(my comments follow below)
Amongst conservatives in the United States, two different understandings of Communion and how to maintain it appear to be vying for ascendancy in our present season.
One has assumed, and may still assume, that something called ‘orthodoxy’ can be maintained by carving out ecclesial space in a new province. How this may be achieved is conceivably through a variety of means, but one popular avenue is by forging links to primates and other regions in the Communion. The main concern is getting distance from ECUSA and achieving an ‘orthodoxy’ identifiable precisely by its public detachment from this local ecclesial reality.
Another has assumed that the chief concern is with maintaining the highest degree of Communion possible by the necessity of disciplining a wayward province, in whatever form that is proper, through consultation with the same Communion. Here the role of Canterbury, in conjunction with the Primates, and the ECUSA’s historical claim to be in communion with Canterbury and a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, are viewed as the best way to think about discipline within the Body. At issue is not detachment or separation, but the determination of Communion full-stop. Communion is here defined by means of conciliarity, under the authority of Holy Scripture and in the light of received Christian teaching. In the contested area of sexuality, Lambeth 1.10 is the last conciliarly determined statement of human sexuality in this Communion, and compliance with this teaching is a sign of Communion.
In recent days we have seen two statements from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Though the term discipline does not appear in either statement, Archbishop Rowan makes it clear that conciliarity (whose public character is to be determined in a covenant) will in all likelihood result in some ‘opting out’ by those formerly in ‘full eucharistic Communion’ (see address to General Synod). Discipline is, in other words, a decision to forgo the constraints and the hopes of Communion, and the common mission of Christ thereby engendered.
In our view, the problem with the first ‘strategy’ being pursued by conservatives is that it seeks to create a new province by detachment, but leaves unclear what the responsibility for maintaining the Anglican witness in this region is, as a historical and providential fact. It does not want to take up the work of determining the character of Communion, in such a way that those who do not wish to be a part of it can be identified through their own consent and decision. This may result in parallel provinces and putative links to ‘orthodoxy’ in regions beyond the US, but the work of Communion will not be taken up, only moved to a different place for adjudication. Or it will simply be left dangling.
ACI expresses its gratitude to God for the recent statements of Archbishop Rowan and views them as pivotal, charitable, and hopeful. The work is there ahead of us. Many will seek to frame a covenant on terms satisfactory to them, and the larger forces of conciliarity will need then to go to work. In the meantime, we have been given a clear statement that the resolutions of General Convention were incomplete at best and await the adjudication of Communion Instruments. ACI has already noted the difficulty for conciliarity posed by the election of a Presiding Bishop whose public views and actions in respect of human sexuality are at odds with Communion teaching.
This should explain in part why requests are now forthcoming for something being called ‘alternative primatial oversight.’ Whatever else this may mean—and the Archbishop signals his own confusion—they are surely a public statement that the means of Communion linkage for these Dioceses in ECUSA are now disturbed or unclear. Archbishop Rowan does not dismiss these requests, even as he may struggle to know what to do with them, inasmuch as the problem to which they point is real and is bundled with what he understands to be the restraints and the hopefulness of this Anglican Communion.
ACI looks forward to a meeting of Windsor Bishops in the days to come. It is not too soon to begin thinking about what a covenant might look like. Our view is that one could now work toward stipulating what minimal covenant thresholds might be, like Lambeth 1.10, the Windsor Report and Dromantine Responses; these would have to be passed through to reconnect to processes of conciliarity already in place, and so to be a part of a future covenant process. And it is clearly time now to think through what form Communion linkage of parishes through ECUSA, outside of these dioceses, might take, when the status of ECUSA is clouded if not contested. It is to be remembered that Windsor asked certain specific things of ECUSA, and ECUSA responded with seriousness to these requests. What it failed to do was satisfy the requests being made of it, and the election of a Presiding Bishop whose public actions in the area of human sexuality make it unclear how she might constitute ECUSA’s presence at future Primates Meetings.
ACI believes that Archbishop Rowan’s statements offer the clearest vision of the way we must now proceed. We hope that in good time the Bishops of this Communion, here in ECUSA, will gather to begin discussing the best way forward. We must begin the hard work of Communion here on our own side of the pond. Forging links to ‘orthodoxy’ may have served the purpose of expediency at some point in time. Now we are entering a new season, and ‘new occasions teach new duties.’ With God’s help, let us take them up.
Christopher Seitz
Ephraim Radner
Philip Turner
Anglican Communion Institute
I am growing more and more uneasy with the ACI's read on this. They seem here to conflate the process of discipline with the process of covenant creation. They also grow more opposed to parishes/diocese departing ECUSA for other jurisdictions with every publication. As I've mentioned before, their stance in this regard completely ignores the pastoral concerns of parishes in revisionist dioceses, parishes already under the spiritual authority of false teachers, that with every passing day grow more and more vulnerable. The process of covenant creation promises to be at least a decade long if not longer. In that time, most if not all of the orthodox parishes existing within revisionist diocese will have to face the question of succession. Using the helpful tactics and strategy developed over the last years, some will manage to find orthodox rectors or vicars. Most will not.
A Network strategy that does not include the creation of a parallel province is a losing one. Not only does it mean the ultimate abandonment of the isolated parishes mentioned above, it also leaves far too much political, legal, and ecclesial leverage in the hands of 815.
A distict extra-jurisdictional province within the United States now (not a tenth province within ECUSA, but a distinct province beyond ECUSA) that includes not only orthodox dioceses but that also includes those parishes that currently reside in the 7th Convocation would provide a counterweight to 815 in the councils of the communion. It would also ensure the reform of North American Anglicanism, a prospect that remains in doubt so long as the orthodox are bound by the canons of the Episcopal Church. ECUSA has chosen to walk away not just from the Anglican Communion but from Christendom itself. The time has come to let her walk alone.
Communion discipline will come but whether it does or not, the Episcopal Church as it is currently constituted is a dead branch. To be ingrafted into the living vine of the true faith we must seek extrication.
The ACI objection to this strategy is somewhat of a stretch.
In our view, the problem with the first ‘strategy’ being pursued by conservatives is that it seeks to create a new province by detachment, but leaves unclear what the responsibility for maintaining the Anglican witness in this region is, as a historical and providential fact.
I'm not sure why this is unclear? First, a new Anglican province would obviously share the mission of the Church worldwide--to spread the gospel of Christ. Second, it would embrace the classical Anglican expressions of the faith as articulated in prayerbook worship, biblical fidelity and the three-fold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons.
They go on to object:
It does not want to take up the work of determining the character of Communion, in such a way that those who do not wish to be a part of it can be identified through their own consent and decision.
On the contrary, there is no better way to help clarify the character of the Communion than to establish a second province in North America committed to Anglican orthodoxy. The stark difference between the two provinces would clear the fog quite well. I have no idea why the ACI thinks that the creation of a parallel province would make this process of opting in or opting out more difficult? Certainly (even if ECUSA is disciplined) all provinces would be given the opportunity to assent to or reject the covenant.
This may result in parallel provinces and putative links to ‘orthodoxy’ in regions beyond the US, but the work of Communion will not be taken up, only moved to a different place for adjudication. Or it will simply be left dangling.
Not at all. ECUSA will face Communion discipline and/or she will find it impossible to opt into the new covenant (more likely both). Either way her ties to Canterbury will weaken. The second province comprised of orthodox Anglicans will opt into the covenant and experience increasingly close ties with Canterbury and the rest of the Communion.
Why, by the way, does the ACI place "orthodoxy" inside quotation marks, often called sneer quotes?
The ACI statement seems to advocate a "do nothing" policy. Sit and wait for another ten years while the covenant creation process proceeds. They do call for a meeting of Network bishops (a good idea) and they rightly extoll the ABC's vision for the covenant. What they fail to see is that these days are pivotal.
There is a great opportunity before us to both deal a great blow to the edifice of heterodoxy, 815, and to establish a secure and legitimate province, free of wolves. The danger is that our vision is too small; that we might fail to recognize the door God has opened and ask for too little. It seems as though the great struggle from the perspective of the ACI is for Communion integrity. Whereas, in truth, the heart of the struggle is for biblical fidelity. If we struggle for the former first and foremost we may well lose the latter but if we fight first for the latter we may well save the former.
Biblical fidelity is the desire of the Global South. It is the path taken by the most vital and powerful provinces of the Anglican Communion. We must follow them. They have acted boldly. We must act boldly.
The global south will not fight this battle for us, but they will support us if we act. The CAPA letter and the communications from the Church of Nigeria ought to give our leaders courage. The ABC's description of the 75th General Convention's response to the WR as inadequate and his consideration of the APO requests that have been made ought to give our leaders courage as well.
In my opinion our vision up to this point has been far too small. Our appeals for APO ought not to be limited by the canonical structure of the Episcopal Church. It is time to look beyond them and appeal for a fully recognized orthodox province in America.
Matt
45 Comments •
Comments:
An orthodox US Anglican Province should be established, but even if TEC is expelled, the new province should not be aligned with other provinces where similarly heretic unbiblical practices are practiced and condoned.
To expell one and remain aligned with the others would make no sense.