At Episcopal Cafe: Dr. Poon on the Anglican Communion, Third Reflection

My newest piece is up today at Episcopal Cafe.  It is in fact my third reflection on Michael Poon’s paper on the Communion and Covenant, “The Anglican Communion as Communion of Churches: on the historic significance of the Anglican Covenant.”  Earlier posts are here and here.  As you will see in this last piece, I am no longer hopeful about the Anglican Communion in its current (already altered) form.  So, take a look and take some thought, and leave a comment.  This continues to be an important topic for us in the Episcopal Church, whatever happens with the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Covenant.

Dr. Poon on the Anglican Communion: Second Reflection

There’s a reason that I have styled these responses to Dr. Poon’s paper “reflections.” It is that I am not the scholar that Dr. Poon is (as kind as he’s been in his interest in my opinion), and his paper certainly deserves a proper scholarly response.

However, I also appreciate the value of responses that are thoughtful but not scholarly. For several years I was a member of the Internal Review Board in the hospital where I worked. While I developed over time some expertise in the informed consent process, the scientists made clear that they also appreciated “questions from ignorance.” Occasionally I did raise something they hadn’t thought about, but more often I helped them see what they needed to explain in greater detail.

With that in mind, several questions from ignorance have come to mind. The first is to look at the historical review. Dr. Poon begins at a familiar point: “Two ecclesial actions precipitated the present disputes. In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster decided to authorize services for same-sex unions. In 2003, the Episcopal Church (USA) appointed a priest in a committed same-sex relationship as one of its bishops.”

Beginning with those events makes some sense, but I wonder if others wouldn’t make just as much. For example, what might it have meant to begin with Lambeth 1998, and specifically with the events around Lambeth resolution 1998-1.10. This shaped the context within which subsequent events occurred. What might that context have looked like had a different report on human sexuality been presented? It has been reported that there was a report that was displaced by resolution 1.10. What might that context have looked like had all provincial/national churches actively engaged in the listening, assurances and pastoral ministry to gay and lesbian persons enjoined in items c. and d. of resolution 1.10? What might that context have looked like if no measure had been passed, and Resolution 64 of Lambeth 1988 were to stand, reaffirming a call from Lambeth 1978 (Resolution 10) for “deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research,” and in light of that calling for “each province to reassess, in the light of such study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation?” Interpretation of, and actions based on those interpretations of Lambeth 1.10 (both its content and its authority) would seem significant for understanding the import for the Communion of events of 2002 and 2003, as well as the Singapore ordinations and formation of the Anglican Mission in the Americas in 2000.

Here’s a second question. There are differences of opinion about the authority of the Windsor Report, and about the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group. Both were produced by bodies appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Windsor Report was received by the Primates Meeting at Dromantine, while the WCG Report was received by the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. However, there are also differences of opinion about the authority of the See of Canterbury and of the other Instruments. Indeed, Dr. Poon’s paper refers to differing views on Canterbury in paragraphs 21 and 22. These differences would also seem to affect understandings of the Windsor Report and the WCG Report as normative documents for the Communion.

It would seem to me that it is in fact a theological project – an ecclesiological project – to describe appropriately the authority of the See of Canterbury, as well as the other Instruments, in relation to the member churches. There have been numerous statements in Lambeth resolutions about the limitations of Lambeth, from the first meeting. A number of Archbishops of Canterbury, Rowan Williams included, have made clear their own senses of the limitations on their jurisdiction. It would seem a theological project, and not a management project, to determine and offer for reception understandings of the forms and limits of authority of the various Instruments.

That is, as Dr. Poon notes, the direction given by the Anglican Consultative Council to the Inter- Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO):

to undertake a study of the role and responsibility in the Communion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting; the ecclesiological rationale of each, and the relationships between them, in line with the Windsor Continuation Group Report (Resolution 14.09g)

Is there not, then, grounds to wait and see the results of this work, and to offer that for reception, as critical to understanding relations in the Communion generally, and the functions of the Instruments specifically? Would not this work offer our best or at least our first interpretive lens for the Covenant’s descriptions of the Instruments and their roles?

Now, Dr. Poon has a concern about the next resolution from the ACC meeting:

The Anglican Consultative Council, in the light of the Resolution 14.08 of ACC-14 on the WCG Report, asks that the report of the study undertaken by IASCUFO includes a study of the existing papers developed within our Communion and of current best practices in governance for multi-layered complex organizations, and makes recommendations to ACC-15 on ways in which the effectiveness of the Instruments of Communion may be enhanced. (Resolution 14.10)

His interpretation is that the theological project will be undermined if not actually displaced by a managerial treatise. He comments, ““Best practices” and “enhancement” are corporate-world speak. This Resolution took a managerial view of the instruments. But ecclesial deficit and corporate failing are two different matters altogether.” Granted; but perhaps the theological review and the managerial review are not mutually exclusive. It seems unlikely that the Communion will cease to be multi-layered and complex, whatever the results of the theological work. Even with this concern, wouldn’t our historic practices of reception within the Communion suggest waiting to see the IASCUFO report before dismissing it?

I’m sure I’ll have other questions from ignorance, but these seem like reasonable questions to start with.

Dr. Poon on the Anglican Communion: First Reflection

Many of us have seen the recent paper by Dr. Michael Poon of the Center for the Study of Christianity in Asia titled, “The Anglican Communion as Communion of Churches: on the historic significance of the Anglican Covenant.” It has certainly gotten attention, and perhaps especially among those in the Episcopal Church concerned about an Anglican covenant or about specifically the draft Anglican Covenant as we have received it. The title alone has caused some folks to wax eloquent – and sometimes to wax without much eloquence.

I had planned to read it anyway, but Dr. Poon was gracious enough to email me and encourage me to do so. I had left a comment at Thinking Anglicans, and he and I had exchanged emails before on other topics of Anglican interest, and I was flattered that he was interested in my comments. I stand by what I wrote at Thinking Anglicans, that while I disagree with him, I respect Dr. Poon. Among the theologians of the Anglican Global South I have always found him thoughtful and respectful of those with whom he disagrees, and truly interested in engagement and debate.

There are several facets in my reaction to his paper, but let me begin by differing with some of my colleagues among progressive Episcopalians and Anglicans: this is not per se a paper about the Anglican Covenant. The title is accurate: this is a paper about the ecclesial character and characteristics of the Anglican Communion. Dr. Poon argues that as an ecclesial body the Anglican Communion has an “ecclesial deficit,” one that would perhaps mean that the Communion is not a “communion” at all. He then argues that the draft Anglican Covenant as we have it before us now, or more accurately, I think, a particular interpretation of the draft Anglican Covenant, is a tool to remedy that deficit.

I think the best way to understand the “ecclesial deficit” as Dr. Poon sees it is to look at two statements. The first is a sentence that he has chosen from the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group:

The challenge remains for Anglicans to come to a common stance and acceptance of the authority which we will give to the instruments, structures and processes of the Communion which can lead to decisions that carry force in the life of the Churches of the Communion.

He then reflects further on this description of “communion:”

To be sure, all Anglican Churches are willing to belong to the Anglican Communion. That is not the issue if “communion” is merely a matter of social fellowship between autonomous churches. National councils of churches and even Protestant Christian World Communions are such instances of communion. “Instruments of consultation” would do for these forms of fellowship. They are sufficient for fostering spiritual and social bonds of affection. What WCG has in mind is whether the Anglican Communion is at the verge of a historic decision. Are the Anglican Churches that are “in communion” with one another able to affirm they are indeed a Communion of Churches with one ecclesial identity?

So, the evidence of “ecclesial deficit” is that the Anglican Communion does not have “one ecclesial identity” expressed in “decisions that carry force for the life of the Churches of the Communion.”

Dr. Poon leans heavily on this section of the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group. I have commented before on that part of the Report, as well as on the related language of “separated Churches and communities… [that] we believe… suffer from defects” in the declaration Dominus Iesus written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (and now, of course, Benedict XVI). Critical in appreciating what Dr. Poon (and cited in his paper) is this from the WCG Report:

To be a communion, as opposed to a federation or association, is fundamentally to acknowledge that the fellowship of Churches is not a human construct; it is the gracious gift of God. Churches are enabled to live in communion because they recognise one another as truly an expression of the One Church of Jesus Christ.

We are all conscious, I think, of our various (and often confused and confusing) uses of the term “communion.” In this instance, the WCG has a specific approach in mind, as raised in the next paragraph:

The question of the limits of diversity becomes acute when major differences arise in the life of the communion of the Churches which concern the faith, order or moral life of the Communion. It is then that Anglicans need a common understanding of how together, in communion, they can, guided by the Spirit, discern and decide together. What are the sources that need to be brought to bear on any issue? What are the structures through which discernment takes place? What is the nature of their authority to guide discernment, to speak the mind of the Communion and even to request restraint while open reception takes place and the Churches of the Communion come to discover the mind of Christ for them?

“What are the structures, and what is the nature of their authority?” So, for the WCG, and by his usage for Dr. Poon, authoritative structures are essential for the Anglican Communion to truly be a Communion of churches.

In that light, the language of Dominus Iesus becomes helpful. Let me return to the paragraph cited in my earlier post.

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

This is helpful in two ways. First, it emphasizes that the Church of Rome sees its authoritative structures as not “a human construct.” They are continuous from the time of Peter, established by the primacy of Peter (as Rome understands it), and formed and sustained by the will of God. Second, the model envisioned in the WCG Report (and consistent with the intent of Archbishop Williams), and supported in Dr. Poon’s paper, is for the Anglican Communion to be recognizable as a “true particular church” (what we might style a church whose defects are minor). I don’t know that anyone would consider that an attainable goal, as Rome continues to deny Anglican participation in the historic episcopate. That hasn’t changed since the Leo XIII, and has recently been reaffirmed, once again by Cardinal Ratzinger prior to his elevation. However, to have authoritative structures that can speak with one voice, in no small part because consistency (if not absolute conformity) is enforceable, is the model.

To me, this presents a previous question. Do we as Anglicans really want to affirm this Roman image of structures that are not a human construct? That seems in itself ahistorical in general, and denial of our Reformation history in particular. A significant part of the Reformers’ critique was that Roman structures and concepts, and especially the authority of the Papacy, were significantly if not entirely human, distortions of the models in Scripture and the experience of the early Church.

It also seems counter to the Anglican tradition of incarnational theology; for arguably it is only in our life in Christ, empowered by the Spirit, that we are able to come together in fellowship. I would hesitate to see that as somehow dependent on structure, much less a particular structure.  Nor would I want to suggest that particular structures would constitute a significant hindrance to the movement of the Spirit, even though some would certainly seem to us more or less conducive.

That question, I think, shines a different light on Dr. Poon’s comments that this “ecclesial deficit” is neither “an oversight” nor “an accident.” Certainly, our current structures and relationships are not continuations of imperial structures, whether Roman or British (or Asian: I have some further thoughts about the contexts in which the Holy Catholic Churches of China, Japan, and Korea were established). However, I would ask if it were not the case that our roots in the Reformation, and especially the English Reformation, included turning away from imperial structures as models for unity. Is that not for us related to Hooker looking for his models not to the Imperial Roman Church after Constantinian but to the pre-Imperial Church just prior, with the faith of the Church taking shape between the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. If I recall my history correctly, that period was much more open, and much less structured than the Roman Church would become once it was the religion of the Empire.

Arguably, it was also remarkably creative. I might wonder whether we would be better served in our current differences to continue discussing rather than to recapitulate structures of the past. Certainly, I can follow Dr. Poon’s argument that his articulation of the draft Anglican Covenant could provide authoritative structures (although I think his interpretation of the functions of the Instruments goes well beyond the text). I can see how the draft Anglican Covenant as we have it might produce an institution closer to the Roman idea of a “true particular church.” I’m not convinced, however, that such a structure would be faithful to our Anglican heritage and experience. Would it better pass on “the faith once delivered to the saints?” Perhaps, although I’m not sure; for our Reformation ancestors weren’t convinced it worked for Rome. From a question of mission, would it serve? It might serve ecumenically for recognition from Rome and Constantinople (although current issues of the Roman view still remain). However, would it be flexible enough, creative enough to respond to the cultural dynamics of a changing world? Once again, our Reformation ancestors weren’t convinced for Rome; nor were our more immediate ancestors so convinced for the British Empire, for they chose to recognize national and regional churches instead of continuing as the Church of England in diverse places.

One of the last statements from Clarence Pope, sometime Episcopal Bishop of Fort Worth, was that “the Catholic experiment in Anglicanism has failed.” Dr. Poon’s reflection has logic, even if I don’t find it compelling. However, it is consistent with what Archbishop Williams and his structures press for, and with the wishes of many Anglican leaders around the globe. This model may prevail; in which case Clarence Pope may well have spoken too soon.

For Generosity to Result in Sacrifice: the Conversation Grows

It looks like others have thought of this independently, and are starting to talk about it.  Adrian Worsfield at the Pluralist has made his suggestion here.  He stimulated further reflection from Mark Harris at Preludium here.

I must admit I do feel in good company.

For Generosity to Result in Sacrifice (Updated)

A long time ago, when I was a young priest, I was heavily involved in working with youth. I was especially involved when the Diocese of West Tennessee separated from the Diocese of Tennessee.

At that time, there were a number of young people who had been active at the diocesan level, in a diocese that had encompassed the whole state. They felt closely connected to other kids across the diocese, sometimes more than to other kids in their own parishes. When the new diocese was formed, many of them felt things would go on as before. They wanted to share their new diocese, but they wanted to share it by inviting kids from across the state to events in the new diocese.

Several of us priests who were working with the kids talked among ourselves, and made a different decision. We instead cancelled events for a season, from the time General Convention approved the new diocese until after the first bishop had been elected. Essentially, we stopped things for the better part of an academic year. A number of the young people were furious, but we felt this was important. For the new youth community to form for the new diocese, the old had to end. There had to be a death of sorts so that there could be new life.

I have been contemplating the Lambeth Conference, and all that has been said and written. Two matters have hung with me. One has been the reports of bishops in other parts of the world telling our bishops that our decision for full participation of lesbian and gay Christians in the life of the Church, including both the election, confirmation, and ordination of Bishop Robinson and also seeking to acknowledge the capacity of same sex couples to demonstrate in their relationships the fruits of the Spirit, has brought sibling Anglicans into disrepute and sometimes to physical harm in their own cultures. We have often said in essence, “Surely we are not so important that anyone outside our own family will know or care.” We have despaired of the association in other parts of the world of American Episcopalians with the unpopular foreign policy decisions of the United States. The message we have heard from some places in the Communion is that, like it or not, people outside the family do notice and care, and do associate us with our elected officials, and Anglican siblings, not to mention Anglican mission, suffer.

The second matter has been discussion of “generosity” that would lead to “sacrifice.” These have been loaded words. The questions have been articulated clearly in a number of places: who should sacrifice; and what should they sacrifice? By the end of Lambeth, the central examples were the three moratoria, referenced back to the Windsor Report but repeated so often since: a moratorium on ordaining as bishops partnered homosexual clergy; a moratorium on blessing the commitments of same sex couples (whether formally or informally); and a moratorium on one bishop crossing into the diocese of another to “rescue” without consent of the diocesan. In one sense, each of these is an institutional decision. However, each also represents individual Christians, clergy and lay, seeking to make faithful decisions, and finding in one moratorium or another disparaging of their experience of life in Christ.

In many ways, this continues my reflection, published elsewhere, on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Second Presidential Address. In it he raised the concept of generosity in seeking to understand two voices:

Two sets of feelings and perceptions, two appeals for generosity. For the first speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusation of compromise : you’ve been bought, you’ve been deceived by airy talk into tolerating unscriptural and unfaithful policies. For the second speaker, the cost of generosity may be accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity, giving up a precious Anglican principle for the sake of a dangerous centralisation. But there is the challenge. If both were able to hear and to respond generously, perhaps we could have something more like a conversation of equals — even something more like a Church.

With that in mind, this was how he ended that address:

At the moment, we seem often to be threatening death to each other, not offering life. What some see as confused or reckless innovation in some provinces is felt as a body-blow to the integrity of mission and a matter of literal physical risk to Christians. The reaction to this is in turn felt as an annihilating judgement on a whole local church, undermining its legitimacy and pouring scorn on its witness. We need to speak life to each other; and that means change. I’ve made no secret of what I think that change should be — a Covenant that recognizes the need to grow towards each other (and also recognizes that not all may choose that way). I find it hard at present to see another way forward that would avoid further disintegration. But whatever your views on this, at least ask the question : ‘Having heard the other person, the other group, as fully and fairly as I can, what generous initiative can I take to break through into a new and transformed relation of communion in Christ?’

In my earlier reflection on this, I noted that “The most important “facts on the ground” were created by God. They are the men and women whom we might serve, to whom we might reach out, and whom we might invite into our midst.” I stand by this. With that in mind, I cannot simply discount the news that, in opposition to us, some would do harm to our Anglican siblings. I won’t go so far as to say their blood is on our hands; but neither can we ignore that they experience risk from association with us.

By the same token, I cannot discount the real risk to lesbian and gay persons in our midst, in these United States and elsewhere. I cannot discount the real harm done by some persons calling themselves Christians who speak at best dismissively of, and at worst inciting harm to, the lives lesbian and gay persons. We are criticized for seeing their inclusion in our life together as an expression in our generation of the prophets’ call for justice, and of Jesus’ call for service to “the least of these my siblings.” Even Archbishop Williams noted that “welcome” and not “inclusion” was the critical Gospel virtue. However, “welcome” exceeds “inclusion” as “acceptance” exceeds “tolerance.” We are less than welcoming unless and until we are ready to share with them the best of our life, as Abraham did with three strangers.

So, if we are to consider what sacrifice we might accept to demonstrate our generosity, I cannot see how we can sacrifice those most important “facts on the ground,” those Christian souls at risk. I cannot imagine sacrificing the lives either of our GLBT siblings or of our Anglican siblings in other places who are threatened because of our radical Gospel welcome. We Episcopalians are asked to sacrifice from our life together, not as individuals, but as a whole Church; and the response, the generous gift, has to be a sacrifice of the whole Church.

Therefore, I think we need to consider by our own choice how we might sacrifice our position in the Anglican Communion. I don’t mean by that simply declaring ourselves out of communion with Canterbury and walking away. I do mean, however, acknowledging that it is because of our full participation in the Anglican Communion that brothers and sisters are at risk, whether at home or abroad, and proposing some alteration in that relationship. Some have worried about discussions of a “two-tier” Communion, once again dating back to the Windsor Report. Many have worried that the Covenant process so dear to Archbishop Williams will have that result at best. At the same time, making an effort to describe such a “second-tier” status, and embracing it as an expression of our generosity, would seem to me a reasonable consideration.

What might that mean? Perhaps continued “observer” status with the Anglican Consultative Council; perhaps choosing to limit our participation in such bodies as the Covenant Drafting Group, or in ecumenical discussions. I’m honestly not sure what ultimately such a position might look like, but I think we can offer ways in which we might be visible and listening, without asserting rights or power.

I think it would also be important to offer this out of our generosity, instead of as an expression of penance. However little attention some may have paid, we have expressed publicly and privately our sorrow that our decision, made in the best faith we had, has caused such division and even risk within the Communion. Moreover, I think those critics are right who say that we aren’t penitent of the decision itself. How shall we repent of a decision that so many of us consider rooted in the Gospel?

Last year several different voices, mine included, suggested that American bishops might choose not to attend this Lambeth Conference. That several different folks from several different places in these discussions each independently had this thought seemed to me to make it worth considering. One reason I made that suggestion was much like my reason for my suggestion today: “It would include our understanding that this was not rejection of the Communion, that we were choosing to ‘fast for a season,’ and not to ‘walk apart.’” Others might also think of this suggestion, for reasons of their own. If so, let’s talk about it.

I think we as the Episcopal Church can and should consider how indeed we might sacrifice to demonstrate our generosity (I’ll let Canadians consider whether this might or might not make sense for them.). That is certainly grounded in Scripture. I don’t quite know what that might look like. I do, however, believe strongly that whatever we might sacrifice, it can’t be the persons at risk, whether at home or abroad.

UPDATE, 8/14/08: Today at Preludium Mark Harris notes, among other things, that in her presentation last year to the House of Bishops on the work of the Covenant Design Group Professor Katherine Grieb proposed "a five-year period of fasting from full participation in the Anglican Communion to give us all time to think and to listen more carefully to one another." While I didn't have this particularly in mind, I do imagine I did read this then, and I'm happy to give credit (and thanks to Mark for the reminder). This was, of course, before Lambeth. I think the actual events and outcomes of Lambeth do make this worth considering again.

Once Again at Episcopal Cafe

My newest piece is once again up at Episcopal Cafe. You can read it here. It is my reaction to Archbishop Rowan Williams' Second Presidential Address at Lambeth. I hope you'll take the time to read, and as you feel moved to respond.

And, once again, when you're at the Cafe, look around at the many other notable posts and news items. There's much to appreciate at the Cafe, and we hope many will do just that.

The Morning After: Lambeth Hangover

It’s the Monday morning after, and we’re all going to have something of a Lambeth hangover. I think that will be especially true for the bishops as they travel home, and for the many people who provided staff support (whether paid or volunteer). Still, to some extent it will also be true for us in that small but unique chattering class, the Anglican/Episcopal blogger.

I continue to have concerns, and will speak to those in detail as time goes on. However, I think what we can say about this Lambeth is that “it” didn’t happen. Indeed, it sort of doesn’t matter what “it” one expected; for there were several. But, as far as we can tell, “it” didn’t happen at Lambeth.

First and foremost, the Anglican Communion didn’t shatter. Granted, something like a quarter of the bishops of the Communion boycotted it, and a handful were un- or disinvited. However, matters didn’t become worse at Lambeth, and may not even have been made worse by Lambeth – at least by Lambeth solely or exclusively. If one expected this would be the end of the world as we know it, or at least of the Anglican world as we know it, “it” didn’t happen.

Bishops weren’t notable for their grandstanding. There were a few, as will surprise no one, as well as a few activists prowling the margins. However, they were few, and what grandstanding happened was kept out of official events. If one expected Lambeth to become a bully pulpit for the most strident voices, “it” didn’t happen.

The American church and the Canadian church weren’t expelled. True, because of the agenda and format few really expected that; but there were a few who hoped. Indeed, by and large American and Canadian bishops reported hearing and being heard beyond anything in previous experiences and for many beyond their expectations. If one expected a definitive purging of the “innovators” from the Communion, “it” didn’t happen.

Global South voices were heard, both in public and in private. Once again, that might have happened far beyond the expectations of those bishops. Yes, once again that quarter of the bishops boycotted. At the same time, there were many more who attended who agreed with the boycotters on virtually everything except the boycott. They certainly had their opportunities to share their concerns, both to other bishops and to the media. If one expected a “colonial” suppression of Global South voices by the mother churches, “it” didn’t happen.

Sadly, too, it appears that minds weren’t moved much on issues either of ordination of women or of full participation in the life of the Church of gay and lesbian Christians. Despite good efforts by American and Canadian bishops, and by events on the Fringe, gay and lesbian Christians weren’t listened to, even within the limited expectations one might expect considering Archbishop Williams’ commitment to Lambeth or the apparent continued acceptance of Lambeth 1.10 which called for listening explicitly. If one hoped for enough of a hearing to change some hearts, it looks like “it” didn’t happen.

No decisions were made, and no definitive statements were issued. Yes, there is a report; but it is largely a reiteration of “this is what various people said.” It wasn’t intended to express “the mind of the Communion,” but simply to note the breadth of agreement where there was agreement, and diversity of opinions where there wasn’t. If one expected clear statements on the current mind or the future decisions of the Communion, “it” didn’t happen.

Specifically, no Covenant was released, agreed by the majority of the bishops and prepared for the process of reception throughout the Communion. Two groups, the Covenant Design Group and the Windsor Continuation Group, got a lot of input and feedback; but even their final reports won’t be out until they’re considered next year by the Anglican Consultative Council. If one expected the Covenant would be produced, “it” didn’t happen.

What did happen, perhaps, was that the relational nature of the Communion was honored. Bishops have already written in many places that in the Indaba groups and in Bible study voices were heard, lives were shared, and relationships were built or rebuilt. I believe Archbishop Williams when he says there is a broad commitment to the Communion. It sounds like things were respectful, and that may result in more mutual respect.

It remains to be seen, however, whether this will result in a renewal of the Anglican-Communion-as-we-have-known- it, or will simply delay the restructuring of the Communion into several smaller bodies, more tightly linked within themselves and only loosely linked to one another. Personally, I find Archbishop Williams’ evident commitment to more centralized structures of authority troubling. However, I think the new and renewed relationships among bishops are valuable in and of themselves, and trust that God can use all of this for mission in our Anglican fields, and ultimately for union of the Body of Christ.

But if this becomes only a pause, only a gracious moment that doesn’t change the terms of the argument – not unlike that famous Christmas Day in World War I - we won’t be better off in the long run. We can’t be sanguine about meeting again in 2018; and as for Lambeth 2008, it will be as if “it” didn’t happen.

Things May Be Better Off Than We Had Feared

This past Friday I wrote about the Second Report from the Windsor Continuation Group, and their suggestion that the Communion might benefit from a “Faith and Order Commission.” All the Reports of the WCG are now available on line, including the Third Report, which includes a suggestion for a “Pastoral Forum.”

With my concerns, I was interested to see this comment by Bishop Christopher Epting, retired of Iowa and Ecumenical Officer for the Episcopal Church. He’s in Lambeth, and he has more experience in these discussions than I, so I found his perception of the Faith and Order Commission meaningful and reassuring.

I have no real problem with the Communion-wide “Faith and Order Commission.” It is not intended (as the press had said) to be like the Vatican “Holy Office” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) with all kinds of powers to censure and discipline. It is simply the rolling together of the current International Anglican Doctrinal Commission and the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations (upon which I serve).

I don’t think merging them is a great idea — there is more than enought theological and ecumenical work for both Commissions — but this has been a done deal for some time, partly because of the cost of both Commissions. We need some kind of clearing house to which to refer matters of doctrine and discipline for discussion. The fact that we have not had such a thing in the past is why The Episcopal Church did not do more “consultation” in matters theological dealing with issues of human sexuality years ago.

He goes on to say, on the other hand

The suggested ”Pastoral Forum” is more problematic. It’s to be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and serve as an advisory group to the various Provinces when there are internal disputes and difficulties which affect the whole Communion. Such schemes have been tried (or at least floated) in recent years and have always failed. I’m not sure why this one will have any greater chance of success.

The WCG report described the Pastoral Forum idea in some detail, but the essential points are that the Pastoral Forum would “engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion;” and “would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the Communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report.”

I might have had more concern myself about the “Pastoral Forum,” if someone hadn’t noted how much it seemed like the Panel of Reference. In fact, does the WCG Report specifically connect it to the Panel of Reference, but it’s composition is much the same. Members would be appointed by and report to the Archbishop of Canterbury (oddly, the Report speaks both of the Archbishop as “President,” of an “episcopal chair” that he would appoint). It would be intended for consultation, and members could travel to meet with those concerned in disagreements.

In any case, and again, I do find the connection and similarity to the Panel of Reference does lower my blood pressure somewhat. Last year, I made the following comments about the work of the Panel of Reference:

• The Panel of Reference has established a history of recognizing the institutional, provincial integrity of the Episcopal Church...

• The Panel has established a pattern, in what few results we have from them, of preferring a return to established institutional boundaries while efforts at reconciliation are pursued. This pattern, expressed explicitly in this report, would strongly encourage maintaining within the Episcopal Church those dioceses and congregations that have sought to leave, at least until the Panel responds.

• The Panel has also established a pattern of withholding consideration while issues are being pursued in civil courts. With their preference for maintenance of the status quo ante, this would maintain real property within institutions of the Episcopal Church, again at least until recommendations were received...

• As the Panel is a creature of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he could hardly ignore the Panel’s recommendations. Neither, I think, could he issue any sort of “peremptory judgment” while the Panel consideration was in process (including excluding American bishops from Lambeth).

We might consider any Pastoral Forum in that light. A forum for consultation, with members that would respect the traditional respect within the Communion for provincial differences and local needs, would be much preferable to the juridical process in the Appendix to the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican Covenant.

Of course, we don’t know how this will shake out. Indeed, we won’t really know until these matters – the final reports of both the Windsor Continuation Group and the Covenant Drafting Committee - are presented next year to the Anglican Consultative Council. But while we wait, as ready as we are to challenge unreasonable ideas, we should also be ready to consider at least ideas that might turn out in their implementation to be reasonable after all.

It's Still Not Safe

I am shocked and saddened today by the violent attack yesterday at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville is my home town; and growing up I knew well peers and families who worshipped in that congregation.

One point we need to note: according to reports today, the shooter left a letter in his vehicle before beginning his assault. In it, he expressed his rage at "the liberal movement." In an interview, the Knoxville Police Chief was asked whether the letter spoke of "the liberal movement" in general, or also specifically of GLBT persons and civil rights. His answer: "Both."

In these United States, the Unitarian Universalist Association is well associated with civil rights for all persons, including GLBT persons. So now is the Episcopal Church, if somewhat later and more slowly. It didn't happen in one of our churches; but it certainly could have.

Perhaps this is something that our Episcopal bishops can relate to other Anglican bishops in Lambeth: that while it is less unsafe to support civil rights for GLBT persons, it is not safe (much less to actually be a GLBT person; but that's something that they teach us, not something they need to learn). While some parts of the United States are more tolerant (often, I fear, in a 1960's sort of "some of my best friends are..." manner), many parts of the United States are not. Our belief that our GLBT siblings are as fully in Christ, and as fully redeemed as the rest of us, is quite countercultural in much of these United States (if not as markedly so as in their cultures).

Perhaps this is something that our Episcopal bishops can relate to other Anglican bishops in Lambeth - if any will listen....

What Ever Rowan Wants.... (Updated)

We’re all waiting today to hear more detail about the second report released today at Lambeth by the Windsor Continuation Group. Ruth Gledhill reports on it here and comments on it here, and Jim Naughton does both here at Episcopal Café.

The gist of the report is to recommend an effort at centralization and another at standardization (a distinction I note because the second supports the first but doesn’t require it; while the first certainly requires the second).

The effort at standardization would be further work of the group examining canon law across the Communion to release what Gledhill describes as “a ‘blueprint’ of canon law,” a step short of a single “code of canon law,” but certainly a tool for consistency. I suppose, like so much else, the result would depend on the extent to which the report might embrace variations in process and variations in content. If it were instead to be simply a tool to build from the “blueprint” a “code” of canon law, it would be something different – something of what Gledhill describes as “a fifth ‘instrument of communion.’”

The effort at centralization is more explicit. According to Gledhill, the report says, "We commend the suggestion for the setting up of an Anglican Communion Faith and Order Commission that could give guidance on the ecclesiological issues raised by our current crisis." Were this to be an arena for further discussion and listening, I suppose it could be useful. If instead it were to become an Anglican equivalent to the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition), defining by content the limits of the Anglican tradition, once again it would be something quite different from the Anglican tradition as we have known it.

Where would we find support for such an effort? According to Naughton,

"It is a flag raised to see who salutes at this stage," said the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. "I think there is a kind of head of steam behind [it], said Williams, adding that he was "quite enthusiastic" about the proposal.

He said without additional governing structures "we shall be flying further apart."

"There have to be protocols and conventions by which we recognize one another as churches," Williams added.

The last statement says a lot to me. I have written before of my convinction that Archbishop Williams would like to have a Communion more like what the Roman Catholic Church would officially recognize as “a church” (as opposed to a “defective ecclesiastical structure,” as they see us now). These efforts, sustained by strengthening of the Primates and weakening of the Anglican Consultative Council (something else that the Windsor Continuation Group supports), might well accomplish that, but at the expense of the Anglican Communion, not only as we have known it but as we thought it might shape up post-GAFCON.

Here’s how that shapes up for me. The Episcopal Church and some fellow-travelers will not embrace an Anglo-catholic centralized structure any more than we will embrace an Evangelical centralized structure, a la GAFCON/FOCA. However, neither will the GAFCON/FOCA types embrace the new Anglo-catholic structure just because it’s centralized. A new content-oriented approach will fail because ++Williams et al will still represent and be open to a progressive Western culture far more than the GAFCON/FOCA folks will find acceptable. The new Anglo-catholic centralists will likely be too sacramental and too focused on tradition to be comfortable with the sola scriptura crowd.

As a result, this will really only aggravate the divisiveness within the Communion, and especially within the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Australia, and, critically, within the Church of England. The Evangelicals won’t come back; the Latitudinarians will leave; and structural Anglo-catholics will wonder what happened. In the meantime, in those cultural contexts the churches of the Anglican tradition will only look weaker, meaner, and less consequential.

As I said, we need to wait for more – preferably, to see the document itself. However, these first reports suggest that in the interests of stability the Windsor Continuation Group will actually stimulate fragmentation. ++Williams would indeed have his “church,” perhaps; but it will be a lot smaller than he would hope.

Update: Matt Kennedy has offered his transcription of the Group's verbal presentation here.  Anglican Mainstream has it here.  It is all that we've already heard, and more....

I'm Sorry- They Said What?

On the web site Covenant, Andrew Goddard has posted an extensive critical analysis of the recent documents posted as responses from GAFCON primates to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the St. Andrew's Draft of the Anglican Covenant. It is well worth reading, and while it makes no judgement of where or how, demonstrates that, in those statements at least, something is seriously wrong.

While it is not where he wanted to end up, when he considers the problems with the documents in question, this is his determination:

These conclusions point fairly inexorably to the sad conclusion that the GAFCON movement, although it may talk about its commitment to the Communion and its reform and may appear to have given support to the established Windsor and covenant processes, seems determined to pursue its own agenda on its own terms and to weaken and undermine the wider Communion if it believes that it will not get from it exactly what it wants.

There is a Sufi teaching story. A man once came to the Mullah Nasruddin. "Mullah," he said, "let me borrow your clothesline."

"I can't," said the Mullah. "I'm using it to dry flour."

The man looked shocked. "You can't dry flour on a clothesline. That's hardly a good reason not to lend it to me."

Said the Mullah, "Since I didn't want to lend it anyway, it's reason enough."

Perhaps, deep in the heart of the GAFCON movement, some want to tell that story again.

Wordplay at Episcopal Cafe

My latest post is up at Episcopal Cafe. I've been thinking about the words we use - and right now, especially at Lambeth, the words we use are very important indeed.

Anglican Catechism in Outline: the Final Report

The Final Report of the Global South Anglican Theological Formation and Education Task Force has now been published, just in time for Lambeth. While I have not had time to read through the final report, there don't appear to have been significant changes. One additional illustration has been added; and as I have said before, these should be helpful to us in understanding the circumstances faced by our sibling Anglicans in other parts of the Communion.

You can read my comments on the Interim Report here, here, here, and here; and a summary here.

(And thanks to Mark Harris at Preludium for catching this.)

What Lambeth Has Said on Health Care (2)

You can read part 1 here.

The next two Lambeth Conferences were notable in that they marked a significant change in some of the positions of Anglican bishops on some health issues. More to the point, there was a significant change between 1920 and 1930.

The 1920 Lambeth Conference itself demonstrated little change in health issues from the 1908 Conference. While the was moved from issues of foreign missions to “Social and Industrial Questions,” the 1920 Lambeth continued to address “the evils of drink:”

Resolution 79
Social and Industrial Questions
The Conference notes with deep interest the prohibition by the will of the people of the sale and manufacture of intoxicating drinks in the Republic of the United States of America, and of their sale in most of the provinces of Canada, and commends this action to the earnest and sympathetic attention of the Christian Church throughout the world. The Conference urges members of the Church in other countries:
1. to support such legislation as will lead to a speedy reduction in the use of intoxicants;
2. to recognise the duty of combating the evil of intemperance by personal example and willing self-sacrifice.

More issues related to health were once again considered around issues of marriage. Indeed, the number of resolutions related to marriage grew from ten in 1908 to twelve in 1920. Moreover, there was no significant change in perspective. For example, the resolution in opposition to birth control, and implicitly to abortion, was expanded.

Resolution 68
Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference, while declining to lay down rules which will meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostile to the family. We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control.

We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian people and to all who will hear.

There were new concerns raised. A series of resolutions addressed concerns both personal and social: venereal disease, appropriate preventive education for young persons, and what we might call today the “sexualization of the culture:”

Resolution 69
Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference, moved by responsible statements from many nations as to the prevalence of venereal diseases, bringing suffering, paralysis, insanity, or death to many thousands of the innocent as well as the guilty, supports all efforts which are consistent with high moral standards to check the causes of the diseases and to treat and, if possible, cure the victims. We impress upon the clergy and members of the Church the duty of joining with physicians and public authorities in meeting this scourge, and urge the clergy to guide those who turn to them for advice with knowledge, sympathy, and directness. The Conference must condemn the distribution or use, before exposure to infection, of so-called prophylactics, since these cannot but be regarded as an invitation to vice.

Resolution 70
Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference urges the importance of enlisting the help of all high-principled men and women, whatever be their religious beliefs, in co-operation with or, if necessary, in bringing pressure to bear upon, authorities both national and local, for removing such incentives to vice as indecent literature, suggestive plays and films, the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels.

Resolution 71
Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
With regard to the education of the young in matters of sex, the Conference presses upon parents that the duty of giving right teaching on these subjects rests primarily with them, and that it is the duty of all persons giving such instruction to prepare themselves for this responsible task. Boys and girls should be guarded against the danger of acquiring knowledge of sexual subjects from wrong persons and in wrong ways.

Resolution 72
Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
Bearing in remembrance the example of our Lord, and the prominent place that he gave in his ministry to protecting the weak and raising the fallen, the Conference deplores the common apathy of Church people in regard to preventive and rescue work*, and urges on bishops, clergy, and all Christian people the duty of taking a more active share in this essential part of the Church's life.
*That is, in relation to sexual delinquency.

However, between 1920 and 1930 something happened. Once again, there are twelve resolutions on marriage and family life. However, that there has been a change of perspective is clear from the first such resolution:

Resolution 9
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
The Conference believes that the conditions of modern life call for a fresh statement from the Christian Church on the subject of sex. It declares that the functions of sex as a God-given factor in human life are essentially noble and creative. Responsibility in regard to their right use needs the greater emphasis in view of widespread laxity of thought and conduct in all these matters.

And the reason for the change is clear in the second:

Resolution 10
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
The Conference believes that in the exalted view of marriage taught by our Lord is to be found the solution of the problems with which we are faced. His teaching is reinforced by certain elements which have found a new emphasis in modern life, particularly the sacredness of personality, the more equal partnership of men and women, and the biological importance of monogamy.

A turn is visible in the understanding of marriage expressed at Lambeth.

Resolution 13
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
The Conference emphasises the truth that sexual instinct is a holy thing implanted by God in human nature. It acknowledges that intercourse between husband and wife as the consummation of marriage has a value of its own within that sacrament, and that thereby married love is enhanced and its character strengthened. Further, seeing that the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children, it believes that this purpose as well as the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control should be the governing considerations in that intercourse.

Now the “sexual instinct is a holy thing implanted by God in human nature;” and while procreation continues to be “the primary purpose for which marriage exists,” it is also true that “intercourse between husband and wife… has a value of its own within that sacrament.”

This difference is also seen in the discussion of birth control.

Resolution 15
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Where in 1920 “unnatural means for the avoidance of conception” reflected “theories and practices hostile to the family.,” and fraught with “grave dangers,” now it could be permissible “where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood… provided that this is done in the light of… Christian principles.” The suggestion that there might be “Christian principles” for “limiting or avoiding parenthood” is in itself new (although said principles are not explicitly stated in the resolution).

Clearly, however, there continue to be Christian principles for not using contraceptices:

Resolution 17
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
While the Conference admits that economic conditions are a serious factor in the situation, it condemns the propaganda which treats conception control as a way of meeting those unsatisfactory social and economic conditions which ought to be changed by the influence of Christian public opinion.

Resolution 18
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Sexual intercourse between persons who are not legally married is a grievous sin. The use of contraceptives does not remove the sin. In view of the widespread and increasing use of contraceptives among the unmarried and the extention of irregular unions owing to the diminution of any fear of consequences, the Conference presses for legislation forbidding the exposure for sale and the unrestricted advertisement of contraceptives, and placing definite restrictions upon their purchase.

So, contraceptives are not appropriate either for the social good of reducing poverty nor for private use outside of marriage.

Proper education of youth about sex and relationships is important, but in light of the new perspective so is education of clergy:

Resolution 12
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
In all questions of marriage and sex the Conference emphasises the need of education. It is important that before the child's emotional reaction to sex is awakened, definite information should be given in an atmosphere of simplicity and beauty. The persons directly responsible for this are the parents, who in the exercise of this responsibility will themselves need the best guidance that the Church can supply.

During childhood and youth the boy or the girl should thus be prepared for the responsibilities of adult life; but the Conference urges the need of some further preparation for those members of the Church who are about to marry.
To this end the Conference is convinced that steps ought to be taken:
1. to secure a better education for the clergy in moral theology;
2. to establish, where they do not exist, in the various branches of the Anglican Communion central councils which would study the problems of sex from the Christian standpoint and give advice to the responsible authorities in diocese or parish of theological college as to methods of approach and lines of instruction;
3. to review the available literature and to take steps for its improvement and its circulation.

Some things, of course, did not change. Abortion was explicitly rejected, while social workers and others who address social consequences of these issues are praised.

However, a change was clear, one that begins to sound more familiar to us today. The attitude toward sexual expression was changing, from something inherently fallen, tolerated in marriage for procreation, to something still intended for marriage but a good and healthy gift of God. While procreation was still the “primary” purpose for marriage, we began to see appreciation of the partnership in marriage, and the sexual component of marriage as formative for that partnership. These changes will continue to evolve in future Lambeth Conferences.

What Lambeth Has Said on Health Care (1)

One of the original purposes of this blog was to consider actions of General Convention related to health care. With that in mind, and seeing an opportunity that won’t come around for another ten years. I thought I would look into what had come out of Lambeth Conferences related to health care. Blessedly, actions from past Lambeth Conferences are available on line. You can start here, and see for yourself what Anglican Bishops have said in Lambeths past.

The first resolution of Lambeth that appears to have addressed an issue in health care was passed at the third Lambeth in 1888. It the first resolution passed that year. It was short, and to the point: “That this Conference, without pledging itself to all the statements and opinions embodied in the Report of the Committee on Intemperance, commends the Report to the consideration of the Church.” Unfortunately, the Archives on line do not have the Report of the Committee on Intemperance. However, knowing the tenor of the times (this was the heyday of the Temperance Movement in the United States, and the early days of the Salvation Army in both Great Britain and the United States), we can safely infer that it addressed “the evils of drink.” It is of interest that the bishops commended the Report for consideration “without pledging… to all the statements and opinions embodied in the Report….”

The next such resolution appeared in 1897, and was similar: “That this Conference desires to give expression to its deep sense of the evils resulting from the drink traffic on the west coast of Africa and elsewhere, and of the hindrance which it presents not only to the development of native Churches, but also to the acceptance of Christianity by heathen tribes.” Granted, the health effects among “the drink traffic on the west coast of Africa and elsewhere” were not the only, and perhaps not the primary concern. However, they were certainly included.

A second resolution in 1897 was also of interest to a chaplain.

Where difficulties arise in regard to the administration of Holy Communion to the sick, we recommend that these difficulties should be left to be dealt with by the bishop of each diocese in accordance with the direction contained in the preface to the Prayer Book of the Church of England "Concerning the Service of the Church"; And forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same; to appease all such diversity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts, concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this Book; the parties that so doubt, or diversely take any thing, shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book. And if the Bishop of the Diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof to the Archbishop.

Now, it is clear that the primary concern was some liturgical conformity in what we now know as “Communion Under Special Circumstances.” However, it is evidence that communion was offered under those circumstances.

A related issue of communion with those who might be sick was addressed in Lambeth in 1908. However, in this case the issue was not those at home but those at the altar rail:

Resolution 31
For reasons given in the Report on the Administration of Holy Communion, as well as for other reasons, the Conference is convinced that it is not desirable to make, on the ground of alarm as to the possible risk of infection, any change in the manner of administering the Holy Communion. Special cases involving exceptional risk should be referred to the bishop and dealt with according to his direction.

Once again, we do not have the Report in question. However, use of the common cup has been an issue for this reason, as long ago as the Spanish Influenza, and as recently as AIDS.

We can note, too, that the issue of addiction was raised in 1908, but this time with a different substance.

Resolution 51
The Conference, regarding the non-medicinal use of opium as a grave physical and moral evil, welcomes all well-considered efforts to abate such use, particularly those of the government and people of China, and also the proposal of the government of the United States to arrange an International Commission on Opium. It thankfully recognises the progessive reduction by the Indian government of the area of poppy cultivation, but still appeals for all possible insistence on the affirmation of the House of Commons that the Indian opium traffic with China is morally indefensible. It urges a stringent dealing with the opium vice in British settlements, along with due precautions against the introduction of narcotic substitutes for opium.

Finally, it calls upon all Christian people to pray for the effectual repression of the opium evil.

Lambeth in 1908 addressed a series of resolutions to issues of sacramental care of the sick.

Resolution 33
With regard to ministries of healing, this Conference, confident that God has infinite blessings and powers in store for those who seek them by prayer, communion, and strong endeavour, and conscious that the clergy and laity of the Church have too often failed to turn to God with such complete trust as will draw those powers into full service, desires solemnly to affirm that the strongest and most immediate call to the Church is to the deepening and renewal of her spiritual life; and to urge upon the clergy of the Church so to set forth to the people Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and the truth of his abiding presence in the Church and in Christian souls by the Holy Spirit, that all may realise and lay hold of the power of the indwelling Spirit to sanctify both soul and body, and thus, through a harmony of man's will with God's will, to gain a fuller control over temptation, pain, and disease, whether for themselves or others, with a firmer serenity and a more confident hope.

Resolution 34
With a view to resisting dangerous tendencies in contemporary thought, the Conference urges the clergy in their dealings with the sick to teach as clearly as possible the privilege of those who are called, through sickness and pain, to enter especially into the fellowship of Christ's sufferings and to follow the example of his patience.

Resolution 35
The Conference recommends the provision for use in pastoral visitation of some additional prayers for the restoration of health more hopeful and direct than those contained in the present Office for the Visitation of the Sick, and refers this recommendation to the committee to be appointed by the President under the Resolution on the subject of Prayer Book enrichment.

Resolution 36
The Conference, having regard to the uncertainty which exists as to the permanence of the practice commended by St. James (5.14), and having regard to the history of the practice which professes to be based upon that commendation, does not recommend the sanctioning of the anointing of the sick as a rite of the Church.

It does not, however, advise the prohibition of all anointing, if anointing be earnestly desired by the sick person. In all such cases the parish priest should seek the counsel of the bishop of the diocese. Care must be taken that no return be made to the later custom of anointing as a preparation for death.

They provide somewhat ambivalent guidance, affirming trust in the Holy Spirit for healing, while also accepting that the sufferer might through individual pain and suffering “enter especially into the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings;” and concern for appropriate prayers for visitation, while discouraging sacramental anointing – unless, of course, the sick person is insistent, and the bishop permits, and the sacrament is properly understood (it’s not “Last Rites,” thank you very much!).

In 1908 there were also a series of resolutions regarding marriage and married life, and three of those were related to health care.

Resolution 41
The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.

Resolution 42
The Conference affirms that deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to Christian morality.

Resolution 43
The Conference expresses most cordial appreciation of the services rendered by those medical men who have borne courageous testimony against the injurious practices spoken of, and appeals with confidence to them and to their medical colleagues to co-operate in creating and maintaining a wholesome public opinion on behalf of the reverent use of the married state.

So, the resolutions condemn abortion and artificial birth control, and affirm physicians “who have borne courageous testimony against” them. We might also note that Resolution 42 could also be interpreted as discouraging procedures that we now think of as common in prenatal care or infertility treatment. I would also wonder what issue they sought to address by "creating and maintaining a wholesome public opinion on behalf of the reverent use of the married state."

The Lambeth Conference was itself born in a situation of perceived crisis of Communion-wide import. However, the bishops involved found the meetings meaningful enough to continue. As time passed, the issues considered by the bishops grew; and while issues we might call health-related were few in the first generation, by the fortieth year and the fifth Lambeth health issues in the life of the Church were seen as sufficiently significant to be worthy of attention at Lambeth.

Shades of Lambeth Past

I’m doing some looking tonight at resolutions of past Lambeth Conferences related to health care. In the process, I am discovering some interesting things.

Particularly, I’m interested in two resolutions from the Lambeth Conference in 1897:

Resolution 45
That this Conference recognises the exclusive right of each bishop to put forth or sanction additional services for use within his jurisdiction, subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the provincial or other lawful authority.

Resolution 46
That this Conference also recognises in each bishop within his jurisdiction the exclusive right of adapting the services in the Book of Common Prayer to local circumstances, and also of directing or sanctioning the use of additional prayers, subject to such limitations as may be imposed by provincial or other lawful authority, provided also that any such adaptation shall not affect the doctrinal teaching or value of the service or passage thus adapted.

One wonders how these would be received by those who have wished to elevate resolutions of Lambeth to quasi-jurisdictional authority. After all, what some bishops see these days as “affecting the doctrinal teaching or value of the service or passage,” others see as “adapting to local circumstances.”

No, the argument isn’t new; but isn’t it interesting that Lambeth was looking at issues of local adaptability (albeit it, I know, not the specific issues with which we wrestle today) more than a century ago?

Taking Up the Gauntlet - At Least to Examine It

The Archbishop of Canterbury has responded to the Statement of the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) and its included Jerusalem Declaration. You can read the statement here. You can read comments on it at all the usual suspects.

Most folks out there – at least, most folks in the basically progressive blogs that I peruse – think this is a good statement. Some think it better than others, of course, but most approve. I certainly think it is clearer than most statements from Canterbury; but then in this case the issues, or at least those addressed in the response, are more political and institutional than theological. However, it seems to me that this will turn out to be an example of how we talk past each other.

Take, for example, this assertion:

The 'tenets of orthodoxy' spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues. I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON's deliberations. Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.

First and foremost, while these “tenets of orthodoxy” may well be shared by “the vast majority of Anglicans in every province,” those who wrote and who signed on to the GAFCON Statement find the differences of emphasis and perspective to be critical. Differences over how we interpret Scripture (largely literally, or largely through the lens of historical critical method); the role of bishops in the Church (pastoral or educational, monarchical or collegial); the authority of the “historic Anglican formularies,” as the Covenant Design Group has described them; the meaning of relationships and boundaries within a communion of churches (Anglican, “Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans” (GAFCON separatists), or others): all of these reflect differences of emphases and perspectives that are significant and formative for those affirming the Statement.

Second, I think it remains to be seen in what form or manner “the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON's deliberations.” Once again, there are aspects of both the statement and the Jerusalem Declaration that will have wide support; but hardly all. I sincerely hope that Lambeth will not affirm elevation of issues of human sexuality to the importance of Scripture and the historic Creeds, or even to the level of the historic Anglican formularies. In light of the structure that has been given to this Lambeth, I hardly expect any statement at all. I doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON's deliberations” in any way that the new Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will accept, or even acknowledge.

Third, the Archbishop comments, “Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.” The problem with this is that those most committed to this Statement and to FOCA are precisely those who are making the claims. I don’t agree with them, but I believe that they really believe the claims they make. They believe and are committed to the claim that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (not to mention those who might actually agree) are proclaiming “a new gospel.” They also believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury has essentially lost his moral authority, for lack of exercising moral authority over those two provinces. They will not be persuaded by this statement from this source. The same is true of his later statement, “I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province.”

All the issues of division raised by Archbishop Williams’ response are meaningful. His speaking to them will be welcomed by those who wish to retain some possibility of reconciliation, and/or some sense of the Anglican-Communion-as-we-have-known-it. It will, however, be dismissed by those who have despaired of both.

I said in my last post that Canterbury cannot ignore the metaphorical gauntlet thrown at his ecclesiastical feet. To his credit, he has not ignored it. He has perhaps offered some comfort to those who will still work with him. It won’t change the trajectory implied by the GAFCON Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration.

The Gauntlet is Thrown Down.

The Statement on the Global Anglican Future has been released at the close of the Global Anglican Futures Conference. Some of its highlights:

…we grieve for the spiritual decline in the most economically developed nations, where the forces of militant secularism and pluralism are eating away the fabric of society and churches are compromised and enfeebled in their witness…. To meet these challenges will require Christians to work together to understand and oppose these forces and to liberate those under their sway. It will entail the planting of new churches among unreached peoples and also committed action to restore authentic Christianity to compromised churches.

The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel.

The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel.

The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008.

Published as a part of it is the Jerusalem Declaration. Some of its points:

The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

…we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

So, in all of this is the gauntlet thrown down. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are “compromised and enfeebled,” “proclaiming this false gospel.” “The unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman” is, in the Jerusalem Declaration, elevated to equity with Scripture, Creeds, the threefold ministry, and the historical Anglican Formularies.

All of this, then, justifies not only “the planting of new churches among unreached peoples [but] also committed action to restore authentic Christianity to compromised churches;” for “we reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.” So, incursions across provincial lines are valid responses to the failures of American and Canadian bishops (and surely others soon enough) to “uphold orthodox faith and practice.”

Well, we in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have some sense of having experienced this before. The Global Anglican Future Statement and the Jerusalem Declaration are remarkably reminiscent of the Affirmation of St. Louis, in intent and consequence, if not literally in language. The Affirmation of St. Louis has been the distinctive formative statement of “continuing Anglican” bodies in North America, including some who are now part of the Common Cause movement.

And having seen it before, we can predict what it will mean, at least here. It will provide justification for those who chose to leave the Episcopal Church, and especially those who have left in all but name long ago and now find a new body more congenial. Some will leave, if not nearly as many as the separatists hope. New bodies will coalesce and splinter and coalesce again over time, until new bodies reach some level of stability. They are not likely, however, to ever grow dramatically from what they are now.

There are differences, of course. The connections with foreign bishops will add a certain panache, at least for a while. However, such connections will not make the new bodies more attractive than they already were for their doctrinal positions; and time will tell just how ready American and Canadian Christians are to live with very different models of authority from other cultures.

In any case, and once again, the gauntlet is thrown down. This new movement, led by its primates, exists to challenge the existing relationships and structures of the Anglican Communion, from Canterbury on out. While it begins its work with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, it can hardly stop there. It can only come soon to the British Isles; and one wonders what the approach will be to other conservative Anglican provinces that choose to remain with Canterbury instead of joining the movement.

It seems a long time ago that I described Archbishop Williams’ efforts to maintain the Communion as “cowboy poker,” won by those who stayed longest at the table (here and here). Well, clearly some have made a decision. They have attended GAFCON, and have disparaged the Lambeth Conference that they will not attend. They have determined that some are acceptable and some are not, and have stated their standards. Some will certainly back away from this; but just as certainly some will chart their course by this map. Are you watching, Archbishop Williams? These have chosen to walk away.

Back to St. Andrew's Elsewhere: My Newest at Episcopal Cafe

You can read here my newest piece at Episcopal Cafe. It's part of a series this week on the Daily Episcopalian discussing the St. Andrew's draft of an Anglican Covenant. Each day there will be another piece, each written by a Deputy to General Convention, discussing some part of the St. Andrew's Draft. Take the time this week to read through them. The Covenant process will be an important topic of conversation at this summer's Lambeth Conference. We can certainly expect it will also be a topic of conversation next summer at General Convention.

Back to St. Andrew's 4

I've been asked to submit my comments on Section 2 of the St. Andrew's Draft for publication elsewhere. Therefore, I'm going on to the questions on Section 3.

So, here is the next question for Deputies about the St. Andrew's Draft of the Draft Anglican Covenant:

Section 3: This section describes some of the elements of our common life together in baptism, Eucharist and ministry and moves to elaborate more recent understandings of our life in the Anglican Communion. It identifies ways by which the Anglican Communion comes together and then describes the four Instruments of Communion in their appropriate historical development.

• What meaning and impact do the four Instruments of Communion have for you in your diocese?

This is a question that has little to do with the content of the St. Andrew's Draft, and much to do with the need for a Covenant. Those who sense little awareness within a diocese of the Instruments of Communion might also have little interest in, much less commitment to, a Covenant process.

In a sense, I'm not the best person (or, at least, not the most representative person) to answer the question. I'm a blogger and an information junkie. I have particular interest in international relations. I expect I'm a lot more interested in these questions than most.

As a frequent supply priest, I find I get few questions about international issues in the Communion. That may mean they aren't interested. It may mean they have already had opportunities to discuss this with their own clergy. It may mean their clergy haven't kept them informed about events in the Church, even those events within the Episcopal Church that have international ramifications.

It is this last that is an ongoing concern of mine. Part of the reason for my blog is to highlight events, and especially actions of General Convention, that many folks may not know about. That they don't know is, in my opinion, commonly a fault of the clergy. Granted, it's easy enough for all involved to get caught up in parochial concerns, in both the literal and metaphorical senses. However, we do have a responsibility as clergy to educate congregations about the Anglican tradition, which should include some information about the Anglican Communion. (At least, that seems obvious to me.)

With that rant completed, let me give my impression. I think that within my diocese folks are aware of international connections in ministry. They are aware primarily of current and former companion diocese relationships, and of any current or continuing ministries from those relationships. Within my diocese, none of those ministries have been disrupted by the current troubles. I think there is some awareness of the Instruments of Communion when an issue makes the news. So, there is some awareness of the Archbishop of Canterbury and perhaps of the Primates Meeting. There may be some current awareness of the Lameth Conference; again, it's been getting some press as it gets closer. I fear there is hardly any awareness of the Anglican Consultative Council at all.

Also relevant to the question is my thought that even if folks are aware of any or each of the Instruments, I don't think they're aware of the relations among them (it's not really as mysterious as the interrelations of the Trinity; but they've heard more sermons on the Trinity). When most of the information comes from headlines, they all appear authoritative, and perhaps equally authoritative.

In that light, the St. Andrew's Draft is significantly better in paragraph 3.1 than the Nassau Draft in describing the role of each of the Instruments of Communion. I appreciate listing of the Instruments in order of their establishment, clarifying that the Anglican Consultative Council predates the Primates Meeting. I particularly appreciate the description of the Primates meeting that reflects its original purpose, without the accretions of assumed authority so blatant in recent years.

So, to return to the question: I'm not sure just how aware people are of the Instruments of Communion, or how much impact of the Instruments they feel. But, then, I find myself once again wondering about the question. The impact, if not the intended import of this question, is less about how much parishioners know and more about how much deputies should care. How much awareness of and sense of presence of the Instruments is beneficial within the Episcopal Church? Like, and not unrelated to, the question of bishops, is the Communion of the esse, the bene esse, or the pleni esse of the Church? How much are the Instruments of the esse, the bene esse, or of the pleni esse of the Communion (for example, would it be possible to have something we would consider a Communion without one or more)? How we answer those questions would say much about our interest in and perceived need for an Anglican Covenant; and if we are interested, what it ought to include.

And now, on to the next question....