The Limits to Autocephaly

[Polycarp1]

I am seeing clearly, particularly in Ebia's posts, some things which deserve discussion. Since at least 1712 we have been a communion of autocephalous national churches, very much similar to the Orthodox in this regard. Each church is self-governing, united through the use of local versions of the BCP and communion with the See of Canterbury.

Now that body is being rent asunder by the drawing of lines in the sand and the willingness of some to cross them. Ebia mentioned that such lines have been drawn, and respected, in the past, but without examples.

It would be contentious to say that the Anglican Communion supports polygamy. But member churches have bishops who consent to polygamous members keeping their wives (albeit as a pastoral move, to assure the 'excess' wives are properly cared for). Where was this consented to as a communion-wide measure? Yet some of these same bishops are objecting to TEC choosing bishops whose moral teachings and behavior they disagree with.

I guess my question is, who gets to draw those lines? What is our standard for what is and is not a proper line to draw? Where does the traditional self-governance of national churches come into play?

When the Convocation of Canterbury told Tony Blair to advise the Queen to name ++Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, AFAIK no other national church was consulted. When the Church of Nigeria chose ++Peter Akinola as its archbishop, no other member church was consulted. When the Province of New South Wales chose ++Peter Jensen as its Archbishop, nobody asked TEC or Canterbury's OK. And when any of these churches decided to name new bishops, including +Martyn Minns, nobody sought approval of other provinces and national churches..

I want to lay a couple of ground rules here. One is that if you absolutely need to bring up homosexuality to clarify a point, you may do so. But the thread is not about the morality or lack thereof of homosexuality, it's about the governance of the Anglican Communion -- how we've done what we've done, and how we will be doing it in the future, if we survive as a communion. If anyone tries to hijack it into a debate on homosexzuality, I ask that those posts be reported and edited or removed. My question is not about homosexuality, but about what the limits are on the American church, or the Irish or Nigerian or New Zealand church, to manage its own affairs, and what if anything is properly referred to Lambeth or Canterbury for communion-wide decision.

I'd also like to restrict this to Anglicans and Old Catholics, as is appropriate for our congregational forum, but with one small exception. I would welcome input from the Orthodox who read it on how they have historically drawn and enforced such lines. I suggest this because I think their experience may be useful grist for our discussion. I ask them respectfully to in turn respect our area, and not tell us what we have to do, but share with us how Orthodoxy has handled such issues (I'm thinking of Julian/Gregorian calendar disputes as a prime example) to help guide our discussion.

That said, what are the standards? Besides ++Rowan's official and personal choice as to whom he will be in communion with, what are the limits? And, more importantly, why?

 

[MKJ]

This is a big question.

In the history of the Church I think that the answer would be that each bishop must be in conformaty with Tradition, the deposit of faith. At need councils would come together to combat heresies, but not, as people sometimes imagine, to define really new ideas. They knew the heresies were heretical - the issue was to further clarify and define correct teaching in order to combat the heterodox teaching.

In the past bishops who became apostate were no longer recognized by the orthodox bishops, or sometimes they were driven out by the laity. (I believe there is a recent example of this with a patriarch in the OC, but I am not sure what the mechanism for it was.)

In the Anglican Communion, the more fundamental the issue, the higher the authority required to make a ruling. So some issues can be decided at parish level, while doctrinal issues must be decided at a higher level. But fundamental changes to the deposit of faith - say a real change to our Christology as opposed to a refinement, shouldn't be possible at all, unless we understand the Church quite differently than is has been understood for 1800 or so years.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

**subscribing but holding off in posting for now**

 

[TomUK]

This will probably display my ignorance but i thought it was only dioceses which are autocephalous. Though Rowan's spiritual authority is church wide, isn't his practical authority limited to his diocese of Canterbury?

 

[ebia]

I am seeing clearly, particularly in Ebia's posts, some things which deserve discussion. Since at least 1712 we have been a communion of autocephalous national churches, very much similar to the Orthodox in this regard. Each church is self-governing, united through the use of local versions of the BCP and communion with the See of Canterbury.

Now that body is being rent asunder by the drawing of lines in the sand and the willingness of some to cross them. Ebia mentioned that such lines have been drawn, and respected, in the past, but without examples.

It hasn't needed to happen very often - most of our lines are tacit, and they only explicitly need to be drawn when someone pushes the boundaries. But I did, IIRC, give the example of the ordination of women in Hong Kong in the 1940s; that was backed off from for a considerable time while the communion as a whole pondered the issue.

I also gave the example of Syndey (so far) refraining from lay presidency.

It would be contentious to say that the Anglican Communion supports polygamy. But member churches have bishops who consent to polygamous members keeping their wives (albeit as a pastoral move, to assure the 'excess' wives are properly cared for). Where was this consented to as a communion-wide measure? Yet some of these same bishops are objecting to TEC choosing bishops whose moral teachings and behavior they disagree with.

No-one is suggesting it should work that way - that we sit down and consent to every possible move. Rather, particular churches will sometimes do something new, and some of the time that will be ignored as within acceptable diversity and some of the time it will cause a debate. In the latter case occasionally that debate will draw a consensus of "no, this is beyond acceptable diversity".

I guess my question is, who gets to draw those lines?

The Communion working as a global community.

What is our standard for what is and is not a proper line to draw? Where does the traditional self-governance of national churches come into play?

99.whatever % of the time. Within what is acceptable diversity - either because its been explicity decided as such or because nobody has ever made a big fuss about it - national churches make decisions about what will happen within their church, either in favour of one or other option or to allow diversity.

Taking the ordination of women as an example. Initially Hong Kong ordained two women. That was backed off from for a time until the global community began to see it as an area of acceptable diversity. When that happened gradually national churches made decisions to ordain women, not ordain women, or to allow diversity on the question within their sub-structures. And so on downwards.

Things are decided as locally as possible, but ultimate decisions about what is and is not acceptable diversity always need to be made at the next level up.

When the Convocation of Canterbury told Tony Blair to advise the Queen to name ++Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, AFAIK no other national church was consulted. When the Church of Nigeria chose ++Peter Akinola as its archbishop, no other member church was consulted. When the Province of New South Wales chose ++Peter Jensen as its Archbishop, nobody asked TEC or Canterbury's OK. And when any of these churches decided to name new bishops, including +Martyn Minns, nobody sought approval of other provinces and national churches..

Of course not. Nobody is trying to do government that way - the choice being made isn't between complete autonomy and complete consultation on everything. The choice that is being made is "how do we decide on those handful of issues where we have a fundamental dispute about adiaphora.

My question is not about homosexuality, but about what the limits are on the American church, or the Irish or Nigerian or New Zealand church, to manage its own affairs, and what if anything is properly referred to Lambeth or Canterbury for communion-wide decision.

Essentially, those things get made at a communion wide level when the communion as a whole demands that they do. Not that we try to lay down a set of such things, which would be pretty much impossible, but when a national church does something to which the rest say "sorry, but that beyond what we can tolerate".

That said, what are the standards? Besides ++Rowan's official and personal choice as to whom he will be in communion with, what are the limits? And, more importantly, why?

The limits will always be worked out "on the fly" by necessity. But they will be the points that come up at which the global community says "this is not adiaphora - this is not something we can agree to disagree about". Those points should be few in number and occasional - not great rafts of generalised legislation.

 

[ebia]

This will probably display my ignorance but i thought it was only dioceses which are autocephalous. Though Rowan's spiritual authority is church wide, isn't his practical authority limited to his diocese of Canterbury?

No. He does have a real authority over his whole Province. And, of course, each diocese has to answer to General Synod. In general, autonomy exists in the Anglican Communion at the national church or provincial level. The glaring exception being Australia, which is federation of independent dioceses.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Now that body is being rent asunder by the drawing of lines in the sand and the willingness of some to cross them. Ebia mentioned that such lines have been drawn, and respected, in the past, but without examples.

I'm not now a member of the C.of E. but have remained an Anglican. I believe in the old standards that I was taught in my youth and were held at the Reformation and before!

I took an active part in various discussion attended meetings and wrote letters. Finally I found it was of no use whatsoever and looked around to see what other Anglicans were doing about this matter or was I alone with just a few friends. Gradually I found other Anglicans who practiced what I preached! I sought a copy of the Affirmation of S.Louis. This says that," it one of the essential principals of evangelistic Truth and Apostolic order" that we hold," the received Tradition of the Church and its teaching as set forth by, the ancient catholic bishops and doctors,' especially as defined by the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided church, to the exclusion of all errors ancient and modern."

This is what I was taught all those years ago just after the last war. later after I had sat upon the fence for several years I joined the ACC., because the Canons are set in stone and whilst there is an understandable reluctance to get tough, there is discipline! I was reluctant to leave the C.of E, but it had become obvious that one could believe anything and still prosper in that organisation.

I guess my question is, who gets to draw those lines? What is our standard for what is and is not a proper line to draw? Where does the traditional self-governance of national churches come into play?

I was always taught that the line for Anglicans was Revelation ,Scripture and Tradition. Convocation decided and when Convocation went soft I got out and joined the Continuing Church!
I've never regretted it!

 

[wayseer]

I guess my question is, who gets to draw those lines?

As always, those with the political power to do so - which would, I think, leave out most of us here.

And therein lies the real issue - regardless of all the nice words, the organization is still autocratic.

What is our standard for what is and is not a proper line to draw?

Who cares? I mean, will you or I be consulted? Don't think so.

But there is a far deeper problem here than the question, important as it is, you pose. That is, how can an communion be suppose to understand the theological issues involved when that same congregation has been starved of that education - persistently and consistently ignored.

So whatever we discuss here will amount to zip in the great washup - we just wont get a look in.

So the inevitable will happen yet again, the elite will make the necessary decisions - not us.

 

[higgs2]

THe communion hasn't been around forever. We're the ones who brought it up in the first place. And if it splits apart I can't see what would be lost.

TEC is being held to standards that other provinces are not, and it can't go on much longer.

 

[ebia]

THe communion hasn't been around forever. We're the ones who brought it up in the first place. And if it splits apart I can't see what would be lost.

I guess that answers the question - if you don't see the value of the community in question why would you bother to exercise self-restraint in its interests.

But quite apart from the theological problems I would have over such a position it demonstrates a complete failure to listen to bishops in places like Zimbarbwee and Sudan whose very lives have, at times, depended upon being part of a visible international organisation. The body of christ needs all its parts working together - an arm can't go off on its own. Of course the Anglican Communion is not the whole of the body of Christ, which is already badly fractured. But anyone is who isn't pained by every further fracture that takes place seriously worries me.

TEC is being held to standards that other provinces are not, and

That is simply not true.

 

[higgs2]

To many of us it's not a matter of self restraint, it's a matter of civil rights. It is as if we were being asked to refrain from ordaining african amercans or people of asian descent or caucasions or disabled people to the ministry.

I guess that answers the question - if you don't see the value of the community in question why would you bother to exercise self-restraint in its interests.

But quite apart from the theological problems I would have over such a position it demonstrates a complete failure to listen to bishops in places like Zimbarbwee and Sudan whose very lives have, at times, depended upon being part of a visible international organisation. The body of christ needs all its parts working together - an arm can't go off on its own. Of course the Anglican Communion is not the whole of the body of Christ, which is already badly fractured. But anyone is who isn't pained by every further fracture that takes place seriously worries me.



That is simply not true.

 

[john23237]

Of what value is Church if it is based on dishonesty? TEC has made it clear, over and over, that we believe in full inclusion of GLBT Christians in the Church. If we were forced to do otherwise in order to remain in communion, we would be dishonest with ourselves, with others, and, most importantly, with God. Who would wish to be a member of a Church which openly declares it will not practice what it believes? Such a Church would be are little worth to itself, it's members, or to any communion. Anyone remember Luther's famous words? Then understand, as a matter of faith, we can do no other. We are accountable to God first and that most certainly includes what we honestly believe He wishes us to do.

 

[ebia]

Of what value is Church if it is based on dishonesty? TEC has made it clear, over and over, that we believe in full inclusion of GLBT Christians in the Church. If we were forced to do otherwise in order to remain in communion, we would be dishonest with ourselves, with others, and, most importantly, with God. Who would wish to be a member of a Church which openly declares it will not practice what it believes? Such a Church would be are little worth to itself, it's members, or to any communion. Anyone remember Luther's famous words? Then understand, as a matter of faith, we can do no other. We are accountable to God first and that most certainly includes what we honestly believe He wishes us to do.

Surely what I believe God is saying to me, and what the whole community believe God is saying have to be held in tension, otherwise Church ceases to be anything and Christianity has disolved into an individualistic faith completely unlike anything in the biblical metanarrative.

 

[john23237]

Surely what I believe God is saying to me, and what the whole community believe God is saying have to be held in tension, otherwise Church ceases to be anything and Christianity has disolved into an individualistic faith completely unlike anything in the biblical metanarrative.

This is exactly the same question asked by the reformation, and the answer is the same.. we can do no other. The Pope might have said the same to the reformers. Please understand. We love you as our brothers and sisters in Christ, but we cannot renounce our faith and remain true to ourselves, you, or our God. We believe this difference is not sufficient to break communion, but if the communion truly believes otherwise..

 

[ebia]

This is exactly the same question asked by the reformation, and the answer is the same.. we can do no other.

TEC seems to be jumping to that conclusion much more lightly, and with much less regard for the universal church, than the mainstream Reformers did. And at least the Reformers could point to scripture, where as TEC's argument seems to depend upon "this is where the Spirit is leading us" - against which there is no balancing test.

Reformation is sometimes necessary, but TEC is a long way off being in the same place as Luther, Calvin or Cranmer.

 

[john23237]

TEC seems to be jumping to that conclusion much more lightly, and with much less regard for the universal church, than the mainstream Reformers did. And at least the Reformers could point to scripture, where as TEC's argument seems to depend upon "this is where the Spirit is leading us" - against which there is no balancing test.

Reformation is sometimes necessary, but TEC is a long way off being in the same place as Luther, Calvin or Cranmer.

I do understand what you are saying, but our understanding of the sacred text is very different. There is no point in covering this same ground one more time. It has been covered over and over and over. We do NOT believe that there is a single passage of the text that refers to monogamous loving gay couples and that there never was. The Holy Spirit is simply pointing this out just as He did on the issue of slavery years ago. You said yourself, you did not wish to cover this ground again and you are right. It is like a "discussion" between Baptist and Catholics regarding the Pope, namely hopeless. This is our belief and it will not change. To say or act otherwise would be dishonest, surely you must see this.

 

[MKJ]

To many of us it's not a matter of self restraint, it's a matter of civil rights. It is as if we were being asked to refrain from ordaining african amercans or people of asian descent or caucasions or disabled people to the ministry.

I find myself wondering though, why you are identifying as Anglicans in the first place? Surely if you believe this is a matter of civil rights, it would be logical to join a denomination that believed the same? Since you don't seem to put any value of the Anglican political structures, or approach to theology, what is the point? Some sort of aesthetic appreciation? All that you are doing is co-opting the congregations and buildings away from those who do hold to an Anglican belief. Do you not see why they would be angry about that?

 

[ebia]

I do understand what you are saying, but our understanding of the sacred text is very different. There is no point in covering this same ground one more time. It has been covered over and over and over. We do NOT believe that there is a single passage of the text that refers to monogamous loving gay couples and that there never was. The Holy Spirit is simply pointing this out just as He did on the issue of slavery years ago. You said yourself, you did not wish to cover this ground again and you are right. It is like a "discussion" between Baptist and Catholics regarding the Pope, namely hopeless. This is our belief and it will not change. To say or act otherwise would be dishonest, surely you must see this.

Sometimes we need to say "I think the church has got this wrong" but still to stay within the community and abide by the collective decision, perhaps while continuing to speak prophetically to the chuch. If there is no preparedness to do that then church means nothing, Christianity is reduced to something entirely individual, and the whole biblical meta-narrative has gone out the window.

There are times when Luther's stand needs to be made, but it is the most extreme action possible, to be resorted to only after considerable wrestling and with full understanding of the devistation it will wreck; and needs to be based on more than a supposed argument from silence and a claim of personal inspiration or the church disintegrates into a lot of people individually being led in different directions. Not the "oh well, the global community doesn't matter so long as we do what we think is right locally" that we have heard in this thread. That's not church and not Christianity, its modern western individualism.

Christianity is necessarily about being part of a community, and being part of a community inherently involves living with some community decisions we disagree with.

 

[MKJ]

Sometimes we need to say "I think the church has got this wrong" but still to stay within the community and abide by the collective decision, perhaps while continuing to speak prophetically to the chuch. If there is no preparedness to do that then church means nothing, Christianity is reduced to something entirely individual, and the whole biblical meta-narrative has gone out the window.

There are times when Luther's stand needs to be made, but it is the most extreme action possible, to be resorted to only after considerable wrestling and with full understanding of the devistation it will wreck; and needs to be based on more than a supposed argument from silence and a claim of personal inspiration or the church disintegrates into a lot of people individually being led in different directions. Not the "oh well, the global community doesn't matter so long as we do what we think is right locally" that we have heard in this thread.

The issue is exactly the topic of this thread, I think. There is no concept of the Church that really relates to what any of the catholic apostolic churches have believed or taught. It would be nice to see some real arguments about the nature of the Church here, but so far it has been thin.

 

[higgs2]

Here we stand, we can do no other.

That is truly what it has come to.