Taking up from where I left off in Part 2, following up on Part 1, from the splendid article in Modern Churchpeople:
COMMUNION, COVENANT AND OUR ANGLICAN FUTURE
MCU's reply to Drs Williams and Wright
How centralised should the Anglican Communion be?
Once again we find theory about an ideal church replacing realistic descriptions. Local churches do not always 'seek the judgement of the wider Church'. They relate to each other in a wide variety of ways. Roman Catholicism has a central authority with power to impose decisions; the Baptist Union is a voluntary federation which local churches can join or leave as they choose. The Methodist Conference does not feel obliged to consult the Church of England General Synod or the Baptist Union before making innovations, and the many independent charismatic churches which have arisen in the last generation certainly accept no obligation to consult in the manner Williams proposes. His assumption that they ought to do so expresses his theology, not the theology of all Anglicans let alone all Christians.
The doctrine that 'what affects the communion of all should be decided by all' may indeed be venerable but to call it 'the conviction of the Church from its very early days' ignores the historical reality of repeated controversy within and between denominations. It has never been a formal part of the Anglican Communion's governance and to introduce it now in the face of immense opposition would indeed be 'some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism'.
For the Anglican Communion to be 'essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common' would be to keep it near enough as it is. Williams' hope of a 'global consensus' in a 'theologically coherent "community of Christian communities"' has never been the historical reality - especially if it implies agreement on ethical issues like homosexuality - and stands no chance of becoming so in the foreseeable future. To make the governance of the Anglican Communion fit this idea would, contrary to his claim, be a major innovation.
I'm no scholar of Christian church history, but even I know that disputes were present in the earliest days in the communities described in Paul's letters and in the Johannine communities in Jerusalem and environs, in which the Christians in the communities were considered still to be members of a Jewish sect.
I don't know what la-la land Williams and Wright inhabit. Consensus beyond the Two Great Commandments of Jesus, the Creeds, and the use of The Book of common Prayer for our common worship is not to be, covenant or no covenant. What's wrong with the Anglican Communion as a loose federation joined in the bonds of affection around the three elements mentioned? If the bonds of affection are not present, a covenant will not force them.
As to Wright's claim that our ecumenical partners need to know 'who speaks for the body they are relating to', he must refer principally to Rome, because the other denominations are even more diffuse than Anglicans. However much the pope may believe that he speaks for the whole of the Roman Catholic Church, indeed, he does not. His church is much more diverse than he will ever admit.
Williams and Wright had best keep in mind that they approach the throne in the Vatican as laymen, because the authorities in Rome do not accept their priestly orders, much less their positions as archbishop and bishop. I may have said this in one of the earlier parts, but I am sick to death of the Anglican powers begging at Rome's door. If I wanted to be in the Roman Catholic Church, I'd still be there, and I'd never have joined the Episcopal Church.
Similarly, when Wright argues that 'the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally' he is not making a factual statement about what normally happens at present; he is telling us what he thinks ought to be the case. To make it the case would be a major innovation. If there is any doubt that it would involve centralising power, his point about 'ecumenical credibility' makes it clear: he wants a small number of people who can attend meetings with patriarchs and cardinals and declare authoritatively what the Anglican position is. From this perspective it is easy to understand why this English bishop has no time for the more democratic American system with its Presiding Bishop instead of an archbishop and a governing body which only meets once every three years. Others think it is a price worth paying to avoid authoritarianism. Instead of trying to match the declarations of cardinals about what Roman Catholics believe, if we honestly told them that Anglicans disagree with each other this might help them reflect on the differences of opinion within their own denomination.
Amen to that. Those who want to tighten central authority do not return us to an undefined golden age of the past, rather they themselves wish to introduce the "major innovation".
The Anglican Covenant and a two-track Communion
As we would expect, Williams and Wright defend the proposal for an Anglican Covenant, and in these papers the emphasis is on the 'two-track' Communion' which would probably result.
Williams softens his position. In 'Challenge and Hope' (2006) he looked forward to a distinction between 'constituent' (covenanting) churches and 'churches in association', and suggested the relationship 'would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church'. In this recent paper however he stresses that churches which do not sign the covenant will not be treated as second rate Anglicans. The aim of the proposals is 'to intensify existing relationships'. For those who do not sign the Covenant 'there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness - existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily'.
Nevertheless churches which do not sign the Covenant will be excluded from some activities.
Wright softens nothing.
In reality, he believes, 'schism has already happened'. It 'is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact'.
An important strand of Wright's argument is the urgency of a solution. He writes at length about it. There is no time to wait for more committees to meet: the matter must be settled now. TEC's General Convention will not meet again until 2012, so this is the earliest time they can vote on a Covenant. Wright considers this a 'delaying tactic' which 'must be seen for what it is, and headed off':
Why the rush? I suspect that those who want a fast-track solution, a quick opening of the as yet incomplete Covenant for bodies to sign on, are afraid that if the Covenant is delayed, it will die a slow death.
And the pièce de résistance from the article:
He adds other proposals for an immediate separation of the two. One is to enable individuals and parishes in Track 2 dioceses to opt into Track 1 by adopting the Covenant in some way. He proposes some kind of 'Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight' (11, 21). What the plans for a separation overlook is that if whatever is made available to supporters of the covenant in non-covenanting dioceses will also need to be available to opponents of the covenant in covenanting dioceses. The overall effect will be to drive a wedge between the two. If the Church in Wales votes against the Covenant, will the Diocese of Monmouth be able to vote in favour and transfer its allegiance to England? Will a group of villages in the Lleyn Peninsula be able to do the same? In a combined benefice will one parish be able to join England while the other stays in Wales? Will the 10 am congregation go one way and the 6 pm congregation the other? Or the organist one way and the choir the other? If, as Wright suggests, the answers to all these questions is 'yes', and if England does vote in favour of the Covenant, the same questions arise the other way round. Will the Province of York be able to vote against? The Diocese of Leicester? The Parish of St Luke's, Liverpool? The DCC of St Bride's within the Parish of St Luke's? One thing we can be certain of: if permission to accept the covenant is given to parishes in non-covenanting provinces, covenanting provinces will lose parishes to non-covenanters whether permission is given or not. We have seen how the 1993 Act of Synod had the unfortunate effect of producing a denomination within a denomination; the current proposals would be far more divisive.
Can't you see it? The absurdity. The confusion. Do the two gentleman ever give a thought to the consequences that would follow were their suggestions ever put into practice?
And this, my dear readers is the end. If you read through all three parts, you are indeed patient. If you have not, that's fine. Just go read the article in Modern Churchpeople.
Grandmere --right on!
ReplyDeleteAnd, the Cafe just posted an interesting link talking about the devolution of institutions.... Your post made me think of it.
the title at the Lead is "Is The Future of the Church in Disorganized Religion." Maybe worth a read in how it relates to the Covenant crap. Here is the link --sorry, don't know how to do it all fancy
ReplyDeletehttp://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/evangelism/is_the_future_of_the_church_is.html
Mimi, their pronouncements illustrate how alienated +Cantuar and +Dunelm are from the reality of people in the pews. They live in their head, in their fears and in their fantasies. That is all well and good for me writing fantasy fiction but it ill serves the People of God when one is in a position of higher leadership. I can pity them but I pity even more those who follow them.
ReplyDeleteMargaret, I read the piece that was linked at The Lead. Here's what Gary Hamel says:
ReplyDeleteOver the centuries, religion has become institutionalized, and in the process encrusted with elaborate hierarchies, top-heavy bureaucracies, highly specialized roles and reflexive routines. (Kinda like your company, but only more so). Religion won’t regain its relevance until church leaders chip off these calcified layers, rediscover their sense of mission, and set themselves free to reinvent “church” for a new age.
Doing this is going to take a management revolution. Back in the first century, the Christian church was organic, communal and mostly free of ritual—and it needs to become so again—as does every organization, public or private, large or small.
I think he's mostly right. But the churches will not take steps in time to save themselves. The institutions will die, but the Body of Christ will live on, looking not much like what we call the church today.
Right now, instead of tightening the reins, the authorities in the church should be loosening the reins.
I didn't read all the articles but I agree with you. A covenant is a bad idea. I don't need any articles to tell me that. Unlike the tufti, et. al, I have common sense enough to know that you can't force these things.
ReplyDeleteI do like this bit:
ReplyDeleteIn reality, he believes, 'schism has already happened'. It 'is not just a middle-distance possibility but an on-the-ground and in-your-face fact'.
Which means, of course, urgencyis required. Those who define the terms of the discussion, control the discussion. And this discussion is all about control.
An important strand of Wright's argument is the urgency of a solution. He writes at length about it. There is no time to wait for more committees to meet: the matter must be settled now.
Because if people think about it, it may not look like a schism after all, and they may not jump when Wright says "Frog!", and they may just calm down and accept the changes in the status quo, and that cannot be permitted to happen!
TEC's General Convention will not meet again until 2012, so this is the earliest time they can vote on a Covenant. Wright considers this a 'delaying tactic' which 'must be seen for what it is, and headed off':
Clearly the polity of the TEC was designed in order to force this crisis! Oh, they're wily, those Americans! They planned for this generations ago!
Right now, instead of tightening the reins, the authorities in the church should be loosening the reins.
ReplyDeleteYup. But being "authorities in the church," the reins are all they have.
If they let those go....
Mark Harris reports, quoting a post by Tony Clavier, that "seven {TEC] bishops will meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury shortly" to discuss finding a way "for our “minority” to retain its full Anglican status and koinonia". If true, the way that Williams continues to openly meddle in matters pertaining to the internal governance of TEC is scandalous. Imagine if the Presiding Bishop were to have a similar with English bishops dissatisfied with Canterbury's oversight (or lack thereof).
ReplyDeleteSouth Carolina, Central Florida and, I suppose, the wonderful bishop of Springfield. Who else, I wonder?
Lindy, I love it when we agree.
ReplyDeleteRmj, you startled me there. I thought the ghost of the poet was visiting my blog.
You're right about what Wright is attempting. He may fool some, but he doesn't fool me.
Few authorities yield power easily, so the church powers will not do what needs to be done.
Lapin, I'll look into your link. Williams is a meddler, for sure.
What will Rowan think of next? Won't he need to provide for the minority (or majority!) in the English Church who want to opt out of the covenant and still remain fully Anglican? What a tangle he's got himself into.
ReplyDelete