Father Jake has posted on his website (see the column to the right) a major extract from an essay by the Rev. Canon Dr. Joseph Cassidy, Principal of St. Chad's College at Durham University. He's absolutely right -- an absolutely must read. The full text of the essay is posted on InclusiveChurch, http://inclusive.sqnsolutions.com/Humility-Grace-and-Freedom-by-Canon-Dr-Joe-Cassidy-c78c32a. I commend it enthusiastically.
Bill
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Swimming the Tiber
One of the notable events during the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans last month was the announcement by the Right Rev. Jeffrey L. Steenson, Bishop of the Rio Grande, that he intends to resign from his office and from the ministry of The Episcopal Church and to join the Roman Catholic Church. Accounts have been widely posted on the usual blogs; an interview with Bishop Steenson was published in The Living Church (http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3825).
I was very sorry to read his announcements, and I do hope he will reconsider. I do not know Bishop Steenson personally, but I believe he has given this matter long and hard thought and prayer, and if he believes that his conscience requires him to take this step, I wish him Godspeed and every blessing. His graciousness is exemplary.
However, I do have a question about his understanding of Anglicanism. He said in his Living Church interview that the meeting of the House of Bishops last March was “a profoundly disturbing experience for me. I was more than a little surprised when such a substantial majority declared the polity of the Episcopal Church to be primarily that of an autonomous and independent local church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association. This is not the Anglicanism in which I was formed, inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival in the Church of England … honestly, I did not recognize the church that this House described on that occasion.”
I also was formed, I think slightly before Bishop Steenson, in an Anglicanism inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival, but not quite like what Bishop Steenson describes. When has The Episcopal Church not been autonomous? Granted, we speak better when we talk about “interdependence,” but ultimately we are an independent national Catholic church. If our relationship to the wider Anglican Communion is not by “voluntary association,” then what should it be? An involuntary association dictated by Canterbury, or the Primates (heaven forfend!), or the Lambeth Conference (something which the LC has never claimed to do)? I’m not sure what alternative Bishop Steenson is proposing to “an autonomous and independent local [sic] church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association.” It is true that many Catholic Christians believe it is the esse of the Church that there be a central ecclesiastical authority with a clear universal magisterium. That is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. (Oddly enough, that also now seems to be the growing position of many self-identified Anglican “evangelicals.”) I believe it is not the position of authentic Anglican tradition. I believe we have (for the most part) taken very seriously the admonition of Jesus about the use and abuse of authority: “It shall not be so among you.” Does this mean that Anglicans may go wandering off in strange directions? Yes, and we have done so, and we doubtless will again. But we also find our way back, by God’s grace. We are, after all, not saved by our own theological orthodoxy. One problem in a church with Roman-style (or “evangelical”-style) authority is that correcting errors becomes much more difficult. Being an Anglican may often seem like being in a frying pan, but diving into the fire is not the solution.
Bill
I was very sorry to read his announcements, and I do hope he will reconsider. I do not know Bishop Steenson personally, but I believe he has given this matter long and hard thought and prayer, and if he believes that his conscience requires him to take this step, I wish him Godspeed and every blessing. His graciousness is exemplary.
However, I do have a question about his understanding of Anglicanism. He said in his Living Church interview that the meeting of the House of Bishops last March was “a profoundly disturbing experience for me. I was more than a little surprised when such a substantial majority declared the polity of the Episcopal Church to be primarily that of an autonomous and independent local church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association. This is not the Anglicanism in which I was formed, inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival in the Church of England … honestly, I did not recognize the church that this House described on that occasion.”
I also was formed, I think slightly before Bishop Steenson, in an Anglicanism inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival, but not quite like what Bishop Steenson describes. When has The Episcopal Church not been autonomous? Granted, we speak better when we talk about “interdependence,” but ultimately we are an independent national Catholic church. If our relationship to the wider Anglican Communion is not by “voluntary association,” then what should it be? An involuntary association dictated by Canterbury, or the Primates (heaven forfend!), or the Lambeth Conference (something which the LC has never claimed to do)? I’m not sure what alternative Bishop Steenson is proposing to “an autonomous and independent local [sic] church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association.” It is true that many Catholic Christians believe it is the esse of the Church that there be a central ecclesiastical authority with a clear universal magisterium. That is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. (Oddly enough, that also now seems to be the growing position of many self-identified Anglican “evangelicals.”) I believe it is not the position of authentic Anglican tradition. I believe we have (for the most part) taken very seriously the admonition of Jesus about the use and abuse of authority: “It shall not be so among you.” Does this mean that Anglicans may go wandering off in strange directions? Yes, and we have done so, and we doubtless will again. But we also find our way back, by God’s grace. We are, after all, not saved by our own theological orthodoxy. One problem in a church with Roman-style (or “evangelical”-style) authority is that correcting errors becomes much more difficult. Being an Anglican may often seem like being in a frying pan, but diving into the fire is not the solution.
Bill
Sunday, October 14, 2007
A Reflection on the House of Bishops meeting
There has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the House of Bishops’ response to the communiqué from the meeting of the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam in February, on both sides of the issue. (Well, there has been some real disappointment expressed on one side, and a great deal of ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth from the other side.)
The HoB’s statement has been posted on various sites on the Web, including EpiScope:
http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/episcope/2007/09/the-statement.html
One part of the statement that attracted some criticism from “progressive” commentators was the following:
A point of criticism was that the statement notes the reference of GC 2006 Resolution B033 to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons,” which, although clearly implicit in B033, had not been stated explicitly until the HoB statement. Well, it’s not like there was anyone who didn’t already understand to whom B033 pertained! But what hasn’t received much mention, and what some of us wish the HoB had also explicitly noted, is that B033 pertains not only to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons, but also, presumably, to other “candidates to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” Unfortunately, there are many whose manner of life presents a challenge at least to me who have already been consecrated to the episcopate, and I guess it’s too late to do much about that now (although there are a number of purported bishops-elect to whom this might still apply). Here are what I consider some “challenging manners of life”:
Bill
The HoB’s statement has been posted on various sites on the Web, including EpiScope:
http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/episcope/2007/09/the-statement.html
One part of the statement that attracted some criticism from “progressive” commentators was the following:
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." (1) The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
A point of criticism was that the statement notes the reference of GC 2006 Resolution B033 to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons,” which, although clearly implicit in B033, had not been stated explicitly until the HoB statement. Well, it’s not like there was anyone who didn’t already understand to whom B033 pertained! But what hasn’t received much mention, and what some of us wish the HoB had also explicitly noted, is that B033 pertains not only to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons, but also, presumably, to other “candidates to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” Unfortunately, there are many whose manner of life presents a challenge at least to me who have already been consecrated to the episcopate, and I guess it’s too late to do much about that now (although there are a number of purported bishops-elect to whom this might still apply). Here are what I consider some “challenging manners of life”:
I am disappointed that the House of Bishops did not also enumerate these instances of “a manner of life [that] presents a challenge to the wider church.”notably failing to “seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself” and to “strive for justice and peace among all peoples, and respect the dignity of every human being” (granted, this language is specific to the Baptismal Covenant in the American Book of Common Prayer and as such is not common to all Anglicans, but any Anglican, or any Christian, who cannot vigorously respond “I will, with God’s help” to these vows desperately needs to find another religion);
making hateful (not just critical, but hateful) public statements about other human beings, some of whom are fellow Anglican Christian human beings, and dvocating their prosecution and incarceration even for simply discussing homosexuality;
actively invading another diocese in another Province, by consecrating bishops and claiming jurisdiction over congregations not only without the consent of the bishop of that diocese and the Primate of that Province but in total contempt of that bishop and that Primate, and indeed in contempt of the Archbishop of Canterbury;
arrogant condemnation of another Province for alleged nonconformity with certain provisions of resolutions of the Lambeth Conference and subsequent documents while flagrantly refusing to conform with other provisions of the same resolutions and documents;
unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusations of heresy and apostasy against the Primate and the Bishops of another Province;
violation of clear biblical morality, specifically as set forth in Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20.
Bill
Back to the Blog
I started this blog a few weeks ago and then got sidetracked! I was following the news and blogs leading up to and during the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans in September, and every time I thought of Wise Comments events would overtake me and they were always obsolete or superseded before I could get them posted. Probably just as well.
Bill
Bill
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Let's Go Blogging!
I’ve been lurking on a number of blogs in recent months — primarily related to Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion matters. I’ve refrained from entering the fray of comments (and that’s probably just as well! — mostly because other people have made comments that are wiser than I would have made). But there comes a time when the temptation to join in becomes too great! So here I go. This blog (“The Liturgical Curmudgeon”) will be a miscellaneous assortment of comments, ruminations, reviews, moaning and whining, links to other people’s blogs and articles, etc. I have also set up a separate blog (“Have Stole, Will Travel”) on which I have posted a number of recent sermons. (Some people over the years have asked me for copies of sermons, which I find both flattering and frightening!) See the link on the right.
Comments are most welcome, with the caveat that I intend to moderate them. I have no objection to comments that disagree with me, even vigorously (who knows? You may be right!), but I reserve the right to refuse to post comments that are openly and notoriously offensive or idiotic. One would hate to think that Episcopalians/Anglicans, or any Christians, would post such comments, but, as we all know, alas…
Thank you for your charity and forbearance as I enter the Anglican Blogosphere!
Bill Moorhead
Comments are most welcome, with the caveat that I intend to moderate them. I have no objection to comments that disagree with me, even vigorously (who knows? You may be right!), but I reserve the right to refuse to post comments that are openly and notoriously offensive or idiotic. One would hate to think that Episcopalians/Anglicans, or any Christians, would post such comments, but, as we all know, alas…
Thank you for your charity and forbearance as I enter the Anglican Blogosphere!
Bill Moorhead
Some Reviews
I have recently read or encountered a number of books or interviews that I found interesting and valuable. Some of these are already well known. If you haven’t already seen them, I commend them to your attention.
Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion, by Sara Miles. A powerful and deeply moving spiritual memoir. Ms. Miles sometimes colors a bit outside the lines, but then, so did Jesus. I recommend it to everyone, and would particularly suggest it to recent converts to Christianity or to the Episcopal Church, and to anyone who has been away for a while and is considering whether to come back.
The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith, by Marcus J. Borg. Sub-subtitled “How We Can Be Passionate Believers Today.” Professor Borg has attracted a lot of criticism, even scorn, especially from more conservative quarters, because of his association with the Jesus Seminar. It’s true that there are some things he says about which I would like to sit down with him with a pitcher or two of beer (N/A; I’m on medications!) But he needs to be taken much more seriously than some are willing to do. I believe a number of parishes (including my own) have book study groups who are reading this book, and I highly recommend that. Another book for recent converts or returners who want a clearer exposition of what Christian Gospel is all about, especially if they are troubled by the “Christian religion” as preached by some self-proclaimed “evangelicals.” It’s worth remembering that Borg and Tom Wright are good friends even though they disagree about a number of things (see their The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions).
In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom, by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed. And while we’re talking about authors who get a lot of scorn from more conservative folks…! I am one of those who would take issue with a lot of the things Crossan says (his early book The Cross That Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narrative is to my mind quite silly), but this book on Paul focuses primarily on the social history of the Roman Empire in the first century and is really very interesting, if occasionally a bit tedious. This opens some aspects of the first generation of Christianity of which many of us were not aware.
A few days ago I ran across an interview with Dr. John Polkinghorne, the (Anglican) priest/physicist at Cambridge, who in my judgment is one of our most important theologians, though probably under-read. (Generally easier to read than +Rowan!) The transcript and video of this interview with Robert Wright of meaningoflife.tv, posted via Slate.com, can be found at:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=polkinghorne&topic=complete
There are also some other interesting interviews in this series.
See you anon.
Bill Moorhead
Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion, by Sara Miles. A powerful and deeply moving spiritual memoir. Ms. Miles sometimes colors a bit outside the lines, but then, so did Jesus. I recommend it to everyone, and would particularly suggest it to recent converts to Christianity or to the Episcopal Church, and to anyone who has been away for a while and is considering whether to come back.
The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith, by Marcus J. Borg. Sub-subtitled “How We Can Be Passionate Believers Today.” Professor Borg has attracted a lot of criticism, even scorn, especially from more conservative quarters, because of his association with the Jesus Seminar. It’s true that there are some things he says about which I would like to sit down with him with a pitcher or two of beer (N/A; I’m on medications!) But he needs to be taken much more seriously than some are willing to do. I believe a number of parishes (including my own) have book study groups who are reading this book, and I highly recommend that. Another book for recent converts or returners who want a clearer exposition of what Christian Gospel is all about, especially if they are troubled by the “Christian religion” as preached by some self-proclaimed “evangelicals.” It’s worth remembering that Borg and Tom Wright are good friends even though they disagree about a number of things (see their The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions).
In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom, by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed. And while we’re talking about authors who get a lot of scorn from more conservative folks…! I am one of those who would take issue with a lot of the things Crossan says (his early book The Cross That Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narrative is to my mind quite silly), but this book on Paul focuses primarily on the social history of the Roman Empire in the first century and is really very interesting, if occasionally a bit tedious. This opens some aspects of the first generation of Christianity of which many of us were not aware.
A few days ago I ran across an interview with Dr. John Polkinghorne, the (Anglican) priest/physicist at Cambridge, who in my judgment is one of our most important theologians, though probably under-read. (Generally easier to read than +Rowan!) The transcript and video of this interview with Robert Wright of meaningoflife.tv, posted via Slate.com, can be found at:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=polkinghorne&topic=complete
There are also some other interesting interviews in this series.
See you anon.
Bill Moorhead
Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant
I studied the Draft Anglican Covenant for several weeks, and submitted this response to the General Secretary of the Episcopal Church Center as we all were invited to do, earlier this year. I began by calling attention to some responses of others, with which I generally agree, which I found helpful, and which have been widely read.
Mr. Lionel Deimel (St. Paul’s, Lebanon, Pennsylvania);
The Rev. Marshall Scott (Diocese of West Missouri; posted on his blog Episcopal Chaplain at the Bedside);
The Deputies from the Diocese of New York to the 2006 General Convention (posted by the Rev. Tobias Haller BSG, a member of the Deputation, on his blog In A Godward Direction)
I would also like to call attention to a subsequent response by my friend and colleague the Rev. Canon Ronald Osborne regarding the Instruments of Unity, which is posted on A Guy In The Pew, the blog of Chuck Blanchard of Phoenix, Arizona: http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/08/rev-canon-ronald-osborne-on-instruments.html
My own comments about the Covenant follow:
*******************
(1) Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?
I do not think an “Anglican Covenant” is necessary. Mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion is best strengthened, and has been strengthened in the past, by sharing in ministry by provinces, dioceses, and parishes; through companion diocese relationships; through conferences like TEAM (Toward Effective Anglican Mission) and TEAC (Theological Education for the Anglican Communion), etc. Anglicans need to know each other better through sharing worship and prayer, service and mission, personal communication and reflection. It is not clear to me what gain there would be by composing a document that I fear would simply create potential and actual seeds of dissension.
“An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant”
(2) How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?
I am not really very clear what view of communion this Introduction is putting forth. I wholeheartedly believe that the Anglican Communion is a gift to us from God, but I am not sure what the Introduction means by our “special charism and identity.” I believe that as Anglicans we do have a special charism and identity, but this Introduction does not define these. On the contrary, my understanding includes an openness to the Spirit of truth, a willingness to listen to one another, and a reluctance toward ecclesiastical authoritarianism that I am not sure I detect in this draft covenant.
“An Anglican Covenant Draft”
1. Preamble
(3) Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?
This Preamble is unexceptional enough, I suppose, but I don’t see it as a sufficient rationale for imposing (let’s be candid) a covenant. We are certainly all called to grow up together to the full stature of Christ, but I’m not sure what is meant by “a worldwide Communion” and whether that might include an unnecessary agenda.
2. The Life we Share
(4) Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?
I am inclined to think that these affirmations are both deficient and excessive. I think the description of our understanding of our common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith are most appropriately expressed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886/1888, including the specific reference to the Historic Episcopate. I don’t think anything further is required. “Participation in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God” — well, yes, certainly, but what exactly is that supposed to mean?
(5) The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (of the Church of England) are not currently authoritative documents for The Episcopal Church. Do you think they should be? Why or why not?
In a word, No. I actually rather like the Articles of Religion, mostly, but even in revised form we declined to make them “authoritative” in 1801. We might also note that the first two Anglican churches beyond the Church of England, namely, the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, did not authorize the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1662 Book is certainly appropriate to include among our historical documents, as is also the 1549 Book, along with numerous other subsequent Anglican Books including the English Proposed Book of 1928 which the Convocations and the Church Assembly approved but Parliament rejected. Regarding Paragraph (5) of this section: Let’s not go there.
3. Our Commitment to Confession of Faith
(6) Is each of these commitments clear and understandable with respect to what is being asked of the member churches and are they consistent with statements and actions made by the Episcopal Church in the General Convention? Why or why not?
What’s not to like? What’s not to commit to? Well, actually, what is meant by “biblically derived moral values” (1) and how and by whom are they determined? This is both vague and naïve. There are major portions of the Bible that are not places I would recommend for deriving moral values. We would like to assume that the communion of member Churches are receiving and developing a Godly vision of humanity (well, most of us probably do), but there have certainly been times in the past when we (including ourselves) have had a very defective vision. I think the solemn obligation to sustain Eucharistic communion (2) is essential and it would certainly be good if all the Primates would do it. Biblical texts certainly must be handled faithfully etc. (3), but “primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods”? Who wrote this — Ratzinger? I think each Church should commit itself to seeking to be faithful to God, and I think we are mostly doing that; this section is superfluous and potentially mischievous.
4. The Life we Share with Others
(7) Is the mission vision offered here helpful in advancing a common life of the Anglican Communion and does this need to be a part of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
I think this section is really pretty good. I’m not sure we need to make a Covenant out of it, but it’s a good statement.
5. Our Unity and Common Life
(8) Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?
Well, it’s nice to see the Historic Episcopate finally make an appearance — better late than never! For most of the history of the Anglican Communion, two instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference) were entirely sufficient. In more recent decades, the Anglican Consultative Council has I think made a major contribution to the life and mission of the Communion. The ACC actually has a constitutional structure and is appropriately an additional Instrument of Communion. In this section, however, the ACC seems to be reduced to a co-ordination role, which I think is a serious error. Even more serious is the attempt to raise the Primates’ Meeting to Curial status. The Primates are appropriate members (perhaps even an “upper house”) of the Anglican Consultative Council, and maybe could meet additionally for mutual support, counsel, and discussion, much as the Houses of Bishops in the TEC and some other provinces do, but of course with no independent legislative authority. But “monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications”? I don’t think so.
6. Unity of the Communion
(9) Do you think there needs to be an executive or judicial body for resolving disagreements or disputes in the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.
No. The New York GC Deputation is right on target with their response to this point. And they are still right on target when they say that giving executive or judicial authority to the Primates is the worst possible solution. I’m sure that in the future, as in the past, Churches in the Anglican Communion will have disagreements or disputes about various matters. We will get over them.
(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .” mean to you?
I don’t know what it means to me; or, rather, I can make it mean a variety of different things to me. Who gets to decide what is a matter of “essential concern”? How much of a “common mind” is necessary? I think this item (3) is dangerous. It also seems to me to conflict with item (2), which is pretty good. In fact, if we all had followed the counsel of item (2) in recent years, we wouldn’t have this Covenant proposal before us at all. Items (4), (5), and (6) are unacceptable; they have to do with power, not with the Gospel of Christ.
7. Our Declaration
(11) Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
I don’t think so. Although there are some good points in the Draft Covenant, there are also some points that are seriously off target, and at the end of the day it is not clear that the benefits outweigh the potential costs, or that purged of its authoritarianism and prelacy such a covenant would really be worth the bother.
(12) What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?
I think there is a real possibility that signing such a Covenant, certainly in anything like its present form, would destroy the Anglican Communion. Well, the Communion would continue, but we might have to call it something else, depending on which direction +Rowan jumped. In any case, not a good outcome.
Concluding Questions:
(13) Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or why not?
I certainly do not agree. The draft text of the Covenant is full of all sorts of innovations, of which the attempt to seize power on behalf of the Primates is the most grievous.
(14) In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not-helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?
In general, my response is that as a whole the Draft Covenant is pointless at best and faithless at worst. For all that the Covenant talks about being Anglican, it does not seem to understand Anglicanism very well. It is not that we do not value truth and orthodoxy, but that we discovered some time back that truth cannot be compelled (or even always discerned) by power, and the ultimate answer to bad theology is good theology — not heresy trials or ecclesiastical discipline.
The Rev. William S. J. Moorhead
Iowa City, Iowa
Mr. Lionel Deimel (St. Paul’s, Lebanon, Pennsylvania);
The Rev. Marshall Scott (Diocese of West Missouri; posted on his blog Episcopal Chaplain at the Bedside);
The Deputies from the Diocese of New York to the 2006 General Convention (posted by the Rev. Tobias Haller BSG, a member of the Deputation, on his blog In A Godward Direction)
I would also like to call attention to a subsequent response by my friend and colleague the Rev. Canon Ronald Osborne regarding the Instruments of Unity, which is posted on A Guy In The Pew, the blog of Chuck Blanchard of Phoenix, Arizona: http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/08/rev-canon-ronald-osborne-on-instruments.html
My own comments about the Covenant follow:
*******************
(1) Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?
I do not think an “Anglican Covenant” is necessary. Mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion is best strengthened, and has been strengthened in the past, by sharing in ministry by provinces, dioceses, and parishes; through companion diocese relationships; through conferences like TEAM (Toward Effective Anglican Mission) and TEAC (Theological Education for the Anglican Communion), etc. Anglicans need to know each other better through sharing worship and prayer, service and mission, personal communication and reflection. It is not clear to me what gain there would be by composing a document that I fear would simply create potential and actual seeds of dissension.
“An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant”
(2) How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?
I am not really very clear what view of communion this Introduction is putting forth. I wholeheartedly believe that the Anglican Communion is a gift to us from God, but I am not sure what the Introduction means by our “special charism and identity.” I believe that as Anglicans we do have a special charism and identity, but this Introduction does not define these. On the contrary, my understanding includes an openness to the Spirit of truth, a willingness to listen to one another, and a reluctance toward ecclesiastical authoritarianism that I am not sure I detect in this draft covenant.
“An Anglican Covenant Draft”
1. Preamble
(3) Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?
This Preamble is unexceptional enough, I suppose, but I don’t see it as a sufficient rationale for imposing (let’s be candid) a covenant. We are certainly all called to grow up together to the full stature of Christ, but I’m not sure what is meant by “a worldwide Communion” and whether that might include an unnecessary agenda.
2. The Life we Share
(4) Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?
I am inclined to think that these affirmations are both deficient and excessive. I think the description of our understanding of our common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith are most appropriately expressed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886/1888, including the specific reference to the Historic Episcopate. I don’t think anything further is required. “Participation in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God” — well, yes, certainly, but what exactly is that supposed to mean?
(5) The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (of the Church of England) are not currently authoritative documents for The Episcopal Church. Do you think they should be? Why or why not?
In a word, No. I actually rather like the Articles of Religion, mostly, but even in revised form we declined to make them “authoritative” in 1801. We might also note that the first two Anglican churches beyond the Church of England, namely, the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, did not authorize the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1662 Book is certainly appropriate to include among our historical documents, as is also the 1549 Book, along with numerous other subsequent Anglican Books including the English Proposed Book of 1928 which the Convocations and the Church Assembly approved but Parliament rejected. Regarding Paragraph (5) of this section: Let’s not go there.
3. Our Commitment to Confession of Faith
(6) Is each of these commitments clear and understandable with respect to what is being asked of the member churches and are they consistent with statements and actions made by the Episcopal Church in the General Convention? Why or why not?
What’s not to like? What’s not to commit to? Well, actually, what is meant by “biblically derived moral values” (1) and how and by whom are they determined? This is both vague and naïve. There are major portions of the Bible that are not places I would recommend for deriving moral values. We would like to assume that the communion of member Churches are receiving and developing a Godly vision of humanity (well, most of us probably do), but there have certainly been times in the past when we (including ourselves) have had a very defective vision. I think the solemn obligation to sustain Eucharistic communion (2) is essential and it would certainly be good if all the Primates would do it. Biblical texts certainly must be handled faithfully etc. (3), but “primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods”? Who wrote this — Ratzinger? I think each Church should commit itself to seeking to be faithful to God, and I think we are mostly doing that; this section is superfluous and potentially mischievous.
4. The Life we Share with Others
(7) Is the mission vision offered here helpful in advancing a common life of the Anglican Communion and does this need to be a part of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
I think this section is really pretty good. I’m not sure we need to make a Covenant out of it, but it’s a good statement.
5. Our Unity and Common Life
(8) Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?
Well, it’s nice to see the Historic Episcopate finally make an appearance — better late than never! For most of the history of the Anglican Communion, two instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference) were entirely sufficient. In more recent decades, the Anglican Consultative Council has I think made a major contribution to the life and mission of the Communion. The ACC actually has a constitutional structure and is appropriately an additional Instrument of Communion. In this section, however, the ACC seems to be reduced to a co-ordination role, which I think is a serious error. Even more serious is the attempt to raise the Primates’ Meeting to Curial status. The Primates are appropriate members (perhaps even an “upper house”) of the Anglican Consultative Council, and maybe could meet additionally for mutual support, counsel, and discussion, much as the Houses of Bishops in the TEC and some other provinces do, but of course with no independent legislative authority. But “monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications”? I don’t think so.
6. Unity of the Communion
(9) Do you think there needs to be an executive or judicial body for resolving disagreements or disputes in the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.
No. The New York GC Deputation is right on target with their response to this point. And they are still right on target when they say that giving executive or judicial authority to the Primates is the worst possible solution. I’m sure that in the future, as in the past, Churches in the Anglican Communion will have disagreements or disputes about various matters. We will get over them.
(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .” mean to you?
I don’t know what it means to me; or, rather, I can make it mean a variety of different things to me. Who gets to decide what is a matter of “essential concern”? How much of a “common mind” is necessary? I think this item (3) is dangerous. It also seems to me to conflict with item (2), which is pretty good. In fact, if we all had followed the counsel of item (2) in recent years, we wouldn’t have this Covenant proposal before us at all. Items (4), (5), and (6) are unacceptable; they have to do with power, not with the Gospel of Christ.
7. Our Declaration
(11) Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
I don’t think so. Although there are some good points in the Draft Covenant, there are also some points that are seriously off target, and at the end of the day it is not clear that the benefits outweigh the potential costs, or that purged of its authoritarianism and prelacy such a covenant would really be worth the bother.
(12) What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?
I think there is a real possibility that signing such a Covenant, certainly in anything like its present form, would destroy the Anglican Communion. Well, the Communion would continue, but we might have to call it something else, depending on which direction +Rowan jumped. In any case, not a good outcome.
Concluding Questions:
(13) Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or why not?
I certainly do not agree. The draft text of the Covenant is full of all sorts of innovations, of which the attempt to seize power on behalf of the Primates is the most grievous.
(14) In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not-helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?
In general, my response is that as a whole the Draft Covenant is pointless at best and faithless at worst. For all that the Covenant talks about being Anglican, it does not seem to understand Anglicanism very well. It is not that we do not value truth and orthodoxy, but that we discovered some time back that truth cannot be compelled (or even always discerned) by power, and the ultimate answer to bad theology is good theology — not heresy trials or ecclesiastical discipline.
The Rev. William S. J. Moorhead
Iowa City, Iowa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
