Will the Archbishop of Canterbury finally say "enough is enough"?

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Anglican Head Reprimands U.S. Church over Lesbian Bishop | Christianpost.com

 

[ebia]

For +Rowan, the Pentecost letter is very strong language. But he's not a pope - it will be up to the Communion as a whole to figure out whether the Convenant process is the way forward or not.

 

[kiwimac]

I certainly hope he does not. There is no need to apologise for the ordination of homosexual priests / bishops.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

For +Rowan, the Pentecost letter is very strong language. But he's not a pope - it will be up to the Communion as a whole to figure out whether the Convenant process is the way forward or not.

The covenant process cannot heal the fact that TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada continue to thumb their noses at the rest of the communion. It is abundantly obvious that their will is much more important to them than is any instrument of unity in faith and practice.

Given that, the majority of the Anglican Communion is very much united in fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission; in living, Apostolic Faith and practice. We are not leaving anyone. We have been left by those who choose another gospel.

Michael+

 

[TomUK]

I certainly hope he does not. There is no need to apologise for the ordination of homosexual priests / bishops.

But there is a need to apologise for intentionally and repeatedly going against the clear and unequivocal desire of the Anglican Communion. This isn't about sexuality - it's about living with one another in communion.

 

[Polycarp1]

But there is a need to apologise for intentionally and repeatedly going against the clear and unequivocal desire of the Anglican Communion. This isn't about sexuality - it's about living with one another in communion.

So far, so good. But consider what is being suggested:

1. The Anglican polity has been, since around 1785, one of independent national churches in communion with one another, setting their own canons so long as they abide by what was later summarized in the Lambeth Quadrilateral and a general inclination to use a local version of the BCP for public worship.

2. Consent of other member churches to who is eligible to the episcopate has never been expected of any member church.

3. In evangelizing and missionary work, 'national' bounds have generally been respected.

4. Accommodation of a breadth of theological positions within one church has been the hallmark of historic Anglicanism, one of its great strengths.

All four of these principles have now been transgressed by one side or the other in the name of 'orthodoxy'.

I see the refusal to acceot the stance: "I believe that you are doing something which I strongly disagree with in good faith. Come, let us reason together." as infinitely more injurious to Anglicanism than any one member church's actions.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

For +Rowan, the Pentecost letter is very strong language. But he's not a pope - it will be up to the Communion as a whole to figure out whether the Convenant process is the way forward or not.

Very true.

 

[Simon_Templar]

No the ABC will never say that. At least not the current one. As for the covenant, I think it's pretty much DOA.

The Anglican Communion is already irrevocably broken. It just remains to see what will rise from its ashes.

 

[ebia]

The covenant process cannot heal the fact that TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada continue to thumb their noses at the rest of the communion. It is abundantly obvious that their will is much more important to them than is any instrument of unity in faith and practice.

Given that, the majority of the Anglican Communion is very much united in fulfilling the Great Commandment and the Great Commission; in living, Apostolic Faith and practice. We are not leaving anyone. We have been left by those who choose another gospel.

Michael+

The Covenant allows those who wish to make themselves mutually accountable to each other to do so, and those who don't not to.

Up until now the bonds of affection have been strong enough; now we reach a situation where most of the communion says "this is not adiaphora, please stop" and yet it didn't.

 

[ebia]

So far, so good. But consider what is being suggested:

1. The Anglican polity has been, since around 1785, one of independent national churches in communion with one another, setting their own canons so long as they abide by what was later summarized in the Lambeth Quadrilateral and a general inclination to use a local version of the BCP for public worship.

2. Consent of other member churches to who is eligible to the episcopate has never been expected of any member church.

3. In evangelizing and missionary work, 'national' bounds have generally been respected.

4. Accommodation of a breadth of theological positions within one church has been the hallmark of historic Anglicanism, one of its great strengths.

All four of these principles have now been transgressed by one side or the other in the name of 'orthodoxy'.

Some things we can disagree on, and some we cannot (Romans 14). For right or wrong, when most of the community decides this is something we cannot disagreee on, and asks for a halt on that basis, simply carrying on as before ceases to be an option.

It takes the broader community to decide what the more localised communities can diagree on and what they can't; deciding what is adiaphora can only be done at the higher level.

I see the refusal to acceot the stance: "I believe that you are doing something which I strongly disagree with in good faith. Come, let us reason together." as infinitely more injurious to Anglicanism than any one member church's actions.

TEC has consistently given the impression to the rest of the Communion that it's not interested in reasoning together.

 

[wayseer]

I find the present situation interesting.

As far as I can determine it appears that the 'covenant' is to serve some purpose in establishing some form of unity. But it also appears the idea of the covenant is a response to matters concerning homosexuality. In this, the idea of the covenant follows previous Church Councils is that it is reactive.

My thoughts are that any attempt to impose some form of overarching rule will have the effect of destroying the Anglican communion. If the institutionalized Church cannot live with the diversity the global village throws up then various groups will vote with their feet. The Church no longer has the authority to impose political or ideological sanctions on the world - or on its congregations. If it attempts to do so then there will be no Anglicans - only fundamentalists.

 

[ebia]

If a Communion is to mean anything there has to be some agreement about what diversity is mutually acceptable and what is not; about what is adiaphora and what is not. The Covenant allows for those bodies in the Communion who which to make a mutual commitment to respecting a consensus decision on that to make that commitment. What is and is not adiaphora is not itself, and cannot be, adiaphora. In a community that has to be decided sometimes, and it has to be decided at the higher level - if two bodies dispute it it needs deciding at the next level up.

In terms of reaction, yes it is reactive, but not to the issue of homosexuality but to the fact this is the first time one Communion member has carried on despite all the Instruments of Unity saying please stop - this is not something we can accept at this time.
When women were ordained for the first time in Hong Kong, the Communion asked for restraint and no more women were ordained until considerable time had passed and the mind of the Communion as a whole had begun to change and the issue became accepted by most as something we can disagree on -adiaphora - and is now something most of the Communion actually supports.
The informal bonds of affection have not been strong enough for the first time, so something else is needed or there will be no Communion.

 

[ebia]

In the meantime of course, following on from his Pentecost letter, +Rowan has advised the representatives of juristictions not following Windsor that their places on the certain committees are discontinued (TEC and Southern Cone), and sort clarification where its not clear (Canada, Nigeria, Rwanda?)

 

[wayseer]

If a Communion is to mean anything there has to be some agreement about what diversity is mutually acceptable and what is not; about what is adiaphora and what is not. The Covenant allows for those bodies in the Communion who which to make a mutual commitment to respecting a consensus decision on that to make that commitment. What is and is not adiaphora is not itself, and cannot be, adiaphora. In a community that has to be decided sometimes, and it has to be decided at the higher level - if two bodies dispute it it needs deciding at the next level up.

In terms of reaction, yes it is reactive, but not to the issue of homosexuality but to the fact this is the first time one Communion member has carried on despite all the Instruments of Unity saying please stop - this is not something we can accept at this time.
When women were ordained for the first time in Hong Kong, the Communion asked for restraint and no more women were ordained until considerable time had passed and the mind of the Communion as a whole had begun to change and the issue became accepted by most as something we can disagree on -adiaphora - and is now something most of the Communion actually supports.
The informal bonds of affection have not been strong enough for the first time, so something else is needed or there will be no Communion.

But it also seems that those decisions are only one way.

You mention the matter of women bishops. If there is going to be any consistency about the process you describe then it is incumbent that the rules of engagement apply universally.

In other words, while there appears to some hue and cry over the ordination of a gay bishop there appears no hue and cry over the forbidding of ordaining women - even though the issue is deemed 'acceptable'.

If you are going to demand that there be no ordination of gay bishops until such becomes 'acceptable', it would seem that once the matter becomes 'acceptable' there is no requirement to conform. The inherent contradiction is glaring. In other words, why bother?

As I said, I find it interesting.

 

[ebia]

But it also seems that those decisions are only one way.

You mention the matter of women bishops. If there is going to be any consistency about the process you describe then it is incumbent that the rules of engagement apply universally.

In other words, while there appears to some hue and cry over the ordination of a gay bishop there appears no hue and cry over the forbidding of ordaining women - even though the issue is deemed 'acceptable'.

It hasn't decided the issue is 'acceptable' in that sense, the Communion has decided that its an issue we can disagree over. Gradually, most Provinces have moved to acceptance, but there's no requirement to do so.


There are things we can disagree about, and things we cannot disagree about (as Paul makes clear in Romans). Such will always be the way with any community, and Anglicanism more than most is a balancing act between those two. But "we can disagree on this" is not something "I" can decide - it needs to be decided at the the "we" level, whatever that is.

In principle, ordination of women is something we've agreed that we can disagree over at the highest level. (In practice that is problematic, especially when that gets to consecration of bishops, but thats a somewhat different question about how or whether you can manage that difference.) Within any given unit then, its up to that unit to decide whether its adiaphora (something where difference of opinion is workable) or not; so once the Anglican Communion decided diversity was allowable in that area it became up to each Province to make that decision, then each diocese within the provinces that did so, and so on downwards. So in some places it is something where diversity is accepted, in others (eg Syndey one way or parts of TEC the other) it isn't, but those places have to cope with the fact that at a communion level it is adiaphora. The point is not to impose uniformity of belief, but to allow as much diversity of belief as is possible. "Anyone can do anything they please" is not workable for any community - at each level things will crop up where the community has to decide whether this is a place where diversity of opinion can be tollerated or not without excessive damage to relationships. And that may change over time, as it did between the 1940s and the late '70s over the ordination of women.

If you are going to demand that there be no ordination of gay bishops until such becomes 'acceptable', it would seem that once the matter becomes 'acceptable' there is no requirement to conform. The inherent contradiction is glaring. In other words, why bother?

There are three possible positions on an issue:
1. It is essential everyone does it
2. It is essential nobody does it.
3. It is something we can disagree on.
Most remotely contraversial issues come in the third of those, including ordination of women and the stuff in Romans 14. So far, for most of the communion, this issue still comes in the second.

 

[TomUK]

Very big thumbs up to ebia for the past few posts.

 

[john23237]

I am sorry, but the reasoning here presented is about as Unanglican as possible. The communion exist only because the CoE separated from Rome, and that separation occured over one basic issue, namely whether final authority within the church rested on a national or an international (in that case Rome) level. To pretend that if the international authority had been more democratic, the outcome would have been somehow acceptable is nonsense. If instead of the Pope, a communion had ignored Henry's request, or had excommunicated Elizabeth, the end result would have been the same and you know it. The reason Anglicanism exists in the first place is the belief that the final church authority existed within the nation state. If the communion is to be what has been suggested here, then, at least, let us be honest about it and call it what it will be, namely the "Unanglican Communion". I sincerely hope the North American churches never agree to this.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

I am sorry, but the reasoning here presented is about as Unanglican as possible. The communion exist only because the CoE separated from Rome, and that separation occured over one basic issue, namely whether final authority within the church rested on a national or an international (in that case Rome) level. To pretend that if the international authority had been more democratic, the outcome would have been somehow acceptable is nonsense. If instead of the Pope, a communion had ignored Henry's request, or had excommunicated Elizabeth, the end result would have been the same and you know it. The reason Anglicanism exists in the first place is the belief that the final church authority existed within the nation state. If the communion is to be what has been suggested here, then, at least, let us be honest about it and call it what it will be, namely the "Unanglican Communion". I sincerely hope the North American churches never agree to this.

The church existed in England from the beginning; well before it was either Roman, or Anglican. The Church of England was a return to that patristic orthodox catholicism. In that model, each national church governs its own affairs, while being fully united to the Apostolic, historic church, and to the church throughout the world in the Faith, based on the sure foundation of Scripture, and Holy Tradition.

And, like the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicanism found the means of expressing and maintaining this unity in essentials to be common worship. "The law of prayer is the law of belief."

What is "unanglican" is to pretend that a national church can depart from Apostolic authority, faith, and practice--and still remain, in any true sense of the word--an Anglican Church.

Michael

 

[wayseer]

What is "unanglican" is to pretend that a national church can depart from Apostolic authority, faith, and practice--and still remain, in any true sense of the word--an Anglican Church.

Michael

What Apostolic authority?

I thought reason came into the equation somewhere.

 

[kiwimac]

I am sorry, but the reasoning here presented is about as Unanglican as possible. The communion exist only because the CoE separated from Rome, and that separation occured over one basic issue, namely whether final authority within the church rested on a national or an international (in that case Rome) level. To pretend that if the international authority had been more democratic, the outcome would have been somehow acceptable is nonsense. If instead of the Pope, a communion had ignored Henry's request, or had excommunicated Elizabeth, the end result would have been the same and you know it. The reason Anglicanism exists in the first place is the belief that the final church authority existed within the nation state. If the communion is to be what has been suggested here, then, at least, let us be honest about it and call it what it will be, namely the "Unanglican Communion". I sincerely hope the North American churches never agree to this.

QFT!~