So where does the Anglican Communion go from here? The Archbishop of Canterbury’s relatively mild reaction to Mary Glasspool’s election is a recognition that this appointment could still be halted if the bishops and dioceses of The Episcopal Church fail to confirm her election. However, it remains a highly unlikely prospect.
The problem that the Archbishop of Canterbury faces is that the Anglican Communion will continue to fragment. The Covenant which he believes is a centre of unity around which the vast majority of provinces can coalesce is not even yet in its final form. Such is the polarisation of the Church of England, as a result of the Anglican Communion crisis, that there is now no guarantee that it can pass in the General Synod let alone in other more liberal western provinces.
It seems likely that any Anglican future worth having will be radically different from the current shape of things. The so-called instruments and international meetings will become largely a thing of the past, replaced by networks, regional conferences and some tangential relationships to the Canterbury primate. It is a fragmented and difficult future, but one preferable to a constant state of hysteria and schism.
[Comment deleted by Elf – comments suggesting people must leave or join particular churches are against T19 comment policy – please observe this]
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Tea leaves are selling by the hundredweight at the moment. We should talley up all these predictions and put some odds on them.
“It is a fragmented and difficult future, but one preferable to a constant state of hysteria and schism.”
That’s true.
“It seems likely that any Anglican future worth having will be radically different from the current shape of things. The so-called instruments and international meetings will become largely a thing of the past, replaced by networks, regional conferences and some tangential relationships to the Canterbury primate.”
But I hope that that scenario does not come to pass. It would be regrettable if the unity and mutual interdependence so carefully built over the past 65 years should be blown to smithereens. The way out of this canyon is narrow and difficult, and it will involve some pain; but it is still a way. And Rowan Williams is still the trail boss.
Fragmentation or reformation that is the question before us. The Anglican Communion holds the potential to become a catalyst for a new movement of the Holy Spirit: fusing together Catholic, Charismatic, Evangelical, and even Liberal (in the true sense of the Word) streams of Christian expression. As the reigning post-modern paradigm gives way the the era that follows, will we be there waiting with the certainty of the Gospel which the world longs for? Only if we act now to appoint a central authority, to set clear boundaries based on the authority of scripture, and to resolve the disputes surrounding liturgies and ordinations.
I pray for leadership to accomplish that which seems obvious to me – the commitment to a new revived Anglican Communion worldwide. To bring such a vision into being, will require far more than the endless words of the last few years. The covenant in its present state of flux will not come near to accomplishing what is needed, if indeed it can ever be brought to a vote. I think we must have nothing short of a declaration to embrace a unified, Christian communion garnered by mutual accountability, and grounded in an orthodoxy based on Holy Scripture.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
Andrew Carey references the gay rights activist Colin Coward, founder of ‘Changing Attitude’, in his (Coward’s) criticisms of Williams. Interesting to see from Coward’s blog (http://changingattitude-england.blogspot.com/), and in his own words (a psot of a couple of days ago) that:
1. ‘Changing Attitude’ is wholly opposed to conservative theology and interpretation;
2. a former gay acquaintance of Coward’s is married and a bishop in England – and Coward calls him an ‘ex-gay’.
We knew (1.) already, but it is good to get it said so clearly. The so-called ‘affirming evangelicals’, and even some of the ‘open and post-evangelicals’ who congregate at the Fulcrum watering hole, are being taken for a ride – and on a Trojan horse. It’s a whole new religion out there, if you follow the leads. Reminds me a bit of Gresham Machen’s work of the 1920s, ‘Christianity and Liberalism’, now played in a sexual key. (Feuerbach, thou shouldst be living at this hour!)
(2.) is interesting because it has become an article of faith recently that ‘once gay, always gay’. Anyone who’s read Spitzer knows this is nonsense, but it is good to hear from an unlikely source an instance Christ’s redemptive – changing – grace.
I am with Walter too. Sad as it is, the cancer of liberalism has gone deep and I can barely think of any in the present HOB to turn this sinking ship around. We are going to hell in a handcart and I simply do not recognise the religion that is evolving from within….but authentic Christianity it is not
[blockquote]It seems likely that any Anglican future worth having will be radically different from the current shape of things. The so-called instruments and international meetings will become largely a thing of the past, replaced by networks, regional conferences and some tangential relationships to the Canterbury primate. It is a fragmented and difficult future, but one preferable to a constant state of hysteria and schism.[/blockquote]
I keep thinking of the words of Jesus when he speaks of the birth pangs of the Kingdom.
[i] Matt. 24:8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
Mark 13:8 “For nation will arise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs. [/i] (NASB)
It does of course help being in the season of Advent as we think of the cost and pain of the birth of God’s plan of salvation. It is non-the-less always a shock when the pain comes and in my case felt very personally. However I do believe that it is worth it. I agree with Andrew Carey, as I understand his piece above. I do believe that something worthwhile is going on that has to do with the emergence of a robust and thoroughly Christ and mission centered Anglican Church. While it is deeply indebted to its heritage it is all the more indebted to those not of the WEST, where the vision of Church seems to have slipped from the New Testament Apostolic vision that sought to bring the world to Christ and Christ to the world. It is indebted to those who are mostly in the Global South where life in Jesus is to be proclaimed and lived in utter obedience to him as Lord, filled with the Holy Spirit and seeking total transformation individually and societally.
I understand the challenge personally as being willing to be repentant of the elitism of the Western Anglican way and then sit at the feet of those who lead from the “newer Anglican” communities of the Global South. I believe that the Anglican Church of the West has lost its way. I believe that those from the South can show the way albeit that none are perfect Christians or leaders. What I would hope for is a new Anglicanism to emerge from this horribly painful mess that will be robust, mission and Great Commission focused, Biblical, Spirit Filled and gifted. That church will focus again on the poor and the downtrodden that is such a part of the Messianic call. All will be welcome but all must be willing to be transformed, which means that all must bring themselves to the foot of the Cross and yield to Christ everything so that he may take from us any or all that is not of him – our sin. That we may be lifted up to new life, new creation, filled with the Holy Spirit.
Wow! Just think what God can do with a global communion of on fire, born again, Spirit filled disciples and apostles. He only started with twelve!
This stuff of being transformed is painful, ugly and at present a terrible witness to the world. But surely it is worth the pains of childbirth to see brought forth this new thing of God?
Ian M+
[Comment deleted by Elf]
[blockquote] The problem that the Archbishop of Canterbury faces is that the Anglican Communion will continue to fragment. The Covenant which he believes is a centre of unity around which the vast majority of provinces can coalesce is not even yet in its final form. [/blockquote]
I have heard the phrase, “power vacuum”, that refers to the loss or absence of leadership. Usually, when this phrase is used, the listeners are reminded that “nature abhors a vacuum”. I cannot help but get the image of a whirlpool or cyclone, or tornado when I hear this phrase. The lack of a solid center, with it’s consequent low pressure (a.k.a. vacuum) leads to a swirling maelstrom. That is what I believe we are seeing in the Anglican Church. In my opinion, the abandonment of the 39 articles, the former theological central pillar of Aglicanism, is leading to the collapse of the house…the power vacuum and the resultant storm swirling round about.
“Anglicanism”…sorry for the typo…I was being handed our new born son…4 days old and wonderful.
[blockquote]
… the abandonment of the 39 articles, the former theological central pillar of Anglicanism, …
[/blockquote]
I think this overstates the historical role of the 39 articles. I would not even say “a former theological central pillar”.
The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral identifies four central pillars: the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Creeds, the two dominical sacraments, and the episcopate with apostolic succession. I would add the Book of Common Prayer, which I would understand today as the whole of the major prayer books derived from Archbishop Cranmer’s Prayer Book of 1549. Beyond these another central pillar is a tolerant attitude about theological questions originating with the Elizabethan Religious Settlement of the 16th century.
13, we have been through this so many times. You grossly overstate the case that Anglicanism practices a laissez-faire theology and that Anglicans are free to believe pretty much anything. In much of the AC clergy are still required to subscribe to the 39 Articles and until the 1979 revision they were officially part of the BCP.
But your statement reinforces that you and I are in two different religions.
“Rowan Williams is still the trail boss.”
Perhaps someone should tell Rowan. He seems to think he is just along for the ride.
In much of the AC clergy are still required to subscribe to the 39 Articles
Only 11 of 38 Provinces still hold the 39 Articles as required.
Which comprises the bulk of the AC if I am not mistaken.
The situation is not much different from the CoE in the middle 18th century. The majority of bishops and connected priests were diests, not Trinitarian Christians. The only thing they were really opposed to was zeal. On to this scene came John and Charles Wesley (et. al.) and they began an evangelical revival that swept across England and around the world. Their revival sparked an interest in Christian Scholarship and the reading of the Apostolic Fathers. This, in turn, sparked the Anglo-catholic revival of the 19th century.
Is the Anglican Church in a mess? Abosultely! One of its own making and one which crops up in every branch of the Church Catholic from time to time. It first reared its head in the 3rd century when Anthony became so frustrated by the worldliness of the Church that he went to the desert. It continued during the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the 4th and 5th century. Ask Ratramnus or Radbertus what the state of the Church was in their time. Ask Dominic about the quality of preaching in his time. Ask Francis if the Church needed to be reformed.
Each generation or two (or three) faces some great trial of the Church and in each generation or so, there is someone sounding the death knell of the Church.
But, just as Jesus rose from the grave – victorious over death and sin, so the Church rises again and again – victorious over heresy.
Pray for revival and be ready to answer the Call when God asks you to particiapte in His revival and renewal of the Church!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#14,
The 39 Articles, as adopted by the Episcopal Church in 1801, are found in the Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer at pp. 867-876 in a section entitled “Historical Documents of the Church” following the Catechism and preceding the Lectionary.
Could you be more specific about where you believe specific affirmation of the 39 articles is required for clergy? For example, I fail to find it in online editions of the Church of England 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
No. 15: “’Rowan Williams is still the trail boss.’ Perhaps someone should tell Rowan. He seems to think he is just along for the ride.”
Heh-heh. Yes, well, I was hoping that Rowan Williams would read that sentence and saddle up!
[blockquote]Could you be more specific about where you believe specific affirmation of the 39 articles is required for clergy? For example, I fail to find it in online editions of the Church of England 1662 Book of Common Prayer.[/blockquote]
In the C of E you were handed the document of submission/acceptance to be signed before the service of ordination began – by the Chancellor of the Diocese, if I remember rightly – so long ago!
Sigh. A pointless discussion. In TEC the articles were part of the BCP and as such were part of the official doctrine of TEC to which all clergy in TEC subscribe. See the Articles of Religion following page 600 in the 1928 BCP. They were moved out of the BCP in 1979 into the Historical Documents section which was created at that time. At that point TEC relegated them to the dust bin of history as far as TEC was concerned.
From Wikipedia: “In the past, in numerous national churches and dioceses, those entering Holy Orders had to make an oath of subscription to the Articles. Clergy of the Church of England are still required to acknowledge that the Articles are “agreeable to the Word of God,” but the laity are not. The Church of Ireland has a similar declaration for its clergy, while some other Churches of the Anglican Communion make no such requirement.[15][20]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles
Brian states that 11 provinces still require subscription. Maybe some one has a list.
I’d like to go back to Fr. Jack’s #5, and add my whole-hearted AMEN! I agree with him 100%.
I too was struck by the line in the last paragraph, [i]”It seems that any Anglican future worth having will be RADICALLY different from the current shape of things”[/i] (I added the caps).
Absolutely right. Any future worth having must indeed be radically, drastically different. What is needed isn’t merely gradual, incremental, evolutionary change, but rapid, sweeping, revolutionary change. Nothing less than a New Reformation will do, in fact, with all the turmoil and bitter division that implies. And all the new life, hope, and vigor too.
But one thing is for sure, ++Rowan Williams won’t be the one leading the way. He’s certainly no trail boss. That honor goes to the visionary leaders of the FCA movement. ++Peter Akinola and ++Henry Orombi, now they are trail bosses!
David Handy+
“++Peter Akinola and ++Henry Orombi, now they are trail bosses!”
In this spirit, when will we in the West call for legislation similar to that being considered in Uganda? Death to gays, and imprisonment for their supporters? When will we really put our faith into action?
uffda51
They did not write or propose the legislation you are referencing. You probably have no idea what they are or are not doing to change it. Just becuase in the USA making speaches is an effective way to get things done does not mean that will work there. Do you blame KJS for everything the US Congress considers?
Bringing up PB Katharine Jefferts Schori is a straw man argument. The question is, do Akinola and Orombi support or condemn the legislation? Does Kendall Harmon? Do you? Does “The Family?”
uffda51 since this is heading off topic, I responded via private message.
Why was Susan Russell’s comment deleted? I have now read it on her own blog, An Inch At A Time, and cannot fathom your editorial reasons for deletion. It is not ad hominem. It is supportive of Andrew Carey’s article. It makes a point which not all T19 readers would agree with, but that happens often within the comments here. Can you enlighten me?
I agree with 28 — the deletion makes no sense. Especially given that off topic drivel like 24 & 26 makes it through.
Carey, the ABC and most of those here feel that the election of Mary Glasspool is the number one current Anglican development. The ABC took all of 12 hours to comment about it. Yet he remained silent for weeks about the Ugandan legislation. In my book, that’s the bigger outrage. How difficult is it to condemn the execution of God’s children?
Apparently it is quite difficult to condemn the execution of God’s children because even the United States of America, that great child of the Enlightenment, land of the free, etc, is unable to agree on condemning the execution of God’s children in its own land even as some of its citizens are quick to condemn other countries for proposing to execute people. Did I read somewhere here about glasshouses and stone throwing? I have not known the Archbishop of Canterbury to lately comment on how the USA runs its penal code(s) but neither have I seen any great pressure being placed upon him to do so, whether by TEC, or any other acronym. The question about Uganda is whether the Archbishop has sought to appropriately influence the course of events there regarding some proposed legislation. The answer is that he has. Another question is whether his public silence on the matter has been productive or counter-productive. It’s hard to tell BUT what we do know is that at last count the most draconian measures in the proposed legislation have been withdrawn. The Glasspool election is a significant Anglican matter no matter how many Episcopalians protest that it is not worthy of excitement. That the Archbishop spoke about it is proper. It matters little whether he took 12 minutes or 12 hours to do so.
the election of glasspool was an anglican development. in contrast the proposed ugandan law is a secular matter. rowan williams is no fool. he knows that political grandstanding only increases its chances of passage. liberals would rather score political points knowing that their grandstanding endangers homosexuals in uganda. I am praying for wisdom of ugandan leaders and for rowan williams, who, I am sure, is engaged in quiet diplomacy.
[Comment deleted by Elf]
I think the relevant comparison is the length of time it took for the ABC to speak publicly about Zimbabwe. One may regret it and I may be mistaken but I don’t recall the leadership of TEC demanding a public statement from the ABC on the horrendous human rights abuses, not proposed, but occurring for years in Zimbabwe. Given that the COE is established, Uganda is a member of the Commonwealth, and the UK is the former colonial power my expectation is that the ABC and his staff consulted and co-operated with the UK Foreign Office in the exercise of his influence on the formation of this legislation.
driver8: but the UK is the former colonial power in the USA as well, and yet the same epogic is not applied (rather unwisely, in my view, as there’s nothing Americans hate more than being told what to do by non-Americans).
On the contrary – the ABC is hesitant and careful in commenting about US legislation. We are comparing apples to apples here aren’t we…
Hey Peter Carrell, I can’t speak for the elves [perish the thought!] since mysterious are their ways.
But if they begin deleting Russell’s drive-by troll comments that are merely baiting, plus all of her boilerplate propaganda, I’ll be utterly thrilled.
They’ve been very very lenient on Russell — for mysterious reasons — even as she typically drops bait and runs away. The alternative role she plays is that of “oh I’m so loving — why can’t we all just get along?” Problem is . . . she cycles out of that role so quickly and whiplashes back into her “I’m so mad you’re all bigots” role that it’s hard to keep the facades straight, you know? Which Russell will show up — the “you’re all such bigots” one or the “why must we be so cruel to fellow Christians” one?
Why allow either charade a forum over at T19?
I’ve no interest in her comments, nor her blog — so why should T19 offer her a blog that has actual readers and commenters for her “perspective” when she has Integrity to publicize her various facades? I’m sure that if she has an opinion to offer that someone is interested in they can all surf right on over to her blog.
But treating her comments as if they are the thoughtful analysis of a fellow believing Christian rather than mere bait or agitprop is really giving way too much respect. There are plenty of liberals here that actually have original non-boilerplated thoughts and perspectives and can actually maintain a rational linear line of reasoning, however flawed their foundations or gospel may be.
Hi Sarah
I understand the argument you advance here. I nevertheless think there is reason to treat comments on a case-by-case basis, that reason being that our ultimate unity as Christians is better served by continuing conversation than by stopping conversation.