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. The experience of this Lambeth Conference, underlined by that final Address, has again convinced me that the Anglican Communion cannot hold in tension convictions and practices that are incompatible, and so not patent of “reconciliation”, without continuing seriously to damage the life and witness of Anglican Churches as much in “the Global South” as in North America and in other provinces that have followed the lead of TEC. The experience of this Conference cannot have encouraged any participant to imagine that the latter are about to turn their backs on a generation or more of development in directions foreign to the life and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans, let alone of other Christians, across the world. I cannot see that the members of an “international family of Churches” can thrive and grow and offer a clear witness to Jesus Christ as Lord while offering contradictory teaching, on a matter as central as the character of the Holy Life, in different parts of a world knit together by instantaneous e-communications.
I am not imagining that such an “orderly separation” could prove either straightforward or painless. Archbishop Rowan said two years ago that if partings came, they would be as unmanageable, and as unpredictable in their effects, as the splintering of panes of glass; and I realise that there could be especially difficult implications for the Church of England, as there continue to be for the Churches of North America. But I recognise as quite fair the summary of my and others’ views offered by the Guardian newspaper’s Editorial on August 4th: they “feel that the avoidance of confrontation this past fortnight has merely set up a worse confrontation in the future”.
If this may be the future under God of the Anglican Communion – a large “orthodox” majority continuing to look to its historic roots (I pray and hope) in the See of Canterbury yet maintaining some defined relationship with a “separated” and more “liberal” Communion of Churches centred on TEC ”“ 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 he faces the terrifyingly difficult decision between initiating negotiations that may make for “an orderly separation”, or watching a still more destructive separation take place around him.
This gentleman “gets it.” I agree with his advocacy for the Anglican version of realpolitik. The big sticking point, however, is whether the separation will occur solely by geography or theology, or if there will be some type of hybrid system that can work. If TEC and its allies insist on having the sole geographic franchise on the Anglican brand name, a Canterbury centered communion cannot survive. Somebody needs to come up with a way to solve this conundrum and solve it rather quickly. Personally I would prefer a synodically centered communion that accords Canterbury a special, historical role (kind of like how the 39 Articles have become a special, historical document to TEC 🙂 ) while having an elected primate who actually heads the Anglican communion.
I think the inevitable push is in that direction, #1, but I don’t see an elected ABC happening without disestablishment coming first. No matter what happens and when, someone is going to get voted off the Anglican island, and I seriously doubt it will be defined by geography alone.
What a fabulous overview of the Lambeth Conference by this bishop. Wow.
I have two small quibbles with it.
RE: “. . . with the future of the Communion depending yet again on how especially (but not solely) North Americans would respond to the Archbishops final Address, and how much further the patience, with The Episcopal Church in particular, of the churches of the developing world would stretch.”
No, I believe that the future of the Communion depends yet again on whether the Archbishop of Canterbury acts on what he says. The past indicates, unfortunately, that the Anglican Communion’s future looks bleak.
RE: ” . . . 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.”
No, much now depends on whether the Archbishop of Canterbury will act on his words in order to restore trust with the Primates who no longer trust him one bit.
Based on his past non-action over the past five years, it looks unlikely that Rowan Williams will be able to convince the Gafcon Primates that he is trustworthy to act.
Thankfully, there does not need to be any action at all by Gafcon Primates in order for Rowan Williams to act. All they need do is wait and watch.
Michael Scott-Joynt has a clear grasp of the situation and the solution needed in the Anglican communion. I am grateful that finally a leader has emerged with the ability to speak honestly, and call for a reasonable separation. I for one will support his position in any way possible.
Yes, he gets it…..
But if past performance is any predictor of future performance, then waiting on the ABC to act is at best is unwise and at worse not going to happen.