Go to: =>
TOP Page;
ROAD MAP;
Search Page;
What's New? Page;
Emmaus Ministries Page
First Things on the
Anglican Crisis
[COMMENT: A good assessment of the general Anglican
quandary and disarray. It partly hinges on the history of the English
empire, and how it grew helter-skelter with the fortunes of the Empire, as noted
below.
The lack of central authority, much like America of
Continental Congress days, has led to disaster. The question is whether we
Anglicans can rescue the Anglican Church and at the same time not evolve into
top-down authority, thus preserving the freedom with which Christ has set us
free. We are known for our emphasis on "reason", but we have flunked that
course, allowing reason to be coopted by the anti-rational and totalitarian
forces of pseudo-liberalism (liberalism which does not liberate).
I know that we can -- but will we? Or will we continue
as pseudo-conservatives (conservatives who are impotent to conserve anything)?
It all depends on whether we can reunite reason with revelation -- which God was
showing us how to do when He gave us scientific method -- which then nearly the
whole of the Christian body rejected as being dangerous to the spiritual life --
the worst mistake the Church has made in its whole history. E. Fox]
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=641
The Anglicans:
What Happened in Tanzania
By Jordan Hylden
Thursday,
February 22, 2007, 10:47 AM
“We came very close to separation,” said Archbishop
Gregory Venables of this weekend’s meeting of global Anglican leaders, “but
Biblical doctrine and behavior have been affirmed as the norms in the Anglican
Church.”
It could have gone the other way, and for a time it looked as if it would. But,
in the end, Anglican conservatives everywhere breathed
a collective sigh of relief on reading the
strongly worded statement issued unanimously by the Church’s
thirty-eight primates, which bluntly called on the Episcopal Church—the province
of the Anglican Communion in the United States—to reverse its course or face
expulsion. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not the liberal American
church will decide to comply. But by avoiding schism and enacting meaningful
discipline upon one of its errant members, the Anglican Communion proved itself
to be a reality with substance rather than the failed experiment many feared it
had become. Today, concluded the theologian Philip
Turner, “Anglicanism remains a credible expression of Catholic
Christianity.”
Those who follow the story know that the current crisis stems from the Episcopal
Church’s decision in 2003 to consecrate a non-celibate homosexual as bishop of
New Hampshire and to allow priests in several dioceses to bless same-sex unions
formally. Global reaction was swift and sharp, with multiple Anglican provinces
(notably Nigeria and Rwanda) immediately declaring a state of “broken” or
“impaired” communion with the Episcopal Church. Tensions were high even within
the Episcopal Church itself, as numerous conservative parishes began leaving or
threatening to leave—with the national church office suing or threatening to sue
all who tried it.
Although on its surface it all seemed to be an argument merely about sex, on a
deeper level it was a crisis of unity and authority. Five years prior to Gene
Robinson’s consecration as bishop, the 1998 Lambeth
Conference (a gathering of all Anglican bishops, which meets every
ten years) had upheld the traditional Christian understanding of marriage and
sexual ethics. Anglicans, who lack a central executive authority, have long
depended on its thirty-eight member churches to abide by the decisions made
together in council. The consecration of Gene Robinson
called that expectation into question—and thereby the very idea of Anglican
unity and authority.
Since the earliest times of the Christian Church, bishops have acted to
represent the unity and authority of the global Church to the local diocese, and
the local diocese to the global church. So if Gene Robinson did not believe what
the Church believes, then how could he represent the Anglican Church in New
Hampshire? The same problem presented itself on a church-wide level: If the
Episcopal Church did not believe what the Anglican Church believes, then in what
sense does it remain an Anglican church? And what good is the Lambeth Conference
if no one actually has to follow it?
Anglican unity, it seemed, did not extend to matters of church doctrine, and
Anglican authority consisted in everyone doing as they saw fit. Indeed, the
Episcopal Church defended its actions in these terms, arguing that “Anglican
comprehensiveness” means making room for all sincerely held beliefs, while
“local autonomy” means allowing each Anglican national province to do as it
pleases.
For most Anglicans, and indeed for most Christians, this understanding of church
doctrine was difficult to accept. Each week, Christians confess in the Nicene
Creed their belief in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” which
among other things means that the Church ought to be united in professing the
teachings of Christ and the apostles. But the Episcopal Church by its actions
had called this into question. Unity in truth, it in effect held, no longer
mattered. The situation was described quite accurately by Bishop N.T. Wright, a
leading Anglican intellectual, as “doctrinal
indifferentism.” The likes of it have rarely been seen in the history
of the Christian Church, and to most Anglicans worldwide it was absolutely
unacceptable. A solution had to be found.
The way forward was charted in outline in 2004 by the
Windsor Report, a document commissioned by the archbishop of
Canterbury and drafted by an international Anglican committee. In it, the
actions of the Episcopal Church were clearly judged to be an unacceptable
breach. Anglican unity and authority would be impossible, the report warned, if
Anglicans continue to disregard the authority of ecclesial councils. Part of the
problem, however, was judged to be the somewhat ad hoc nature of those
councils, and indeed of the Anglican Communion itself.
Much like the British Empire, the Anglican Church grew haphazardly along with
the fortunes of the British Crown. So long as authority rested firmly in the
British sovereign and the Thirty-Nine Articles, doctrinal crises were generally
kept under control. But with the empire gone, the Church was left without much
to hold it together beyond informal pledges to keep to traditional Anglican
teaching. So long as everyone did, Anglicans managed to muddle through, but, as
the challenges of modernity increasingly became manifest, new global structures
became necessary.
The once-per-decade Lambeth Conference and the biennial Primates’ Meeting
gradually grew to fill the gap and, generally speaking, worked by means of
gentlemen’s agreement. Until, that is, the Episcopal Church’s actions of 2003.
No mechanism existed to deal with this sort of disagreement, the Windsor Report
explained, and so again something new had to be done if unity and authority were
to be maintained.
The Windsor Report proposed an Anglican Covenant, which essentially included a
brief summary of traditional Anglican beliefs as well as a commitment by each
Anglican national church to abide by the decisions made together in council. The
flip side of the covenant, of course, would be that churches that decided not to
abide by the decisions made together in council wouldn’t get invited back for
any more meetings. In effect, they would be choosing to walk apart from the
Anglican Communion, and the rest of the Anglican churches would continue on
without them.
The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, became an enthusiastic proponent
of the Windsor plan, along with most of the Church of England. In 2005, the rest
of the Anglican primates followed suit in their
biennial meeting in Northern Ireland, adopting the Windsor Report
with only slight modifications as the way forward for the whole Church. It was
admittedly something new for Anglicanism, but then again the entire Church had
in a sense been a series of ad hoc developments. This was another, and it
was overwhelmingly decided to be the best way to preserve Anglican unity and
authority.
Which is what made the 2006 General Convention of the
Episcopal Church so frustrating. Rather than unequivocally signing on
to the Windsor plan, the Episcopal Church gave a sort of half-response. The
primates had asked the Episcopal Church to do three things: (1) apologize for
its actions in 2003, (2) promise not to consecrate any more actively homosexual
bishops, and (3) and promise to stop blessing same-sex unions. The Episcopalians
sort of complied with the first two requests and hardly addressed the third.
Things were complicated further by the election, as the new presiding bishop, of
Katherine Jefferts Schori, an unapologetic proponent of everything the Episcopal
Church had been asked to stop doing. A significant number of Episcopalian
bishops and parishes began distancing themselves from their own church,
expressing their desire somehow to comply with the Windsor Report, even though
General Convention hadn’t. Some parishes left altogether. Tensions rose, and the
patience of several conservative Anglican provinces (especially the Church of
Nigeria) wore thin. Schism began to look like a real possibility.
Which brings us to the threshold of last weekend’s meeting in Tanzania. Many
conservative Anglican leaders, such as Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria,
seriously doubted that the Episcopal Church would be disciplined for its
actions, thus making the idea of Anglican unity and authority something of a
joke and turning the Lambeth Conference (as Akinola famously said) into an
“expensive jamboree.”
Akinola had good reason to be doubtful. Many of the more liberal Anglican
provinces, such as Canada and Brazil, did not seem eager to discipline the
American church. The problem was compounded by a certain level of conservative
mistrust of the English church, whose archbishop, Rowan Williams, had earlier in
his career been an advocate of same-sex unions. African conservatives made a
number of moves to distance themselves from Canterbury, signaling their
willingness to cut ties if need be.
Above all, it was Williams’ goal to maintain the catholic substance of
Anglicanism while avoiding schism. On the one hand, Williams had to convince
Anglican evangelicals to remain in a church that lacks the confessional clarity
and simplicity of mainstream evangelicalism—even though evangelicals tend to
discount the value of church unity if it appears to cut against scriptural
truth. On the other hand, Williams had to convince Anglican liberals to
discipline an American church with which they had much in common—even though
liberals tend to discount both scriptural truth and church unity if it seems to
cut against progressive goals.
He was in a tight spot, and he spoke, quite understandably, of nightmare
scenarios in which Anglican unity and authority would explode, leaving a piece
here, a piece there—Lord knows how many pieces, each a group of men in pointy
bishops’ hats, having the form of Anglicanism but lacking the substance of
Catholic Christianity they once carried.
None of that happened. Instead, everyone at Tanzania miraculously held together,
committing the Anglican Communion to a meaningful disciplinary course against
the Episcopal Church and promising strict consequences if the Episcopalians do
not mend their ways. The primates at Tanzania asked the bishops of the Episcopal
Church to do two specific things: first,
unequivocally promise not to authorize Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions;
second, unequivocally promise not to consecrate any more actively homosexual
bishops. It has been described as an ultimatum, and it comes with a deadline
(September 30) and consequences: If not followed, the Episcopal Church will not
be invited to next year’s Lambeth Conference and so in effect will be judged to
have walked apart from the Anglican Communion.
Furthermore, the primates’ statement provides for the creation of an American
“church-within-a-church,” fulfilling a long-standing
request of conservative Episcopalians. All Episcopalian bishops will
be given the opportunity to come under the direct authority of a separate
five-member Pastoral Council (two members of which will be chosen by the current
presiding bishop and the remainder by the archbishop of Canterbury and the
primates). Conservative Episcopalian bishops will be allowed to nominate one of
their own number as a “Primatial Vicar,” who will act in effect as presiding
bishop for the church-within-a-church under the supervision of the primates’
Pastoral Council.
This new council could act as a significant check on the Episcopal Church’s
internal authority, and it has been given great leeway to negotiate its own
terms. In an especially telling line, it is given authorization
under paragraph 157 of the Windsor Report to
consider whether the Episcopal Church’s future actions merit further steps
toward the withdrawal of the Episcopal Church from membership in the Anglican
Communion. In essence, the new church-within-a-church stands ready to become a
new American Anglican province in its own right if the Episcopal Church should
decide finally to revoke its own current status in the communion.
In addition, the primates have encouraged but not required those who have
already left the Episcopal Church to return under the new pastoral scheme, and
they have left the door open for their inclusion in more-or-less their present
form. The primates have also requested that all legal action currently pending
against breakaway parishes come to an end, a significant repudiation of the
Episcopal Church’s well-publicized strategy of filing
as many lawsuits as possible. It remains to be seen whether the
national church office will comply, but one certainly hopes that it will.
The next move belongs to the Episcopal Church, and Anglicans can only wait to
see how it will respond to the primates’ requests. For many liberals within the
Episcopal Church, for whom the gay-rights agenda is a
nonnegotiable justice issue, complying with the primates’ requests
would be seen as acquiescing to bigotry. The
liberal argument in favor of delaying full homosexual inclusion has long been to
wait “for a season” so as to “continue the
conversation,” thus tactically awaiting the best opportunity to win the greatest
gain. But this argument lost much of its luster at Tanzania, since the logic of
subscription to an Anglican Covenant (a new
and excellent version of which was also unveiled in Tanzania) means that the
Episcopal Church would need to bind itself to the decisions of a largely
conservative global Anglican body. The civil-rights-era argument that “justice
delayed is justice denied” will thus appeal strongly to many liberals, some of
whom are already tiring of an endless conversation that seems every time to end
with conservatives having the last word. Still, there remains an outside chance
that Episcopalians will join together to accept the primates’ requests, thus
preserving the church’s Anglican status.
It has been a long road, and much uncertainty lies ahead. But what uncertainty
remains is principally related to the decisions now facing the Episcopal Church.
As for the Anglican Communion, its choice has been made. Years from now, it may
well be that we will look upon this week as a crucial turning-point in Anglican
history, crucial as anything since the English Reformation. For the Anglican
Communion has finally decided to live up to its name: a global communion of
churches, diverse yet united by a common faith and mutual hope, seeking together
the mind of Christ, living humbly and prayerfully under the authority of
Scripture. So may it remain.
Jordan Hylden is a junior fellow at First Things.* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *