« March 2006 | Main | July 2006 »

June 28, 2006

Archbishop of Canterbury -'Challenge and hope' for the Anglican Communion

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has set out his thinking on the future of the Anglican Communion in the wake of the deliberations in the United States on the Windsor Report ... Dr Williams says that the strength of the Anglican tradition has been in maintaining a balance between the absolute priority of the Bible, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility:

27th June 2006

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has set out his thinking on the future of the Anglican Communion in the wake of the deliberations in the United States on the Windsor Report and the Anglican Communion at the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA). 'The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today, A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion', has been sent to Primates with a covering letter, published more widely and made available as audio on the internet. In it, Dr Williams says that the strength of the Anglican tradition has been in maintaining a balance between the absolute priority of the Bible, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility:

"To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices. The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic"

Dr Williams acknowledges that the debate following the consecration of a practising gay bishop has posed challenges for the unity of the church. He stresses that the key issue now for the church is not about the human rights of homosexual people, but about how the church makes decisions in a responsible way.

"It is imperative to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation."

The debate in the Anglican Communion had for many, he says, become much harder after the consecration in 2003 which could be seen to have pre-empted the outcome. The structures of the Communion had struggled to cope with the resulting effects:

". whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches."

Dr Williams says that the divisions run through as well as between the different Provinces of the Anglican Communion and this would make a solution difficult. He favours the exploration of a formal Covenant agreement between the Provinces of the Anglican Communion as providing a possible way forward. Under such a scheme, member provinces that chose to would make a formal but voluntary commitment to each other.

"Those churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness: some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion and not sharing the same constitutional structures".

Different views within a province might mean that local churches had to consider what kind of relationship they wanted with each other. This, though, might lead to a more positive understanding of unity:

"It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between constituent and associated elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but that of 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians."

Dr Williams stresses that the matter cannot be resolved by his decree:

" . the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may . outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion."

"That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition - and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony."

The Primates of the Anglican Communion will meet early next year to consider the matter. In the meantime, a group appointed by the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates will be assisting Dr Williams in considering the resolutions of the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) in response to the questions posed by the Windsor Report.

ENDS

The audio version can be found here at:

http://db.astream.com/cofe/060627%20Archbishop's%20reflection%20on%20communion.mp3

Archbishop's letter to Primates:
"Following last week's General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA), I have been preparing some personal reflections on the challenges that lie ahead for us within the Anglican Communion. I have addressed these reflections to a wide readership in the Anglican Communion and they are being made public today on my website. I wanted to bring them to your attention accordingly, for you to draw to the attention of members of your Province in whatever way you see fit.

These reflections are in no way intended to pre-empt the necessary process of careful assessment of the Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report. Rather they are intended to focus the question of what kind of Anglican Communion we wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.
I am also sending you a copy of the press statement I issued at the close of General Convention, which you will see mentions the Joint Standing Committee working party that will be assisting in evaluating the outcome of the 75th General Convention.

I shall be writing to you again later this week, to invite your own response to me to various questions as the Communion's discernment process moves ahead.

Rowan CANTUAR:

Text of reflection

The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?
What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It's about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against - and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).

It's true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible - indeed, it is imperative - to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn't settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God's will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes - which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society - there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about 'inclusion', this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against - and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Anglican Decision-Making
And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue 'in our own terms'? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn't help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn't. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of 'listening to the experience' of homosexual people hasn't advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.

There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into 'political' struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.

Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions - and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn't a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences - and that actions believed in good faith to be 'prophetic' in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.

Truth and Unity
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you're right.

But let's suppose that there isn't that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth ('only the whole Church knows the whole Truth' as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple - and indeed desirable - to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.

First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don't run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn't just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone's interest - recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, 'let each local church go its own way'; but once you've lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?

Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each other's life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. 'You have not chosen me but I have chosen you', says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, 'Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?'

The Anglican Identity
The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies - a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word 'Communion' means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We're not. But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship - the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out - not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we're still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don't compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.

Future Directions
The idea of a 'covenant' between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an 'opt-in' matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were 'constituent' Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other 'churches in association', which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The 'associated' Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the 'constituent' Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.

This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between 'constituent' and 'associated' elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God's gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that 'waiting for each other' that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.

There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of 'Catholic' church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place - to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church's life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices - with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

Conclusion
The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition - and by God's grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.

ENDS

© Rowan Williams 2006
___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around
the world.

Posted by latimer at 11:32 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2006

An Open Letter to the Episcopal Church USA

From CAPA (Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa) "... we are, however, saddened that the reports to date of your elections and actions suggest that you are unable to embrace the essential recommendations of the Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué
necessary for the healing of our divisions. At the same time, we welcome ..."

The Episcopal Church, 30 years after it allowed women to become priests and bishops, has elected a woman as its Presiding Bishop.

Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, June 18, on the fifth ballot cast by the House of Bishops. Her election was confirmed by the House of Deputies, as is required by church canons. She is the first woman to hold the top post in the church's nearly 400-year history. Her nine-year term officially begins November 1st 2006.

CAPA - An Open Letter to the Episcopal Church USA

We, the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), meeting in Kampala on 21st - 22nd June, have followed with great interest your meeting of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA in Columbus. We have been especially concerned by the development of your response to The Windsor Report, which has been reported to us quite extensively. This is something for which we have earnestly prayed. We are, however, saddened that the reports to date of your elections and actions suggest that you are unable to embrace the essential recommendations of the Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué necessary for the healing of our divisions. At the same time, we welcome the various expressions of affection for the life and work of the Anglican Communion.

We have been moved by your generosity as you have rededicated yourselves to meet the needs of the poor throughout the world, especially through your commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.

We have observed the commitment shown by your church to the full
participation of people in same gender sexual relationships in civic
life, church life and leadership. We have noted the many affirmations of this throughout the Convention. As you know, our Churches cannot
reconcile this with the teaching on marriage set out in the Holy
Scriptures and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Anglican Communion.
All four Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion advised you
against taking and continuing these commitments and actions prior to
your General Convention in 2003.

At our meeting in Kampala we have committed ourselves to study very
carefully all of your various actions and statements. When we meet with other Primates from the Global South in September, we shall present our concerted pastoral and structural response.

We assure all those Scripturally faithful dioceses and congregations
alienated and marginalised within your Provincial structure that we have heard their cries.

In Christ,

The Most Rev. Peter Akinola, on behalf of CAPA
Chairman, CAPA

Posted by latimer at 12:12 PM | Comments (0)

Williams angered by choice of Schori...Bible viewed as oppressive

"He is bitterly disappointed; he is working very hard for the unity of the Anglican Communion, and the Episcopal Church has thrown it back in his face," our source said.
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4314

Posted by latimer at 12:03 PM | Comments (0)

June 20, 2006

The Choice Before ECUSA

June 2006 "... the only way forward which will command assent from the Communion and enable us to proceed together is to be careful and exact about what precisely Windsor said and meant. That is the aim of the present paper." An assessment of the ECUSA response to the Windsor Report by Tom Wright.

The Choice Before ECUSA
By the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright
June 2006

Introduction
1. There is already a burgeoning literature on the subject of the 61-page Report of the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. As might be expected, comments, criticisms, suggestions and pleas have been flying around from and in all directions. Having tried to keep up with this over the last few weeks, I have reached the conclusion that the crucial issues are comparatively simple, and that attention must not be diverted from them by the plethora of sub-questions which will no doubt run this way and that in General Convention. What follows is in the spirit of what I said at the English House of Bishops nine days ago: that there are more or less equal and opposite dangers in (a) some people being eager for ECUSA to show its true liberal colours and go its own way, and therefore hinting that Windsor raised the bar higher than it in fact did, and (b) others being eager to paper over the cracks and to accept any expression of regret as Windsor-compliant even if it obviously isn’t. Faced with this situation, the only way forward which will command assent from the Communion and enable us to proceed together is to be careful and exact about what precisely Windsor said and meant. That is the aim of the present paper.

2. What follows now emerges both from my own prayers for ECUSA over the last years and months and, particularly, from my participation in the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor Report. I cannot stress too highly that this was a unanimous report produced by a Commission of widely differing views. The Windsor recommendations were not general, arm-waving aspirations; they were precisely focused, thoroughly thought through and carefully worded. Many on the Commission wanted to say more, many would have preferred to say less, but all were agreed that these recommendations were the essential requirements if ECUSA were to continue in full communion and fellowship with the rest of the Anglican Communion. I write not only as one of the authors of the Windsor Report but as one of those who discussed, prayed over and debated, phrase by phrase and line by line, the whole document, not least the specific recommendations. I then had the task of presenting the Report to the Church of England General Synod in February 2005, where it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority. I speak therefore, not as an Englishman telling my American cousins what to do (I am well aware of the dangers of that position!) but as a member of an international and multicultural team which produced a unanimous report for the benefit (we hope) of the whole Anglican Communion.

3. We cannot and must not forget (a) that the reason the Lambeth Commission was called into being was that the Primates (including the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA) had become convinced that if the consecration of Gene Robinson went ahead this ‘would tear the fabric of the Communion at the deepest level’; (b) that the Commission was thus the chosen way of discovering how to mend a tear that had already happened, an emergency measure for a specific purpose rather than a general ‘doctrine commission’ charged with musing on possible futures, and that the Commission’s recommendations were drafted with this specifically in mind; (c) that the Primates at Dromantine last spring, and ACC at Nottingham last summer (and, of course, the C of E General Synod in February 2005), specifically endorsed the Windsor Report and its recommendations, so that these very specific and particular recommendations now come before ECUSA with such weight as the whole Anglican Communion can muster. It is not, in other words, as though ECUSA has been asked to stand on stage and make a speech of its own choosing about some issues of general concern; it is, rather, that the rest of the Communion, having discovered in sorrow that one of its members has chosen to act specifically and knowingly against both the letter and the spirit of the instruments of communion which are the characteristically Anglican bonds that hold us together, has asked ECUSA to make certain statements which are the least that can be done that will restore the unity that has already been lost.

The Report of the Special Commission: Introduction
4. The Commission has produced a document which, in its opening, is solid and impressive. There are all kinds of signs of careful, prayerful and thoughtful work and drafting. In particular (references are to paragraphs of the Report), there is a strong note of sorrow for the way in which ECUSA has ‘contributed to division in the Body of Christ’ (7) and followed the pattern of America’s imperial actions in the world (10). But a careful reading of the opening section raises questions. It is surprising to see that in its account of the history of the current issue there is no mention of what the Primates said in October 2003 (15) and hence of the fact that the consecration of Gene Robinson had gone ahead in full knowledge of the consequences. (One response to this, of course, will be that since General Convention had already endorsed the New Hampshire election this was unstoppable. This raises, for the rest of the Communion, two further matters: (a) that the Presiding Bishop led the consecration having just signed the Primates’ report, and (b) that General Convention 2003 had already been told (e.g. by Archbishop Josiah of Kaduna), before endorsing the New Hampshire election, precisely what
consequences would follow.) It is also surprising that, in its summary of Windsor sections A and B (24-32), it makes no mention of the key interlocking themes of autonomy and subsidiarity, ‘adiaphora’ and ­ flowing from these ­ the all-important question of how the church can discern the difference, so to say, between those matters which make a difference and those matters which don’t make a difference. Since this is the point upon which the current problems turn, it is worrying that they are not mentioned, still less discussed.

5. The Commission then rightly turns its attention to the key questions, ‘expressing regret and repentance’ (33-44). This section is crucial as an introduction to the key recommendations. It focuses (34) on Windsor para 134, quoting its introductory sentence (‘Mindful of the hurt and offence that have resulted from recent events, and yet also of the imperatives of communion ­ the repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ ­ we have debated long and hard how all sides may be brought together’). It does not, however, quote the next part of Windsor 134, but contents itself ­ vitally, as will emerge in a moment ­ with a summary in terms of ‘a statement of regret for breaching the bonds of affection’ and ‘moratoria on particular actions’ (34, end). It notes that ‘statements of regret have been made by the House of Bishops and the Executive Council’ (35), though without noting that these have not been the ‘statements of regret’ asked for by Windsor, but rather statements of regret that some people were hurt by ECUSA’s actions, and a statement (from the House of Bishops in March 2005, anticipating the phraseology now used in the Commission’s proposals) of regret for breaching the bonds of affection ‘by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions’, which as we shall presently see is clearly and specifically not what Windsor asked for.

6. The section continues to speak in general terms of ‘statements of regret’ without quoting, or addressing, the specific statements asked for in Windsor 134. Instead, para 38 says (at the end), ‘We also believe that the General Convention’s consideration of such expressions of regret and repentance will provide clear evidence of our desire to reaffirm the bonds of affection that unite us in the fellowship of the Anglican Communion.’ This is a puzzling statement, whose implications become clear in the resolutions that follow. Certainly the fact that General Convention will consider expressions of regret and repentance will demonstrate that most in ECUSA want to remain within the Anglican Communion. But the important question is whether that desire will lead to the specific and particular expressions of regret and repentance asked for by Windsor 134, or whether ECUSA will try to attain the goal of staying within the Communion without travelling by the only route that will get there, namely that of the road mapped by Windsor and endorsed by the Primates and ACC.

7. Once more, in para 43, the key question seems to be avoided. The paragraph asks, ‘How, then, is the General Convention to express regret and repentance? What counts as an adequate response to the requests of WR?’ But, instead of quoting Windsor 134, which would seem to be the obvious answer to this double question, the paragraph refers to ‘a number of statements of regret’ that have already been made, for instance that ‘regret has been expressed that the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire was out of sequence’, given the unresolved question of the blessing of same-sex unions. Likewise, ‘moratoria have been effected, and these have been understood as expressions of repentance for decisions made without time for consultation’. It has to be said that, from a Windsor perspective, both of these sentences are bound to appear as ways of avoiding the issue. At no point in the Commission’s report is it even mentioned that the real problem is not that actions are ‘out of sequence’ or taken ‘without time for consultation’, but that the actions in question went exactly, explicitly and knowingly against the expressed mind of Lambeth, ACC, the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. There had, in fact, been plenty of consultation at several levels, and ECUSA chose to ignore the results of that consultation.

8. The report then says (44) that it will be for General Convention to determine ‘if and how to effect moratoria as a continued expression of the desire to live into the vision of the communion we share, described in WR’. It notes (45) that ECUSA ‘has been asked to respond to several requests in ways that would express our regret for having breached the bonds of affection’, but once more without saying what WR actually asked it to do. It mentions (46) ‘five specific requests’ that have come from WR, Dromantine, and ACC-13, of which the first two are for moratoria on elections to the episcopate of those living in same-gender unions and on public rites of blessing for such unions, but again doesn’t quote the specific request of WR 134. Instead, the report discusses these moratoria in para 48 in terms of the usefulness of such times of waiting in giving time for a new consensus to emerge, and instances gratefully the indications from various parts of the Communion of a ‘commitment to diversity and inclusivity with respect to current conversations about human sexuality’. I fear it is not cynical to decode para 48 to mean ‘moratoria can be helpful if they give time for the rest of the
Communion to catch up with what ECUSA has already decided to do’. In fact, it would be naive not to read it in that way. That does not give great hope for what is to come.

9. The report then says (51) ‘We acknowledge and regret that by action and inaction, we contributed to strains on communion and ‘œcaused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians’ as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. This quotes directly from Windsor 127, though it is not yet a statement of what Windsor 134 asked for in response. The paragraph then goes on, ‘Accordingly, we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strain on communion, until a broader consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges’. A footnote to the report states that some members of the Commission had wanted to say ‘refrain from’ rather than ‘exercise very considerable caution in’. Knowing how Commissions work (there is constant give and take about wording, but this doesn’t normally show up in footnotes), the fact that this discussion resulted in an explicit statement of dissent indicates
that some Commission members insisted on their minority view being expressed. It also shows that the Commission knew very well that its main statement, resulting in the Resolution A161, was not complying with the specific thing that Windsor had asked for (see below). (The Bishop of Exeter had also pointed this out when he spoke to the American House of Bishops just before their Commission reported.)
10. When it comes to public rites of blessing of same-sex unions, the Commission suggests (53) that its previous resolution (2003—C051) has been misunderstood. That resolution recognized that ‘local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions’; but the Commission denies that this means that such rites were ‘authorized’, since the only ‘authorized rites’ are those in the various prayer books. This then clears the hermeneutical space for paragraph 54 to recommend that no ‘authorization’ (in this rather narrow sense) of such liturgies should happen, which is then reflected in Resolution A162. From a Windsor perspective, this sounds like a straightforward attempt to have one’s cake and eat it, using a narrow definition of ‘authorized’ (= ‘printed in an official prayer book’) to deny that local liturgies come into that category, while explicitly encouraging their development and use. See (17) below for the outworking of this, where it becomes clear, as noted in Windsor 144, that General Convention is seen as ‘making provision’ for, and individual diocesan bishops can then ‘authorize’, such blessings.

11. There are several other matters dealt with in the Report. Some of these raise interesting and important issues in their own right, not least the questions of the care of dissenting minorities and the problem of episcopal border-crossing. But for the sake of brevity we must turn at once to the proposed Resolutions, and specifically to those which appear to address the central concerns of the Windsor Report.

The Key Resolutions
12. The benchmark against which the key resolutions must be measured is of course Windsor 134 (for Resolutions A160 and A161) and Windsor 144 (for A162). The report quotes the preamble to Windsor 134 (see (5) above), but never quotes the recommendations themselves. The reason for this, sadly, becomes all too clear: the Commission clearly had the Windsor Report before it throughout, and decided to decline Windsor’s request and to do something else instead, using some words and phrases which echo those of Windsor while not affirming the substance that was asked for. This, with real sadness, is my basic conclusion: that unless the relevant Resolutions are amended so that they clearly state what Windsor clearly requested, the rest of the Communion is bound to conclude that ECUSA has specifically chosen not to comply with Windsor.

13. Windsor 134 makes three recommendations. The second concerns the voluntary withdrawal of the consecrators of Gene Robinson from representative functions within the Anglican Communion; that has happened at ACC-13. It is the first and third recommendations which now concern us.

14. The first recommendation reads as follows: The Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion. The Commission, in their ‘explanation’ of Resolution A160, says that this Resolution ‘addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that ‘the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret’ for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection. It does not point out (and at this point, reading and re-reading what they wrote, I have to say with sadness that the word ‘duplicity’ comes unbidden to my mind) that while this Resolution does indeed address the invitation of the Windsor Report, what it basically says to this invitation is ‘No, thank you.’

15. Instead of expressing regret for breaching the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, the Resolution, following the alternative route already set out by the House of Bishops in March 2005, expresses regret ‘for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003’, and says that ‘we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached the bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking these actions.’ A comparison with the Windsor request shows what has happened. The Commission has specifically declined to recommend to General Convention a Resolution in which ECUSA would comply with Windsor by expressing regret that the bonds of affection were breached by what was done. Instead, (a) it has simply expressed regret that the bonds of affection were breached by non-consultation, which was not mentioned at this point in Windsor, and indeed is irrelevant since there was in fact widespread and public consultation throughout most of 2003, before, during and after General Convention that year, which resulted in the Primates’ clear statement that to go ahead with the consecration of Gene Robinson would tear the fabric of the Communion; and (b) it has not even affirmed that there was fault in that respect, since the wording ‘by any failure to consult’ seems to mean ‘we’re not sure that there was anything wrong, but if there was, we apologise’. Thus the appearance of Windsor-compliance, and the powerful impact of ‘apology and repentance’, are, alas, only skin deep. To put it bluntly: Resolution A160 is not, as it stands, Windsor-compliant, and the Commission must have known that only too well. Granted that, the statement in the ‘Explanation’ that this Resolution is ‘thus signalling our synodical intentions to remain within the Communion’ must, sadly, be seen as essentially cynical. Windsor said that ‘such an expression of regret’ ­ i.e. the one tthat Windsor requested, not the one that the Resolution offers ­ ‘would represent the desire of ECUSA to remain within the Communion.’ The fact that he ‘explanation’ quotes this latter phrase demonstrates a desire, not apparently to comply with Windsor, but to give the appearance of doing so to those who glance at the text but do not look carefully at what is
actually said.

16. The same is true, sadly, of the third recommendation of Windsor 134 in relation to Resolution A161. Windsor recommended (and the Primates and ACC endorsed the recommendation) that ‘the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.’ As we saw at (9) above, in line with the Commission’s Introduction para 51 and its tell-tale footnote, and as appears also in the ‘explanation’ to this Resolution, there were some on the Commission who clearly wanted to comply with this Windsor recommendation, but, equally clearly, a majority who did not. Instead of adopting the Windsor recommendation, Resolution A161 says ‘we urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution in the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.’ At the risk of stating the obvious, this Resolution has done two things, both of which point away from Windsor: (a) it has only recommended ‘very considerable caution’, rather than a moratorium; (b) it has broadened the reference to persons in same-gender unions into a general statement about persons whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church ­ which, as various commentators have pointed out, and as the ‘explanation’ offered by the Commission itself indicates, could mean all sorts of things. Again, therefore, if Resolution A161 is passed without amendment, and still more if it is not even passed, it will be impossible to draw any other conclusion but that ECUSA has chosen not to comply with the Windsor recommendations.

17. Resolution A162, on Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions, looks at first sight as though it is more Windsor-compliant than A160 and A161. (The relevant section of the Windsor Report is paras 136-146.) It comes in three parts: first, a resolution affirming ‘the need to maintain a breadth of private responses to situations of individual pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians’, which presumably means that local churches can celebrate private and home-grown services of various kinds. Second, it concurs with Windsor’s call not to authorize public rites of blessing for same-sex unions (though it oddly says that this was an exhortation to ‘bishops of the Anglican Communion’, whereas Windsor 144 specifically referred to ECUSA; this presumably is in line with the double meaning noted above in (10), namely that ECUSA has chosen to interpret its own decision in General Convention 2003 not in terms of ‘authorization’ of such blessings but of ‘permission’). Third, it proposes to ‘advise those bishops who have authorized public diocesan rites that, ‘because of the serious repercussions in the Communion,’ they heed the invitation ‘to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization’. This is indeed much closer to the relevant Windsor paragraph than in the cases of A160 and A161. However, there is still some slippage, here as well, between what Windsor asked for and what the Resolution proposes. Windsor asked for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and did not mention at all the possibility of a new consensus emerging which would curtail this moratorium; the Resolution exhorts bishops to honor the Primates’ injunction, referred to in Windsor 143, ‘by not proceeding to authorize public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, until some broader consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges’. Windsor further recommended, though the Resolution does not mention this, that ‘pending such expression of regret, . . . such bishops be invited to consider whether . . . they should withdraw from representative functions in the Anglican Communion, and that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter.’ As I say, there is not so much distance here between Windsor and the relevant Resolution, but still some sense that ECUSA is choosing to look at the matter from a different perspective. This in turn sends us back to the prior question which Windsor addresses throughout, namely the question of which matters can, and which can not, be decided locally; and that question (‘is this or is this not a matter which can be decided locally) is itself one which, logically, can not itself be decided locally, but only by the whole church.

Further Matters and Resolutions
18. The meaning, intention and spirit of the Commission’s report and the proposed Resolutions already discussed have to be seen in the light of other matters and resolutions. In particular, we note Resolution A167, whose second and third parts have been widely, and in my view rightly, seen as reaffirming previous ECUSA commitments to work in the opposite direction to the main thrust of Lambeth 1.10 (there is no controversy, I think, about the commitment of that resolution to the ‘listening process’). These resolutions, sadly, provide the context within which the puzzles of the earlier resolutions (why don’t they say what Windsor asked?) can be understood; in other words, they indicate that the reason why the Commission has not recommended actual compliance with Windsor’s recommendations is because some Commission members at least believe that to comply would prevent ECUSA developing further the policies of which the consecration of Gene Robinson and the authorizing of same-sex blessings were symptoms. In other words, it is bound to look to the rest of the Communion as though these agendas, which were not of course the explicit subject of the Windsor Report, are driving ECUSA’s attitude to questions of global ecclesiology.

Conclusion
19. It is very important not to let the plethora of material, in the official document and in all the various commentaries on it, detract attention from from the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed. If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor, and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to ‘walk apart’ (Windsor 157). My hope and earnest prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be avoided. May God bless the Bishops and Delegates of ECUSA in their praying, thinking and deciding.

Posted by latimer at 03:37 PM | Comments (0)

June 07, 2006

The Da Vinci Code: A statement from the NZ Anglican Bishops

6 June 06: “Some of us have been approached about our views on The Da Vinci Code novel and movie in recent weeks. We are also aware that a number of people believe that The Da Vinci Code story is real and that its description of Christian history is true.

“We therefore feel it is important to say publicly that

“Some of us have been approached about our views on The Da Vinci Code novel and movie in recent weeks. We are also aware that a number of people believe that The Da Vinci Code story is real and that its description of Christian history is true.

“We therefore feel it is important to say publicly that in 2005 a UK television archaeologist, Tony Robinson, edited and narrated a detailed rebuttal of the main arguments and facts of The Da Vinci Code, in the documentary The real Da Vinci Code. This documentary was shown on New Zealand television recently.

“We endorse the work of this documentary as well as the statements of Lyndsay Freer, The National Director of Catholic Communications, about the lack of historical substance in the Da Vinci Code.

“The Da Vinci Code novel was based on material from the 1982 book: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. Richard Leigh has stated on television that he and his co-authors only set out to offer a plausible hypothesis, but he never believed it to be true. Responses from mainstream historians and academics are nearly universally negative.

“The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, derived material in turn from a fictitious theory of Pierre Plantard, via a French journalist and author called Jean Luc Chameil. This material is now called the ‘Priory of Sion Hoax.’ Plantard confessed in 1993 that the ‘Priory of Sion’ was an elaborate construction without base in fact.

“Further, in his legal ruling about the novel The Da Vinci Code and its link to the work of Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, Judge Peter Smith said that The Da Vinci Code law suit was ‘based on a contrived and selective number of facts and ideas.’

“However, we do see the current public interest in the novel and movie The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity to discuss well substantiated Christian history in the light of good research about its reliability and credibility, rather than material partly derived from a hoax.

“We recognise that God is the source of all truth and therefore the Christian community has no need to fear good research which sheds light on the truth of history: the truth always sets us free and we have confidence that the truths of the Christian story speak for themselves.”

+John Bluck +Te Kitohi Pikaahu
+Thomas Brown +Richard Randerson
+Jabez Bryce +Philip Richardson
+David Coles +Gabriel Sharma
+George Connor +Brown Turei
+Derek Eaton +Whakahuihui Vercoe
+John Gray +Muru Walters
+Winston Halapua
+David Moxon
+John Paterson

ends

Posted by latimer at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)