The Anglican Communion
With all the news focused upon Rome, the meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion in Alexandria, Egypt earlier this month received scant attention.
Jordan Hylden, on the First Things Website has an interesting summary/interpretation. He also includes several helpful links. Here is part of his report:
Anglicans do not agree on the content of the faith, the authority of Scripture, or the loci of ecclesial authority. In fact, Anglicans do not even agree on how far or whether it is necessary to agree on such matters.
It is just this, the primates argued, that Anglicanism needs to change if it is to survive as a genuine communion. Although Anglicans have historically been jealous of their autonomy, the primates contended that their emphasis ought to shift from autonomy to “communion,” “accountability,” and “interdependence.” They signaled that these points must be made concrete in terms of binding doctrine and institutional authority.
The rest is here.
The church is a voluntary organization, and in our democratic societies it will not fare well if its structures are too alien from those of democracy, and also from the culture of democracy, which is one of consultation, open discussion, and participation.
Watching Rowan Williams address the Synod I saw a model of church leadership that we in the RCC should be studying closely — since we are going to have to think long and hard about this issue in the post-Wojtyla-Ratzinger epoch that is already dawning. Williams speaks with great authority, rooted in being in contact with bishops throughout the communion. He is also able to sit down and listen to poor, ordinary people, as his video for World Aids Day showed. Like Obama, he is a uniter, not a divider, a consulter, not a man of fiats and ukazes.
He quotes Paul with great aplomb, since his own style of leadership is modeled on Paul’s constructive concern for the churches and for their remaining in contact with the worldwide Christian community.
apropos Joesph O’Leary’s remarks:
One of the links that Jordan Hylden provides is to the Report presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the “Windsor Continuation Group.” It is worth reading in its entirety; but here are relevant portions:
52. 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. If mutual recognition of faithful discipleship, the preaching of the Word of God or the ordered administration of the Sacraments is threatened, then the entire foundation of the Communion is undermined. This is why although Anglicans remain committed to a generous accommodation of diversity, there must ultimately be some limit to the extent of the diversity which can be embraced. This limit is the point where the fellowship of Churches can no longer recognise in one of its members the faithfulness to Christ which flows from communion with the Father, in the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit. If the recognition of one another as Churches is to be sustained, it implies a level of mutual accountability in the handling of the life of each Church.
53. 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?
54. Maintaining and nurturing communion between Churches, at whatever level, requires more than instruments of consultation. Guidance is at times required, and also decisions have to be made for the sake of unity. Organs of authority must be present and recognised as able to speak for and to the Churches of the Communion. In good times things will be easy – but when there is severe dispute within or between churches, the test of an authority’s acceptance as an instrument of communion is whether its judgements are heeded, even when unwelcome; whether restraint is accepted while the matter is put to reception in the life of the Communion of churches.
I think Saint Paul would recognize his own “constructive concern” mirrored here … with aplomb!
I have the deepest respect for what Archbishop Williams and the other communion-minded patriarchs are trying to do. I pray that, against the odds, they suceed. Their efforts, if successful, would bear much fruit both within the Anglican communion and in the broader ecclesial world. Importantly for Catholics, their success would provide a potential model for ecclesiastical reform.
Any word on the recent rumors that the Vatican is working on a deal with a group of conservative Anglican churches that have expressed a desire to come into communion with Rome? What would the impact of such a move be on the prospects for successful reform within the Anglican communion?
David,
I suspect it will have little impact, since the “Traditional Anglican Communion” is, despite its name, not a part of the Anglican Communion, but is rather an amalgamation of various group that began breaking away from Anglican/Episcopal Churches in the 70s over the question of the ordination of women.
My understanding is that this group has sought Rome out, and not the other way around. I remain dubious that much will come of this, because groups that begin as malcontents tend to continue in that form, and I suspect Roman authority will, in the end, prove unattractive to most of them. Also, I doubt that, in the long run, your typical Anglo-Catholic eccentric will find a happy home in the Church of Rome, with its stern moralism and mediorce liturgical praxis.
I have a friend by the name of Erika. My friend is Episcopalian, a former Roman Catholic, a wife and a mother of two boys. She sent me the following message in response to this article in First Things.
“Oh is that ever a can of worms. Frankly, the “binding doctrine and
institutional authority” are coming from the very conservative bishops
& churches in the Communion, and there are many of us who REALLY do
not want that. I joined the Episcopal church in part because there is
such a wide interpretation of Scripture and doctrine and because it is
welcoming to such a wide range of people. I go to a church where we
have had female clergy and where a gay couple can teach Sunday School
and sit on the vestry. I can feel comfortable inviting lesbian friends
to church knowing they will be welcomed and not looked down on. The
conservatives would take this away.
“I hope that the American Episcopal church can stay part of the
Anglican communion, but not at the price the African and other
conservative bishops want us to pay.
“What are the two greatest commandments? Love the Lord your God with
all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself!
Everything else is window dressing!
Erika
(nah, I don’t have any strong feelings on this one……)”
When our JPII pastor arrived some time back, Commonweal was banned from the Church library and First Things prominently displayed.
So much for balance -
a balance needed because the Church is the work of the Almighty through His Spirit and one not easily reached only by taking a First Things approach.
So much of a sense of community has gone out of our lives in recent years that we easily buy into “I’m right, you’re wrong” approaches to things.
If indeed the Anglicans are over the edge in breadth, we need to ask ourselves have we become too authopritarian one view at the top and is there even a simple, not simplistic, answer even to our own polarization?
For well nigh 30 years, the ecclesial position of pope has been a viable example of how a single “authority” is inadequate in the administration and governance of worldwide communion. In the final analysis, a monarchical understanding and attempted application of “papal authority” has been found wanting — and, I’d say, for good reasons.
The papacy as we have traditionally understood it is of human invention, and it doesn’t work!
Good Pope John, I suspect, read the handwriting on the wall and discerned “the signs of the times.” In their reactionary attempts to roll back Vatican II, the late JPII and now Benedict have tried their darndest to return church governance to a monarchical model.
Ain’t gonna’ work!
The Anglican model, while not perfect, has indeed worked when the various churches could agree on the essentials of Christian faith.
To Anglicans seeking formal communion with the Church of Rome, I say, “Be careful what you ask for. It just may come true!”
First Things has refreshed their content since yestereday, but the Jordan Hylden article can also be found here. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1313
It will be [vaguely] interesting to see how the Church of England will compromise on the oath of loyalty to be sworn to the Queen of England, and how it will accommodate the authority of the English Parliament which must approve decisions taken by the various Synods and such.
For a hoped for union with the Catholic Church there is the little problem that the Church recognises neither the clergy nor the sacraments of the Church of England. Dressing up as a bishop does not make one a bishop.
I think it is a triumph for Rowan Williams that all the GAFCON bishops turned up at Alexandria and spoke. And this despite the fact that Williams’ policy is to treat the presenting issue (gay bishops and blessing of gay unions) as a still open question — a position irritating to both sides. but one which both sides find themselves obliged to accept in practice. so that there squabble turns only on the technicalities of the moratorium to which both have agreed. A Covenant is unlikely to provide the ruling on this issue that the conservatives crave.
Of course Anglicanism already has very strong creedal conditions of unity.
Thanks for starting this thread, and thanks to Jim for freshening the link.
I don’t know what Hylden means by “Anglicans do not agree on the content of the faith, the authority of Scripture.” Take away ordination of women and active homosexuals, and same-sex blessings, and I’m not sure I could give an example of where Anglicans disagree in the main.
I think the crux of the biscuit is what Hylden calls “the loci of ecclesial authority.” I read his report as good news in that more Anglicans seem willing to accept some central teaching authority from Lambeth and Canterbury. Or perhaps “reaccept” is a better word, since Lambeth has traditionally been the place where the various bishops have looked to hash out vexing questions, and the ABP has always had some extra influence, albeit unofficial and certainly not papal.
F.C. Bauerschmidt also makes a perceptive comment about whether any of this means that Anglicans are likely to start “coming home” to Rome in large numbers: “Also, I doubt that, in the long run, your typical Anglo-Catholic eccentric will find a happy home in the Church of Rome, with its stern moralism and mediocre liturgical praxis.”
Not the words I would have chosen, exactly, but gets to the heart of why an Anglo-Catholic, over the long haul, may make a poor Roman Catholic. and, worse, a cynical and ineffectual Christian.
At the start of this weekend, I just read a comment by the Archbishop of Salzburg, Archbishop Kothgasser, concerning the appointment of Bishop Wagner as an Austrian auxiliary (to the dismay of most clkergy there),
“Should the Catholic church be shrunk to the pointwhere it’s like a cult with onl ya few members who toe the official line?’
Our own top down authority sysytem continues to divide very much as well.
Perhaps the Archbishop’s words should be passed on to Mr. Allen after his coments this week on how the Vatican will unite the Church in Europe first before it seeks to engage Europe.
I guess only the true loyalists and the purblind (maybe they are the same) think we’re so much better in our governance than the Anglican communion.
Bob … can you cite a source for Kothgasser’s comments, pls?
Jimmy Mac, this is from a Google News AP story by Veronika Oleksyn.