GAFCON & THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH (5)

“I think that we have emerged at the end of this conference with
some quite surprising results; a surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together; a surprising level of agreement about what might be necessary to make that happen. So that for all the fact that all the details of the covenant proposal still need a good deal of clarification nonetheless there is a following for that. There is also a wide degree of agreement on the need for moratoria on both sides where divisive actions are concerned. And one thing that came up which is not planned and is not really expected was again a strong level of support for a more coherent and coordinated attempt to draw together the work of the Communion around issues of justice and international development.”

And so Lambeth 2008, the ten yearly meeting of Anglican Bishops, the first this millennium, has come and gone. It ended on Sunday August 3. Although I was in London for most part of the Conference, I could not cover it officially because, accreditation of journalists had closed by the time I arrived in the United Kingdom. In the event, when, at the close of the Conference, I did not get to see the resolutions, I thought I had somehow missed it. I combed various Anglican websites, in vain. It took a terse e-mail from Canon James Rosenthal, the veteran Communicator (Director of Communications) of the Anglican Communion and Editor of the Anglican World magazine, to convince me that Lambeth 2008, momentous as it was, ended without a formal statement of decisions in the form of a communiqué. In his reply to my inquiry, Rosenthal assured me that there were no resolutions and directed me to what he described as “Reflections” published on the Conference website.

Of course, I had seen the document he referred to. Titled, Lambeth Indaba, Capturing Conversations and Reflections from the Lambeth Conference 2008, it was a 42-page narrative of the discussions at the Conference. In 161 paragraphs divided into 13 sections, the document rivals the best of United Nations resolutions carefully put together to avoid the almighty veto of any of the Security Council permanent members. I do not say that to minimize the gains of the Conference. And there were many, intangible for now.

Archbishop Rowan William’s address to journalists at the final media conference shortly before the conference formally wound up sought to put the gains in perspective. He identified what he described as “some quite surprising results” from the Conference. His words:

“I think that we have emerged at the end of this conference with some quite surprising results; a surprising level of sheer willingness to stay together; a surprising level of agreement about what might be necessary to make that happen. So that for all the fact that all the details of the covenant proposal still need a good deal of clarification nonetheless there is a following for that. There is also a wide degree of agreement on the need for moratoria on both sides where divisive actions are concerned. And one thing that came up which is not planned and is not really expected was again a strong level of support for a more coherent and coordinated attempt to draw together the work of the Communion around issues of justice and international development.”

As a result of these “surprising results”, the archbishop said “…there’s work to do” and he went on to itemize some of the various processes that will take the process forward as follows: “There will be a number of meetings coming up: a special meeting of the joint standing committee of Primates, the Consultative Council in November; we are planning a Primates meeting very early in the new year, and there would be the routine meeting of the Consultative Council in the early summer”.

Situating the place of the “Reflections” document in the on-going processes, the archbishop continued: “Feeding into all of these will be continuing reflections from various groups that will be looking at the issues the Conference has been discussing. They will be looking at those in the light of the very detailed responses and perspectives offered by the indaba groups as represented in the “Reflections’ document, which was formally presented to the Conference and to myself this afternoon and, which we will be dedicating in prayer at the service at the cathedral very shortly. I think that in addition to all that, all the formal aspects of the work together, there’s been very, very widespread desire simply to go on building personal relations…”

But it is, perhaps, his concluding statement that captures the state of the Communion best and I quote: “Even where people may not want to sign up to formal agreements, nonetheless they felt that the exchanges they had have been nourishing, valuable and the phrase that has occurred in several context is we want the indaba to continue. We want the process to continue in which there is space to do the sort of thing we have sought to do in this last two weeks.”

This statement is indicative of the fact that the outcome of the Conference did not meet the expectations of the conference president himself as reflected in both his opening and second addresses. He had canvassed the need for both a Covenant to bind the provinces that make up the communion together in a fairly less loose manner and a Council that can, at least, make pronouncements on critical issues concerning the body. Neither was adopted.

Commenting on the Conference’s failure to put an Anglican Covenant in place, Dr Williams said: “I had outlined in my opening address that the covenant was not meant to be a punitive exclusionary device, it was meant to say if you want to adopt a more integral, more intensified form of mutual responsibility; this is the way to do it. If that doesn’t happen, well, that’s regrettable. It doesn’t mean that there is an absolute separation; it means that some levels of relationship will be entered into. And that still leave a great many possibilities for cooperation”.

In spite of that, however, the archbishop still saw much to celebrate in the outcome of the Conference. Answering a reporter’s question, he said: “I feel it’s worked out very much as I had hoped and prayed. It’s not evaded the difficult questions, even if it has not solved them the way some people would like to have them solved. But that doesn’t cause me to lose much sleep, because the conference has not been an executive body that can simply make those sorts of quick-fix decisions. I’ve actually been surprised by how much energy that’s been growing in the indaba groups to continue the process of encounter. I feel we’ve been very well served by …providing an atmosphere of prayer and worship. People have said the encounters were serious and prayerful, without too much pressure. I don’t think I could have prayed for that”

On the face of it, it does seem as if the archbishop has been rationalising the failure of Lambeth 2008. Of course, the resort to a “Reflections” document, is itself evidence that there were very few, if any, agreements on the way forward; beyond ”a strong willingness to stay together.” Some of the contents, in many ways, help the conclusion that the Communion still has a long way to go towards resolving the issues that kept at least 250 bishops away from Lambeth 2008, and gave birth to GAFCON.

For instance, where Rowan Williams canvassed a “more integral more intensifying” form of mutual relationship and sought a review of the Structure of the Communion to provide for it, the Reflections document didn’t go beyond “affirming the need for the review of the bureaucracy of provinces in order to facilitate more effective communication and efficiency. There is need to strengthen the sense of collegiality and the building of trust and accountability between dioceses, the assumption of some appellate function as a way of adjudicating issues which may arise, and ensuring that decisions and actions are taken at the appropriate level…(Paragraph 44)

This is in spite of the documents’ admission later in paragraph 79 that “Current divisions between Anglicans and the actions by certain provinces that have provoked them have inevitably disrupted not only the internal life of the Communion but also ecumenical dialogues and cooperation. Our ecumenical partners are sometimes bewildered by apparent Anglican inconsistency especially where issues of authority and ecclesiology are concerned. This is immediately relevant to the dilemmas facing this Conference.”

This philosophy class approach to issues was also evident in Section H of the document, which dealt with the issue of Human Sexuality. In all of 15 paragraphs (105-119), an attempt was made to capture the various views. And in the 16th, 12 possible ways ahead were listed including: “Further careful study of the Scriptures, theology, doctrine and other disciplines, such as theological anthropology, must be pursued together through a formal Commission at Communion-wide level. This would equip the bishops in their teaching office.” And I thought this was a Spiritual matter!

Nonetheless, Conference recorded a major victory in the tacit reaffirmation of ”the moral authority of the whole of the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1:10, and the report commended in it, and continue its implementation…Acknowledge that some good work has been done on the resolution..”. Although, this was contained in paragraph 130 (Possible Ways Forward), its mention by Archbishop Rowan in his media conference address would seem to give it the force of a declaration.” (Concludes Next week)

*Pix: Rev Canon James Rosenthal, Director of Communication, Anglican Communion.