Before we delve into the piece it's worth, I think, drawing your attention to a piece I wrote almost 3 years ago entitled "The Canterbury Tail" where I worked through a lengthy interview that Williams gave to a newspaper and explained how:
Williams is best understood as a Hegelian, that is that (at it's most simple level) history proceeds in a never-ending rhythm of thesis and antithesis leading to synthesis. As a result, Williams doesn't so much see his job as Archbishop to propound the thesis or orthodoxy so much as to govern over the process towards synthesis.
Put another way, Williams does not see his role so much to lead the Communion as to describe where the Communion is at and facilitate the conversation it is having.
This is, of course, a source of constant frustration to those of us who want clarity in these matters. But it is not Williams' way. Now, almost 3 years later, nothing much has changed in what we read from him. Nevertheless, allow me the indulgence of working through some of his "reflection" and making some comment.
1. No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion. Their generous welcome to guests from elsewhere, including myself, the manifest engagement with the crushing problems of the developing world and even the wording of one of the more controversial resolutions all make plain the fact that the Episcopal Church does not wish to cut its moorings from other parts of the Anglican family. There has been an insistence at the highest level that the two most strongly debated resolutions (DO25 and CO56) do not have the automatic effect of overturning the requested moratoria, if the wording is studied carefully. There is a clear commitment to seek counsel from elsewhere in the Communion about certain issues and an eloquent resolution in support of the 'Covenant for a Communion in Mission' as commended by ACC13. All of this merits grateful acknowledgement. The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.
2. However, a realistic assessment of what Convention has resolved does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces; very serious anxieties have already been expressed. The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.
Already here there is a tension. For many of us what Williams writes in paragraph 1 will be quite vexing. We have long noted that TEC says one thing about it's desire to remain in the Communion but then does another. One cannot repeatedly claim one thing while repudiating it in one's actions and still remain respected. It just doesn't work. It might be an olive branch to TEC but if so it is, in my judgement, misguided.
After a number of very helpful paragraphs reminding us that LGBT persons are still worthy of the greatest respect and love, Williams turns to the issue at hand:
6. ...the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.
7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
I want to suggest that this is both helpful and unhelpful at the same time. It is helpful in that it states very clearly that what TEC has done is step away from the mind of not only the Communion but also the "Church Catholic". Here Williams may be acutely aware of the great ecumenical damage caused by TEC's actions. However, it also demonstrates his continuing philosophical framework - what TEC has done is an antithesis that stands in stark contrast to the thesis of the "Church Catholic". For Williams it is, therefore, unacceptable.
I think three years ago I had not appreciated how committed to this position Williams actually is. He genuinely believes that what TEC is doing is wrong, despite any theological agreement he has with them. Of course, that doesn't mean that his approach is somehow better. It's as flawed as it has always been since his job is to lead, teach and banish strange doctrine. But it does mean we have to have sympathy with a man who has genuine concerns and convictions over this. We can appreciate his great pain over the matter while still lamenting over his appalling lack of leadership.
Williams continues this discussion until we arrive here:
16. In recent years, local pastoral needs have been cited as the grounds for changes in the sacramental practice of particular local churches within the Communion, and theological rationales have been locally developed to defend and promote such changes. Lay presidency at the Holy Communion is one well-known instance. Another is the regular admission of the unbaptised to Holy Communion as a matter of public policy. Neither of these practices has been given straightforward official sanction as yet by any Anglican authorities at diocesan or provincial level, but the innovative practices concerned have a high degree of public support in some localities.
17. Clearly there are significant arguments to be had about such matters on the shared and agreed basis of Scripture, Tradition and reason. But it should be clear that an acceptance of these sorts of innovation in sacramental practice would represent a manifest change in both the teaching and the discipline of the Anglican tradition, such that it would be a fair question as to whether the new practice was in any way continuous with the old. Hence the question of 'recognisability' once again arises.
18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent 'community of Christian communities'.
At this point I find myself in strange agreement with a rather well-known unitarian liberal, the Pluralist, who writes:
This argument applies to the ordination of women, surely? But when years ago he hinted at this reality, the actual reality of one local Church - The Church of England - forced a rapid reversal. Indeed, this local Church is not far off from deciding to ordain bishops: when other Anglican Churches do not and the whole of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not.
Pluralist has, surely, touched upon a profound problem in Williams' argument. The old chestnut of women's ordination and consecration comes into play. Now, of course, we immediately must recognise that many of the conservatives, whether leaning towards evangelicalism or "catholicism", have seen this as a secondary issue whereas sexual ethics, Scripture tells us, is a more direct gospel matter. Nevertheless, the comparison is still there. Williams' problem then is that he may have to redefine what he means by the "Church Catholic" and our relation to it. Is it seen one way over gender roles and a different way over sexual ethics? The more I ponder this the more I come to the conclusion that it thoroughly undermines Williams' recourse to "Catholicity". What he is really appealing to is a perceived consensus in a more general way. Again, we are back at the base line of thesis and synthesis rather than the claimed catholicity.
So where to from here? For Williams the answer is in the Anglican Covenant. But, of course, some may not want to sign up:
22. It is possible that some will not choose this way of intensifying relationships, though I pray that it will be persuasive. It would be a mistake to act or speak now as if those decisions had already been made – and of course approval of the final Covenant text is still awaited. For those whose vision is not shaped by the desire to intensify relationships in this particular way, or whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness – existing relationships will not be destroyed that easily. But it means that there is at least the possibility of a twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance: that is, a 'covenanted' Anglican global body, fully sharing certain aspects of a vision of how the Church should be and behave, able to take part as a body in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue; and, related to this body, but in less formal ways with fewer formal expectations, there may be associated local churches in various kinds of mutual partnership and solidarity with one another and with 'covenanted' provinces.
23. This has been called a 'two-tier' model, or, more disparagingly, a first- and second-class structure. But perhaps we are faced with the possibility rather of a 'two-track' model, two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage, one of which had decided that local autonomy had to be the prevailing value and so had in good faith declined a covenantal structure. If those who elect this model do not take official roles in the ecumenical interchanges and processes in which the 'covenanted' body participates, this is simply because within these processes there has to be clarity about who has the authority to speak for whom.
So TEC may very well end up on the "second track". Will that work? I suggest it is, ultimately unworkable and unacceptable because
- Who says TEC will self-select the "second track"? What if they continue their charade of being "full loyal members of the Communion? Who will derail them (so to speak) and sort the mess out? Certainly not Williams.
- Is it acceptable to have TEC continue to be recognised in this way? For some of us (and I would suggest a majority in the Communion) we are more than convinced that TEC has already boldly taken the step themselves into "outer darkness" (a clear allusion to Jesus' words recorded in Matt. 8:12, 22:13, 25:13 which speak of the fate of those who do not receive salvation on the day of judgement).
And here is the base problem. Williams proposes a solution that still recognises the position of TEC as validly Christian and capable of holding out salvation. They are still, in his mind, to be viewed as a Christian Church, despite their possible reluctance to sign up to the Covenant and full membership of the Communion. Will such an outcome be accepted by the majority of the Communion? It should not! The next section, then, leaves a really sour taste in the mouth:
24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion. It should not need to be said that a competitive hostility between the two would be one of the worst possible outcomes, and needs to be clearly repudiated. The ideal is that both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency. It is right to hope for and work for the best kinds of shared networks and institutions of common interest that could be maintained as between different visions of the Anglican heritage. And if the prospect of greater structural distance is unwelcome, we must look seriously at what might yet make it less likely.
All of this rests on Williams' stated conviction that TEC as an institution is not already in the darkness. But that is simply not true. They cannot simply be regarded as "synthesis"
Williams concludes:
26. All of this is to do with becoming the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ. It would be a great mistake to see the present situation as no more than an unhappy set of tensions within a global family struggling to find a coherence that not all its members actually want. Rather, it is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities. Of course it is problematic; and no-one would say that new kinds of structural differentiation are desirable in their own right. But the different needs and priorities identified by different parts of our family, and in the long run the different emphases in what we want to say theologically about the Church itself, are bound to have consequences. We must hope that, in spite of the difficulties, this may yet be the beginning of a new era of mission and spiritual growth for all who value the Anglican name and heritage.
The call for "mutual respect" might leave some choking. How far must we take this respect? How much further can TEC push their heresy? An interesting question for Williams to be asked would be "how much will actually be enough? At what point will you publically say "no more!"? Is there ever such a point for Williams?
The tragedy of this reflection is that ultimately there is nothing new. It's just same old, same old. The Communion is no better off for what Williams has written. Nothing has changed. TEC and the Canadian church are still left to their own devices and the institutions of the Communion remain ineffective to stop them. Once again, Williams has not given us a way forward but simply described the options available. But we already knew them.
Tragically, Williams has nothing to offer the Communion to get us out of this mess. What is needed now is clarity over how bad things have got and a firm disciplining of TEC. Would George Carey have allowed things to get so out of hand? Who knows. We are where we are now.
FCA types, such as myself, have been accused of disregarding the office of Canterbury as though it were not important. That is not actually where we stand. We recognise that Canterbury is not essential, which is not quite the same position. But Canterbury is vitally important, evidenced not least by the profoundly negative impact that Williams' inaction has had on the Communion. So a call now for Williams to go, in the light of his inactivity, is not to undermine Canterbury but, rather, to hold it in a very high place. For the sake of the reputation of his very high office he must vacate Augustine's Chair.
But if that is not to happen (and it will most probably not), do not be surprised to see the FCA continue to play its card of a Canterbury-less Communion with a growing confidence.
The great losers in all this will, undoubtedly, be the faithful orthodox who remain within TEC. What can be said to them?
Some will want to stay and fight. I say more power to them. They will recognise that their validity as Christians is not measured by their loyalty to a particular Province or bishop but to the Bishop of Bishops, Jesus Christ. They may find it hard to remain loyal to Him and live in their dioceses but that is their choice. What can we do to support them? I'm not sure but getting on our knees is a very fine and effective means of aid.
Others will want to leave. And we must support them too and find them new homes.
Neither position is more correct. To claim that one is, is to fall into the great mistake that Williams himself made. It would be to place loyalty to institution and its related processes over and above loyalty to Christ. That is where Williams has failed so badly and where we must stand firm. There is a true Catholic church made up of all believers, whether they stand bloodied on their little stone bridge or recuperating in their new Province. There is only one track in that communion.
And if Williams finally decides that he wants to be a part of it then I will lead the applause. But until then it will continue regardless, with or without him.
29 Comments •
Comments:
If not signing the covenant means less than the fullest participation, given the weak wording of the covenant, TEC will probably sign, then just keep dong what it wants. Unless the covenant has very strong and specific language, along the lines of, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only acceptable relationship for sexual intimacy, and no person involved in any other relationship including sexual intimacy can be ordained or continue to serve in any ordained capacity.” There should be similar strong words forbidding blessings of same-sex relationships. More important than the sex issues, there should be specific words concerning the most important doctrinal issues. Short of something that specific, I would not be surprised to see TEC sign it, then play the same kind of word games they have with the Windsor Report, Dar Communique, etc. If ++Rowan won’t act to ensure something with teeth, the primates must, or the Communion will divide.