The Next Twenty Years
for Anglican Christians
”˜Crisis’, ”˜schism’, ”˜division’, ”˜break-up’ ”“ this has been the language of the last five years in the Anglican Communion. Again and again we have reached ”˜defining moments’, ”˜crucial meetings’ and ”˜turning points’, only to discover that they simply lead into another period of uncertainty.
Uncertainty is now over. The decisive moments have passed. Irreversible actions have occurred. The time has come for sustained thought about a different future. The Anglican Communion will never be the same again. The Windsor process has failed, largely because it refused to grapple with the key issue of the truth. A new and more biblical vision is required to help biblically faithful Anglican churches survive and grow in the contemporary world.
Some have still set their hopes on the Lambeth Conference. But that is to misunderstand the significance of our time. It can no longer either unify Anglicanism or speak with authority. The invitations have gone to virtually all, and it is likely that some of those not invited will still attend as guests. There are faithful Anglican bishops who are not invited, and there are others who cannot be present in good conscience. The solemn words of the 1998 Conference were ignored by the American Church in 2003, and any authority which we may have ascribed to the deliberations of the Bishops has been lost permanently. Not surprisingly, Lambeth 2008 is not going to attempt a similar exercise in conciliar pronouncements. Why would it? There is no vision here.
The key defining moment on the liberal side was the consecration of Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire. At first it was hoped that this was a mere aberration, that it could be dealt with by returning to where we were. In fact it was a permanent action with permanent consequences. It truly expressed the heart-felt views of the greater part of the leadership of the American Episcopal Church. The only way in which steps can be retraced is by repudiating the action itself, a development impossible to contemplate. That was the year of decision for the American church, and the decision was made in the clear light of day. They knew what they were doing.
The American House of Bishops has now responded to the Primates. Many have seen in their pronouncements sufficient conformity to the request of the Primates to enable the Communion to continue on its way. I do not read their statement like that. I think that they have failed to meet the hopes of the Primates. But the significance of the document at this level hardly matters. The document taken as a whole makes the real issue abundantly clear. Sexual rights are gospel.
The Americans are firmly committed to the view that the practice of homosexual sex in a long term relationship is morally acceptable. Not only is it acceptable, it is demanded by the gospel itself that we endorse this lifestyle as Christian. They are prepared to wait for a short time while the rest of the Communion catches up. But they do not intend to reverse their decisions about this and they do intend to proclaim this message wherever possible. They want to persuade us that they are right, and that the rest of us should embrace this development. Here is a missionary faith.
The biblical conservatives and their allies in Africa and Asia knew this. They did not need to wait for the House of Bishops. They took irreversible steps to secure the future of some of the biblical Anglicans in North America. I say ”˜some’, because it is often forgotten that faithful Canadian Anglicans are living in a Diocese where the blessing of same sex unions is diocesan policy. What if TEC has been judged to conform to the Primates wishes? The Diocese of New Westminster certainly has not. What is to be done for the orthodox in that Diocese? What will happen if British Anglicans follow this route? This sort of question shows why a new vision and further action will be needed.
The response of the Primates has involved the provision of episcopal oversight. This, too, has changed the nature of the Anglican Communion. From now on there will inevitably be boundary crossing and the days of sacrosanct diocesan boundaries are over. Anglican episcopacy now includes overlapping jurisdictions and personal rather than merely geographical oversight. If the sexual revolution becomes more broadly accepted elsewhere, so other Bishops will be appointed as they have been in the USA. This is the new fact of Anglican polity. How are these developments going to be incorporated into world-Anglicanism? What future should we be thinking of? Where is our vision for them? Hand-wringing is not the answer.
The aim of the Archbishop of Canterbury was to retain the highest level of fellowship in the Communion. He believed that truth will be found in communion, in inclusion rather than exclusion. From his point of view, an extended passage of time is vital. What matters for the Archbishop is not this Lambeth, but the next one and the one after that. Will those who have initiated this novelty relent and give up their commitments? Or will the objectors tire of their fuss and concede the point? Since the likelihood of the American church repenting of its action is remote, the hope must be that those who now protest will eventually weary of their protest and learn to live with the novelty of active gay bishops.
The Archbishop has revealed his hopes through a lecture on biblical interpretation, ”˜The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing’. delivered in Canada in April 2007. In this lecture he addresses the very heart of the controversy, by challenging conservative interpretations of Romans 1 and John 14, and thus raising the issues of interpretation, human sexuality and the uniqueness of Christ as Mediator. He has signalled the importance of hermeneutics for our future. His lecture shows that there is an unavoidable contest about the meaning of the Bible in these crucial areas ahead of us. It is a challenge which must be met at a theological level. We may think that this whole business is about politics and border-crossing and ultimatums and conferences, but in fact it is about theology and especially the authority and interpretation of Scripture.
That leads to this fundamental conclusion. Those who believe that the American development is wrong must also plan for the next decades, not the next few months. There is every reason to think that the Western view of sexuality will eventually permeate other parts of the world. After all, it has done so spectacularly in the West, and the modern communication revolution has opened the way for everyone to be aware of what happens in New York, London, San Francisco and Brighton.
Thus the question before the biblically orthodox in the Communion is this: what new vision of the Anglican Communion should we embrace? Where should it be in the next twenty years? How can we ensure that the word of God rules our lives? How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism? What theological education must we have? How can we now best network with each other? Who is going to care for Episcopalians in other western provinces who are going to be objecting to the official acceptance of non-biblical practices? The need for high level discussion of these issues is urgent.
As an initial step I look to the Global South leadership to call for another ”˜Blast of the Trumpet.’ The ensuing consultation must start with the reality of where we are now, and look steadfastly to a future in which the bonds of Communion have been permanently loosened. It has to strengthen the fellowship by which churches will help each other to guard their theological good health while engaging together with the task of preaching the gospel to an unbelieving world.
In any case, the basic issue is no longer how can the communion be kept together. It is, within the Communion as it has now become, how can biblical Anglicans help each other survive and mission effectively in the contemporary world? The Africans have shown a commendable concern for this very issue and taken steps to assist the western church. They have recognised that the gospel sometimes divides and sometimes requires new and startling initatives. We must now all take the actions and do the thinking required to safeguard biblical truth, not merely in the West but throughout the Anglican world. To fail here, will be to waste the time and effort which has brought us to this fateful hour.
–Dr. Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of Sydney
At last we have a leader who sees the situation clearly, and gives some pointers to the way forward. How I have longed for such clear, straightforward leadership.
These questions that Archbishop Jensen poses are vital, and cannot be side-stepped, and there are many others that directly relate to them:
“Thus the question before the biblically orthodox in the Communion is this: what new vision of the Anglican Communion should we embrace? Where should it be in the next twenty years? How can we ensure that the word of God rules our lives? How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism? What theological education must we have? How can we now best network with each other? Who is going to care for Episcopalians in other western provinces who are going to be objecting to the official acceptance of non-biblical practices? The need for high level discussion of these issues is urgent.”
Peter Jensen, from his perspective, has said what IRNS has been saying from his, that ‘The Windsor Report’ was a flawed waste of time – notwithstanding that Oliver O’Donovan called it ‘the only game in town’ and the liberal evangelicals on the Englsih website ‘Fulcrum’ thought it the way ahead (until Dromantine, until Dae es Salaam, until ….).
The failure really lies with the ABC, but given his support for homosexual relationships, his friendship with leading gay clerics in England, and his rejection of classical Anglican hermeneutics (which Jensen references here), what else could he do? If he had said simply in 2003, ‘If you consecrate Robinson, I will not recognize this act and will not invite you to Lambeth 2008’, I am fairly sure that would have put the brakes on. Instead, what have we had nothing but four years of turmoil, countless meetings, jetsetting bishops, a blizzard of words and reports, the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars, hundreds of devastated parishes, and now the Anglican Communion brought to the point of schism … for the sake of sodomy, for heaven’s sake! What kind of ‘leadership’ is this?
Rosemary – I pray you’ll get the faithful episcopal leadership you deserve – and are no doubt working for. Hopeful days ahead …
Richard – are you moving back to the old country?
#2 … “vital and cannot be side-stepped”
You have an unparalleled gift for understatement.
So, what we need to do is start organizing and instead of blogs where we whine about the way things are we need to have brainstorming and planning for the future. We do not need to wait for the formal structures to be in place.
#5. And I have said the same thing again and again. It is time to step out and face the real world again, to hammer out our identity anew. In short it is time to staop whining and infighting and begin to work. LM
Paychecks, perquisities, and retirement plans are the biggest obstacles at this point – certainly not the reappraisers.
Things might get a wee bit uncomfortable when our African brethen decide one Sunday to preach about *relatively* opulent lifestyles instead of homosexuality.
Abp. Jensen should be thanked by every conservative Anglican for this deeply perceptive article. We have all been arguing for a long time that the issue is hermeneutics and not just sexuality; but it is sex that sells anything, especially newspapers, so the story will seldom , if ever, be reported correctly.
[b]Big Question:[/b] Can someone, elves perhaps, provide a link to ++RW’s talk, “The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing”, that ++Jensen mentioned. I think it needs to be splashed all over on as many blogs as possible to show where ++RW’s true allegiance lies. I doubt that doing that will increase the chance of reunifying the AC, but it is likely to cause the conservative side to realize just what it is we are up against.
If that talk indeed says what ++jensen says it says, I am afraid that the small hope I had for the survival of the Anglican Communion with a chastened Episcopal Church is gone; and we must look for a new path.
#7 #7 Actually, I think your observation is profound — yet it works both ways.
There are those who participate in this conversation without personal consequence to family and livelihood and they tend to be hotheaded. Then there are those who have such family and livelihood concerns and they tend to be overly patient. The truth — in this case — is in the middle.
Nor can a morally high-handed attitude be taken with clergy who have such concerns. For let’s face it, it is finally of the same order as those who wish to retain church property. They see that they have sweat-equity and rights to years of honest labor. So do clergy.
Responding to #8:
[i]Big Question: Can someone, elves perhaps, provide a link to ++RW’s talk, “The Bible Today: Reading and Hearingâ€,[/i]
I assume these are the relevant links:
summary:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/070416a.htm
full text:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/070416.htm
The old T19 thread on this lecture by ++Rowan in April 2007 is here:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18878
The SF comment thread on the lecture is here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2822
Mathematicus, see also Robert Gagnon’s disputations of RW’s arguments. Click here for [url=http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexRowanWilliamsResp.pdf]PDF[/url] version, here for [url=http://www.robgagnon.net/RowanWilliams’WrongReading.htm]HTML[/url] version.
#9 of course you are right. Righteous Indignation is probably the ultimate luxury, no?
Once one jams himself or herself up with a Western lifestyle it becomes an exercise in getting mad at one’s own money, doesn’t it?
Schori, et al. are banking on it.
Perquisities s/b perquisites.
#5:
But John, wouldn’t you conced that blogs are but one way for us ordinary folk to better understand and to discuss the event (Christian) of our day, our hopes and fears and prayers. Here, I meet with Christians from all over the US and mony from England and sometimes from other countries. I occasionally here what you would call ‘whining’ but mostly I share my thoughts and beliefs and sometimes my fears with people I begin to know, and very occasionally meet.
Many have already left, sometimes on their own, sometimes whole congregations, at some point (soon, I hope) larger groups such as diocese will leave ECUSA, It is happening, it will continue to happen ….don’t worry John. If you are impatient or believe the Lord is is calling you now, then you can leave now.
It is a bit ironic that folks here are lauding Abp. Jensen as a champion for a traditional view of the Anglican Communion. In fact, he has been calling for some time for [i]looser[/i] ties between the churches, so that each province enjoys the same virtual independence within the association that Sydney enjoys within the Anglican Church of Australia. His idea seems to be that each diocese should be free to establish intercommunion with like-minded jurisdictions and refuse intercommunion with other-minded churches. For example, Sydney has very close ties to the Church of England in South Africa, which stands in relation to the Anglican Communion’s Province of Southern Africa much as the Reformed Episcopal Church stands to TEC.
Such a loose Anglican Fellowship (“Common Cause Partnership”) would have room for a diocese that allows its laity to preside at the Holy Eucharist, as Sydney wishes to do. There is no way that would be allowed within the stronger, more-centralized Anglican Communion that the Covenant drafts contemplate. A Covenant giving actual power to the Primates is a non-starter for Sydney, which means that it cannot get consent from the Australian national church as a whole under their loose federation. I think that reasserters will find that many other jurisdictions among the Global South movement and its allies will be similarly hesitant to surrender any enforceable authority to an international body. As the proliferation of bishops in America suggests, everyone wants to be in charge and nobody wants to submit to communal discipline.
The source of this article is here.
Elves, thank you for the links.
As the proliferation of bishops in America suggests, everyone wants to be in charge and nobody wants to submit to communal discipline.
We see this also in the HOB’s repeated failure to respond adequately to the primates, etc. The desire for autonomy all around probably has more than one motivation – an unwillingness to believe that anybody knows better than “us” and a lack of trust across the communion.
Re #19: Exactly. We all are perfectly willing to swear our undying loyalty to an authority that basically agrees with us, but let that so-and-so say or do something important we would not do and we will look for another authority. It wasn’t a problem when Anglicanism was culturally monolithic (upper-class English society and those others who aspired to that sort of life). When everyone shares the same values, there is little opportunity for conflict.
Since at least 1963, however, Anglicanism has embraced the inculturation of Christianity within a pluralistic world community. American Anglicans are now trying to be culturally American and Nigerian Anglicans are trying to be culturally Nigerian; they aren’t both trying to pretend they live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. That leaves a lot more room for misunderstanding and suspicion.
[blockquote] The decisive moments have passed.
The Windsor process has failed.
Irreversible actions have occurred.
The Anglican Communion will never be the same again.
Uncertainty is now over.
‘Crisis’, ‘schism’, ‘division’, ‘break-up’ [/blockquote]
Wow.
None of these statements are new: I have seen them all, or ones like them, from bloggers like you and I. But here they are, from one of the princes of the Church–and not even an African one, at that.
The implications are earth-shattering. We can see the fault lines now: some of the provinces of the Anglican Communion have already split, effectively, including the United States and Brazil. Other provinces that may split include South Africa, Aoterea/New Zealand, Scotland, Canada, and finally, the Mother Church of England herself. The others will choose up sides, one on this side, one on the other.
May God have mercy upon us.
…not to mention ++Sydney’s Australia, which may be headed for a split as well.
# 21 – and all because some very determined people – false believers – want to change the doctrine of marriage.
Can you doubt this is a satanic attack on the church of Christ?
Dale, the train has left.
I’d have to agree, Gordian, since it seems that in order to attack the doctrine of marriage, they had to also throw out the uniqueness of Christ as the one Way to salvation.
They’ve tossed out Baby Jesu along with their own dirty diapers.
American Anglicans are now trying to be culturally American and Nigerian Anglicans are trying to be culturally Nigerian
Dale, I hope the Nigerians are not trying to be culturally Nigerian. Whether they are in fact doing that more than they intend is another question. But their stated loyalty is to Christianity as taught in Scripture and affirmed in the historic church. TEC, on the other hand, often makes the direct claim that they are conforming to their own standards, which they of course presume to be superior and the inevitable progressive path for all.
I think many of us could submit to a greater authority if that authority was itself truly under the same ultimate authority that we recognize. The Bible tells us not to be yoked with unbelievers. That presumes we know what the standards of true faith are by which to judge with whom we can be yoked.
#16, I don’t think Abp. Jensen is asserting the need for looser ties within the Communion, what I think he is saying is that there has been such a radical change in the manner in which the Communion coheres that we now need to start asking and answering some significant questions of what we have traditionally taken for granted. When he asks what a “new vision” for the Communion should look like over the next 20 years he is, I think, inviting a creative and constructive debate.
So far there has been very little debate of this kind and a lot more finger-pointing than probably allows for any such debate. The bonds of affection that once held the Communion together are no longer there, and we are feeling around for alternatives. Electronic communications have allowed for global networks to develop that were unheard of just 12-15 years ago, and that raises all sorts of questions about how connection today reshapes catholic order. This is something I was thinking and writing about before it actually happened.
The Archbishop also raises vital theological issues, for behind his question “How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism?” is the reality that our received theology and ecclesiology are the product of a milliennia-long era in which Christianity ruled the cultural roost in the West. We no longer do, so how do we create a biblical theology for an age in which we have either been sidelined or, worse, are being sent back to the catacombs?
Hurling abuse at one another is not going to engage the conversation that needs to take place, so I hope that we can get beyond this stage of the conflict and into the rebuilding necessary.
#2, yes I am back in England, looking out upon a very soggy dreary Cambridge day from my office in Ridley Hall