One concern about the covenant process now underway is that the reality of the Communion's present condition could be bypassed by well-intentioned efforts of a committee to hear everyone and find a common document that proves unable to address a reality.
We are in a crisis. Unless someone can offer facts to the contrary, there is only one way for an Anglican Communion to remain in place, and no real alternatives to that. Indeed this was the Archbishop of Canterbury's own stated assumption from the very beginning as he sought to address the crisis before us.
This is for a two-tiered composition to emerge, with the largest bloc of Anglicans genuinely interested in and committed to Communion to remain as such, and a second tier to 'take courage in both hands' and declare their intention to develop a form of Anglicanism stressing federal arrangements, based upon commitments to new teaching in the area of human sexuality, and an emphasis on the larger theological systems that undergird these commitments.
Can anyone offer any evidence that this outcome is not foregone, when all the dust settles? (And if it is not foregone, that will only be because what was once an Anglican Communion has split into more than two groups, a process now well underway and driven by the understandably impatient from numerous places on the theological spectrum.)
But apart from this sense of where we are likely headed, there is a matter of principle to be considered. Two different understandings of the desirability of Communion, and a conciliar framework for maintaining that, are before us. One wishes to give priority to decision making about Gospel priorities within a context of Communion forbearance, in the widest network of consultation. The other wishes to give priority to local autonomy and cultural context. Rather than dividing the baby, can it not be granted that these two principled positions have their respective integrity and exist within differing frameworks of understanding?
Our view is that if this set of considerations is placed at the forefront, we can begin to make genuine progress. Any effort, however, to make process more decisive than a consideration of these two principled realties, introduces insuperable problems and forestalls a genuine grasp of the situation and so a hope for resolution.
This resolution, to our mind, was perceptively suggested inter alia by Mark Harris on his internet site. Whatever else might be true of his understanding of the Communion position regarding the catholic character of Anglicanism, he saw clearly that one way forward was by recourse to the idea of 'ecumenical partners.'
And this returns us to the language referred to by the Archbishop of Canterbury some time ago. That is, why not face into the reality of two principled positions that have now emerged and let them go their own way? They can then co-exist in some form of 'ecumenical relationship' whose character is for the mercy of God to determine in time, and for the hopes and efforts of individual Christians to mold through prayer and common labour. There is little point in trying to make an understanding of new truth in the area of human sexuality and a commitment to autonomy and cultural distinctiveness, merge with a commitment to a Communion fundamentally formed by traditional catholic and biblical teaching. We are simply wearing one another out and keeping blog activity in urgent mode! It is also very costly to gather committees and seek to compose documents which do not respect the issue of principles, as described above, on both sides.
After Dar es Salaam, a representative of the progressive position on sexuality encouraged the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to 'fast' for a season from involvement in Communion affairs. That was sage counsel. The alternatives are simply keeping people close to the presenting issue without giving them any genuine way forward.
Our plea is then for the adherents of a new teaching in sexuality, and a principled view of Anglicanism as a worldwide federal reality, to take courage and move forward, and detach from an understanding of both of these issues, theological and ecclesiological, with which they disagree. There is no reason for this action to be the cause of any negative judgment whatsoever, and every reason for it to be applauded as principled, courageous, and a sign of consistent belief and consistent commitment. It is unclear why this view of the way forward is not enthusiastically embraced, as a principled commitment to a specific understanding of the Gospel and its demands.
It has become clear that mutual subjection in Christ, within a worldwide catholic Communion, is not a priority for certain American Episcopalians; it may also not be so for some Anglicans with opposing views, though their opposition emerged in the context of provocation. We see no reason whatever to contest this view or argue for its deficiency. Its logic is clear and time has allowed that to emerge with clarity. Can we not then allow for a different view to go its own way, and so find a resolution that belongs to the logic of 'ecumenical relationships'? The Anglican Communion is not some kind of ultimate good, necessary for salvation, and indeed it is seen to be a hindrance for many within The Episcopal Church.
Let that reality sound forth, and let those within this same church exhibit the kind of keen commitments to Communion, commitments they believe are consistent with what it genuinely means to be an Anglican in the United States, express them and move forward on that understanding.
"Come, let us reason together." Can we not agree to move forward and let the principles we believe are Gospel imperatives, consistent with understandings of the church we believe God blesses and seeks to further, have the last say? God can then decide, in time, what to bless and what to let his will in time prune.
The point of this appeal is the reality before us that two versions of Anglicanism have emerged, and that associating them in any principled way can only happen in the framework of 'ecumenical relationship' (whose character can then be clarified, as can the political shape of disengagement). To be sure, there are those who wish this kind of reality was not before us, and hope time could provide a tertium quid. That is simply not going to happen. If a two-tiered 'ecumenical relationship' were however to emerge, the means for associating could be clarified and the peace, in some measure, restored. In that kind of a climate, choices would be crystallized and decisions made accordingly.
We mention this specifically in the context of the present covenant design team work and published reactions to it. Many reactions offer the opinion that the covenant idea is un-anglican or in other ways distasteful, ill-conceived, and so forth.
What is not grasped in most of these reactions is that there are no alternatives but a covenant if the Communion is not to divide, or perhaps one should say, remain divided and broken. This in effect lets a view of federal Anglicanism win by default, whether in the form of arguments for autonomy and independent national bodies or arguments for conservative realignment. At present the status quo is not an Anglican Communion, but a broken Anglican family. The covenant could be the means for restoring order and allowing an Anglican Communion to be extended, and set on a footing that is more secure than the one which allowed the present breakdown such wide scope for emergence. The covenant design workers must acknowledge and anticipate that the obligations and joys of Communion are not truly desired by many today, for principled reasons, and that the option to form an ecumenical relationship is the best way forward for those who do not wish to exist in Communion. Without this realism, the danger exists that a covenant is produced that serves no purpose at all, because it simply endorses a status quo of strongly held but incommensurate views of what it means to live in an Anglican Communion, which would effectively be no Communion at all.
Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
The Anglican Communion Institute
We are in a crisis. Unless someone can offer facts to the contrary, there is only one way for an Anglican Communion to remain in place, and no real alternatives to that. Indeed this was the Archbishop of Canterbury's own stated assumption from the very beginning as he sought to address the crisis before us.
This is for a two-tiered composition to emerge, with the largest bloc of Anglicans genuinely interested in and committed to Communion to remain as such, and a second tier to 'take courage in both hands' and declare their intention to develop a form of Anglicanism stressing federal arrangements, based upon commitments to new teaching in the area of human sexuality, and an emphasis on the larger theological systems that undergird these commitments.
Can anyone offer any evidence that this outcome is not foregone, when all the dust settles? (And if it is not foregone, that will only be because what was once an Anglican Communion has split into more than two groups, a process now well underway and driven by the understandably impatient from numerous places on the theological spectrum.)
But apart from this sense of where we are likely headed, there is a matter of principle to be considered. Two different understandings of the desirability of Communion, and a conciliar framework for maintaining that, are before us. One wishes to give priority to decision making about Gospel priorities within a context of Communion forbearance, in the widest network of consultation. The other wishes to give priority to local autonomy and cultural context. Rather than dividing the baby, can it not be granted that these two principled positions have their respective integrity and exist within differing frameworks of understanding?
Our view is that if this set of considerations is placed at the forefront, we can begin to make genuine progress. Any effort, however, to make process more decisive than a consideration of these two principled realties, introduces insuperable problems and forestalls a genuine grasp of the situation and so a hope for resolution.
This resolution, to our mind, was perceptively suggested inter alia by Mark Harris on his internet site. Whatever else might be true of his understanding of the Communion position regarding the catholic character of Anglicanism, he saw clearly that one way forward was by recourse to the idea of 'ecumenical partners.'
And this returns us to the language referred to by the Archbishop of Canterbury some time ago. That is, why not face into the reality of two principled positions that have now emerged and let them go their own way? They can then co-exist in some form of 'ecumenical relationship' whose character is for the mercy of God to determine in time, and for the hopes and efforts of individual Christians to mold through prayer and common labour. There is little point in trying to make an understanding of new truth in the area of human sexuality and a commitment to autonomy and cultural distinctiveness, merge with a commitment to a Communion fundamentally formed by traditional catholic and biblical teaching. We are simply wearing one another out and keeping blog activity in urgent mode! It is also very costly to gather committees and seek to compose documents which do not respect the issue of principles, as described above, on both sides.
After Dar es Salaam, a representative of the progressive position on sexuality encouraged the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to 'fast' for a season from involvement in Communion affairs. That was sage counsel. The alternatives are simply keeping people close to the presenting issue without giving them any genuine way forward.
Our plea is then for the adherents of a new teaching in sexuality, and a principled view of Anglicanism as a worldwide federal reality, to take courage and move forward, and detach from an understanding of both of these issues, theological and ecclesiological, with which they disagree. There is no reason for this action to be the cause of any negative judgment whatsoever, and every reason for it to be applauded as principled, courageous, and a sign of consistent belief and consistent commitment. It is unclear why this view of the way forward is not enthusiastically embraced, as a principled commitment to a specific understanding of the Gospel and its demands.
It has become clear that mutual subjection in Christ, within a worldwide catholic Communion, is not a priority for certain American Episcopalians; it may also not be so for some Anglicans with opposing views, though their opposition emerged in the context of provocation. We see no reason whatever to contest this view or argue for its deficiency. Its logic is clear and time has allowed that to emerge with clarity. Can we not then allow for a different view to go its own way, and so find a resolution that belongs to the logic of 'ecumenical relationships'? The Anglican Communion is not some kind of ultimate good, necessary for salvation, and indeed it is seen to be a hindrance for many within The Episcopal Church.
Let that reality sound forth, and let those within this same church exhibit the kind of keen commitments to Communion, commitments they believe are consistent with what it genuinely means to be an Anglican in the United States, express them and move forward on that understanding.
"Come, let us reason together." Can we not agree to move forward and let the principles we believe are Gospel imperatives, consistent with understandings of the church we believe God blesses and seeks to further, have the last say? God can then decide, in time, what to bless and what to let his will in time prune.
The point of this appeal is the reality before us that two versions of Anglicanism have emerged, and that associating them in any principled way can only happen in the framework of 'ecumenical relationship' (whose character can then be clarified, as can the political shape of disengagement). To be sure, there are those who wish this kind of reality was not before us, and hope time could provide a tertium quid. That is simply not going to happen. If a two-tiered 'ecumenical relationship' were however to emerge, the means for associating could be clarified and the peace, in some measure, restored. In that kind of a climate, choices would be crystallized and decisions made accordingly.
We mention this specifically in the context of the present covenant design team work and published reactions to it. Many reactions offer the opinion that the covenant idea is un-anglican or in other ways distasteful, ill-conceived, and so forth.
What is not grasped in most of these reactions is that there are no alternatives but a covenant if the Communion is not to divide, or perhaps one should say, remain divided and broken. This in effect lets a view of federal Anglicanism win by default, whether in the form of arguments for autonomy and independent national bodies or arguments for conservative realignment. At present the status quo is not an Anglican Communion, but a broken Anglican family. The covenant could be the means for restoring order and allowing an Anglican Communion to be extended, and set on a footing that is more secure than the one which allowed the present breakdown such wide scope for emergence. The covenant design workers must acknowledge and anticipate that the obligations and joys of Communion are not truly desired by many today, for principled reasons, and that the option to form an ecumenical relationship is the best way forward for those who do not wish to exist in Communion. Without this realism, the danger exists that a covenant is produced that serves no purpose at all, because it simply endorses a status quo of strongly held but incommensurate views of what it means to live in an Anglican Communion, which would effectively be no Communion at all.
Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
The Anglican Communion Institute
