The emergency primates meeting of the Anglican Communion in Lambeth, England, has issued their official communique.
Bottom line: No split quite yet, but, jeez, guys, stop acting so unilaterally.
After the initial formalities and “we had a prayerfully great time,” the communique comes right down to it:
At this time we feel the profound pain and uncertainty shared by others about our Christian discipleship in the light of controversial decisions by the Diocese of New Westminster [Vancouver, Canada] to authorise a Public Rite of Blessing for those in committed same sex relationships, and by the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to confirm the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship to the office and work of a Bishop.
These actions threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ’s Church, our mission and witness, and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology, and polarised Christian opinion.
Well, yeah.
There’s a certain sense, throughout the missive, that the US (and part of the Canadian) church have gone too far, too fast, and that this is at least as offensive as the direction of that movement. That may well be, but rapid movement in such arenas is not, per se, sinful or wrong. Christ’s ministry was relatively short, and ended up turning everything about the established order on its head. It’s presumptuous to equate the actions of ECUSA and the Church of Canada with that of Christ, but it’s equally presumptuous to argue that the majority’s difficulty with change equates to a moral rectitude.
As Primates of our Communion seeking to exercise the “enhanced responsibility” entrusted to us by successive Lambeth Conferences, we re-affirm our common understanding of the centrality and authority of Scripture in determining the basis of our faith. Whilst we acknowledge a legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church, this diversity does not mean that some of us take the authority of Scripture more lightly than others. Nevertheless, each province needs to be aware of the possible effects of its interpretation of Scripture on the life of other provinces in the Communion. We commit ourselves afresh to mutual respect whilst seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God’s Word speaks to us in our contemporary world.
The Primates graciously acknowledge that the different ideas about Scripture don’t mean flip ideas about it. They warn, though, that it would be polite to consider how others might react before acting precipitously. Again, though, is keeping everyone agreeable and comfortable the highest Christian priority?
We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on issues of human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues. We commend the report of that Conference in its entirety to all members of the Anglican Communion, valuing especially its emphasis on the need “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and … to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ”; and its acknowledgement of the need for ongoing study on questions of human sexuality.
Not mentioning its statement that same-sex relationships are, so far, not to be accepted — though that then leads into the following:
Therefore, as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of provinces to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to alter unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. They do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means that none has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion.
The implication that ECUSA or the Diocese of New Westminster are acting in the official name of the Anglican Communion is unwarrented, and such was certainly not claimed by the General Convention. This smacks of CYA in the face of disapproval from other denomnations.
To this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other.
Ah. Now we begin the blame side of things. Relationships are two-way affairs. ECUSA needs to be responsible for how others might react, but the maintenance of that fellowship is not solely its responsibility.
We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.
This backs away from the threat that the AoC should give permission to other Primates to work in parallel with ECUSA within the US. But only a little. It is fair to say that ECUSA needs to make sure that dissenters within it receive pastoral care. How to balance that with the territorial alignment of bishops within ECUSA and the Anglican provicial system, should push come to shove, is another matter.
The Church of England, for example, appointed non-territorial bishops to minister to parishes unhappy with the ordination of women. I don’t think the Episcopal Church did that over the same matter.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the constitutional framework within which the election and confirmation of a new bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes place. As Primates, it is not for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province. We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and the expression of critical opinion by others on the internal actions of a province.
In other words, We don’t want folks interfering with internal matters in our provinces, but … well, we’re going to interfere …
Nevertheless, many Primates have pointed to the grave difficulties that this election has raised and will continue to raise. In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.
The same can be said regarding the ordination of women.
If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).
Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of New Westminster.
It’s not clear, though, what that effectively means. Robinson isn’t likely to step down at this point. The election and confirmation have taken place, leaving only the ordination in New Hampshire.
I suspect that Robinson will not be recognized as a legitimate bishop in some provinces of the AC, but unless there’s something lurking in the wings, I can’t see more than a few provinces actually breaking with ECUSA over this.
Besides which, the Communion is actually with and through the Church of England, not with each other. While it may make seating arrangements at the next Lambeth conference a bit more difficult, it’s not really meaningful (aside from deeper meaning) if the Church of Nigeria isn’t communion with ECUSA.
That seems the thrust behind the next bit:
We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise . We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months.
We urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions, but take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential realignments.
In other words, Over to you, Rowan.
Interesting. Certainly not as condemning of ECUSA’s actions as some had feared (or hoped), but not as conciliatory, either. There seems little desire or will to further examine the Scriptural issues, but, rather, ECUSA having “short-circuited” the matter by apparently taking a position, everyone else feels the need to stake out a position, too. A pity, in light of Archbishop Ndungane’s comments the other day.
What I’m more interested in than the Primate’s immediate actions is how this will play with the dissidents within the Episcopal Church, and what their next step will be.
More coverage here.
We will see if Archbishop Griswold follows the moral honesty of Archbishop Ndangane. One of the things agreed to by Archbishop Griswold was Lambeth ’98 in its entirety and it having moral force. Lambeth ’98 forbad ordaining non-celibate homesexua bishops. This means that the ordination of Bishop Robinson cannot go forward if Archbishop Griswold’s word means anything.
If he proceeds with this, I predict some 15-17 provinces will break communion with ECUSA. (The sources I used for this prediction were dead-bang on in predicting the outcome of Lambeth) The wisest (and the most honest) course of action is to wait for the commission to come back..
There is a better Biblical model than the life of Jesus. The primates are not God-incarnate and thus cannot instantly arive at the correct answer. The Biblical model is found in Acts 15. When there was a doctrinal controversy, the elders met and decided the matter. The churches received the results as authoritative. Now I understand that synods and councils can and do err. But the way to address the error is by further deliberation and reflection on the Word of God. This was proposed by Archbishop Ndungane and taken to heart by the rest of the primates. Acting in front of the decision by either side of this controversy is rightly labelled as schismatic.
Concerning what the strategy of the conservatives, here it is as best I can determine it:
1. Accept Lambeth ’98 in its entirety. On the conservative side, this means “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and “to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ”; and its acknowledgement of the need for ongoing study on questions of human sexuality.
2. Bury the hachet on women’s ordination. Since the conservatives have “globalized” (more later) and women’s ordination is globally controverted then this issue will be put aside.
3. Reach out to continuing denominations such as the Reformed Episcopal Church.
4. Recognize that internal reformation has failed. They asked for the global south to intervene and they did. They also admire the vitality and mission-mindedness of the global south. Thus, whatever action they take will be done in submission to the global south. If this really occurs we will be witnessing the de-Westernization of the Anglican Communion.
Presiding Bishop Griswold has stood behind the constitutionality of the election of Canon Robinson; this may be simply convenient cover on his part, but it
s also a legitimate defense, the Lambeth agreements notwithstanding. I don’t believe he has the authority to stop the ordination, though his intent to participate in it does seem to fly in the face of his earlier agreement with Lambeth.
Unlike the model in Acts, though, members of the Anglican Communion are not required to receieve the decisions of the primates as “authoritative.” Certainly they are something to draw thought and guidance from, but they are not an absolute answer.
One thing to consider is that there’s an assumption that the Diocese of New Hampshire, and the General Convention, acted thoughtlessly and without “deliberation and reflection on the Word of God.” That does not match up with the perception I have of the process, both from what I’ve read and from my discussions with some of the GC delegates from Colorado. Such consideration can still lead to error, true, but at what point, then, can a decision be made? When everyone agrees? When a majority agrees?
Regarding your thoughts on the ECUSA conservatives:
1. While I feel there are many MAFS who desire ongoing study, I suspect most of the conservatives (as with most of the liberals) have already made up their mind; further study that does not match their expectations is unlikely to be fruitful, and at best “full membership in the Body of Christ” will continue to exclude Holy Orders and Matrimony.
2. I also suspect, from what I’ve seen here in Colorado, that one of the hidden dangers of schism is its tendency to propagate. Those for whom separation from ECUSA is seen as most desirable are those for whom the issue of women’s ordination is by no means settled; I would expect further breakups and splintering from this.
3. There will be a certain amount of this, along with reaching out to AMiA and other such organizations. As with #2, though, I think that further splintering will occur.
4. You may well be right — or, depending on how it goes, a broad North/West vs South schism.
You are quite right about schism propogating. Thus, there are those amongst the conservatives who are trying guard against that natrual tendency. I come from a Presbyterian background and we have had many splits in our history.
Here’s my thoughts on your process question (heavily tainted by my Presbyterian background) :-). Things are decided by the majority but you provide process rights to the minority. Thus, the complaint and appeal are extremely importnat. You must not roll the minority.
When a national church errs how do you appeal its decision? In the case of the Anglican communion, a provision has been provided to receive advise from the primates. Now Anglicans being good Protestants understand that all church power is declarative. Nevertheless, the unanimous recommendation no matter how non-authoritative should not be set aside lightly. This appears to have been just the case here, see this. Even just a little bit of regret (on both sides) would soften the arrogance that is projected here.
Schism is bad news, all round. You tighten the circle so that you are only around like-minded folk. In the end, you end up like Rhonde Island founder Roger Williams who would only have communion with his wife!
I believe the primates gave sage advise to take a deep breath and not do anything rash. You may have carefully deliberated your decision, but with so much at stake, a careful reconsideration is warranted. So, in my opinion, the original decision may not have been rash, but the lack of reconsideration or even regret is. Like most wise advise in this world, it appears to be going unheeded. *sigh*
One last thought on reflecting on the recent goings on. Both sides of the American conflict have been in my opinion acting politcally while the primates have been acting pastorally. You lead the sheep. You don’t beat them. Thus, while the statements rebuked the American and Canadian churches for their actions there were explict statements that instructs other parts of the church that homosexual Christians should not be treated like slime.
Go do the right thing.
— Dr. Laura
Speak the truth in love.
— Holy Scripture
Just in case the two quotes were unclear. I was showing by means of contrast the difference between a political and a pastoral approach.