Standing Under the Scriptures: Special Notice
October 19, 2010

ANGLICAN COMMUNION AS DESTINY
A message to his Standing Under the Scriptures class from Fr. Ted

The Windsor Report of 2004, commissioned as a Communion response to the crisis provoked by the 2003 election of the Bishop of New Hampshire, affirmed the “ancient canonical principle that what touches all should be decided by all.” When this not only has not happened but becomes increasingly unlikely to happen, there is “an ecclesiastical deficit” to say the least. The liberal-traditionalist division in the Anglican Communion resulting from it has now solidified, Thus interest shifts from particular developments to fundamentals factors: the sources from which the division ultimately sprang, where they have led and what they portend: in a word to destiny. In brief, the prospects for the liberals seem problematic. Those for the traditionalists are brighter but are not without complexities. As for a meaningful continuation of the Communion, this seems unlikely short of divine intervention—which is not to be ruled out. (I use the terms liberal and traditionalist, inadequate as they are, in hopes of minimizing pejorative connotations.)

Introduction

As I have been saying, our Sunday morning Standing Under the Scriptures class is not mere academic exercise or antiquarianism. Instead it aims to infuse us with the Scriptures to the point of providing us with a framework for both understanding and responding to what confronts us, individually and as a church—now perhaps especially as a church. Accordingly, I have from time to time reported on developments in the wider Anglican Communion as well as in our American part of it, but less so of late because there no longer seems so much to be said. The crisis erupting in 2003 with the consecration of Gene Robinson, an active homosexual, as Bishop of New Hampshire appears largely to have run its course. Whether or not the division which came to the fore at that time—nominally over the sexuality issue but essentially over biblical and traditional authority—will be resolved within the Communion’s present structures has become evident: it will not be. Whereas in the past there have been developments which conceivably could have changed this outcome, none is in prospect now. Even the Anglican Covenant, once held out as our main hope, must now be regarded as largely irrelevant. For both liberals and traditionalists have become more rather than less determined to hold to their respective, irreconcilable courses, and the division has become substantially institutionalized. Thus what is called for at this juncture is not an analysis of specific occasions—although some would highlight the Archbishop or Canterbury’s refusal to exercise effective leadership while also preventing others from doing so. Instead it is an identification of operative factors in the broader sweep of church history, their impact on the present, and their implications for the future. Harking back to my Foreign Service career, it is the equivalent not of reports back to Washington such as I used to write from my overseas posts but of an N.I.E. (National Intelligence Estimate), an interagency assessment—State, CIA, Defense—of what the United States is likely to be confronted with in particular countries and regions. Such a thinking through of Communion concerns is what I have attempted here. It is only rudimentary, I am afraid, and not entirely coherent. Even so it may clarify some issues.

Liberal and traditionalist antecedents

Before proceeding, some account is needed of who may be considered to be among the liberals and who among the traditionalists. Even before that something should be said about wherein liberalism and traditionalism consist. Concerning the latter I would offer the following. It is not necessary to impute evil intentions to either side of the division at the origin. Instead each may be regarded as having departed from much the same point, namely adherence to the gospel as first proclaimed, which may in turn be equated with revelation as attested in Scripture. The power of this first proclamation, which was of Jesus Christ as having overcome both sin and death, is undeniable. In it the suppressed masses of the Roman Empire found deliverance from the spiritual death of their harsh slavery and other forms of servitude (I am struck by the parallel with the deliverance of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt). They found the means even to defy the horrible tortures and physical death with which the Roman rulers sought to wipe out the church, the witness of their fortitude itself contributing to the church’s amazingly rapid spread. As Tertullian wrote about 200 A.D. in his succinct Latin, Sanguis Christianorum semen est: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

But the circumstances of gospel’s first proclamation inevitably changed, necessitating adaptations. Such a change in the early 4th century was the according to the church by the Roman state of toleration and even sponsorship. (The church responded by accepting a measure of state control, perhaps somewhat uncritically.) Circumstances have continued to change down the centuries but particularly in the modern era with its wholesale transformations of living and of thinking. Two basic methods of adapting may be envisaged. One is to add to the gospel elements not previously parts of it, often derived from contemporary culture. The concern of the 19th century German theologian Schleiermacher to align it with then-current philosophical movements may be seen as such a move, A more recent example might be the turning of churches towards social justice as conceived of by contemporary society as a basis for action. But however promising this method may seem, it has a serious drawback. Once such an element is given authority alongside the gospel, it tends to take over from it. Karl Barth, the premier Protestant theologian of the 20th century, saw a sort of theological equivalent of Gresham’s Law operating here. (For those who have forgotten their classical economics, it specifies that when two currencies of differing value circulate together, “bad money drives out good.”) The problem arises not so much from setting out on this course. It arises mainly when signs that it is not achieving even its intended objectives become apparent but it is persisted in anyway, out of a confusion about the true nature of the gospel, of the reluctance to admit mistakes that is part of our human fallenness (mine anyway), or of both. It partakes, in any case, of sin.

The above may be regarded as the liberal approach to necessary adaptation. The traditionalist one stands in contrast to it. This is to look to Scripture itself for ways to make necessary adaptations. The Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 is often cited as an example of it. There was a new circumstance that the church needed to adapt to: the inclusion of gentiles in the church. But the Council drew on the resources of Scripture itself in fashioning its response. Thus the traditionalist approach avoids the liberal danger. But it is not without a danger of its own. This is to draw on Scripture mechanically, without having arrived at its essential meaning. The result is a kind of fundamentalism, a rigidity and sterility which turns people off. This has happened all too often in the past. And it may be considered to have opened the way for the liberalism prevalent today, which would not have arisen in the face of lively proclamation by the church. Thus traditionalism shares with liberalism in accountability for the present Anglican impasse. Indeed, liberalism may be considered to have brought it under judgment—a severe one. (Note: in our Standing Under the Scriptures class we seek to approach the Scriptures not with answers but with questions, recognizing that final truth is in them and not in us. In this way we have hope of avoiding both the traditionalist and the liberal dangers.)

The liberals: membership and status

So far we have applied our analysis to the church as a whole. But it is applicable also to the Anglican Communion insofar as it participates in the whole. Turning now to who among the Anglicans may be regarded as liberal and who as traditionalist, chief among the liberals (and of most direct interest to us) would be The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States. Outside of TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada has taken similar positions. The Anglican churches in Scotland, Wales, and New Zealand along with certain others may also be associated with it. Many sympathize with it in the Church of England, although the current preoccupation there is with provision for those unable to accept women bishops. All these, it should be noted, are churches of the West.

Liberalism in the church is not a new phenomenon, as we have seen. When it came to the fore in TEC is difficult to pinpoint, but some have cited as a turning point TEC’s failure in the 1960s to censure Bishop James Pike for manifestly heterodox views. Subsequently Bishop Jack Spong’s explicit repudiations of core Christian doctrines went unreproved. From my own experience of the diocese of Washington, I would say that the church’s fascination with psychoanalysis in the 1950s already marked it as liberal. To be sure, this fascination did not extend to championing homosexual rights; some of its proponents were downright homophobic. But in emphasizing an authority other than the gospel it opened the way for their advocacy. And when the civil rights movement of the 1960s faded, and with it the raison d’être which it had provided for many in TEC, their advocacy presented a ready alternative (Bishop Spong’s autobiography, “Here I Stand,” strikingly illustrates this). Again judging by the Washington diocese, TEC did not remain otherwise theologically orthodox. An indication of this is provided by the profile prepared in preparation for the election of the next Bishop of Washington, in June 2011 (available on www.edow.org). It says nothing about his/her faith in Christ or personal commitment to the gospel as a requirement. In fact it scarcely speaks of Christ.

I have already cited the path that TEC embarked on at is 2003 General Convention. At its 2006 General Convention TEC drew back somewhat by a limited acceptance of the moratoria on consecration of homosexual bishops and blessing of same-sex unions that various Communion entities had asked for. But at its 2009 General Convention, it rescinded even such commitments as it then made. Its determination to continue along its chosen way was still more evident in its consecration last May of an active lesbian as a bishop in the diocese of Los Angeles. In conclusiveness this action may approximate that taken by Absalom in his rebellion against his father, King David, so as to make clear that he had broken with him and had no intention of turning back. This was to “go in” to David’s concubines “in the sight of all Israel” (2 Samuel 17.22).

Prospects of TEC

TEC’s embrace of liberalism in theology and sexuality has been justified by some as necessary in order to retain members and attract new ones. It seems in fact to have had the contrary effect. According to TEC’s figures, average Sunday attendance dropped by 14 percent between 2002 and 2007. And the loss seems not to be abating. From 2007 to 2008 it declined by a further 3.1 percent (the latest figure published). Its decline in membership in the same year was 2.8 percent, only a little less. And in the nature of things these figures are likely to be conservative. TEC has encountered financial difficulties necessitating serious budgetary reductions. The situation there is both more complex and more obscure than with membership, and I will not go into it here. There can be no question, though, about defections from TEC over theology and sexuality. From 2003 through 2008 at least 312 congregations left it (included are those of dioceses leaving as such: San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth.)

As for TEC’s response to these developments, it has not been one of modifying its stands on sexuality or theology, as we have already seen. Instead it has mainly taken the form of lawsuits against departing congregations and dioceses for their property, TEC holding that all such property belongs to it as the national church and not to them. As of the end of 2009 at least 56 suits had been instituted, against dioceses, against congregations or groups of them, and sometimes against individuals. These have consumed millions of dollars on both sides. In most of them TEC has prevailed, at least provisionally. But many are still ongoing. Paralleling them are TEC’s depositions of clergy, bishops as well as priests. In the years 2004 through 2008, 96 were deposed or at least inhibited for no other offense than transferring out of TEC into another Anglican jurisdiction (source: American Anglican Council).

It is hard to see much future for TEC along these lines. Its lawsuits, even apart from violating the biblical proscription of such among Christians, are unlikely to revitalize it. Such church buildings as it has been able secure in this way are likely to have only a minority of the parishioners still in them, and the median age of those remaining in TEC tends to be high. Significantly, the diocese of South Carolina, which has remained in TEC though orthodox in theology and outspoken about TEC’s perceived deviations, recently adopted a resolution declaring that the canon under which TEC has been deposing clergy, an amplified version of which is to go into effect next year, is inapplicable to it. Thereby it would seem to have put TEC in an awkward position. On the one hand, it can hardly ignore this challenge to the authority that it has assumed. On the other, recent South Carolina court decisions make it unlikely that in a legal contest with the diocese it would prevail (although it still threatens). All told, continued slippage in TEC’s attendance and membership seems probable.

The traditionalists: membership and status

The traditionalists consist first of all of the churches of the Global South, of Africa, Asia, and Latin America or most of them. These now comprise the majority of the Communion’s members, the large majority if active members are considered. The Church of Nigeria alone now has some 20 million, nearly ten times the number reported by TEC. Their traditionalism has been attributed to the missionaries who in the 19th century brought them the gospel. But this is to overlook the testing and refinement of the gospel in the crucible of the poverty, disease, and insecurity with which in their countries the Global South churches are confronted. The very absence of affluence and security such as enjoyed in the West may clarify the gospel message. And this result may underlie the amazingly rapid growth which they have experienced, reminiscent of that of the early church. In contrast to the decline in the liberal churches of the West, this growth appears set to continue.

The Global South has supporters in Britain and Australia. But its main ally in the West is the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), made up mostly of dioceses and congregations that have left TEC following the 2003 consecration. The dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth, and Pittsburgh as well as the evangelical congregations of northern Virginia—Truro, The Falls Church, All Saints’ Dale City, The Church of the Apostles along with others—are among these. The ACNA, of which Bishop Bob Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh is the Archbishop, was formally constituted only last year as an emergent province of the Anglican Communion. It now has over 800 congregations and some 100,000 members, in Canada as well as the United States. At its inauguration Duncan set for it a goal for it of 1,000 new congregations in the five years of his term. Improbable as this scenario may seem, when he speaks of it it becomes believable.

The numerical predominance of the Global South, present and future would Indicate a major, even predominant role for the traditionalists in Anglican Communion affairs. And the Global South Primates largely prevailed in the Primates’ Meetings of 2005 and 2007. But the initiatives they then took were rendered of little effect by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s actions. In 2008, however, they organized the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON), held in Jerusalem. In the remarkable Jerusalem Declaration which issued from it they set forth forcefully the theological and ecclesiastical principles to which they adhered. Thereby, while still not breaking with Canterbury, they constituted themselves something of a countervailing center. They seem not to have built on this achievement, however; since then they have made no moves of similar decisiveness. The Global South-to-South Encounter in Singapore last April produced strong condemnations of positions that TEC has taken but no significant initiatives. The leaders of the All Africa Bishop’s Conference in Uganda this August (otherwise known as CAPA, Conference of Anglican Provinces in Africa) called for assertion of Global South and African leadership in the Communion. But again this seems not to have led to anything concrete. The financial problems chronically afflicting Global South churches and the retirement of Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria, a key figure heretofore, may have contributed to this apparent loss of momentum. The picture could change, of course; major new steps could still be forthcoming. But as of the moment there is no substantial assurance of them.

The Communion’s prospects

So what, on the basis of the foregoing, can be said of the future of the Communion? Likely the liberals in TEC and elsewhere will continue to decline, in numbers and importance, unless perchance they change their course, which seems unlikely unless by constraint external to them. Although they could continue wield considerable influence within the Communion, this too may dwindle. In contrast, the numbers of the traditionalists are likely to go on increasing so long as they stay on course, avoiding the traditionalist danger of lapsing into rigidity and sterility---which in the long run may be the more difficult danger to avoid. But on present indications their moving into the Communion’s leadership is still uncertain, even de facto. Thus the Communion seems set for a further drifting apart of its two divisions, depriving it of meaningful coherence.

Where then would the Archbishop of Canterbury be? (I have spoken of the Archbishop as shorthand for him and his Lambeth staff acting in concert, as they seem generally to do.) Essentially he would be diminished. Of late he has moved towards a consolidation of organizational control through the transformation the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting into the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. But this is likely only to increase his irrelevance. For TEC and other liberal churches are heavily represented on it, and on this account the Global South and other traditionalists are unlikely to pay it much attention. Effectively this organizational transformation is a further bet by the Archbishop on the liberals, his tacit support of whom has already enabled the Communion’s present impasse. In the end he may become simply Archbishop for the liberals.

The above scenario has implications also for Communion Partners, those dioceses and congregations (the diocese of South Carolina among them) attempting to hold to orthodoxy while remaining within TEC. And these implications give rise to apprehensions on their behalf. In the light of them one may think of a man with a foot planted on either side of a widening chasm. Such a position is not tenable, of course. It means he has to go one way or the other. And if he waits too long to decide, he may not survive (as South Carolina seems aleady aware).

To recapitulate, neither side in the Communion’s division, even the traditionalist, holds out any sure promise of redemption. And we have seen the Archbishop of Canterbury, who might otherwise be the resort in this circumstance, as falling short in his role. Is there then no hope for a meaningful revival of the Communion, which beginning with Cranmer’s sublime liturgy and legacy has received gifts from the Holy Spirit and has nurtured us? I spoke at the outset of divine intervention as not to be ruled out. It may in fact be seen as having in the past retrieved the western church from an even more dire situation. In the 10th and early 11th centuries the popes fell into utter moral depravity, personally involved in acts not even to be spoken about (not true of Archbishop Rowan). And such corruption at its head would have seemed to deprive the church of hope. But against all human odds the church was retrieved. Emperor Henry III of the Germans (like modern Africans converted only a couple of centuries before) secured the appointment of outstanding reformers as popes, beginning with Leo IX. And from there the papacy went on to the apogee of its prestige and power (albeit with seeds of future difficulties). May not the Lord’s hand be seen in this?

Its Anglican counterpart would be a change of heart in the Archbishop of Canterbury, leading him to set true belief over process instead of vice-versa and thus in effect to lean towards the Global South and other traditionalists, rather than towards the liberals of the West as heretofore. And the Lord, after all, is capable of bringing this about, perhaps doing it not in the present incumbent but in his successor. Such intervention, therefore, may fervently be prayed for.

Faithfully, Fr. Ted