In this context, what are we to make of the controversial comments by Archbishop Williams regarding the local bishop and diocese? Insofar as he has defined bishop and diocese as “primary” with respect to ecclesial “identity” and insofar as he has identified them as the “organ of unity” as opposed to the “abstract structures” of the province, he is presenting a vision of the Church that at least fits within the general notion of pastoral synodality I have outlined above. But might he also be setting his vision in tension with actual Anglican practice? I would argue that he is in fact expressing a tension that Anglicanism itself is working to overcome precisely by moving in the direction of the fundamental reality of pastoral synodality.
There is no question but that Anglican churches have by and large functioned according to a post-Nicene set of structural assumptions. But that functioning has always been under question, and it is the rise of the Communion itself that has had the greatest role in setting up dynamics that have moved us towards a re-appropration of the ante-Nicene understanding, not because it marks some Golden Age to be repristinated, but because it is in fact more properly expressive of the kind of missionary context in which Anglicanism herself has come to flourish. Once Anglican churches grew up within contexts in which they necessarily existed alongside other Christian churches, the Nicene model by definition was deprived of any even tenuous or imaginary theological rationale. The idea that geographical episcopal boundaries demand strict imposition when in fact multiple and often mutually non-communicating Christian churches exist within the same local area simply cannot be sustained with integrity. And even within the single tradition of Anglicanism, unless one views the world’s political nations as the primary ordering of human life ”“ a deeply problematic notion from a Christian perspective to say the least ”“ the division of Anglican churches into national, regionally political, or ethnic groups whose boundaries prove more powerful and imposing than Christian communion itself can only end up by subordinating ecclesial reality to human political and cultural limitations. And it is these that the episcopal press for synodality properly ends by overcoming.
The first Lambeth Conference of 1867 was obviously aware of this tension already inherent in the expanding Anglican churches around the world.
I am sure this is brilliant, but my eyes glazed over three paragraphs in. Can someone translate?
repristinated?
Br. Michael:
[blockquote]unless one views the world’s political nations as the primary ordering of human life….yada….whose boundaries prove more powerful and imposing than Christian communion itself….yada yada…..can only end up by subordinating ecclesial reality to human political and cultural limitations.[/blockquote]
Uh, I’ll try: It’s “provinces based on secular, nationalistic political organizations == bad.
Transnational and diocesan polities == good. At least I think that’s what he said. And that’s what he said that the ABC said. At least I think. :-
Duh? Yeah! What you said.
This is an important theological reflection on the nature of the Church in terms of the way we are organized so that our very structure communicates the gospel. He answers the questions – theologically and not merely descriptively – of (1) what is a province? (2) what is a bishop? (3) what is a synod?, and (4) what is the nature of Anglican synodality that expresses the gospel? This will no doubt be part of a standard text in future courses in ecclesiology.
Ephraim has posted this same essay at our Covenant site along with some outstanding clarifying remarks in his footnotes at http://covenant-communion.net/index.php/site/articles/tract_8_the_organizational_basis_of_the_anglican_communion/.
Brilliant, accurate, deep, and, in the context of this crisis, totally irrelevant. Whom does Prof. Radner think he will convince — the Presiding Bishop? The overwhelming majority of Canadian and American bishops totally committed to the “prophetic” new theology they believe the “Spirit” is calling them? A classic example of how we academics can be totally right and equally beside the point at one and the same moment.
Chris (#6),
You (seem to) presuppose that relevance means being able to persuade others immediately of the correctness of your cause and thereby transform your current reality.
I think Bp. Lawrence rightly pointed out that conservatives within TEC have been routed in terms of the ability to affect current political outcomes.
That’s not the goal, and so relevance has little to do with that. We are in this for the long, long term. And much of what we must achieve is educational, and it needs to be aimed at tomorrow’s deputies and bishops. Thinking through these things and laying them out in a body of work is an essential task given that long range objective. It’s what Hooker, Andrewes, Newman and their colleagues tried to do, and it’s what we must try to do. If it affects the current outcomes, too, that’s great.
No. 6 Chris,
Being an academic (as you say), you do realize — don’t you — that most academics take the long view? I know that Dr. Radner understands that today’s GC’s decisions will certainly affect tomorrow, but he also knows that today’s ideas and sound reasoning have the potential to shape and inform the Church over centuries. Remember: he finds basis in his claims from things Cyprian, Gregory and others wrote some 1500-1700 after they wrote them!
We are in a very ripe moment in history. Exactly these kinds of essays have been written throughout history at moments like this to profound and lasting consequence. Only time, of course, will tell us if this will be one of them.
#6 The Anglican Communion (not to mention polity issues of the wider Christian Church) is much wider and deeper than the present crisis and thus I believe Dr. Radner’s work is very relevant not only for the Anglican Communion (much of which is far less polarized than TEC and the ACoC), but also by implication, for the wider Christian Church.
Craig, great. I am actually well educated. I have even read NT Wright and Jimmy Dunn, “Jesus Remembered”. This may be brilliant, but it does not communicate. It may be the best thing ever written if you can spend weeks on each paragraph. Why don’t you take a stab in translating it into readable English?
I am not addressing the content. I simply don’t know what he is saying. I am not smart enough.
Graig, I don’t know if this is appropriate, but my father-in law was assigned to the Battleship “West Virginia†at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The ship was sunk and capsized. At the time of the attack he was in San Diego. He was flown back in time to hear his shipmates, trapped inside, pounding inside the hull of the capsized ship. Of course they were unable to cut the hull open. Were the people trapped inside interested in the immediate situation or the ultimate winning of World War 2?
You and the ACI do what seems good to you. As for me, I don’t care,
“The idea that geographical episcopal boundaries demand strict imposition when in fact multiple and often mutually non-communicating Christian churches exist within the same local area simply cannot be sustained with integrity. And even within the single tradition of Anglicanism, unless one views the world’s political nations as the primary ordering of human life – a deeply problematic notion from a Christian perspective to say the least – the division of Anglican churches into national, regionally political, or ethnic groups whose boundaries prove more powerful and imposing than Christian communion itself can only end up by subordinating ecclesial reality to human political and cultural limitations.”
Could he be laying a theoretical ground for a new province in the same geographical region as the old? At least, he asserts that the church’s rigid boundaries should be as nothing compared to the Church’s properly vaster concept of Communion. He gives me the idea that we should recognize non-geographical jurisdictions within the Communion.
Paula:
Exactly. Except Cantuar implied it first. The Bishop, and by extension his demesne, the diocese, is the foundation of Anglican unity, where the province is simply a structural convenience.
Creedal Episcopalian (and, now I find, an heretic since 1995)
Hmm. For more on this issue of non-geographical dioceses, see this piece by one of John Milbanks’ students (UVa) and another Covenant theologian, Dr. Nathan Jennings: Tract 6: Respecting Boundaries.
#11
“You and the ACI do what seems good to you. As for me, I don’t care,”
Then why did you read the article and why are you posting? I would agree that Dr. Radner writes with a certain ‘thickness’ as do many theologians – Augustine, Aquinas, Cusanus, Hooker, Thornton, Barth, Balthasar are just a few examples. The key is not your intelligence so much as it is your patience and endurance in the pursuit of understanding who God is through the works of others, and of your ability to be charitable with the work and with yourself.
“This may be brilliant, but it does not communicate.” Actually it does and it does so quite comprehensively and therefore richly.
“It may be the best thing ever written if you can spend weeks on each paragraph.” Why not take more time? Or read through it a few times. What’s the urgency in finishing it?
Oh I forgot to add Br. Michael, there is a follow up document written by Dr. Turner that will help to provide some concrete direction given the conclusion Dr. Radner reached in his theological assessment. This might help clarify things: http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/07/communion-and-episcopal-authority/
It is much shorter and quite concrete.