Press release from Lambeth Palace
For immediate use
31st October 2005
Archbishop - church’s hope ‘only in Christ’
The Archbishop of Canterbury has told Anglican Church leaders from the Global South that the only ground for unity in the church ‘is to be found in Christ’. Speaking at the 3rd Anglican Global South to South Encounter meeting at Ain al Sukhna, some 80 miles south of Cairo, Dr Williams said that the church had to be focussed on Christ:
“The church is one because Jesus Christ is one; the church is holy because Jesus Christ is holy; the church is catholic because Jesus Christ is the saviour of all; the church is apostolic because as the Father sent Jesus, so Jesus sends us. In other words, if we are to understand the nature of the church at all, we are to understand who Jesus Christ is and what he does.”
“Someone said recently that the path to heaven doesn’t lie necessarily through Lambeth. I agree. The path to heaven lies solely through Jesus Christ our Saviour and the unity he gives and the only use and integrity of our instruments of unity comes when they serve that.”
“Now I don’t suggest that we can forget the practical questions that are laid upon us at the moment in our Anglican fellowship. But I do say that we shall never begin to answer them adequately unless our eyes, our minds and our hearts are with Jesus, are where Jesus is.”
The Archbishop said that one of the greatest challenges faced by Anglicans was the development of authentically local voices in liturgy.
“In all sorts of ways the church over the centuries has lent itself to the error, indeed the sin of trying to make cultural captives, whether it is the mass export of Hymns Ancient and Modern to the remote parts of the mission field … the shadow of the British Empire that hangs over our own Communion or the export of American values and styles to the whole world; we are in a real difficulty here…. The question comes back again and again; ‘How do we encourage people to write liturgy, to write prayer books, to write Eucharistic prayers, in their own language with the rhythm, the association and resonance that your own language has for you and no other has.”
He said that the church had to find its holiness ‘under the cross’; where people were in need of healing:
“… our holiness takes us where Jesus goes; our holiness takes us to those Jesus died for; it takes us into the neighbourhood of those who are forgotten, who have no voice, those who need healing and forgiveness. It takes us into very strange places indeed and the holy person, as we all know, is often found in very odd company.”
Following the lecture, Dr Williams answered questions from the conference on a number of areas.
On sexuality, he affirmed that the church had not been persuaded of the acceptability of same sex unions. These questions, though, would not go away.
“Theologians will go on discussing this and it will not be possible to stop them. For nearly a century, in the 4th century in this country of Egypt, the conflict over the Trinity raged between theologians and bishops and was not resolved overnight. I distinguish as clearly as I can a question a theologian may ask and an action or determination a church may take or a bishop may take. I think this is a necessary distinction for the life and health of the church. It would be a tragedy if the church sought to suppress questions; it is equally a tragedy when the church seeks to create facts on the ground that foreclose discussion and reflection on such questions.”
On the question of authority within the Anglican Communion, he said that he had no desire to assume further powers:
“Since I do not have canonical power outside my own province, my freedom is limited. I say it as a matter of actual fact; I do not have authority over the canons and constitutions of another province… I don’t want to be a kind of pope, solving the problems of every province.
“For me, the prospect of an Anglican ‘covenant’ or a convergent system of canon law is the best hope that we have. That being said, many provinces as we know, are wedded to the idea of an absolute constitutional independence.”
On the Windsor Report, he said that it was too early to come to a judgement as to whether or not the responses of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada satisfied the terms of the report:
“I don’t think we could say that they have satisfied in a simple and direct way what Windsor asked because that process is still continuing and will continue. Archbishop Eames gave an optimistic reading of this; I’m waiting to see.”
On the status of the networks of dissenting parishes in the United States and Canada, he said that he was happy to recognise them as part of the Anglican Communion.
“There is no doubt in my mind that these networks are full members of the Anglican Communion; that is to say that their bishops, their clergy and their people are involved with the Communion which I share with them, which we all share with them. Now formal ecclesial recognition of a network, as if it were a province, is not so simply in my hands or the hands of any individual. But I do want to say quite simply yes of course; these are part of our Anglican fellowship and I welcome that.”
The Archbishop’s full text is here.
ENDS
I'm confused. Is the ABC saying that there's *more than one Anglican bishop* in Recife (Brazil)?
I just don't see how this can be workable. :-/
Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 1:16am GMT"In the best manuscripts of John's Gospel, that is what is said; 'the only God', not 'the only Son' monogenis theos; the unique God who stands next to the Father, in the bosom of the Father"
What a wonderful thought to have the ABC preaching in 2005 about the modern scriptural understanding of the Trinity where so long ago the Church argued about it for a century so long ago, and where the Trinity is so controversial to the Muslims of the region.
"So that Paul marks off very, very clearly, what is and is not part of the unity of the church and its faith because, if you refuse to believe that you are saved by the grace of God which demands complete trust, if you go back to reliance on the achievement on the works of the law, you are ceasing to stand where Christ stands; you are trying to find some other way than the one way of coming into the life of the one, the only begotten God who is next to the Father’s heart."
There's a very clear message here to the neo-puritans.
"Holiness is living under the cross, the place where Jesus makes himself holy, so that we may be made Holy. It has all been done for us in the cross; God be praised; it is all, for each one of us to discover, day after day, in that self-emptying, that self-forgetting struggle to let Jesus live in us. No-one else, no other power, no other spirit."
Ditto.
"And that is the constant search for a language and a style of worship which are authentic in the place where you are. Not something borrowed from another culture, not a second-hand suit of clothes from somewhere else or second had words, but the Gospel coming alive in this place, for this culture, in this language."
This, of course, goes both ways - which is deliberately implicit in ABCs message.
"the language of rights has not stood us in good stead in the church. Let’s say rather the Christ-touched dignity of every person and every culture"
Yes, please; that's lovely. Can we recognise and respect the 'Christ-touched dignity' of Bishop Gene Robinson? Brave Davis Mac-Illya? The two boys hanged in Iran? The people Akinola compares to dogs? Can we refer to them and treat them accordingly? I'll be trying to use that phrase in future instead of 'rights'.
"From the Father’s heart comes Jesus Christ, whose grace and salvation are there for all and because of Jesus Christ we are the bearers of that news to the ends of the earth."
They are there, existant and effective for all - not to be won or earned; we just have to let folks know the good news. 'Hey, guess what...'
"The good news as the good news of transformation, a changed and healed world, begins in the resurrection where we are shown how the worst, most desperate sin of the world’s history, the deliberate rejection of God’s chosen and his humiliation torture and death on the cross is turned by god into the gate of glory."
Fantastic stuff! It's too easy to forget this. Accuse me of whatever 'sin' you like; you don't know what God is doing in me and through me, not only despite my sin but IN my 'sin'!
I hope we can all, together, become "en kolpo" in Christ.
[For such an important document, you'd think they'd clean up the many typos]
I think the Anglican Communion is extremely blessed to have Rowan Williams as ABC at this time.
Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 4:28am GMTI wonder how the Archbishop will apply those thoughts and attitudes in the fight which is to come in his own province. The speeches made in proposing various motions, and Bishop Broadhurst's address to the Forward in Faith conference a week or so ago make interesting listening. They aren't available in print.
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/audio.html
Posted by: Rodney on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 8:44am GMTArchbishop Williams' comment on the Network dioceses and parishes in the US is very interesting in the light of two recent matters: the Via Media proposals to declare these dioceses 'vacant' after GC 2006; and the publication of statistics for 2004 on Ecusa. These show that average Sunday attendance is down over 27,000 (-3%) on 2003. The trend in 2005 is not likely to point in a different way, as large churches like Christ Church Overland Park (c. 1000 ASA) and numerous parishes in LA, Florida and elsewhere which left in 2005 are included in the 2004 figures (as are all the Network churches). Ecusa seemed to have had a recent high in attendance on about 858,000 in 2000 but is now down to 795,000. The 2004 decline is the steepest on record. The age profile of the membership means they are not going to be having many if any children. Americans are living longer (most people expect to continue into their 80s), so the church is not going to die off in 10 years, but it looks like it will be smaller and older.
Posted by: Mark Beaton on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 8:47am GMT"The age profile of the membership means they are not going to be having many if any children. Americans are living longer (most people expect to continue into their 80s), so the church is not going to die off in 10 years, but it looks like it will be smaller and older." Mark
More third rate, seat of your pants, doomsday Marketing Studies/Projecting Mark?
I believe the Holy Spirit is at work trying very hard to carry a message of love and tolerance for ALL of our Christian Brothers and Sisters in our church and at many of the *other* mainline religious fellowships too. ALL means ALL and that *message* may take some getting used to where ignorance/superstition, fear and hate exist amongst us in the pews.
There is no need to do a "dance of death" on the Body of Christ Mark...more will be revealed and less will be concealed...try Trust and Faith in God that our ever more enlighted Episcopal/Anglican
Church will be healthier soon.
I do.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 11:12am GMTMark:
Not with a bang, but with a whimper! The withering of ECUSA will continue apace once it has shed the pesky forces for life within its sphere.
Steve
Posted by: steven on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 4:48pm GMTWhat never ceases to amaze me is the "love-hate" relationship with ECUSA on the part of Biblical literalists. Why not be honest with oneself, cut one's losses and join a sect of the like-minded?
Why wait until the 2006 General Convention? General Convention will elect a new Presiding Bishop, who will not be a Biblical literalist. General Convention will not laicize Bishop V. Gene Robinson. In all probability it will affirm same-sex unions as a "local option" (N.B. many dioceses are drafting liturgies for same-sex blessings!). General Convention will express regret for having offended the provinces of the Global South, but, at the same time, insist on provincial autonomy which, earlier on, allowed individual provinces to proceed with the ordination of women, while not imposing one's way on other provinces. There may be resolutions supporting the Windsor Report in principle, while not conceding provincial autonomy.
Why wait until then, given the fact that the majority of ECUSA bishops and clerical and lay deputies to the General Convention will not allow the Global South to set their agenda?
Posted by: John Henry on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 6:44pm GMTLeonardo,
Third rate? Moi? Yes, I read once that Archbishop Matthew Parker called Anglicanism 'Golden Mediocrity', and I thought, yes, that will be me when I have the gold! (Still waiting.)
If you can project these statistics in a different direction, bonne chance - but it would mean changing a generational trend, and I cannot see how it can be done in an ordinary demographic way, because people in the 50s and 60s just don't have babies. The only way is to bring new people into the church, i.e. mission.
No dance from me. I find the decline of a church immensely sad. The Body of Christ will not die, but there is no guarantee that some local expression will continue. Remember that the great church of North Africa is largely extinct.
How to mix Demographics with Statistics and get Ageism...
Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 7:44pm GMTJohn Henry, this is precisely why most ECUSA Bishops will be excluded from Lambeth 2008!
Posted by: Peter on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 7:57pm GMTJohn Henry asks of the Biblical literalists, 'Why wait until the 2006 General Convention? '
Perhaps because they are taking Luke 13:6-9 seriously ('literally')? Passionate patience.
No, Peter. There won't be a Lambeth 2008. At least, not one which you would be interested in. There may well be a Lagos, Cairo, or Sydney 2008, where I may expect to find you.
Posted by: Merseymike on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 at 11:47pm GMT"...but there is no guarantee" Mark
Nope, there ain't Mark.
There is NO guarantee that fear, ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and hate will succeed in destroying the loving relationships between family members, dear friends and all the *other* spiritually connected brothers and sisters who are members of OUR Episcopal/Anglican Churchs anywhere/everywhere. Everyone (mostly) seems to thrive in OUR atmosphere of Christian Fellowship and Service...that's mighty hard love stuff to snuff....verdad Mark?
It's not ALL about birth'n babies in "traditional" families you know Mark. There are lots of beautiful Christian babies making their way into the world with loving parents who are welcome at most of the tables of Christ in OUR churches.
Christian Hospitality is not a tradition from OUR past.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 2:23am GMTECUSA's own statisticians are the ones who recognize how demographics of ECUSA members do not favor growth. They estimated an average age of 57. http://www.ecbf.org/arch11.html
Unless God is opening up some wombs like he did for Sarah, I don't think it is reasonable to expect growth though current members having children.
Add to that the ECUSA estimate of lower than average birthrate for Episcopal women anyway (1.5 when 2.1 would be required for maintaining replacement numbers) and several other demographic factors http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2004GrowthReport(1).pdf
and you get a recipe for a declining church. Mark Beaton is not spreading some skewed information to make ECUSA look bad; all he's doing is passing along information ECUSA has already publicized.
Mark also points out a recent trend in accelerating declines. Clearly the status quo in ECUSA has not been effective in maintaining members.
Posted by: Dave C. on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 5:29am GMTBut whence all the hot air?
These statistics seem to "prove" something to the anti-moderns, that go far beyond demographic banalities.
Western women ceased having one child per year in the early 19th century. Women in pre-modern societies still do.
Which of these really gives cause for celebration?
Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 9:40am GMTMerseymaike, let me remind you about your wisdom in the autumn of 2008, it will be a true pleasure. Just a hint, have a close look on the General Synod election results - hardly a victory for your lot!!
Posted by: Peter on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 9:53am GMTThank you, Dave. As you said, I was simply recounting what 815 people like Kirk Hadaway was saying in 2002 (when the loss was 1.1%) and updating it 3 years later (now c. -3%). It was Hadaway who pointed out the low fertility rate of Ecusa families. Ecusa's problems are in fact not much different from the other 'mainline' (oldline) Protestant churches of the 'North' and 'West', and you can find the same demography in Australian and New Zealand Anglicanism (other than in the Diocese of Sydney).
Let me also say that having a conservative or traditional outlook in itself doesn't necesarily equate with growth; charismatic and inspiring leadership are also essential, along with creating a place where familes are nurtured in the Gospel and young people know their Bibles and their faith. A recent study of spirituality among US college students showed Ecusa-background students (the wealthiest ones) as among the weakest in knowledge of their faith and practice of it; while Baptists and Mormons were the precise opposite. Men also need to be encouraged to be involved, for when a father is regular in church, his family is likely to be there too.
Hola Dave C. and Mark and a muy Buenas Dias from down global southway in Latinoland,
Here's a few other commonly found (Googled) sources for you to note "church membership trends/declines"...unfortunately "slacking membership" is a problem at most EVERY church (conservative ones too) and NOT a slap at OUR Episcopal/Anglican face (although a perspective member/family would probably not be encouraged to join a church with non-stop ugly bickering/name calling and prejudice going on).
Check 'em:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=10
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RIN%20Vol.1No.2/Church_lies_polling.htm
Also, just for the modern day *miracle* record Dave C., God *is* opening up some "new wombs like he did Sarah" and there is a whole NEW world of Christians that are now finding themselves being/feeling made welcome in the Episcopal/Anglican Church!
God is good and the NEWS is very GOOD indeed!
More will be revealed and less will be concealed!
You'll like reality, it just takes some getting used to.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 10:52am GMTWhy wait until the 2006 General Convention? -JH
Many Christians are praying for God's intervention and an outpouring of love that leads to repentance.
It will happen.
Posted by: Tunde on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 12:02pm GMTIt is wonderful that people are praying for the outcome of GC 2006. Openness to the Spirit is so important. My question might be: If GC 2006 supports same - sex blessings and ordinations and consecrations of homosexuals who are in same sex relationships - will people accept that as the working of the Spirit or will they deny the activity of the very same Spirit for which they have been praying? I may not agree with all that happens at a synod but I accept because I have recognized the working of the Spirit in the decisions that are made.
Posted by: Ann Marie on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 6:59pm GMT"Many Christians are praying for God's intervention and an outpouring of love that leads to repentance."--Tunde
Yes, many of us are certainly praying for that. Unfortunately, the hearts of Duncan et. al. are hardened, so the Holy Spirit will have a difficult time convincing them.
"Many Christians are praying for God's intervention and an outpouring of love that leads to repentance."--Tunde
Yes, many of us are certainly praying for that. Unfortunately, the hearts of the revisionists and their allies are hardened, so the Holy Spirit will have a difficult time convincing them.
Posted by: steven on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 10:45pm GMTPeter; then you are saying that you won't be joining any breakaway which may take place but are going to slug it out within the CofE?
I think a split is likely, and that will involve conservative provinces no longer looking towards Canterbury. Do you not wish to join them?
Posted by: Merseymike on Wednesday, 2 November 2005 at 11:26pm GMTIs that not also true of the conservatives, Steven, from the perspective of a liberal?
Posted by: Merseymike on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 9:40am GMTMerseymike:
You are correct--there is symmetry. Since both sides consider the other to be "revisionists", either side can take my restatement of Kurt's post as correct from their point of view. Thus, I hopefully cannot be accused by either side of name calling (or maybe can only be accused by both sides of name calling). However, this once again brings up the irremediable divergence in viewpoints. In this regard it seems to mirror great schisms in the church catholic from the past. In both the East/West and Romist/Protestant schisms this criticism was, in one way or another, also leveled by both sides at the other. The only question here is whether we can change the past at least to the extent of parting amicably. We both agree on this as well as on the fact that continued argument only makes this less likely.
Steven
Posted by: steven on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 2:15pm GMTGoran comments: 'But whence all the hot air?
These statistics seem to "prove" something to the anti-moderns, that go far beyond demographic banalities. Western women ceased having one child per year in the early 19th century. Women in pre-modern societies still do. Which of these really gives cause for celebration?'
I will resist the temptation to answer the first question, 'From about 59 N, 18 E'. What these 'demographic banalities' indicate is the aging and slow death of certain churches in the North and West, Sweden included. Consider these facts. 7.6 million people are nominally 'members' of the Church of Sweden, yet in 1999, less than 3% of the population attended any church there, of which about half (130,000) attended the Church of Sweden, with very few children and young people among them. Yet 50 years ago, when the birth rate was also low, about 10% attended. So Swedish women may still be having children (are they?), but these children are almost never in church. You may end up in a few years with more Muslims (in places like Malmo) than practicing Lutherans.
Of course, there is nothing unique to Sweden about this; Europe as a whole is post-Christian, and increasingly being islamicized in certain areas. Goran, do you find that fact cause for celebration?
Mark
"Many Christians are praying for God's intervention and an outpouring of love that leads to repentance."--Tunde
Yes, I agree, many of us are praying for enlightenment/love and MUTUAL respect as we face the ongoing feardriven, hate and ignorance that has always delivered discrimination and shame on us in our religious communities. Your hope/prayer is not a NEW prayer for God's *intervention* for people like me. I think that most of us who live with honesty in the REAL world want the "hating" to stop. In TRUTH, I think, we have been praying for the religious/social oppression, torture, murder and slandering/demeaning crimes to stop against us for thousands of years.
Unfortunately, Akinola spewing "Hooligan" and "Worse than Animals" when describing LGBT fellow members of HIS church and their children appears to be the opposite of the "outpouring" of brotherly/sisterly love and compassion necessary for ANYONE to repent and heal.
Akinola, Venables, Duncan and other strident/aggressive/insistant/demanding clergy are promoters of hate within OUR church. Yet, I can't help but think that God is "hearing OUR prayers" by allowing these men to rant and rave against us with a FULL international audience viewing them.
The ironic thing is they seem to think they are Episcopal/Anglican heros...ah, more lessons perhaps for everyone concerned?
Fascinating stuff, the wonderous ways/workings of God...no?
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 7:41pm GMTDear Merseymike, how can you know that you are hearing what God is saying ? You reject what He previously said (as recorded in the Bible) ! Don't you worry that you are listening only to your own socio-cultural perceptions ?
ps Regarding looking to Canterbury; even the ABofC has now said that he comes to God through Christ not through Canterbury !
Posted by: Dave on Thursday, 3 November 2005 at 10:09pm GMTYes, Dave, but then one can be a Christian without being an Anglican. To be an Anglican, its Canterbury. Simple as that.
As for 'what God is saying', thats not really a concept i would use. I am suspicious of those who claim to hear the voice of God. They largely appear to be dangerous and extreme.
Merseymike:
Even if true, what's in a name? Or, to misquote someone, "a rose by any other name still smells the same." To me an "Anglican" is one who adheres to the basic formularies of Anglicanism. If Canterbury were no longer "Anglican" under this definition and someone else were, I'm going with the someone else. But then, it looks like I'll be going with someone else one way or the other at this point . . .
Steven
Posted by: steven on Friday, 4 November 2005 at 1:45pm GMTMM wrote: "I am suspicious of those who claim to hear the voice of God."
Reminds me of the words of a retiring Church of Ireland Primate. "Lord keep me always in the company of those who fearlessly seek the truth. And, hide me under the shadow of thy wings from those who think they have found it."
Amen.
Posted by: David Huff on Friday, 4 November 2005 at 3:01pm GMTMerseymike wrote. "As for 'what God is saying', thats not really a concept i would use."
Dear Merseymike and David Huff, I'm surprised because I thought that you were both among those liberals that claimed that the acceptance of homosexual partnerships was a new move of the Holy Spirit. I've read enough liberals who say that they have listened to God through their experience of the lives and ministry of homosexual persons, and believe that God is doing/saying something new ?
But I wonder about how you can know that you are hearing what God is saying if you reject what He previously said (as recorded in the Bible). If I were a liberal I would worry that I was just listening only to my own socio-cultural perceptions. I heard a German Bishop defending herself from this very accusation at some great length last year... which made me aware that this is a real problem for liberals!
Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 5 November 2005 at 12:05am GMT