As I read Andrew Brown's column yesteryday, a memory stirred - a memory of words once read with regards to the beginning of the Oxford Movement that seemed appropriate as a response to Brown. I at first thought it was Keeble's Assize sermon, but no.
A quiet period in work today facilitated a check of the Tracts for the Times. And there it was in Tract No. 2 The Catholic Church:
"Are we content to be accounted the mere creation of the State, as schoolmasters and teachers may be, or soldiers, or magistrates, or other public officers? Did the State make us? can it unmake us?"
Mindful of N.T. Wright's compelling picture of Paul's gospel as a critique of the Roman imperium from the perspective of the God of Israel acting in the cross and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, it is interesting to read Tract 2's comparison of the 19th century English state with Rome:
"For in what is the English state at present different from the Roman formerly? Neither can be accounted members of the Church of Christ. No one can say the British Legislature is in our communion, or that its members are necessarily even Christians. What pretence then has it for not merely advising, but superseding the Ecclesiastical power? Bear with me, while I express my fear, that we do not, as much as we ought, consider the force of that article of our Belief, 'The One Catholic and Apostolic Church'".
There is a historical logic in some Anglican liberals invoking parliament against the Covenant. The Latitudinarian Whig bishops of the 18th century did likewise - above all, of course, Hoadly of Bangor, George I's favourite. The Bangorian Controversy also has echoes in the present disputes over authority within Anglicanism, not least in the Erastianism invoked by some of those who envision an Anglicanism more 'comprehensive' than catholic, in which autonomy not communion has precedence.
Those who answered Hoadly, and the authors of the Tracts, remind us of who we as Anglicans are. As an expression of the church catholic, Anglicanism is no mere creature of Parliament. No, the state did not make us. We Anglicans are not Erastian. We are catholic.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Women priests, Covenant and Parliament: a rejoinder to Andrew Brown
Andrew Brown's comments on +Canterbury's statement contain much dross. +Canterbury explicitly stated that homophobia can have no place in Anglican life (para. 5 of the statement). On the basis of homophobic comments he has overheard in ecclesiastical circles, Brown dismissively responds "who is going to believe him when he writes [this]"? Perhaps Brown needs to re-read 1.10 (e):
"there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ".
This - no less than 1.10's statement that it "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions" - is the mind of the Anglican Communion. Andrew Brown would surely be putting his journalistic talents to better use by challenging the Communion to live out these words rather than snidely dismissing +Canterbury's restatement of them.
Push back the dross, however, and Brown's article does make a serious and challenging point - "had the [Anglican] covenant existed 20 years ago, there would be no women priests here".
Is Brown correct?
TEC's General Convention authorised the ordination of women as priests in 1976. When the matter was debated at Lambeth in 1978, the Conference overwhelmingly supported a Resolution affirming that this was a matter for provincial synods. What is more, it recognised that Anglicanism was in a process of discernment on the ordination of women as priests - in other words, Anglicanism had not yet come to one mind on the matter:
"The Conference notes that since the last Lambeth Conference in 1968, the Diocese of Hong Kong, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episopal Church in the United States of America, and the Church of the Province of New Zealand have admitted women to the presbyterate, and that eight other member Churches of the Anglican Communion have now either agreed or approved in principle or stated that there are either no fundamental or no theological objections to the ordination of women to the historic threefold ministry of the Church. We also note that other of its member Churches have not yet made a decision on the matter. Others again have clearly stated that they do hold fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the historic threefold ministry of the Church".
The Resolution continued by affirming both integrities:
"this Conference (a) declares its acceptance of those member Churches which now ordain women, and urges that they respect the convictions of those provinces and dioceses which do not; (b) declares its acceptance of those member Churches which do not ordain women, and urges that they respect the convictions of those provinces and dioceses which do".
The overwhelming nature of the support given to the Resolution is worth noting - 316 for, 17 against. Lambeth 1978 affirmed that Anglicanism could legitimately embrace a variety of perspectives on the ordination of women as priests.
Within a space of three decades, 29 of the 39 Anglican provinces had ordained women as priests. Communion-wide reflection on the nature of the Incarnation, on the commission given to the women on the Day of Resurrection, and on the office and work of a presbyter underpinned the acceptance of this development.
The contrast with the ordination of those in sexually active same-sex relationships is instructive. Lambeth 1.10 was passed 526-70: no less than Resolution 21 of 1978, it gives expression to the mind of the Communion. Gene Robinson was consecrated bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, after 1.10 had expressed the mind of the Communion. The consequences were immediate and enduring. Communion was ruptured in a fashion entirely dissimilar to the responses to the ordination of women as priests.
Hence Resolution 21 recognised the ability of Anglicanism to remain in Communion irrespective of differences on this issue:
"The Conference therefore ... encourages all member Churches of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with one another, notwithstanding the admission of women (whether at present or in the future) to the ordained ministry of some member Churches".
Something different is at work in the present debate. The mind of Anglicanism, as expressed through the Instruments of Communion, sees in the development represented by New Hampshire a different order of issue to that of women priests. The authority of Scripture, God's purposes in creation, and the implications of Christian discipleship for sexuality have all led to the Communion pausing before the New Hampshire event and being unable to endorse it.
Which brings us back to Brown's point - "had the covenant existed 20 years ago, there would be no women priests here". Resolution 21 of Lambeth 1978 suggests otherwise. The Anglican episcopate overwhelmingly endorsed the maintenance of communion between provinces which ordained women as priests and those which did not.
Back to the dross, however. Brown ends his article with a swipe at the Covenant requiring the CofE to "obey foreign bishops" and then invokes that last refuge of the Latitudinarian and Erastian - parliament:
"I cannot imagine any parliament in 10 or 15 years' time agreeing to hand over powers to some wider Anglican body so that it can preserve the tradition of Christian homophobia".
So Brown gives us Parliament as the cornerstone of the Erastian church. An alternative vision is set out in the Preamble of the Ridley Draft of the Anglican Covenant:
"We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments. As people of God, drawn from 'every nation, tribe, people and language', we do this in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God revealed in the gospel, to offer God's love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God's people to attain the full stature of Christ".
Brown's Anglicanism is a creature of parliament. The Covenant tells of an Anglican vision of catholicity that is richer and more enduring than the poverty of Erastianism.
"there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ".
This - no less than 1.10's statement that it "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions" - is the mind of the Anglican Communion. Andrew Brown would surely be putting his journalistic talents to better use by challenging the Communion to live out these words rather than snidely dismissing +Canterbury's restatement of them.
Push back the dross, however, and Brown's article does make a serious and challenging point - "had the [Anglican] covenant existed 20 years ago, there would be no women priests here".
Is Brown correct?
TEC's General Convention authorised the ordination of women as priests in 1976. When the matter was debated at Lambeth in 1978, the Conference overwhelmingly supported a Resolution affirming that this was a matter for provincial synods. What is more, it recognised that Anglicanism was in a process of discernment on the ordination of women as priests - in other words, Anglicanism had not yet come to one mind on the matter:
"The Conference notes that since the last Lambeth Conference in 1968, the Diocese of Hong Kong, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episopal Church in the United States of America, and the Church of the Province of New Zealand have admitted women to the presbyterate, and that eight other member Churches of the Anglican Communion have now either agreed or approved in principle or stated that there are either no fundamental or no theological objections to the ordination of women to the historic threefold ministry of the Church. We also note that other of its member Churches have not yet made a decision on the matter. Others again have clearly stated that they do hold fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the historic threefold ministry of the Church".
The Resolution continued by affirming both integrities:
"this Conference (a) declares its acceptance of those member Churches which now ordain women, and urges that they respect the convictions of those provinces and dioceses which do not; (b) declares its acceptance of those member Churches which do not ordain women, and urges that they respect the convictions of those provinces and dioceses which do".
The overwhelming nature of the support given to the Resolution is worth noting - 316 for, 17 against. Lambeth 1978 affirmed that Anglicanism could legitimately embrace a variety of perspectives on the ordination of women as priests.
Within a space of three decades, 29 of the 39 Anglican provinces had ordained women as priests. Communion-wide reflection on the nature of the Incarnation, on the commission given to the women on the Day of Resurrection, and on the office and work of a presbyter underpinned the acceptance of this development.
The contrast with the ordination of those in sexually active same-sex relationships is instructive. Lambeth 1.10 was passed 526-70: no less than Resolution 21 of 1978, it gives expression to the mind of the Communion. Gene Robinson was consecrated bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, after 1.10 had expressed the mind of the Communion. The consequences were immediate and enduring. Communion was ruptured in a fashion entirely dissimilar to the responses to the ordination of women as priests.
Hence Resolution 21 recognised the ability of Anglicanism to remain in Communion irrespective of differences on this issue:
"The Conference therefore ... encourages all member Churches of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with one another, notwithstanding the admission of women (whether at present or in the future) to the ordained ministry of some member Churches".
Something different is at work in the present debate. The mind of Anglicanism, as expressed through the Instruments of Communion, sees in the development represented by New Hampshire a different order of issue to that of women priests. The authority of Scripture, God's purposes in creation, and the implications of Christian discipleship for sexuality have all led to the Communion pausing before the New Hampshire event and being unable to endorse it.
Which brings us back to Brown's point - "had the covenant existed 20 years ago, there would be no women priests here". Resolution 21 of Lambeth 1978 suggests otherwise. The Anglican episcopate overwhelmingly endorsed the maintenance of communion between provinces which ordained women as priests and those which did not.
Back to the dross, however. Brown ends his article with a swipe at the Covenant requiring the CofE to "obey foreign bishops" and then invokes that last refuge of the Latitudinarian and Erastian - parliament:
"I cannot imagine any parliament in 10 or 15 years' time agreeing to hand over powers to some wider Anglican body so that it can preserve the tradition of Christian homophobia".
So Brown gives us Parliament as the cornerstone of the Erastian church. An alternative vision is set out in the Preamble of the Ridley Draft of the Anglican Covenant:
"We, as Churches of the Anglican Communion, under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments. As people of God, drawn from 'every nation, tribe, people and language', we do this in order to proclaim more effectively in our different contexts the grace of God revealed in the gospel, to offer God's love in responding to the needs of the world, to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and together with all God's people to attain the full stature of Christ".
Brown's Anglicanism is a creature of parliament. The Covenant tells of an Anglican vision of catholicity that is richer and more enduring than the poverty of Erastianism.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Mutual responsibility and shared discernment
On his blog Entangled States, Nick Knisley (a priest in the Episcopal diocese of Arizona), takes issue with +Canterbury's understanding of the development of doctrine, as expressed in his statement Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future:
"His argument in his letter is that the majority of Christians in the world have not come to a consensus on the question. Which makes little sense, and he knows that. He’s possibly the finest theologian to sit in St. Augustine’s chair since St. Anselm. He knows that change in the church happens at the grassroots level or in the mission field and is then judged by the body as to whether or not it is God’s will. He knows that this takes centuries in some instances".
It is unfortunate that Entangled States presumes to know +Canterbury's mind better than +Canterbury himself. Apart from that insult, one wonders if Nick accepts that 'the body' has any role other than consenting to local developments. When 'change' is proposed within the church catholic, Nick accepts that wider discernment is required. But what happens when 'the body' discerns that local developments are not authentically catholic?
As +Canterbury stated in his reflection on the acts of the TEC General Convention:
"When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe" (para. 12).
The wider Church has "judged" - to use Nick's term - the actions of TEC General Convention. The Anglican Communion's Instruments of Communion requested moratoria on the consecration of bishops in sexually active same-sex relationships and on liturgical blessings of same-sex relationships. This request has been rejected by TEC's General Convention. It is TEC which has departed from the dynamic outlined by Nick - "change in the church happens at the grassroots level ... and is then judged by the body". This has happened. TEC, however, has rejected the judgement of the Body.
None of this, however, precludes ongoing discernment and doctrinal development (as More Than a Via Media has previously emphasised). Oliver O'Donovan has made this very point with reference to Lambeth 1.10:
"A reading of Resolution 1.10 ... does not quite support the view that it was meant to bring the whole discussion to a close. The attempt to treat this text as a point of closure, rather than a disciplined overture to explorations yet to be conducted, puts excessive strain on it".
+Canterbury similarly states that doctrinal development on the matter of same-sex relationships is possible:
"In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding" (para. 7).
TEC's General Convention, it seems, will only consent to a process of discernment within the Communion if the answer to the local developments is 'yes' and the answer is given now. The apparent desire is for the Communion to - in +Canterbury's words - merely "accept without challenge" the views of TEC.
To be catholic is to be in communion with the Body wider than the local or national church. It means to heed the insights and judgement of the wider Body. It is about - again to quote +Canterbury - mutual responsibility and shared discernment (para. 20). Communion and catholicity is not about "accept[ing] without challenge" the actions of a local or national church.
"His argument in his letter is that the majority of Christians in the world have not come to a consensus on the question. Which makes little sense, and he knows that. He’s possibly the finest theologian to sit in St. Augustine’s chair since St. Anselm. He knows that change in the church happens at the grassroots level or in the mission field and is then judged by the body as to whether or not it is God’s will. He knows that this takes centuries in some instances".
It is unfortunate that Entangled States presumes to know +Canterbury's mind better than +Canterbury himself. Apart from that insult, one wonders if Nick accepts that 'the body' has any role other than consenting to local developments. When 'change' is proposed within the church catholic, Nick accepts that wider discernment is required. But what happens when 'the body' discerns that local developments are not authentically catholic?
As +Canterbury stated in his reflection on the acts of the TEC General Convention:
"When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe" (para. 12).
The wider Church has "judged" - to use Nick's term - the actions of TEC General Convention. The Anglican Communion's Instruments of Communion requested moratoria on the consecration of bishops in sexually active same-sex relationships and on liturgical blessings of same-sex relationships. This request has been rejected by TEC's General Convention. It is TEC which has departed from the dynamic outlined by Nick - "change in the church happens at the grassroots level ... and is then judged by the body". This has happened. TEC, however, has rejected the judgement of the Body.
None of this, however, precludes ongoing discernment and doctrinal development (as More Than a Via Media has previously emphasised). Oliver O'Donovan has made this very point with reference to Lambeth 1.10:
"A reading of Resolution 1.10 ... does not quite support the view that it was meant to bring the whole discussion to a close. The attempt to treat this text as a point of closure, rather than a disciplined overture to explorations yet to be conducted, puts excessive strain on it".
+Canterbury similarly states that doctrinal development on the matter of same-sex relationships is possible:
"In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding" (para. 7).
TEC's General Convention, it seems, will only consent to a process of discernment within the Communion if the answer to the local developments is 'yes' and the answer is given now. The apparent desire is for the Communion to - in +Canterbury's words - merely "accept without challenge" the views of TEC.
To be catholic is to be in communion with the Body wider than the local or national church. It means to heed the insights and judgement of the wider Body. It is about - again to quote +Canterbury - mutual responsibility and shared discernment (para. 20). Communion and catholicity is not about "accept[ing] without challenge" the actions of a local or national church.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Chicago Consultation - a rejection of catholicity
Amongst the sadly predictable responses on the other side of the Atlantic to +Canterbury's statement, that from the Chicago Consultation stands out. It can be read in full on Thinking Anglicans.
+Canterbury offered a vision of catholicity, outlining the responsibilities that give expression to what it means to be in communion.
The Chicago Consultation's statement, by contrast, is a naked rejection of catholicity. Consider the extracts below:
We also urge all Anglicans, including the Archbishop, to regard the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the body of Christ as nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows. To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights — to which the Gospel also calls us — does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology.
The Archbishop raises important questions about how the Anglican Communion can best structure itself and continue to develop Anglican doctrine. The Episcopal Church has a long, albeit imperfect, history of developing theology and doctrine to support fully including women, people of color, and GLBT people in the life of the church. We can contribute this valuable experience to the Communion, and we look forward to working together with our fellow Anglicans around the globe as we continue discerning God’s call for our common life and mission.
The Chicago Consultation, a group of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people, supports the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. We believe that our baptismal covenant requires this.
The Chicago Consultation believes that, like the church’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, excluding GLBT people from the sacramental life of the church is a sin. Through study, prayer and conversation, we seek to provide clergy and laypeople across The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with biblical and theological perspectives that will rid the church of this sin.
Notice the use of "we" in the statement. Not the "we" of the Nicene Creed - the consensus fidelium - but the "we" of a small grouping of clergy and laity from one national church. And yet this small grouping has been gifted with the insight and experience that will "rid the church" of the sin of failing to ensure "the full inclusion" of LGBT people. It is difficult not to recall Irenaeus' charge in Adversus Haereses:
"When we appeal to the tradition that comes from the apostles, the tradition preserved in the Churches thanks to the succession of presbyters, they oppose tradition. They claim to be wiser than not only the presbyters, but the apostles themselves, and to have discovered the pure truth".
The contempt displayed by the Chicago Consultation for the See of Canterbury and the other Instruments of Communion is staggering. The Chicago Consultation knows better than the See of Canterbury, better than the Anglican episcopate gathered at Lambeth, better than the Primates' Meeting, better than the representative ACC.
And so we see the opposite of catholicity - sectarian arrogance.
+Canterbury offered a vision of catholicity, outlining the responsibilities that give expression to what it means to be in communion.
The Chicago Consultation's statement, by contrast, is a naked rejection of catholicity. Consider the extracts below:
We also urge all Anglicans, including the Archbishop, to regard the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the body of Christ as nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows. To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights — to which the Gospel also calls us — does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology.
The Archbishop raises important questions about how the Anglican Communion can best structure itself and continue to develop Anglican doctrine. The Episcopal Church has a long, albeit imperfect, history of developing theology and doctrine to support fully including women, people of color, and GLBT people in the life of the church. We can contribute this valuable experience to the Communion, and we look forward to working together with our fellow Anglicans around the globe as we continue discerning God’s call for our common life and mission.
The Chicago Consultation, a group of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people, supports the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. We believe that our baptismal covenant requires this.
The Chicago Consultation believes that, like the church’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, excluding GLBT people from the sacramental life of the church is a sin. Through study, prayer and conversation, we seek to provide clergy and laypeople across The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with biblical and theological perspectives that will rid the church of this sin.
Notice the use of "we" in the statement. Not the "we" of the Nicene Creed - the consensus fidelium - but the "we" of a small grouping of clergy and laity from one national church. And yet this small grouping has been gifted with the insight and experience that will "rid the church" of the sin of failing to ensure "the full inclusion" of LGBT people. It is difficult not to recall Irenaeus' charge in Adversus Haereses:
"When we appeal to the tradition that comes from the apostles, the tradition preserved in the Churches thanks to the succession of presbyters, they oppose tradition. They claim to be wiser than not only the presbyters, but the apostles themselves, and to have discovered the pure truth".
The contempt displayed by the Chicago Consultation for the See of Canterbury and the other Instruments of Communion is staggering. The Chicago Consultation knows better than the See of Canterbury, better than the Anglican episcopate gathered at Lambeth, better than the Primates' Meeting, better than the representative ACC.
And so we see the opposite of catholicity - sectarian arrogance.
Monday, 27 July 2009
+Canterbury on catholicity, communion and autonomy
+Canterbury has issued this statement in response to events at TEC General Convention. It is a thoughtful, reflective but unambiguous statement.
From the perspective of More Than a Via Media, the following excerpts are particularly significant:
+Canterbury, reflecting 1.10(c), affirms the place of our gay brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ in the Anglican tradition:
5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
The issue at stake is not 'inclusion' - it is, rather, two questions. Firstly, what is it to be catholic in our practice and reflections in this area? Secondly, what process of discernment would be required before Anglican teaching and practice could bless same-sex relationships?
6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.
The relationship between the local church and the wider church in a process of discernment requires the patience given expression in time and commitment to communion:
12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.
13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in 'intensity, substance and extent' it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.
The challenge posed by the pursuit of autonomy by TEC's General Convention is not the only challenge to the Communion's exercise of catholicity - so too are lay presidency and reception of the eucharist by those not baptised:
16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy ...
The recent actions of TEC General Convention (and the Diocese of Niagara) now make more likely the emergence of a "two-track" model of Anglicanism:
22 ... it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces ...
23 ... perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure ...
Finally, there is the matter of the significant number of dioceses within TEC which have expressed their desire to remain in communion with Canterbury, abiding by the moratoria and participating in the Windsor process:
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
+Canterbury has given to the Communion a deep reflection on what catholicity means in the midst of the present "unhappy confusions" (to quote from the 1662 Preface). We have heard the voices of the proponents of a radical vision of provincial (or diocesan) autonomy and from those who are latter-day Donatists. Now we have heard a rich, thoughtful meditation on what it means for Anglicanism to be an expression of the church catholic.
From the perspective of More Than a Via Media, the following excerpts are particularly significant:
+Canterbury, reflecting 1.10(c), affirms the place of our gay brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ in the Anglican tradition:
5. In response, it needs to be made absolutely clear that, on the basis of repeated statements at the highest levels of the Communion's life, no Anglican has any business reinforcing prejudice against LGBT people, questioning their human dignity and civil liberties or their place within the Body of Christ. Our overall record as a Communion has not been consistent in this respect and this needs to be acknowledged with penitence.
The issue at stake is not 'inclusion' - it is, rather, two questions. Firstly, what is it to be catholic in our practice and reflections in this area? Secondly, what process of discernment would be required before Anglican teaching and practice could bless same-sex relationships?
6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.
The relationship between the local church and the wider church in a process of discernment requires the patience given expression in time and commitment to communion:
12. When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgement of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognisable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.
13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in 'intensity, substance and extent' it is not of fundamental importance. But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally.
The challenge posed by the pursuit of autonomy by TEC's General Convention is not the only challenge to the Communion's exercise of catholicity - so too are lay presidency and reception of the eucharist by those not baptised:
16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy ...
The recent actions of TEC General Convention (and the Diocese of Niagara) now make more likely the emergence of a "two-track" model of Anglicanism:
22 ... it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces ...
23 ... perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure ...
Finally, there is the matter of the significant number of dioceses within TEC which have expressed their desire to remain in communion with Canterbury, abiding by the moratoria and participating in the Windsor process:
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
+Canterbury has given to the Communion a deep reflection on what catholicity means in the midst of the present "unhappy confusions" (to quote from the 1662 Preface). We have heard the voices of the proponents of a radical vision of provincial (or diocesan) autonomy and from those who are latter-day Donatists. Now we have heard a rich, thoughtful meditation on what it means for Anglicanism to be an expression of the church catholic.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
The Guardian and Alpha: week 3 - inherent morbidity or Christus Victor?
In week 3 of the Guardian blogger's Alpha Course, Adam Rutherford is confronted with the cross. Bishop Graham King led the session, and clearly made a favourable impression on Rutherford. But as for the subject matter, Rutherford raises what are essentially moral questions concerning the theory of penal substitutionary atonement:"Underlying Graham's cheery demeanour, the themes that emerge from his talk are universally grim. He tells of how God's penalty for sin is death, introduced for all humankind by Adam, but that through Christ, death is defeated ... they [i.e. fellow participants]are picking up the inherent morbidity in Christianity as revealed in this session ... Punishment, torture and blame are not part of my worldview, and do not inform my behaviour" (emphasis mine).
Perhaps we do get an insight here of how a particular theory of the cross - penal substitutionary atonement- fails to compel the mind or provoke the imagination of 21st century hearers. What is more, this theory also fails to relay the breadth and depth of Christian theological reflection on the cross.
Take, for example, Balthasar's Mysterium Paschale. It is a meditation on the scandal and paradox of the Cross - on the Incarnate One descending into, experiencing to the fullest and then triumphing over the "abyss":
"It is really God who assumes what is radically contrary to the divine ... It is precisely the unsurpassable radicalness of this concealment which turns our gaze to it ... The descent of One alone into the abyss became the ascent of all from the same depths".
This mighty proclamation is displaced in too much spirituality and theology by the impoverished anthroprocentric question "how can I find a gracious God?" - which, says Balthasar, "has exerted a baleful influence in Protestant theology".
In Surprised by Hope, Tom Wright reminds us that "theories of 'atonement', of the meaning of the cross, are not simply a set of alternative answers to the same question. They give the answers they give because of the questions they ask". The Alpha presentation reported by Rutherford answers a particular question, a question that Wright has rightly subjected to critique:
"If the question is 'how can I get to heaven despite the sin because of which I deserve to be punished?', the answer may well be 'because Jesus has been punished in your place'".
The problem with that question - as Wright has demonstrated in his excellent Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision - is that it fails to render the great story proclaimed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The theory of the atonement described above is "a Reformation answer to a medieval question, in the medieval terms which were themselves part of the problem".
To return to Surprised by Hope, we see Wright outline an understanding of the Cross that draws heavily on the patristic Christus victor narrative:
"But if the question is 'how can God's plan to rescue and renew the entire world go ahead, despite the corruption and decay which has come about because of human rebellion?', the answer may well be 'because on the cross Jesus defeated the powers of evil which have enslaved rebel humans and so ensured continuing corruption'".
In other words, there are richer, more compelling and imaginative accounts of the atonement that draw more fully on the narrative of the Scriptures than the individualist question "how do I find a gracious God?" - a question which leads to philosophically and morally dubious legalistic theories of penal substitution, cast in the language of punishment and torture.
As Augustine explicitly stated in his Enchiridion, "death found in Him nothing to punish". It is this paradox that makes possible Augustine's proclamation:
"so that it was in the strictest sense justice, and not by the mere power of violence, that the devil was crushed and conquered".
The cross was not the result of "pitiable necessity" but rather of grace - "of His own free pity for us". Perhaps this is what should drive us to reflect on how our evangelism presents the cross of Christ. "A pitiable necessity" will indeed be viewed as - in Rutherford's words - "inherent morbidity". We have a much greater, more gracious story to tell.
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Niagara's discovery
Leave aside the fact that the Diocese of Niagara has decided to further radicalise the doctrine of autonomy enacted by TEC's General Convention - now a diocesan synod, never mind a provincial synod, believes it can act contrary to the mind of the Communion. Leave aside Lambeth 1.10. Leave aside the Windsor process. Leave aside the counsel of the See of Canterbury.
Niagara appears to done something quite dramatic apart from all of the above. According to the Statement issued by the Diocese regarding the 'Niagara Rite', a form of blessing for civil marriages "regardless" of gender, this is no mere liturgy of blessing:
"The Niagara Rite is intended for the voluntary use of priests who wish to offer a sacrament of blessing regardless of the gender of the civilly married persons who wish to receive the blessing of the church ..." (emphasis mine).
What exactly is a "sacrament of blessing"?
Following the Reformation disputes, Anglican formularies affirmed two dominical Sacraments while providing rites for marriage, ordination, anointing of the sick, confession and confirmation. The 'sacramentality' of these rites has been consistently confirmed by Anglican practice. Hooker's reference to confirmation as "an ordinance Apostolique alwaies profitable in Godes Church" summarises how Anglican practice gave expression to such sacramentality alongside the two dominical sacraments "generally necessary to salvation".
It seems, however, we - and the entire Roman Catholic and Reformed traditions - got it wrong. It's neither seven, nor two-plus-five, nor two. We forgot about the "sacrament of blessing".
Thankfully a diocesan synod in the year of our Lord 2009 has enlightened us.
Niagara appears to done something quite dramatic apart from all of the above. According to the Statement issued by the Diocese regarding the 'Niagara Rite', a form of blessing for civil marriages "regardless" of gender, this is no mere liturgy of blessing:
"The Niagara Rite is intended for the voluntary use of priests who wish to offer a sacrament of blessing regardless of the gender of the civilly married persons who wish to receive the blessing of the church ..." (emphasis mine).
What exactly is a "sacrament of blessing"?
Following the Reformation disputes, Anglican formularies affirmed two dominical Sacraments while providing rites for marriage, ordination, anointing of the sick, confession and confirmation. The 'sacramentality' of these rites has been consistently confirmed by Anglican practice. Hooker's reference to confirmation as "an ordinance Apostolique alwaies profitable in Godes Church" summarises how Anglican practice gave expression to such sacramentality alongside the two dominical sacraments "generally necessary to salvation".
It seems, however, we - and the entire Roman Catholic and Reformed traditions - got it wrong. It's neither seven, nor two-plus-five, nor two. We forgot about the "sacrament of blessing".
Thankfully a diocesan synod in the year of our Lord 2009 has enlightened us.
Standing in the gap - communion and discernment
Last night I suggested that political discourse had been too prevalent in commentary on the actions of TEC's General Convention. Dan of Catholic in the Third Millennium - a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Texas (+Texas is an Anaheim signatory) - has eloquently described both this process and its implications:
"what is becoming ever so clear to the rest of the Anglican Communion is that the 'elites' and 'social activists' in our Church are confusing American-style democratic processes with the voice and leading of the Holy Spirit, and majority voting procedures with the consensus fidelium ... As a result, our national church ends up ignoring or belittling the legitimate concerns and consensus of the rest of the Anglican Communion, while insisting that the Anglican Communion should accept us on our terms".
Dan goes on to describe what it means for a diocese and a parish to "stand in the gap" - to be committed to communion and discernment:
"Standing in the gap means guarding and protecting that which has been received by the Church and remaining faithful to our Anglican heritage and consensus. But it also means remaining open to the guidance and prompting of the Holy Spirit, and thus perhaps to the possibility (if only hypothetical) of the emergence of a new consensus on issues that, at present, are controversial".
Once again, it is humbling and encouraging to hear such voices from within TEC.
"what is becoming ever so clear to the rest of the Anglican Communion is that the 'elites' and 'social activists' in our Church are confusing American-style democratic processes with the voice and leading of the Holy Spirit, and majority voting procedures with the consensus fidelium ... As a result, our national church ends up ignoring or belittling the legitimate concerns and consensus of the rest of the Anglican Communion, while insisting that the Anglican Communion should accept us on our terms".
Dan goes on to describe what it means for a diocese and a parish to "stand in the gap" - to be committed to communion and discernment:
"Standing in the gap means guarding and protecting that which has been received by the Church and remaining faithful to our Anglican heritage and consensus. But it also means remaining open to the guidance and prompting of the Holy Spirit, and thus perhaps to the possibility (if only hypothetical) of the emergence of a new consensus on issues that, at present, are controversial".
Once again, it is humbling and encouraging to hear such voices from within TEC.
Friday, 24 July 2009
+Northern Indiana and +Dallas offer a better way
The Covenant site carries two pastorals, from the bishops of Northern Indiana and Dallas. Both voted against D025 (ordination to the episcopate) and C056 (the blessing of same-sex unions). Importantly, each bishop is his pastoral letter affirmed the role of gay persons in the church in their diocese:
+Northern Indiana - "In both cases, I voted with the minority. I did so with sadness. Gay and lesbian Christians are beloved members of our diocese, and I am grateful to be their chief pastor. I’m profoundly aware that my vote may be painful to many of them. And so, in explaining the reason for my vote, I must also - and rightly - reaffirm my love and care for them".
+Dallas - "There are many gay and lesbian members of our congregations. Some long for the day when the Church will recognize and bless their relationships. Others among them do not. Add to these a number of people who are considering whether they can even remain in The Episcopal Church any longer. Ministry in these circumstances can be agonizing indeed. The churches of the Diocese of Dallas will, I trust, continue to be a place where all are welcome. We all kneel on level ground before the cross of Christ".
Both affirmations move beyond and offer an alternative to the political discourse that too often dominates commentary on the actions of TEC General Convention. Our reflections on the matter of Scripture, tradition, Christian ethics and sexuality cannot, should not, be the ecclesiastical equivalent of a Red State v. Blue State contest.
Also of significance are statements made by +Canterbury, quoted in the pastorals. First, +Northern Indiana quotes from +Canterbury's 2007 letter to +Central Florida:
"Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of unity with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such".
Secondly, +Dallas quotes from +Canterbury's address to the 2006 General Convention:
"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".
Perhaps nothing so clearly illustrates Rowan Williams' patient, faithful commitment to the Communion as these two quotations. The See of Canterbury has reminded Anglicanism in general, and TEC in particular, that it is the role and calling of a bishop to promote and maintain communion via Canterbury, and that our present debates are theological, not pastoral. In the words of 1.10, gay Anglicans "are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ".
Against those who counsel schism and promote a false ecclesiology, forgetful that "in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good" (Article XXVI), and against a TEC General Convention which has decided to follow the path of radical autonomy rather than the way of communion, +Northern Indiana and +Dallas offer a model and example of gracious communion.
+Northern Indiana - "In both cases, I voted with the minority. I did so with sadness. Gay and lesbian Christians are beloved members of our diocese, and I am grateful to be their chief pastor. I’m profoundly aware that my vote may be painful to many of them. And so, in explaining the reason for my vote, I must also - and rightly - reaffirm my love and care for them".
+Dallas - "There are many gay and lesbian members of our congregations. Some long for the day when the Church will recognize and bless their relationships. Others among them do not. Add to these a number of people who are considering whether they can even remain in The Episcopal Church any longer. Ministry in these circumstances can be agonizing indeed. The churches of the Diocese of Dallas will, I trust, continue to be a place where all are welcome. We all kneel on level ground before the cross of Christ".
Both affirmations move beyond and offer an alternative to the political discourse that too often dominates commentary on the actions of TEC General Convention. Our reflections on the matter of Scripture, tradition, Christian ethics and sexuality cannot, should not, be the ecclesiastical equivalent of a Red State v. Blue State contest.
Also of significance are statements made by +Canterbury, quoted in the pastorals. First, +Northern Indiana quotes from +Canterbury's 2007 letter to +Central Florida:
"Any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of unity with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such".
Secondly, +Dallas quotes from +Canterbury's address to the 2006 General Convention:
"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".
Perhaps nothing so clearly illustrates Rowan Williams' patient, faithful commitment to the Communion as these two quotations. The See of Canterbury has reminded Anglicanism in general, and TEC in particular, that it is the role and calling of a bishop to promote and maintain communion via Canterbury, and that our present debates are theological, not pastoral. In the words of 1.10, gay Anglicans "are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ".
Against those who counsel schism and promote a false ecclesiology, forgetful that "in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good" (Article XXVI), and against a TEC General Convention which has decided to follow the path of radical autonomy rather than the way of communion, +Northern Indiana and +Dallas offer a model and example of gracious communion.
Liturgical poetics
On Trinity IV last year, More Than a Via Media drew attention to the utterly impoverished modern Roman 'translation' of the ancient collect of the Sunday. I quoted Eamon Duffy's damning assessment of both the linguistic and theological poverty of the version in the modern Roman rite.
It is with reference to the same collect that the Lutheran Confessing Evangelical has drawn attention to what he humorously describes as "The Campaign for the Abolition of Poetry" in liturgy. He summarises CAP's mission as follows:
"The CAP is dedicated to hammering flat the language used in liturgies ... turning 'difficult', 'alienating' poetical language into 'accessible' prose".
And it is the collect for Trinity IV that the Confessing Evangelical regards as "one of the CAP’s most spectacular triumphs in recent years". He rightly states, "it literally causes me physical pain to see the two versions side by side". To experience that pain, keep on reading:
O God, the protector of all that trust in thee,
without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy;
Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy;
that, thou being our ruler and guide,
we may so pass through things temporal,
that we finally lose not the things eternal:
Grant this, O heavenly Father,
for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.
(Book of Common Prayer.)
God our Father and protector,
without you nothing is holy,
nothing has value.
Guide us to everlasting life
by helping us to use wisely
the blessings you have given to the world.
(ICEL translation for the Roman Rite.)
Thankfully modern Anglican liturgies - Ireland's BCP 2005, England's Common Worship and TEC's BCP 1979 - held the line against the Campaign for the Abolition of Poetry, retaining both the phrases and meaning of the ancient collect. (Although this was, unfortunately, not always the case - see my comments on the proper prefaces for Epiphany and Easter.)
The poetry of the liturgy is not 'merely' a matter of aesthetics. Its rhythms and phrases proclaim another City, another reality. This is, I think, part of what is suggested by Catherine Pickstock in After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. Amidst the flattened, disenchanted world of late modernity, amidst the desacralised State and the utilitarianism of the Marketplace, liturgical poetry is the redemptive language of the City of God.
It is with reference to the same collect that the Lutheran Confessing Evangelical has drawn attention to what he humorously describes as "The Campaign for the Abolition of Poetry" in liturgy. He summarises CAP's mission as follows:
"The CAP is dedicated to hammering flat the language used in liturgies ... turning 'difficult', 'alienating' poetical language into 'accessible' prose".
And it is the collect for Trinity IV that the Confessing Evangelical regards as "one of the CAP’s most spectacular triumphs in recent years". He rightly states, "it literally causes me physical pain to see the two versions side by side". To experience that pain, keep on reading:
O God, the protector of all that trust in thee,
without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy;
Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy;
that, thou being our ruler and guide,
we may so pass through things temporal,
that we finally lose not the things eternal:
Grant this, O heavenly Father,
for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.
(Book of Common Prayer.)
God our Father and protector,
without you nothing is holy,
nothing has value.
Guide us to everlasting life
by helping us to use wisely
the blessings you have given to the world.
(ICEL translation for the Roman Rite.)
Thankfully modern Anglican liturgies - Ireland's BCP 2005, England's Common Worship and TEC's BCP 1979 - held the line against the Campaign for the Abolition of Poetry, retaining both the phrases and meaning of the ancient collect. (Although this was, unfortunately, not always the case - see my comments on the proper prefaces for Epiphany and Easter.)
The poetry of the liturgy is not 'merely' a matter of aesthetics. Its rhythms and phrases proclaim another City, another reality. This is, I think, part of what is suggested by Catherine Pickstock in After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy. Amidst the flattened, disenchanted world of late modernity, amidst the desacralised State and the utilitarianism of the Marketplace, liturgical poetry is the redemptive language of the City of God.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
To be Anglican is to be in communion with Canterbury
Preludium's critique of the Anaheim Statement focuses on its comments on the role of the See of Canterbury. Anaheim makes what appears to be a quite straight-forward commitment on the part of the signatory bishops:"We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships".
Not so, says Preludium:
"This confuses the matter of membership. Regional or National Churches, not dioceses, are the constituent members of the Anglican Communion: It also suggests that dioceses are in direct communion with the See of Canterbury. If that is so the long slow march to direct Anglo-Papal oversight has been started".
Preludium's analysis entirely fails to give due regard to the role of the See of Canterbury. ACC 13's Resolution 2 explicitly accepted the Windsor Recommendation that the role of the See is no mere historical accident but rather one of the four "Instruments of Communion":
"notes with approval the suggestion of the Windsor Report that the Archbishop of Canterbury be regarded as the focus for unity ... " (emphasis mine).
As the Windsor Report stated:
"From the beginning, the Archbishop of Canterbury, both in his person and his office, has been the pivotal instrument and focus of unity; and relationship to him became a touchstone of what it was to be Anglican".
What is precisely under scrutiny at this time is the nature of TEC's relationship to Canterbury. The National Church has rejected the requests of all four Instruments of Communion to maintain the three moratoria - but a significant minority of TEC's episcopate are committed to responding positively to the requests from the Instruments of Communion. It is not Anaheim which "confuses the matter of membership". It is the actions of TEC's General Convention.
The fact that a significant minority of TEC bishops have expressed their desire to remain in communion with the See of Canterbury requires a response from the Communion. To declare that "Regional or National Churches, not dioceses" are in communion with Canterbury not only seeks to entirely ignore the ongoing discernment and reflection on what it is for Anglicans to be in Communion, it also forgets Anglicanism's historic experience.
Anglicans in the North American colonies pre-1776 were not a national church and had no indigenous bishops - but they were Anglican. Throughout the 19th century Anglican missionary bishops did not serve defined national churches - but they were Anglican. In both cases, the relationship to the See of Canterbury secured what it was to be Anglican.
Alongside the Primates' Meeting, the Lambeth Conference, and the ACC, the See of Canterbury has been discerned by Anglicans to be an Instrument of Communion, a means of securing - in the words of the Windsor Report - "common counsel". A radical definition of provincial autonomy, such as seen in the actions of TEC's General Convention, is alien to both Anglicanism's historic experience and our contemporary discernment.
Of course, Preludium is not alone in its rejection of such a role for the See of Canterbury. The radical right shares a similar analysis. Listen to the shrill voice of the Church Society:
"This tendency would alter significantly the ecclesiological basis of the Communion and would self-consciously and disastrously mimic the papacy".
Strange bedfellows indeed. Thankfully the centre of gravity in the Communion lies elsewhere, recognising that to be Anglican is to be in communion with the See of Canterbury.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Communion Partner Rectors - communion over autonomy
Amidst the flurry of open letters and statements following TEC's General Convention, today's statement from the Communion Partner Rectors is, obviously alongside the Anaheim Statement, perhaps the most significant sign of hope.
Thinking Anglicans describes the Communion Partner's statement as "signed on behalf of a substantial number of clergy". Considering that TEC's General Convention brazenly supported resolutions quite clearly contrary to the mind of the Communion, and that some conservatives have refused to work with the Covenant process and have instead set up structures outside TEC and, arguably, outside the Communion, it is significant that the Communion Partner Rectors have reaffirmed their support for the instruments of communion:
"We simply reiterate our deep desire and commitment to remain constituent members of the greater Anglican Communion. We, as we believe it to be well documented now, concur with your leadership, and that of Lambeth Conference and the ACC that the road to stronger bonds of affection amongst the members of the Communion is our shared commitment to our Lord and His Church, the instruments of Communion and the parameters and councils set forth in the Windsor Process, the three (at present) requested moratoria, the most recent Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the unfolding Covenant Process, to which we are fully committed".
Quoting +Durham's Times article, the statement reminds us that TEC is much more than the actions of its General Convention.
It is also worth noting that The Living Church is now reporting that 34 bishops have signed the Anaheim Statement. The Annaheim and Communion Partner Rectors' statements offer the hope that there is another voice in TEC alongside that heard at the General Convention - a voice committed to communion with the See of Canterbury and fellow-Anglicans across the globe. A voice committed to communion over autonomy.
Thinking Anglicans describes the Communion Partner's statement as "signed on behalf of a substantial number of clergy". Considering that TEC's General Convention brazenly supported resolutions quite clearly contrary to the mind of the Communion, and that some conservatives have refused to work with the Covenant process and have instead set up structures outside TEC and, arguably, outside the Communion, it is significant that the Communion Partner Rectors have reaffirmed their support for the instruments of communion:
"We simply reiterate our deep desire and commitment to remain constituent members of the greater Anglican Communion. We, as we believe it to be well documented now, concur with your leadership, and that of Lambeth Conference and the ACC that the road to stronger bonds of affection amongst the members of the Communion is our shared commitment to our Lord and His Church, the instruments of Communion and the parameters and councils set forth in the Windsor Process, the three (at present) requested moratoria, the most recent Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the unfolding Covenant Process, to which we are fully committed".
Quoting +Durham's Times article, the statement reminds us that TEC is much more than the actions of its General Convention.
It is also worth noting that The Living Church is now reporting that 34 bishops have signed the Anaheim Statement. The Annaheim and Communion Partner Rectors' statements offer the hope that there is another voice in TEC alongside that heard at the General Convention - a voice committed to communion with the See of Canterbury and fellow-Anglicans across the globe. A voice committed to communion over autonomy.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Wright, the Kingdom and justification
In my observations on the Guardian blogger's Alpha Course, I suggested that an approach to apologetics and evangelism focussed on 'historically proven events' ironically mirrored "the Enlightenment myth that the teachings of Jesus can be understood apart from the kingdom come in his incarnation, cross and resurrection".
I have just finished reading N.T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's vision (and hope to review the book over the next week). Amongst its many significant insights are Wright's comments at its conclusion. He suggests that the Western theological tradition has radically misunderstood justification in terms of 'how I get my sins forgiven' rather than a means by which God establishes a people (Jew and Gentile) as part of His plan to renew His creation:
"All of this, of course, might have been clear from a reading of the gospels, but, alas, the same Western tradition that has highlighted the cross at the expense of Paul's full theology of resurrection has also highlighted a supposed Pauline soteriology at the expense of the gospel's theology of the kingdom of God".
It is noteworthy how two traditions - that of the apologetics of 'historically proven events' and 'Pauline justification by faith is the gospel' - combine in failing to present the richness of the story of Jesus the Christ. There might also be the suspicion that both traditions are expressions of a form of rationalism. Both seek to 'strip' the gospel narrative back to a 'core' - the core of historically proven events and a juridical formula. What is deliberately omitted is Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom - the very context the gospels give us for understanding the incarnation, cross and resurrection.
I have just finished reading N.T. Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's vision (and hope to review the book over the next week). Amongst its many significant insights are Wright's comments at its conclusion. He suggests that the Western theological tradition has radically misunderstood justification in terms of 'how I get my sins forgiven' rather than a means by which God establishes a people (Jew and Gentile) as part of His plan to renew His creation:
"All of this, of course, might have been clear from a reading of the gospels, but, alas, the same Western tradition that has highlighted the cross at the expense of Paul's full theology of resurrection has also highlighted a supposed Pauline soteriology at the expense of the gospel's theology of the kingdom of God".
It is noteworthy how two traditions - that of the apologetics of 'historically proven events' and 'Pauline justification by faith is the gospel' - combine in failing to present the richness of the story of Jesus the Christ. There might also be the suspicion that both traditions are expressions of a form of rationalism. Both seek to 'strip' the gospel narrative back to a 'core' - the core of historically proven events and a juridical formula. What is deliberately omitted is Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom - the very context the gospels give us for understanding the incarnation, cross and resurrection.
Monday, 20 July 2009
John Polkinghorne, science and the Nicene Creed
First Things has an excellent overview of the work of scientist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. In the words of First Things, "I know of no more attractive alternative to the narrow bibliolatry of the fundamentalists or the reckless modernity of many liberals".
Polkinghorne's recently published Theology in the Context of Science receives particular attention, not least for its philosophical and scientific critique of the populist atheism espoused by Dawkins et al:
"The overall message Polkinghorne brings is a crucial one: Science cannot provide its own metaphysical interpretation. As he says with typical precision, 'Physics constrains metaphysics, but it no more determines it than the foundations of a house determine the precise form of the building erected on them.' This is especially true in a post-Newtonian world characterized by greater epistemological humility. 'The twentieth-century demise of mere mechanism,' he says, provides 'a salutary reminder that there is nothing absolute or incorrigible about the context of science.' Some questions lie 'outside the scientific domain,' and here 'theology has a right to contribute to the subsequent metascientific discourse'".
First Things suggests that Polkinghorne exemplifies the fact that "leading scientists and theologians who accept evolution [are] at the same time affirming the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers". Polkinghorne's "middle course between fundamentalism and modernism ... ought to be both appreciated and emulated".
(A site examining the works and ideas of Polkinghorne - run by a former student of his - can be found here.)
Polkinghorne's recently published Theology in the Context of Science receives particular attention, not least for its philosophical and scientific critique of the populist atheism espoused by Dawkins et al:
"The overall message Polkinghorne brings is a crucial one: Science cannot provide its own metaphysical interpretation. As he says with typical precision, 'Physics constrains metaphysics, but it no more determines it than the foundations of a house determine the precise form of the building erected on them.' This is especially true in a post-Newtonian world characterized by greater epistemological humility. 'The twentieth-century demise of mere mechanism,' he says, provides 'a salutary reminder that there is nothing absolute or incorrigible about the context of science.' Some questions lie 'outside the scientific domain,' and here 'theology has a right to contribute to the subsequent metascientific discourse'".
First Things suggests that Polkinghorne exemplifies the fact that "leading scientists and theologians who accept evolution [are] at the same time affirming the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers". Polkinghorne's "middle course between fundamentalism and modernism ... ought to be both appreciated and emulated".
(A site examining the works and ideas of Polkinghorne - run by a former student of his - can be found here.)
Saturday, 18 July 2009
The Guardian and Alpha: week 2
Week 2 of Guardian commentator Adam Rutherford's Alpha Course. Rutherford is not so much unconvinced by the presentation of Jesus' historicity as unmoved by it:"On balance, I think a man called Jesus probably did exist and he formed the basis for Christianity. But I also think that the teachings of the biblical character Jesus are much more interesting, so in some ways I am grateful that we are getting this out of the way in the second week. Surely his words are more important than his fact? ... I would have thought that the physical truth of Christ's life shouldn't matter, because the message is the same, whether he lived or not".
In a strange dynamic, conservative evangelical apologetics and Enlightenment rationalism co-operate to produce this state of affairs. The conservative evangelical approach to the apologetics of historicity regard the teachings of Jesus as almost redundant, severing the 'events' of Jesus' life from his proclamation of the kingdom. Enlightenment rationalism can admire the teachings of Jesus, on condition that they are rent asunder from any proclamation of the incarnation, cross and resurrection.
The Gospel narratives, of course, do neither. They neither 'distil' the narrative of Jesus Christ down to 'historically proven events' or sever it from incarnation, cross and resurrection. Proclamation of the kingdom, incarnation, cross and resurrection and proclamation are inextricably woven together - kingdom proclaimed and kingdom come.
But what about our approaches to apologetics and evangelism? An approach which emphasises 'historically proven events' fails to fully engage with the Jesus of the Gospels - with kingdom proclaimed and kingdom come. And, ironically, it perpetuates the Enlightenment myth that the teachings of Jesus can be understood apart from the kingdom come in his incarnation, cross and resurrection.
As N.T. Wright says in a slightly different context:
"this doesn't do justice to the place of Jesus' public career, and especially to his proclamation of God's Kingdom. It doesn't do justice, in fact, to the four Gospels themselves".
A big purple party
Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement at TEC diocese of Washington, has an article in the Guardian exemplifying the problem with how many in TEC view the rest of the Communion:"In passing this legislation, the Episcopal Church asserts the false nature of the choice we are being offered by Williams and other leaders of the communion. It is not necessary to toe a narrow doctrinal line of the archbishop's [i.e. +Rowan] choosing to enjoy deep fellowship in the Anglican communion. Fifteen primates, along with priests, theologians and lay leaders from around the communion, were with us in Anaheim. These relationships, parish to parish, diocese to diocese, are unlikely to founder whether we get invited to the next big Anglican purple party or not" (emphasis mine).
"The next big Anglican purple party" - that is how Naughton dismissively describes the deliberations of the Anglican episcopate at Lambeth. Lambeth has developed within Anglicanism as both an expression and instrument of unity and communion. It provides a forum for the episcopate of the entire Communion to exercise its teaching ministry and its calling to safeguard the faith. For Naughton it is but a "purple party". And, quite clearly, he sees TEC as losing nothing in being excluded from Lambeth.
Lambeth proclaims and deepends our communion - bringing together bishops from the North Atlantic societies and from the global south, from societies historically shaped by the Christian faith to those in which Christianity is a minority and sometimes persecuted faith, from diverse provinces responding to diverse challenges.
Naughton is quite happy that TEC walks away from this. It is, after all, just a "purple party".
Anaheim Statement - communion over autonomy
The Anaheim Statement - now signed by 27 TEC bishops according to Thinking Anglicans, 29 according to The Living Church - crucially commits its signatories to "reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion". Anaheim is, therefore, a powerful reminder that a not insignificant minority of TEC bishops remain committed to walking in communion with global Anglicanism. The commitment to the Covenant process is also noteworthy, for the same reason.
Above all, Anaheim is a declaration of communion over autonomy. It is a declaration that for a national church to be Anglican means to be in communion with Canterbury and to preserve relationships with those other national churches in communion with Canterbury. Provincial institutions are meant to give expression to this communion, not disrupt and undermine it.
According to Thinking Anglicans, 5 of the Anaheim signatories voted for D025. There are a number of ways of interpreting this. It is a reminder that the controversy has nuances often missed with a simplistic conservative v. revisionist framework. It may be that these 5 bishops are seeking to give to expression to conciliar revisionism. Or that the response across the Communion has given pause for thought to some D025 supporters.
Whatever may be the case, it only underlines the extent to which Anaheim gives expression to a sizeable group in the American episcopate committed to communion rather than autonomy.
The text of the Statement is below:
The Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the HOB, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538)
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
* We reaffirm our commitment to "continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship" which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in "interpreting the Gospel" which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
Above all, Anaheim is a declaration of communion over autonomy. It is a declaration that for a national church to be Anglican means to be in communion with Canterbury and to preserve relationships with those other national churches in communion with Canterbury. Provincial institutions are meant to give expression to this communion, not disrupt and undermine it.
According to Thinking Anglicans, 5 of the Anaheim signatories voted for D025. There are a number of ways of interpreting this. It is a reminder that the controversy has nuances often missed with a simplistic conservative v. revisionist framework. It may be that these 5 bishops are seeking to give to expression to conciliar revisionism. Or that the response across the Communion has given pause for thought to some D025 supporters.
Whatever may be the case, it only underlines the extent to which Anaheim gives expression to a sizeable group in the American episcopate committed to communion rather than autonomy.
The text of the Statement is below:
The Anaheim Statement, General Convention, 2009
At this convention, the House of Bishops has heard repeated calls for honesty and clarity. As the conversation has proceeded within the HOB, repeated attempts to modify wording which would have been preferable to the minority in the vote were respectfully heard and discussed, but in the end most of these amendments were found unacceptable to the majority in the House. Many in the majority believed the amendments would make the stated position of this House less honest about where they believe we are as The Episcopal Church.
It is apparent that a substantial majority of this Convention believes that The Episcopal Church should move forward on matters of human sexuality. We recognize this reality and understand the clarity with which the majority has expressed itself. We are grateful for those who have reached out to the minority, affirming our place in the Church.
We seek to provide the same honesty and clarity. We invite all bishops who share the following commitments to join us in this statement as we seek to find a place in the Church we continue to serve.
* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538)
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
* We reaffirm our commitment to "continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship" which is foundational to our baptismal covenant, and to be one with the apostles in "interpreting the Gospel" which is essential to our work as bishops of the Church of God.
Thursday, 16 July 2009
What we have lost
In all the commentary surrounding TEC's decision to choose autonomy over communion, too little attention is being paid to what will be lost - TEC's contribution to the Communion. Stephen Bates on the Guardian's Comment is Free demonstrates exactly what this does not mean:
"If the Americans are shown the door the consequences for worldwide Anglicanism are incalculable and not just because the wealthy US church largely pays for and sustains the communion, including in those parts of the world where the church's mission would not otherwise survive. In the Church of England there are many who find they have more in common with their American brethren than with the strident, coercive voices they hear from the conservatives".
No, it is not about money. Nor is it about an alternative to the "strident, coercive ... conservatives" (many of us who are critical of TEC General Convention could not easily be described as falling into such a category). What has been is lost is TEC's contribution to the process of discernment and reflection on same-sex relationship initiated by Lambeth 1.10, specifically 1.10 (c) and (f).
Oliver O'Donovan has recently stressed that 1.10 cannot be read as bringing to an end Anglican theological reflection on same-sex relationships:
"A reading of Resolution 1.10 ... does not quite support the view that it was meant to bring the whole discussion to a close. The attempt to treat this text as a point of closure, rather than a disciplined overture to explorations yet to be conducted, puts excessive strain on it ... Even if Lambeth would not envisage a major reorientation of its approach, it must have envisaged, in the light of greater pastoral experience and understanding, possibilities for considerable further nuance of detailed practice".
It is this process which, ironically, TEC's General Convention has sought to end. The breach of communion by TEC has deprived fellow-Anglicans of important insights.
Precisely because American society has a particular experience of same-sex relationships and because TEC seeks to proclaim and live out the Gospel in that society, TEC has an important contribution to make to the Communion's reflections on these issues. Precisely because TEC has sought to fulfil the commitment of 1.10 (c) - "we commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ" - TEC has perspectives, experiences and insights to share with the rest of the Communion.
This is what we have lost because TEC has chosen autonomy over communion. Those of us who are committed to 1.10 in its entirety want Anglicanism to have a meaningful process of reflection and discernment on what the Gospel means in a society in which same-sex relationships are broadly acceptable. It is a rejection of the process of discernment to presume an immediate insight into its conclusion before undertaking the hard work of sharing and reflecting with those who are cautious about or in disagreement with your analysis.
O'Donovan cautioned against those conservatives who seek to "bring the whole discussion to a close". It is deeply ironic that now it appears that TEC General Convention has decided to do this.
"If the Americans are shown the door the consequences for worldwide Anglicanism are incalculable and not just because the wealthy US church largely pays for and sustains the communion, including in those parts of the world where the church's mission would not otherwise survive. In the Church of England there are many who find they have more in common with their American brethren than with the strident, coercive voices they hear from the conservatives".
No, it is not about money. Nor is it about an alternative to the "strident, coercive ... conservatives" (many of us who are critical of TEC General Convention could not easily be described as falling into such a category). What has been is lost is TEC's contribution to the process of discernment and reflection on same-sex relationship initiated by Lambeth 1.10, specifically 1.10 (c) and (f).
Oliver O'Donovan has recently stressed that 1.10 cannot be read as bringing to an end Anglican theological reflection on same-sex relationships:
"A reading of Resolution 1.10 ... does not quite support the view that it was meant to bring the whole discussion to a close. The attempt to treat this text as a point of closure, rather than a disciplined overture to explorations yet to be conducted, puts excessive strain on it ... Even if Lambeth would not envisage a major reorientation of its approach, it must have envisaged, in the light of greater pastoral experience and understanding, possibilities for considerable further nuance of detailed practice".
It is this process which, ironically, TEC's General Convention has sought to end. The breach of communion by TEC has deprived fellow-Anglicans of important insights.
Precisely because American society has a particular experience of same-sex relationships and because TEC seeks to proclaim and live out the Gospel in that society, TEC has an important contribution to make to the Communion's reflections on these issues. Precisely because TEC has sought to fulfil the commitment of 1.10 (c) - "we commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ" - TEC has perspectives, experiences and insights to share with the rest of the Communion.
This is what we have lost because TEC has chosen autonomy over communion. Those of us who are committed to 1.10 in its entirety want Anglicanism to have a meaningful process of reflection and discernment on what the Gospel means in a society in which same-sex relationships are broadly acceptable. It is a rejection of the process of discernment to presume an immediate insight into its conclusion before undertaking the hard work of sharing and reflecting with those who are cautious about or in disagreement with your analysis.
O'Donovan cautioned against those conservatives who seek to "bring the whole discussion to a close". It is deeply ironic that now it appears that TEC General Convention has decided to do this.
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
"We don't need any more study on this issue"
The Living Church has a good report of the debate in TEC House of Bishops on D025. I was struck by two sets of contributions from non-conservatives quarters.
The first is what we might call the 'Communion liberals' - bishops open to the ordination of those in same-sex relationships, but who believe that obligations of communion require the moratorium. Below are the summaries provided by The Living Church of the statements made by each of the bishops:
+Rhode Island - "Adopting D025 'rejects' the Windsor process and jeopardizes the Anglican Covenant, and “doesn’t reflect the voices” of the wider Anglican Communion, Bishop Wolf said. It presumes a “theological understanding” of the question that has not";
+Virginia - "said he 'personally agrees with every word of the resolution,' but would vote against it as it 'breaks faith' with the Anglican Communion".
Such Communion liberals - or, to use a phrase based on O'Donovan's analysis, 'conciliar liberals' - should have a significant role to play in the Communion-wide discussions and process of discernment called for by 1.10. Their perspective and experience is a necessary part of the ongoing study called for by 1.10(f).
The second set of voices are quite different. These are, in O'Donovan's words, the anticonciliar revisionists. Some of their statements illustrate both the theological chasm that exists between such revisionists and the rest of the Communion and their explicit rejection of the conciliar process:
+Arkansas - "It was fearful to say 'we will restrict love because of a chromosomal make-up,' he contended, and argued that the theology was already in place by a reinterpretation of the creeds to permit honoring same-sex attractions as being holy".
"A reinterpretation of the creed to permit honouring same sex-sex relations as being holy" - those words are perhaps significant. Such revisionism is not merely a revision of ethics akin to, for example, how the church's understanding of usury has changed. The church's Trinitarian and Christological confession has been 'reinterpreted' to provide a basis for the acceptance of same-sex relations. Another case for the acceptance of same-sex relationships which does not 'reinterpret' the Trinitarian and Christological confession can, of course, be made. Anticonciliar revisionism is, however, quite different from this project.
+East Carolina - "disputed the statement that Lambeth 1.10 'represents the mind of the Anglican Communion on human sexuality,' saying it was the mind merely of the bishops at Lambeth in 1998".
The consistent failure of the organs of TEC to respect the bishops at Lambeth exercising their episcope and teaching authority through 1.10 remains perhaps the key stumbling block to the maintenance of communion between global Anglicanism and TEC. It also suggests a curiously introverted experience of Anglicanism. Does +East Carolina really believe that 1.10 does not represent the mind of the Communion? Any such suggestion indicates little knowledge of the rest of the Communion.
Last, but not least we have +Los Angeles. More than a via media has described the approach of TEC as "arrogant". +Los Angeles exemplifies such arrogance:
+Los Angeles - "We don’t need any more study on this issue".
Despite two millenia of Christian teaching on same-sex relationships; despite 1.10 and its call for ongoing study and reflection on the issue; despite the wide variety of voices within Anglicanism and TEC itself suggesting otherwise. Despite all this, +Los Angeles thinks TEC General Convention has the answers and has no need to be part of a process within Anglicanism of searching the Scriptures and listening to fellow Anglicans.
My anger and sadness over these days - and at profoundly foolish comments such as those by +Los Angeles - derives from the fact that I whole-heartedly support 1.10's call for ongoing study and reflection, and for Anglicanism to listen to our gay brothers and sisters who share with us in the Body of Christ. If Anglicans are to proclaim the Gospel into societies in which same-sex relationships are part of the lived experience of very many people, we need to go through such a process. It is a process which will challenge us all, wherever we stand on the theological spectrum.
That process, however, is utterly undermined by TEC's refusal to walk in communion with Anglicans elsewhere. TEC General Convention has decided to walk away from the hard work of searching the Scriptures with the rest of the Communion. Why? Because "we don't need any more study on this issue".
The first is what we might call the 'Communion liberals' - bishops open to the ordination of those in same-sex relationships, but who believe that obligations of communion require the moratorium. Below are the summaries provided by The Living Church of the statements made by each of the bishops:
+Rhode Island - "Adopting D025 'rejects' the Windsor process and jeopardizes the Anglican Covenant, and “doesn’t reflect the voices” of the wider Anglican Communion, Bishop Wolf said. It presumes a “theological understanding” of the question that has not";
+Virginia - "said he 'personally agrees with every word of the resolution,' but would vote against it as it 'breaks faith' with the Anglican Communion".
Such Communion liberals - or, to use a phrase based on O'Donovan's analysis, 'conciliar liberals' - should have a significant role to play in the Communion-wide discussions and process of discernment called for by 1.10. Their perspective and experience is a necessary part of the ongoing study called for by 1.10(f).
The second set of voices are quite different. These are, in O'Donovan's words, the anticonciliar revisionists. Some of their statements illustrate both the theological chasm that exists between such revisionists and the rest of the Communion and their explicit rejection of the conciliar process:
+Arkansas - "It was fearful to say 'we will restrict love because of a chromosomal make-up,' he contended, and argued that the theology was already in place by a reinterpretation of the creeds to permit honoring same-sex attractions as being holy".
"A reinterpretation of the creed to permit honouring same sex-sex relations as being holy" - those words are perhaps significant. Such revisionism is not merely a revision of ethics akin to, for example, how the church's understanding of usury has changed. The church's Trinitarian and Christological confession has been 'reinterpreted' to provide a basis for the acceptance of same-sex relations. Another case for the acceptance of same-sex relationships which does not 'reinterpret' the Trinitarian and Christological confession can, of course, be made. Anticonciliar revisionism is, however, quite different from this project.
+East Carolina - "disputed the statement that Lambeth 1.10 'represents the mind of the Anglican Communion on human sexuality,' saying it was the mind merely of the bishops at Lambeth in 1998".
The consistent failure of the organs of TEC to respect the bishops at Lambeth exercising their episcope and teaching authority through 1.10 remains perhaps the key stumbling block to the maintenance of communion between global Anglicanism and TEC. It also suggests a curiously introverted experience of Anglicanism. Does +East Carolina really believe that 1.10 does not represent the mind of the Communion? Any such suggestion indicates little knowledge of the rest of the Communion.
Last, but not least we have +Los Angeles. More than a via media has described the approach of TEC as "arrogant". +Los Angeles exemplifies such arrogance:
+Los Angeles - "We don’t need any more study on this issue".
Despite two millenia of Christian teaching on same-sex relationships; despite 1.10 and its call for ongoing study and reflection on the issue; despite the wide variety of voices within Anglicanism and TEC itself suggesting otherwise. Despite all this, +Los Angeles thinks TEC General Convention has the answers and has no need to be part of a process within Anglicanism of searching the Scriptures and listening to fellow Anglicans.
My anger and sadness over these days - and at profoundly foolish comments such as those by +Los Angeles - derives from the fact that I whole-heartedly support 1.10's call for ongoing study and reflection, and for Anglicanism to listen to our gay brothers and sisters who share with us in the Body of Christ. If Anglicans are to proclaim the Gospel into societies in which same-sex relationships are part of the lived experience of very many people, we need to go through such a process. It is a process which will challenge us all, wherever we stand on the theological spectrum.
That process, however, is utterly undermined by TEC's refusal to walk in communion with Anglicans elsewhere. TEC General Convention has decided to walk away from the hard work of searching the Scriptures with the rest of the Communion. Why? Because "we don't need any more study on this issue".
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
+Durham on TEC's "cynical double-think"
+Durham has an excellent article in tomorrow's Times highly critical of TEC's decision:
"Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion)".
He also deconstructs D025's supposed commitment to the Communion:
"Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying 'we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules' is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled".
He ends by fairly explicitly stating that Anglican re-alignment must not occur in North America - but that the focus of the Communion should be on those within TEC who have acted to maintain the bonds of affection with global Anglicanism:
"The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed 'province' of the 'Anglican Church in North America'. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured".
"Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion)".
He also deconstructs D025's supposed commitment to the Communion:
"Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying 'we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules' is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled".
He ends by fairly explicitly stating that Anglican re-alignment must not occur in North America - but that the focus of the Communion should be on those within TEC who have acted to maintain the bonds of affection with global Anglicanism:
"The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed 'province' of the 'Anglican Church in North America'. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured".
Update on D025
Fulcrum has issued a robust and thoughtful press release on action of TEC General Convention and House of Bishops. Noting that it "represents a further determined walking apart by the American Church and must have significant consequences for the relationship of TEC to the Church of England and the Anglican Communion", Fulcrum also emphasise that TEC has "ignored the repeated requests by all the Instruments of Communion, most recently the Anglican Consultative Council, to uphold the Windsor moratoria" (emphasis mine).
Significantly it also urges the Communion to remember that 45 bishops voted against approving D025 (with 99 for):
"a clear differentiation [should be] made between the majority in TEC who voted for the resolution and those - centred on the Communion Partners - who upheld the mind of the Communion within TEC. We hope that many Church of England bishops will clearly reaffirm their continued full communion with those TEC bishops who voted against the resolution".
In other words, by no means has TEC in its entirety taken the decision to walk away from the rest of us in the Communion. That truth should not be lost in the days to come. The Communion Partners project is now even more important as a means of giving expression to this.
Significantly it also urges the Communion to remember that 45 bishops voted against approving D025 (with 99 for):
"a clear differentiation [should be] made between the majority in TEC who voted for the resolution and those - centred on the Communion Partners - who upheld the mind of the Communion within TEC. We hope that many Church of England bishops will clearly reaffirm their continued full communion with those TEC bishops who voted against the resolution".
In other words, by no means has TEC in its entirety taken the decision to walk away from the rest of us in the Communion. That truth should not be lost in the days to come. The Communion Partners project is now even more important as a means of giving expression to this.
Sectarian arrogance - TEC bishops pass D025
TEC's House of Bishops passed Resolution D025 - a move that signals a rejection of what it means to be in communion with Anglicanism.
It is an explicit rejection of 1.10. It is an explicit rejection of the ongoing Communion-wide process of discernment. It is an explicit rejection of the wise counsel and brotherly oversight offered by +Canterbury.
TEC has chosen to break Anglicanism's bonds of communion and affection. The sectarian arrogance is breath-taking.
For those of us who have a deep respect for TEC and its witness throughout the history of the American Republic, this is a sad moment. TEC, however, has chosen to separate itself from sister and brother Anglicans across the globe.
It is an explicit rejection of 1.10. It is an explicit rejection of the ongoing Communion-wide process of discernment. It is an explicit rejection of the wise counsel and brotherly oversight offered by +Canterbury.
TEC has chosen to break Anglicanism's bonds of communion and affection. The sectarian arrogance is breath-taking.
For those of us who have a deep respect for TEC and its witness throughout the history of the American Republic, this is a sad moment. TEC, however, has chosen to separate itself from sister and brother Anglicans across the globe.
Monday, 13 July 2009
TEC's General Convention - "a church of the fundamentalist left"
The House of Deputies of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has decided to relapse into arrogance - it voted to support Resolution D025 affirming that those in same-sex relationships can be called "to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church".
This is despite Lambeth 1.10. Despite the moratorium called for by the rest of the Anglican Communion. Despite +Canterbury's sermon to the Convention last week urging a respect for the Communion's bonds of affection:
"Along with many in the Communion, I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart".
Despite all of this, TEC has decided to display the same arrogance, the same contempt for communion demonstrated by the New Hampshire decision. In the words of +Canterbury:
"I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America".
It is now up the TEC's House of Bishops to pass or block the Resolution. There may be some hope that the bishops will exercise responsible episcopal oversight and vote against. According to the Washington Times:
"Washington Bishop John B. Chane, though a longtime supporter of pro-gay causes in the church, told The Times on Sunday that rescinding the ban 'will not be helpful,' adding that he did not think the 'effort to overturn it will be successful'".
Anglicanism requires the type of thoughtful, meaningful engagement with Scripture, Tradition, baptised gay persons and the range of views held throughout the Communion called for by 1.10. Instead we have "repent and be changed" from Nazir-Ali and institutional arrogance and theological shallowness from TEC.
In a debate on the issue last week at the General Convention, the Episcopal News Service reported how even some liberally-inclined Episcopalians are questioning what is happening:
"The Very Rev. Kate Moorehead, (Kansas), asked for clarity on the distinction between a sacred union and a marriage. 'I would be honored to bless a gay union,' she said. But walking the halls at convention, she said, she is 'afraid that we are becoming a church of the fundamentalist left' and neglecting appropriate theological reflection in moving forward" (emphasis added).
This drive to become the liberal-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party-at-prayer demeans the historic calling of Anglicanism, undermines serious theological reflection on the issue of same-sex relationships and deliberately rejects the responsibilities that come with communion. Even if the bishops reassert the moratorium, we are left in the sad situation that the General Convention appears to be as committed to culture war as is the FCA - an unholy alliance of radical left and radical right.
This is despite Lambeth 1.10. Despite the moratorium called for by the rest of the Anglican Communion. Despite +Canterbury's sermon to the Convention last week urging a respect for the Communion's bonds of affection:
"Along with many in the Communion, I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart".
Despite all of this, TEC has decided to display the same arrogance, the same contempt for communion demonstrated by the New Hampshire decision. In the words of +Canterbury:
"I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America".
It is now up the TEC's House of Bishops to pass or block the Resolution. There may be some hope that the bishops will exercise responsible episcopal oversight and vote against. According to the Washington Times:
"Washington Bishop John B. Chane, though a longtime supporter of pro-gay causes in the church, told The Times on Sunday that rescinding the ban 'will not be helpful,' adding that he did not think the 'effort to overturn it will be successful'".
Anglicanism requires the type of thoughtful, meaningful engagement with Scripture, Tradition, baptised gay persons and the range of views held throughout the Communion called for by 1.10. Instead we have "repent and be changed" from Nazir-Ali and institutional arrogance and theological shallowness from TEC.
In a debate on the issue last week at the General Convention, the Episcopal News Service reported how even some liberally-inclined Episcopalians are questioning what is happening:
"The Very Rev. Kate Moorehead, (Kansas), asked for clarity on the distinction between a sacred union and a marriage. 'I would be honored to bless a gay union,' she said. But walking the halls at convention, she said, she is 'afraid that we are becoming a church of the fundamentalist left' and neglecting appropriate theological reflection in moving forward" (emphasis added).
This drive to become the liberal-wing-of-the-Democratic-Party-at-prayer demeans the historic calling of Anglicanism, undermines serious theological reflection on the issue of same-sex relationships and deliberately rejects the responsibilities that come with communion. Even if the bishops reassert the moratorium, we are left in the sad situation that the General Convention appears to be as committed to culture war as is the FCA - an unholy alliance of radical left and radical right.
Review: Duffy's 'Fires of Faith'
Eamon Duffy's Fires of Faith is a brave and compelling revisionist account of the restoration of papal catholicism by Mary Tudor and Cardinal Pole. While Duffy argues strongly that the devotional, liturgical and doctrinal restoration undertaken by the Marian church captured the imagination of the English people he does not flinch from addressing the burning of more than 280 'heretics' during Mary's reign.The campaign of burnings, says Duffy, was driven principally by the secular power – albeit with the active and willing co-operation of the Marian episcopate – as a means of restoring religious unity to the realm. Contrary to Foxe's account which has passed into Protestant mythology, Duffy controversially states that the burnings worked. By 1558 (the year in which Mary died), persecution “had in fact frightened most members of the [evangelical] movement into outward conformity, and had created disarray in the relatively few Tudor communities in which protestantism had established a significant presence”.
Duffy, of course, writes with deep sympathy for the project of restoring papal catholicism. Such sympathy, as much in evidence here as in his classic work The Stripping of the Altars, demonstrates that empathy rather than an arid 'objectivity' contributes to good history writing. His evocation of the world of late medieval English catholic devotion in The Stripping of the Altars does make an interesting contrast with what he sees as the Marian restoration's self-consciously Counter-Reformation catholicism. He is quite explicit that the “ardent papalism” of the catholicism of Mary and Pole was quite different to the somewhat relaxed view of papal authority of the pre-Reformation era.
The confusions and complexities of these years of upheaval are perhaps too lightly treated by Duffy. Admittedly he does note that the evangelicals persecuted by the Marian regime often veered towards the more radical end of Reformation thought (including some who denied the Trinity). He quotes the words of an evangelical executed in 1556, referring to Pole's papal catholicism and the reformed faith of Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley:
“My Lorde Chauncelor's [faith], he sayde, was nought, Cranmers and the others religion not good, but Goddes religion was the best”.
Amongst those who conformed during Mary's reign, however, matters were just as complicated. The archdeacon of the conservative diocese of Durham, we are told, was “orthodox on the real presence, but decidely shaky on papal primacy, the English Bible and the marriage of priests”. Duffy does not expand on such complexities that led the majority of clergy and the vast majority of laity to conform throughout the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward, Mary and then Elizabeth.
The irony is that conformity, rather than papal or evangelical dissent, was the normative religious experience throughout this era but has yet to be adequately explored by historians. In his concluding chapter, Duffy notes in passing that the majority of parish clergy conformed under Elizabeth, but that just over 50% of cathedral clergy refused to conform under the Elizabeth settlement. This, he says, is evidence of “the dramatic stiffening of [clerical] spine and principal” that occurred under Mary and Pole. The statistics tell a more complex situation. Of the cathedral clergy identified by Duffy, 137 refused to conform under Elizabeth but 124 did so. Their history, no less than that of papal dissenters, needs to be written – not least because of the significance of conformity to the development of Anglicanism under Elizabeth.
Perhaps Fires of Faith should be read in conjunction with Duffy's study of the West Country parish of Morebath. Morebath's priest conformed under each of the monarch's of this era. His conformity under Elizabeth is a reminder that this widespread phenomenon was most definitely not a case of the Vicar of Bray writ large. Duffy says of Morebath's priest:
“Most of what he found in the Prayer Book he would have thought godly enough ... in [Elizabeth's] reign some of the deep rhythms of pre-Reformation religion, outlawed or suspected under Edward, were allowed to reassert themselves”.
Duffy has done an invaluable service in doing justice to the devotional, liturgical, doctrinal and political world of Mary's restoration of papal catholicism. It is, however, but part of the religious history of the Reformation years. The conformity that eventually resulted in Elizabethan Anglicanism requires a similar empathy.
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Our "native High Church traditions"
In my post reflecting on the Scottish Episcopal Church, I suggested that a "relaxed, natural catholic Anglicanism" - something I have experienced in Scotland and New England - contrasted with the "often artificial anglo-papalist ethos ('more Roman than the Romans') of many English anglo-catholic parishes". From a different perspective, an anglo-catholic blogger has suggested something similar.Fr Ivan D Aquilina commented in the aftermath of the launch of FCA. He was one of very many disappointed anglo-catholic bloggers critical of the conservative evangelical dominance at the launch - despite the presence of some anglo-catholic bishops from the States:
"The fact that Anglo-Catholics in North America are part and parcel of this movement does not mean that we should be too. Many readers will know that Anglo-Catholicism in the States and here is different, especially in the way we think about re-union with the See of Peter".
Aquilina's observation regarding the papalist focus of English anglo-catholicism perhaps reflects something of the fact that the Oxford Movement was conceived and born in a crisis over authority - a crisis that found its iconic resolution in Newman's move to Rome. The catholicism evident in parts of TEC derives from both the high church tradition in the northern colonies pre-dating 1776 and Seabury's relationship with the SEC, with its theological and liturgical traditions derived from Laud's 1637 Prayer Book. It is, to use the words of Peter Nockles, one of those "native High Church traditions" that stands historically apart from the Anglo-Catholic movement which emerged from Oxford.
Nockles states:
"In truth, the significance of 1833 in the annals of the nineteenth-century Church of England has been misunderstood. The Tractarians sharpened a sense of High Church party identity in the Church, but they did not and could not create it ... Thus Tractarian historiography was mistaken in suggesting that the Oxford Movement first rediscovered 'Anglicanism' and that what became known as 'Anglo-Catholicism' was a natural or lineal evolution".
It is perhaps somewhat pejorative to describe these two traditions as those of Anglican papalist catholicism and Anglican patristic catholicism. But two quite distinct traditions there are.
Friday, 10 July 2009
The Guardian and Alpha
One of the Guardian's bloggers - Adam Rutherford - is blogging an Alpha Course every Friday. The course is at St Mary's, Islington.Could prove to be an interesting blog. Rutherford describes himself as an "orthodox atheist". His assessment at the end of the introductory night is noteworthy:
"I leave St Mary's looking forward to next week's session. I spend precisely no time with people openly discussing their faith in a very personal way. Mostly when I think about religion it's the foolish edicts of preposterous old men in dresses. But sitting down with people who choose to spend a sunny Tuesday evening discussing the meaning of life with strangers seems to be a much more interesting insight into what makes people of faith tick. We shall see".
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
The flawed hermeneutics of FCA
The launch of FCA has unsurprisingly provoked much comment. I found +Sydney's keynote address - with its declaration of "ideological war" - profoundly depressing. It's not just bad politics. It's bad evangelism. The irony is that his address was couched in terms of "how can we test your resolve to evangelize your people?" A declaration of culture war is not evangelism. It is politics.
However, what did particularly strike me was +Sydney's comments on hermeneutics. Admittedly it followed his assertion that "sexual ethics is where the contest is sharpest" between the Gospel and culture - an assertion surely worthy of challenge. There is not doubt that the God's purpose for His creation in Jesus Christ do challenge contemporary sexual mores - just as much as they did so in 1st century Rome or 5th century Hippo. But the suggestion that it is here - rather than, say, western Christian attitudes to money, power, conflict, the dignity of the human person, or the secularised public square - where "the contest is sharpest" is revealing. It demonstrates, to use the Archbishop's words, a "culturally captivated" analysis: he contends that it is not the market, not the state, not secular society, but the bedroom where "the contest is sharpest" between Gospel and culture.
Back to heremeneutics. +Sydney declared that two incompatible views of Scripture exist in contemporary Anglicanism:
"Those who hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God will see in it a unity which holds all things together. Those who regard it as a human witness to God, drawn together as a sort of library, will find contradiction and tension throughout".
Admittedly the Archbishop was constrained by time and content, so it might be unfair to read too deeply into those words. Nevertheless, they do appear to be very simplistic. On the one side are the liberals - they are the ones who see only contradiction and tension, because they do not recognise Scripture's status as inspired. On the other, the - what shall we call them? - traditionalists. Because they know Scripture is inspired, they are not hampered by any contradictions or tensions in the text.
The problems are obvious with +Sydney's choice of words. He demeans, almost overlooks, the human participation in the writing of Scripture. It appears to be a form of Docetism - it looks like a human document, but it's not. N.T. Wright's language that Scripture is "one of the points where heaven and earth overlap and interlock" (alongside the Incarnation and the sacraments) is a necessary correction to the Archbishop's words.
But there is the other problem - only liberals, he tells us, are hampered by "contradiction and tension" in the text of Scripture. Yesterday in the daily office lectionary in the Church of Ireland we had 1 Samuel 15 as one of the readings. It includes this verse, God's words to Saul:
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey".
The verse, 1 Samuel 15:3, is part of the Canon of Scripture. The church is not at liberty to deny its canonical status. But I found it impossible to read that text without experiencing contradiction and tension between it and the rest of Scripture, above all with the revelation of the God of Israel in the Incarnate Word. Affirming that Scripture is "God's Word written" does not remove the hard challenges posed by contradictions and tensions.
O'Donovan's A Conversation Waiting to Begin warns against any approach to Scripture which "tend to make the interpretation of Scripture seem superfluous". He emphasises the need to recognise the "hermeneutic distance":
"That term refers to the gap between the reader and the text, the gap that understanding has to bridge ... It is the characteristic 'conservative' temptation to erect a moment in scriptural interpretation into an unrevisable norm that will substitute, conveniently and less ambiguously, for Scripture itself ... the text and my reading of the text are two things, not one, and the first is the judge of the second".
It is the humility and patience urged by O'Donovan that appear to be lacking in +Sydney's summary of heremeneutics. The critique of the culture war declaration pales into insignificance beside this. The hard work, the challenge of reading Scripture in 21st century North Atlantic society (or 5th century Hippo or 16th century Wittenberg or 21st century Zimbabwe) appears not to be present in +Sydney's view. Perhaps such a heremeneutic inevitably leads to the other easy option - declaration of culture war, rather than the hard work of engaging with contemporary culture.
However, what did particularly strike me was +Sydney's comments on hermeneutics. Admittedly it followed his assertion that "sexual ethics is where the contest is sharpest" between the Gospel and culture - an assertion surely worthy of challenge. There is not doubt that the God's purpose for His creation in Jesus Christ do challenge contemporary sexual mores - just as much as they did so in 1st century Rome or 5th century Hippo. But the suggestion that it is here - rather than, say, western Christian attitudes to money, power, conflict, the dignity of the human person, or the secularised public square - where "the contest is sharpest" is revealing. It demonstrates, to use the Archbishop's words, a "culturally captivated" analysis: he contends that it is not the market, not the state, not secular society, but the bedroom where "the contest is sharpest" between Gospel and culture.
Back to heremeneutics. +Sydney declared that two incompatible views of Scripture exist in contemporary Anglicanism:
"Those who hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God will see in it a unity which holds all things together. Those who regard it as a human witness to God, drawn together as a sort of library, will find contradiction and tension throughout".
Admittedly the Archbishop was constrained by time and content, so it might be unfair to read too deeply into those words. Nevertheless, they do appear to be very simplistic. On the one side are the liberals - they are the ones who see only contradiction and tension, because they do not recognise Scripture's status as inspired. On the other, the - what shall we call them? - traditionalists. Because they know Scripture is inspired, they are not hampered by any contradictions or tensions in the text.
The problems are obvious with +Sydney's choice of words. He demeans, almost overlooks, the human participation in the writing of Scripture. It appears to be a form of Docetism - it looks like a human document, but it's not. N.T. Wright's language that Scripture is "one of the points where heaven and earth overlap and interlock" (alongside the Incarnation and the sacraments) is a necessary correction to the Archbishop's words.
But there is the other problem - only liberals, he tells us, are hampered by "contradiction and tension" in the text of Scripture. Yesterday in the daily office lectionary in the Church of Ireland we had 1 Samuel 15 as one of the readings. It includes this verse, God's words to Saul:
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey".
The verse, 1 Samuel 15:3, is part of the Canon of Scripture. The church is not at liberty to deny its canonical status. But I found it impossible to read that text without experiencing contradiction and tension between it and the rest of Scripture, above all with the revelation of the God of Israel in the Incarnate Word. Affirming that Scripture is "God's Word written" does not remove the hard challenges posed by contradictions and tensions.
O'Donovan's A Conversation Waiting to Begin warns against any approach to Scripture which "tend to make the interpretation of Scripture seem superfluous". He emphasises the need to recognise the "hermeneutic distance":
"That term refers to the gap between the reader and the text, the gap that understanding has to bridge ... It is the characteristic 'conservative' temptation to erect a moment in scriptural interpretation into an unrevisable norm that will substitute, conveniently and less ambiguously, for Scripture itself ... the text and my reading of the text are two things, not one, and the first is the judge of the second".
It is the humility and patience urged by O'Donovan that appear to be lacking in +Sydney's summary of heremeneutics. The critique of the culture war declaration pales into insignificance beside this. The hard work, the challenge of reading Scripture in 21st century North Atlantic society (or 5th century Hippo or 16th century Wittenberg or 21st century Zimbabwe) appears not to be present in +Sydney's view. Perhaps such a heremeneutic inevitably leads to the other easy option - declaration of culture war, rather than the hard work of engaging with contemporary culture.
Friday, 3 July 2009
A Highland parish in summer
More than a Via Media has previously reflected on personal experience of TEC, urging Anglicans not to be too hasty in condemning an entire national church as 'revisionist' on the basis of statements or actions by some bishops or dioceses. The Scottish Episcopal Church is widely regarded as belonging to the same 'revisionist arc' of North Atlantic churches as TEC. Richard Holloway probably has much to do with this reputation – not least his increasingly Spong-like statements towards to the end of his time as Primus.This week has been my first experience of the SEC since early teenage years. St. Kentigern's is a Highland rural parish in the village of Ballater, approximately 40 miles from Aberdeen. The Sunday eucharist had an attendance of around 50. The liturgy bore the hallmarks of a relaxed, natural catholic Anglicanism – not unlike my experience of parishes in Cape Cod and Maine. The contrast with the often artificial anglo-papalist ethos ('more Roman than the Romans') of many English anglo-catholic parishes is worth examining. SEC's 'patristic catholicism'(more of which on this blog anon) probably originated in the 1637 Prayer Book devised by Laud – the same liturgical tradition that helped to shape the ethos of TEC in the northern States post-1776. This can broadly be identified with the pre-Tractatarian high church tradition outlined by Nockles. Some 19th century developments – not least the widespread use of eucharistic vestments – could appear much more organic and less divisive in this context.
This patristic catholicism is, then, a tradition indigenous to Anglicanism, perhaps given sharper focus when Anglicanism was a minority amongst Scottish Presbyterians or New England Congregationalists.
A patristic catholicism, of course, is not merely a matter of a 'catholic' eucharistic prayer or the use of the chasuble. Pre-eminently it is concerned with proclamation. Which brings me to Sunday's sermon in St. Kentigern's. It was a serious engagement with Scripture – in this case, the healing of the woman with the issue of blood and the raising of Jairius' daughter. There was no attempt to explain away 'miracle'. For at least 20 minutes (i.e. not short by North Atlantic Anglican standards), we were challenged to think through what these miracles said about Jesus Christ, the Kingdom and ourselves.
A serious engagement with Scripture. Then the Nicene Creed – rehearsed by 50 people in a Highland parish, declaring the mighty acts of the God of Israel, the God and Father of Jesus Christ. And then we shared in the eucharist, with a eucharistic prayer that proclaimed the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, centred around His own words of institution.
All of which leads me to wonder to what extent the terms we attach to other Anglicans – revisionist, conservative, catholic, evangelical – are essentially political acts: and as with all political acts, they miss the realities and nuances of lived experience. Anytime I hear others speak of the SEC, my mind will return to St. Kentigern's – and the patristic catholicism evident in the faith proclaimed in Word and Sacrament in that parish on a Sunday in July 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
