The covenant, envisaged as a unifying document, probably to be known as the Anglican Covenant, is expected to set out the loyalty and bonds of affection that would henceforth govern relationships between the churches. It will also seek to carry the weight of an international obligation and prevent churches pressing ahead with unilateral innovations. It is however not conceived, in Dr Williams’ words as “a means of excluding the difficult or rebellious but would intensify existing relations.” The proposed council, on the other hand is being touted as the Anglican equivalent of the Catholic Church’s Holy Office. Formally known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is a Vatican body with responsibility for endorsing doctrine. The proposal for a similar body for Anglicans to be known as “Faith and Order Commission" seen as capable of bringing “guidance on issues raised by our current crisis", was contained in a document released by the Windsor Continuation Group, which analyses tensions within the communionIf Most Reverend (Dr) Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury has his way, a new Council and a Covenant of The Anglican Communion will emerge at Lambeth Conference 2008 which ends today at the University of Kent, near London, England.
This much he made clear in his second Presidential Address to about 650 leaders of the Church at their once-a-decade meeting on Tuesday. I quote: “I spoke about council and covenant as the shape of the way forward as I see it. And by this I meant, first, that we needed a bit more of a structure in our international affairs to be able to give clear guidance on what would and would not be a grave and lasting divisive course of action by a local church.”
Rationalising this position further, he said: “While at the moment the focus of this sort of question is sexual ethics, it could just as well be pressure for a new baptismal formula or the abandonment of formal reference to the Nicene Creed in a local church’s formulations; it could be a degree of variance in sacramental practice — about the elements of the Eucharist or lay presidency; it could be the regular incorporation into liturgy of non-Scriptural or even non-Christian material”.
He continued: “Some of these questions have a pretty clear answer, but others are open for a little more discussion; and it seems obvious that a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognised could help us greatly. But the key points are confidence and authority. If we do develop such a capacity in our structures, we need as a Communion to agree what sort of weight its decisions will have; hence, again, the desirability of a covenantal agreement.”
In his opening address to the conference a week earlier, he had spoken along the same lines. Acknowledging that the Communion was “in the middle of one of the most severe challenges to have faced the Anglican family in its history," he said "we cannot ignore the fact that what is seen to be a new doctrine and policy about same-sex relations is causing pain and perplexity."
Referring to the Global Anglican Future Conference, launched in June in Jerusalem as a reaction to “what is seen to be a new doctrine and policy about same-sex relations”, the Archbishop said, "we cannot ignore the pressures created by new structures that are being improvised in reaction to this, pressures that are very visibility in the form of irregular patterns of ministry across historic boundaries." This developments, he implied, makes the need for renewal in the Communion, as an institution an imperative. In his words "this is the moment for it. There is, quite properly, a sense of being at a deeply significant turning point."
It is against the background of this awareness that he proposes a Council and a Covenant. The covenant, envisaged as a unifying document, probably to be known as the Anglican Covenant, is expected to set out the loyalty and bonds of affection that would henceforth govern relationships between the churches. It will also seek to carry the weight of an international obligation and prevent churches pressing ahead with unilateral innovations. It is however not conceived, in Dr Williams’ words as “a means of excluding the difficult or rebellious but would intensify existing relations.”
The proposed council, on the other hand is being touted as the Anglican equivalent of the Catholic Church’s Holy Office. Formally known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is a Vatican body with responsibility for endorsing doctrine. The proposal for a similar body for Anglicans to be known as “Faith and Order Commission" seen as capable of bringing “guidance on issues raised by our current crisis", was contained in a document released by the Windsor Continuation Group, which analyses tensions within the communion.
It is not difficult to appreciate the exertions of this man of God on a salvage mission; a man who can easily go down in history as the one who presided over the disintegration of a 70million-man strong community of Christians spread over 132 countries, administered through 58 provinces.
And the threat to the continued existence of the Communion is quite real. Between 230 and 250 Anglican Bishops didn’t attend Lambeth 2008. The absentees were among those who gathered for GAFCON in Jerusalem in June. The declaration issued at the end of the Global Anglican Future Conference bespeaks what might be described as irreconcilable differences within the family.
Described as “a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it”, the conference, according to the introduction to their communiqué is “global”, having attracted “1148 lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops representing millions of faithful Anglican Christians”.
They emphasized their Anglican root and heritage in these words: “we cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it. And we believe that, in God’s providence, Anglicanism has a bright future in obedience to our Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to build up the church on the foundation of biblical truth…” Nonetheless they went on to set up what does look like a communion within the communion.
GAFCON, says the document, “is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and we hereby: launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans; publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship and; encourage GAFCON Primates to form a Council. The group cited the crisis within the Communion brought about by three “undeniable facts” as responsible for their action. The first fact according to them is “the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel. This false gospel undermines the authority of God’s Word written and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the author of salvation from sin, death and judgment. Many of its proponents claim that all religions offer equal access to God and that Jesus is only a way, not the way, the truth and the life. It promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behaviour as a universal human right. It claims God’s blessing for same-sex unions over against the biblical teaching on holy matrimony. In 2003 this false gospel led to the consecration of a bishop living in a homosexual relationship”.
The second fact, continues GAFCON, “is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel. These declarations have resulted in a realignment whereby faithful Anglican Christians have left existing territorial parishes, dioceses and provinces in certain Western churches and become members of other dioceses and provinces, all within the Anglican Communion. These actions have also led to the appointment of new Anglican bishops set over geographic areas already occupied by other Anglican bishops. A major realignment has occurred and will continue to unfold.”
And the third? “…The manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy. The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada, in proclaiming this false gospel, have consistently defied the 1998 Lambeth statement of biblical moral principle (Resolution 1.10). Despite numerous meetings and reports to and from the ‘Instruments of Unity,’ no effective action has been taken, and the bishops of these unrepentant churches are welcomed to Lambeth 2008. To make matters worse, there has been a failure to honour promises of discipline, the authority of the Primates’ Meeting has been undermined and the Lambeth Conference has been structured so as to avoid any hard decisions…”
As was pointed out last week Lambeth 1998’s Resolution1:10 appeared the minimum acceptable compromise on the subject of Human Sexuality, which although listed third by GAFCON, is easily the trigger of the current crisis. Had it been enforced, the situation would certainly have been different today. Why was it not enforced? Who could have enforced it and how? Is this what the Archbishop had in mind when he proposed “a body which commands real confidence and whose authority is recognized...” and emphasized “? Will his proposal succeed at Lambeth 2008? (Continues next week)
*Pix: Most Rev Dr Rowan William, Archbishop of Canterbury
No comments:
Post a Comment