Latest Anglican News                                                                          Volume 3, Number 8, July 30, 2009

“This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.”
            St Matthew 15:8 & Isaiah 29:13

Unbelievably, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) has already issued a lengthy commentary on the state of the Anglican Communion (AC) now that The Episcopal Church (TEC) has completed its triennial General Convention.  What follows are extracts from his tome and a few comments from Anglicans across the world, including TEC.  If you can’t struggle through all his words, at least read the blogger comments at the end of the report.

Issued two days ago the ABC’s letter is addressed to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion. Although it is typically long and sometimes rambling it is excerpted in the following paragraphs (The numbers refer to the numbered paragraphs in his letter which can be viewed in toto at www.anglicancommunion.org):

1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the…Episcopal Church that it does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25) [ordination of LGBT's] and (CO56) [the creating of liturgy for same-sex marriage] do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. …All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.

2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed.  …a significant minority of TEC bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion.
 
3. There are two points which I believe need to be reiterated and thought through further, and it seems to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury to try and articulate them

4. The first is to do with the arguments most often used against the moratoria relating to same-sex unions. Appeal is made to the fundamental human rights dimension of attitudes to LGBT people, and to the impossibility of betraying their proper expectations…

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.

6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity… It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions… that are seen as being… analogous to Christian marriage.

8.  …Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.  ...A person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond…  …their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.

9. …the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion's voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)

10. This is not a matter that can be wholly determined by what society at large considers usual or acceptable or determines to be legal. Prejudice and violence against LGBT people are sinful and disgraceful… …if the Church has echoed the harshness of the law and of popular bigotry – as it so often has done – and justified itself by pointing to what society took for granted, it has been wrong to do so. But on the same basis, if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.

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…  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.

15. ...This again has an ecumenical dimension when a global Christian body is involved in partnerships and discussions with other churches who will… want to know who now speaks for the body they are relating to…   The results of our ecumenical discussions are themselves important elements in shaping the theological vision within which we seek to resolve our own difficulties.

17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition

18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches. …It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities'.

19. As Anglicans, our membership of the Communion is an important part of our identity. However, some see this as best expressed in a more federalist and pluralist way. They would see this as the only appropriate language for a modern or indeed postmodern global fellowship of believers in which levels of diversity are bound to be high and the risks of centralisation and authoritarianism are the most worrying. …it is not the approach that has generally shaped the self-understanding of our Communion – less than ever in the last half-century, with new organs and instruments for the Communion's communication and governance and new enterprises in ecumenical co-operation.

20. The Covenant proposals of recent years have been a serious attempt to do justice to that aspect of Anglican history that has resisted mere federation. They seek structures that will express the need for mutual recognisability, mutual consultation and some shared processes of decision-making… They look to the possibility of a freely chosen commitment to sharing discernment (and also to a mutual respect for the integrity of each province, which is the point of the current appeal for a moratorium on cross-provincial pastoral interventions)…

22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited.  …there is… 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. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But 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 [TEC]. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.

24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency…

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 [TEC] declines such an invitation, any elements within it [TEC Dioceses] will be free 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.

26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. …but the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.

+ Rowan Cantuar:
From Lambeth Palace, Monday 27 July 2009

************

Is he acknowledging that the AC is broken and is now two separate churches?  Only time will tell…!

************

What do others think about this amazing tome?  What follows is a cross-section of such comments:   

From USA Today: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams forecasts a "two-track" model that could leave the U.S. branch of the Communion, the Episcopal Church, out of decisive roles and without standing as a representative voice in the 77-million-member global Anglican church.

The Episcopal Church News Service seems to simply review what the ABC said without commenting pro or con.
                                                                                                   
“Williams, who attended General Convention in Anaheim for the first two days and met with a cross section of the Episcopal Church, said in his July 27 reflections, "No one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the bishops and deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion."          
       
However, ‘Williams noted that a realistic assessment of what convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed.’

He was referring to the passage of two resolutions (D025 and C056) that focused on issues of human sexuality and the Episcopal Church's commitment to the Anglican Communion.      
                                                                                                   
The two presiding officers of General Convention wrote to Williams offering explanations of both resolutions. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson said they understand Resolution D025, in particular, to be ‘more descriptive than prescriptive in nature.’  
         
Regarding both resolutions, the presiding officers said: ‘It is not our desire to give offense. We remain keenly aware of the concerns and sensibilities of our brothers and sisters in other churches across the communion.
’                                                          
In his reflections, Williams said, ‘The statement that the resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.’"

From Fr. Dick Kim asking: Is this what is meant by “two integrities?” 

To which blogger Fr. GG comments: “One which helps to seek forgiveness of sin and restoration, and one which helps to seek condoning of sin and continuation.”
                                                     
Followed by Fr. Frank’s response, saying: “I quote what my daughter said about the authority of Holy Scripture versus the authority of “life experiences”, back in 2003: ‘We should be using the Word of God to change our lives, not using our lives to change the Word of God.’”
 
From a Fr Creighton: “So Williams is saying, ‘I’m with you Schori…Just a form of words to suggest TEC is a little bit hasty, but wrong, oh no.  The rest of the communion is just slow and dumb.’  I’ve kept saying Williams and Schori are allies.  Williams is not orthodox, does not support the orthodox and is 100% liberal to his core…  I’m just surprised he had the courage to show his heart so clearly.  It’s still an attempt to fudge.”

From a Fr Bob: “The covenant process is a joke as long as Williams is Archbishop.  …Williams has shown himself to thwart any discipline of TEC and gives a wink and a nod at every step.  Pray the Lord raises up a Churchill to succeed this Chamberlain…”

Posted by a ‘Summersnow’: “This is typical Williams fudge of the finest quality …I will admit  this is as close as he has ever come to saying that what TEC has done is not acceptable…  Ah the joy of Anglicanism.”                                                                                                             
And lastly, a Ralph Williams: “Is there nothing this man will not equivocate about?”

Rudy Schenken
Church of the Holy Communion, Dallas
www.holycommuniondallas.org
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it