What then shall we do? The most immediate answer is to provide an alternative to the shallow account of the Christian Gospel and the nature and mission of church now proposed by the liberal rump. As the Windsor Report suggests, a robust account of “communion” will go a long way toward meeting that goal. Nevertheless, such an account will not appear apart from work yet to be done. If not done, the politics of compromise and deal making will take over the dissidents as it has their progressive opponents. In that case, the counter example of what it is to be the Anglican Communion will not appear, and we will be left with only fragments.
This is the moment the Global South has asked and waited for. This is their time to call the Anglican Communion back to its roots in Holy Scripture and the fathers of the church. It is their time to show us what communion is all about. That effort will require of all of us not only great theological effort but also all the graces Paul places at the foundation of Christian unity””lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance in love, eagerness for unity along with kindness, tenderheartedness and forgiveness. Much will be asked of everyone, but it is these, my brothers and sisters in the Global South, who, in our time, will bear the heat of battle. Those of us in provinces controlled by the liberal rump of what once was our communion, though we may help in this enterprise if asked, now in large measure are called upon to wait, watch and pray rather than control. One thing we should wait, watch and pray for is a rigorous account of what it means when Anglicans claim to be a communion of churches. We understand that meetings are now being planned within the Global South to arrive at ways to move forward despite the terrible divisions we face. I pray that a meeting soon will take place. I pray also that it will appoint a body from throughout the Communion to forge a common vision of what the Anglican Communion is called to be. Finally, I pray that those who now resist the direction manifest in Dublin will prayerfully move forward and embrace a Communion ecclesiology that gives glory to God, who has so richly blessed the missionary extension of the Gospel throughout the world. This should be a time of fresh hope in that same Gospel and its Lord.
[i]They [those who disagree with TEC] have rightly resisted the change in moral practice TEC has undertaken, but they have neither exposed the shallow nature of the theology behind these changes nor proposed a more robust alternative.[/i]
Really? Hasn’t Prof Robert Gagnon convincingly destroyed any pretext of scriptural underpinnings for the revisionists positions? If there is no scriptural foundation, then what could the revisionist theology be built upon other than heresy? And what have the orthodox proposed as the [i]robust alternative?[/i] A return to the faith once delivered to the Saints [Jude 3].
It is thoughtful articles like this one by Turner that drive orthodox [like me] to be suspicious of any “listening process”. While we sit and listen and discuss, lots of Christians in the pews (especially the young) are being led down the path by priests, deacons, and bishops that “gay is good”. So, where is the value of the “relational approach” in this?
“This is the moment the Global South has asked and waited for. I pray also that it will appoint a body from throughout the Communion to forge a common vision of what the Anglican Communion is called to be.”
This is fairly big news, coming from the ACI, and one of the most prominent thinkers within TEC itself.
This is a really helpful contribution from Dr Turner.
I have two small quibbles:
1. It is certainly the case that GAFCON have done some heavy lifting theologically with the Jerusalem Declaration. Its doctrine is no more than that set out in the Canons of the Church of England and I find it as unexceptional as Dr Turner does. Where perhaps he and I differ with the JD is in the prescriptions set out in it for discipline, including the removal and replacement of those who do not fall into line with its wishes by the GAFCON Primates Council. Perhaps things have moved on since then, but my own view is that such matters are for the whole of the Anglican Communion to decide in Council. The very Councils which have been neutered by Rowan Williams.
In addition to the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement, there has been considerable work done by the Global South Theological commissions. Much of the theological work Dr Turner calls for has been going on quietly by them resulting in contributions such as their Catechism here.
2. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and the Anglican Communion has over the last one hundred years, faithfully worked out its theology and its doctrine and stated it repeatedly through the Lambeth Conferences as they used to operate before the incumbency of Dr Williams. Dr Mouneer Anis helpfully traced out one example of this in the Lambeth Resolutions which faithfully follow Article XX of the 39 articles such as:
So my feeling is that we are not in Pol Pot’s year zero having to start our theological work from scratch in order to provide a vision for our future and its Councils. If we look for them, we have the resources and work not only of our predecessors, but also the work that has been going on in the last few years in the Global South and GAFCON movements to assist us. The problem in the Communion is that these councils and their consequences have been disregarded by its ABC and bureaucracy, because they did not like the results which flowed from them. In rebuilding the Communion and the trust we need to share, we could do no better than to remember who we are and have been recently, and with thankfulness for that past and current work, rebuild the institutions so recently and so deliberately wrecked by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
What we need now is the will to engage with that task, and as Dr Turner rightly identifies, the key to that lies with the Global South and its ability to resist the siren calls on the one hand of TEC and its money directly or channelled through Communion bodies, and on the other hand the encouragement from Lambeth Palace to prevaricate and divide their efforts. Both TEC and Lambeth Palace are in overdrive at the moment in their efforts to divide the Global South, and the faithful in the Communion.
Prayers for the Global South Primates, and for our Communion under Christ.
The questions seem to be: (1) What does “communion” include? and (2) What does “heresy” exclude?
Is it relevant to our debate that the Christian church once focused on the formulation of “creeds” to resolve these issues?
[blockquote]This is the moment the Global South has asked and waited for. This is their time to call the Anglican Communion back to its roots in Holy Scripture and the fathers of the church. It is their time to show us what communion is all about. That effort will require of all of us not only great theological effort but also all the graces Paul places at the foundation of Christian unity—lowliness, meekness, patience, forbearance in love, eagerness for unity along with kindness, tenderheartedness and forgiveness.
…..
We understand that meetings are now being planned within the Global South to arrive at ways to move forward despite the terrible divisions we face. I pray that a meeting soon will take place. I pray also that it will appoint a body from throughout the Communion to forge a common vision of what the Anglican Communion is called to be.[/blockquote]
Absolutely – This is a time of challenge, but also one of growth and of opportunity. Whether it is creating a vision of the future of the Communion through new theological work, or rediscovering one we held not so very long ago, I join Dr Turner in his prayer.
Dr Turner’s challenge is not so far from the view I hold and which I summarised in this comment. We have different futures available to us, the disintegrated chaotic but independent one advocated by TEC as a loose franchise, or the integrated one we have always held of a denomination able to recognise in one another doctrine, faithfulness, validity of sacraments and mutual recognition of one another’s ministry through priests and bishops; that in a practical sense, priests and bishops are ordained and consecrated for the whole Communion.
It is hard to ask the Global South provinces to take on this burden, as so many are faced with pressing, and sometimes life threatening problems, but I pray for them if they do take up this challenge and the opportunity it offers to allow the Communion to heal and be restored in Christ’s Mission. Perhaps a useful perspective we in the West should hold to is that set out in an ACNA context by commenter TJ McMahon here, with which I would concur.
PM makes a good point in #2- for most intents and purposes, the doctrine spelled out in the Jerusalem Declaration is little more than the official doctrine of the Church of England. What perhaps Dr. Turner and PM both miss is that this is all it was ever intended to be. The “discipline” of the JD is merely the observation that the traditional doctrine of the CoE has limits, these limits are spelled out in the Creeds and the 39 Articles, and if one is unwilling to abide by the Creeds, 39 Articles and various other mutually agreed formularies (Chicago-Lameth Quadrilateral, etc.) that one cannot represent oneself as holding Anglican doctrine, and cannot hold ecclesiastic office. None of this is revolutionary, and prior to the Pike trial in TEC would probably have been broadly accepted even in the western parts of the Anglican Communion. Not accepting various parts of the doctrine and ecclesiology of Anglicanism is why there are Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. Or, for that matter, Roman Catholics. Not everyone accepts Anglican formularies.
With the broader question of communion, and what it means, Dr. Turner raises a VERY important question- the one on which the future of the Anglican Communion depends. Within the Communion, there have been different definitions of the word in use simultaneously. Certainly, when we use the word sacramentally, Anglo Catholics do not mean the same thing as low churchmen. It has become evident with so-called open communion (which in TEC has come to mean that all may receive, baptism or no), that traditionalists and revisionists (regardless of churchmanship) attach vastly different meaning to the word “communion.”
So, are we to be a Communion joined by common doctrine and practice? What is the limit to intercommunion? Can a diocese that does not ordain women be in communion with one that does? Can a province that consecrates gay bishops be in communion with one that does not? Can a church that communes unbaptised persons be in communion with a church that only communes confirmed or received Anglicans?
One of the things that has become clear in recent weeks is that the impairment of communion that was initiated by TEC and the ACoC with their actions in 2002 and 2003 has come to impact much more of the Anglican Communion. The “Communion” is now much more a federation that recognizes a common history than a Communion that shares a common Sacrament, doctrine, and ecclesiology. But before that can be repaired, the churches that wish to remain together in communion must decide what the word itself means.
These things were decided in Council- specifically Lambeth 1998, and the subsequent Primates meetings. The Primates of the CoE and TEC were responsible for carrying out the disciplinary measures and reneged on their promises to do so. Unfortunately, there is no disciplinary procedure within the Anglican Communion to address this. No one in Gafcon has insisted that all must sign the JD. However, looked at another way, the Churches that numerically are the majority of the Anglican Communion HAVE signed it, versus the Covenant, which has been signed by churches representing less than 1%, so it is the most legitimate document currently available, whether we like it or not.
As an Anglo Catholic, I am not happy with the way the JD is put together (I would be a lot happier if it officially recognized Tract 90 as a legitimate interpretation of the Articles). But the Gafcon Primates have shown support for Anglo Catholics in the US, as opposed to the “official” Anglican Church in the US, or for that matter, the Church of England. And, even if we don’t agree with their tactics all the time, at least they are approaching this prayerfully, and doing SOMETHING, as opposed to all our supposedly official councils, which have been falling all over themselves since 2007 to either push on with the revisionist agenda (ABoC) or completely ignore the fact that there is a “minor, second order” issue in the Communion (Lambeth, ACC). I’ll give the Primates Meeting credit for trying in 2007, but then obviously there were a number who were willing to let the ABoC renege on his word and get away with it.
Just to clarify, in 6 above, the phrase “so it is the most legitimate document currently available, whether we like it or not…” should have read “the Jerusalem Declaration is the most legitimate document currently available, whether we like it or not….” just in case anyone was confused on which document (JD or Covenant) I was referring to as “it.”
#7 TJ, I think you make a very good point about the support for the JD and the weight of those supporting it. I suspect though that the design of its disciplinary provisions were designed for a sub-grouping of faithful provinces and individuals who would in some senses ‘pull up the drawbridge’ to protect the faithful within it and to regulate their relationships with others.
That is a slightly different scenario perhaps to the one Dr Turner is addressing, which is the call to restoration and healing of the Communion as a whole, although perhaps the principles within the Jerusalem Declaration will contribute to serving in the discussion of that larger purpose, if the Communion as a body is worthwhile preserving as the third largest grouping of Christians in the world, as I believe it is.
What are the disciplinary provisions in the Jerusalem Declaration? I don’t see any. Was there another part that is not included in the version linked from the FCA website?
PM (#8)- I believe you are correct when you say that the disciplinary measures of the JD are intended for the subgroup of provinces that are signatory to it. For a variety of reasons, it might be necessary to amend those provisions in order to provide for others to sign on to the document. I do not believe it was intended as a “Covenant” for the Communion, but was rather a statement of the mutual doctrine of the Primates and bishops who attended the Gafcon meeting in Jerusalem.
My assumption would be that if Mouneer Anis or John Chew were to approach the Gafcon Primates council with recommendations on improving the document, although they are not, as far as I know, currently signatories, they would receive a fair hearing. For that matter, I think if +Rowan were to approach Gafcon, he would get a fair hearing. Although the JD may be seen as a “Protestant” confession, the Gafcon primates remain in communion with Anglo Catholic dioceses in the US, so they are not imposing a particularly strict interpretation of doctrine, unlike those in the Communion who are either so “reformed” or so “liberal” that they find Anglo Catholicism intolerable.
I do think it would be useful to see more influence exercised by the Gafcon Primates over FCA, AMiA and ACNA- as I think there is friction caused when FCA plants a church within the bounds of an orthodox CoE parish, or when one of the American groups starts trying to “evangelize” in South Carolina. However, the Gafcon primates are overseeing churches with millions, or 10s of millions, of people, and I suspect that the individual actions of a dozen people planting a church 1000s of miles away escapes their notice.
One thing, however, that we need to recognize if we are to be realistic, is that the idea of “the Communion as a whole” must change. The future Anglican Communion, if it is to be a communion, will be made up of those provinces and people willing to be part of it. To be a cohesive organization, it must have recognizable boundaries (literally the boundaries of who is in communion with who). When someone steps outside those boundaries, they are no longer in communion, and therefore, no longer in the Communion. We can predict that some of the provinces currently on the list of ACC members will “opt out” of any real communion structure, and that individuals within some churches, especially in the west, will opt out even if their province opts in. Since 2003, there has been no way to avoid some division- because not all the bishops of the Anglican Communion are actually in communion with one another.
Might it be that Dr Turner is seeing a new role for himself and his mates?
Dr Radner was recently writing about how nobody listened to them – and his work was to no avail. Now they are pointing out the inadequacies and failures of the GAFCONites etc – idealogical without any sound theological underpinning.
Now just WHO might be available to come along and help redefine and give substance to the GAFCON spin?
Who might help them to redefine Anglicanism in a workmanlike way?
What do the GS lack?
Seitz, Radner and Turner, of course!
#9 wildfire
The complete Jerusalem Declaration is here of which the principles are only a part.
#11 Rev Reynolds
Why not engage with what Dr Turner actually says rather than indulging in scornful caricature? I expect that the GS will make their own mind up who they will listen to.
#11 — I saw a nice piece from Pete Carroll about the work of ACI. Given our irrelevance, you’d think the Revd Reynolds type would yawn and move on.
I agree #12, this is not a time for ‘think tank’ solutions, but rather a time for Episcopal leadership. ACI has stayed fairly close to its remit all along.
PM, #12,
Thank you for the link. One problem we have in understanding the various positions is that reference is no longer made to the longer statement, the “Statement on the Global Anglican Future,†but only to the Jerusalem Declaration. For example, in the recent [url= “http://www.gafcon.org news/oxford_statement_from_the_gafcon_fca_primates_council/”]“Oxford Statement†[/url] that announced the Gafcon group’s rejection of the Anglican Covenant, no reference is made to the longer statement, but there are repeated references to the Jerusalem Declaration.
[blockquote]11. We remain convinced that the unique character of GAFCON/FCA with its diversity of cultures and its embrace of the Jerusalem Declaration as a common theological confession is a vital contribution to the future of the global Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
And see as well Bishop Venables’ introduction:
[blockquote] In England (as well as other areas), we invite people to re-affirm what we have always believed in Anglicanism by adopting the Jerusalem Declaration as a statement of their own faith and join with us in partnership in working to win the world to Christ.[/blockquote]
It is also worth noting that the rejection of the Covenant was qualified to the “current textâ€:
[blockquote]And while we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.[/blockquote]
In a BBC interview at the time, Bishop Minns stated that the major problem with the covenant was not the text itself but the failure to implement past decisions, and that the major problem with the text was the standing committee that would guide implementation in the future.
Perhaps one thing we could all agree on is that the Jerusalem Declaration [i]itself[/i] has no disciplinary mechanism whatsoever and that it is the only Jerusalem document now being cited as an alternative to the Covenant. I would expect that most would also agree that some sort of mechanism is required. Greater clarity as to what is being put forward as options would help all who are considering these issues.
#13 Professor Seitz
I would take it as an accolade that the Rev. Reynolds is paying attention.
Peter Carrell is always worth reading. As you say he considers Dr Turner’s essay here
[blockquote]More Brilliance from the ACI
They may be legends in their own lifetime, the gang of four, self-appointed, with laptop, taking on the future of the Communion, to the chagrin of many critics, but they are brilliant. Is anyone else on the internet consistently turning out the quality of essays the Anglican Communion Institutes fellows have been publishing for years now? Remember, as you launch into the ‘usual’ criticism of the ACI, they are driven by a vision for the unity of the Communion. I am not always convinced myself that their critics share their vision with the same passionate commitment
read on[/blockquote]
I see he has also decided to make a stab at updating the Jerusalem Declaration [not the Jerusalem Statement] on his blog here
I think some confusion may be caused because the ‘Jerusalem Statement’ from the GAFCON event in Jerusalem is rather more encompassing than the declaration of Doctrine which is contained within the ‘Jerusalem Statement’ and is called the ‘Jerusalem Doctrine’ here.
Sorry, in my last paragraph #15, I don’t mean it is called the ‘Jerusalem Doctrine’; I mean it is called the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’.
From what I had gathered at the time, the GS was quite prepared going in to Jamaica to vote in the Ridley draft. At one point, I was corrected, as I recall, for being cynical in my belief that the Standing Committee of the Ridley draft was none other than the then JSC of the Communion. It seemed a common assumption among moderates that the Covenant Standing Committee would be a new group selected by the Covenant provinces. I know many in the GS were sorely perplexed, first by the maneuver of the ABoC to sink his own proposal at Jamaica, then by the “clarification” that the “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” (as the JSC had been renamed) was to be the Standing Committee arbiter of the Covenant, and then the re-write that Greg Cameron and the ABoC put together- which included virtually all the changes demanded by TEC, and completely ignored the calls from the GS for the Primates to be restored as the body to determine Covenant compliance and issues.
So I think it quite probable that the GS will produce a slightly modified Covenant, with key deletions of previous drafts restored. One prays, at least, that they are studying this. Clearly, the current version, which would put Covenant provinces under the authority of KJS, Ian Douglas and other revisionists, is a non-starter.
#14 wildfire
[blockquote]Perhaps one thing we could all agree on is that the Jerusalem Declaration itself has no disciplinary mechanism whatsoever and that it is the only Jerusalem document now being cited as an alternative to the Covenant. I would expect that most would also agree that some sort of mechanism is required. Greater clarity as to what is being put forward as options would help all who are considering these issues.[/blockquote]
I agree that strictly any disciplinary provisions are in the Jerusalem Statement which is in itself a request to the GAFCON Primates, as well as a Declaration of Doctrine in the Jerusalem Declaration it contains. What the status of these two documents is and whether references to the Jerusalem Declaration are independent of the Jerusalem Statement provisions now, I suppose is for the GAFCON Council of Primates to know, but in many ways things have moved on, and not for the better for the Communion in the years since GAFCON 1. My understanding is a further GAFCON event has been announced, but do not know much about details. I think we can agree that the ball is now in the court of the Global South.
I agree that the issues of governance, ecclesiology, and theology in the Anglican Communion are now in the hands of our brothers and sisters in the Global South. Yet, there are still countless practical ways that Anglicans in North American can show “what communion is all about.” We can be servants to them: hold a prayer vigil, build an orphanage, make a financial donation, etc.
I don’t see the GS putting forth a revised Covenant. The Covenant has been shown to be a game of Rowan. The Covenant’s reputation is incorrigible. There will be some orthodox that sign on to present form, foolishly hoping to improve it, e.g., West Indies. The absenting primates stated loud and clear that won’t be playing Rowan’s games with Rowan’s rules.
The Jerusalem Declaration disciplinary conditions are just this: accept the JD and you’re part of the club, otherwise you’re not. Easy. Unlike the convoluted Covenant procedures that the liberals would have manipulated.
The ACI guys are remarkably fixed on the Covenant. The Anglican Communion grew to be the third largest organization without a Covenant. There wasn’t a problem with ecclesiological deficit when the Anglican Communion was being built. The current problem is lack of boundaries or rather the overstepping by certain members of long assumed boundaries. The path back to communion is exclusion of those transgressors. Rowan has been open about his opposition to such exclusion. But the Covenanters promised that Rowan would come through in the end, and allow a two tiered solution, that self-excluded the revisionists/heretics. Hah! What a sad joke.
When you re-establish boundaries, you don’t need some convoluted Covenant, but you can throw it in if you want. It just doesn’t matter. The primates council (of primate signatories to the JD), the new Lambeth meeting (of bishop signatories to the JD), an ACC (of provincial signatories of the JD) could function fine. This would be more ecclesiological structures than that which built the AC.
I agree with Robroy.
With respect, I really don’t see the practical point of Dr Turner’s call for a more detailed definition of “communion”. Those of us in full communion with the Global South don’t need it – we know what we have got, even if Dr Turner doesn’t, and we are united.
But as for liberal dominated provinces, surely such an exercise is premature until their future course becomes clearer? Take the case of the USA: The Global South at Singapore recognised two distinct groups of orthodox US Anglicans: ACNA and Communion Partners. As the CAPA bishops’ communiqué at Entebbe in October last year put it:
[blockquote] “We are committed to network with orthodox Anglicans around the world, including Communion Partners in the USA and the Anglican Church in North America, in holistic mission and evangelism. Our aim is to advance the Kingdom of God especially in unreached areas.” [/blockquote]
The CP are within TEC, they are dissenting, and they have to be careful what they say publicly, for fear of reprisals from 815. Is there any point in attempting more detailed definitions of “Communion” while this situation persists? Surely it is better to let ACNA keep working on its church planting, CP keep working on nurturing and protecting its members, and TEC keep working on destroying itself?
In the same way, the situation in England is in flux. There is much disagreement among and within various orthodox groups: Reform, Church Society, Fulcrum, Society of Hilda & Wilfrid etc. The Global South have always worked with and at the invitation of local elements, so until those local elements work out what they want to do, the GS are hardly going to go charging ahead.
Furthermore, many of those groups within CofE themselves do not know what they are going to do until CofE makes certain decisions. For example, Reform and SHW are both strongly opposed to women bishops. They will not know until 2012 whether the CofE will have women bishops at all, nor whether any alternative oversight will be available within CofE (which is not in the current legislation, but both ABC and ABY favour it). How can anyone expect Reform or SHW to know what they want, in practical terms, until that vote is taken?
The same would apply to the appointment of a practicing homosexual as bishop. ABC considered doing so last year. After he received a letter from Reform threatening to withdraw their 350 ministers from the Church of England, he dropped Jeffrey John like a hot brick. But what happens when he gets up the nerve to call Reform’s bluff (or more correctly, find out whether Reform really is bluffing)?
I just don’t see how a more detailed formulation of “Communion” can assist when things are in such flux. Those of us that are in full communion with the Global South know what we have got, and we don’t need a further definition. Those who are in liberal provinces have to find out the shape of what will emerge before getting involved in such a discussion.
Communion Partners? What do they represent? Single digit percentage of dioceses and even less of parishes. The Communion Partners have the same future in the TEClub that the Anglican Network, the Camp Allen bishops had. Their dioceses and parishes will be assimilated. Strong personalities presently in the Communion Partners might hold on, but when they move on or retire, the parishes or dioceses are lost. If you look at the [url=http://www.communionpartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/CP-WEBListings-Bishops.pdf]list of Communion Partner bishops[/url], already we see Western Kansas, Rio Grande, and Texas as having had Communion Partner bishops at their helm who have retired and have been replaced by non-communion partner bishops. Springfield(?), Fond-du-Lac are next. The organization has only been in existence for a couple of years. And then there were none.
What about the Communion Partner provinces? They are: Tanzania, West Indies, Jerusalem and Middle East, Burundi, Indian Ocean. Tanzania, Jerusalem and Middle East, and Indian Ocean skipped the Dublin meeting. Burundi and West Indies are still willing to play Rowan’s games for a while longer.
The lesson learned is that “relational only” ain’t working. One needs some confessional aspect which the ACI types seem not be able to accept. The ACI-ers seem to be struggling with where to go. A open declaration on their part, that they have been played by Rowan like marionettes with a clear repudiation of the present Covenant is a good place to start.
“Nobody stands taller than those willing to stand corrected.†—William Safire
RE: “Why not engage with what Dr Turner actually says rather than indulging in scornful caricature?”
Nah — he’s just afraid that the ACI will continue doing what they’ve been doing so well for the past seven years [and everybody knows that I’ve pointed out things I *don’t* think they do well, too]. The ACI doesn’t need to envision a “new role” for itself when there is so much left to do under the old role. ; > )
Finally, I pray that those who now resist the direction manifest in Dublin will prayerfully move forward and embrace a Communion ecclesiology that gives glory to God, who has so richly blessed the missionary extension of the Gospel throughout the world. This should be a time of fresh hope in that same Gospel and its Lord.
How can you read these line and not burst out laughing. A time of fresh hope? We are losing all the battles in multiple countries in the “civilized” west, and the Anglicans are like ducks in a pond, quacking mightily, with a Schori alligator, hungry, its bulgy eyes just above the surface, Homosexual everything is everywhere, and this is a time of fresh hope? Who does he think he is kidding? We stand around, spineless in meetings and feckless in action, and this is a time of fresh hope? When do we wake up? Larry
Correct me if I am wrong, but I rather think that a lot of the early work in connection with the idea of a covenant was done by the Global South. I also believe that the GS theologians did propose their own version of such a thing, although I am not sure where to find these papers [probably the Global South Anglicans site].
I think it is fair to say that two options are the Conciliar or the Confessional Approach:
1. The Conciliar Approach.
This is not necessarily related to having an Anglican Covenant, although that is one Conciliar option. Conciliar just means that decisions are made by a church or churches of a Communion meeting together in Council. This is the way the early church operated through its Councils [Nicea etc] and also the way the Anglican Communion has operated through the Lambeth Conferences [when they were democratic bodies exhibiting bonds of affection]
The Anglican Communion is still able to operate through its churches meeting together and making decisions, just like any other body. As far as I can see that is just exactly what is being proposed in any meeting of the GS if they decide to expand it.
Dealing with one form of the Conciliar Approach, I think in some senses, the Anglican Covenant has had an element of the Emperor’s new clothes about it. When you dig through all the structures proposed in the last few drafts, at the end of the covenant process, all that happens is that “relational consequences” are recommended to the Provinces of the Anglican Communion for them to decide upon through their Councils. Well of course, without the Anglican Covenant, that is exactly what the Provinces have always been able to decide upon, and had the Dar Communique been acted upon, those decisions about the consequences of actions might well have been acted upon by the Provinces after Dar.
That said the Covenant had some advantages:
1. The provinces joining it formally committed themselves to follow its procedures and be bound by its terms and decisions [much in the same way as those signing on to the Jerusalem Declaration do]
2. It provides a formal mechanism for deciding which issues which arise in the Communion’s life are important and where doctrine or unity is threatened, which we do not have at the moment. Even with the Jerusalem Declaration, it provides no guidance as to whether actions [like Lay Presidency, or removing the filioque from the Creed] or issues which may arise in the future which none of us can predict fall within or outside its terms. The mechanism for deciding that in the Covenant was the result of work arising out of a largely forgotten meeting in Kuala Lumpur and was something Bishop Tom Wright used to bang on about, quite rightly in my view.
This mechanism is in the Current Draft (3.2.5) and obligates members:
[blockquote]to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.[/blockquote] There is a similar provision in the Ridley-Cambridge draft (3.2.5). Whether a Conciliar or Confessional approach is adopted, some such mechanism for assessing whether something threatens our mission in Christ will be needed.
3. The Covenant, at least in its early drafts, and in the parallel work done by the GS Theological Commissions [Singapore in particular] provides a way forward for regulating future life in the Communion, but it specifically does not deal with the existing problems of actions in North America, which as I say, were and remain something which the Provinces of the Communion are able to deal with meeting together as of right, or using the mechanisms of the Dar Communique.
4. The Windsor Report does provide some useful work and resources which can be used in the future whether a Conciliar or Confessional route is taken.
2. The Confessional Approach
Whether a Conciliar or Confessional approach is taken, does not mean that the Communion does not have Doctrine. For example the approach taken by the Church of England in its Canons is
The CofE Canons also make clear that each of these books where doctrine is found may be used “forasmuch as it is not repugnant to the Word of God†in the Bible, an important qualification reflecting the approach of the Thirty-nine Articles.
As far as I can see, the Jerusalem Declaration itself is based upon the Doctrine set out in the Canons of the Church of England, with the addition of items such as Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10.
Even the current Covenant Drafts contain statements of Doctrine.
The Confessional Approach adopted by other Protestant Churches, such as the Methodists and seen in for example the Westminster Confession has consequences. Instead of defining Doctrine as being found in particular places, as the CofE Canons do for example, it sets out a list of required beliefs, strict conformity with which determines the membership and direction of that denomination.
Of course, the Anglican Communion can take such an approach, but it will in a sense no longer be the Anglican Communion as it has operated for the last hundred years or so, with its distinctive approach, but will instead change into a different sort of denomination, more akin to the Methodists. Even if it does this, it will still need Councils to determine whether actions fall inside or outside the Confession, and it will still need some mechanism such as “substance, intensity and extent†to decide whether an issue is in breach of its confession. What a Confession does is to set things in stone.
The weakness of the Confessional approach is that it succeeds strictly by whether its words cover the situation which has arisen, and as we have seen situations have arisen which were never really envisaged or paid much attention to by either the writers of the Bible or the Anglican Formularies; to them our current issues would have been inconceivable. In this, the Conciliar Approach has the advantage that the Provinces meet together to determine through study of the Formularies and the Bible guided hopefully in prayer by the Holy Spirit what God’s will is for his Church on the matter.
The issue of Conciliar/Confessional is the same as that found in drafting contracts and treaties. The more closely you seek to define things, the more likelihood that new situations will arise you had not thought of in drafting, and the more opportunities there are for wheedling around it.
As an example, consider Killing. A Conciliar church might meet together to see if such a thing was permitted and meeting together would look in the Bible and find the 10 Commandments and easily come to the conclusion that this was not permitted.
However if a Confession is drafted it might say: ‘Thou shalt not kill’ – pretty clear and reflective of what is in the Bible, however someone might object and say we need to kill animals for food so let us say “Thou shalt not kill menâ€, but that immediately creates a loophole for killing women and children. So the drafters might go further and say “Thou shalt not murder anybodyâ€. In a few years time someone claims that euthanasia is OK because that is not within the definition of ‘murder’, and a proponent of abortion comes along and says that is OK because the embryo is not capable of independent life and is thus not a member of ‘mankind’. These are some of the unintended consequences which can arise drafting documents tightly which are going to last for centuries and perhaps millennia.
3. In summary
The difference between the two approaches is:
1. in the Conciliar Approach, Provinces meet together in Council to decide together whether actions fall within their doctrine in the Formularies and Bible; whereas
2. in the Confessional Approach, actions are measured by whether they conform strictly to a written confession of doctrinal points.
Of course, practically there is a point where the Conciliar and the Confessional Approaches may meet in practice.
I don’t know which way we will go in the future, but I suspect that if people just say to the other ‘you have to do it our way’ at the start of discussions, the Global South discussions are not going to get very far.
Larry, it is true that Anglicans have not been doing very well on the organizational front, and that we have not figured out a clear or unified response to the assaults on the Gospel in many Western contexts. But Anglican churches are flourishing around the world — you know that. Even in North America — and even in TEC and in ACoC! — there are flourishing and vibrant Anglican congregations of faith and witness. (I was at one yesterday — the Church of the Resurrection in Toronto — filled with a wonderful variety of Christians, young and old, and vital in mission.) There continue to be young people of enormous faith and intelligence who want to become Anglicans, despite our organizational problems (I see them everyday in Toronto, and correspond with many elsewhere). Those who would dismiss these realities are not looking straight. And where does this all come from? It comes from the power of Christ and His Gospel, whose gift is bound by a divine promise. Yes, we can and we should take “fresh hope” in this Gospel and its Lord, and the promises behind them, given to Anglicans among many! We have work to do; we have to sort through the organizational quagmire that we and our leaders have created; we have continued times of trial in various (although frankly, for most of us, mostly limited) ways; and as Dr. Turner writes (I agree with him), we have some careful theological thinking to do, that is founded on our gifts, our past, our received promises, and that is persuasive to the best among us and the world, and not simply assertive, and that can be embodied in ways that bring reconciled life among us, and not further division. Challenging? Yes. But our hope lies not in our own powers and intelligence, but in the One for whom we take up our challenges.
I was forwarded this 2009 essay by Colin Podmore the other day. Very helpful is the section starting on page 14 or so, on the Primates Meeting and its relation to other Instruments.
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/38963/gsmisc910.pdf
I suppose one could say that a Communion exists de facto, even when the stated intentions of the Communion have come undone. ACI’s position is that these intentions belong to our common life and attention should be given to repairing them. Because in a ‘de facto’ communion power will shift somewhere (ACO, ACC, Lambeth Palace), and the way in which authority was described and intended will be subverted.
ACI is not calling for ‘a more detailed formulation of “Communion‒ as some kind of de novo drafting. Indeed, we have been concerned about precisely such efforts in the name of ‘confessions.’
What is needed is careful account of what the Communion has said it is — as in Podmore’s essay. And attention to seeing to its furtherance.
I read liberal blogs where it is routinely stated that ACI made up the idea of Instruments; or ACI invented special powers for the Primates Meeting ‘to get a job done’; or ACI dreamed up a Communion accountability, rather than the coterie/federation of independent national churches.
We actually have a very rich literature describing the Anglican Communion life, that is neither Roman nor Orthodox. Because this is not front and center, and is open to manipulation by opposing sides, we have this tragic situation where people are free to make all kinds of claims (‘the Primates Meeting wasn’t around when I was born — the ACC runs the Communion’; ‘TEC has always been a hierarchy’ etc;). One reads Lord Coggan’s comments in the above and wonders what he would make of the present state of affairs, much in the way the ‘reason’ of Hooker has been turned into individual rights and freedoms in the post-Lockian West.
We actually have a fairly clear and excellent self-understanding, as explained in this essay. But the danger now is that the same acids that go to work to make the biblical text bend in post-modern fashion, also create sell-by dates for important communion statements, after which they vaporize.
The task is more on the order of ‘collation’ and ‘organization’ and ‘prosecution’ than something like ‘creation’ or ‘fresh formulation.’
#22 MichaelA
I have always felt that the Communion’s issues with doctrine and behaviour are not going to be solved at the local level, whether in North America, Australia or for that matter the UK, whatever any of us do or say.
The problem we have is at Communion level of how to deal with departures from our doctrine and practice, and for that matter how we move forward to heal and are restored for mission. I have always felt that this will be solved by decisions made between the Provinces in Council, by their Primates or by some other structure by which the Provinces act.
Local decisions may help, such as any that may be made in England, but at the end of the day, the thing which will keep us focused and mutually accountable is by the members of the club rereading the rules to the membership and then leaving it to the individual members such as TEC and ACoC, whether they wish to remain a member of the Club or go off in some new prophetic direction, which is oddly enough just what Dr Williams said in his 2006 essay!. This will also be the best guarantor of some realism in decisions in provinces such as those in the UK.
In my diocese, South Carolina, the tension between orthodoxy and institutionalism is palpable. Out Bishop and Standing committee pushing hard the idea that the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is a “sovereign” church–in other words, that its association with TEC is voluntary, malleable, and, really, just some temporary accident of history. Easy come, easy go.
But on the international level, the orthodox are crying out for much stronger post-Anglican Communion structures–covenants, confessions, denominations, councils, what have you. It will be interesting to observe how far the “sovereignty” argument is walked back if an orthodox structure emerges. Once the enemy of Liberal TEC and the ABC is removed–perhaps by a final, true and open schism and elevation of the Jerusalem Declaration as a reasserter Declaration of Independence–what about the issues that were papered over at GAFCON? Divorce (the the reality of divorced-and-remarried currently in ACNA), WO, filoque, etc. Will the “sovereign” dioceses who come together to form a new, more disciplined international Orthodox Anglicanism be willing to give up their autonomy?
RE: “It will be interesting to observe how far the “sovereignty†argument is walked back if an orthodox structure emerges.”
Not really — one can certainly maintain “sovereignty” while remaining within an entity — including the Anglican Communion. It’s perfectly possible for a negotiation to take place — and perhaps 10 years later for a diocese to *withdraw* from the AC, too. Withdrawal is, indeed, a part of sovereignty.
Indeed — that’s part of the objection that Christians in TEC have to the current TECusa leaders. They insist on developing their own interesting religion while also insisting on remaining within an organization that has no relationship to their odd and faddish ideas. Of course, we all know why that is. The current progressive leaders in TECusa need a larger reputable host organization from which they can attempt to move forward their own ideas. Were they to — with integrity — leave the AC as inconsistent with their own unique gospel, that would eliminate their opportunity for furthering that unique gospel.
No, sovereignty is well able to be maintained on all levels — and the Diocese of South Carolina’s views are easily and consistently maintained at those levels, as well.
Robroy wrote:
[blockquote] “Communion Partners? What do they represent? Single digit percentage of dioceses and even less of parishes. The Communion Partners have the same future in the TEClub that the Anglican Network, the Camp Allen bishops had. Their dioceses and parishes will be assimilated. Strong personalities presently in the Communion Partners might hold on, but when they move on or retire, the parishes or dioceses are lost. …” [/blockquote]
Tell that to the Global South. Tell that to the CAPA bishops conference. Both have made it clear that they intend to work with and commune with both ACNA and Communion Partners.
Yes, Communion Partners might be wiped out. Then again, they might not. TEC’s leadership might implode in a welter of regulatory compliance issues first.
I think the approach of the Global South is correct – they work with what they have got. They clearly intend to keep “meddling” in the affairs of North America (a wise decision, since if they don’t, sooner or later North America is going to meddle with them) and for that purpose they will work with the orthodox Anglican groups that are available. That includes Communion Partners.
[blockquote] “What about the Communion Partner provinces? They are: Tanzania, West Indies, Jerusalem and Middle East, Burundi, Indian Ocean. Tanzania, Jerusalem and Middle East, and Indian Ocean skipped the Dublin meeting. Burundi and West Indies are still willing to play Rowan’s games for a while longer.
The lesson learned is that “relational only†ain’t working. …” [/blockquote]
Respectfully, your last sentence simply doesn’t follow from the previous paragraph. There is no reason to think that the CP provinces are disunited, nor is there any reason to think that the GS provinces as a whole are disunited. Too many people are drawing artificial “fault lines” in the Global South when they have no objective reason to believe that they exist. For example, Tanzania and Middle East work directly with Communion Partners; whereas Nigeria and Uganda work directly with ACNA – that does not mean that they are opposed to each other.
Indeed, the invitation to ++Duncan of ACNA and +Howe and +Lawrence of TEC to the Global South meeting in Singapore in April 2010 was meant to send a message that the Global South is united in their support of the orthodox. Its just that some of them work directly with different agencies.
For that matter, some of them don’t work directly with anyone, yet it is clear that they support the whole Global South effort. An example is ++Ernest of the Indian Ocean who is not directly involved with either ACNA or Communion Partners, but has made clear public statements setting out his support of both.
C. Seitz wrote:
[blockquote] “Because this is not front and center, and is open to manipulation by opposing sides, we have this tragic situation where people are free to make all kinds of claims (‘the Primates Meeting wasn’t around when I was born—the ACC runs the Communion’; ‘TEC has always been a hierarchy’ etc;).” [/blockquote]
But Dr Seitz, this is always going to happen. The way of the liberals is disinformation and deception – they actually have few weapons beyond this so they are hardly going to stop. So what is the point in engaging in a fruitless attempt to prevent them doing this?
Surely the strength of the orthodox lies in countering lies and disinformation with *proclamation* of the truth? When we see deception, we make the effort to tell people what the real facts are. That is how we counter the liberals. More definitions are not going to assist that process.
One of the great weaknesses I see in orthodox Anglicanism at the moment is that too few people know enough about what the Global South have done and taught over the last ten years (I include myself in that. I am finding things that surprise me all the time).
I appreciate that Dr Turner means well. But his article above hasn’t helped that general lack of knowledge about what the GS is doing and teaching. Rather, it tends to reinforce it.
Dan Ennis wrote
[blockquote] “But on the international level, the orthodox are crying out for much stronger post-Anglican Communion structures—covenants, confessions, denominations, councils, what have you.” [/blockquote]
Are they? I agree that some people among the orthodox are crying out for this. But many others aren’t. I have no idea what the break up is. But I suggest that the ones who make the real decisions, i.e. the Global South and other influential orthodox bishops, don’t seem to be calling for stronger communion structures at all. Rather, they are working with what is already there, and occasionally moving on a piecemeal basis to shore up or replace what is already there.
Consider the following:
• The Global South didn’t originate the idea of the covenant – that was done by a Lambeth Commission (Windsor). But the GS were happy to run with it and use it as a means of reinforcing orthodox discipline. But when they realised that ABC and his cronies were intriguing to use it as a weapon against them, the GS cooled on the idea. They don’t seem to be pushing for the covenant now.
• Some influential GS primates sponsored the Jerusalem Statement. At this point, it hasn’t been adopted by all, nor does this appear to be an urgent item on GS agenda. And as Pageantmaster points out, the JD mostly refers the reader back to the original formularies of the Church of England anyway.
• The orthodox are issuing strong public statements, taking symbolic actions and delivering theological guidance. But these are being done through existing structures, notably the Global South and CAPA conferences.
• Yes, there has been a recent call for a conference of all the orthodox. This is likely to be a reaction to ABC’s obvious neutering of the Primates Meeting, i.e. it will be effectively replacing the Primates Meeting, not creating a new idea.
In view of the above, I suggest it is arguable that the general trend of the orthodox (GS, FCA, CAPA etc) has not been to call for new structures, except on a case-by-case basis to meet a particular perceived need.
[blockquote] “Will the “sovereign†dioceses who come together to form a new, more disciplined international Orthodox Anglicanism be willing to give up their autonomy?” [/blockquote]
Do they need to? The fight back against liberalism in the Anglican Communion has been led by sovereign provinces who chose to work together. What value would there be in superimposing a hierarchy on this? Doesn’t that just play to a liberal strength, i.e. suborning hierarchies?
Surely the strength of the orthodox lies in countering lies and disinformation with *proclamation* of the truth? —
Yes, and underscored. Clear repetition about what the Communion has said, as against dissembling and convenient forgetfulness.
Your cautions in #31 are also very helpful. Thank you for them.