Response of the Diocese of Saskatchewan to the Windsor Report
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 at 08:18PM
1. What in the description of the life of the Communion in Sections A & B can you recognize as consistent, or not, with your understanding of the Anglican Communion? The report's description of the fundamental character of the church, drawing on Ephesians and 1 and 2 Corinthians, portraying the church as "the practical embodiment and fruit of the gospel", is one we enthusiastically endorse. We agree that the "redeemed unity which is God's will for the whole creation is to be lived out within the life of the church." Within the Anglican Communion we agree that this means "mutual interdependence and responsibility", as the Anglican Congress of 1963 put it. In its external relations, Anglicans are also linked to the Orthodox and Catholic churches, as is pointed out in section 28 and, we would add, to the Evangelical Protestant churches. Mutual interdependence and responsibility extends in some degree to these as well. We agree that "What is done in one place can and does affect all". Within our diocese those who have had contact with global south churches first-hand have experienced how directly some of the decisions that have been made in our part of the Anglican church have affected those across the planet. So this part of the report is on the whole consistent with our understanding of the Anglican Communion. The section entitled "Illness: The surface symptoms" gives a clear presentation of the difficulties that the communion has encountered over the issue of the understanding of homosexuality and homosexual practice within the church. These are centered on (a) the action of the Diocese of New Westminster in providing liturgies for blessing same-sex unions; (b) the action of the Episcopal Church in the United States in consecrating a man living in a sexual relationship with another man; as well as (c) the reaction of other bishops to those moves in providing Episcopal oversight to parishes which believe they could no longer remain under the oversight of their own bishops. In the section entitled "Illness: The deeper symptoms", there is a clear account of the specific factors in the divisions that have arisen, having to do with theology and process, understanding and relationship. We do not think it is constructive or accurate to describe the actions of orthodox bishops seeking to provide pastoral oversight to orthodox parishes in North America as a "tit for tat" dynamic. While we recognize that their actions have been in certain instances precipitous and unhelpful (for example the unwarranted intervention into the life of our neighboring Diocese of Saskatoon), we do not view them as of equal gravity with the "breaking of the bonds of affection" that holds the communion together by a diocese and a national church that have acted unilaterally, without giving a theological rationale and without following procedures of accountability and mutual responsibility. However, this part of the report is, again on the whole, consistent with what we see to be happening in the Anglican Communion. The report then goes on to discuss the principles of Christian life within the communion that need to be considered in advancing any practical solutions to the problems: the nature of the communion, the authority of Scripture, and the role of the episcopate. The first bond that holds the communion together is said to be the authority of Scripture, and with this we wholeheartedly agree. However, there are certain emphases in this part of the report that we do not recognize as consistent with our own understanding of Anglicanism. The report was ambiguous and confused about the authority of Scripture, as compared with the traditional understanding set forth in Article VI and VII of the 39 Articles. In fact, although the report speaks of our shared inheritance from the Reformation, it makes little reference to the classic sources of doctrinal authority in the Articles, the Prayer Book, and the Ordinal. This in itself is significant and problematic. There are several references to our common liturgical heritage as one of the sources of our unity, but the doctrines contained in those liturgies are surely a more important source of Anglican unity than the liturgical forms. Certainly the Anglican Reformers would have thought so. The report seems to reflect the idea, associated with the liturgical movement, that the act of worship is somehow a source of Christian truth and authority, independent of the teachings of Scripture -- a view sometimes associated with the Latin phrase lex orandi lex credendi. This we regard as an outdated and theologically untenable position. What support in the Church Fathers or the Reformers (whom the report calls us to look to for our "inheritance") would one ever find for the following statement: "This means that for Scripture to 'work' as the vehicle of God's authority, it is vital that it be read at the heart of worship in a way which "allows it to be understood and reflected upon, not as a pleasing and religious background noise, but as God's living and active word"? What does the idea of Scriptural authority as part of the "dynamic inbreaking of God's kingdom" really mean? Does "dynamic" imply that Scriptural truth is tied to notions of change and process and so we can now change it or discern that it has changed? If so, we would assert with the foundational thinkers of the patristic period who, again, are such a vital part of our inheritance, that such a view is in the end not even coherent or philosophically viable. For Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa, truth must be unchanging to be truth. The comments about the difficulties and subtleties of the interpretation of Scripture for the most part seem to us true in themselves. And it is clear that the report does assume and defend the authority of Scripture as the primary source of unity within the Anglican Communion. But there is a certain naiveté or even disingenuousness, it seems to us, in presenting the issues of the interpretation of Scripture as if everyone were equally attached to its authority, and we only disagree about what it means. Bishop Spong, for example, is only at the extreme end of a spectrum of attachment to Scripture that exists within the North American church, and we hardly think his conclusions could be described as arrived at under the authority of Scripture. The report doesn't really raise the vital question in the dispute that is going on: at what point do you start to be simply picking and choosing truths that happen to appeal to you from Scripture, as opposed to being under its authority? The report cautions us that the authority of Scripture is really the authority of God exercised through Scripture, but it does not caution us that when we don't submit to the authority of Scripture, we reject the authority of God. However, the report does assume and defend the authority of Scripture and asserts that the addressing of our problems will mean reading and learning from Scripture together. This much is good. What it says about the place of the Bishop as the teacher of Scripture, deriving his authority from this, is excellent. The place of the consensus fidelium in discerning the meaning of Scripture in its reception is something we can endorse. That this principle goes along with the synodality of the Anglican Communion and its diffused authority, and that autonomy must necessarily have a limited character in such a church, seems true to us as well. Again though, there seems to be a certain naiveté in describing our polity in this way and to put forward hopes that it can weather our current storms without talking about the political ideology of radical individualism that surrounds us. With the Report's silence on this point, it is difficult to imagine all sides submitting to the bonds of unity given in the authority of Scripture and the mutually accountable character of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps such a document must be diplomatic rather than prophetic but a prophet would surely have to point out that if the churches are to submit to the bonds of unity a remarkable degree of repentance is going to be necessary. The report would have had to speak much more forcefully about this to fully reflect the reality of the life of the Anglican Communion that we see. 2. In which ways do the proposals in Section C & D flow appropriately from the description of the Communion's life in Sections A & B? Section C discusses the role of the Instruments of Union, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primate's Meeting, in providing leadership in finding a way forward for the communion. What wasn't clear was how the recommendation to emphasize the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the primary focus of unity, flowed from the previous discussions. How is the Archbishop of Canterbury especially equipped to teach the Scriptures authoritatively? How is he especially equipped to represent the consensus fidelium about the reception of new teachings? This recommendation seems to come from the character of these Instruments of Union as they presently exist, rather than from the basic principles laid out in section B. The difficulty of the Archbishop taking on this role seems to be recognized in the idea of a Council of Advice. But rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury and rather than the Anglican Consultative Council, with its short-term membership, shouldn't it be the Lambeth Conference and the Primate's Meeting that form the primary focus of unity? Section D consists of the recommendations of the report which we believe are pointed in the right direction. The report has accurately outlined about the true character of unity in the Anglican communion. It has thus has helped us to understand the "deep offence" to the Communion caused by the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal church of the United States, and to a much lesser degree, in our view, of the responses of outside bishops in coming to the defense of parishes who could not accept their divisive actions. That both New Westminster and ECUSA have violated the interdependence and the bonds of affection of the communion seems undeniable to us, and the call for them to call a halt to these actions is a reasonable and godly request. Indeed, what was called for did not seem to us to go nearly far enough. One person said that the "expression of regret" that was asked for constituted a "second class kind of repentance" where "you're not really sorry but you regret the consequences of your action and want people still to be on good terms with you even when you've been quite beastly to them." 3. What do you think are the ways in which the recommendations and proposals of the report would impact on the life of the Communion if they were to be implemented? The fear was expressed that since the report did not envisage the prospect of effectual discipline for any of the offending parties, it was likely to actually inflame and radicalize the situation rather than calming it. Its recommendations were likened to a referee in a hockey game skating over to a fight but then just watching it. For those who expected some effort to realize accountability within the communion, the report will be a disappointment. However, the recommendations, if followed by all parties, could well be a way in which the communion could hold move forward together. No one wants the Anglican Communion to dissolve, and the moves suggested could signal to all parties enough good will on both sides that the next step would be possible. To follow the recommendations would provide hope that Scripture does remain authoritative for all in the Anglican Communion and that we do want to remain together in fulfillment of Christ's mission and are willing to temper our actions accordingly. We are certainly among those who see the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and ECUSA as "surrendering to the spirit of the age", but we and no doubt many others, would be reassured that the surrender had not gone as far as we feared, were those bodies to follow the recommendations of the report. If they were to take these steps, then the external bishops offering oversight ought certainly to step back as well. We are concerned that the Report's recommendation of alternative episcopal oversight is so limited. What parish could feel that it's future under the authority of Scripture was secure with the temporary alternative oversight referred to -- which in practice seems to mean that the diocesan bishop can work to gradually phase out its discordant views? The fear of "parallel structures" seems to us to be a bit of a bogy. After all, in Canada, by our recognition of the Lutheran church we have a nation-wide parallel structure of Bishops and governing bodies. What about the parallel structures of Anglican and Roman Catholic or Orthodox dioceses? In fact it might well be that the continued relationship between liberals and conservatives within the Anglican Church in Canada may depend on working out "parallel structures." 4. How would you evaluate the arguments for an Anglican Covenant set out in paragraph 119 of the Report? How far do the elements included in the possible draft for such a covenant in Appendix Two of the Report represent an appropriate development of the existing life of the Anglican Communion? It seems to us that the argument for an Anglican Covenant is very strong. We agree that the Anglican Communion, even if it were to survive this crisis, would not likely survive many further such crises, and so there needs to be a voluntary expression of the will to maintain the bonds of unity. The agreement proposed is a good starting point. However, we are dubious that any such agreement could be reached without first finding a more concrete and detailed unifying statement about the authority of Scripture to be a part of it. The divergent trajectories of Scripture interpretation have to be brought back closer together. This would seem to involve a reassertion of the centrality of the Anglican formularies of the Articles and historic (and thus common) Prayer Books as our inheritance, not as a narrow restrictive authority, but as the roots and trunk of the Anglican tree. Trust has been broken with regard to the authority of Scripture and the will to reestablish trust will have to be demonstrated. Why would conservative Africans, for example, submit themselves to procedures for maintaining unity without being assured that the issue of Scriptural authority was being seriously addressed in a way that they could trust? Some level of agreement on this point would be very difficult to attain but without it, how could all sides submit to the Covenant with conviction? | ||
Reader Comments (1)