Lambeth Can Be What It Wants To Be
Written by Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Tuesday, 05 June 2007
...In light of this discussion, we can answer a number of questions currently being raised about attendance at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops. We can do so by observing the character of the Church’s first great councils – e.g. Nicea and Constantinople – and seeing how in fact they conform to the outline of conciliar life suggested above, and how they clarify current concerns. Although these two councils represent something “new”, from the perspective of history, they were not in fact “primordial”. They emerged from and took their place within an existing and long line of previous councils, some of considerable significance and weight. As “councils”, they are “general”, not de novo.
Does one sit in council with those with whom one is out of communion?
Nicea answered this question affirmatively: present were not only the Novationist schismatic bishop Acesius, but also Arians (including Arius himself!) who had previously and formally broken with bishops of the (finally decided) “orthodox” party. One does not need to share the Eucharist with another Christian in order for the counsel of the Holy Spirit to be authoritatively pursued among them.
In the midst of disputes within the Church, including ones that cut deeply and that burden us today, this reality (more fully demonstrated below) cuts in all kinds of directions.
Does one sit in council with heretics?
Invited to Nicea, as we know, were Arius and his friends and supporters (e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who ended up causing so much trouble for the orthodox after Nicea, despite signing on to the final agreement).
The first Council of Constantinople, over 50 years after Nicea, had to revisit with much anguish and conflict the very matters already decided at Nicea. This means that the later council, by definition, was one engaged with known “heretics”, established as such by a previous council. Yet that did not prevent the council’s gathering and its engagement of orthodox and heretic together.
Does one sit in council with the excommunicated?
As the previous question and response show, “heresy” can already be conciliarly defined and still be engaged subsequently on a personal level at another council. Hence, Arius, along with at least two African bishops, Secondus and Theonus, had been formally condemned and excommunicated by a formal Alexandrian synod, some time before Nicea convened. Yet Bp. Alexander (and Athanasius, his then-secretary) met with them at Nicea. Both Nicea and Constantinople gathered bishops who had, at various times, been excommunicated and even exiled by opposing parties.
One of the questions to be asked in the context of the above is, “does not counsel with heretics and the excommunicated threaten the corruption of the council itself and of the church subsequently?”. This question has been posed within the Anglican Communion currently in terms of TEC being a liberal “heresy” similar to a “gangrene” or “cancer” whose presence cannot be tolerated in council for fear of contamination. Clearly this was not the view of those participating in the first councils of the Church, including the first two Ecumenical Councils. It was not so because the nature of Christian conciliarity, as we have explained, is founded on the power of the Holy Spirit within the lives of those taking council, not uniformly, but simply really – just as Jesus’ authority in the Church is based on His own pneumatic life, not on His members’ uniformly.
Certainly, there are a variety of responses given in the New Testament church to heresy or immorality within the Christian community. In all cases where possible, discipline is exercised. But discipline within the New Testament is not uniform – as Paul’s experience with the “false apostles” at Corinth makes clear – and is often set aside in favor of the “power” of the Spirit’s “demonstration” in the lives of the Church’s saints, regardless of the failures of others around them. Indeed, the one text in the New Testament regarding “gangrene” (2 Tim. 2:17) is not about complete disengagement with heretics, but about the proper kind of engagement, based not on drawn out controversy but on a particular kind of charismatic posture and example as a teacher (2 Tim. 2:24ff.) that leads the erring person to “repentance”.
The point here is that a council may choose to invite or not, on the basis of discipline or not – none of this validates or invalidates a council. These are prudential decisions, not matters of faith (see below).
Does one sit at council with those who have betrayed previous councils?
Following Nicea, an entire array of Arians and related “heretics” continued to agitate and in fact often “triumph” ecclesially through episcopal establishement and numerous new councils, both local and wider. Many, although not all, of these subsequent councils were attended by “orthodox”, who knowingly came to gatherings in which they were outnumbered, deceived, and mistreated. Their attendance, where possible, was based on the courage, calm, and faith granted them by the Holy Spirit, not on juridical realities. Such councils were often later judged to be invalid; but not because of their initial gathering, but rather because of their fruit. I personally believe it to be the case that, at certain point, if one can no longer trust the word of certain members of the Church, their presence at the Church’s councils do indeed become problematic. But again, to what degree is a prudential decision, not one based on principle.
Does non-invitation of potentially worthy attendees invalidate a council?
The Bishop of Rome was never invited to (nor did he or his formal representative attend) the Council of Constantinople (and he was, at the time, out of communion with the Council’s president, Melitius, as well as with others present). Yet, in time – and not a long time either – the Council of Constantinople was recognized by the Pope as a valid “ecumenical” council, despite not even having a formal papal representative present.
The conclusion here, to restate a point made before and well-grounded in conciliar theology, is that councils are authoritative in their historical reception, not in their immediate form. The form, however, points to the character of the council in an initial way, and eventually reveals that inner character over time: one comes to council, and God does His work.
Is the Lambeth Conference a council?
Councils are determined retrospectively by their fruit. There have been “rules” formulated for determining a council’s legitimacy (especially in Western churches, though less so in the East), but these are not in themselves sufficient or even necessary, certainly not always clear (cf. Constantinople I, and various other disputed councils).
The Lambeth Conference was not, as we know, initially understood to be a “synod” of juridical authority; nor is it yet so considered in any clear way. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently wrote that the Conference “is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants”. This statement is technically true, but it is perhaps misleading. What in fact does “formal” mean in a conciliar church where the work of the Holy Spirit itself in the lives of a council’s participants grants a council authority? Does it apply simply to the “regular” aspect of a council – in which case, however, Lambeth is surely such a gathering. And, as we saw, an authoritative and regularized council may invite all kinds of attendees, without necessarily being “absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants”. It is the Spirit that lets us “stand” or “fall” (cf. Rom. 14:4) – we should not worry about others. Finally, the Lambeth Conferences have in fact been in the process of being received in more and more clearly “conciliar” ways, wherein “moral authority” (already recognized by many) has assumed an embodied disciplinary authority, if not yet one that has been well defined. What does seem clear is that the Lambeth Conference already functions as part of the interlocking reality of the Anglican Communion’s discerning and decision-making life in a way that is essential and effective.
If this is so, we need to understand what exactly is happening when the Archbishop of Canterbury makes decisions and statements regarding a given Lambeth Conference. First and foremost, he is not ruling on the authority of Lambeth as a council of the Communion. That is not his role nor his purview. Only the Holy Spirit rules on a council! And the Lambeth Conference has been the subject of this pneumatic ruling already now for some years. Thus, while the Archbishop of Canterbury has the authority “to invite”, he does not have the authority to declare a gathering a true council or not. Not even the Lambeth Conference!
But what of the “invitations” themselves? The Archbishop of Canterbury may, and he should, exercise his authority to invite in as prudentially acute a way as possible, given all the various needs and pressures at work in the Communion especially in our day. The “regular” and “ordered” character of the Anglican Communion’s life has given him this role. This has happened not only through both the providence and accidents of time, but conciliarly, through the “received” acceptance of his role from the first Lambeth Conference until now, and this follows the pattern whereby most councils are convened through particular ordered means and persons. And until this particular pattern within the Communion is altered in a regularized fashion, the role is his to fulfill in as faithful a way as possible. This we pray he will do. It is possible that this role will one day be altered; but it cannot be simply altered by individual fiat from some quarter of the Communion, apart from the conciliar life of the Communion itself.
For instance, the Archbishop appears to have specific disciplinary and pastoral reasons why he will not invite Gene Robinson to Lambeth, or Martyn Minns, or several other bishops from around the Communion – e.g. their presence is egregiously scandalous or confusing or preemptive of certain decisions yet to be made. The point isn’t that there is a grid by which to measure exactly levels of scandal or confusion as attached to specific individuals: is Robinson more “scandalous” than Arius? There is no such template. Rather, the Archbishop must simply do the best he can to weigh the practical realities of attendance and non-attendance, given the goal of conciliar gathering itself. He also may well have such reasons in the future for withdrawing or further limiting or expanding his invitations. We may agree or disagree with the Archbishop’s assumed or explicit reasoning, but the invitations themselves are appropriately offered within the context of such prudential and disciplinary reasoning, and the conciliar value of Lambeth simply does not hang on the particulars of the invitations themselves. Whoever is invited is being called through the formal and ordered means of the church’s conciliar life; and the calling should be heeded.
...more
186 Comments •
Wow,
First it was: just wait until after September 30th and then we’ll likely see some invitations withdrawn.
Now it is: Even if they aren’t withrawn everyone should meet together and continue to meet together into infinity regardless of discipline.