I have already noted the threats, that are well-known to exist, to the future of the Anglican Communion. From a careful reading of the Communiqué following the recent meeting in Alexandria of the Primates of the Communion, and on the basis of what some of them have written and said since, it would be foolishly optimistic to imagine that the existing difficulties were on the point of being overcome. One commentator seems to me to have summed up the situation well when he wrote: “(the communiqué) seemed to mark the acceptance, finally, of the unbridgeability of the Communion’s divide over sexuality and biblical authority, while leaving the outworking of this conclusion still undetermined.”
It may well be the case that only a proportion even of ‘active’ members of the Church of England are much concerned about the Anglican Communion. But even those less concerned would, I think, be faced with questions both within their churches, and from their friends and in the Media, if the Communion were explicitly, by decisions of responsible bodies, to divide. This too would suggest that things were not as they had been ”“ and the more so, if there came (as I think that there would quickly come) pressures upon the General Synod, or upon individual Dioceses, to make choices between the (by then) divided parts of the Anglican Communion.
Many fewer people, I think, are aware of the growing head of steam, in the ‘Global South’ and more accurately among the ‘GAFCON’ elements of the Communion, for a early Review of the processes for the appointment, and of the role, of the Archbishop of Canterbury, on account of the post-holder’s responsibilities as the senior Primate of the Anglican Communion, and as one (arguably, and certainly at present, the most significant and effective) of its four ‘Instruments of Communion’. Specifically, should these roles and responsibilities in and for the contemporary Anglican Communion be located in the See of Canterbury, whose occupant is an appointee of the British Crown (and to date a Briton though today not an Englishman), rather than in an (Arch)bishop elected, like every other Primate, by his peers.
Here are complex questions (explored already in the Hurd Commission’s Review of the See of Canterbury published in 2001): of the relationships of the Provinces of the Communion, and so of Anglicanism itself, to the See, and to the Cathedral, of Canterbury; of the future of the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and so of other English Bishops) by the Crown; and of the possibility of an Archbishop of Canterbury who was not British ”“ but could such a person fulfil the roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the life of England and of the Church of England? (Could we imagine an English bishop today as Archbishop of Nigeria, or of Australia?) These questions have the potential to cause a good deal of unsettled-ness in the Church of England, and to divert a good deal of energy, if the Global South presses them as I believe that it will.
I am finding the more challenging question to be “Did the past have a Church of England?” — or was it merely an “ecclesial body” all the time?
“the Archbishop of Canterbury, on account of the post-holder’s responsibilities as the senior Primate of the Anglican Communion, and as one (arguably, and certainly at present, the most significant and effective) of its four ‘Instruments of Communion'” … this is most certainly news to his Grace, I would think, unless one defines “effective” as preventing(?) the dissolution of the Anglican Communion yet by the ignoring of the Global North and its disastroud destruction of the bonds of affection and agenda. But, hey, I’m not a bishop in the CoE, so I might be objective.
Over 50 years ago C.S. Lewis wrote an item on modern Biblical criticism and Anglican theologians. He sounded a little irked that he had to be the one pointing out their errors. Toward the end he said being a missionary to his clergy was tiresome, but that if such missionary work was not carried out “The future history of the Church of England is likely to be short”. But no one reads him anymore, do they? He was opreating in the days when men only married women.
Oh dear. Rather blinkered, I am afraid. Take, for example, his assertion that disestablishment would damage Christian witness in England. Surely it is in the countries in Europe that have, or have had, state churches (Scandinavia; England) that Christianity is at its weakest. His assertion begs the question of whether the Church of England has anything to learn from its sister provinces overseas.
Then I found this statement astonishing Roman Catholics (in early 18th century British eyes, and experience, the Taliban of their day) . Well, thanks to Linda Colley’s book Britons we know that 18th century Englishmen and women saw Catholics as The Other. But as being in today’s terms, the Taliban? Mass slaughtering, apocalyptically-driven terrorists? It says more about the Bishop than it does about the history of the 18th century, I fear.
Oh dear, oh dear. The Rt. Rev. Scott-Joynt also seems to have missed the following analysis by one of his predecessors, a rather well-known 19th century CofE cleric: [blockquote] The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given. . . . If Christianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must humanly speaking have an infallible expounder. Else you will secure unity of form at the loss of unity of doctrine, or unity of doctrine at the loss of unity of form; you will have to choose between a comprehension of opinions and a resolution into parties, between latitudinarian and sectarian error. You may be tolerant or intolerant of contrarieties of thought, but contrarieties you will have. By the Church of England a hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the sects of England an interminable division. Germany and Geneva began with persecution and have ended in scepticism. The doctrine of infallibility is a less violent hypothesis than this sacrifice either of faith or of charity. It secures the object, while it gives definiteness and force to the matter, of Revelation.†[/blockquote] It would suggest that the problem in the CofE has been developing for quite some time—since at least the mid-19th century, at the latest.
The author was, of course, John Henry Newman. It was written in 1844, about one year prior to his conversion to the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I think it rather apt to the present situation in the Anglican Communion and, very likely (at least to some degree) to the contemporary CofE as well.
Blessings and regards,
Keith Toepfer
________________________
†—Cited in the article [i]Benedict’s Vatican II Hermeneutic[/i] by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., the daily article at First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/) for Friday, March 13, 2009.