Unlike officials in the (U.S.) Episcopal Church, who are elected in a democratic process, the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed to his post by the Crown of England and the prime minister.
Williams, then, can express his concern over the current conflict between the Episcopal Church and other Anglicans, but he cannot demand that doctrinal changes be made, nor can he force Episcopal Church leaders to embrace a new “covenant,” which is still being drafted. That covenant’s purpose is to signal a national church’s intention “to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion.”
Williams is suggesting in his comments that the future of Anglicanism might consist of a “covenanted” population in full communion with Canterbury and a second population of Anglicans who relinquish their voting rights at international church meetings, explained the Rev. Dan Clarke, vicar at the Church of the Holy Communion in Charleston….
The Rev. Canon J. Michael A. Wright, rector of Grace Episcopal Church, said disagreement is not new among Anglicans, and dissenting views should not prevent anyone from being “in full communion.”
“If loyalty is about agreeing, it really has no value,” he said. “It’s clear the church is not of one mind. But why is it we must be of one mind on every issue to have a relationship and be in communion with one another?”
Wright said the archbishop’s comments are valuable and should be taken seriously.
The Rev. Canon J. Michael A. Wright, rector of Grace Episcopal Church, said disagreement is not new among Anglicans, and dissenting views should not prevent anyone from being “in full communion.”
“If loyalty is about agreeing, it really has no value,” he said. “It’s clear the church is not of one mind. But why is it we must be of one mind on every issue to have a relationship and be in communion with one another?”
Canon Wright knows he is misrepresenting Anglican Christianity and its theology. We allowed freedom and charity to disagree on the non essentials, but it was always understood we agreed on the centrality of the Teachings of the Apostles and the catholic faith. It should also be understood that General Convention is not a Church Council and has no authority to change Anglicanism and certainly not the Christian Faith…but that is what it has been doing by fiat for years now.
This constant revised definition of what it means to be an Anglican Christian is the propaganda of the Leadership of the Episcopal Church it is a delusion that has no grounding in Church History or the currents facts facing us today.
Creighton+ (#1),
Perhaps you know this Michael Wright+, I certainly don’t. So I can’t say whether he “knows” he is misrepresenting Anglicanism or not. Alas, he might; I’ve surely run into some liberal priests that were indeed that devious and duplicitous. But I think it’s more common for clergy and lay leaders to unwittingly misrepresent the nature of Anglicanism, because they’ve uncritically swallowed the widespread notion that the genius of Anglicanism is to include people of very different perspectives, without any restrictions. They’ve forgotten that all important distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines that you rightly point to, Creighton.
Which again shows that what we’ve dealing with here isn’t merely a bitter, protracted dispute over one particular moral issue, but instead we’re faced with a clash between two whole religious cultures and their underlying worldviews. And it’s the complete cultural captivity of our “progressive” friends (and enemies) in swallowing the whole relativist mindset so prevalent in our Global North culture that makes real dialogue so difficult to achieve. For like people who speak only one language, so many people in TEC seem unable to think in classic (biblical) Christian terms. Perhaps Michael Wright is one of these prisoners of the spirit of the age.
David Handy+
On another note, Kendall, I must say that the quote attributed to you here is surprisingly provocative. Did you really say that the ABoC’s role in the AC is like that of a parent, who has the right and duty of discipling his children??
How paternalistic can you get?? I’m astonished. Clearly, ++RW isn’t the first among EQUALS if other bishops are like his children. Or perhaps you meant that ALL bishops are parental figures, and all the rest of us, including priests, deacons, and seminary professors, are the children subject to correction and firm discipline.
Shocking. I’m totally shocked that you should let such an old-fashioned, outdated notion slip out in an interview with a journalist.
David Handy+
Perhaps “Daddy” should have put his bully pulpit to better use a long time ago. Just saying….
I too grow tired of the constant implication that you can believe anything you want in the Anglican Communion. It’s almost as if the BCP was one of those blank journals and each person gets to fill it in for them.
Post modernism is truly the death of communication and organization and yet it is so false. You wouldn’t put up with this sort of thing for one minute in our traffic laws.
[i] Unlike officials in the (U.S.) Episcopal Church, who are elected in a democratic process, the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed to his post by the Crown of England and the prime minister.[/i]
Sigh. I realise that the concept of the Crown Nominations Commission, as an electoral college, may be a bit of a stretch for a local US newspaper, but still it’s sad to see this oversimplication repeated again and again.
“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.†(Acts 2:42) Thus do we find in the Acts of the Apostles the earliest account of full, visible communion of Christians with one another because of their obedience to the teaching of the apostles, which is to say the teaching of the Lord Jesus and the faith once delivered to the saints. This is the point apparently lost on Canon Wright, and it is why the Episcopal Church is no longer capable of fostering genuine Christian communion: If the foundation of ecclesial life is anything other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no Christian communion of any degree, no matter how much we may enjoy one another’s company.
Sodomy cannot be both sin and sacrament, but the disputes over homosexuality merely point to the deeper and graver problem. Because the authority of Scripture and the rule of faith are now overthrown by political posturing and majority rule in TEC, there can be no authentic Christian communion. Those who remain in TEC may have comity, but there is no unity. There can’t be.
I agree with #6 both that the Crown Appts Commission is a good way to get a good Archbishop (and Bishops) measured against the beauty pageant system in the US (and whatever one calls the system that gave us the PB); and also that to describe this as ‘the Queen picking her favourite’ is silly. We have plenty of problems in our own system and it would do well to study the way in which someone like Graham Kings or NT Wright becomes a Bishop — surely an impossible outcome in the present TEC.
And anyone reading what the Rev Wright says should also think of asking him just *why* he is paid a salary; I mean, why is he the one in charge? There seems to be good solid Anglican disagreement about whether there should or not be clergy, perhaps? Why can’t each member of his congregation be their own congregation of one and “do” a little living room “Mass”? Surely he won’t invoke some anti-Anglican stodgy, oppressive theology about “needing” to assemble Sunday mornings and put money in a passing plate? Dissent is healthy. Give this man all the health he can handle. Or you can just obey him which would be truly sick.
The role of a parent I indicated in the interview was by way of analogy for the kind of authority the ABC has, namely moral and personal authority.
But Kendall, parents can also take away the keys to the car if the child is still living in the house. The ABC has had many opportunities to do that with TEC–Lambeth being the most recent example.