The past four years have been for me and many faithful Anglican Episcopalians an exercise in hope: hope that our Lord will sort out this mess we’re in; and particularly hope that the conciliar processes of the Anglican Communion will be allowed to grow and to come to fruition. Certainly the draft Covenant presented to the Primates Meeting by the Covenant Design Group in February of this year bears witness on the part of the wider Communion to a desire for such a development.
The Lambeth Conference, because it is at least theoretically composed of all the bishops of Anglican Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, has a particular and central role to play in these conciliar processes. Indeed, because of the charism for ministry given to bishops by God the Holy Spirit at their ordination (both personally and corporately) to guard the faith of the Church and to act as faithful pastors, it is they who have a particular responsibility and ministry to take counsel together to discern the mind of Christ for the Church as new challenges to faith and praxis arise. This ministry is not shared with the clergy and the laity, though theologically and pastorally gifted clergy and laity may advise bishops in their task of discernment, because the laity, presbyters and deacons do not share the charisma for this discerning authority with the bishops. This ministry of discernment belongs, not to the Anglican Consultative Council (as is claimed by those who have elevated democracy and “representation” in the councils of the Church over charism), but to the Lambeth Conference, which by the exercise of this pneumatic authority would evolve into an episcopal synod. Nor does this ministry of discernment, this conciliar authority belong only to the Primates Meeting, composed as it is only of the primates, presiding bishops and moderators of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, and not of all the bishops of the Churches. So was it ever in the undivided Church, at Nicaea, at Chalcedon, at Ephesus, and in many regional councils and synods contemporary with and subsequent to the Ecumenical Councils. It may well be that our Lord, in this time of a Communion-wide crisis that cries out for conciliar discernment and decision-making, is calling the Churches of the Anglican Communion to recognize the charismatic and pneumatic authority of the Lambeth Conference.
Thus it was with some dismay that many of us read, earlier this summer, of Dr Williams’ invitation of all of the sitting bishops of The Episcopal Church ”“ save Bishop Gene Robinson of the Diocese of New Hampshire ”“ despite early signs of the American bishops’ rejection of the provisions of the Dar es Salaam Primates Meeting communiqué. But greater cause for dismay was given by Dr Williams’ stated plans for the Conference, which ”“ despite plans for discussion of an Anglican covenant generally and the text of the draft Covenant in particular ”“ seem aimed at denying the bishops gathered for the Lambeth Conference any conciliar decision-making role. My own dismay at this latter has been particularly acute, as I have for some time pinned some hopes on the resolution of this present crisis on morally authoritative action by the 2008 Conference. The dismay at this denial of a conciliar decision-making role is no doubt behind the news that the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, believes that the Lambeth Conference, along with the archiepiscopal See of Canterbury, have been “lost as instruments of communion” (see “American Province ”˜Lost’, Network Asserts“, published today in The Living Church online).
I suppose that it could be argued that the trajectory toward Communion-wide conciliar decision-making is neither deflected nor stopped outright by Dr Williams’ stated plans for the Conference, that work done in 2008, particularly work that eventuates in a covenant linking the Churches of the Communion more closely together, will bear conciliar fruit in 2018. But I would humbly submit that by then the Anglican Communion will have suffered far deeper divisions than even those suffered thus far, and that schisms ”“ perhaps irreparable in our lifetimes ”“ will have occurred. Already many parishes have left The Episcopal Church, many of these being taken into the care of bishops in other Anglican provincial Churches (Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Southern Cone, Kenya). The Anglican Communion Network, a meeting of their council just concluded, appear to be laying the groundwork for a new conservative Anglican province in the United States that will emerge out of the Common Cause Coalition of various Anglican missionary initiatives and denominational churches. Many faithful Christians in The Episcopal Church have left Anglicanism altogether, some for more conservative Protestant churches and others for the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox Churches. Our own parish, though not rent by the controversy, has seen the departure of a number of gifted and committed families in the past three or four years over the intransigence of our bishops, our diocesan leadership and the General Convention; and over the slowness ”“ slowness that begins to look like a receding into the distance ”“ of resolution in favor of a faithful Anglican presence in the United States in communion with the See of Canterbury. Alienation between Churches has bred alienation between and within dioceses of this Church and within parishes in those dioceses. My own family are very nearly at our rope’s end, and my wife and I have no idea where we would turn for another church home. My spirits are at a very low ebb indeed, and I once again feel deeply connected with Elijah in the wilderness, an icon of whom hangs just within the front door of our house.
As I read this essay, there appears to be a very basic logical contradiction contained within it.
On the one hand, Mr. Granger endorses conciliarism, elevating the Lambeth Conference over both the too-inclusive (in his eyes) Anglican Consultative Conference and the too-exclusive (in his eyes) Primates Meeting. (Let us leave aside for the moment the objection that the bishops who originally attended the first Lambeths in the 19th c. did so expressly on the condition that it not be deemed a synod or church council — which is why it is merely a “conference” to begin with, as opposed to a “Lambeth Synod” or “Lambeth Council.”)
On the other hand, he seems to be arguing that the attendance list out to be pre-selected, thereby (de facto) predetermining the likelihood of certain outcomes over others. Bishops duly ordained and consecrated would be excluded a priori, notwithstanding that everything that Mr. Granger asserts about their unique ministry of discernment and the pneumatic and charismatic gifts they received by virtue of their office are as equally true of the bishops whom he clearly wants excluded from Lambeth as they are of those who pass his personal smell test.
In effect, Mr. Granger would substitute his own personal judgment (or that of a faction with whom he agrees) for that of the catholic, collective judgment of Anglicans worldwide.
His points are well taken regarding the value of conciliarism, but one must be consistent, and must be prepared for the Holy Spirit to move through church councils in whatever fashion He wishes to. “Stacking the deck” by pre-screening (using mere *human* judgment alone) which bishops should be able to raise voice and vote in a synod (if that is what Lambeth wishes now to evolve into, regardless of the fact that it *never* has accorded itself such status, nor been accorded it by Anglicanism) undermines the otherwise strong argument presented in favor of conciliarism.
Invite ’em *all*, I say — +Robinson, +Minns, *all* of them. And then let the Holy Spirit freely move as He wishes through their voices and their votes.
Faithful bishops boycotting Lambeth will leave only those attending who are led by the spirit that seems to be leading the TEC leadership. The claim that this is the Holy Spirit is a matter of discernment that is proven to to be beyond the abilities of TEC leadership, as evidenced by the comment above this one.
Nadine, I’ll copy the same response I made on my own weblog.
You are right to point out a [i]seeming[/i] inconsistency on my part. My use of the “many of us†phrasing regarding the Lambeth invitations was simply meant to be generous and inclusive of my fellow Anglican conservatives. I myself was dismayed only by Dr Williams’ failure to invite [i]all[/i] the bishops of the Communion, including Bishop Robinson, Dr Minns, and the bishops of the AMiA. While I think that a cogent argument can be made, using the example of Nicaea I, for excluding bishops who have rejected the Communion’s consensus, reflected in the Lambeth 1998 resolution on human sexuality, I would nevertheless agree with your “Invite ‘em all†strategy.
As to the Lambeth Conference’s not being designed to be an episcopal synod? That is by now a well-rehearsed history that is becoming something of a trope among those who don’t wish there to be any sort of real conciliar authority in the Communion. What is clear is that over the past several decades the Lambeth Conferences have developed a discerning moral (so what that it is not juridical?) authority for the Churches of the Communion. (See, for example, Dr Radner’s more complete development of this argument in the book from which I quoted, supra.) I am glad to see that you endorse a developing conciliar authority.
(Copy of a response posted on Todd’s blog)
Todd, I am confused by your citation of Nicaea I to support the notion of pre-screening out certain bishops from participating in a council. Iirc, Constantine invited every single bishop of the Empire, without engaging in any advance doctrinal or moral screening (although only perhaps 20% actually came, by their own choice). And there definitely were Arian and Arian-inclined bishops there at the start; again iirc, all but a few were won over to orthodoxy by the end of the council, yet they did not start out that way. So, unless my recollections are incorrect, it strikes me that Nicaea I actually works *against* pre-screening, and *in favor* of inviting all bishops with sees.
Regarding any synodical nature for Lambeth, I am indeed of a catholic bent and would not at all mind seeing an evolution of Lambeth into an actual synod. I fully concur with your analysis placing greater authority in the Lambeth Conference than in either the ACC or the Primates Meeting.
And admittedly, whatever the earliest objections lodged (think of that era’s +York, et al.) to Lambeth ever becoming a synod, there has indeed been an evolution over decades whereby greater *persuasive*, non-binding teaching authority has, within global Anglicanism, come to be ascribed to Lambeth.
Yet the fact remains that, whatever *direction* this has been headed in, the line has not yet been crossed — expressly or implicitly — into Lambeth being perceived (by its participants or by Anglicanism generally) as a (governing, legislating, etc.) “synod.” Even ++Abuja recently reiterated the non-binding, wholly suasive authority of Lambeth.
So, while I personally would welcome the development of Lambeth into an actual synod (as that term has been traditionally understood in the Church catholic), I’m afraid I don’t see that that particular evolutionary threshold has yet been crossed. And indeed, now that de facto synod-like authority has been claimed for Lambeth (in the context of asserting Lambeth 1:10 as being the Communion’s official and definitive “teaching”), a good number of “reappraising” Anglicans (including Primates, mind you; have you been reading ++Armagh and ++Cape Town?) have expressly denied that Lambeth resolutions have such synodical force.
Thoughts?
“The claim that this is the Holy Spirit is a matter of discernment that is proven to to be beyond the abilities of TEC leadership, as evidenced by the comment above this one.”
Oh *my*, Deja Vu… Well, I’ve been flattered (?) before, but *never* have I been accused of being “TEC leadership.” (Nor am I!)
And before further opining further on what is and is not within my own personal abilities of discernment, please note that in my post I made no such claims of discernment in either direction. I am merely attempting to spin out the logical implications of Mr. Granger’s assertions as to the pneumatic and charismatic gifts granted duly consecrated bishops.
Nadine, regarding Nicaea I, I refer you to a response written by Dr William Tighe, a professor of history at Muhlenberg College, to an essay of Dr Radner’s from June:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3430/#61409
Be sure to read both this comment and the one following (it is a two-part essay masquerading as comment!).
One other brief thought: this tendency for us to draw hard lines between persuasive (or “moral”) authority and juridical authority is, I suspect, distinctly Western. I wonder whether the canons of Orthodox Churches – drawn originally, of course, from the Ecumenical Councils – give juridical and canonical authority to later synods (not Councils) of Orthodox bishops whose decisions have been accepted as binding in at least a suasive sense (I am thinking, for example, of the Synod of Jassy and the Synod of Jerusalem, two 17th century synods of Orthodox bishops).
[i]And there definitely were Arian and Arian-inclined bishops there at the start; again iirc, all but a few were won over to orthodoxy by the end of the council, yet they did not start out that way.[/i]
I’m not sure that we should assume or assert that the Arian bishops and the Catholic bishops were there on equal footing precisely (given that Arianism itself was, in a sense, on trial), but what follows your semicolon is the reason that I would agree with Dr Williams’ having invited all the bishops of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, including the missionary bishops of Nigeria, Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda in the United States, to the Lambeth Conference: to win over to conciliar catholic Anglicanism as many Episcopal Church bishops and other bishops as possible who have dissented from the Communion standard on human sexuality and who have chosen provincial independence rather than Communion interdependence to conciliar catholic Anglicanism.
Todd, thank you for the reference to Dr. Tighe’s comment, which I’m afraid I’ll have to defer to read on the morrow, as it’s getting late here right now.
Regarding the (Eastern) Orthodox tradition, yes, my understanding is that they are somewhat less rigid and non-“jurisprudential,” but my understanding is also that the Jassy and Jerusalem synods have “acquired” additional authority over the years, throughout Orthodoxy (though still somewhat less than that accorded an ecumenical council), precisely because their suasive authority has proven, well, highly persuasive. Such crystallization of suasive authority into de facto binding authority appears to me (from what I know of capital-O Orthodox thinking) to result from the accrual of tradition, much as secular “customary law” or international law is held to “crystallize.” And in that sense, perhaps over many years Lambeth 1:10 might similarly “crystallize” within the (Anglican stream of) Tradition, such that it is more than merely a very strong “moral authority,” but surely, less than 10 years is insufficient time for such crystallization (especially when one looks at the time frames the EOs, like the RCs, think in when it comes to church history and the development/clarification of the Tradition).
Regarding Arians v. Catholics at Nicaea I, I’m not sure that I’d agree completely that “Arianism itself was, in a sense, on trial”; although taht certainly became the case, I’d phrase it more as: “Constantine needed a unified state religion and didn’t much care how that was arrived at, or which of two competing parties won the day.” So I have no reason, from what I have read anyway, to doubt that the bishops were indeed all there on “equal footing,” although I see what you’re getting at, and although it certainly *became* the case that Arianism wound up on trial, and the orthodox/Catholics won over almost all bishops in attendance. As you say, this opportunity for direct debate and (potentially) persuasion is a strong reason to “invite ’em all” and let the Holy Spirit do His work among them as he will.
Nadine, see my (brief) reply at The Confessing Reader.