The Lead

Anglican Communion News Service
Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter
Posted On : December 14, 2007 12:05 PM | Posted By : Webmaster
Related Categories: Lambeth
To: Primates of the Anglican Communion & Moderators of the United Churches
Greetings in the name of the One 'who is and was and is to come, the Almighty', as we prepare in this Advent season to celebrate once more his first coming and pray for the grace to greet him when he comes in glory.

You will by now, I hope, have received my earlier letter summarising the responses from Primates to the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. In that letter, I promised to write with some further reflections and proposals, and this is the purpose of the present communication. Although I am writing in the first instance to my fellow-primates, I hope you will share this letter widely with your bishops and people.

As I said in that earlier letter, the responses received from primates differed in their assessment of the situation. Slightly more than half of the replies received signalled a willingness to accept the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement, but the rest regarded both the statement and the Standing Committee's comments as an inadequate response to what had been requested by the primates in Dar-es-Salaam.

So we have no consensus about the New Orleans statement. It is also the case that some of the more negative assessments from primates were clearly influenced by the reported remarks of individual bishops in The Episcopal Church who either declared their unwillingness to abide by the terms of the statement or argued that it did not imply any change in current policies. It should be noted too that some of the positive responses reflected a deep desire to put the question decisively behind us as a Communion; some of these also expressed dissatisfaction with our present channels of discussion and communication.

2.

Where does this leave us as a Communion? Because we have no single central executive authority, the answer to this is not a simple one. However, it is important to try and state what common ground there is before we attempt to move forward; and it is historically an aspect of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to 'articulate the mind of the Communion' in moments of tension and controversy, as the Windsor Report puts it (para. 109). I do so out of the profound conviction that the existence of our Communion is truly a gift of God to the wholeness of Christ's Church and that all of us will be seriously wounded and diminished if our Communion fractures any further; but also out of the no less profound conviction that our identity as Anglicans is not something without boundaries. What I am writing here is an attempt to set out where some of those boundaries lie and why they matter for our witness to the world as well as for our own integrity and mutual respect.

The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.

Read it all here. Or click read more.

The archbishop also has a Christmas Letter to the Anglican Communion found here. An excerpt:

So at Christmas, God shows that he is not ashamed to be with us. He has heard our cries of weakness and self-doubt and unhappy longing, he has seen our wanderings and anxieties, and he is not ashamed to be alongside us in this world, walking with us in our pilgrimage. And because he is content to walk with us, we are challenged about whose company we might be ashamed to share.

[The archbishop's Advent Letter to Primates of the Anglican Communion & Moderators of the United Churches continues]

So a full relationship of communion will mean:

i. The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith', in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another 'standing under' the word of Scripture. Because of this recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process. Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.
ii. The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks – of teaching and pastoral care and admonition, of assembling God's people for worship, above all at the Holy Communion. The principle that one local church should not intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God provides what is needed for each local community.
iii. The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News. When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to support each other's efforts to win people for Christ and to serve the world in his Name. Communion thus means the sharing of resources and skills in order to enable one another to proclaim and serve in this way.

It is in this context that we must think about the present crisis, which is in significant part a crisis about whether we can fully, honestly and gratefully recognise these gifts in each other.

The debates about sexuality, significant as they may be, are symptoms of our confusion about these basic principles of recognition. It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' the welcoming of homosexual people in the Church. The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name. But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.

This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church, it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far they are still speaking the same language. And because what one local church says is naturally taken as representative of what others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered.

Where such a situation arises, it becomes important to clarify that the Communion as a whole is not committed to receiving the new interpretation and that there must be ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed. This is important in our relations with our own local contexts and equally in our ecumenical (and interfaith) encounters, to avoid confusion and deep misunderstanding.

The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.

Successive Lambeth Conferences and Primates' Meetings have, however, cautioned very strongly against such provision. It creates a seriously anomalous position. It does not appeal to a clear or universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church's ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance. The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking. Without such a condition, the risk is magnified of smaller and smaller groups taking to themselves the authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour's ministerial life or spiritual authenticity. The gospels and the epistles of Paul alike warn us against a hasty final judgement on the spiritual state of our neighbours.

While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.

Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent advice of the Instruments of Communion. The repeated requests for clarification to The Episcopal Church, difficult and frustrating as they have proved for that province, have been an attempt by the Communion at large to deal with the many anxieties expressed in this regard. The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion. The practical challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful, sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own province and with the wider Communion.

That challenge is not best addressed by a series of ad hoc arrangements with individual provinces elsewhere, as the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué made plain. The New Orleans statement, along with many individual statements by bishops in TEC, expresses the anger felt by many in the US – as also in Canada – about uncontrolled intervention, and it is evident that this is not doing anything to advance or assist local solutions that will have some theological and canonical solidity.

I believe that we as a Communion must recognise two things in respect of the current position in TEC. First: most if not all of the bishops present in New Orleans were seeking in all honesty to find a way of meeting the requests of the primates and to express a sense of responsibility towards the Communion and their concern for and loyalty to it. It is of enormous importance that the Communion overall does not forget its responsibility to and for that large body of prayerful opinion in The Episcopal Church which sincerely desires to work in full harmony with others, particularly those bishops who have clearly expressed their desire to work within the framework both of the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions, and that it does not give way to the temptation to view The Episcopal Church as a monochrome body. Second: it is practically impossible to imagine any further elucidation or elaboration coming from TEC after the successive statements and resolutions from last year's General Convention onwards. A good deal of time and effort has gone into the responses they have already produced, and it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.

The exact interpretation of the New Orleans statements, as the responses from around the Communion indicate, is disputable. I do not see how the commitment not to confirm any election to the episcopate of a partnered gay or lesbian person can mean anything other than what it says. But the declaration on same-sex blessings is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the name of the Church at large.

A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected. Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué expressed profound disquiet on this matter, addressed to all parties.

A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.

The exchange between TEC and the wider Communion has now been continuing for some four years, and it would be unrealistic and ungrateful to expect more from TEC in terms of clarification. Whatever our individual perspectives, I think we need to honour the intentions and the hard work done by the bishops of TEC. For many of them, this has been a very costly and demanding experience, testing both heart and conscience. But now we need to determine a way forward.

The whole of this discussion is naturally affected by what people are thinking about the character and scope of the Lambeth Conference, and I need to say a word about this here. Thus far, invitations have been issued with two considerations in mind.

First: I have not felt able to invite those whose episcopal ordination was carried through against the counsel of the Instruments of Communion, and I have not seen any reason to revisit this (the reference in the New Orleans statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'expressed desire' to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire misunderstands what was said earlier this year, when the question was left open as to whether the Bishop, as a non-participant, could conceivably be present as a guest at some point or at some optional event). And while (as I have said above) I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimised by the Communion overall.

I acknowledge that this limitation on invitations will pose problems for some in its outworking. But I would strongly urge those whose strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are prepared to offer for the sake of a Conference that will have some general credibility in and for the Communion overall.

Second: I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.

How then should the Lambeth Conference be viewed? It is not a canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation. It is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice. It is also a meeting designed to strengthen and deepen the sense of what the episcopal vocation is.

Some reactions to my original invitation have implied that meeting for prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry is somehow a way of avoiding difficult issues. On the contrary: I would insist that only in such a context can we usefully address divisive issues. If, as the opening section of this letter claimed, our difficulties have their root in whether or how far we can recognise the same gospel and ministry in diverse places and policies, we need to engage more not less directly with each other. This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be.

And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection. We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples. I do not think this is either an incidental matter or an evasion of more basic questions.

This means some hard reflective work in preparation for the Conference - including pursuing conversations with each other across the current divisions. There will also be a number of documents circulating which will feed into the Conference's discussions, in particular the work of the Covenant Design Group, the resources available from the dialogues with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Report of the Doctrinal commission and the papers coming from IASCER. Also significant will be the papers on the core elements of Anglican ministerial education and formation prepared by the group advising the Primates on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the paper on the theology of inter faith relations prepared by the Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON), Generous Love.

But direct contact and open exchange of convictions will be crucial. Whatever happens, we are bound to seek for fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others. Whatever happens, certain aspects of our 'relational' communion will continue independently of the debates and decisions at the level of canons and hierarchies.

Given the differences in response to The Episcopal Church revealed in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between TEC and other provinces. Much work remains to be done. But – once again, I refer back to my introductory thoughts – that work is about some basic questions of fidelity to Scripture and identity in ministry and mission, not only about the one issue of sexuality. It is about what it means for the Anglican Communion to behave with a consistency that allows us to face, both honestly and charitably, the deeply painful question of who we can and cannot recognise as sharing the same calling and task.

Finally, what specific recommendations emerge from these thoughts?

I propose two different but related courses of action during the months ahead. I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.

I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the moment, the question of 'who speaks for the Communion?' is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded. The principles set out at the beginning of this letter will, I hope, assist in clarifying what needs to be said about this. Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship. I continue to hope that the discussion of the Covenant before, during and beyond Lambeth will give us a positive rallying-point.

A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at present seems to presuppose that any change from our current deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined. I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as we think and pray our way through Advent.

The coming of Christ in the flesh and the declaration of the good news of his saving purpose was not a matter of human planning and ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience of Mary and whose effect was to create a new community of God's sons and daughters. As we look forward, what is there for us to do but pray, obey and be ready for God's re-creating work through the eternal and unchanging Saviour, Jesus Christ?

'The Spirit and the bride say, "Come"... Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen' (Rev.22.17, 20-21).

Comments (25)

Much to take in here. This appears to be a key quote: The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.

Successive Lambeth Conferences and Primates' Meetings have, however, cautioned very strongly against such provision. It creates a seriously anomalous position. It does not appeal to a clear or universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church's ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance. The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking.

Posted by John B. Chilton | December 14, 2007 7:50 AM

I find that the ABC and others still do not recognize that the Episcopal Church is trying to let all the baptized have a say, not just the bishops.

With all the vagrant bishops running around ordaining, taking property, etc., you would think he would see the problem...

Rev. Kurt Huber
Monroe, CT

Posted by Rev. Kurt | December 14, 2007 8:43 AM

Lots of talk about TEC's "radical new reading of Scripture" and not one word about the murderous scapegoating of Gay people by Anglican bishops in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, the West Indies and elsewhere.

Boycott Lambeth until it repents. Withdraw all Communion funding - not for TEC's comfort, but as a protest of the Anglican Church's leadership in this murderous scapegoating.

Posted by Josh Thomas | December 14, 2007 10:24 AM

Well, Rev. Kurt, I don't see ++Rowan denying the say of the baptized, rather he is saying that bishops have a special role among the baptized (along the lines of different body parts having different functions a la 1 Cor). Our histories and liturgies certainly suggest that he's right and that the bishops should, as a body, be about maintaining the doctrines and disciplines of the church.

This doesn't at all mean that lay people aren't important. We have many important roles including a place in governing the church, keepin' it real, and informing their bishops about the daily living of our doctrine and discipline.

There is an awful lot here. Some I like, some I don't, some I need to think about more. I look forward to seeing some reasoned reflection coming out on this once people have had some time to think it over (:read here plea for thoughtful consideration rather than blogging-from-the-hip...:)

Posted by Derek Olsen | December 14, 2007 10:27 AM

I learned a long time ago that when faced with an apparently intractable problem, then solutions are often found by looking to see if there are problems in the basic assumptions being made.

This point by ++Rowan w.r.t. the House of Bishops saying they must (essentially) defer to the House of Deputies:

It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.

..seems to be pointing out just such an issue.

Do we in TEC have a different understanding of the role of bishops in the Church? If we don't, do we behave as if we do? (Rowan's point is that we are...)

What would be different in our situation if we saw bishops as more than administrative heads? Do we want to even consider that?

Posted by Nicholas Knisely | December 14, 2007 10:32 AM

...(added) I now "get" the point that Rowan was making when he spent all that time teaching about the role of a bishop when me met with the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans.

I think it really would be fruitful for us all to think through whether or not there is any special charism given to the office of Bishop to serve as a teacher and guardian of the Faith.

(We seem to make this point implicitly in the ordination service of a bishop when the newly consecrated bishop leads the assembled in the saying of the Nicene Creed.)

Posted by Nicholas Knisely | December 14, 2007 10:36 AM

There is a bit of a Catch 22 though, isn't there. If our bishops are to be given more power, who gives it to them: General Convention. One could argue, I guess, that we wouldn't be giving them more power, but recognizing existing power, or something like that, but who does the recognizing: General Convention.

We are being pushed to diminish the role of the laity in Church governance. We shouldn't do it.

Posted by Jim Naughton | December 14, 2007 10:42 AM

But Jim--I don't think that it's about power being granted and or retained. Rather, it's about having a group of people who we (all of us together--that's part of our democratic part) have elected to remind us what our core theological principles are and to help us make sure that we are acting in accordance with them. I don't see it at all about giving bishops more power.

Being an "overseer" (episkope) is about administering, about caring for the needs of the flock, and about making sure we're keeping the main thing the main thing and in the church that means making sure that we are proclaiming God's normative acts in the manager/cross/empty tomb and that our actions as a body are in line with those beliefs.

Posted by Derek Olsen | December 14, 2007 10:49 AM

Jim - your point is well taken. And I do think that one of the gifts that the Episcopal Church brings to the Anglican Communion is our recognition of the importance of the role of all the baptized and the consequences which flow from it.

But that's a very different thing to be in conversation about with the Communion. It might be far more profitable to have a conversation about the ministry of the laity than the one we're having right now, which effectively sets up a minority within the Church to be used as a wedge issue.

Posted by Nicholas Knisely | December 14, 2007 10:53 AM

Getting back to some of the highlights....

I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be. And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection. We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples.

Posted by John B. Chilton | December 14, 2007 11:20 AM

I'm not sure what the ABC doesn't understand about the Episcopal Church's polity. The authority in TEC is the General Convention. The House of Bishops cannot legislate for the Church by itself; but neither can the House of Deputies legislate without the concurrence of the HOB. When the HOB "bound itself to future direction from the Convention" it was simply reflecting our Constitution. It was not abrogating "the distinctive charism of bishops." The Convention consists of _both_ the HOB and the HOD, I think precisely because we recognize and affirm the distinctive charism of bishops. Other Provinces may choose to structure themselves differently, but we have been thus structured for over 200 years and I don't think we need to apologize for it just because the ABC doesn't seem to get the point.

Bill Moorhead

Posted by Bill Moorhead | December 14, 2007 11:30 AM

Derek, It seems that in addition to the specific functions of episcopal ministry you mentioned, the ABC has asked that we consider changing our understanding--at least--of how bishops lead and teach. He wants them to able to teach without having to respect the laity and other clergy, as at GC. It is hard to see why he wishes this on theological grounds, though it is clear he wishes to justify his request there. It rather seems that such an expansion and extension of already existing episcopal power would better serve the expansion and extension of the effectiveness of the centralized bureaucracy in the Anglican Communion he envisions increasingly relying on in the future. In effect, the ABC seems to be requiring of TEC an obfuscatory rationalization of a step in his centralizing agenda.

Todd Bates

Posted by The Anglican Scotist | December 14, 2007 11:32 AM

While those in dog collars debate their self-referent understandings, I observe that it is bishops who most often veer away from "the doctrines and disciplines of the church" - and laypeople who most often maintain those doctrines and disciplines.

Posted by Josh Thomas | December 14, 2007 11:35 AM

Just some preliminary comments:

Note, once again, the only bishop in the ABC he mentions by name, that is the scapegoat, Gene Robinson, lifted aloft again(section 3).

That spectacle provides an unedifying, even perverse context for the ABC's opening greeting in "the name of the One 'who is and was and is to come....'"--but we must ask what is uniting us--"us" here the bishops, not you and me lesser beings: "I am writing in the first instance to my fellow-primates". What is it that unites the Primates, that would enable them to meet together for Eucharist, if not an agreement of the sort "Gene should not be among us".

The ABC reads Lambeth 1998's 1.10 as the controlling reading of Scripture that in effect determines who may be recognized. The key term here is "recognition"--can anyone here do Honneth? Or even Habermas?

The whole letter evinces an unacknowledged internal struggle to remain focused on Christ. What is it we are struggling to do? To the extent it is to be all about recognition, we fall into the agon of pagan power politics.

Posted by The Anglican Scotist | December 14, 2007 11:42 AM

Josh,

Then I guess we who are laity must not be properly exercising our due diligence to make sure that we are electing worthy shepherds...

Todd,
I read this as the ABC asking for the bishops to claim their teaching role. I don't see the claiming of that role translating into greater legislative power.

Posted by Derek Olsen | December 14, 2007 11:53 AM

it is time to start questioning the legitimacy of the ABC to speak for the communion. GC needs to pass a resolution calling for a more democratic and international role in the selection of the ABC before he gets to lecture and threaten our church like this. This man was selected by British politicians. What little moral authority or voice that he has is based in the politics of the United Kingdom and not in Scripture and Tradition. Being selected by the internal political needs of a small European country does not make one a judge of all things in the church. Rowan's selection should be a reminder that he and his position lack any credibility. His sole source of influence is based in giving out invites to the tea party. It is past time to change the nature of this communion wide discussion and debate to be one about the place, role and selection of the ABC. It is time that we start talking often and loudly about what the ABC is and how the ABC is selected. Without credible selection there is no credible authority to write these things.

Dennis Roberts

Posted by Dennis | December 14, 2007 12:06 PM

Derek,

I believe you are underestimating the desire of those of who have power to find ways of increasing it. If you give the Episcopacy some unique teaching authority they will, without serious restraint, attempt to turn it into magisterium. History teaches us this.

That is why Christian Princes were always needed to restrain the Episcopacy and, by calling ecumenical councils, create situations where the Bishops could ratify doctrine. The Bishops never operated in a vacuum.

The Reformation sought to destroy the magisterium and return the Episcopate to its proper place under and along side lay leadership.

In the absense of an established church ruled throught the legislature or Parliament, the Episcopacy in the USA is restrained by GC.

For the ABC to say that the US has an unusual idea of the Episcopacy is, frankly, amusing. Remember, Matthew Parker was punished when he told Queen Elizabeth to remove the Cross from her altar. The ABC's teach under the Supreme Governorship of a monarch, a far greater impediment to exercising their charism than living with a mere GC.

But, and this is the important part, I've once again been told that I'm living a "lifestyle" that does not adhere to a biblical understanding of Christ's call to follow him. It gets tiring and deeply disheartening.

Posted by Stuart Siegel | December 14, 2007 12:58 PM

"Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone."

Hm. Bad news for William Wilberforce, eh?

I don't think the AB's vision of historic unanimity in interpretation of scripture and in the church's moral authority allows for the changes that communication and globalism have brought. A hundred years ago, even twenty years ago, we never lived in each other's pockets like this. Distance and unfamiliarity were an enduring and comfortable buffer for local praxis. This expectation of consensus is itself a creation of modernism and one of the ways modernism has wounded the church.

Posted by Pamela Grenfell Smith | December 14, 2007 1:03 PM

Just a few points that concern me:

"The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith'," is not the same thing as "a common reading and understanding of Scripture." The first has indeed been a "first condition of recognisability;" but when did the second become the necessary expression of the first? When indeed did standing on the Summary of the Law and the calls for justice in the Prophets cease to be standing "under the authority of Scripture?"

I'm somewhat relieved to finally hear 1998 1.10 described as "the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion," and not some sort of new "canonical" statement. Not that anyone has ever really treated it as such: those most concerned that The Episcopal Church has not properly heard the first clause have clearly not properly heard the second. At the same time, if "The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name," how can even those participants hold Lambeth 1998-1.10 as a critical "touch point," without having circumscribed what constitutes "the same pastoral care and loving service?"

How are we to stand with "The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament" as a standard when in large parts of the communion there is disagreement that "his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks?" (emphasis mine) There is indeed division as to whether God might call women to "the same tasks," not only between provinces but within provinces.

I hear his intent for further consultations. I think we in the Episcopal Church should participate. However, I'm not hopeful that in the short run (between now and Lambeth, and perhaps the 2009 General Convention) opinions will change; or that in the long run the Communion-as-we-have-known-it can be salvaged.

Marshall Scott

Posted by mscottsail | December 14, 2007 1:05 PM

The ABC obeserves that because GC is bicameral, the HoB (and the HoD for that matter) is decisive if any change is to be approved. In New Orleans statement the HoB is acknowledging that despite that teaching and learning is a two way street at least as far as our bishops are concerned.

As to the ABC's authority he is often criticized for not acting on his private convictions, and he has declined to do so because he does not believe it his role to dictate. So which is it - do you want him to take more power or less? Or does it depend on whether he agrees with you?

Actually, he is asserting some power in this statement by what he is not doing. He is not calling for a Primate meeting. Instead, look at what he is calling for:

1. I propose two different but related courses of action during the months ahead. I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding.

2. I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion [FN] to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies.

Certainly not a great deal of aid and comfort to partisans of any persuasion, but then again it's not another Primates meeting either.

FN Earlier he wrote "it is historically an aspect of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to 'articulate the mind of the Communion' in moments of tension and controversy, as the Windsor Report puts it." Hmmm. Probably means nothing.

Posted by John B. Chilton | December 14, 2007 1:38 PM

I've posted my reaction here:

http://julianlong.net/wordpress/?p=81

Posted by julianlong | December 14, 2007 1:43 PM

"I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding."

And would anyone like to take odds that +Gene Robinson will NOT be among the "leadership" who are invited?

I wonder if someday there might possibly be a commission or committee in which gay and lesbians are not "them", but "us".

Posted by John-Julian,OJN | December 14, 2007 2:53 PM

I am frustrated by the Archbishop's continued understanding of any Lambeth Resolution as an "expression of the mind of the Communion," and frankly with his claim that as Archbishop he can make such and "expression of the mind of Communion" in any case. Ian Douglas pointed out with the Virginia Report a trend towards "curialization" and this can be seen glaringly in Windsor and Dar-Es-Salaam. The Archbishop's use of Lambeth 1.10 in this letter and his interpretation of what this means has he calls the 2008 Lambeth stands in stark opposition to Archbishop Longley who said, in calling the first Lambeth, "It should be distinctly understood that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to which shall affect generally the interest of the Church, but that we shall meet together for brotherly counsel and encouragement." He did so to answer the Archbishop of York, Dean of Westminster and other's worries that Anglicanism made no provision for InterProvincial Synodic government. Lambeth is not meant to be a Council of the Church. We need to continue to guard against the consolidation of power or doctrinal interpretation in executive authorities if we are to maintain our Anglican heritage and identity.

Posted by Mike Angell | December 14, 2007 4:30 PM

"It is only of homosexual persons that we require universal celibacy, whereas for others we teach that celibacy is a special vocation. We say that sexual orientation is morally a matter of indifference, but what is culpable are homosexual acts. But then we claim that sexuality is a divine gift, which used properly, helps us become more human and akin really to God, as it is this part of our humanity that makes us more gentle and caring, more self-giving and concerned for others than we would be without that gift. Why should we want all homosexual persons not to give expression to their sexuality in loving acts? Why don't we use the same criteria to judge same-sex relationships that we use to judge whether heterosexual relationships are wholesome or not?"

Desmond Tutu in his foreard to We were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays.

He goes on to say of the inconsistent way the institution has treated LGBTs that he "knew that the Lord of the Church would not be where his Church is in this matter. Can we act quickly to let the gospel imperatives prevail as we remember our baptism and theirs, and be thankful?"

Seems to me a good percentage of LGBT Episcopalians will choose other denominations or no religion at this point.

This denomination is not serious about the sacraments and seems to be stuck in a medieval polity in which bishops are worshipped.

A religion of love, if it ever existed, has been replaced by an institutionalism in which LGBTs are simply not wanted. Rowan's fig leaf to hide his homophobia is not working.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by garydasein | December 14, 2007 5:33 PM

I have theological training and often reminded of the "how many angels can dance on the end of a pin?" As I read the ABC's letter and the responses I am dishearted. As a faithful gay Christian I feel that a doggey ABC is wounding those of us who have already been hurt by the Church. Everytime we start talking about the wider communion's norms, I think of African Primates who just 50 years ago were not considered "normative" for the wider communion...what hypocrites. What I get from many paragraphs of confusing arguement is that the ABC would theorically call us to just put White Hetersexual Males in the Bishop seats...that's were his logic leads.
TEC has been attacked by audiocratic bigots...and this is the ABC's Advent Letter?
Jesus hung out with tax collectors and woman...not the religious bigots of his day...God bless TEC for listening to the Spirt's Call, not to some "new radical interpretation of Scripture", but to the power of the One who came and was killed for daring to say God's Kingdom is here and now...TEC believes that include persons like me. God Bless TEC

--Tim Lusk

Posted by grace for all | December 14, 2007 9:07 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Music

Feeds

SEARCH