Thinking Anglicans

Rowan Williams: Developments in the Anglican Communion

Archbishop’s address to General Synod on the Anglican Communion ACNS copy here and Audio here

I am glad to have the opportunity of offering in these few minutes a very brief update on the current situation in the Anglican Communion, particularly in the light of the recent session of the Episcopal Church’s General Convention – which was, of course, attended by my brother Archbishop, who made an outstanding contribution to its discussions. The first thing to say is that the complex processes of Convention produced – perhaps predictably – a less than completely clear result. The final resolution relating to the consecration of practising gay persons as bishops owed a great deal to some last-minute work by the Presiding Bishop, who invoked his personal authority in a way that was obviously costly for him in order to make sure that there was some degree of recognisable response to the recommendations of the Windsor Report in this regard. I think that he – and his successor-elect – deserve credit and gratitude for taking the risk of focusing the debate and its implications so sharply.

However, as has become plain, the resolutions of Convention overall leave a number of unanswered questions, and there needs to be some careful disentangling of what they say and what they don’t say. This work is to be carried forward by a small group already appointed before Convention by the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC. And I have also written directly to every Primate to ask for a preliminary reaction from their province. The next Primates’ Meeting in February next year will digest what emerges from all this.

You will be aware of a number of developments in the public arena in the last couple of weeks, notably the request from several US dioceses for some sort of direct primatial oversight from outside the US, preferably from Canterbury. This raises very large questions indeed; various consultations are going forward to clarify what is being asked and to reflect on possible implications. There has also been an announcement from Nigeria of the election by the Nigerian House of Bishops of an American cleric as a bishop to serve the Convocation of Nigerian Anglican congregations in the US. I have publicly stated my concern about this and some other cross-provincial activities.

A working party is also being established in consultation with the Anglican Communion Office and others to look more fully at the question of what sort of ‘Covenant’ could be constructed to fulfil another significant recommendation of the Windsor Report.

Mention of this leads me to say a word about my own published reflections in the wake of General Convention. In spite of some interesting reporting and some slightly intemperate reaction, this contained no directives (I do not have authority to dictate policy to the provinces of the Communion) and no foreclosing of the character and content of such a covenant. Were any such arrangement to be proposed, it would of course have to be owned by the constitutional bodies governing Provinces. The proposal has already been dismissed in some quarters as a capitulation to fundamentalism and in others as a cunning plan to entrench total doctrinal indifferentism.

Both characterisations are nonsense. Perhaps you will allow me a word or two of clarification and further thought on all this. When I said, as I did in my reflections, that the Communion cannot remain as it is, I was drawing attention to some unavoidable choices. Many have said, with increasing force of late, that we must contemplate or even encourage the breakup of the Communion into national churches whose autonomy is unqualified and which relate only in some sort of loose and informal federation. This has obvious attractions for some. The problem is that it is unlikely to bear any relation to reality. Many provinces are internally fragile; we cannot assume that what will naturally happen is a neat pattern of local consensus. There are already international alliances, formal and informal, between Provinces and between groups within different Provinces. There are lines of possible fracture that have nothing to do with provincial boundaries. The disappearance of an international structure – as, again, I have observed in recent months – leaves us with the possibility of much less than a federation, indeed, of competing and fragmenting ecclesial bodies in many contexts across the world.

A straw in the wind: in Sudan, there is a breakaway and very aggressive Anglican body that has had support, in the past, from government in Khartoum. Among the varied grounds advanced for its separation is the ludicrous assertion that the Episcopal Church of Sudan is unorthodox in its teaching on sexual ethics. Some mischievous forces are quite capable of using the debates over sexuality as an alibi for divisive action whose roots are in other conflicts. And churches in disadvantaged or conflict-ridden settings cannot afford such distractions – I speak with feeling in the light of what I and others here in Synod know of Sudan. It helps, to put it no more strongly, that there is a global organisation which can declare such a separatist body illegitimate and insist to a local government that certain groups are not recognised internationally.

So I don’t think we can be complacent about what the complete breakup of the Communion might mean – not the blooming of a thousand flowers, but a situation in which vulnerable churches suffer further. And vulnerable churches are not restricted to Africa… But if this prospect is not one we want to choose, what then? Historic links to Canterbury have no canonical force, and we do not have (and I hope we don’t develop) an international executive. We depend upon consent. My argument was and is that such consent may now need a more tangible form than it has hitherto had; hence the Covenant idea in Windsor.

But if there is such a structure, and if we do depend on consent, the logical implication is that particular churches are free to say yes or no; and a no has consequences, not as ‘punishment’ but simply as a statement of what can and cannot be taken for granted in a relationship between two particular churches. When I spoke as I did of ‘churches in association’, I was trying to envisage what such a relation might be if it was less than full eucharistic communion and more than mutual repudiation. It was not an attempt to muddy the waters but to offer a vocabulary for thinking about how levels of seriously impaired or interrupted communion could be understood.

In other words, I can envisage – though I don’t in the least want to see – a situation in which there may be more divisions than at present within the churches that claim an Anglican heritage. But I want there to be some rationale for this other than pure localism or arbitrary and ad hoc definitions of who and what is acceptable. The real agenda – and it bears on other matters we have to discuss at this Synod – is what our doctrine of the Church really is in relation to the whole deposit of our faith. Christian history gives us examples of theologies of the Church based upon local congregational integrity, with little or no superstructure – Baptist and Congregationalist theologies; and of theologies of the national Church, working in symbiosis with culture and government – as in some Lutheran settings. We have often come near the second in theory and the first in practice. But that is not where we have seen our true centre and character. We have claimed to be Catholic, to have a ministry that is capable of being universally recognised (even where in practice it does not have that recognition) because of its theological and institutional continuity; to hold a faith that is not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised; to celebrate sacraments that express the reality of a community which is more than the people present at any one moment with any one set of concerns. So at the very least we must recognise that Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties. Argue for this if you will, but recognise that it represents something other than the tradition we have received and been nourished by in God’s providence. And only if we can articulate some coherent core for this tradition in present practice can we continue to engage plausibly in any kind of ecumenical endeavour, local or international.

I make no secret of the fact that my commitment and conviction are given to the ideal of the Church Catholic. I know that its embodiment in Anglicanism has always been debated, yet I believe that the vision of Catholic sacramental unity without centralisation or coercion is one that we have witnessed to at our best and still need to work at. That is why a concern for unity – for unity (I must repeat this yet again) as a means to living in the truth – is not about placing the survival of an institution above the demands of conscience. God forbid. It is a question of how we work out, faithfully, attentively, obediently what we need to do and say in order to remain within sight and sound of each other in the fellowship to which Christ has called us. It has never been easy and it isn’t now. But it is the call that matters, and that sustains us together in the task.

ENDS
© Rowan Williams 2006

16 comments

  • k1eranc says:

    Here’s an alternative to the *WWJD?* question of certain quarters. I think we all need a slightly more up-to-date person to model our behaviour on, and as dead ABC’s sometimes offer strikingly modern parallels, perhaps the current one might lead us in asking *What Would Randall Davidson Do?*. Any other ideas, anyone?

  • Ley Druid says:

    “Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties. Argue for this if you will, but recognise that it represents something other than the tradition we have received and been nourished by in God’s providence.”
    No one argues this. This is a “straw-man”.
    Are people impressed by Dr. Williams use of a “straw-man”?
    “We have claimed to be Catholic, to have a ministry that is capable of being universally recognised (even where in practice it does not have that recognition) because of its theological and institutional continuity; to hold a faith that is not locally determined but shared through time and space with the fellowship of the baptised; to celebrate sacraments that express the reality of a community which is more than the people present at any one moment with any one set of concerns.”
    Every Christian church says this. This is a truism. Are people impressed by Dr. Williams use of a truism?

  • You know, this is helpful, and in more than the simple statement of “Don’t overthink my comments, nor project onto them your own eisegesis.” This offers a definition of “communion,” as distinct from either Roman or Congregational models. The clarity of the limitations of his own office, and of depending on consent, describe things well. “Catholic sacramental unity without centralisation or coercion” – I think that’ll preach.

    I fear he has believed that progressives really want unalloyed, defensive independence. My own sense – and certainly my sense of the General Convention – is that most do not want that. We want the relationships, based on the thought that we might have something to learn from each other. Sadly, there are a few radicals, and a few more reactionaries, who are already convinced that they have nothing to learn from each other.

    While “historic links to Canterbury have no canonical force,” he seems to underestimate how highly they are valued emotionally and morally. Certainly, much of the discussion – shouting really, since there are far too few places where people really exchange with one another – has demonstrated that many value it highly, if not above all else. I do think decisions about who gets invited to Lambeth (and I hope he invites everyone, raising a first opportunity to consent) will be seen as particularly meaningful, whether “canonical” or not.

    So, let’s also not overthink this statement, or project onto it our own wishes. Let’s mull this over for a while.

  • Cynthia Gilliatt says:

    Sadly, I think he should just shut up for a while and listen to what is going on. Then he should go on a silent retreat for a month or so. Maybe then he should think for a couple of weeks. Then he might have something useful to say. Maybe. So far, most of what he has said has not helped matters.

  • Ley Druid says:

    Once one gets past the “straw man” and the truism one finds:
    “the vision of Catholic sacramental unity without centralisation or coercion”
    Where has this vision ever before been witnessed to or even enunciated? Is Dr. Williams trying to fashion an Anglican identity in opposition to an image of a centralized and coercive Roman Catholic Church? Does he not know that in addition the Catholic Church adds love “which binds all things together in perfect unity”(Col 3:14).
    Any group that cannot find a way to lovingly centralize and coerce its members will lose out to entropy and cease to be one group. I can’t believe Dr. Williams doesn’t know this and I am sure he can’t show me any example where it hasn’t happened.
    Unfortunately, I don’t see that Anglicans know why they want to remain one group, let alone why they should go to all the hard work of loving one another enough to remain one.

  • Paul Bagshaw says:

    And the problem with
    ‘The real agenda … is what our doctrine of the Church really is in relation to the whole deposit of our faith.’
    is that, in historical practice, people use doctrinal statements to justify what they want to do anyway and then, having done it, they legitimate what they have done as doctrine.
    The give-away words are ‘real’ and ‘really’: these (really) imply an attempt to deny what other people are actually about.

  • “…at the very least we must recognise that Anglicanism as we have experienced it has never been just a loose grouping of people who care to
    describe themselves as Anglicans but enjoy unconfined local liberties…”

    Really? Hasn’t the very opposite been true ever since the first Lambeth Conference?

    Wasn’t the refusal to depose Bishop Colenso in 1868 precisely the establishment of a Communion of people who care to describe themselves as Anglican, but not that of a Unit which can define who is in and who is out?

    And wasn’t this confirmed in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1878?

    And didn’t those that had overstepped the bonds of affection by advocating the deposition of +Colenso leave as a result, forming the Church of England in South Africa, of Surbiton fame?

    “That is why a concern for unity – for unity (I must repeat this yet again)for unity as a means to living in the truth”

    Personally I think that this is the point where this thing goes wrong; a Unity that never was has becomes an Idol.

    The Church has never been one Unit, but several. The Anglican Communion has never been a Unit but a Communion of churches with a shared origin.

    “not about placing the survival of an institution above the demands of conscience. God forbid.”

    No?

    I think Dr Rowan should either stop playing the game of who’s in or out, or do the honorable thing himself.

  • Dr Williams’ statement to Synod makes interesting reading and further clarifies his thinking in the light of the immediate reactions to his paper The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.
    The process of “consultation” is one that continues to interest me. It seems that in the first place the Primates Group has appointed a sub-group that is to advise Dr Williams on how to view the decisions of GC2006. Dr Williams is not without a general view on those decisions but seems to rely on the sub group to help him unpick what these decisions “say and don’t say”. In addition to this he has written to the Primates asking for the “preliminary reactions from their province”. All this appears to then feed into the meeting of the Primates next February.
    What first strikes me is that this address comes at the beginning of a meeting of the Church of England’s General Synod. A Synod that has never been invited to consider the detail of the Windsor Report nor debated its implications, nor is that to happen now, nor is the Synod to offer its view as a Province on the recent American decisions to help Dr Williams in his thinking, and I am left asking what legitimacy this gives to all these “consultations”.
    As yet we have only seen one Church in the Anglican Communion fully engage with the detail of the Windsor Report, the Church of England appears to be conspicuously avoiding any opportunity for its Provincial decision making body to voice the variety of views that we all know exist there on all that has come to pass.
    Still, I have taken the opportunity to write to my Primate to help inform him of some views in our Province even though this matter has not appeared on the agenda of our Governing Body either.
    This “Windsor Process” seems anything but clear and aimed at stifling debate throughout the Communion or at least denying debate where it should be found and leaving it to groups like the Primates who, in my opinion, have shown a poor track record in being able to handle this matter.

  • Keith Kimber says:

    Rowan is doing his best with the limited objective of addressing a situation in which the church is turned in on itself, preoccupied with maintaining its own life and relationships. Living together, reconciled with our differences as the company of the baptized is indeed one of the greatest Christian spiritual challenges. But is this achievable without reference to God’s calling to be part of His mission in the world? How are we being the body that exists for the sake of those who aren’t yet part of it?
    To be ‘Church for others’ as Jesus was ‘man for others’ hardly seems to be reflected in debate. Trouble is, there’s no real concensus about what mission is, or how it should be done, only that we are all called to take part in it.
    Current religious power games are a great way of avoiding taking responsibility for a fresh engagement in mission to a fast changing world.
    If we don’t keep focussed and active in this calling, there’ll not be much future for this ‘communion’ or any of these Anglican institutions we seem so desperate to preserve – unless we are just content to be sects wooing dysfunctional individuals and states for attention, left behind by the progress God is making with humankind on the outside of our sacred encolosures.

  • Roger Mortimer says:

    The Archbishop’s comment, ostensibly made in the context of the Sudanese situation, that “some mischievous forces are quite capable of using the debates over sexuality as an alibi for divisive action whose roots are in other conflicts” seems to throw light on his opinion of current developments and may prove a pointer towards his eventual stance.

  • Prior Aelred says:

    In the House of Bishops, Bishop Epting (formerly of Iowa, now Ecumenical Officer of TEC) read a letter from Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch, pointing out that the organization of the WWAC has always been essentially the same as that of Orthodoxy (with the national/provincial churches having the role of the autocephalous churches in Orthodoxy) — this seems to be profoundly true — it is also true that the occasions when all of the autocephalous churches have been in communion with each other have been extremely rare — yet all recognize that they are Orthodox — this is also the current state of the WWAC (which is to say, the “schism” has already occurred) since at Dromatine some of the primates (about half?) refused to receive communion with the primates of TEC & the ACinC (i,e., “removed their names from the diptychs”) whereas as others were perfectly willing to do so (does anyone have names?)

  • Charlotte says:

    I am attempting here to expand on Roger Mortimer’s comment above.

    The Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, a liberal diocese led by the now –retiring Bishop William Persell, has long had a sister diocese in southern Sudan. Bishop Persell has frequently referred to the preservation of this relationship throughout the turmoil of the past few years.

    Here is one newspaper article among many quoting Bishop Persell on this relationship, from the Chicago Sun-Times:

    “What has your brother bishop in Sudan had to say about your support of Robinson, I asked Chicago’s bishop. “The bishop of Renk [Sudan] told me, ‘We can disagree on this issue. Families have disagreements, and they still stay at the table and love each other and talk about it,'” Persell said.

    http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-fals15.html

    Bishop Persell referred to this ongoing relationship again at GC 2006.

    I believe that this is the Sudanese diocese to which the Archbishop of Canterbury refers in his Synod address as being victimized by “a breakaway and very aggressive Anglican body,” supported, says the Archbishop, by a government in Khartoum which (he does not say) has been accused of facilitating genocide in Darfur. This breakaway group, says the Archbishop, has made “the ludicrous assertion that the Episcopal Church of Sudan is unorthodox in its teaching on sexual ethics.”

    I believe I remember reading about this, and would appreciate confirmation from others. The ground for this accusation was that Sudan continued to be in communion with the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago after the consecration of +Gene Robinson. As the Archbishop concludes: “Some mischievous forces are quite capable of using the debates over sexuality as an alibi for divisive action whose roots are in other conflicts.”

  • drdanfee says:

    Canterbury knows better. Canterbury cannot quite yet bring itself to say that progressive believers are outside the Jesus fold and must be punished according to puritannical protocols that reliably take pleasure in Penal sufferings, especially but not only when imposed upon others. Canterbury cannot quite yet bring itself to say firmly and clearly to the totalitarian right – which claims to be a threateningly large worldwide group of Anglican believers – that they have come perilously near to making their readings of scripture into just the sort of idol against which we have been warned, even in Jewish revelation before Jesus of Nazareth.

    If the Anglican way still means anything as a third way between testosterone-soaked puritan and catholic love affairs with power, conformity, and inside club building (for men only, really? Unless a catholic woman is willing to suffer, triply? or quadruply?) – then Canterbury simply must find an even clearer, firmer voice to do two minimum stands.

    Canterbury must simply stand again and again and again as listening ear to the whole wide planet. Simply everybody must be visibly invited to Canterbury on every possible occasion to be heard. The more exemplary and representative the crowd, the better, against all Anglican efforts to close down historic leeway and historic powers of invitation. If somebody gets on their high horses and decides not to attend something, let them be contacted with a message afterwards: we missed you, and we went on, anyway. Hope to see you and listen to you next time.

    Secondly, Canterbury must bear good witness to Abrahamic journey and call. Part of what the core prohibition against graven images worship must mean, in our modern contexts, is just the sort of open-endedness, provisionality, and ongoing inquiry which the Anglican right is now attempting to rule innately out of bounds, for all time, in all places, for all believers.

    Before we can move forward, Canterbury has to stop falling into the trap that the deep emotional negative reactions – to say, women bishops, or queer bishops, or science, or economic restorative justice – (just a few hot button topics) – explain (justify?) the right’s totalitarian propensities for making our scriptures (or our sacraments, including the historic episcopacy) into the only real idol who rules among us. Read Rushdoony and you will recognize the new conservative Anglican voice. It is patently soaked with testosterone and views faith as an extreme sport of obedience, sacrifice, and suffering to trump all known religious or secular festivals. It offers great prizes, and great feats of extreme sacrifice in worship to its idol on all its altars. Yes, Rushdoony claims to be God’s voice, but there is the card trick indeed.

  • NP says:

    drdanfee – have a look at what the ABC is saying…..all the poor chap is asserting is the importance of the Biblical foundations of the CofE and its Articles……every “club” requires members to play by the rules. I know the “Anglican Job Creation Scheme” has been great for lots of people who believe little of what the CofE’s Articles say and break its agreed rules if they do not suit (while emptying churches all over England), but there is a limit…..maybe Liberals should have started their own club rather than trying to subvert a church with clear Biblical foundations in its articles.

    Why do you think it is ok for people to sign up, be paid and housed, swear oaths they do not keep, break the rules when they want to, undermine the core teachings of the church?

    So, Slee et al threaten to leave……How will we cope?…..What will we do with all the cash that is currently spent keep dying “liberal” churches open?

  • mynsterpreost says:

    “What will we do with all the cash that is currently spent keep dying “liberal” churches open?”

    There does seem to be a bit of a preoccupation with money from some of our contributors. Didn’t the Lord say one or two things about such an obsession (grin)?

  • mynsterpreost says:

    “Why do you think it is ok for people to sign up, be paid and housed, swear oaths they do not keep, break the rules when they want to, undermine the core teachings of the church?”

    Since I am probably one of your target clergy (ie I can’t go along with the [rather unscriptural] conservative evangelical agenda), I wonder what gives you the right to impugn my integrity, unless this is an example of that interesting mathematical phenomenon, the empty set, which is being set up purely for rhetorical purposes?

    You should also remember that many stipendiary C ofE clergy of my greying and non-property-owning generation are several hundred thousand pounds worse off for attempting to follow God’s call to priesthood — a little backing off from your accusations of self-serving might just be in order, don’t you think?

    And, just for the record, my (inclusive, broad, liberal catholic side of middle) parish subsidises the rest of this deanery, including some ‘orthodox traditional evangelical parishes’, yet you don’t hear us moaning about that imbalance. Perhaps we feel it part of our calling to look after our weaker brothers and sisters 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *