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

[john23237]

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

Which is exactly the way Rome viewed the CoE at that time, namely, a church which was departing from Apostolic authority, faith, and practice and, from Roman's viewpoint, that was the case. From England's viewpoint, however, it was an entirely differant matter and the CoE, the crown, and parliment all insisted this was a judgement rightly made by the nation state and it's church and that sir is the Anglican way. To pretend it is otherwise is what is not quite ...er...kosher (or Anglican kosher anyway).

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Looks like +Rowan surprised a lot of folks.

Sanctions Against Episcopalians Carried Out | Christianpost.com

 

[ebia]

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.

I'm sorry, but that's not the whole picture. Cranmer explicitly talks about "matters indifferent" (his phrase for adiaphora) and things that are not - things on which we have to agree. Where a topic falls within the former the national church has the authority to decide, but not the latter; it was never that the national church had the authority to decide anything it liked.

If you can't cope with what the wider community decides are and are not adiaphora and you go a different way to the rest of the community then you are doing what Cranmer's church did w.r.t Rome - breaking away from it because you understand it to be wrong about some fundamental issue(s). Cranmer's church went well beyond what it said the national church should have the authority to decide because it understood the Catholic Church to have got non-adiaphora wrong.


Anglicanism has never been "anything goes", but it has been about minimal structures, miminal dogmatics, maximal adiaphora, and relying on bonds of affection and self-restraint rather than sanctions to maintain those limits of community. So, for example, Sydney desparately wants to allow lay presidency at communion, but (so far) has restrained because it understands that there would be consequences for the relationship with the rest of the Communion if it goes that route. But when that self-restraint doesn't do the job and one or more members act in ways that the rest say "do this and it fundamentally damages the relationship", then the Communion is forced to change in character in some way - either by falling apart, or by becoming a less meaningful structure, or by those members who want to making more binding committment to each other.

The actions of TEC (and Canada possibly), and the response from Rwanda, Nigeria and Southern Cone, have changed the nature of the relationships. It would be impossible for the nature of the Communion not to change somewhat in response to that.

In a community of relationships you can just do whatever you want and expect that not to have consequences for the relationships.

 

[ebia]

Looks like +Rowan surprised a lot of folks.

Sanctions Against Episcopalians Carried Out | Christianpost.com

Not just against TEC, but against all Communion member churches acting against the requests of Windsor.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Yeah, I'm reading that this is getting sortof Popish in a way.

 

[ebia]

Yeah, I'm reading that this is getting sortof Popish in a way.

Hardly.

+Rowan is choosing not to invite to private committees that are called by him representatives of member bodies who are in breach of the moritoria requested by the Communion as a whole in the Windsor Report because those breaches have damaged and threaten to destroy the relationships that are the Communion. Communion members were asked to exercise self-restraint in the interests of those relationships and have not, and therefore damage has been done. The timing is forced by TEC continuing its actions before the Covenant process is up and running, forcing +Rowan to use his personal invitation (or lack thereof) to send the signal, just as he chose not to invite +Gene Robinson and some other bishops to Lambeth Conference.


It's not "Popish" to suggest that any community has some idea of boundaries, however vaguely defined, unless we've reduced "popish" to something pretty meaningless.

 

[john23237]

Cranmer's church went well beyond what it said the national church should have the authority to decide because it understood the Catholic Church to have got non-adiaphora wrong.
.

I do not wish to turn this into yet another long winded, hopeless, debate, but this what I was trying, however poorly, to point out, namely that the CoE reserved for itself the right to deside what was and what was not adiaphora and therefore the right of the national church to change what it felt was within it's authority to change. The churches of North America are doing the same thing.

 

[ebia]

I do not wish to turn this into yet another long winded, hopeless, debate, but this what I was trying, however poorly, to point out, namely that the CoE reserved for itself the right to deside what was and what was not adiaphora

The idea that a member can decide what is and is not adiaphora is a nonsense - that decision can only be made at the level of the community. When a member cannot live with community's decision on what is and is not adiaphora and set it themselves they break away from that community, as Cranmer's church did from Rome, and as TEC is doing from teh Communion.

The one thing that cannot be adiaphora is what is and is not adiaphora, that the community has to agree on. What Cranmer's church reserved for the national church was the right to decide on each of the adiaphora issues, not the right to decide what is adiaphora. His church made bigger decisions than that, but by doing so they knew they were breaking away from the bigger community.

 

[wayseer]

So, for example, Sydney desparately wants to allow lay presidency at communion, but (so far) has restrained because it understands that there would be consequences for the relationship with the rest of the Communion if it goes that route.

It was Sydney that boycotted the last Lambeth Conference if I remember correctly. The same Sydney who rejectsFreemasons from their communion, oppose ordination of women and gays in general. And now it wants lay people to control the Eucharist.

At what point does Sydney severe its communion?

 

[john23237]

The idea that a member can decide what is and is not adiaphora is a nonsense - that decision can only be made at the level of the community. When a member cannot live with community's decision on what is and is not adiaphora and set it themselves they break away from that community, as Cranmer's church did from Rome, and as TEC is doing from teh Communion.

The one thing that cannot be adiaphora is what is and is not adiaphora, that the community has to agree on. What Cranmer's church reserved for the national church was the right to decide on each of the adiaphora issues, not the right to decide what is adiaphora. His church made bigger decisions than that, but by doing so they knew they were breaking away from the bigger community.

If you are right my friend, and I still do not believe this is the Anglican way, or at the least has not been for centuries, but is rather granting the communion new authority it never had until the 1990s, I suppose breaking away may be our only option. Those of us who are gay Christians are never going to go back into the church closet and neither are our bishops. TEC is doing what is right and I am proud to be counted as one of her members. We will not sell out our beliefs for tea at Lambeth Palace. Sadly, therefore, we may need to bid farewell.

 

[MKJ]

Is rejecting freemasons controversial?

 

[ebia]

It was Sydney that boycotted the last Lambeth Conference if I remember correctly. The same Sydney who rejectsFreemasons from their communion, oppose ordination of women and gays in general. And now it wants lay people to control the Eucharist.

At what point does Sydney severe its communion?

Nobody is obliged to attend Lambeth.
Ordination of women is deemed to be adiaphora at the moment.
I'm not aware of any official policy on gays where Syndey is substantially out of sync iwth the official policy of most Communion member churches, let alone with any official Communion wide statements.
If Sydney chooses to go ahead with lay presidency at any time they would bring up the same sorts of questions we are addressing now - but so far they have shown restraint (possibly for the best of reasons under +Harry and less good reasons under +Peter, but that's by-the-by).

 

[wayseer]

Is rejecting freemasons controversial?

It is for FM.

 

[wayseer]

Nobody is obliged to attend Lambeth.
Ordination of women is deemed to be adiaphora at the moment.
I'm not aware of any official policy on gays where Syndey is substantially out of sync iwth the official policy of most Communion member churches, let alone with any official Communion wide statements.
If Sydney chooses to go ahead with lay presidency at any time they would bring up the same sorts of questions we are addressing now - but so far they have shown restraint (possibly for the best of reasons under +Harry and less good reasons under +Peter, but that's by-the-by).

As I said, I find it all interesting.

It is not necessarily the fact that Sydney chose not to attend Lambeth but the media bandwagon that Jensen jumped on to promote the fact that he was not attending, threatening to pull out of the communion.

It is not the fact that Jensen et al object to women bishops - it is the warped theology that follows such pronouncements.

It is not the fact that FMs are all that important - they just voted with their feet.

It is not the fact that gay people will seemly fade away. Neither will women bishops - it is the media attention Jensen seems to thrive on in promoting such decisions.

And then he wants what he wants.

Imposing a covenant will not be the magic balm.

 

[ebia]

As I said, I find it all interesting.

It is not necessarily the fact that Sydney chose not to attend Lambeth but the media bandwagon that Jensen jumped on to promote the fact that he was not attending, threatening to pull out of the communion.

It is not the fact that Jensen et al object to women bishops - it is the warped theology that follows such pronouncements.

It is not the fact that FMs are all that important - they just voted with their feet.

It is not the fact that gay people will seemly fade away. Neither will women bishops - it is the media attention Jensen seems to thrive on in promoting such decisions.

And then he wants what he wants.

Imposing a covenant will not be the magic balm.

Maintaining relationships in a diverse community is never easy - no-one is pretending that a Covenant will make it easy - and there will always be bishops of various persuasions playing political games, he's not the only one doing that, nor are they all from the conservative end of the spectrum. I'm not fan of +Peter, but the official policy and praxis of his diocese is, so far, within limits.

Australia, also, is somewhat different from the rest of the Communion - it's the only national church that is a federation of independent dioceses - and that makes consideration of parallels even more complex.

 

[ebia]

If you are right my friend, and I still do not believe this is the Anglican way, or at the least has not been for centuries,

The Anglican way, internationally, until this point has been mutual restraint based on bonds of affection. That went out the window when Windsor was not followed; we've been firmly put on new ground by TEC, Canada, Rwanda, Southern Cone and Nigeria. We cannot carry on as before because we are not where we were before. Whatever happens now will be different than before.

I would rather the global Communion had seen this particular issue as something we can disagree on and still live together, but it doesn't.

Sadly, therefore, we may need to bid farewell.

Time will tell, but I suspect you already have.

 

[wayseer]

Maintaining relationships in a diverse community is never easy - no-one is pretending that a Covenant will make it easy - and there will always be bishops of various persuasions playing political games, he's not the only one doing that, nor are they all from the conservative end of the spectrum. I'm not fan of +Peter, but the official policy and praxis of his diocese is, so far, within limits.

Australia, also, is somewhat different from the rest of the Communion - it's the only national church that is a federation of independent dioceses - and that makes consideration of parallels even more complex.

Thank you for your work here. It is not an area I am in any real way familiar with. I find it interesting the process of change. The only thing I have heard from someone who is closer to the action than I, is that Australia will never buy what Abp Williams is selling. But then again, predicting the future in the 21st century is something of questionable pastime.

 

[ebia]

Thank you for your work here. It is not an area I am in any real way familiar with. I find it interesting the process of change. The only thing I have heard from someone who is closer to the action than I, is that Australia will never buy what Abp Williams is selling. But then again, predicting the future in the 21st century is something of questionable pastime.

I suspect some dioceses will have trouble buying into a Covenant, and others will wish to, and that will present particular challenges here because of our Federal structure.. No doubt it will be exciting as it goes first to General Synod and, then potentially to each diocesan synod.

If the Covenant is accepted by the Church of England and broadly across the rest of the Communion but not by Australia then I don't think that bodes well for the long term future of the Anglican Church of Australia. Without the motivation of being full particpants in a global communion it will be harder still to hold together the very polarized dioceses here, and with one diocese already in major internal problems because of its bishop...

In the end it shouldn't be that unreasonable for Australia to sign up though - every diocese has already signed itself up to a Federal national structure and this is a much looser bond than that.

 

[MKJ]

I suspect some dioceses will have trouble buying into a Covenant, and others will wish to, and that will present particular challenges here because of our Federal structure.. No doubt it will be exciting as it goes first to General Synod and, then potentially to each diocesan synod.

If the Covenant is accepted by the Church of England and broadly across the rest of the Communion but not by Australia then I don't think that bodes well for the long term future of the Anglican Church of Australia. Without the motivation of being full participants in a global communion it will be harder still to hold together the very polarized dioceses here, and with one diocese already in major internal problems because of its bishop...

I would say the same in Canada. I suspect my diocese would reject the covenant, but a good number of parishes wouldn't accept that. They would have to do something else. So many parishes are barely scraping by anyway. There just wouldn't be much left that could form a real body.

 

[RestoreTheRiver]

What Apostolic authority?

I thought reason came into the equation somewhere.

Obviously, the discussion has moved forward since this exchange, and Ebia, in particular, has done excellent work here. Given that, I did want to remark that it was the understanding of reason in Englightenment terms--humanity is the measure of all things--that led to the very issues that are dividing the communion today.

This Enlightenment understanding of reason was, by no means, the original intent...which was human reason submitted to God, and informed by Scripture and Tradition.

The "what Apostolic authority" question I hear as a statement of position, and not as a true question for discussion. It is, in fact, an excellent statement of the TEC position; and, in turn, an excellent statement of the sad fact that we already have two communions.

Michael