The Anglican Communion is a family of autonomous Churches. It finds its identity in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Churches of the Communion, which are self-governing, share something of a common history, and have traditionally set their faces against centralised government in favour of regional autonomy1. The Anglican tradition was fashioned in the turmoil of reformation in Western Europe in the sixteenth century. Its historic formularies acknowledge the circumstances in which its emerged as a distinctive church polity. The non-negotiable elements in any understanding of Anglicanism – the scriptures, the creeds, the gospel sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, and the historic episcopate – are to be found in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral2; and the Instruments of Communion – the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting – provide an evolving framework within which discussion and discernment might take place. It remains to be seen if the circumstances in which the Communion finds itself today – externally and internally – might require over the years a shift of emphasis from “autonomy with communion” to “communion with autonomy and accountability”.
The principle of autonomy-in-communion described in the Windsor Report makes clear that the principle of subsidiarity has always to be borne in mind. If the concern is with communion in a diocese, only diocesan authority is involved; if communion at a provincial level then only provincial decision. But if the matter concerns recognising one another as sharing one communion of faith and life, then some joint organs of discernment and decision, which are recognised by all, are required. It is this necessity which led the WCG to articulate the move to “communion with autonomy and accountability” as being a better articulation of the ecclesiology which is necessary to sustain Communion.
So the task for the CDG was to write something which preserved the autonomy of the Churches, but which provided for a strong glue that held us together. It had to reflect the fact that as Anglicans we do not believe in one authority structure, but in dispersed authority – the whole people of God bearing witness to the Truth found in Jesus Christ, and each church rooting its witness in its own mission context.
The introduction doesn’t address the question of why the Joint Standing Committee was chosen as the ultimate arbiter of Anglican-ness.
My fears are coming to pass that the Covenant “process” (Yuck, I hate that word) is being manipulated so that the end result will be further marginalization of the Global South and enshrinement of the status quo which favors Ms Jefferts Schori. Why don’t we just make her ABC and get it over with?
This is a fine talk indeed. I commend its content, its tone, and — where it was necessary — its personal passion. It has been a privilege to serve with this great Anglican leader, who has been sometimes unjustly maligned by by some in the TEC, ACNA and the CofE mainly because of his principled positions on behalf of traditional Anglican witness and the Communion’s common life both. Would that the Communion had more leaders like Abp. Drexel!
As for the question of the JSC’s proposed role in the Covenant, that Mr. Roy alludes to and which, I take it, is one of the reasons he noted rather inappropriately (in my mind) on another thread here that the Covenant should “go to hell”:
a. The Primates were first proposed as a significant gateway of dispute resolution and there was significant feeling expressed around the Communion against that (including from many GS responses — something to be borne in mind);
b. The ACC was then proposed, and this met with a similar amount of concern.
In both cases, the issue was one of deep mistrust, though for different reasons and from different groups within the Communion (although not always). The reasons behind this mistrust are well-known.
The proposal of the JSC, as opposed to a new group gathered for the task (also examined as a possibility), was based on several considerations, including:
a. It is representative of all of the other three Instruments
b. It is smaller and much more easily gathered on a more frequent basis for various responsive needs and able to consult more quickly
c. It will probably be enlarged with a greater representation of Primates, thereby providing yet more representativeness
d. It does not set up a new mini-instrument, as it were, in potential political competition with other Instruments
There are reasons some might mistrust the JSC as well, of course. Welcome to the club. Remember, however, that any JSC engagement with difficult dispute-resolution among covenanting churches will probably require the recusal of members who are involved in the dispute itself (this is all laid out in the Covenant, and seems to be forgotten by those who fear that this or that church will manipulate decisions in their favor).
I am not sure that the current business at the ACC ought to reflect one way or the other on the JSC (which is missing, after all, any African representation — not due to the JSC’s fault — and has had to deal with an impossibly resolved, in the sense of pleasing a majority of the ACC’s membership, dilemma).
The ACC itself has shown itself to be — presently as in the past — a rather argumentative gathering. Not unlike some other church gatherings. There is a lot of political maneuvering. The tone of remarks and goals expressed by some participants does not do the Gospel any favors of witness at times. But it is a gathering of the Communion’s representatives in this particular venue, and it embodies all the difficulties we know too well to characterize our widely-scattered churches and their life internally and with one another. I have been chided in the past for wishing somehow I or my “party” could dictate the outcome to such gatherings, in their debates and decisions. Obviously, one wishes things would turn out according to one’s own views! But the warning is fair enough as far as it goes: the ACC, like any other ecclesial gathering, will do what it can do among its participants according to the gifts it possesses and the willingness of its members to be guided by more than their own desires, but even by the Spirit of Christ and His truth. Many of us, like Abp. Drexel, have prepared long and hard for this gathering, and others like it and yet to come; now we pray with a spirit of hope in the Lord’s power and grace.
Dr. Radner,
Could you address the serious question that the JSC clearly under-represents the African churches of the Communion? 50% of the Communions members are African, but do to the way the primate’s standing committee is chosen (by region), only one primate represents them. This seems a difficulty Communion wide- that the Instruments all undervalue the membership of African Provinces. This is what leads to the charge of colonialism.
Likewise, the ACC membership is particularly tilted toward the “Anglo Saxon” or European descent. New Zealand currently (due to various “at large” appointments) has more ACC representation than Nigeria. This means that the ACC component of the JSC also under-represents the African population of the Communion. In essence, the Instruments have 2 senates and no house. The Lambeth Conference is no better, as TEC can afford a plethora of bishops, most overseeing a tiny diocese, by comparison to a bishop in Uganda or Sudan. So, TEC has a representation at Lambeth 10 times what its numbers in terms of parishioners would justify.
Oops, sorry. My second sentence above should say “…due to the way…” My grammar leaves something to be desired prior to the second cup of coffee.
RE: “It will probably be enlarged with a greater representation of Primates, thereby providing yet more representativeness . . . ”
Knowing how the ABC works, the new representative Primates will no doubt be from Canada, Wales, Brazil, etc. After five years of watching, we already know how that works with him.
And increasingly, Primates from the Global South have recognized just how manipulated all of these bodies are, how much they are tools of what TEC/Kearon/Canterbury/et al desire, and have rightly refused to be a party to it. Hence — not showing up for Lambeth, not showing up for JSC “work,” and most likely escalating to the Primates meeting as well.
The good news, for RobRoy anyway, is that he doesn’t need to be fearful of the JSC manipulating whatever they are in charge of to the advantage of the libs — that’s a given.
The only thing he needs to be fearful of is that the Gafcon Primates sign on to the Covenant in the first place. Hopefully they’ll recognize how absolutely crazed it is to express further and deepened commitment to an entity that never resolved any of its presenting problems — not one, mind you — over the past five years.
As I stated on another thread: [blockquote]Furthermore, you’re actually signing on to a body through the Covenant that is incoherent, and making promises of yet more unity to an organization that is absolutely proven to be corrupt, fragmented, and grossly dysfunctional.
It’s a bit like a board being asked by the CEO of a company to sign “this special covenant here that unifies you even more thoroughly” with a company that is under investigation for SEC violations, and whose shareholders are either selling their shares or suing the board, and whose CFO is in jail for embezzlement, and whose secretary and treasurer of the board believe the company should be manufacturing automobiles rather than leading corporate safaris.
Any reasonable board member would say “I am sorry, but we’ll need to straighten out the company first — deal with the lost CFO, settle the suits, investigate the SEC issues, create some additional protocols and checks that prevent this from ever happening again, figure out what we’re supposed to be selling or producing as a company — and then I’ll consider signing on to this further-unifying Covenant document. And by the way . . . my lawyer will need to review it as well.”
I simply can’t imagine a leader of a Province saying “yes — this is a great idea, let’s enshrine the state of our Communion by signing on to this document, despite the fact that the Communion’s members share entirely different gospels. And then stand back and see what happens.”
A healthy and functional system would reverse the process. “Let’s deal with the horrible issues that are fragmenting our Communion, and then let’s all recommit ourselves to it in a wonderful and renewed fashion.”[/blockquote]
Sarah writes: “Furthermore, you’re actually signing on to a body through the Covenant that is incoherent, and making promises of yet more unity to an organization that is absolutely proven to be corrupt, fragmented, and grossly dysfunctional.
It’s a bit like a board being asked by the CEO of a company to sign “this special covenant here that unifies you even more thoroughly†with a company that is under investigation for SEC violations, and whose shareholders are either selling their shares or suing the board, and whose CFO is in jail for embezzlement…”
Absolutely right!
Neither TEC nor the Communion follow their own laws and canons. We have seen the leadership violate their laws, assume and exercise powers they do not have. ‘Carpe diem’ or seize whatever you can, seems to be the operant strategy.
Having KJS/TEC at the table in this meeting and in good standing in in the Anglican Communion is a sign of the corruption…like having the plaintiff serve as captain of the jury or judge in his own trial.
The West/Northern AC Provinces have become attached to sin, mired in corruption and severed from God. It does not operate on law and truth and reality. The only remedy is repentance and surrender to God’s word.
Honesty and humility are required, however to receive help and healing from God. It is hard to say, I’m wrong. But the way of the Cross (Galatians 5:24) is the only way to health and holiness and the result is sufficient reward in itself and worth much more than the cost.
“It finds its identity in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”
Or, not. This month the Diocese of Olympia newspaper has this concerning Ann Redding:
“Ann Holmes Redding was removed from the priesthood by Rhode Island Bishop Geralyn Wolf on March 31, 2009, citing that Redding had abandoned the Anglican Communion by becoming a Muslim while still an Episcopal priest. While she is no longer a priest, Redding does remain a lay member of the Episcopal Church.”
OK. So, while invoking some vague entity called the “One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, it seems to include confessing Muslims. Maybe *all* Muslims? Are they Anglicans and just don’t know it? Amazing. Abandon communion, but still a layman. HOW CAN YOU NOT BE ANGLICAN??? Does it mean anything to say you are?? At this point does the word “Covenant” mean anything? It certainly removes all the controversy from the idea of same-sex marriage. Since covenants mean nothing, every normal marriage means nothing, so a same sex marriage, well, it means just as much, right? Abandoning communion means nothing, so abandoning a wife (whether one is also a wife or not) must mean just as much. This organization is just about as deep as a film of electrons on a screen.
Some of the comments above seem evince a tone of sober realism. Hence, because of the way things “really” are, the Communion is hopleess, its gatherings are pointless, its leaders are useless — it is not only a waste of time to deal with them, it is perverse.
For my part, however, I find this kind of attitude highly UNrealistic, for it ignores both the reality of the promises of God and the reality of human gatherings and decision-making, the church included (what we call “politics”). With respect to the first, one has only to read something like 2 Corinthians 4:7-18 to be astonished by the reality that the Gospel embodies in the face of seemingly immovable opposition. With respect to the second, one can ask what is being gained by the fatalism expressed above: 200 bishops choose not to attend Lambeth; Orombi and his clerical delegation choose not to attend the JSC and the ACC because they think (so we are led to suppose at least by some of the comments here) that it is a “waste of time” and will be manipulated and abused in any case just like every other meeting — and all for what? To be absent from among those who take counsel for the Communion, for better or worse. It is analgous to the argument that, because marriages are frequently beset by adultery and abuse, marriage itself is pointless. (An argument, it should be noted, that some people DO in fact make.) The advocates of gay inclusion look on and say, “and these folk claim to be our ‘opponents’? Good luck to them!”. I cannot help but think of Jesus words in his parable: “the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing the their own generaiton than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8), words not meant to be a compliment to the pious.
I may have disagreements with Rowan Williams on a number issues, as do many. But his consistent theological claim that the Gospel is undergirded by and indeed discloses a patient perseverence into the face of the most difficult enmity is one from which can all learn. It is profoundly reality-affirming.
To TJMcMahon’s question: there is no doubt a problem with representation now in the face of rapidly expanding African churches especially, and shrinking and/or stagnating churches elsewhere. It is a problem that is widely recognized, and will probably be dealt with at some point sooner rather than later at the ACC. It needs to be said, however, that its solution is probably not going to be the creation of forms of representation that are simply numerically based. This has never been the method of Christian representation within the long tradition of the Church. And in the Anglican Communion there has been great care exercised over the decades to affirm the “equal” voice, as it were, of small churches and large — something originally meant to protect the interests of missionary areas and younger churches; now, obviously, with the shoe on the other foot to some degree (although not wholly).
There is no doubt that TEC exercises undue and unjust influence on the affairs of the Communion. Oddly enough, this was trumpeted as the likely outcome of political shifts in the world back after WW II by the great missionary leader Max Warren. What has happened, however, is that the political shift took place without a parallel religious/theological shift to match it: Episcopalians (and North Americans by and large) have diminished in their witness, and squandered so many gifts. But diminished political power has not caught up with the reality of this diminished faith. It will! It already is! In sum, there is work to do here; but its outcome will have to be carefully achieved, and not simply embraced through the imposition of some new formula. Suggestions?
Having expressed some dissatisfaction with certain attitudes expressed here, let me also say: the discussion itself that we are having, along with its voiced rejections and disappointments, and ones that mirror feelings around the Communion in different degrees, needs to happen and needs to happen publicly. I will grant that: it is itself a necessary facing up to and into the reality of change and readjustment that must take place and is taking place amongst us as Anglican Christians. The wholly lost confidence in the Communion that some are now feeling, even if I for one think it to be a mistaken conclusion, is not based on a fantasy, as most of us who pay attention to the larger Church’s life around the world know well, even while others deliberately deny the facts. Still, we live in a world where things get done, yes, through “processes”. It’s not my favorite word either, but it will have to do, because they cannot simply be thrown overboard in hopes that the future will somehow be formed through some kind of immediate creation. Why Paul was willing to go to his synagogues and to the Temple despite being hounded and beaten, yet we have given up on our church meetings because we don’t get what we want from them consistently is a disparity of behavior that continues to puzzle me.
#5: I whole-heartedly agree!
What does the cobbling together mean: of people who agree to a “unity” which is all about organizational process and nothing about faithfulness to the ORGANISM of the Body of Christ?
It’s as if the 12 apostles spent weeks and weeks arguing about the details of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, and, yet, had 12 different views of what the Lord would be about once He got there!!! They would be soooo excited about agreeing to disagree on the exact location of the Upper Room, while shrugging their shoulders about Who their Master is, or why He decided to come to Jerusalem at this time?
Evelyn Waugh comes to mind: “No one from the Pope to Mao Tse Tung can be certain that he is not an Anglican.”
Modified now, however. Anglicans in continuing churches, and all Anglicans who believe the same things they did 30 years ago, are comprehensively and completely excluded in the old Anglosphere.
Austin, I’ve wondered for a long time where that prophetic line came from! Any idea just where he wrote it?
Ah, truth became truthiness, and now, representation is to become representativeness. Peas, …pod. Pod, …peas.