Edward Stourton: the press release from Lambeth Palace says ”˜his [that is your] focus will be on supporting creative ways of renewing conversations in relationships around deeply held differences within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion’
Canon David Porter: Well I think we recognise that if the church is going to make any constructive contribution to the conflicts that are going on in our world then we need to look to ourselves and we need to be a people who are on a journey of Reconciliation who are modelling, not necessarily that we agree because it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are all going to agree, but that we hold our differences in a very Christian and constructive way
ES: Well, doesn’t this put a huge burden on your shoulders because the truth is that these tensions within the Anglican Communion and the Church of England have as you have just reflected in a way, have arisen because of very deeply held theological doctrinal disputes about questions like women bishops, like homosexuality, and it is difficult to see how one man by focussing on ”˜process’ can overcome those.
Porter: Well in one sense it isn’t my job to overcome those issues ”“ there are plenty of more intelligent more creative people who have lived and journeyed with these issues for quite a number of years. My job is actually to look at ”˜process’ ”“ it is to look at how we create the space for conversations to take place where people will still differ and they still will disagree but they will do so in a way that is able to say ”˜look this is how Christians disagree, this is how we hold tensions and differences together’
ES: Except that on some of these issues people will believe that the disagreements go to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian
Porter: that is true
ES: so how can, how can a better ”˜process’ overcome that?
Porter: well, in my background in Northern Ireland I used to say to people that if you are a fundamentalist protestant who believes that the catholic church are not Christian or if you are a strong catholic who believes there is no salvation outside the church and you’re in that conversation, the reality is that Jesus still tells you to love the people that you perceive as your enemies and that shows that you are holding what you hold on to in a Christian way and are able to disagree within that commitment of Jesus teling us how we disagree”
Listen to it all here on the Sunday Program starting at 26 mins in for 4 minutes and an unofficial transcript is below
____________________________________
Edward Stourton: The new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby has made his first appointment. Canon David Porter from Coventry Cathedral will be the first Director of Reconciliation at Lambeth Palace. Good morning.
Canon David Porter: Good morning Ed
ES: and as I understand it your first target will be the home team ”“ your own church?
Porter: Well yes, the role is to help the Archbishop fulfil his commitment to making Reconciliation one of the key hallmarks of his service as Archbishop and he has invited Coventry Cathedral to take the lead in this. Of course he spent some time in Coventry Cathedral being on the Reconciliation team here so it is close to his heart and we are really privileged to be asked to do this.
ES: But so I am clear returning to my question, the press release from Lambeth Palace says ”˜his [that is your] focus will be on supporting creative ways of renewing conversations in relationships around deeply held differences within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion’
Porter: Well I think we recognise that if the church is going to make any constructive contribution to the conflicts that are going on in our world then we need to look to ourselves and we need to be a people who are on a journey of Reconciliation who are modelling, not necessarily that we agree because it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are all going to agree, but that we hold our differences in a very Christian and constructive way
ES: Well, doesn’t this put a huge burden on your shoulders because the truth is that these tensions within the Anglican Communion and the Church of England have as you have just reflected in a way, have arisen because of very deeply held theological doctrinal disputes about questions like women bishops, like homosexuality, and it is difficult to see how one man by focussing on ”˜process’ can overcome those.
Porter: Well in one sense it isn’t my job to overcome those issues ”“ there are plenty of more intelligent more creative people who have lived and journeyed with these issues for quite a number of years. My job is actually to look at ”˜process’ ”“ it is to look at how we create the space for conversations to take place where people will still differ and they still will disagree but they will do so in a way that is able to say ”˜look this is how Christians disagree, this is how we hold tensions and differences together’
ES: Except that on some of these issues people will believe that the disagreements go to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian
Porter: that is true
ES: so how can, how can a better ”˜process’ overcome that?
Porter: well, in my background in Northern Ireland I used to say to people that if you are a fundamentalist protestant who believes that the catholic church are not Christian or if you are a strong catholic who believes there is no salvation outside the church and you’re in that conversation, the reality is that Jesus still tells you to love the people that you perceive as your enemies and that shows that you are holding what you hold on to in a Christian way and are able to disagree within that commitment of Jesus teling us how we disagree
ES: Do you think that some senior members of the Anglican Communion have forgotten that basic fact in the way that they have conducted themselves in these debates?
Porter: I think all of us when we get caught up in conflicts that are deep to who we are and to the values that we hold on to ”“ we do forget that bigger voice from God that calls us to a different way of engaging with difference
Porter: and I am slightly pointing out something to you that you have already recognised but as you say unless you get this sorted out it is very difficult to see how the church can offer a model for reconciliation to other people isn’t it?
DP: There is truth in that, but equally the church is also – we are fallible human beings, and the fact is that wherever you find conflict, there are times that you get it right and there are times that you get it wrong, and I think what is needed actually is honesty on behalf of the church, not over pretending that we can always get it right but being honest where we are actually failing to live up to what Christ calls us to
*yawn*
The model for reconciliation seems to have no clear direction: It’s like when you stick the baby in the car and drive around just to get them to stop crying. It’s the Waiting for Godot version of church life.
Presumably in Northern Ireland one major aim of the reconciliation process was to end violence. Presumably in South Africa an aim of the reconciliation process was to end Apartheid. In Anglicanism the process itself has become the aim.
All of this aside, I will believe that there is going to be true reconciliation in the Anglican Communion if Archbishop Welby decides to change direction and stop ignoring those Anglicans who are outside the Communion and enter into an open and frank dialogue with them. He needs to move away from Schori, Hiltz, Williams and Gang and start talking with the other side and make an honest effort to bring them into the fold. When he does that, then maybe I’ll believe him. If he doesn’t then he’s just another Rowan Williams who’s afraid to make statements for fear of losing TEC’s money.
[i] He needs to move away from Schori, Hiltz, Williams and Gang and start talking with the other side and make an honest effort [b]to bring them into the fold.[/b][/i]
The effort may well happen; the return to the fold is not going to happen.
“the Waiting for Godot version of church life” … :o)
[blockquote] “I used to say to people that if you are a fundamentalist protestant who believes that the catholic church are not Christian or if you are a strong catholic who believes there is no salvation outside the church and you’re in that conversation, the reality is that Jesus still tells you to love the people that you perceive as your enemies and that shows that you are holding what you hold on to in a Christian way and are able to disagree within that commitment of Jesus teling us how we disagree”[/blockquote]
Uh… I don’t think that reconciles the differences. The Catholic priest still wouldn’t be considered to be in communion with the Anglican priest. In Anglitania, how can those with unreconcilable differences be considered to be in communion unless both parties say either, “To heck with our different theologies, they really are of no importance.” Or, “We are going to cease going in any direction other than the one Jesus gives us, and once we agree on that, then we will be in communion.”
Here is a new and significant [url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5024/archbishop-of-canterbury-announces-new-chaplain?fb_action_ids=4240202257176&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action;_object_map={”4240202257176″:434426799966694}&action;_type_map={”4240202257176″:”og.likes”}&action;_ref_map=[]development.[/url]
Here is the [url=http://today.duke.edu/2007/01/jowells_oped.html ]Rev. Jo Bailey Wells[/url] a few years ago on the Virginia Churches.
I think this says something about what the new Archbishop of Canterbury understands by “reconciliation.”
This is what the Lord says:
Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘we will not walk in it’
I appointed watchmen over you and said,
‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’
But you said, ‘we will not listen’
Jeremiah 6:16-17
Looks like Coventry has come to KJS
Good observation, Dr Witt, and thank you for the links.
It was interesting to read your link to Ms Bailey Wells’ deploring of the actions of Virginia churches leaving TEC over a point of principle back in 2007, in the present context: The Archbishop of Kenya has just ordained another English ordinand as deacon, this time to serve an independent anglican congregation in Sheffield, England.
Nine months ago, ++Kenya ordained three deacons for service in England. However, in some ways that was less threatening to the CofE hierarchy than this latest ordination. The ordinands were from Diocese Southwark which has been a flashpoint between liberals and evangelicals in CofE for many years – the evangelicals have often complained that the Southwark diocesan hierarchy have arbitrarily denied ordination to their ordinands in good standing, and the CofE hierarchy has had some sympathy for them. In other words, there has been a sense that Dio. Southwark has brought at least part of its troubles on its own head.
This time is different: +Croft of Sheffield actively works to assist and co-operate with evangelicals in his diocese who want to plant new churches. But the particular congregation for which ++Kenya ordained a deacon is not in CofE. It is an independent Anglican church with a lineage going back to CofE church planters, but which has never itself been part of the CofE. +Croft invited it to join his diocese (i.e. become ‘regularised’ as a mission) back in 2009, but apparently the congregation declined, not because of any objection to +Croft as such, but to the direction in which the CofE was moving.
There only seem to be a few independent evangelical Anglican congregations in England at the moment (although, who could be sure?). But ++Welby will no doubt be looking for ways to nip this movement in the bud before it can become too much of a direct competition with his own churches. Reading through Jo Bailey Wells’ article from 2007, it is obvious that she couldn’t think of anything to offer the Virginia churches at the time that would have kept them in TEC, apart from the general spectre of schism. I wonder if ++Welby can think of anything now to offer these independent Anglican churches, and ++Kenya, that will prevent them from setting up what may become, in effect, a parallel Anglican jurisdiction in England?
I join MichaelA in thanking Dr. Witt (#5) for pointing us to the significant links he provided about Jo Bailey Wells. Nice catch, Bill. Hopefully, the ABoC’s new chaplain has come to her senses and now sees those of us who have broken away from TEC more positively. But that Duke article is certainly disturbing; she clearly didn’t get it back then. She comes across as an institutionalist.
That’s the last sort of person we need as a chaplain and advisor to ++Justin Welby. Like most Americans, I have a low opinion of bureaucrats, whether in the business world, in government, or in the church. Wells’ article reeks of bureacratic thinking.
This whole wearisome dispute that has torn Anglicanism apart comes down to three things:
1. The crucial ability to distinguish between core doctrine and matters of adiaphora. The famous Windsor Report back in October 2004 duly noted the problem but alas, provided no help whatsoever in clarifying HOW we decide what is core doctrine and what isn’t. How do we tell what is a Romans 14 type of issue where we can and should agree to disagree, and what is a Galatians 1 issue where compromise is impossible?
2. Ultimately, it all comes down to the authority issue: WHO GETS TO DECIDE? Sadly, the Achillies’ Heel of Anglicanism has been exposed in the last decade or so, because it’s been manifestly apparent to all observers, inside and outside of Anglicanism, that a gaping authority vacuum exists at the center, because the bishops who as successors of the apostles and guardians of the apostolic tradition have abdicated their duty, and some have become apostate.
Regrettably, Anglicanism as a whole is simply incapable at present of exercising any real discipline on rogue provinces and bishops these days. That is an intolerable state of affairs and it will have to change. And so a new parallel world of orthodox Anglican networks is emerging, led by Global South primates. It is meet and right for them so to do.
I submit that the real question is no longer this: Should Anglicanism develop a stronger central authority with coercive powers to compel obedience across provincial lines? I take it for granted that the only possible answer is a resounding YES! Therefore, the real question is this: What kind of stronger central authority will we devise? How can we invent a new system of polity at the international level that will ensure faithfulness to the apostolic tradition without falling into the trap of making the guardians tyrannical? (But that’s a big topic for another thread).
3. Last, but not least, by what criteria will the final decision be made? Clearly, for us Anglicans, the only viable or convincing answer to that fateful question is that all disputed matters must be tested against Holy Scripture as the bedrock authority in Anglicanism. Of course, that may only seem to kick the can down the road to this practical issue: Who gets to decide which interpretation (or application) of Scripture will prevail? And that’s where our subordinate but essential authorites of Tradition and Reason come in.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It all comes down to this one sentence refrain of mine that I’ve been harping on for at least six years. If I had the chance to spend just 1 minute in ++JW’s presence and speak my mind, this is what I’d say to him.
[b]The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned, as they have widely been, on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from Reason and Experience.[/b]
If ++JW can’t agree with that, he doesn’t deserve to be ABoC and all his attempts at getting oil and water to mix will come to nothing.
If these remarks by Jo Bailey Wells and David Porter fairly represent how ++JW thinks, and we must presume they do until proven otherwise, then all his earnest efforts at “reconciliation” are doomed from the start.
Bottom line: You can’t reconcile water and oil. No matter how much you try to combine them and shake them together, they will inevitably separate. Nor can you reconcile two gospels that are fundamentally incompatible, nor the mutually exlusive worldviews on which they rest. The sooner that grim but liberating fact is recognized, the better off we’ll all be.
David Handy+
No. 5: Ms. Wells asks: “Couldn’t we have waited together, perhaps cried together, certainly argued together, but kept on worshiping together for a little longer?”
Which is precisely what many Episcopalians wanted TEC to do BEFORE rushing into things in 2003. Where were voices like Wells’s back then? I suspect they were urging TEC forward, “prophetically”: “We can’t wait any longer for justice to be done!”
If TEC officials have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths, how do they now avoid the charge of rank hypocrisy, even of cynicism?
More importantly, how do they avoid the understandable phenomenon of good, compassionate, indeed patient and long-suffering people walking away in disgust?
KJS has reminded us that the Church’s understanding of concubinage and polygamy have evolved over the years. Assuming this statement makes sense, TEC leadership is expecting evolution to do its thing yet one more time. This is analogous to the EFM understanding that the bible is the story of man’s evolving understanding of God. It is all about our understanding. Blake was right. Descartes had the most dangerous idea ever conceived.
RE: “Which is precisely what many Episcopalians wanted TEC to do BEFORE rushing into things in 2003.”
Heh — exactly so. I love the tremulous-voiced “Couldn’t we have waited together, perhaps cried together, certainly argued together, but kept on worshiping together for a little longer?”
Reminds me of the man who killed his parents and then whining about being left an orphan.
The answer to her question, of course, is “sure — but you wouldn’t do so.”