The Archbishop of Canterbury speaks

Actually, the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks twice. One is a Christmas message to the Anglican Communion, which is a meditation on a verse from the letter to the Hebrews, "Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God." It's not long, and it's well worth reading.

His other missive is his annual Advent letter to the Primates. It's a long letter, almost entirely concerned with the Current Unpleasantness, and contains much to mull on. It is also, be warned, the letter of an Oxford don in full English academic chin-stroking mode. It is not a light read.

But I strongly recommend reading the whole thing to anyone who has a pressing interest in Anglican matters. Here are a few excerpts and my own thoughts.

He begins by talking about what the Anglican Communion is and is not, and he says

The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments.

In other words, because we do not have a central authority -- there is no Anglican Pope -- then in order to be a "communion" we have to be able to look at each other across the world and say, "Those people are Anglicans, like we are." He goes on to say what he thinks are the core, sine qua non elements of this characteristically Anglican "faith from the apostles."

• The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith', in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another 'standing under' the word of Scripture. Because of this recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process. Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.

• The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks – of teaching and pastoral care and admonition, of assembling God's people for worship, above all at the Holy Communion. The principle that one local church should not intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God provides what is needed for each local community.

• The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News. When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to support each other's efforts to win people for Christ and to serve the world in his Name. Communion thus means the sharing of resources and skills in order to enable one another to proclaim and serve in this way.

The threads that bind together the Anglican Communion, he says, are Scripture interpreted in a way recognizable by the whole church, mutual recognition of the sacraments of ordained clergy, and a commitment to go out into the world with Christian work and the Christian gospel.

I admit that I have difficulty with the point on Scripture. I get uneasy when people talk about the Bible as "the rule and ultimate standard of faith," because it seems to overlook the fact that the Bible is one part -- a snapshot -- of an on-going tradition of understanding and reflecting on God's word. I'm certainly willing to acknowledge Scripture as the foundational text of Christianity, no question there. But I think it's dangerous to ignore the possibility that, as our UCC friends remind us, "God is still speaking."

I'm also conflicted about the suggestion that, "Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone." I understand his point -- if you read the Bible in a fundamentally different way than someone else, then you do not in fact have a common ground in a shared text, because for all intents and purposes you're each reading a different text. And I note that the Archbishop carefully does not say that only the Church can discern the correct reading of Scripture; he says only that the Church must find a common way of reading Scripture in order to read it together.

And yet I have just that tiny bit of the Reformation in me that says, "No, I can read Scripture and decide how I choose to interpret it," and that bit makes me dig in my heels about the notion of subjecting my understanding of Scripture to the corporate discernment of the church.

I think this point is worthy of further reflection. For one thing, some people -- and I'm rapidly becoming one of them -- are convinced that the root cause of the schism we're seeing now, underlying the presenting cause of human sexuality, is a fundamentally different understanding between the "liberals" and the "conservatives" of what Scripture is and how it should be read. If I have time over Christmas, I'm thinking of writing up some thoughts on this topic.

But, moving on... the Archbishop goes on to say that, when applying these principles to the topic of human sexuality:

But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.

The Anglican Communion as a whole, operating through it's various conferences, has never decided to change it's stance that homosexuality is sinful. For the Archbishop of Canterbury -- whatever his personal opinions are, and for himself he seems to be more liberal on this -- but acting as the primus inter pares of the Anglican Communion, he feels that he has to start from this point. This has consistently been his position ever since this whole mess hit the fan back in 2003, but it's still not good news for the Episcopal Church.

He goes on to summarize the problem facing the Communion:

This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church, it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far they are still speaking the same language. And because what one local church says is naturally taken as representative of what others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered.

To paraphrase: if you do something that decisively contradicts the consensus of the Anglican Communion, then it's not clear that you can still be recognized by others as being Anglican. And since that mutual recognition is all that holds us together -- see up above -- this is a serious matter.

As a member of the Episcopal Church, and one who is strongly in favor of "episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union" and who would like to "claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions," this does point the finger right at me and people like me. That can't be denied.

On the other hand, the Archbishop -- unlike many of the more "conservative" pundits -- carefully does not phrase this as a problem of orthodoxy, heresy, and discipline. For him, it's a matter of playing by a community's rules if you want to be part of the community. I find that a more understandable point of view.

From there, the Archbishop goes on to speak in gravely disapproving tones of the "border crossings" undertaken by some of the Global South provinces; that is, parishes or dioceses in the Episcopal Church declaring themselves to be under the authority of another primate.

He then begins to talk more specifically about the Episcopal Church. He makes a very interesting statement here:

The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion.

This seems to be saying that he would be willing to consider some dioceses of the Episcopal Church as being "in fellowship with the Communion," while other diocese are not. I believe this is a significant shift in the Archbishop's position, because in the past he's been very unenthusiastic about any solution that did not deal with the Episcopal Church as a whole and through its national governance.

He goes on to observe, correctly in my opinion:

[I]t is practically impossible to imagine any further elucidation or elaboration coming from TEC ["The Episcopal Church"] after the successive statements and resolutions from last year's General Convention onwards. A good deal of time and effort has gone into the responses they have already produced, and it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.

The statements and resolutions of the Episcopal Church have been maddeningly incomplete, vague, and contradictory to people on both sides; but, the Archbishop opines, this is the best we're going to get and we have to move forward with it as best we can.

Another observation, phrased in careful English understatement, concerns the House of Bishops:

A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.

Ah, yes, the "distinctive charism of bishops." That's worthy of a tome or two all by itself. As far as "sustaining doctrinal standards," it is true that the service for ordaining a bishop requires the bishop to vow to "guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church." The old 1662 ordinal required an oath to "banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God's Word." I think it's probably true that the American bishops in general take a different view of this "distinctive charism," but I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.

Finally, the Archbishop talks about what happens next. On the topic of who is and who isn't invited to Lambeth, he says:

I have not felt able to invite those whose episcopal ordination was carried through against the counsel of the Instruments of Communion, and I have not seen any reason to revisit this [...] I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimised by the Communion overall.

So Gene Robinson, the gay bishop whose ordination started this whole brouhaha, is not invited; but neither are the bishops ordained in America by African provinces to minister to disaffected Episcopalians. This is true Anglican via media, in that it makes everyone mad.

Next comes the kicker:

I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.

He appears to be pointing out here that he can and will withdraw Lambeth invitations from particular bishops if he feels they aren't willing to at least try to play ball. To the best of my recollection this is about as close as Rowan Williams has ever come to making an explicit threat.

Next, he proposes two specific courses of action. First:

I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.

I'm not sure anyone is excited or optimistic about the prospect of "professionally facilitated conversations," so we'll see how well that one pans out.

Second, he says:

I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies.

Again, there's a mildly-stated threat here; if the Episcopal Church continues to be "at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion," then it may be put into Coventry. Or -- and this is in line with his previous comment about dioceses being in fellowship with the Communion -- "individual bishops" might be.

That last makes me wonder if the Archbishop is contemplating a solution whereby a handful of the more vocally "progressive" TEC bishops can be individually shunned in exchange for the Global South conservatives grudgingly allowing the rest of TEC to sit at the big table. Put in those terms, I strongly suspect that a number of TEC bishops would choose to knock the dust from their sandals and boycott Lambeth, so the Archbishop might not even have to pick which miters he wants to throw under the bus. On the other hand, I also suspect that the Global South would not consider this sufficient; my sense is that they pretty much see TEC as a body as being irrevocably apostate and want nothing more to do with us.

So far, the Archbishop has not revealed who he plans to invite to be on this "small group of primates and others," and that's going to be an interesting list to see when it does come out.

Finally, the Archbishop ends his Advent letter by reminding us that we're not the only players involved in this game.

The coming of Christ in the flesh and the declaration of the good news of his saving purpose was not a matter of human planning and ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience of Mary and whose effect was to create a new community of God's sons and daughters. As we look forward, what is there for us to do but pray, obey and be ready for God's re-creating work through the eternal and unchanging Saviour, Jesus Christ?

'The Spirit and the bride say, "Come"... Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen' (Rev.22.17, 20-21).

And all I will say to that is, Amen.