The end of conciliarism, which accords with the practice of the early church, is to be regarded as tragic. The Anglican tragedy, like its medieval counterpart, may be seen as stemming from the reluctance of the central authority to relinquish or even dilute its control. This reluctance is not necessarily a matter of perversity, however. To be sure, the reluctance of Anglican Communion Office, instanced by their keeping the ACC in line in Jamaica, has seemed motivated by a desire to avoid offending TEC, which provides much of their funding. But from their perspective TEC’s financial support may appear essential for the proper functioning of the Communion. They have seemed concerned also to avoid alienating the liberal wing of the Church of England. But this may be not just out of ideological predisposition. It may also reflect a belief that the CofE could not afford the resulting exacerbation of its divisions.
To Archbishop Rowan himself, with his brilliant mind, deep learning, and winning personality, such considerations may have less application. The explanation in his case may lie more in his espousal of a theology militating against closure on any issue, and thus supportive of the inclinations of the Anglican Communion Office, as of the interests of TEC, by default. Charles Raven, in his 2010 book Shadow Gospel: the Theology of Rowan Williams and the Anglican Communion Crisis, made an impressive case to this effect. As for Rowan’s adherence to such a theology despite all his sophistication, being essentially an academic, without secular or even significant parish experience, perhaps limits his awareness of the outside world.
If, then, there is to be a revival of Anglican conciliarism, it will have to come not from the Instruments in their now compromised state but instead out of churches of the Global South, together with their Western allies. These churches have laid a basis for it already in Gafcon, their conference in Jerusalem in June 2008. There the Spirit was clearly at work, producing conciliarly the extraordinary Jerusalem Declaration. So far, despite the South-to-South Encounter in Singapore in April 2010 and the CAPA meeting in Uganda last August, the Global South leaders have not followed up on it. But by absenting themselves from the Dublin Primates’ Meeting and thereby sealing its irrelevance, they have taken on a responsibility to do so. For the sake of conciliarism and of Anglicanism itself, they need now, in American terms, to step up to the plate.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Third World to provide the leadership that’s lacking in the Western Church. Like in the Libyan situation, they are waiting for the Europeans and Americans to take the lead. Unfortunately, the Church in what was once European Christendom, has abdicated its moral responsibilities to those unable and unwilling to take responsible action
EQB, A little harsh on the second and third class Anglicans, aren’t you? As you can see from this well done report, the legacy they have been offered is a lot of hot air. If they are unwilling or unable, that says more about the “Communion” reality. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall…
The African Christians have more spine than those in leadership in England, but some are compromised by accepting funds from the mainly apostate T.E.C. (U.S.A.). The “C. of E. in South Africa” (not the “mainline” so-called Anglican Church in R.S.A.) is one of the few legitimate Anglican churches on the sub-continent. The report above is indeed well done, but distressing to read. Where are the Prophets in the Church today? The Bishop on the Plateau in Nigeria is one, I believe. We need more men like Bp. J. C. Ryle and Moule today.
[blockquote]If, then, there is to be a revival of Anglican conciliarism, it will have to come not from the Instruments in their now compromised state but instead out of churches of the Global South, together with their Western allies. These churches have laid a basis for it already in Gafcon, their conference in Jerusalem in June 2008. There the Spirit was clearly at work, producing conciliarly the extraordinary Jerusalem Declaration. So far, despite the South-to-South Encounter in Singapore in April 2010 and the CAPA meeting in Uganda last August, the Global South leaders have not followed up on it. But by absenting themselves from the Dublin Primates’ Meeting and thereby sealing its irrelevance, they have taken on a responsibility to do so.[/blockquote]
Note that since GAFCON 2008, the FCA Primates’ Council have been meeting regularly and has added Abp. Duncan from ACNA. It is possible that other GS Provinces may enter into an agreement to expand the scope of this Council.
However, Ted Lewis is correct that any hope for conciliarism emerging from Canterbury is dead. Not only did the absence of the GS Primates from Dublin signal the Primates’ Meeting’s demise, but by revisioning the Meetings (in a way directly contrary to the thrust of Lambeth Resolutions in 1988 and 1998) Rowan Williams made sure that from now on the Meeting will be all indaba all the time, with no possibility of substantive oversight.
“…Rowan Williams made sure that from now on the Meeting will be all indaba all the time, with no possibility of substantive oversight”.
One has to wonder about the priorities and ethics of someone who also made such short and deliberate work out of neutering his colleagues.
RE: “There the Spirit was clearly at work, producing conciliarly the extraordinary Jerusalem Declaration. So far, despite the South-to-South Encounter in Singapore in April 2010 and the CAPA meeting in Uganda last August, the Global South leaders have not followed up on it. But by absenting themselves from the Dublin Primates’ Meeting and thereby sealing its irrelevance, they have taken on a responsibility to do so.”
Ah yes — “Anglican conciliarism” as represented by a good six AC Primates.
Seriously?
Hopefully the full spectrum of GS Primates who believe the Gospel will actually meet and come up with an actual conciliar agreement at some point. We’ll see.
RE: “It is possible that other GS Provinces may enter into an agreement to expand the scope of this Council.”
Indeed. Or perhaps those on the GAFCON council will join in with other Primates to form another Council.
“Hopefully the full spectrum of GS Primates who believe the Gospel will actually meet and come up with an actual conciliar agreement at some point”.
This would have my vote, even though I’m just a peon.
And “GAFCON”, “Global Primates Council”, “Primates Council”; whatever, I don’t care if people call it late for dinner so long as it happens.
VestrymanEQB wrote:
“Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Third World to provide the leadership that’s lacking in the Western Church.”
They already have provided that leadership. However, many in the west who take little interest in what is happening in the Third World are ignorant of what they have done.
So I won’t hold my breath because I don’t need to!
Ted Lewis in the article wrote:
[blockquote] (On that account nearly one-third of the Communion’s bishops refused to attend.) [/blockquote]
Whilst I agree with Rev. Lewis’ thesis that the *official* Anglican Communion led by Canterbury is finished, and that Rowan Williams bears most of the blame for that, we have to be accurate. My understanding is that just over a quarter of the Communion’s bishops (not almost a third) did not attend Lambeth 2008. Perhaps someone can correct me on that if I have it wrong.
A similar number of AC bishops attended the Jerusalem Conference (Gafcon) earlier that year, although they were not necessarily the same ones. And of course they were joined by a number of Anglican bishops from outside the Communion, which gave Gafcon a different flavour and goals to Lambeth.
I agree that the Jerusalem Conference was a conciliar meeting. And despite Sarah’s comment about how many primates physically attended, there does seem to have been about a quarter of the Communion’s bishops present. That is “conciliar” by any standard, although it certainly didn’t amount to a replacement or new communion ( – At that point; Rowan Williams and Kenneth Kearon’s foolishness may yet lead to it developing into one).
However, I don’t understand why Revd Lewis would write that the Global South meeting in April 2010 and the CAPA meeting in August 2010 “did not folllow up” on the Jerusalem conference. What were they supposed to do? The major *action* taken at that conference was the resolution to form the Common Cause Partnership in North America into a new province. This led to the formation of ACNA about six months later. The Global South bishops and the CAPA bishops have done as much as they possibly could to recognise ACNA (howbeit without withdrawing recognition from orthodox elements in TEC), particularly given that ACNA is still in its formative stages.
What more does Revd. Lewis want?