Anglican Mainstream

Charles Raven, SPREAD

It has been said of the great twentieth century theologian Karl Barth that his was ‘a maverick ego that never lost the sense of continuity with itself’. Whether the Bishop of Durham, one of Anglicanism’s most heavyweight theologians, has a maverick ego could be an interesting debate, but a strong ego is undoubtedly an asset to any theologian. In his ‘unpacking’ ‘unpacking’ of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflections on TEC’s recent General Convention, he clearly demonstrates continuity with himself, but there is a worrying discontinuity in the image we are given of Rowan Williams.

Tom Wright welcomes the Archbishop’s recognition that TEC have chosen to ‘walk apart’ and his clear reaffirmation of the Church’s official teaching on same sex unions and the bar on ordination – at all levels – for those in such relationships. The problems begin to emerge when he expands upon the Archbishop’s thoughts about the way forward, particularly the central role which the he thinks Rowan Williams himself should play, writing in his introduction ‘the Archbishop is himself not only an Instrument of Unity but the one which has to hold on to everything at this moment. Lambeth 2008 didn’t say much (apart from what the ABC himself said); the status of ACC and Primates are under question in various quarters; it is up to him.’

It is instructive to see how Tom Wright handles the unresolved tension in the Archbishop’s ‘two-tier’ or ‘two-track’ model for the future of the Communion. He notes ‘To say ‘two-tier’, as some have done at earlier stages in the discussion, implies that the two are still ‘tiers’ of the same thing, whereas ‘tracks’ may be going in quite different directions. And it is one ‘track’ rather than the other which will possess the coherence to work together in full solidarity, not least in ecumenical relationships.’

However, this rather ignores the fact that Rowan Williams concludes that the ‘two tracks’ are ‘two styles of being Anglican, whose mutual relation will certainly need working out but which would not exclude co-operation in mission and service of the kind now shared in the Communion.’ Tom Wright admits that such mission would be ‘fraught with frustrations’, but can’t bring himself to say that such mission is simply not possible, which would seem to be the obvious conclusion if the two Anglican ‘tracks’ are going in different directions as he believes. While it would be encouraging if his commentary on the ‘two tracks’ turned out to be right, the fact that ‘style’ is normally contrasted to ‘substance’ must raise the possibility that Rowan Williams still hopes in the longer term for an indaba induced synthesis in which the tracks will merge.

So it looks as if we are being given a conservative spin on the Archbishop’s comments by someone who is nonetheless determined not to be critical of the Archbishop himself. The reason for this becomes clearer when Tom Wright develops the principle affirmed by the Archbishop, that ‘the decision as to which things can be decided locally is not itself one that can be taken locally’. As a global Communion, Anglicanism needs global leadership, but where is this to come from? It is admitted that the other existing institutions (Lambeth Conference, Primates Meeting and Anglican Consultative Council) have been shown to be ineffective, so the Archbishop of Canterbury himself must act. By taking personal leadership of the Covenant process, he can ensure ratification as soon as possible, bringing coherence by allowing the orthodox provinces to coalesce around the Covenant, even if only sections 1-3 can be adapted at present.

Such personal leadership is recognised as being less than ideal, but necessary until new or reformed Communion wide structures can be formed. In the meantime Rowan Williams should act because , we are told ‘as Archbishop of Canterbury, he carries within the whole Communion immense moral and pastoral authority, rooted in his exposition of scripture and articulation of the whole Christian tradition; and this, as he himself has insisted, is the real heart of all authority within the body of Christ. Too often in recent times legal and juridical ‘authority’ has been used, and perhaps abused, in the place of the genuine apostolic authority of the word of God and prayer.’

This is tending to the surreal. This ‘repackaged’ Rowan has a pretty tenuous link with reality. Quite apart from the fact that there are 37 other Primates in the Anglican Communion who might feel thay are entitled to some consultation, his moral and pastoral authority has in fact been greatly diminished in the Communion. This is evident in the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement respectfully but firmly recognises this when it states ‘While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.’ He is being marginalised not only because of an essentially spurious distinction between his personal views and the moral teaching he is now trying to uphold, but also because he himself is deeply implicated in the misuse of authority, albeit not in quite the same way Tom Wright has in mind.

If the Archbishop had exercised his apostolic authority to restrain TEC earlier, to enforce the Dar es Salaam deadline of 30th September 2007 and to bar those TEC bishops from Lambeth who had supported the consecration of Gene Robinson, it is doubtful that the GAFCON movement would have come into being. It was a response to doctrinal and moral disorder in the Communion for which Rowan Williams through his earlier teaching and especially his failure to discipline bore much responsibility. And his critical intervention in favour of TEC at the last Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Jamaica will still be fresh in the minds of many.

In Rowan Williams’ leadership there has been a persistent pattern of appeasement towards TEC, so why is Tom Wright so anxious to present him in a much more robust light? The answer seems to lie in the disproportionate space he devotes in his conclusion to the plight of the ‘Communion Partners’, a group within TEC which now needs urgent rescue. It has positioned itself along the same lines as Fulcrum in England, but now finds that loyalty to TEC and loyalty to the wider Communion has placed it in an impossible position, a surprise, no doubt, to no-one but themselves.

In fact, Tom Wright is now asking that his friends in the US have the very support which he has been so opposed to for those who now form the ACNA, urging that ‘Those within TEC who sign it [the Covenant] need appropriate Communion recognition and relatedness – if bishops, a Primatial relationship, if parishes or individuals, an episcopal relationship.’ It is difficult to avoid the impression that previous ecclesiological principles have been shelved for pragmatic reasons.

Certainly, what is being proposed by Tom Wright for the Communion Partners is in direct contradiction to the policy of the English House of Bishops. Their report on the Covenant
prepared for the February 2009 General Synod was quite clear that the Covenant could only be signed at Provincial level, stating ‘As far as the Church of England is concerned an individual diocese has no power to issue a statement that purports to declare the doctrine of the Church and could not sign the Covenant.’

That such an able and respected theologian has to stretch both credulity and church polity so far is symptomatic of the inherent contradictions, increasingly difficult to suppress, in trying to be loyal to the historic Anglican faith and operate within the old wineskin of Lambeth orientated structures. As those contradictions become ever more obvious – as they will on this side of the Atlantic as well as in North America – it must be hoped that while the ‘two tracks’ of Global Anglicanism diverge, there will be grace extended between the ‘two tracks’ of Anglican evangelicalism so that they can converge. An Anglican Covenant which adopted the Jerusalem Declaration might be a good start.

Charles Raven
SPREAD
www.anglicanspread.org

31st July 2009
 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.