This is a thoughtful, prayerful letter and deserves to be treated as such by all Anglicans. It cannot possibly have been easy to put together.
There is much here to be welcomed.
First, he shows a profound awareness of the gift of the Anglican communion and its fragility at the present time, and desires our unity in Christ. Unity plays a strong role in the New Testament. To be part of the third largest Christian family in the world is an awesome responsibility and privilege. If Anglicanism falls apart, everyone loses. I simply cannot say how strongly some reasserters need to hear this message. Dr.Williams says he writes this “out of the profound conviction that the existence of our Communion is truly a gift of God to the wholeness of Christ’s Church and that all of us will be seriously wounded and diminished if our Communion fractures any further.” I wonder if our words and actions have a similar motivation?
Second, there is a strong underscoring of scripture’s authority and importance in our common Anglican life:
The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as ‘the rule and ultimate standard of faith’, in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another ‘standing under’ the word of Scripture.
Third, there is a strong criticism of TEC’s actions. Note carefully that the actions in question were not one but two breaches caused by that fateful gathering, one having to do with the confirmation of an episcopal election, the other having to do with actual liturgical practice. The 2003 actions were not only unilateral, but they plainly imply “a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church.” Here we have again a reference to Scripture and the need to read and understand Scripture in, with and through the church. Given the importance of this decision, it should have been done with the wider church, but it was not. We should have sought to make a convincing scriptural case for its actions. but we failed to do so.
Let there be no mistake, the heart of the current crisis among Anglicans is a change “in our discipline” and “our interpretation of the Bible.”
More than this it is clear that New Orleans House of Bishops meeting and the JSC Report were insufficient. True, hard work went into them, but there are serious problems here, as to the assurances that were sought. In the case of Episcopal elections the tie in to a possible future General Convention receives special notice, and welcome reference is made to “the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards.”
In the case of same sex blessings, what was asked for has simply not been given:
But the declaration on same-sex blessings is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the name of the Church at large.
(This is a much clearer and more accurate summary than that of the JSC report which had to be corrected by various participants in the New Orleans meeting).
Fourth, there is a welcome description of the Lambeth Conference as “a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice.”
Fifth, there is again an underscoring of the need to treat homosexual and lesbian persons with the care of Christ himself. “The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ’s name.”
That having been said, one is also left with many questions.
How can he recommend consultants given the degree of the breach? I am concerned that the Archbishop of Canterbury underestimates the depth of this problem, alas. “Actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered” is not strong enough to describe what is, has, and will be happening. The Windsor Report’s language was stronger:
By electing and confirming such a candidate in the face of the concerns expressed by the wider Communion, the Episcopal Church (USA) has caused deep offence to many faithful Anglican Christians both in its own church and in other parts of the Communion.
(Please note carefully, not just offense, but deep offense)
Also, has he not undermined his own argument about Lambeth in the way Lambeth 1998 has been treated? If Lambeth ”is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice,” then why has a province which has unilaterally and blatantly repudiated that voice not suffered real consequences for so doing? What is the point of coming to a meeting to establish a common voice when those who so establish it will not honor it as common in the common life of their own province?
It is very important to underscore here something which many have missed, namely that is is simply insane to come together and discuss whether to do something which has always been considered immoral when one member family of an extended family is already doing it.
I also wish to ask why there is no mention of the fact that there has been no primates meeting since Tanzania? The Primates set in motion the process that produced the Windsor Report, received and deliberated over the meaning of that report for the wider Anglican family, and then set specific guidelines in place for TEC to respond to in order to repair the enormous breach which the TEC leadership caused. Surely they are the logical body to evaluate and deliberate over TEC’s response in New Orleans? The Archbishop of Canterbury risks arrogating to himself too much of a role here in this matter.
Finally, when Dr. Williams writes
I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another
He surely puts the emphasis in the right place but he raises so many more questions than he resolves. Who decides who is in this group or not and why, for example? What criteria do they use? By what deadline do they make their decisions? And: given that meetings and consultations have failed so far to resolve the current chasms in the Communion, how will this lead to any different outcome?
With regard to boundary crossings and the like, has not Dr. Williams allowed allowed this letter to look as if it supports the very equivalency between those actions and what TEC has done which the Tanzania Primates meeting said did not exist? Also, I do not feel that the Archbishop of Canterbury realizes that these actions have been undertaken because the Instruments of Communion have sought to provide a refuge for Communion minded Anglicans in the province of TEC, but they have consistently failed to do so.
The bottom line for me is this: we have here truth, but no consequences.
I sense Archbishop Williams really wants to have a Lambeth Conference as a conference of the whole communion. There is, I believe, a way to do this. It will mean not inviting bishops whose diocesan practice contradicts the mind of the communion; it will involve warning those who have been involved in increasing disorder in our common life, it will involve a clear declaration of the nature of the Lambeth Conference and its focus on the Covenant and that Covenant’s relationship to future Lambeth Conferences, and it will involve a called Primates meeting in the middle of the fall of 2008 to consolidate and elucidate what Lambeth and has said and done and its implications for our common life.
All though this crisis Rowan Williams has decided not to decide, and here he has done it again. Although his description of the problem is most welcome, the solution will take a Herculean effort without which the Lambeth Conference will no longer be a real instrument of the whole communion. In a real communion, there is truth, but there are consequences. I am concerned that with the underestimation of the degree of the problem and the lack of clarity involved in a real solution, Dr. Williams Advent letter will be too little, too late. I pray it may be otherwise–KSH.
[url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8381/]Iker has made a statement[/url].
Kendall, your final statement really sums it up well. (assuming the “though” in the first sentence should be “through”). He continually seems to make the decision not to decide and not to exercise authority. I think the proverbial “white elephant” is again the lawsuits and his failure to address them and make a firm statement. This failure is the most blatant proof that your conclusion that he underestimates the problem is right on. He seems to fail to recognize the pure maliciousness with which TEC is waging lawsuits and threats against fellow Christians in the Anglican Communion. He also underestimates or ignores the deterioratingly ill health of TEC and the blaring need for some effective arbitration.
Thank you Canon Harmon for your thoughtful insights.
Regarding:
“why has a province which has unilaterally and blatantly repudiated that voice not suffered real consequences for so doing?”
What specific consequences are you looking for? Final consequences? ISTM that the Windsor Report and Dar Communique among other items showed embarrasing displeasure from our sister members of the Anglican Communion. Not a public hanging for sure. But it wasn’t nothing. And it clearly wasn’t the last word. Would the consequence of not being able to sign an Anglican covenant with removal to a lesser status and consequently allowing a parallel province to emerge be enough?
May your Advent be holy & blessed,
An insightful and helpful analysis of the ABC’s letter which signals hope and dismay in almost equal measure.
In Christ,
David Curry
Kendall,
As one who has read on numerous occasions the phrase “the gift of the Anglican Communion”, I wonder whether you might describe in greater detail the precise nature of this “gift”. Every time I read it, I find no description or definition of the gift so I assume it must be universally obvious. Unfortunately for those of us who tend to be relatively slow in understanding and somewhat dim in intellect, this is not the case. Please educate us. Thank you.
Two things stand out in my mind regarding the letter. One has to do with the different views of the office of bishop between TEC and most of the rest of the Communion. Gone, it seems to me, is the role of defender of the faith once delivered and in its place the decisions of General Convention reign supreme in TEC. The other is the Archbishop’s wish to rely on still more “meetngs.” In the end, the orthodox Anglicans in North America will be long gone and the “rump” ECUSA will have imploded upon itself well before the countless meetings of the Archbishop are finished. Enough of that already!
Thank you Father Harmon for your insightful analysis.
The debates regarding episcopal ‘order,’ ecclesiology, who’s really ‘in’ in the Anglican Communion and who’s really ‘out’ of it seem to go on ‘ad naseum.’
My thoughts, those of a person who is part of those Anglican microcosms called Faith once given” and to believe and to live my life in accordance with that Faith.
In addition to my Christian beliefs, I am also an informed geo-political observer. I am aware, currently and historically, of the attacks upon Christianity that have been/are being made upon Christians by revisionists/secularists/modernists who CLAIM to be Christians.
What has and is happening within the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand is an attempt to bring troublesome Christians ‘under control’ by infiltrating and co-opting their leadership and confusing the laity.
In short, what has been happening within the Anglican Communion is an attack from without by revisionist bishops that is attempting to use episcopal structure to destroy the Anglican Communion’s connection to “the Faith once given.”
In deciding not to decide, he has decided. We stand for God’s revealed Truth, upheld in Scripture and catholic Tradition. He acknowledges that the Church holds to that Truth, but he himself waffles. This is why I am Orthodox and no longer Anglican.
This crisis in the Anglican Communion would have been resolved long before were the ABC someone of Bishop Iker’s depth of commitment to the historic Faith.
Thank you, Canon Harmon. I especially agree with your point about the primates. If I’m not mistaken, +++Rowan himself was quoted as saying that the primates would decide on TEC’s response (and fate). So why isn’t he calling a Primates Meeting? Possibly because he has a good notion of what the outcome would be and he can’t bear a reduction in TEC’s status?
Re #5: Those who appreciate the gift of the Anglican Communion do not need a definition. Those who are unfamiliar with the Communion are more likely to benefit from observation than from definition. Those who are familiar with the Communion and dislike the way it operates will not be changed by a definition.
Dr+ H,
There are a couple of long-term risks in “not inviting bishops whose diocesan practice contradicts the mind of the Communion” and depending on the Covenant to force TEC into (effectively) resigning from the Communion.
1) With the (dozen, say) most blatantly revisionist TEC bishops not invited to Lambeth, there will be a (very understandable) desire on the part of the moderate primates, who are heartily sick of the whole affair, to regard the matter as settled and simply move on. This will reduce the pressure on TEC, and will not at all weaken 815’s terroristic hold on many Windsor dioceses, nor its legal position in its numerous court cases.
2) The Covenant process will be a lengthy one, and we can depend on TEC to delay and obfuscate to lengthen it still further. We cannot really predict at this point what modifications TEC, with the support of Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Brazil, etc., will propose, and how much hairsplitting, equivocation, and pettifoggery TEC will apply in its process of agreeing to the final Covenant — because we can be sure that TEC will sign anything to avoid being canned from the Communion (remember the famous “B033 process”?). We (and the Global South) will have to go through all this all over again to demonstrate that TEC is not in fact abiding by the Covenant, which at this rate will take us well past midcentury.
We must continue to pray — and press — for TEC to be disciplined as a province before Lambeth.
I echo thanks to Kendall+. The are orthodox/Charlie Browns who are still looking at the words of Lucy Brown/Rowan Williams and trying infer meaning from this or that turn of a phrase to think that this time he really means it, and he won’t pull the football away. No, this time he is really promising to…talk some more. Well isn’t that novel. Quite simply, if he meant to withdraw any invitations, this would have been a pretty good time to say it. Here is a guy who utterly undermined the UNANIMOUS consensus and potential consequences of DeS. Yet, there are still naive orthodox looking through his tea leaves for signs of leadership. Sad, really.
I think Dale Rye (#10) is essentially correct about the difficulties of defining the distinctive Anglican “gift,” but for those unfamiliar with the Anglican tradition, the phrase “simultaneously Catholic and Reformed” — often used by Bishop Duncan — may be helpful, at least as a beginning. In fact, I think we see that simultenaous commitment to catholicism and reformation well-evidenced in ++Rowan’s letter.
Kendall, that is a very fair and on target evaluation of the letter.
#13 Alan Jacobs:
One of my professors likes to describe Anglicanism as, “Catholic but not Roman; Reformed but not Protestant.”
An excellent exegesis, +Kendall. The dog barks, but TEC knows it has no teeth.
Well said, Jeffersonian.
Nothing more to add.
I add my thanks to you Kendall for walking us through this letter and explaining it more thoroughly. I feel better about this than I have about other writings in the past from Williams. I still really miss George Carey, though, whose writings and statements were much more clearly Gospel-centered.
[blockquote] In the case of Episcopal elections the tie in to a possible future General Convention receives special notice, and welcome reference is made to “the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards.” [/blockquote]
This helps crystalize a thought I had after New Orleans: First, HOB was asked to respond in two areas in which they hold singular authority [i]apart from General Convention[/i] (namely, the consent for consecrations and the oversight of extra-BCP liturgy), yet they seemed to defer that authority to GC. Secondly (and I just realized this), the HOB has an effective veto to revisionist activity (at least any I can think of) at GC itself. Therefore, the deference to GC by the HOB is a clear abandonment of their assigned office and (perhaps) their “charism.”
This is in marked contrast to the agressive revisionist posture of many bishops, marked for instance by the number of dioceses who would rather send a postulant to oblivion rather than Nashota or Trinity. Perhaps this is not the best example, but I am sure that commenters to t19 can cite numerous examples of fearless exertion of episcopal authority by reappraising bishops, probably the same ones who purport to cower before GC.
Except for the previously noted fatal flaws, this letter of the ABC is the most encouraging and hopeful letter or communication that I have ever heard or seen from him. Identifying the problem is the first step in leadership. Let us rejoice that we’ve made it that far!
Re #19: While there are many things the New Orleans statement can be criticized for, this really isn’t one of them. The reference in the New Orleans statement to “until General Convention decides otherwise” cannot be read as intent to “defer to General Convention” or “cower before it,” because the bishops [b]are[/b] General Convention co-equally with the Deputies. It is simply a recognition of the fact that the membership of the House of Bishops today cannot bind the House forever; someday, there will be a majority of new members that might vote otherwise. It would simply be a lie for the HoB to say that it can promise the Communion that TEC policy will never change. They [b]can[/b] promise that a majority of the current membership will not vote to confirm another gay bishop or officially authorize gay blessings, which also effectively means that General Convention cannot do either of those things while the current majority serves.
That is all that the bishops can do, and that is substantially what they have done. They cannot even promise that individual bishops in the minority will not authorize blessings on the diocesan or parish level, because the Righter Judgment says that no bishop is subject to discipline unless he or she explicitly violates a canon. No such canon currently exists, and the House of Bishops cannot independently pass a canon or reverse the precedents of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop. Unlike many other provinces, TEC has “separation of powers” between its bishops, its lay and clerical synod, and its ecclesiastical judiciary. The role of the bishops in sustaining doctrinal standards is exercised within that system, just as the role of the House of Deputies in adopting the national budget requires subsequent concurrence by the bishops.
From my observations of TEC, the relative power of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops has sharply tilted in the bishops’ favor since at least 1970. In my own diocese (Texas), recent bishops have exercised authority over the parishes and diocesan convention that their predecessors could only dream of. Friends tell me that the same is true in their dioceses. Today’s bishops are hardly inclined to defer to or cower before the laity or their clergy, although they may be inclined to use them as an excuse as to why they will not do something they were not pleased to do anyway. Even so, they are not free to act as if the Constitution and Canons did not exist or as if the ecclesiastical authority of the national Episcopal Church was not committed to General Convention as a whole, rather than to the Primate or House of Bishops alone.
The same is true of the Anglican Communion as a whole. Unlike some Global South primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury is not the CEO of a unified organization. He is the trailmaster for a herd of cats, which he can cajole but cannot command. The real authorities in the Communion are the synodical governments of the 44 autonomous member churches. Any solution Abp. Rowan can offer must eventually get the approval of a substantial majority of those governments. Without a unanimous consensus the minority will be free to do as they please, though not without consequences from the majority. He thus must seek to build as large a majority as he possibly can, or accept that the Communion will split.
This is particularly critical because his first responsibilities are to Canterbury Diocese, the Southern Province, and the Church of England, all of which contain the same factions as the Communion as a whole. He cannot accept a “solution” to the Communion’s problems that throws out a substantial number of moderate reappraisers, because that will magnify the divisions within England itself. He cannot be expected to put the needs of the Communion ahead of his local responsibilities. He cannot be seen as an autocrat trying to impose his will on the Church, because that would make his position in England untenable.
To repeat the mantra, “The Windsor Report process may not be the best game in town, but it is the only course of action that can hold the Communion together in a remotely recognizable form.”
I don’t know. I think that there are in fact consequences. Did not one else see the explicit threat in the final paragraphs. A fair reading of them is: “Stop doing this or I will be forced to sort you all out into small groups! And if you really go over the line, I’ll have professional facilitators to lead them! Push me further and there will be nasty coffee and [b]no doughnuts[/b]!”
Ok, so maybe I added the last little bit. But the threat is still there. Reconcile or else he will start calling committee meetings.
Thank you, Dale, for your comments. That helps fill out the picture.
It occurred to me overnight that the Advent Letter statement regarding [blockquote] “the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards†[/blockquote] applies equally to the ABC. If he by his charism has a responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards–the very standards that he recognizes from previous Lambeths–then why has he not exercised that charism to excise, at the least, those bishops who flagrantly defy the standards, such as +Bruno and +Ingham? From Dale’s comment, it must be the ABC who is indeed cowering before the lack of adherence to doctinal standards within his own province.
Mr. Rye dismisses my question about the “gift of the Anglican Communion by asserting that those “who appreciate the gift of the Anglican Communion do not need a definition, …those who are unfamiliar with the Communion are more likely to benefit from observation than from definition [and] those who are familiar with the Communion and dislike the way it operates will not be changed by a definition”.
I will celebrate the 14th anniversary of my ordination in the Episcopal Church in four days. When I was ordained, I thought I understood the gifts of the Anglican Communion:the Book of Common Prayer is by far the greatest gift given by the Communion to the universal Church, but I also believed that the structure of the Communion was a gift because authority was not concentrated in one person but was exercised by the bishops worldwide. I also believed that the Anglican Communion could really serve as a bridge between the churches of the Reformation and the Church of Rome and that it might also serve in some way to bridge the great divide between the Western and Eastern Churches.
As a priest in the Episcopal Church, I have seen that the episcopal structure of the Church may ultimately lead to its destruction because its bishops generally haven’t a clue about the nature of the episcopacy in the church, and haven’t the courage or the intelligence to exercise it in the manner of the great bishops of Eastern and Western Christianity. As for serving as a bridge between Rome and the other churches, it has tolerated such a diversity of contradictory theological positions, that it may serve as a bridge between the various factions of the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship but not much else.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury apparently hasn’t a clue. What is it he wants to preserve – if even clear unambiguous statements of Anglican belief and practice are open to further consideration and discussion, and if members of the “Communion” sign a “Covenant” while insisting that they are still autonomous, accountable to no one else in the “Communion”, where is the gift of an alternative understanding and exercise of the episcopal office?
As for the prayer book, that is no longer normative. Every day, the reappraisers in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion say prayers and, I hope, read passages of Scripture which in no uncertain terms communicate the faith handed on to us by the saints, but the Prayer Book is now seen as malleable and open to all sorts of theological innovation.
As I read the Archbishop’s letter, I ask what is it that he is trying to preserve? What is it that he believes the Communion brings to a hurting and sinful world? I find no answer, such a great deal of hand-wring, and agonized waffling.
Mr. Rye may believe that the question about the gifts of the Anglican Communion to the worldwide Church is is trite or even antagonistic, but I assure him I take it very seriously every day. And every day, it becomes more and more difficult (for me, at least) to articulate to myself and my congregation why it is absolutely important that we identify ourselves as Anglicans. And there are times when I wonder whether the Church communicates its opposition to the Gospel more effectively than it preaches it.
Someday I would love to read from the Archbishop of Canterbury a letter to the Church which articulates and strongly defends what he understands to be the gift of the Anglican Communion to the world. In the meantime, I will still press for a definition and description of the phrase “the gift of the Anglican Communion” from anyone who uses it.
I really enjoyed your thoughts on this letter. I think it is an accurate summary. It explains why people like Susan Russell and Matt Kennedy can both be upset with it, Russell because she openly recognizes the source of the “difficulties” (at least to a degree) and Kennedy because he proposes to do nothing about it…
Great post Dan. Really great post. One of the best I’ve read on this forum. Heartfelt and not full of bloated prose.
#24. A sound response. AS worrisome now, as mirrored in a response above, is my fear that the ABC’s unwillingness to lead will be a cause for Anglicans leaving the church for Rome – or some other place, like Mars. The ABC’s letter is what we usually call “a balanced response.” Such a phrase may easily be a euphemism for spinelessness. When one adds up the cost, one must conclude that TEC has done damage beyond calculation, that this deliberate corrosion will continue and we will allow it because we are unwilling to do what it takes to seal the wound. TE C reminds me Charlie Chaplin: He walked into a room, bungled and stumbled here and there, and then left the room, after which the entire house came tumbling down. The difference, I suppose, is that in TEC, we have a malicious Chaplin.
But let me ask, Dan: If RW will not do what must be done, who will? Who CAN we follow? Or must the covenant come first? Larry
Dr Harmon, as a layman I often miss some of the nuances in this type of missive; your comments are very helpful. I do find what I read to be encouraging. It seems that the ABC is very thoughtful and not quick to jump to conclusions which in our 90 sec society seems painfully slow. The one high point I think, for me, is this statement “I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding.” I really think the ABC wants to hold TEC’s feet to the fire and define exactly what TEC is about in its’ declarations and innovations.
I consider the proposal for “professionally facilitated conversations” to be the absolute low point of this letter. That this is all he could come up with after all these years is pathetic. This is what I meant when I suggested he “proposes to do nothing”.
But what is it that you all want the Archbishop to do specifically? And, can you cite proof of any authority he has to do that? He can not “remove” bishops in TEC – he has no authority given by anyone to intervene. He certainly can determine who gets an e-vite to his party, but that’s about it.
It seems that when the ABC says something one side likes, they want to give him more power. But, when there’s concern he might not be in agreement, we want to harp in and remind people that he’s not an Anglo-Pope. There is a more direct democratic process in the election of the Roman Catholic Pope (via a person’s priest/bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal) than there is in the selection of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Priest/Bishop/Presiding Bishop – it stops there). I, for one, will continue to argue against giving away more authority to a centralized figure. I am disappointed to hear so many people minimizing the ministry role of the laity – as if making more Bishops is ever going to be a solution.
My litmus test remains – what will happen in your average liberal parish this coming Sunday other than business as usual?
But Charley, just be patient. Tell it to Luther.
Anti-Pope to a fault, throwing babies out with the bathwater, etc.
You’re right, though, there is no way to enforce discipline other than perhaps that wrought through a war of essays. I suppose at its root this is more about exposing the weakness of the Anglican Communion. There is no way of summarily ejecting heretics. I suppose if one is planning to become a heretic then one might have use for this notion, if not, then why is this inability to discipline found attractive by so many.
Kendall,
Very good. I appreciate your attempting to put yourself in the ABC’s shoes – in a sense, pastorally responding to him and the difficult position in which he finds himself. When I compare and contrast your response to that of Integrity and the Chicago group, I am struck with how their responses sound like my sometimes petulant teenagers who talk altruistically, but really just want their own way.
Thank you for your balanced approach to this letter, Kendall. However, I am not as positive toward it as you are. First, as you point out, the primates began the response process after the egregious acts of pecusa and now they are being cut out. We don’t need a “small group of primates” presumably chosen by RW. Let the entire group of primates meet.
Second, his characterization of the NO HOB meeting is baloney. As usual, the HOB was clearly looking for a way to remain in the Communion while continuing to walk apart. Third, as you note, he does lend moral equivalency to border crossings and the egregious acts of pecusa. Fourth, he does undercut the strength of Lambeth by his whole approach to previous Lambeth decisions and pecusa’s refusal to abide by Lambeth standards. It is saying one thing and allowing something entirely different.
I find this letter troubling and a terribly insufficient response to
the continuing crisis.
When I was a young lawyer, a wise judge once told me that few of the civil suits he heard really involved a question of unambiguous right versus wrong. In most cases, the parties honestly and conscientiously held reasonable, but incompatible, views of what justice required. He knew he had rendered a good judgment in those cases when he made both parties equally angry that they hadn’t got everything they thought they deserved.
If so, this is a good letter from Archbishop Rowan. The fury of the people posting on Stand Firm and T19 is only exceeded by the ire of those posting on Thinking Anglicans (if you think the insults to the Archbishop are vitriolic here, look over there). Whether speaking the truth can translate into concrete action that will hold the Communion together is another question, of course. Unlike my friend the judge, the Archbishop cannot send bailiffs out to enforce his decisions!
Fr Kendall, your perspective is from one from conservative episcopalian that who hope to be rescued by Rowan, but I live in England, and I lost faith is him as the leader of CofE. To say the truth I never trusted him.
#29 ALP, TEC agreed to certain things at Dar E, and then denied it, The GC resolution on ordaining Bishops whose life style posed a problem is being back away from. The ABC wants TEC to give some firm answers with professionals there to limit fudge and wiggle room. Then TEC is going to be asked to give assent to certain positions agreeable to the majority of the Anglican Communion or to the observation deck of the Anglican Communion with TEC. I think that is what the ABC is striving for. The problem is to get TEC accountable for ANY “official” position it has taken is near impossible, i.e. Bruno’s gay marriage statements.
Dr. Harmon, I appreciate your comments very much. I have a couple of questions that I have not yet seen addressed: To my knowledge this is the first time ++Rowan Williams has addressed a letter to the Primates and the Moderators of the United Churches; is he refering to Common Cause and +Bob Duncan? If not, exactly who are the “Moderators” and the “United Churches” to whom he addresses his comments?
Frances, North and South India are “United Churches”, combining Methodist, Anglican, etc. (I forget the exact mix). There may be another one. They and some other provinces do not call their head honcho a “primate”; they call him a “moderator”.
For what it’s worth, I have some comments on the Advent letter over on my own blog.
Re #21:
This misses the point. By pledging not to authorize for use in their respective dioceses rites of blessings for same-sex unions until either a broader consensus emerges in the Communion or until General Convention takes further action, the members of the House of Bishops intentionally declined to make the promise that Dale Rye says they could have made — not to vote in General Convention in favor of such authorization.
Action that would purport to bind future bishops or promise that TEC policy will never change was not the issue. What the Dar es Salaam communique called for was an unequivocal common covenant that the “bishops” (what else could be meant other than the bishops making the common covenant, not future ones) would not authorize blessings in their dioceses or through General Convention. The authorization by individual bishops in their dioceses and action by them in furtherance of authorization by general convention were two separate matters as to which a commitment was requested to be extended. The House of bishops omitted in its response any commitment at all regarding action in furtherance of what might be done at General Convention, and instead used a reference to action at General Convention to provide a means of escape from their commitments regarding actions they might take in their dioceses. Of course there would have been no reason why the bishops could not have undertaken themselves not to authorize same-sex blessings in their respective dioceses even if authorized by a future General Convention unless, that is, it is assumed that the future action by General Convention would be mandatory in the dioceses. That, one suspects, is precisely what many do assume.
#38, in answer to Frances Scott’s question about the “Moderators,” Br_er Rabbit (#39) is right. The United Churches of South India (CSI, formed in 1947) and North India (CNI, formed later) are the products of genuine ecumenical mergers of a sort unique in the world. The CSI was formed when the Anglicans merged with smaller groups of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. The CNI involved the same four groups, plus even some Baptists, a quite extraordinary feat. Both churches have bishops in the apostolic succession and all clergy in them have now been episcopally ordained. But originally, the ministers from the non-Anglican bodies were allowed to continue their ministries without being re-ordained by the laying on of a bishop’s hands. So for a while, due to this grandfather clause, the United Churches were not considered fully part of the Anglican Communion. Now that those original ministers have retired or died, the United Churches are proud to claim full membership in the AC. And most Anglicans are proud to have them.
I’m happy to add that the church I normally attend (when not ministering somewhere else), i.e., Eternity Anglican in Richmond, VA, has a wonderful pastor from the CSI, the incredibly gifted and dedicated David Singh, who also is the General Director of a major mission agency working in India, Inspire International. David Singh is a Tamil from Madras, the headquarters of the CSI, and he was mentored and ordained by the great Lesslie Newbigin, who was once the CSI Bishop of Madras. Also, Fr. Praveen Bunyan, the former rector of prominent St. James’ in Newport Beach, CA, is likewise from the CSI, and now also on staff at Eternity Anglican in Richmond. I have great admiration for both men. Both are now affiliated with Uganda. Eternity Anglican is just finishing a major building renovation (to the tune of some $1.8 million). This is an exciting church with great potential (and a genuine start-from-scratch church plant, not a breakaway group).
David Handy+
I hardly need to add my thanks and compliments to Kendall for his balanced summary and incisive critique after so many others have done so. But I will add a comment here similar to that I posted earlier on the related thread that seems to have petered out about the ABC’s Advent Letter.
Kendall summed it up nicely as representing “Truth, and no Consequences.” Actually, I think it might be more accurate to say it seems like “Truth, and no Consequences YET, and not from me.” That is, I think he hints pretty clearly that there will probably be such consequences, but he wants them to come from the assembled bishops at Lambeth. He is loathe to impose them himself.
Frankly, I think that’s a blessing in disguise. IF, and it’s still a big “if,” the CAPA bishops relent and attend Lambeth 2008, then I think there’s an excellent chance they can commandere the agenda and force real discipline on TEC and the most scandalously wayward and rebellious dioceses in Canada (New Westminster and Niagara, for going ahead and authorizing SSBs). Of course, they’ll have to simply refuse to go along with the plans of the ACO, and drag Sec. Kearon and company behind them, kicking and screaming the whole way. But the Primates succeeded at this (barely) in Tanzania, and they’ll have much more overwhelming numbers at Lambeth. Anyway, the point is that any discipline imposed by Lambeth as a whole will doubtless be stronger and carry more weight than whatever Canterbury would do.
But what I really want to add is this. There is a saying in 12 step circles that seems highly relevant with regard to Kendall’s summary analysis of “Truth and no Consequences.” It usually goes like this:
The addict pays no attention to what the co-dependent says, only her actions. Whereas, the co-dependent pays no attention to what the addict does, only to what he says.
Now isn’t that a well-choreographed dance? Both partners are in perfect step. Of course, it’s totally sick.
Bottom line: For too long TEC has gotten away with trying to fool the rest of the AC with empty words, and the Instruments of Unity or Communion have partially enabled that by their inaction. But the game is up. The hypocrisy and duplicity of TEC has been clearly exposed for all the world to see. And most of the AC wants out of this sick dance. The time has come for action, strong, forceful action. And the GS primates will provide it, with or without Canterbury. But I’m actually encouraged (on the whole) by this Advent Letter. I think the ABC gets it. He just wants the consequences to come from the assembled bishops as a whole. He is unable, or unwilling, to act on his own, in a way contrary to his own pro-gay theological views. OK, I can live with that.
Clearly there is much work to be done. But I now see real hope that Lambeth 2008 can actually become a major turning point and milestone in the progress of the New Reformation. But only IF the GS shows up, flexs their muscles, and shows their strength.
But hey, this is Advent after all. The season of hope and anticipation and preparation. And the Third Sunday of Advent in particular is a time for rejoicing. Let Susan Russell and the Integrity crowd weep and wail and gnash their teeth over this letter. While far from perfect, as Kendall among others has pointed out so well, this letter suggests that there is still reasonable hope for the AC. Yes, it’s almost certain that there will be a terrible split, but for the first time (perhaps) there seems to be strong reason to have confidence that Canterbury will side with the orthodox majority. And that is truly cause for rejoicing.
David Handy+
More supportive than ever of that New Reformation
New Reformation Advocate & Br-er Rabbit, Thanks for clearing up my confusion. I’ve a tendency to be far too optimistic. To quote my Dad, “Life is full of disappointments.”
#5: For me the “gift” of the Anglican communion is the via media…the middle way. I liked the statements from #’s 13 and 15…but that isn’t all of it. I also think of the history/traditions of the church of england as a gift, as well as the breadth of the communion. I’ve always liked the idea that on any given sunday, I’m praying essentially the same prayers as some people everywhere, and that because my prayers and worship customs are based in tradition, they transcend time, in some sort of squirrelly metaphorical fashion. I loved it the first time I tried it, and I felt I’d found my home…after looking for a long time. Sad to say, had I known then what I know now, I’d probably have kept looking.
#5, 45 etc. on what makes the Anglican Communion such a “gift” to the rest of the Christian Church and the world. There are many ways to express the rich treasures that Anglicanism holds in trust for the rest of the Body of Christ. But I would agree that in large part this is based on our unique nature as a true hybrid, blending elements usually thought incompatible elsewhere, not only the catholic and the reformed/evangelical, but others as well (at least in principle, e.g., being rooted in ancient orthodoxy yet open to modern reason and scholarship, properly used).
Speaking just for myself, I’d have to admit that I cherish Anglicanism in part because it offers (seemingly) the most realistic chance of allowing me the freedom to be all that I want to be. That is, as a proud Wheaton College grad, I want to be fully and authentically evangelical (as much so as Billy Graham, John Stott, or J. I. Packer), and yet I also long to be, as a loyal son of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Albany, fully and authentically catholic (as much so as John Henry Newman, Michael Ramsay, or dare I say Joseph Ratzinger). But that’s not all. I also want the freedom to be fully and authentically charismatic (as much as say Nicki Gumbel or even
David du Plessis; I’ve spent 10 years in outstanding Assembly of God churches). And on top of that, I further insist on the freedom to be fully and authentically committed to the enterprise of modern biblical and theological scholarship (as much as Prof. Chris Setiz or +Tom Wright), while also fully committed to the ancient creeds and the basic patristic inheritance or pattern of Christian thought (as much as Tom Oden or Robert Wilken).
Obviously, that’s highly idealistic, or optimistic (if not downright illogical and hopelessly utopian). But here is where my commitment to the whole notion of a radical New Reformation kicks in.
If you noted carefully what I just said, it implies that I do NOT cherish the ideal of the via media, and I freely confess it. For the kind of excessive moderation that an ALWAYS moderate middle way implies turns me off. It’s part of our English cultural inheritance, what I jokingly tend to refer to as our Anglican “immoderate love of moderation.” Now, of course, moderation is generally a very good thing, as long as it’s kept in moderation and we don’t make an idol out of it!
Rather than settling for a form of religion that’s half Protestant and half Catholic (as the via media image seems to imply), what I long for is something more paradoxical, i.e., to be wholly evangelical and yet wholly catholic at the same time. Sort of like Christ was fully divine and fully human simultaneously in a wondrous mystery that exceeds our human understanding (not a half divine, half human middle creature).
But I also dislike the via media image or analogy because it be definition implies only two poles (like a magnet). But in fact, historically, Anglicanism has always incorporated more than two sides, catholic and reformed. We usually speak of three main traditions after all in Anglicanism, humorously labelled by some: “the high and crazy, the low and lazy, and the broad and hazy.” And besides Scripture and Tradition, we rightly also value Reason (when it’s clear that human reason is subordinate to divine revelation).
Therefore, I prefer to speak of what I like to call “3-D Christianity” as my ideal. That is, I cherish Anglicanism in part because it is within the wide bounds of Anglicanism that I find the freedom to be as evangelical, as catholic, and as charismatic and scholarly as I want to be, in a way that no other tradition seems to permit. Alas, the high price tag that goes with that freedom is that I’ve had to put up with and tolerate how Anglicanism also gives that same remarkable freedom to others who violate my sense of what Anglicanism is, or even any kind of biblical Christianity for that matter. That is, the same highly ambiguous and tolerant Christian tradition that allows me to incorporate all three dimensions, also gives free reign to others to do as they wish, even if they are outright heretics (like the notorious bishops Pike and Spong etc,).
We are now engaged in a great conflict to see if we can draw some clear boundaries at last. It is high time to put the Doctrine and the Discipline back in the famous “Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship” of the classic Anglican tradition. Is it too late? Only time will tell. But I haven’t given up all hope yet. After all, this is Advent, the season of hope.
David Handy+
Fully evangelical, fully catholic, and fully charismatic, all three
Embracing “3-D” Christianity would amount to a New Reformation!
David, see the PM I just sent you.
David, I too spent some years in the Assemblies and (especially) Victory Outreach International. Nicky came to preach several times, as did David Wilkerson. I was shocked when I learned (at St James Newport Beach) that “Evangelical Episcopal” was not an oxymoron.
Thanks, Br_er Rabbit. Always good to hear from the Rabbit Patch. I’ve seen and replied to your private message.
But as far as it goes, there is a long tradition of evangelicals in Anglicanism (albeit far less so in America than in England). The real shocker is that “charismatic Episcopal” is not an oxymoron (although some I suspect still think it is, and wish we’d just go away).
David Handy
Actually, I had known for years that St. James was a charismatic church (a Roman Catholic Charismatic told me about it), but was unaware about the orthodox, evangelical part of it since I had never been there. That was about the only thing that could have brought me back inside the Anglican fold after 40 years in TEC; but God knew what he was doing (a common occurence) and where he wanted to send me.
Thank you Shumanbean and New Reformation Advocate for your thoughtful responses to the question I raised. Perhaps the Archbishop will at some time in the future show himself able to defend the “gift”. Thank you for taking the question seriously.
Re #51: I wasn’t trying to take the question less than seriously, just tired of trying to answer other people who have asked me the same question as a way of picking a fight. If I were to make an effort at defining the “gift of Anglicanism,” I would hopefully come up with something very much like #46.
It is about having a “both/and” community, rather than an “either/or,” not for the sake of compromise but of comprehension. My central sorrow at our whole current situation is that I see the most likely outcome to be the dissolution of that sort of church and its replacement by a collection of fragments, each of which prides itself in being Protestant more than Catholic (or vice-versa), Evangelical more than Sacramental (or vice versa), Thinking more than Feeling (or vice versa), and so forth.
If I wanted that sort of church, I would have joined the Reformed, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox, Unitarian-Universalists or Assemblies of God a long time ago. I would have expected other people who wanted that narrower focus to join such a church, too. Instead, I find them trying to transform their little bit of “Anglicanism” into the sort of body that most Anglicans would consciously reject, given a choice in the matter.
#52, Dale,
I share your apprehensions. I too would be very, very sad to see the glorious and unique comprehensiveness of Anglicanism finally dissolve into a variety of groups that are more consistent perhaps, but less attractive to those of us who cherish that mysterious and paradoxical synthesis of contrary tendencies that we represent at our best.
BTW, that is precisely why I choose to favor the language of “3-D” Christianity, instead of the much more common language of “three streams” (as AMiA uses) or “three sisters” (Michael Harper’s phrase). There are two reasons for this.
First, speaking of three DIMENSIONS instead of three streams or sisters recognizes implicitly that the three are indeed quite different and inherently so. Three tributaries feeding into one big river fails to capture the significant aspect that the 3-D image does, namely, that the three dimensions are all on different planes. By that I mean to suggest that the Protestant, Catholic, and Pentecostal dimensions (or evangelical, catholic, charismatic etc.) don’t directly contradict each other (no “either/or,” as you’ve noted Dale, or A and anti-A). Rather the three types of religion really reflect quite different concerns and orientations, and though they intersect at points and sometimes appear to work at cross-purposes, they don’t directly collide and cancel each other out. Or so I believe anyway (Archbishop Cranmer and +John Jewel etc. might well have disagreed with me, but many later Anglicans wouldn’t).
Second, I prefer the language of three DIMENSIONS because it naturally implies a limitation to three of them, rather than say two or four or five. That is, there is no logical reason why there should only be three tributaries feeding into a great river. But there are only three spatial dimensions (yes, I know Einstein taught us that time is a 4th dimension, hence I say 3 spatial ones). And in my own theology, that threeness is essential, because I see it as linked to the threeness of the Trinity. Now that’s a highly debatable point, and I won’t try to argue for it here.
But suffice to say by way of explanation that in my 3-D approach, the Protestant/evangelical dimension correlates with a general tendency to focus especially on Christ and the redemption he won for us. The Catholic/catholic dimension on the other hand has a tendency to emphasize the created order and the goodness of sacraments and hierarchy, natural law etc. and thus a stronger stress on God the Father than the other two traditions or types. And finally, the Pentecostal/charismatic dimension highlights the often neglected realm of the Holy Spirit’s work in sanctification, regeneration, and empowerment for ministry and witness.
But like you, Dale, I am distrubed by some of what I’m seeing as the various groups taking shape in this confusing time of experimentation all go their separate ways. Just to mention one, since I’m currently serving an AMiA church (without having joined AMiA), let me pick on them for a moment. It’s no secret that +Chuck Murphy casts a very long shadow over AMiA, so that the Anglican Mission in the Americas tends to reflect many of his own personal biases, with both the strengths and the weaknesses that implies. And thanks to +Murphy, AMiA loudly proclaims itself as being committed to a “three STREAMS” approach to Anglicanism, but it’s very notable that he avoids the term “catholic” like the plague, and prefers to speak of the three streams as “evangelical, “charismatic,” and “SACRAMENTAL.” Now that may please some readers, and it in fact fits the AMiA alliance with the low-church, evangelical province of Rwanda (founded by low-church CMS missionaries from England). But it illustrates all too well how rather imbalanced AMiA is in some ways, since it does tend to downplay the whole catholic dimension.
Obviously, the Forward in Faith Convocation has the opposite tendency (or problem, if you will). But on the other hand, part of what makes the CCP attractive to me, is that +Bob Duncan “the Lion-Hearted” and the other ACN leaders are really trying to make it as truly inclusive as possible, so that both the low-church REC and the high-church APA are participating in it. That is very encouraging. I just hope that trend continues.
David Handy+
Never reticent to run my flag up the flagpole
Re #53: One of the great classics of spiritual literature is [i] The Mystical Element of Religion[/i] (1908) by Friedrich von Hügel (1852-1925), an Austrian baron who spent his entire life in England. The central theme is that it is impossible to understand religion in general and Catholic Christianity in particular without recognizing the interplay between three “dimensions,” the historical/institutional element, the scientific/intellectual element, and the mystical/experiential element. The Anglican trilogy of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, like the High, Low, and Broad Church parties, can partially be explained by the interplay of those dimensions. Churches that emphasize one of the elements at the expense of the others tend with time to become increasingly unbalanced.
My worry—one of them, anyway—is that we are seeing precisely that occurring in the Communion (and the broader Anglican Continuum) today. The efforts to draw lines sufficient to exclude (for example) +John Spong or +Gene Robinson are creating lines that exclude broad categories of perfectly-orthodox Christian believers. This is having the result of creating new church bodies that fit the classic definition of a sect much more closely than anyone really intends. Much the same process is happening on the reappraiser side, incidentally, with an increasing level of agitation for liberal bishops to reject the Advent Letter by boycotting Lambeth, perhaps to hold a third conference parallel to the Global South effort. The Apostle Paul would point out that a body composed only of hands, or only of heads, or only of hearts would not be the sort of body that God created us to have.
#54, Dale,
We may be in danger of starting to wander off-topic here, but I’ll just briefly say “Thank You” for bringing in the “3-D” (if you will) theory of Baron von Hugel, which I’d forgotten but does indeed seem quite similar in some ways. His influence on the great Anglican expert on mysticism, Evelyn Underhill, means he is a significant figure for us, as well as for his own Roman Catholic Church. I suppose that his “historical/institutional” element would correspond with my “catholic” one, his “scientific/intellectual” one probably best compares with my “evangelical/Protestant” one, and finally the baron’s “mystical/experiential” side would be most similar to my “charismatic/Pentecostal” dimension. Fascinating. I’ll have to ponder the implications for a while.
In my case, I can’t claim any great originality here. I got my basic three-part scheme from the great Lesslie Newbigin’s classic work on ecclesiology (i.e., the doctrine of the Church for the laypeople reading this). That is, Newbigin wrote about the Protestant, Catholic, and Pentecostal views of the Church in his amazingly profound and stimulating Kerr Lectures of 1952, published in 1953 as “The Household of God.” That book is easily one of the three or four most influential theological books I’ve ever read.
Returning more toward the initial topic, i.e., Kendall’s balanced and incisive critique of the ABC’s Advent Letter, I once again affirm that I share your concerns about how Anglican fragmentation could destroy that precious “comprehensiveness” that we value so much. But perhaps I’m not quite as skeptical or disturbed at the imbalance we are currently seeing as you seem to be. This is a tumultuous time, after all.
To use the now familiar Titanic analogy, the storm winds are still howling and the waves are tossing the lifeboats all around. Now is a time for action, as we try to rescue as many from the sinking Titanic as we can. Later on, once the initial rescue efforts are over and things have calmed down, we will have more time to do the patient, thorough analysis that is called for during the consolidation phase.
But alas, many fundamental issues can’t wait until we have the luxury of extended times for careful discussion and detailed study. However, that is the nature of Reformations. They wait for no one. Positions get taken in the heat of battle that perhaps no one ever intended to make so important, but then blood gets shed defending them and they become sacrsanct for later generations. Lord, have mercy.