Why mince words here? For some years now ”“ since even before the Virginia Report of the late 1990’s ”” it has been stated formally over and over again that the structures of the Anglican Communion needed redefinition and rebuilding, so as to be able to function fruitfully. Key efforts were made to give direction to such reconstruction. A decade of failure, however, has simply borne out an already established and publicly stated fear.
But trying to set up alternative structures has not fared much better. If the recent Singapore meeting exposed a ten-year lapse in credibility for existing Communion structures, it also put the lie to any attractive claim for alternative structures that, in the past 10 years, some portions of the Communion have so assiduously been at work to erect: new provinces in North America; special “primatial councils” for common confessors; extra-jurisdictional missionary fiefdoms; episcopal netwoks of alternative oversight. Instead, the gathering proved to be what every other Anglican gathering has been in the past decade: in addition to faithful witness and counsel, also a time for political maneuver, secretive changing of agendas at the last moment, North Americans coming in and grabbing the microphones and running meetings, disagreements over this and that strategy and doctrine. That a common communiqué emerged at all was cause for surprise by the end; that it expressed little tangible except a shared dislike for Communion structures and for TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada was probably the most one could have predicted, which isn’t very much, let alone particularly edifying.
There are some obvious conclusions to draw from these ten years.
First, that Anglican Communion “structuralism” ”“ building offices and commissions and adjudicating bodies, in the wake of the 1963 Toronto Congress ”“ is at an end, at least in its presently imagined forms. This is true for the official structures; it is also true for the alternative structures. The drift now between national churches and confessional bodies is too great to ensure their continued functioning and support in any energetic fashion. Not that any of these structures, official or otherwise, are simply about to disappear; they won’t and they shouldn’t, given that they continue to provide important links to the wider Church and mission, and can, in any case, be renewed. But fewer and fewer really care for them, no one really trusts them, no one really wants to let them have power over their lives. If I were an employee of the Anglican Communion Office or of its shadow embodiments, I would look for a new job, if only for economic motives: the money is drying up.
Second, the Anglican Covenant is both a product of this descending drift, as well as a response to it….
I am in the UMC. I’m sure that only a tiny fraction of our church membership (ASA 1200) knows or cares about the denominational structure outside our church. Of course, our Bishops do not play as central role in the life of the church as in Anglicanism. But I suspect much the same in terms of ambivalence towards the diocese and national church. Most people that are new to the Christian faith are not that strongly “branded” to a denomination. They happen to like a particular church or pastor but aren’t ready for theology or classes in denominational bureaucracy .
I greatly appreciate Dr. Radner’s call to recover the practice of catechesis. And, yes, regardless of what happens in its structural aspects, Anglicanism is blessed with the crucial resources needed to produce a robust catechumenate. One recalls moments of catechumenal ‘revival’ of sorts during past hard-times in Anglicanism, from Lancelot Andrewes in the troubled 17th century to John Wesley in the moribund 18th century.
The EcUSA/TEc IS catechising. The ABC is abetting that catechesis.
The Global South is catechising. The ABC is ignoring that catechesis.
All catechise. The question is simply who is catechising the content of the faith once delivered, who accords with the one Bible, the two Testaments, the three Creeds, the first four councils, and the first five centuries.
You are what you catechise.
The employees at the Anglican Communion Office are latched-on for the long haul and won’t let go until the cadaver completely decomposes. The same can be said for many in full-time ministry who simply cannot bring themselves to either do it part-time or hang it up and [do something else] for a living, as I had to. Perhaps they’re waiting for Porky Pig to come through the screen and say “That’s All Folks”.
[Slightly edited by Elf]
RE: “I continue to wonder why those who are ready to live a new life together in this way do not simply go forward with the Covenant, maintaining all the while their place within the rickety scaffolding of the Communion as it is, and see what the spirit of Christ will accomplish among them and for the sake of others. For the sake of others: once Anglicans can realize that this is the purpose of their Christian calling and the authentic purpose of a Covenant – not self-protection – and that “obligations†assumed from and on behalf of others are not to be feared but are to be sought, then we will be able to speak of an emerging maturity among our leaders and our own ministry.”
I have to smile. Really? Dr. Radner wonders why people “do not simply go forward with the Covenant”? And if they do not then the leaders are not really “mature”?
Okay.
But I don’t wonder one bit why people do not simply go forward with the Covenant.
And the essay, while truthful about each congregation — at least in the US — being essentially on its own, particularly when 80% or more of our bishops are raving heretics — it begs the question of why a congregation should, then, be a part of one particular Anglican “body” over another.
As so many have said before . . . “you say to wait for Communion processes — and I’ll wait — over here in this nice place outside of the Communion while you guys figure it all out.”
I’m not *advocating* for that — I’m just pointing out that if the Communion structures are broken and every parish is on its own . . . the question *inevitably* arises: “why are we over here and not over there?”
Sarah–I suspect you may be thinking chiefly of NA conservatives here. That is not what is being stated.
We are aware that GS leaders represent different instincts vis-a-vis the covenant. Radner’s point, I believe, is consistent with earlier ACI statements: let the larger and more powerful GS provinces covenant and then determine the means for how the covenant life is to be lived, including alternatives–if there is intransigence–to things like the present ‘Standing Committee of the AC’ (you will be aware of our effort and that of others in the UK to show that the ACC rules do not contemplate the kind of mysterious ongoing membership of Douglas that even Mark Harris thought was completed). Radner did not believe, as a member of the Covenant Design Group, that the covenant was something requiring all the elaborate ACO committee-ising. His point is: the means and power exist to move forward and take the reins in ones own hands. There is admittedly a struggle/confusion/ennui/concern with other matters/transition in leadership, within the Singapore group over how best to proceed. Radner speaks for himself and for one group within that amalgam in favor of simply making the covenant work on the terms of those who decide to move in this direction, and not leave the field to the present committee-ising and ACO efforts. The covenant never took form with that in view. The ACC has within it allies re: this position, as well. I hope I have stated his view accurately and if not, he can tidy things up.
Let me pick up on Phil Harrold’s comment (#2). I agree that recovering a much more rigorous and effective catechesis is crucial to overcoming the challeges we face. I’m happy that Dr. Michael Poon in Singapore and other leaders in the GS have been devoting themselves to producing a new Catechism appropriate for our times.
But I’m afraid that I’m far less sanguine than Dr. Harrold appears to be that we have all the resources necessary for that within our Anglican tradition by itself. For I think that a big part of what makes this crisis in Anglicanism of such an unprecedented severity (and conversely, why it offers us unprecendented opportunities) is precisely the fact that we’re dealing with an unprecedented problem, one that makes even the vast, daunting challenge of reevangelizing and rediscipling England in the time of the English Reformers or of John Wesley pale in comparison. For they could still operate in a Christendom social context. Like Israel’s prophets of old, they could call people back to a covenant that may have been forgotten or despised but had never been renounced and abrogated. England might be full of bad Christians, but it was still rightly perceived as a Christian nation.
But that was then, and this is now. Today, we are living in a neo-pagan, post-Christendom culture that has openly spurned its Christian heritage. And IMHO that literally changes everything. And therefore, given that Anglicanism has no memory of what pre-Christendom Christianity was like, I think it’s fair to say that alas, we DON’T have sufficient internal resources to deal with this sort of radical crisis.
Instead, I firmly believe that we’ll be forced, willy-nilly, to return [i]ad fontes[/i], to the foundations and springs of earliest Christianity that long predate Pope Gregory dispatching Augustine to Kent to evangelize the pagan Angles. In a post-Constantinian era, as we look for models of how to disciple and catechize neo-pagans, I think we must look to the golden age of the catechumenate, which was roughly from AD 200 to 400, when adults converts from paganism were the norm, the vast majority of those being initiated into Christ and His Church.
Or to use Dr. Radner’s language from the end of his first paragraph. “There are [b]deeper roots[/b] to put down and nourish than we had perhaps first thought.” Much deeper roots, I’d say. Or to paraphrase what I think Ephraim is saying, one main lesson of these last ten tumultuous years can be put this way: “This is going to be harder than we thought.”
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of fiercely contrarian, post-Christendom style Anglicanism for the 3rd millenium
Yes, David, you are right–along with Ephraim–to point to those deeper catechetical roots. I have argued (contact me at pharrold@tsm.edu for my publications) that the keenest insights and most robust practices of the ancient catechumenate have been ‘echoed’ in subsequent periods of what I like to call catechetical ‘revival.’ We can track this all the way to the East African Revival’s ‘united Bible study’ gatherings. Some of this ‘ressourcement’ was conscious, and some of it occurred in less explicit ways.
One of the more important ‘echoes’–originating at least as early as Augustine (see his “Catechesis of the Unlearned”)–has to do with the praxis of receiving and passing on the full scope of the biblical (meta-)narrative. (No ‘canons within canons’ here.) Hence Cranmer’s and Jewel’s extensive efforts to ensure a broad-based engagement with Scripture in Daily Office readings, a style of preaching guided by a soteriological rule of faith, an embodied liturgical ‘re-enactment’ of the biblical narrative, and so on. Both shared the vision of catechizing the whole nation through a comprehensive array of ‘communicative practices’ situated in every parish. This was intensely grass-roots in its implementation… which, as I understand it, gets back to Ephraim’s catechetical vision.
16th century catechesis was not a complete retrieval of patristic catechesis– and the classic four-fold structure (which could be life-long) essentially morphed into an abbreviated two-fold structure (baptism-confirmation). So, I would agree that in a post-Christendom world, we need to recover ‘more’ of the Patristic model and adapt it to a mission context that more closely resembles the ‘pagan’ realities of the ancient world. A rather impressive and diverse array of advocates can be found on this subject– from William Harmless, S.J., in the Catholic world to J. I. Packer in the Anglican (and Reformed) world.
Thanks, Sarah (#5) for the question, and to Christopher Seitz for his helpful response (with which I agree). The Covenant was never viewed from the start (really!) as a “structural” solution to an Anglican Communion problem. Certainly, it would have structural implications. But its purpose was bound to Christian faithfulness, taken up in common, whose lived reality would, over time, alter in spirit the shared ground of life and mission together. Clearly there are problems with this hope, especially as people try to wrench the Covenant’s commitments into a structure that fits their own self-interests as they perceive them. Some of this difficulty was not helped by our own drafting, although there were limits on what could be done, and limits that I still believe can be overcome without throwing everything out. Most importantly, the sexuality division is dangerously destructive of the covenantal promises if it’s irresolution is imported into the adoption process. (I have always argued this — that is, that the Communion must deal with the sexuality issue before and independently of the Covenant’s adoption. To me, that remains the grave failure we have left unaddressed.) But if those who are not so divided — in this case, many of the Global South churches and a significant number of others (including separate dioceses in the West) — were to adopt and move forward and live the commitments as they are given and received, in the power of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of their faithful promises, such churches would, I believe find ways and have them available to order their future lives together so as to sidestep the destructive powers of self-interest and division that now threaten the Covenant’s implementation. With or without a covenant, however, Western Anglicans have a special vocation of formation; but their future mission and witness will have a greater promise of contributing to Christian communion with a Covenant in place elsewhere in the world. And Christian communion is indeed an essential part of our faithful discipleship, whoever we are.
And let me thank Phil (#2 and 8 — I missed this while posting above) for pressing the catechetical point so well, and for linking this with “revival” in more ways than one. To be sure, the last few decades in, e.g. Anglican churches in North America, have not been without efforts at adult teaching, for instance. But they have been driven — if carefully considered at all — by publishers and denominational projects more than by collaborative, studied, and spiritually attuned efforts at the congregational level. And — so I would argue — they have engaged serious theological error on a number of fronts, and been only superficially applied in any case. As with their preaching in general, clergy have tended to be scattered, distracted, and without frankly the hours of work put into formational life that is required. (The relationship between preaching and formation in Anglican churches bears some scrutiny — there may be less fruitful relationship these days, for cultural reasons, than we have presumed.)
Why do I feel I have been taken to the woodshed?
Dr. Seitz (#6),
As always, thanks for chiming in here and providing the ACI perspective. It helps clarify what is and isn’t intended by these sorts of statements.
I welcome a thoughtful review of the last ten years since the AMiA was launched; that’s always useful, even if Dr. Radner writes rather vaguely and generally at times, without illustrating just what he means.
You don’t have to defend your colleague here, but I’ll raise a pointed objection to Dr. Radner’s paper, if I may do so without offense.
Sadly, I object to what seems like a harsher treatment of the primates than of the ACO and the ABoC himself. I think that’s unfair and undeserved. To criticize unnamed primates (presumably on both or all sides) for mutually scorning one another and especially to charge them with [i]”playing to their own constituencies”[/i] instead of seeking the common good of the whole AC strikes me as excessively harsh, when the ABoC and ACO are not scolded in even worse terms (as they so fully deserve). The fact is, although many would naturally claim that it’s simply unChristian to despise or scorn another human being under any circumstances, I will frelly admit that I would tend to say that IF some GS primates have treated some of their GN fellow primates with scorn and derision or even outright contempt (and maybe they have), that such unpleasant behavior or attitudes are fully understandable and even justifiable. Heretical, untrustworthy wolves in sheep’s clothing like the American PB, or Canada’s Fred Hiltz, or Barry Morgan in Wales, or Alan Harper in Ireland are in fact thoroughly despicalbe and contemptible. I freely admit that I myself have nothing but utter scorn and disdain for those false shepherds. I will confess that I have more tolerance for the cockroaches in my kitchen than I have for them! I would feel it perfectly appropriate to treat them with the withering invective with which Paul scathingly abuses his theological adversaries in 2 Cor. 10-13 as false apostles, agents of Satan, and deceitful workers.
As always, and this is apt to sound as tiresome as a broken record, the bottom line is that I’m totally committed to the principle that theological unity takes precedence over mere institutional unity. Or more bluntly, [b]doctirne trumps polity, and not vice versa[/b]. Nor can the two be put on the same level as equally important. Yes, apostolic and catholic order is crucial and non-negotiable, but maintaining apostolic teaching is an even higher priority.
Moreover, while [i]”speaking the truth in love”[/i] is indeed always mandatory, what is most necessary in our western cultural context is speaking the TRUTH, i.e., in the context of Eph. 4:14-15, the true apostolic gospel as opposed to letting people be “blown about by every wind of doctrine.” I think that it’s undeniable that we have a surplus of Anglican leaders attempting to speak lovingly and respectfully no matter how egregiously others act and no matter how they betray the faith. But alas, we have a dearth of leaders who are willing to speak the authentic gospel in an UNCOMPROMISING way, that lets the institutional chips fall where they may.
Naturally, I have other objections too, chiefly because I think the whole idea of the Covenant is a clear case of “too little, too late,” and that FAR more radical and drastic steps are necessary to return Anglicanism to health and fruitfulness. But I won’t press that contentious and highly debatable claim here.
Let me close more a more irenic note. I welcome this rather candid if sometimes vague assessment from Dr. Radner of where we stand after ten terribly difficult and frustrating years. I feel sorry in some ways for you guys at ACI. You’ve striven valiantly for the sake of upholding the historic faith and order in our beloved AC and I admire you for it. Dr. Radner, in particular, has invested enormous time and effort in the Covenant in the hope that it just might work. Alas, I think that hope was always forlorn and doomed to failure, but the effort was noble and entirely to be commended. I salute you all.
But I see no evidence that Paul ever tried to make a covenant work with the Judaizers, or with the “dogs” and “evil workers” who proved so upsetting to the churches he’d founded in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi (cr. Phil. 3:1-2), and elsewhere. And personally, I see no reason whatsoever that we should try to make a covenant with such evil workers within Anglicanism. Even if they are bishops, archbishops, or seminary professors.
David Handy+
Polemical firebrand
Hmmm. When I was composing my long #12, I hadn’t yet seen Dr. Harrold’s #8 or Dr. Radner’s #9 and 10. Thanks, Phil, for the link. I’ll check out your work. And thanks to Dr. Radner for entering the discussion and amplifying his remarks.
And if anyone takes offense at the rather intemperate and vitriolic language I used above in castigating our theological adversaries on the left, I’m sorry.
David Handy+
Dr. Radner,
As a “youngish” priest I deeply appreciate this essay. From the beginning of my tenure at Christ Church, Accokeek, I have sought to receive the promises and follow the instruction of Isaiah 58:
“‘The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail. Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins and will raise up the age-old foundations; you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls, Restorer of Streets with Dwellings. If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a delight and the LORD’s holy day honorable, and if you honor it by not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking idle words, then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.’ The mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
Indeed I seek to rebuild the ancient ruins even as I weep over her very rubble. Be blessed, sir, in your Barnabas-life to young clergy like me.
Brian: Bless you for your spirit and your words.
Thank you, Ephraim. [blockquote]and a demanded seclusion and wandering is given by God always for the building up of a people who do not otherwise know how properly to assess their gifts for the world, for others.[/blockquote]I found your wilderness illusion fascinating. We have entered a new season, and I’ve been reflecting that this new season will require Joshuas–passionate in worship and praise, fiercely loyal to God, and unquestioningly obedient. For 40 years, Joshua spent time in the tent of meeting, and then he faced the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. The next generation will be facing their own panoply of neopagans, Muslims, and secularists. King David also embodied these qualities, and he spent his monarchy defending the borders.
Brian,
Welcome to the Nehemiah Guild.
Brian,
as another “youngish” priest (as of tomorrow) and theologian-in-training, I share in your thanks for Dr. Radner’s witness, for his writing, for his wisdom and for his guidance. These things have given me the courage and strength to persevere within this church (the Anglican Church of Canada to be exact), to face into and bear witness to God’s grace, and to teach and guide the next generation in the faith.
‘Reading the signs of the times’ For a few years now I have been struck by the way various folk (I have tried it too) call up either biblical periods and/or phases of church history as a means of comparison, trying to ‘read’ where we might be in our present ‘crisis’, and so get a sense of what God might be up to with His Church, and therefore of how best we might ‘get-on-board’. This thread is no exception, as is the well-spring paper itself, from Dr Radner. So; some tentative steps now of my own, for your collective vetting.
I got much out of Howard Snyder’s work when a young priest, and vicar of my first parishes. Nor is it coincidental that he is a returned missionary with insights into renewal movements. He invokes Wesleyan parallels, and trawls widely especially in his [i]Signs of the Spirit[/i]. Merriman, Abraham, et al too came to hand, albeit representing other schools within North American Church. That is, clearly there are methodical catechetical processes to cultivate, just as there are wholesome gifts of the Spirit to learn to administer, as we yield to the Spirit’s outpourings. Radner and others have highlighted this catechetical dimension – but being myself part formed by the African Church, the ‘extra’ “charismatic†dimension I sense is obligatory and normal too.
Our dear David Handy correctly (IMHO) bangs on about the West’s, and increasingly elsewhere due to globalization, neo-pagan post-Christendom setting, all of which leads to a new horizon for both mission and Christian formation. I wonder what the likes of a Kenneth Latourette would make of this 21st C phase of the Church’s expansion? While I have neither his learning nor his native skills, I fancy the sheer global, catholic nature of an inculturated Faith puts us genuinely in a novel place. Mission from Six Continents to Six Continents means not just images of a second wilderness/new Exodus (as per say second or trito Isaiah) or even a restoration via Nehemiah will suffice. For radical discontinuity, resulting from the secular alternative, as much as continuity and/or “fulfilment missiological modelsâ€, seems to characterize our ‘place’.
So thirdly, I have to fall back upon a resolute Christological model, and cite Tom Smail:
[blockquote]The pattern of the resurrection determines the pattern of the Spirit’s work. And the pattern of Christ’s resurrection is one of both continuity and discontinuity together. Something new appears, which is nevertheless not novel, but the fulfilment of what was there before. The Jesus who rises is in identity and continuity with the Jesus who died… And yet, although everything in him passes through death, it is raised up into a radically different mode of being … so that on the one hand he is scarcely recognizable, and yet at the same time seeks to establish with his every action that he is the same.[/blockquote]
What this might mean is a deeper trawling of our Scriptures and our History in order to see afresh where there [i]are[/i] lines of continuity (we indeed have good wholesome Anglican “resourcesâ€). But it also means a far more courageous, “bolder†(NB the Lucan favourite, [i]parresia[/i]), even riskier attitude, one that needs to learn from a St Paul that discontinuities will abound that may not be easily tied in with the old, in the first instance; only with much hindsight and long sojourns in “Arabia†(Gal) might we see how the Lord actually works his overall patterns.
This suggests lastly, that there is much to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit – which they seem to hold to in theory but not too much in practice, given Tradition’s hold upon most of them. Namely, this Third Person’s Identity is truly only unfolding [i]throughout[/i] the economy. Or to echo Robert Jenson again, His Unbounded Possibilities are just that. Just so:
[blockquote]Gods whose identity lies in the persistence of a beginning are cultivated because in them we are secure against the threatening future. The gods of the nations are guarantors of continuity and return, against the daily threat to fragile established order; indeed, they [i]are[/i] Continuity and Return. The Lord’s meaning for Israel is the opposite: the archetypically established order of Egypt was the very damnation from which the Lord released her into being, and what she thereby entered was the insecurity of the desert. Her God is not salvific because he defends against the future but because he poses it.[/blockquote]
With such an image (sic), I suggest, we may enter the 21st C Anglican future anticipating novelties we need not fear. And with no recriminations or grudges against our fellow Christians, even as we fend off both neo-pagan capitulations and naive yearnings for yesteryear. Sorry for the spiel, folks; now please toss it about …!
Ultimately Dr. Radner (and Dr. Seitz), I fear, are simply wrong in their analysis on several points. I don’t share their optimism about the Covenant, nor do I share the analysis that both the historic instruments of Communion AND the emerging alternative structures have failed equally. I cannot share their enthusiasm for the Covenant because I feel their analysis of the crisis is fundamentally flawed.
ACI continues to argue as if the core problem is that the historical structures of Anglicanism have proven unable to handle divergent liberal and conservative understandings of Christianity. Their analysis continues to be that the historic structures of Anglicanism have failed to keep up with the Western insistence on individuality and the lack of maturity in the Global South. We just need a magical new structure called the Covenant! The ACI analysis relies on a false assumption that the crisis is one between two genuinely Christian understandings (one liberal and one conservative) that are at odds with each other and the structures of Communion cannot handle this tension. I agree with Rev. Handy that the problem is far more profound. If, in fact, the problem was simply an impasse between two authentically Christian perspectives, perhaps a covenant might help. However, if the struggle is NOT between two authentically Christian visions, but between a genuinely Christian vision and alternative vision, one couched in Christian language but fundamentally non-Christian, then no covenant will bridge that gap.
It all depends on your understanding of the nature of the basic crisis. My complaint with the ACI analysis is that it fails to name the core problem. They’re still talking about “liberals” vs. “conservatives,” as if it’s a given that everyone in this fight is a genuine Christian. I think everyone in this fight probably THINKS they’re a genuine Christian, but the Arians and the Nestorians probably thought they were too! The problem, of course, is that they weren’t!
Anglicanism has a remarkable capacity to hold diverse but genuinely Christian understandings together, albeit in a fractious and often tenuous tension. However, what the present crisis is revealing is that what Anglicanism cannot hold together is heresy and orthodoxy. No covenant will accomplish that feat.
The current crisis of Anglicanism is not because our structures have failed, or because we don’t have a covenant. At the most fundamental level the crisis has arisen because individuals have failed, chiefly – but certainly not exclusively – among them the current resident of Lambeth Palace. This is a failure for which those individuals must ultimately answer. However, given the collective and cumulative magnitude and extent of these individual failures, NO structures and NO covenant would compensate.
Among these many individual failures, however, there are also many genuinely faithful truly Christian Anglicans who are finding ways of muddling through. No, it’s not perfect and there have been many short comings in the Global South and among genuinely faithful Christian Anglicans everywhere, to be sure, but to compare those failings with those of the ABC and other structures of the historic Communion is simply flawed analysis.
The ACI crowd doesn’t like to use the “h” word, but there really are heretics out there folks! Many of them don’t realize that they are heretics, but they ARE! Heresy is not just a historical phenomenon of the distant past. It’s a constant and perennial problem. “Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, . . .” (Matthew 7:21-23). If you can’t call a spade a spade, it’s unlikely that you can diagnose the core problem, which is essential to solving it. This is why the ACI remedy will not work, it doesn’t address the core issue. What they offer instead is Rodney King theology! “Can’t we all just get along?” I’m sure Athanasius was not a fuzzy and warm sort of fellow, neither was John the Baptist, for that matter. But they were called by God to stand up at key moments and speak the unvarnished truth, and they had little patience for heresy or heretics. They were not perfect men, nor are the courageous leaders in the Anglican tradition who are standing up now against heresy. But Athanasius understood the core problem, just as faithful Anglican leaders today understand the core problem, and, like Athanasius, they are not afraid to identify the problem by name or confront it in deed.
Many of those espousing heretical views in the Anglican world today are charming people. They mean well. I’m sure that they honesty and deeply believe that God is calling them to do what they are doing. However, none of these facts change the reality that they are heretics. There is only one antidote to heresy and it involves courage and honesty. One has to squarely confront the core issue and one has to courageously and honestly speak the truth, even when it makes people uncomfortable. One does not make a covenant with heresy, one confronts it and challenges it and NEVER gives in to it. Those have been the rules for 2,000 years and they’re not going to change now.
The good news is that however imperfectly, there are brave and courageous leaders in the Anglican world today who are standing up to heresy, even as the historic instruments are deadly silent. Despite the imperfections and the mistakes, these faithful leaders are the source of Anglican renewal. You might not want to invite them to your cocktail party, but you probably wouldn’t want Athanasius either!
It’s always been about catechesis. We’re just now realizing that?
“But trying to set up alternative structures has not fared much better. If the recent Singapore meeting exposed a ten-year lapse in credibility for existing Communion structures, it also put the lie to any attractive claim for alternative structures that, in the past 10 years, some portions of the Communion have so assiduously been at work to erect: new provinces in North America; special “primatial councils†for common confessors; extra-jurisdictional missionary fiefdoms; episcopal netwoks of alternative oversight. Instead, the gathering proved to be what every other Anglican gathering has been in the past decade: in addition to faithful witness and counsel, also a time for political maneuver, secretive changing of agendas at the last moment, North Americans coming in and grabbing the microphones and running meetings, disagreements over this and that strategy and doctrine. That a common communiqué emerged at all was cause for surprise by the end; that it expressed little tangible except a shared dislike for Communion structures and for TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada was probably the most one could have predicted, which isn’t very much, let alone particularly edifying.”
Ephraim – Many of us who were involved in this Conference do not share such a deem view as described above and have found it very helpful spiritually, mission-wise, great networking and relationship-building etc and inline with many of GS key objectives. Some of us were also in GSE3 Red Sea 2005 and the challenges faced were just as daunting. GSE4 basically carried on GS work with all the expected challenges. But I understand that there will be those who will experience and judge it differently. This mixed views may well expressed current realities in the young and rather “non-monochromatic” GS movement. – Terry Wong
I agree that this is a perceptive essay in important respects. But I am left with questions about the following sentence: “But trying to set up alternative structures has not fared much better. If the recent Singapore meeting exposed a ten-year lapse in credibility for existing Communion structures, it also put the lie to any attractive claim for alternative structures that, in the past 10 years, some portions of the Communion have so assiduously been at work to erect.” Was the Singapore encounter really flawed in this way? It sounded outstanding to me.
Thank you Terry; I was wondering when some-one directly involved in GSE4 was going to chime in. Your view and the views of many of my old African colleagues are a vital part of the conversation.
I find myself in a quandary as to what to make of this piece by Dr Radner. I agree with much of the analysis of the state of communion affairs, but I find quite extraordinary his comments on the Global South Encounter. My following comments are extracted from more extensive comments I posted on Anglican Down Under:
I’m not sure what meeting Dr Radner is reporting on, but it certainly wasn’t the one that actually took place, at least in my experience and those I engaged with. I know he wasn’t there, so must be relying on (apparently quite skewed) reports from sources with a particular perspective.
To talk of North Americans ‘coming in and grabbing the microphones and running meetings’ is simply nonsense! If anything, the North Americans were put firmly in their place and their profile was as minimal as can be. The timeframe for organising the Encounter was remarkably short, and the sessions were exactly as notified to participants about a month in advance (as also available on the GS website). How does complying with the well-publicised agenda constitute ‘secretive changing of the agenda at the last minute’?
The only changes evident to participants were requests for further work, more time or extra consultation in the preparation of the communiqué, but that is the nature of such events, and the final communiqué received unanimous support – and NO western guests were invited to contribute to its formulation. Other than Stephen Noll (as part of the Ugandan representation – and rightly so), few if any other ‘westerners’ contributed to the plenary discussion in my recollection. Western guests were invited as observers to these otherwise closed sessions (ie. closed to the media), but not speaking participants.
The only input western guests had to the proceedings was some time with the GS primates (where the North Americans Рboth TEC and ACNA Рwere absolutely *grilled* about details), and on the final morning to the main meeting, after the communiqu̩ had been finalised (but before the final adoption).
There was obviously some measure of ‘politicking’ going on (no more than any such gathering), but this was not over crucial ‘votes’ or resolutions. It was much more of the networking variety – and I can tell you it included as much (if not more) listening by western guests than otherwise – more of a genuine ‘indaba’!
The event and procedures may have been different if it had been organised along western lines, but I can affirm it was unlike any other Anglican gathering I have attended (General Synods included…), both in spirit and resolve.
Perceptions and such negative comments as given by Dr Radner may have arisen from false expectations by some – there was much hype through some blog sites that the Global South Encounter was going to provide some sort of watershed moment and an alternative way forward to the crisis in the communion. In reality, the event was more by way of saying ‘we’re going to get on with our own mission agenda and get organised to operate more independently in that regard – we have little time and will to hope the AC more generally get back on track.’
The focus was very much Global South, not global Anglicanism more broadly.
My suspicion is that Dr Radner’s comments are shaped by his disappointment that the Covenant didn’t get the ringing endorsement perhaps he was hoping for, and that concerns over the ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’ placed a big question mark over section 4 (the covenant was supported in principle, except for this significant concern).
But Dr Radner is an astute enough scholar to know that a communiqu̩ of this nature can only ever speak for those present, and that such a statement cannot speak for the provinces themselves Рand it was never conceived that it would. What sort of statement did he expect to emerge? As I say, it may be more a case of judging things through criteria of differing expectations than the event itself.
I’m sorry if this comment seems harsh in its criticism, but as a guest at the Encounter I feel I owe it to my hosts to respond to such a negative and skewed summary as presented in Dr Radner’s otherwise well-considered paper. All I can say is that was not the experience of a great many participants I shared interacted with.
A good discussion, and properly challenging to some of my own assertions.
With respect to Art (#19), I basically agree: “new things” there will and must be, in the sense of God’s sovereignty ordering the Church and churches in ways we do not yet understand and certainly cannot control. “Unrecognizable sameness” in Christ’s being is certainly something we must face and be carried along by. But I am less confident that we are, or even should be, capable of doing so except in a posture of looking to the forms of the Scriptures as they have already been given us, and allowing them to mark the contours of what we will be given. “There are no new truths”, though what there are shall certainly shape us in ways we have not yet known. Charismatic risk, yes; but that lies in ways of following One who has gone before and whose shape we can indeed recognize before us.
Chris (#20) partly misunderstands me: I quite clearly said that the Covenant should NOT be viewed as a new “structure”, and insofar as it is, it will not be very helpful — and because it is being viewed as such, it is being twisted. The Covenant is indeed about being faithful to the the Lord in our mutual service and promises. The opposite of that may or may not be “heresy” in some strict way (but it may!), and Chris is right that I am not comfortable using that word in a pointed fashion in the present, largely because our confusions and divisions — both on the larger Christian scene and as Anglicans — make that designation helpful only to small and limited groups who themselves are inevitably viewed as heretics by some other group. We can certainly speak of certain heresies of the past with some precision, based on generally received determinations. But even here we have some problems: “the monophysite heresy” is no longer a clear historical object, given the agreements between Rome and the old “monophysites”; “Pelagianism” is not really a clearly defined heresy among many Eastern Orthodox; invocation of the saints is a proclaimed heresy for many Protestants, but no longer some, and certainly not for Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t mind calling Arians “heretics”; and I don’t mind saying clearly that aspects of this or that contemporary Anglican leader or theologian are “Arian-like”. I believe strongly that aspects of PB Schori’s theology are “wrong”, and subvert the Christian faith in certain key respects that must be firmly resisted. But I can’t use the term “heretic” because the ecclesial conditions for such a designation formally no longer exist, and indeed have not for some time. Perhaps this is just an issue of nomenclature. But for me it is more than that: the conditions no longer exist, and we are part of the confusion that this has left, such that our own ability to be self-aware in our faith is, frankly, deeply compromised. We can no longer move about within the larger Christian world according to the same dynamics of judgment and decision (and structural resopnse!) as in the past. (Here I agree with Art.)
This goes to Terry’s point in #22: I am glad to hear that his own views about the Singapore meeting were much happier than what I have had reported to me by several people who were present (people from very different ecclesial backgrounds). And I know that others have come back to me with similar demurrals to my picture. And because I was not present, I am obviously unable to claim any certainty in my presentation. I am happy to be corrected, and happy to withdraw judgments that are unfounded. I will, however, stand by my sense that the “alternative structures”, some of which were represented in Singapore, have not produced that kind of unifying and stabilizing fruit they were meant to provide: Gafcon, AMiA, ACNA, CP, and so on. I applaud and support elements of what these groups stand for. But statements and actions following the meeting have not been assuring on this front. The “non-monochromatic” character of the Global South is, in fact, a blessing in my mind! But it is hardly what some in the West have either wanted or tried to order their politics by. Andw hle “politics as usual” is perhaps to be realistically expected, it is hardly something by which to be renewed.
I see that that Tim Harris (#25) has added to Terry’s response, while I was posting. Again, I am grateful for the correction, more so because I would like to have greater signs of hope emerge from this gathering than what I could pick up. Just to be clear: with whom did I speak? Africans, Asians, and Americans who were present. You are right, of course: disappointed expectations may well indicate misplaced expectations, and not some intrinsic flaw to the meeting. I hope that is the case, and I have no reason to think your experience did not in fact support such a case!
I am so glad to hear from those who were at the Global South Encounter. I was not present, but, as an academic faculty for 35 years now, I have attended a number of international conferences on various topics. I listened to all the videos from the GS4 and didn’t see any westerners on the program, so I was stunned to read that they had “taken over.” In my opinion, from one who absorbed every bit of it that was public, this was a truly exemplary gathering with depth and dignity quite beyond expectation. It is hard for me to believe that participants would have been disappointed. As far as I could see, it could stand as a model for future international gatherings. And if the reference is to the Communique–I would see it as a very serious mistake to be this dismissive and not to take it seriously.
Thanks Ephraim (#27) for your gracious response, which picks up the spirit in which I offered my own perspective. As I noted, I find it hard to make any sense of the claim regarding western guests (esp. the North Americans) ‘coming in and grabbing the microphones and running meetings’. The one more contentious session (the initial reading of the draft communiqué) was quite specifically one where western guests were allowed in as observers only, but not to speak. Every other session was chaired by GS leadership.
More positively (and I recognise some differences in procedural styles/modes within the GS that may have led to some frustration), in many ways, the Encounter (specifically not a conference, de facto synod, convention or even ‘consultation’) exemplifies many of the characteristics you sketch as the future mode of fellowship (communion) regardless of the structural shape of Anglicanism. It was robust and candid, passionate and with resolve about all core gospel affirmations. The striking hallmark (and personally enriching) was the depth, insight and passion of the Bible studies – not just as delivered by +Rennis Ponniah, but as received by the gathering and followed through in subsequent discussions and considerations. It was an Encounter shaped around attentive hearing of God’s Word, not as a token exercise quickly forgotten when getting down to ‘business’ – in this alone, it forms a strong contrast with more characteristic Anglican gatherings.
Another strong impression from my perspective, was the capacity to set ‘Global North’ agendas in their place (dealt with candidly, naming what is false, dangerous and unsatisfactory), while setting an agenda relevant to the GS in a much bigger picture frame – what it means to be a faithful covenant people and a light to the nations in contexts relevant to the GS. In many ways, the agenda was NOT set by the North (even by way of reaction), and was much bigger than any sense of mission to ‘save the Anglican Communion’. That was a genuine passion of many (in diverse ways strategically), but there was a sense that the AC was better served by looking beyond itself and pursuing an agenda grounded in faithfully living out the gospel mandate to missional existence (as received in the apostolic gospel traditions, without reservation – that was also so refreshing!).
One other significant hopeful sign I detected was the *beginnings* of a more genuine theological dialogue between South and North. There is much that ‘Global North’ theologians need to hear from our GS brothers and sisters, including those of us from evangelical traditions. I am hopeful that a more fruitful dialogue may be emerging, and believe time and energy would be well spent to see voices from Singapore, Kampala, Alexandria and Khartoum gathering with counterparts from Oxford, Toronto, Pennsylvania and (dare I say it…) Oceania.
As you also argue (if I hear you correctly), the mess we find ourselves in is fundamentally theological at its core (structural issues are a symptom, not the cause), and the hope for a revitalised and renewed church lies in exercising the charisms of genuine theological fellowship, especially as we face such profound and diverse challenges from a hostile and spiritually needy world. There is much we need to learn from each other, and ‘Encounters’ are probably a better way forward than conventions and the like.
Which leads me to my final sign of ‘hope’ to emerge form the GS2S4: the powerful experience in gathering around the core means of grace bestowed upon the church: feeding upon God’s Word, uniting in praise and thanksgiving, the expression of heartfelt prayer and – especially in contrast to many other Anglican gatherings – of gathering at the Lord’s Table in a spirit of unity of heart and mind. Such fellowship was given especially poignant expression in the pastoral ‘shoulders’ offered to ++Greg Venerables as he learned of the death of his mother during the week.
Ironically, the ‘Anglican way’ was most powerfully expressed, under the low key guidance of ++Venables (and accompanied by a most impressive tropical thunderstorm overhead!), in the form of a simple Evensong scheduled for Thursday, early evening. As it happened, it followed the most heated of the sessions (as noted in my first para. above), when few felt in any frame of mind to settle prayerful reflection, somewhat ‘raw’ from the robustness and passion of the debate. The gospel shape of Evening Prayer, with its exhortation to personal and corporate confession, the soothing words of assurance, and a refocussing on the gospel priorities and hope as revealed in God’s Word and embodied in our liturgy – without embellishment or commentary, it was Anglicanism at its best.
In adding my voice to this discussion, it is not that I want to take issue with assertions here or there, but I do want to affirm that there were many more ‘seeds of hope’ reflected in the GS Encounter in Singapore than those with more specific expectations may be reporting.
Two things strike me from Tim Harris’s two comments (##25, 29).
[blockquote]In many ways, the agenda was NOT set by the North (even by way of reaction), and was much bigger than any sense of mission to ‘save the Anglican Communion’. That was a genuine passion of many (in diverse ways strategically), but there was a sense that the AC was better served by looking beyond itself and pursuing an agenda grounded in faithfully living out the gospel mandate to missional existence (as received in the apostolic gospel traditions, without reservation – that was also so refreshing!).[/blockquote]
This in itself is an expression of the second, re “seeds of hopeâ€. For only as we die to ourselves and live unto the Gospel and the Mission of the Lord Jesus may we ever have any hope of renewal among the remnant of the AC – should that be according to God’s purposes for the Church in the Economy.
And this twin perspective governs my own assessment of both Dr Radner’s ACI post and my earlier comments – to which I would now add this (triggered by #26). It is of course folly to offset Word and Spirit, Spirit and Word, as if the Father’s “two hands†may be at odds with each other. My emphasis on what Westerners term “the charismatic†is, in one respect at least, rather the Spirit’s promptings (from age to age and season to season) that enliven either features in the Scriptures which have lain hidden hitherto or which the Church has forgotten. Consequently, our “recognition†of our Lord’s [i]skopos[/i] is once again both “new and old†(Matt 13:52). And it is this dynamic I sense that is truly before us as a Communion of churches. And while I too still trust the Covenant might have some key role to play, I am not holding my breath about either ACO and/or the present format of the Instruments, all of which require a goodly/godly overall!
I quite agree art (#30), on both counts. And it is with reference to both your points that I think a genuine South-North dialogue may be entering a significant ‘post-crisis’ and more productive place.
My ‘take’ on the GS response to the North American issues, in brief:
1. These are essentially North American issues (CoE on a similar precipice), and while the GS is genuinely supportive, they have enough issues of their own to attend to. Those in a North American context will to a significant degree need to work their own way through these challenges (the era of the GS ‘cavalry’ is receding).
2. An important place to start is with your own relationships – to what degree are you modelling genuine fellowship (communion) among yourselves? Are you making efforts to work co-operatively wherever possible? (this was the main force of the ‘grilling’ before the GS primates).
3. And a significant challenge to ACNA and Communion Partners in equal measure: can you rise above highlighting the shortcomings of your respective positions (who is right and who is wrong), and look to move forward with some measure of mutual respect and ecclesial space?
That’s my perception of how the Global South responded to the North American presence. And it seems to me that the ACI is in a place and time to progress things in that direction, but only after some measure of soul-searching and the offering of genuine goodwill. If the vision in the latter half of Ephraim’s paper is to be realised, some purposeful moving on from the tensions between CP and ACNA would demonstrate great leadership and serve the wider Communion well.
Thanks Tim Harris, especially for your point 3 and the afterword. Hopeful indeed!
“I believe strongly that aspects of PB Schori’s theology are “wrongâ€, and subvert the Christian faith in certain key respects that must be firmly resisted. But I can’t use the term “heretic†because the ecclesial conditions for such a designation formally no longer exist, and indeed have not for some time. Perhaps this is just an issue of nomenclature. But for me it is more than that: the conditions no longer exist, and we are part of the confusion that this has left, such that our own ability to be self-aware in our faith is, frankly, deeply compromised. We can no longer move about within the larger Christian world according to the same dynamics of judgment and decision (and structural resopnse!) as in the past.”
Thank you Dr. Radner for your honesty and clarity in expressing your position. I don’t accept that things are as murky or as nuanced as you suggest, but I respect your position. I’m not aware of ANY recognizable major branch of the Christian faith that accepts what is happening among Anglicans, and other “mainline” Protestant denominations, regarding the blessing of same-sex unions or the consecration of active homosexual bishops as consistent with Christian faith and doctrine. I agree with you that “heresy” is not a word one should invoke lightly, and you’re absolutely right that it is a term that has been invoked far too quickly by Christians in the past. However, I don’t think the Roman Church, the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox, to say nothing of the vast majority of Protestants (including Anglicans) would share your hesitation in referring to the innovations of the TEC and ACC as heretical.
Anglicans, as you know, have long triangulated on how other authentic branches of the Church view truth. That’s a good habit. And when we consider the massive innovations to Christian theology underway in TEC and ACC, I don’t sense much division among other Christians about the character of what’s going on in TEC and ACC, do you? I suspect that you and I might agree that Jack Spong, for example, is a heretic, but perhaps even there you would prefer not to invoke that term. When there is such broad consensus among Christians globally that these innovations are indeed heretical (not just “wrong”), I think it’s best to name the problem frankly – although I respect that you disagree.
I appreciate the urge to use euphemisms, but they can obscure reality in unhelpful and even dangerous ways. For me your reticence to designate the core problem clearly for what it is is itself a symptom of the larger problem of that got us into this mess in the first place. A little more courageous plain talk and unvarnished truth in the past 50 years might have made a tremendous difference. The human capacity to ignore or rationalize unpleasant and painful realities is tremendous, perhaps even unlimited.
At the end of the day the failure was not one of structures, and it is not structures or covenants that will turn the tide now. The failure was a human one — individual and collective. Cumulatively its impact was massive. There were countless little failures — failures to speak up, failures to rock the boat when the boat needed to be rocked, failures to say difficult and painful truths plainly when they needed to be spoken, failures to challenge or even name heresy when it was clear that heresy was the core problem. Just as those countless past failures were individual ones, the solution is and will be found in the divinely inspired courage of other individuals.
No covenant can save us. We relied too much on institutional structures in the past, the way you’re relying too heavily on a covenant even now. We need courage, we need honesty, we need plain speaking (with charity and humility to be sure, but boy do we need plain honest talk). Institutions play a secondary supporting role in God’s plan, it’s always been individuals that matter the most in the end and who serve as the ultimate instruments of His will.
I know the world of qualifications and nuanced complexity that you inhabit, it’s my world too. But there are those defining moments in history when the Lord makes it possible to cut through all the fog and haze of ambiguity and see things clearly and as they truly are. This is one of those defining moments. Look to the individuals, not the institutions, and don’t be afraid to speak plainly — after all, you’re one of the good guys!
Dear Ephraim and Tim Harris
I have not been able to reply some of the feedback comments here. But they have been good reading.
Ephraim – Indeed there are different perceptions of the conference.
Tim – your feedback is helpful
I am sure there will be other opportunities or forum for us to continue some of these conversations.
Warmly yours,
Terry Wong