globe.
If the primates who have shown up are not careful, the evolving state of affairs of the Communion (remember Lambeth 2008 when not all bishops showed up) will continue to move in a direction whereby no Instrument of Unity will speak for any set of Anglicans greater than one-third of all Anglicans.
Dare we hope for a change of name to the Anglican Communion since it will not be a label consistent with the contents of its 'tin'? (How about Anglican Minority Communion?) Might we get some honest recognition by the primates of where things are heading?
Can they yet propose a way forward which sees the Anglican Whatever consisting of a majority of Anglicans and not a minority?
Any signs yet that the primates are urgently tackling risk of the diminution of the Communion? Nope!
ACI has published a helpful post here explaining how the absentee primates at the current Primates' Meeting in Dublin represent (or, if like Mark Harris at Preludium you dispute that, are drawn from) churches comprised of two-thirds of Anglicans around our globe.
If the primates who have shown up are not careful, the evolving state of affairs of the Communion (remember Lambeth 2008 when not all bishops showed up) will continue to move in a direction whereby no Instrument of Unity will speak for any set of Anglicans greater than one-third of all Anglicans.
Dare we hope for a change of name to the Anglican Communion since it will not be a label consistent with the contents of its 'tin'? (How about Anglican Minority Communion?) Might we get some honest recognition by the primates of where things are heading?
Can they yet propose a way forward which sees the Anglican Whatever consisting of a majority of Anglicans and not a minority?
Any signs yet that the primates are urgently tackling risk of the diminution of the Communion? Nope!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
You make the call!
If you pop over to ACNS you can find a useful list of attending and non-attending primates AND in a novel, but helpful and relevant development a list of reasons being given for non-attendance.
Here is the list of reasons:
"For reasons of visa difficulties:
Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du Congo The Most Revd Henry Kahwa Isingoma
For reasons of health:
La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico The Most Revd Carlos Touche-Porter
The Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma) The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo
For reasons of diary commitments:
The Anglican Church of Kenya The Most Revd Eliud Wabukala
The Church of North India (United) The Most Revd Purely Lyngdoh
For personal reasons:
The Anglican Church of Tanzania The Most Revd Valentino Mokiwa
For reasons of Provincial matters:
The Episcopal Church of the Sudan The Most Revd Daniel Deng Bul Yak (the referendum)
L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda The Most Revd Onesphore Rwaje (two days after his installation)
Those who have chosen to stay away over recent developments in The Episcopal Church:
The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean The Most Revd Gerald James (Ian) Ernest
The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East The Most Revd Mouneer Hanna Anis
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) The Most Rt Revd Nicholas Dikeriehi Okoh
The Church of the Province of Uganda The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi
Church of the Province of South East Asia The Most Revd John Chew
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America The Most Revd Hector Zavala
The Church of the Province of West Africa The Most Revd Justice Ofei Akrofi "
But, as Sarah points out in a comment on my previous post, the list bears analysis. If we ask the question 'who among those who are absent are likely to either (1) sign a statement of protest against TEC's actions and/or (2) work on alternative structures such as GAFCON and Global South?' then the number is greater than the seven at the bottom of the list.
What is your call on who might be fellow supporters of the seven who have stated in writing that they are not attending because of developments in TEC?
I would add at least Kenya, Rwanda, and Tanzania. Sudan should be considered.
Here is the list of reasons:
"For reasons of visa difficulties:
Province de L'Eglise Anglicane Du Congo The Most Revd Henry Kahwa Isingoma
For reasons of health:
La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico The Most Revd Carlos Touche-Porter
The Church of the Province of Myanmar (Burma) The Most Revd Stephen Than Myint Oo
For reasons of diary commitments:
The Anglican Church of Kenya The Most Revd Eliud Wabukala
The Church of North India (United) The Most Revd Purely Lyngdoh
For personal reasons:
The Anglican Church of Tanzania The Most Revd Valentino Mokiwa
For reasons of Provincial matters:
The Episcopal Church of the Sudan The Most Revd Daniel Deng Bul Yak (the referendum)
L'Eglise Episcopal au Rwanda The Most Revd Onesphore Rwaje (two days after his installation)
Those who have chosen to stay away over recent developments in The Episcopal Church:
The Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean The Most Revd Gerald James (Ian) Ernest
The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & The Middle East The Most Revd Mouneer Hanna Anis
The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) The Most Rt Revd Nicholas Dikeriehi Okoh
The Church of the Province of Uganda The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi
Church of the Province of South East Asia The Most Revd John Chew
Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America The Most Revd Hector Zavala
The Church of the Province of West Africa The Most Revd Justice Ofei Akrofi "
But, as Sarah points out in a comment on my previous post, the list bears analysis. If we ask the question 'who among those who are absent are likely to either (1) sign a statement of protest against TEC's actions and/or (2) work on alternative structures such as GAFCON and Global South?' then the number is greater than the seven at the bottom of the list.
What is your call on who might be fellow supporters of the seven who have stated in writing that they are not attending because of developments in TEC?
I would add at least Kenya, Rwanda, and Tanzania. Sudan should be considered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)