The Road to Lambeth A Statement by the Council of
Anglican Provinces in Africa
Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane:
The Heartlands of Anglicanism
The Road to Lambeth
A Statement by the Council of Anglican Provinces in
The Anglican Communion
is at a crossroad. The idea of a crossroad – a meeting and parting of two ways
– is woven into the fabric of Scripture. The people of
We are the voice of
the Anglican churches in
Although the Anglican
Communion came into being at a time of theological and ecclesiastical crisis –
the so-called Colenso case – the Lambeth Conference of bishops has by and large
managed to avoid doctrinal disputes and disciplinary cases that might have led
to controversy and even disunity. Instead the Communion has functioned under
the broad umbrella of biblical faith, historic order and Anglican worship, as
summarized in the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Although there have been tensions from
time to time, e.g., over the ordination of women, most Anglican churches have
been content to live with what seemed to be secondary differences. Until now.
At the same time, huge
shifts have occurred in the constituency of the Communion and the Lambeth
Conference in the past half century. What began as a colonial council of
expatriate bishops has become at least in theory a parliament of equals. Its
members’ complexion has changed from all-white and Anglo to largely non-white,
Latino, African and Asian. Its Provinces have become self-governing. And its
evangelical and spiritual dynamism is centred in what is now called the Global
South or the majority world. While these changes have affected the demography
of the Communion, they have not been reflected in its governance, which has
stayed put or even gone in the opposite direction. In particular, the advent of
the Anglican Communion Office has concentrated power in the hands of those who
“pay the piper.” It is remarkable, for example, how few Global South church
leaders are appointed to positions of real authority in the Communion.
The growth of the
global Communion has spawned a number of alternative structures. The foremost
of these is the Primates’ meeting, which has emerged in the past twenty years
as the senate of the Communion. In addition, regional associations and
gatherings, such as CAPA, CAPAC and the South-South Encounters are bringing
together majority-world Anglicans to address their particular needs.
The opposing trends
noted above – the growth of the churches of the Global South and the tight
control of power by the Anglo-American bloc – came to a head at the Lambeth
Conference in 1998. The presenting cause was the acceptance of homosexuality in
the Western societies and churches. Despite a determined effort by the
Communion bureaucracy to blunt the issue, the Global South bishops managed to
get a Resolution to the floor which stated that homosexual practice is
“contrary to Scripture” and “cannot be advised.” Resolution 1.10 on Human
Sexuality was approved by the Conference by an overwhelming majority.
The importance of this
Resolution cannot be overstated. By using the phrase “contrary to Scripture,”
the bishops indicated that homosexual practice violates the first principle of
the Communion’s Quadrilateral and indeed the fundamental basis of Anglican
Christianity (as expressed in Articles VI and XX). They were saying: “Here is
an issue on which we cannot compromise without losing our identity as a
Christian body.” Such was the understanding of the Global South bishops, and
hence they were taken aback when Resolution 1.10 was immediately ignored and
denounced by bishops of the Episcopal Church.
In the subsequent
Primates’ meetings, the Global South bishops have repeatedly called on the
Episcopal Church USA and now the Anglican Church of Canada to repent and bring
their practice in line with Scripture and with the mind of the Lambeth Conference.
The African attitude toward the actions of the North American churches has been
consistent throughout this crisis. It is based on several assumptions:
·
the supreme authority of Scripture as the ultimate
standard of faith and life (LQ 1);
·
the clarity of the Church’s teaching on “the
unchangeable Christian standard” of marriage between one man and one woman
(Lambeth Resolution 66 [1920]);
·
the practice of homosexuality as a sign of fallenness
and a sin separating one from salvation (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11;
Ephesians 5:3-5);
·
the need for repentance by individuals who sin, even
more so for those who teach sin as blessing (Matthew 5:19; 18:6); and
·
the requirement that believers not associate with
openly immoral church members (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14).
The
crisis reached fever pitch in 2003 when the Diocese of New Hampshire (USA)
elected an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, the General Convention of the
Episcopal Church confirmed him as Bishop, and the Presiding Bishop presided at
his consecration. The Episcopal Church could not have sent a clearer signal
that it was going its own way, and nothing would stop it.
After
the Robinson election, many provinces chose the only instrument of discipline
available: declaration of impaired or broken Communion. In February 2004,
thirteen Global South Primates, including eight from
I.
That full repentance in word and action is called
for by those who have violated God’s holy will in Scripture;
II.
That this repentance would include the
resignation or removal from office of Gene Robinson and the passage of
legislation which would bar any similar ordinations of priests and consecrations
of bishops;
III.
That this repentance would include a
reaffirmation of the biblical standard of marriage as the lifelong union of one
man and one woman and the exclusion of all other configurations as a violation
of that standard;
IV.
That responses from our provinces to requests
for alternative oversight from churches in North America are of a emergency
order and not to be compared to the full and blatant violations of biblical
morality by the churches of
We
in CAPA want to say clearly and unequivocally to the rest of the Communion: the
time has come for the North American churches to repent or depart. We in the
Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any
reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion. We have sought to
give time for those who have violated biblical and Communion norms to turn
back. Now that time is up. We shall not accept cleverly worded excuses but
rather a clear acknowledgement by these churches that they have erred and
“intend to lead a new life” in the Communion (2 Corinthians 4:2). Along with
this open statement of repentance must come “fruits befitting repentance” (Luke
3:8). They must reverse their policies and prune their personnel.
The
current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of
doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the “Instruments”
of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability
of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation
of faith, as is supposed by the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Due to this breakdown of
discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend
our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two
Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.
It
grieves us to mention that the crisis is not limited to
In
light of the above, we have concluded that we must receive assurances from the
Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before
a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting
and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We
will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the
Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.
We
are frankly disappointed that the announced plans of the Lambeth Design Team
avoid discussion of Communion order and discipline, which have been clearly
strained to the breaking point. We are disappointed that the central issue of
an Anglican Communion Covenant is not front-and-centre on the agenda of the
Conference. If any group should be expected to consult on these most important
issues, it should be the assembled bishops of the Communion.
To
add to our reservations about the 2008 Lambeth Conference, we note the huge
expense of such an event. Our African churches are asked to divert funds from
much needed work of evangelization and charity to a 3-week meeting which has no
authority and which is blatantly ignored by “autonomous” member churches. In
some cases, poorer provinces are “assisted” by donors from the West who have a
deliberate agenda of buying silence from these churches. We conclude that if a
regular all-bishops’ conference is to continue in the Anglican Communion; it
should be held in the Global South, where the costs are much less and the local
economy can benefit; that it be shorter in duration; and that every church be
required to pay its own way (we in CAPA will take care of our own genuinely
needed members).
At
the outset of our Lord’s ministry, he began preaching: “The time (kairos)
is fulfilled; the
The
Church in
that the Church in
We
the members of CAPA must take forward this Resolution with a unity and
seriousness of purpose. Otherwise we shall be continually tempted by those
outside our borders who dangle money in return for silence on controversial
issues, such as has occurred recently in several of our provinces.
We
recognize the strategy employed by Episcopal Church and certain Communion
bodies to substitute talk of Millennium Development Goals for the truth of
Scripture. These choices are false alternatives: it is the Christ of Scripture
who compels us to care for the poor and afflicted. But we must take the
initiative in these areas and not accept the patronizing of those who are rich
in endowments but who are not rich toward God. Even among the churches on this
continent, there are differences in economic resources, in political stability
and in religious maturity. It is time for the stronger among us to empathize
with and come to the help of the weaker, and not always be looking overseas for
help.
It
is also a time for reflection and repentance for our churches as well. Our
churches must not be unwilling to “listen” and learn to understand better the
phenomenon of homosexual attraction. We do not deny that such practices occur
in our culture, even that such tendencies will increase as our countries
modernize and Western media influences us. We acknowledge our own failures in
promoting strong marriage relationships in a traditional culture which allows
for polygamy and dehumanizing treatment of women and children. What we are not
prepared to do is to suspend the unchangeable standard of God as a part of this
conversation. Let the Western churches first affirm God’s plan for the sexes,
then let us dialogue.
We
call on our fellow African Anglican leaders to work together in unity to revive
our beloved Anglican Communion. We believe that the initiative for the proposed
Anglican Communion Covenant should rest with the Global South churches. We do
not have confidence that a Covenant produced by those churches that have caused
or condoned the theological crisis will reflect the strong biblical and
theological core that a reformed Communion needs. In particular, we call on our
African churches to lead in sponsoring a Covenant Assembly for the Global South
leaders where we may gather and seek God’s guidance for the future of the
Communion.
We
Anglicans stand at a crossroad. One road, the road of compromise of biblical
truth, leads to destruction and disunity. The other road has its own obstacles
because it requires changes in the way the Communion has been governed and it
challenges our churches to live up to and into their full maturity in Christ.
But surely the second road is God’s way forward. It is our sincere hope that
this road may pass through Lambeth, our historical mother. But above all it
must be the road that leads to life through our Saviour Jesus Christ.
*****
This Statement was authorized by the Council of African Provinces in
30 May 2006
Archbishop
of
The Challenge and Hope of Being an
Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican
Communion
27 June 2006
The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?
What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about?
Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It’s about gay bishops,
or possibly women bishops. The
It’s true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in
the
Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed
to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also
believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a
recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own
terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic
teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the
rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about
the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its
ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is
a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a
Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of
behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make
decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of
Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.
Anglican Decision-Making
And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as
Anglicans deal with this issue ‘in our own terms’? And what most Anglicans
worldwide have said is that it doesn’t help to behave as if the matter had been
resolved when in fact it hasn’t. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and
declarations of intent, the process of ‘listening to the experience’ of
homosexual people hasn’t advanced very far in most of our churches, and that
discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the
Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without
even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the
matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing
same-sex partnerships.
There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the
legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been
forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those
churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not
had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the
last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal)
recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the
spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make
possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such
agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper
consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by
ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay
partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced
a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this
specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity
of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording
of the final formula.
Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the
substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of
theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in
2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced
the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into
‘political’ struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world.
However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local
churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a
universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been
unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been
ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the
politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned
reflection.
Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that
they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not
be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where
such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is
unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the
whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and
violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no
Truth and Unity
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth
sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring
examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like
the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is
understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can
only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy
to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to
recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is
the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action
is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right.
But let’s suppose that there isn’t that level of clarity about the
significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is
generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth (‘only the whole Church
knows the whole Truth’ as someone put it), we now face some choices about what
kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be
perfectly simple – and indeed desirable – to dissolve the international relationships,
so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be
tempting, but it ignores two things at least.
First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles
apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don’t run just
between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and
pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn’t
just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something
that could be in everyone’s interest – recognising that this involves different
sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, ‘let each
local church go its own way’; but once you’ve lost the idea that you need to
try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you
appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?
Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each
other’s life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These
are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they
are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without
those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within
a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its
surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the
sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital
to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some
structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a
complete Church.
Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is
something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. ‘You have not
chosen me but I have chosen you’, says Jesus to his disciples; and when we
gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as
invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically
all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle
with is, ‘Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist,
throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our
personal preferences?’
The Anglican Identity
The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried
to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a
loose federation of essentially independent bodies – a Church that is seeking
to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break
bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in
worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word ‘Communion’ means for
Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our
ecumenical dialogues.
Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important
account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international
and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We’re not. But we
have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across
cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is
what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the
realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not
primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of
ministry and worship – the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments;
a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common
prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just
a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the
invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and
sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with
Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and
some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally
necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to
fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here,
however fragile and however provisional.
But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures
which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in
a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit
conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central
mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking
the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic
Future Directions
The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches (developing alongside
the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local
Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best
way forward. It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were
prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other
would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some
might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there
were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other
‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps
personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single
and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional
structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England
and the
This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of
division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on
one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay
presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work
at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and
‘associated’ elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches
to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global
sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to
the mystery of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of
that ‘waiting for each other’ that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.
There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by
what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can
simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now
are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the
absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the
sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit
of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to
close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all
its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each
other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far.
Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that
view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’
church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our
immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something
more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do
to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this
matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.
The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in
isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in
a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may
lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the
sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a
high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry
around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style
of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the
culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in
isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict
evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To
accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need
each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to
live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being
positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies
of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with
limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is
thought possible or acceptable.
Conclusion
The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you
to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in
discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves
certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing
responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible.
No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary.
All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop
of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting
for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion,
and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the
theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must
always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the
primates and the other instruments of communion.
That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our
situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is
nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is
indeed the identity, the living tradition – and by God’s grace, the gift - we
want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation;
more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the
Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of
detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new
structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive
appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our
mission with deeper confidence and harmony.
ENDS
© Rowan Williams 2006
Source: http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/41/50/acns4161.cfm?
Archbishop
Njongonkulu Ndungane
The
Heartlands of Anglicanism - 10 July 2006
What does it mean to be Anglican? What is it about Anglicanism that has led so
many to conclude that it provides the most productive spiritual soil for living
out the Christian faith? What is it that we have, which we dare not lose?
These questions lead us to the heart of the Archbishop of Canterbury's
profound and stimulating reflections, 'The Challenge and Hope of Being an
Anglican Today.' We need to be confident in our response if we want to find
good answers to the other questions we face about the nature of the shared life
of the Anglican Communion.
Archbishop Rowan offers his own description of our distinctive Christian
inheritance. This he depicts as having the three strands of 'reformed
commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a
catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops,
priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual
flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected
questions too quickly.'
It is indeed within the territory encompassed by these strands that I find my
own experience and understanding of Christianity. These describe the rich
heartlands of Anglicanism - the solid centre, focussed
on Jesus Christ, to which we are constantly drawn back by the counterbalancing
pull of the other strands, if any one threatens to become disproportionately
influential.
These Anglican heartlands are the subject of my reflections - the historic
fertile middle ground, which is in danger of being forgotten amid polarising
arguments and talk of schism.
I am not offering specific solutions to the predicament we face, even as I
recognise that changes are inevitable. Rather I want to underline and affirm
that the territory on which we debate our future can only be that of these
broad rich heartlands of our Anglican heritage. It is not something to be
fought out at the limits of conservatism or liberalism, as if they were the
only possibilities before us.
Furthermore, the means by which we engage in deliberations and pursue our
solutions must also be those of our Anglican heritage - discernment sought
through the God-given, God-graced virtues of trust, tolerance and charity
across the variety we encompass; and through following the due processes of our
structures. We must honour our inheritance as both episcopally led and
synodically governed. The role of the historic episcopa te as a focus of unity
is vital, while at the same time we are not a church constituted in its bishops
alone . Therefore clergy and laity, the whole people of God, must be included
in wide debate, alongside the deliberation of Primates and Bishops at Lambeth.
To be enabled to do this, we must better engage with Anglican Tradition. We
need a fresh understanding of tradition not as dry forensic history, but as
holy remembering of God's abiding with his people, through the centuries. We
must own our history - the living and life-giving history of God at work among
us - in order to find our place of participation within the unfolding narrative
of God's redeeming acts in and through his church.
This is the heart of Anglicanism. We must not lose this middle ground.
Middle Ground - the Heartlands of Anglicanism
At its best, our living faith draws on the strengths of all three
threads of what Archbishop Rowan describes as our reformed, catholic and
intellectual/cultural components. It is not that we draw singly on one or
another, as we find it most appropriate to some particular situation. Rather,
in all circumstances we find a richly-textured, maturing faith flourishes as we
allow God to meet us through the creative interplay of insights,
encouragements, challenges, even admonitions, from all three elements taken
together.
Anglicanism is not a tradition that has operated through binary polarities and
sharp distinctions - this versus that, in versus out, us versus them. Rather,
Scriptures, creeds and historic formularies, together with the ordered
sacramental life of worship, and with careful, prayerful reflection, provide
the magnet that continually draws us toward the centre - one baptism, one
church, one faith, and most of all
one Lord 'in whom all things hold together' (Cor 1:17).
It is because Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity made flesh, is our
goal, our end, our telos, the central focus and direction of our lives, that
Anglicanism has found through the ages that we can afford to live with
messiness, ambiguity and anomaly at the edges. Through that permeability many
have found a warm invitation to come closer, and so to recognise and accept Jesus
as their Lord and Saviour.
Let no-one imagine that to speak of this Anglican middle ground implies a bland
and mediocre faith. By no means! This is no shallow, casual approach.
The greatest Anglicans of past and present are characterised by radical
holiness of life, an uncompromising dedication to prayer and Bible study, and
tenacious pursuit of the truth as they wrestled with the issues of their day.
This is a life lived under the authority of all these three-fold strands of
faith: of Scripture, of Church order and structures, of Christian tradition. It
is the life of obedience and self-discipline, and often costly self-denial,
for, especially in our relations with one another, as Paul reminds the
Corinthian church, even where 'all things are lawful,' it may well be that 'not
all things are beneficial' (1 Cor 10:23). All of us would do well to remember
this.
Nor does accepting the inevitability of messiness at the margins of the
community of faith mean 'anything goes.'
We are all permanently under the three-fold testing and purifying scrutiny of
the refining fire of God's holiness (Zech 13:9), of the two-edged sword of
Scripture (Heb 4:12), of minds transformed by the renewing Spirit (Rom 12:2) -
constantly challenged by truth and invited by love to 'hate what is evil and
cling to what is good' (Rom 12:9) and so to move towards greater
Christ-likeness.
It is on this basis we dare to engage with the complexities of contemporary
life around us.
The catholicity that saves us from narrowness and introspection is, as the
Archbishop of Canterbury reminds us, fundamental to our foundations. We are a
sacramental community, living out our faith in theological and institutional
continuity, conscious of being part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic
Church that is united with Christ, the vehicle of his mission in the world.
Sometimes we speak of the need to 'baptize culture.' This is no cursory wipe
with a damp cloth to produce a superficial religious veneer. Baptism is the
radical transformation that comes through burial with Christ and being raised
with him - every culture must die to the priorities, the loyalties, the idols,
of this world, and find new, authentic, life-giving, contemporary expression,
transfigured under the
lordship of Jesus, Saviour and Redeemer.
When confronted with such narrowly drawn choices as 'Are you liberal, or
conservative?' my response is that these are not the categories through which I
live as a child of God, and a member of the body of Christ, though I recognise
both conservative convictions and liberal instincts within myself, as I do also
catholic commitment, not least to the Divine Office and the Eucharist. Rather,
I know that I must engage with the Lord more broadly, in every dimension of my
humanity - with all my heart, mind, soul and strength - and in every way that
he reaches out to meet me, if I am really to mature in faith.
I need the full breadth of all three strands, all three dimensions, of
faith.
I need the vibrancy of a living relationship with him, which comes cloaked in
mystery beyond my comprehension, and is fed through the sacraments and the
ordered life and worship of the Church, as well as through private prayer and
contemplation; I need the inspired written word of Scripture - with its unique
authority, to 'teach, reprove, correct and train in righteousness', all of
which I require, if I am to become in any way 'proficient, equipped for every
good work' (2 Tim 3:16). And I need to engage with the circumstances and
culture in which I find myself - to discern what reflects God's kingdom, to
discern where the gospel good news is required to bring sight to the blind and
freedom to the oppressed, and so to be fully part of God's mission to his
world.
None of these are independent of the other two.
Scripture helps me understand and enunciate my relationship with God. His
Spirit mysteriously at work in me turns Bible study from dry intellectualism to
living encounter. The sacrament of his Body and Blood nourishes me, and gives
me strength for life's journey. The institutional life and structures of the
Church anchor me and provide a framework for active faith. The challenges of
the world drive me to my knees, and more deeply into the pages of Scripture,
which then together fuel and give shape to my intellectual wrestling.
In different times and places, the emphasis may lie more with one thread than
with another - there is a creative and dynamic diversity even at the heart of
my own faith - just as there is the creative and dynamic
diversity within the unity of the God-head who is also distinctly Father, Son
and Holy Spirit.
Here I should like wholeheartedly to endorse Archbishop Rowan's understanding
of the interrelationship of unity and truth. Jesus is the Truth, and our unity
is in him. Both start and end with him - they are both gifts, and both 'prior'
to us and our choices, and to a very great degree, unity is indeed 'generally a
way of coming closer to revealed truth.' If the body is not whole, the whole
body suffers, including our understanding of the truth. Both unity and truth
must be pursued together to the best of our God-graced ability - neither is
optional within our Christian vocation. And both lead to Jesus.
I find this endless returning to Christ, to the centre, to the middle ground, a
continuing dominant reality not just in my personal faith. I also find it in my
own experience and understanding of the Anglican Church , in all its diversity,
at every level, from Communion, and Primates meetings and Lambeth conferences,
through to Provinces, Dioceses, parishes. We grow best when we have that level
of complimentary difference which can indeed 'provoke one another to love and
to good deeds' (Heb 10:24).
It is not easy to live with a spectrum of perspectives - it is challenging even
when we are fully confident we are all firmly within the Anglican heartlands.
But this wrestling together offers us the possibility of treasures that cannot
be found in more monochrome approaches to faith.
We need people, even communities and Provinces, who are deeply immersed in each
of these streams, catholic, reformed and intellectual/cultural, so we can
together forge a fuller understanding of how to live faithfully in our current
times. The continuous rebalancing interaction within this approach characterises
the best of Christian tradition throughout the last two millennia - for we are
a church that is built on the prophets and the apostles, from the time of Peter
and Paul onwards. This is the tradition in which we stand.
Tradition - Holy Remembering
It is important that we know Anglicans mean when we speak of Tradition - which,
since the seventeenth and eighteenth century divines, we have considered our
touchstone alongside Scripture and Reason. This is not as clear as it might be
in the Windsor Report.
First, let me say what it is not. Tradition is not a dispassionate history of
institutional life, the dry and dusty account of some external observer. If
that were the case, it would be hard to see why we should pay tradition more
than limited attention.
No. Tradition is holy remembering - remembering as Scripture teaches us to
remember. 'Remember how the Lord brought you out of
Holy remembering is far more than casting our mind across a widening gulf of
years. Holy remembering is both to recall and to participate. It is to be
caught up into the unfolding narrative of God's involvement
with his people in every time and place. It is to recognise God at work in our
church throughout the centuries, and to know ourselves in living continuity
with his faithful people in every age. To remember is to take our place within
God's story of redemption.
Understanding tradition as the invitation to live in continuity with
God's actions through his church shapes our understanding of the task before us
now. It challenges us to see the fingerprints of God upon our history , and to
ensure that we too can say that 'what we have received from the Lord, we have
passed on' (cf 1 Cor 11:23).
This is why catholicity is an intrinsic part of Anglican
self-understanding. This is why we have to go forward in a way that preserves
the best of Anglicanism as today's foundation for tomorrow. We cannot be
content to remedy our current disagreements with a quick fix, nor allow the
diminishing of the broad and rich resources that have fed our own Anglicanism,
and truly provide the coherent core of our faith.
Tradition: God's Grace in Anglican Structures
We should acknowledge the great extent to which our current structures, even
if not perfect, have been richly used by God, and have well served the
spiritual life and ministry of the church.
The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral has been an invaluable touchstone to our
common life, and our life in relation to others, pointing to the centrality of
Scripture, Creeds, Biblical Sacraments and Historic
Episcopate, in our life, our ecclesiology, our theology and our spirituality.
The Instruments of Unity have evolved and developed over time, shaped to
address and serve the needs of the Communion. Further
renewal, transformation and revision should be our starting point rather than
turning to radical replacement, if we are not to lose their strengths in our
attempts to overcome their weaknesses.
Similarly, the degree of autonomy we enjoy in our Provinces has allowed
hugely productive expressions of mature Christian faith appropriate to our
regions of the world, and from which others have then learnt. As we are a
church that is both episcopally led and synodically governed, they also provide
effectively for full participation of clergy and laity alongside the episcopacy
in deliberating and decision-making.
Thus it is the Provinces that have the final say - through their constitutional
processes and the deliberations of their synods. This is ultimately where the
future of Anglicanism lies - this is where the
authority to take decisions is found. We should be entirely clear about this -
no matter what certain groups, or the media say. Anglicans should not be
daunted when the press makes much of this group's
statement or that group's communiqu , as many do not carry substantive
authority.
Rather, we should encourage the whole people of God to contribute to
forging our future together. The Primates' meeting next year, and the Lambeth
Conference in 2008, must take extensive counsel, but, as is well known, these
are not authoritative decision making bodies. And, as gatherings solely of
Bishops, they are certainly not representative of all the fullness of
Anglicanism. Bishops must exercise collegiality with their clergy and people,
as well as with one another.
Therefore, as both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Joint Standing
Committee of the Primates (in the document, Towards an Anglican Covenant) have
pointed out, this means that we have a lengthy process
before us. It cannot be 'solved' in the next year or two - and to attempt to do
so would be dishonouring both to the Windsor Process, and, more importantly, to
the people of God who count themselves Anglican.
I also hope we will abide by our tradition and our structures - and the
recommendations of the Windsor Report - when it comes to observing the
integrity of one another's Provinces, Dioceses and Parishes. It is one thing to
say, as the Archbishop of Canterbury does, that our present structures are not
adequately developed to cope with the diversity of views that inevitably arise
in our contemporary life. It is quite another to ride roughshod over them, even
as we seek ways of improving them.
Comparable considerations apply to the respect owing to the office of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, which, as has been shown at many times in the past,
encompasses far more than merely the person holding office at any one time.
Tradition: God's Grace in Anglican Style
There are other hallmarks of the way of being Anglican, certain styles
of relating to each other that reflect the gift of God's grace. I find these
characterised particularly by tolerance, trust and charity, as we have lived
out our diversity.
First comes tolerance. This flows from the way we define ourselves through the
strong centre of Scripture, the creeds, the councils and other historic
formularies, rather than by boundaries; and from our repeated experience that
God, ultimately, will deal with the 'mess at the margins.' (And let me repeat -
this is certainly not accepting 'anything goes.') Anglicanism is in this way a
vibrant commitment to the teachings of Jesus' parable about the enemy who sows
weeds in the wheat-field. We do not live by attempting to uproot each potential
weed at the earliest possible moment - we know that this risks ruining the rest
of the crop (Matt 13:24-30).
Looking back over the centuries, there is plentiful evidence that through
exercising considerable tolerance - sometimes more than others have thought
tolerable - Anglicanism has survived and held together.
Holy remembering tells us this is God's way for us, and therefore gives us
confidence that the Lord will continue to see us through.
Then there is trust. We must believe that we are each acting in good faith. No
one is deliberately setting out to disobey God. We are all sincere in trying to
follow what is right - upholding truth, pursuing justice. We must recognise as
brothers and sisters in Christ those who call on Jesus as their Lord. We may
think they are wrong on various issues, but that is different from doubting
their sincerity, the validity of their faith or their membership of the body of
Christ.
As Paul tells the Corinthians, we know there is vast diversity within Christ's
body - so vast it is likely to stretch our understanding of legitimate faith to
the limit, just as seeing is incomprehensible to the ear, or hearing to the eye
(cf 1 Cor 12:14ff). It is God alone who decides who is a member of Christ's
body, among those who claim to follow him. We must wrestle with one another as
brothers and sisters in Christ, encouraging one another in pursuit of the
truth; and if any of us are misguided in our sincerity, we too can trust
Gamaliel's words to the Sanhedrin: 'If this undertaking is of human origin, it
will fail;
but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow [it]' (Acts 5:38,39).
A related God-gifted virtue is the spirit of charity . Paul, to the Corinthians
again, tells us this is patient, kind, not insisting on its own way, not
irritable, nor resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices in the
truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all
things (cf 1 Cor 13:4ff).
Such charity oils the wheels of the continual attentiveness to each other that
is intrinsic to relationship within the body of Christ. This is the listening
that is not just done with our ears, but with our hearts, and on our knees.
This charity, this love, is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and just as we have
seen it often in the past, so we should strive to live within its ambit in our
current differences.
God's gifts of tolerance, trust and charity have provided grace for that other
aspect of Anglican style - the diversity found not least within our church
walls on Sunday mornings.
Our liturgical wealth, historically rooted yet finding contemporary,
contextual, expression, provides scope for the full celebration of word and
sacrament in our worshipping life. High church, evangelical,
charismatic, and more - each bring their own particular riches, while all
resonate with something undeniably Anglican. Whether it is awe and adoration,
gospel proclamation, faith re-e nergised, encultured
expression - there is room for all and there is need for all. Of course, each
tradition may draw strength from the others, and that is good - but we need
them to flourish as they are, overflowing with heavenly grace into our common
life. We do not need some lowest-common denominator compromise, but the full
glorious panoply that God, who is both One and Three, grants through his richly
diverse creativity.
Anglican Tradition - Holy Remembering in Southern Africa
The history of
walking apart seems the only option.
First, the good news. We have lived through centuries of colonialism and over
four decades of legalised racism. By God's grace we avoided the blood-bath many
predicted would ensue, and instead now enjoy one of the most enlightened
constitutions in the world.
The broad inheritance of Anglicanism has helped us face all this with
confidence - and the three-fold threads of our tradition can be seen in our
experience. Spirit-led cultural critique has directed our search
for authentic, African, expressions of faith, unmasking the trappings of
colonial practices and teachings, while leaving the core of belief intact. So
too, the Anglican church was able to play a leading role in
opposing apartheid, countering both those who tried to defend it from Scripture
and others who argued that political engagement was unspiritual. South Africa's
ability to embrace the possibilities of forgiveness, and the work of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission (chaired and guided, of course, by Anglican
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu), were grounded in principles of restorative
justice that are wholly gospel shaped. It was engaging reformed, catholic and
cultural/intellectual components together which gave us this comprehensive
strength.
We were also enabled to hold together within the Anglican Church, knowing we
stood in firm agreement on the heart of faith, when we held differing views
even on such major issues as how to oppose apartheid, the armed struggle and
sanctions. Today, there is not full accord on the ministry of women - but never
the suggestion that this might be a church-dividing issue.
However, another, less happy, Southern African Anglican distinctive is the way
that the fall-out of differences within Anglicanism, rooted in the nineteenth
century, still remain on our agenda. This makes me very wary of solutions that
prescribe separation or some weakening of the ties that bind us. Our long
experience shows that this does not make problems 'go away' but leaves a
lasting and often little less difficult legacy. Let me mention some examples.
In 1866, Bishop Colenso of
There are other anomalies of Anglican history with which we are still faced,
particularly the Church of England in
My point in listing these is to say that separation brings its own
complications, which re-echo down subsequent centuries. All these current
'cousin' relationships have roots over a century old, and the anomalies they
bring are likely to remain with us for the foreseeable future. We are forced to
ask whether it would have been better if those concerned had worked harder at
holding together.
Conclusion
Brothers and sisters in Christ, let us take heart from Peter's words in his
second letter, 'Do not ignore this one fact beloved, that with the Lord one day
is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is
not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,
not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.' (2 Pet 3:8,9)
So we should be in no hurry to find quick solutions tailored to addressing our
current problems. We rather need to take thorough care in discerning answers
that lie fully within the tradition that we have received, so that we too may
pass on the great riches of our Anglican heritage. To do this requires
methodical and comprehensive exploration of all that is in the Windsor Report,
and in Archbishop Rowan's reflections. I see them as significant foundation
stones of the future we are trying to build.
We will find authentic Anglican answers if we conduct our debate within the
fertile territory of the rich Anglican heartlands, engaging with one another in
a godly spirit of tolerance, trust and charity, and having confidence in the
living tradition of our Anglican structures, as part of the one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church, through which the Lord has preserved us, guided us and
led us, so mercifully in the past.
God has given us so much - let us be faithful to him, and to those who will
come after us, by preserving and passing on the rich essentials of his gift.
Let us stand firm upon the middle ground.