3. From this covenantal form of common following, the already called-for “moratoria” take force ”“ no consecration of sexually active gay bishops, no same-sex blessings, and no cross-jurisdictional oversight. Obviously, these are already standing requests made by the Windsor Report, the ACC, and the Primates in various guises. But now, in a way that goes far beyond the Windsor Report’s general notion of communion order, the moratoria appear as concrete aspects of faithfulness and obedience to and “in” the Lord.
Furthermore, in restating the authority of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10, the Archbishop made clear the weight of accountability that the moratoria embody. There is “no supermarket of choices” given to the Christian church from which to choose possible paths of discipleship, even while legitimate and free theological discussion takes place concerning important matters of Christian teaching and witness; but “the practice and public language of the Church acts always as a reminder that the onus of proof is on those who seek a new understanding” and that this burden has not been met most recently by North American churches is abundantly borne out by the turbulence innovation has set loose.
The issue of boundary crossing is within the same “framework”, the Archbishop added, not because such violations of received order and unrestrained innovation are equivalent acts, but because a covenantal and consensual following takes place in walking together after the one Master with and over us, and not through asserting vying claims of differing Masters ”“ that is, Anglicanism’s scandal is not just in teaching and practice, but in proposing to the world a vision of “confusion” among the Lord’s followers, now appearing as a house divided. Here is where “charity’s power as an ensign to the nations is severely undermined, and the Archbishop’s later discussion of Zimbabwe’s Anglican witness as bound to the Communion’s life was, in this respect, far more than a passing example: permit and even further confusion, and the calling of the Gospel is ripped from the hands of the little ones for whom the Kingdom is given. It is not possible to separate the calling of such common mission ”“ something else, less controversial, that was nonetheless reiterated by the bishops with force ”“ from the calling of “true Christian unity” in its covenanted and discipled form.
[blockquote]But now, in a way that goes far beyond the Windsor Report’s general notion of communion order, the moratoria appear as concrete aspects of faithfulness and obedience to and “in†the Lord. [/blockquote]
I must have missed the phase transition of these moratoria from gaseous wishes to “concrete” mandates. Can someone help me out?
After reading him for years, I must say he is someone who can see a ray of light in complete darkness. My guess is the new teaching job has helped him to remain hopeful.
The general thrust of the proposed revisions is very encouraging. The intent of the proposed procedural changes are promising. What is unclear is how the application of these principals would work in practice. Not because the proposed changes are unclear but because I am afraid that the actual implementation will be distorted and watered down. It also seems to depend significantly on the ‘good faith effort’ (in a legal sense) of key players to execute these procedures well.
The apparent commitment to Jesus as “The way, the truth and the life.” is very promising but there needs to be some loving way of moving forward while recognizing that there are many clergy and laity who do not agree about the uniqueness of Christ and other ‘essentials’ of the faith.
This is an appropriately charitable but realistic analysis of the current situation. My favorite parts are the simplified “enforcement” mechanism for the covenant and the explicit recognition that Lambeth conferences are conciliar. For too long opponents of conciliarism have been allowed to exploit an ambiguity in the concept of “authoritative.” They say that the pronouncements of Communion Instruments are not binding on the autonomous churches, noting that Anglicanism does not have a Pope with universal ordinary jurisdiction, etc. They then make the non sequitur that no body can speak authoritatively for the Anglican Communion itself. But it is a tautology that any well-ordered body can define itself, and do so authoritatively. The autonomous members of such a body then have two choices: get in line or get out. The exploitation of this ambiguity to try to neuter the communion completely would destroy the communion as the ABC recognizes, and ACI is right to make the conciliar authority of the Lambeth conference explicit.
And be sure to read it all. There is a bombshell:
“Formal covenanting dioceses or provinces.”
Rev. Dr. Radner states: “And what if churches and bishops and dioceses simply continue to “do what is right in their own eyesâ€, despite the consensus of the Conference’s voice? The Archbishop noted that “if the north American churches don’t accept the need for moratoria then, to say the least, we are no further forwardâ€; indeed, we “continue to be in grave peril†and the hopes of the Covenant itself are undermined. ACI reiterates its view that there is a need for some concrete response of relationship now in the face of rejection of moratoria if the Communion is to get beyond its current morass, even in spite of the new clarities offered above.”
He remains eternally optimistic that the Canterbury-based establishment has any intention or will to act if proposed moratoria are not observed. Unfortunately, the past five years offer precious little evidence to support this optimism. My own sense is that events have already carried us FAR beyond any of the tepid proposals from Lambeth. A major restructuring of global Anglicanism is now underway and the proposals from Lambeth, all too little, too late, will ultimately only be a historical footnote demonstrating the inability of the Canterbury-based establishment to grapple seriously with the reality of matters as they actually are.
Deleted, fails to respond to the argument being made-ed.
Does Dr. Radner have any clue about what has been happening in the Episcopal Organization since the end of Lambeth 2008, and does he have any suggestions about how to deal with open defiance? Or are the actions of the California and Massachusetts bishops just a difference of opinion about relatively insignificant matters?
A thoughtful piece, but it presents difficulties on several points.
Dr. Radner refers to and bases much of his views on a “common mind†or “consensusâ€, though even he refers to it at one point only as “probable”. Where is this consensus of the conference? There were no resolutions. There was no vote. The reflections document cannot be described as a consensus in any sense – it is on its face but a compilation of views, many in opposition. The entire conference was designed to avoid a consensus, because it would have been unfriendly to TEC. Having squandered the opportunity to arrive at a consensus for fear it may not be what he desired, the ABC himself is just doing what is right in his own eyes. And so this Lambeth “consensus” is too slender a reed against which to judge future actions of TEC or GAFCON.
Dr. Radnor argues that “the Covenant must include the provision that individual Anglican dioceses may also adopt the Covenant separately when their province or national church chooses not to.” That is a tall request. Bishop Howe argued for it at Lambeth, according to press reports, and the Secretary of the ACC promptly shot it down. I suspect that this is like all the things the ACI said that Lambeth “must” do before the conference, which it did not do. Well, keep trying, but at some point, the Institute better have a plan B, because its plan A is not going so well.
I don’t think GAFCON intends to turn its back on the Anglican Communion. I think it is rather evident that in the absence of the communion doing all the things folks like the ACI say it must do, that they will simply proceed to support orthodoxy through mutual support, and will very likely recognize a new North American province on its own. How the rest of the communion reacts to that, is up to the rest of the communion. As noted above, there is no consensus regarding it. There is no covenant. If at some point there is a consensus or a covenant, well, it will be dealt with then, won’t it? I note, for example, that no primates have said they won’t attend the next primates meeting. And I suspect all will attend. Should be interesting.
Finally, in complaining about the border-crossing, when one says things like “because a covenantal and consensual following takes place in walking together after the one Master with and over us, and not through asserting vying claims of differing Masters – that is, Anglicanism’s scandal is not just in teaching and practice, but in proposing to the world a vision of “confusion†among the Lord’s followers, now appearing as a house divided,” the irony is so thick it is hard to understand why the speaker is not a Roman Catholic.
My comment that was just deleted about the Radnor article was not at all off topic…ACI left the fight in America and now tells us from the safety of academia that we need to cease the fight and just wait it out while the theological genocide is carried out…this is historically not a successful response…and is playing right into Schori’s hand…a doctrine of appeasement is a death sentence for faithful Christians…
I wish the ACI would address the basic procedural state of the communion. In violation of accepted rules of order, one instrument of communion (the ABC) subverted the deliberative act (DES) of a second instrument (the Primates Meeting) to enforce a resolution of third instrument (Lambeth 98), which third instrument had authorized the second instrument to do so. This is important context because (a) the Windsor Continuation Group was unilaterally appointed by the ABC, when the Primates Meeting requested the Windsor Report; (b) there were no resolutions at Lambeth – the non-deliberative and extra-procedural reflections of the conference are necessarily of less stature than resolutions; (c) without deliberation or the production of a record/minutes, notions of “seem to draw a majority of support” are anecdotal at best.
Aside from being unconciliar and uncatholic, the ABC has created a very unstable foundation for moving forward. If I were advising him, I would seek ratification of these actions by the other instruments, whatever that means in this day and age.
🙄
I think that Radner is sketching out his hopes for the future based on what happened at Lambeth. I see this essay as being targetted primarily for the Archbishop of Canterbury, his top advisors and senior CofE bishops. In the past the ABC has been very receptive to mouthing ACI calls for action, but not acting upon them.
I see in Radner’s writing here, the same call for action, but also much more veiled warning about what will happen if the ABC continues his inaction. Radner lays out the logical progression for what the ABC has said, and interprets the ABC’s actions as charitably as possible. But he then says “but these words must be converted into action now, or grave consequences will follow.” Let us hope and pray that Rowan Williams listens.
I think I see the Bishop of Winchester making similar points:[blockquote]the Bishops of the Anglican Communion and their spouses left Canterbury with nothing resolved[/blockquote][blockquote]Notwithstanding Archbishop Rowan’s magnificent final Address, I continue to see a negotiated “orderly separation” as the best and most fruitful way forward for the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote][blockquote]much now depends on the GAFCON Primates and the rest of the “Global South†quickly mending the relationships between them that have been put at risk, and on all of them together reacting positively to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s stated intention to call a meeting of the Primates of the Communion early in 2009. By then they, and the rest of us, may have a clear sense of how TEC and others are going to respond to Archbishop Rowan’s calls in his final Address on August 3rd; and the Archbishop may himself be in a position to judge whether there is a will for the Anglican Communion to go forward together in Our Lord’s service – or whether [i]he faces the terrifyingly difficult decision between initiating negotiations that may make for “an orderly separationâ€, or watching a still more destructive separation take place around him. [/i][/blockquote]At this point, I would predict that the global south primates will attend a primates meeting. And they will be well-prepared. But note the Bishop’s final warning. If TEC does not repent – and, of course, there is no reason to expect them to do so; indeed, many TEC bishops have already expressed their opinions contrary to the moratorium on SSBs – then there will be quite a blowup at that meeting. That Rowan Williams got the communion to this point by his design is, frankly, amazing.
#11, if I may. This is unsurprising as +Winchester is on our Board and we are in regular contact about the next season.
On another point, I wonder if the language ‘GS Primates’ requires stipulation for the issue not to be confused? It has never been in much doubt that the GS Primates will attend Primates Meetings, unless one is focusing on 3 of them, viz., Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda, and perhaps Kenya.
Thank you, #12. And on the last point, I would be very surprised if Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda and Kenya would not attend. I don’t have inside information. I simply think it is apparent that there are a few things they would like to bring up.