Thursday, February 22, 2007, 10:47 AM
“We came very close to separation,” said Archbishop Gregory Venables of this weekend’s meeting of global Anglican leaders, “but Biblical doctrine and behavior have been affirmed as the norms in the Anglican Church.”
It could have gone the other way, and for a time it looked as if it would. But, in the end, Anglican conservatives everywhere breathed a collective sigh of relief on reading the strongly worded statement issued unanimously by the Church’s thirty-eight primates, which bluntly called on the Episcopal Church—the province of the Anglican Communion in the United States—to reverse its course or face expulsion. Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not the liberal American church will decide to comply. But by avoiding schism and enacting meaningful discipline upon one of its errant members, the Anglican Communion proved itself to be a reality with substance rather than the failed experiment many feared it had become. Today, concluded the theologian Philip Turner, “Anglicanism remains a credible expression of Catholic Christianity.”
Those who follow the story know that the current crisis stems from the
Episcopal Church’s decision in 2003 to consecrate a non-celibate homosexual as
bishop of
Although on its surface it all seemed to be an argument merely about sex, on a deeper level it was a crisis of unity and authority. Five years prior to Gene Robinson’s consecration as bishop, the 1998 Lambeth Conference (a gathering of all Anglican bishops, which meets every ten years) had upheld the traditional Christian understanding of marriage and sexual ethics. Anglicans, who lack a central executive authority, have long depended on its thirty-eight member churches to abide by the decisions made together in council. The consecration of Gene Robinson called that expectation into question—and thereby the very idea of Anglican unity and authority.
Since the earliest times of the Christian Church, bishops have acted to
represent the unity and authority of the global Church to the local diocese,
and the local diocese to the global church. So if Gene Robinson did not believe
what the Church believes, then how could he represent the Anglican Church in
Anglican unity, it seemed, did not extend to matters of church doctrine, and Anglican authority consisted in everyone doing as they saw fit. Indeed, the Episcopal Church defended its actions in these terms, arguing that “Anglican comprehensiveness” means making room for all sincerely held beliefs, while “local autonomy” means allowing each Anglican national province to do as it pleases.
For most Anglicans, and indeed for most Christians, this understanding of church doctrine was difficult to accept. Each week, Christians confess in the Nicene Creed their belief in the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church,” which among other things means that the Church ought to be united in professing the teachings of Christ and the apostles. But the Episcopal Church by its actions had called this into question. Unity in truth, it in effect held, no longer mattered. The situation was described quite accurately by Bishop N.T. Wright, a leading Anglican intellectual, as “doctrinal indifferentism.” The likes of it have rarely been seen in the history of the Christian Church, and to most Anglicans worldwide it was absolutely unacceptable. A solution had to be found.
The way forward was charted in outline in 2004 by the Windsor Report, a
document commissioned by the archbishop of
Much like the
The once-per-decade Lambeth Conference and the biennial Primates’ Meeting gradually grew to fill the gap and, generally speaking, worked by means of gentlemen’s agreement. Until, that is, the Episcopal Church’s actions of 2003. No mechanism existed to deal with this sort of disagreement, the Windsor Report explained, and so again something new had to be done if unity and authority were to be maintained.
The Windsor Report proposed an Anglican Covenant, which essentially included a brief summary of traditional Anglican beliefs as well as a commitment by each Anglican national church to abide by the decisions made together in council. The flip side of the covenant, of course, would be that churches that decided not to abide by the decisions made together in council wouldn’t get invited back for any more meetings. In effect, they would be choosing to walk apart from the Anglican Communion, and the rest of the Anglican churches would continue on without them.
The archbishop of
Which is what made the 2006
General Convention of the Episcopal Church so frustrating. Rather than
unequivocally signing on to the
Things were complicated further by the election, as the new presiding
bishop, of Katherine Jefferts Schori, an unapologetic proponent of everything
the Episcopal Church had been asked to stop doing. A significant number of
Episcopalian bishops and parishes began distancing themselves from their own
church, expressing their desire somehow to comply with the Windsor Report, even
though General Convention hadn’t. Some parishes left altogether. Tensions rose,
and the patience of several conservative Anglican provinces (especially the
Which brings us to the threshold of last weekend’s meeting in
Akinola had good reason to be doubtful. Many of the more liberal Anglican
provinces, such as
Above all, it was Williams’ goal to maintain the catholic substance of Anglicanism while avoiding schism. On the one hand, Williams had to convince Anglican evangelicals to remain in a church that lacks the confessional clarity and simplicity of mainstream evangelicalism—even though evangelicals tend to discount the value of church unity if it appears to cut against scriptural truth. On the other hand, Williams had to convince Anglican liberals to discipline an American church with which they had much in common—even though liberals tend to discount both scriptural truth and church unity if it seems to cut against progressive goals.
He was in a tight spot, and he spoke, quite understandably, of nightmare scenarios in which Anglican unity and authority would explode, leaving a piece here, a piece there—Lord knows how many pieces, each a group of men in pointy bishops’ hats, having the form of Anglicanism but lacking the substance of Catholic Christianity they once carried.
None of that happened. Instead, everyone at
Furthermore, the primates’ statement provides for the creation of an
American “church-within-a-church,” fulfilling a
long-standing request of conservative Episcopalians. All Episcopalian
bishops will be given the opportunity to come under the direct authority of a
separate five-member Pastoral Council (two members of which will be chosen by
the current presiding bishop and the remainder by the archbishop of
This new council could act as a significant check on the Episcopal Church’s internal authority, and it has been given great leeway to negotiate its own terms. In an especially telling line, it is given authorization under paragraph 157 of the Windsor Report to consider whether the Episcopal Church’s future actions merit further steps toward the withdrawal of the Episcopal Church from membership in the Anglican Communion. In essence, the new church-within-a-church stands ready to become a new American Anglican province in its own right if the Episcopal Church should decide finally to revoke its own current status in the communion.
In addition, the primates have encouraged but not required those who have already left the Episcopal Church to return under the new pastoral scheme, and they have left the door open for their inclusion in more-or-less their present form. The primates have also requested that all legal action currently pending against breakaway parishes come to an end, a significant repudiation of the Episcopal Church’s well-publicized strategy of filing as many lawsuits as possible. It remains to be seen whether the national church office will comply, but one certainly hopes that it will.
The next move belongs to the Episcopal Church, and Anglicans can only wait
to see how it will respond to the primates’ requests. For many liberals within
the Episcopal Church, for whom the gay-rights agenda is
a nonnegotiable justice issue, complying with the primates’ requests would
be seen as acquiescing
to bigotry. The liberal argument in favor of delaying full homosexual
inclusion has long been to wait “for
a season” so as to “continue the conversation,” thus tactically awaiting
the best opportunity to win the greatest gain. But this argument lost much of
its luster at
It has been a long road, and much uncertainty lies ahead. But what uncertainty remains is principally related to the decisions now facing the Episcopal Church. As for the Anglican Communion, its choice has been made. Years from now, it may well be that we will look upon this week as a crucial turning-point in Anglican history, crucial as anything since the English Reformation. For the Anglican Communion has finally decided to live up to its name: a global communion of churches, diverse yet united by a common faith and mutual hope, seeking together the mind of Christ, living humbly and prayerfully under the authority of Scripture. So may it remain.
Jordan Hylden is a junior fellow at First Things.