For some time now the phrase, "walking together or walking apart" has been used. It's first use seems to have been in the Windsor Report, but it has been widely used by those advocating a realignment of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have been accused of threatening to, or deciding to "walk apart." In the June 30 addition of the Toronto Globe and Mail (brought to my attention by Harry Coverston), Jen Gerson wrote an article saying that the "Canadian church signals it is prepared to walk away from international body."
All this got me to thinking...what is this walk business? Without anyone actually mentioning the fact, walking together or walking alone, or even deciding to walk apart, are charged with negative value. But why is that? In a time when walking was how you got there, as well as a way of being present, Jesus walked sometimes with folk (in his preaching and teaching circuit), sometimes walked alone to go off to pray. His presence was sometimes revealed in a walking (as at the close of the story of the encounter on the road to Emmaus.) But in any event walking was able to be itself a destination as well as a means of getting to a destination. Thus walking with Jesus is like walking in the light, or walking in the day time. Walking with Jesus, being his follower, seems to be the core value concerning walking - thus walking in the faith, walking with Christ, etc.
So the imagery of "walking apart" gets the overlay of the image of walking with Jesus, and walking apart becomes ecclesiological language in which the real accusation is that ECUSA is walking away or apart from the faith in Jesus.
Writing in the secular press Jen Gerson at least got it right: to be prepared to walk away from an "international body" is quite different from walking away from the faith, or walking apart from Jesus. In fact quite the opposite might be true, that walking away of a "mere" international body (i.e., the Anglican Communion) might be walking toward the faith and with Jesus. The article quotes Archdeacon Feheley, "if this is where Canada believes that this is where the Holy Spirit is guiding us then other churches must respect that."
I suppose I am simply getting tired of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada being accused of walking apart, out, separately, as if that was in and of itself wrong. Suppose the walking is indeed TOWARD and WITH God in Jesus Christ, as guided by the Holy Spirit.
7/02/2005
Responses to the Three Questions
Earleir I asked three questions of the House of Bishops / House of Deputies list:
(i) Do the writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked? I mean, the actual writers, and or Archbishop Eames.
(ii) The “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative speaks of forming a new Anglican Communion body with headquarters in Lagos and Nassau, the Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango speaks of a headquarters in Alexandra. Both the found proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative and the Virtue interview have been disavowed by some elements wishing realignment. There has been an attempt to discredit both. There has been the effort discredit Pittsburgh’s Via Media group and David Virtue, both reporting on what they found. My question here is: Has Alexandria been mentioned as a location for a new Anglican entity before? By who? I believe I have heard this before, but can’t find a citation.
(iii) The heated exchange between Canon Anderson of the AAC and David Virtue led Virtue to denounce the AAC in the following words, “What irks Anderson and others of his kind is that they have lost the power to change anything. The power has moved to the Global South and the AAC is a succubus, drawing from the spiritual life blood of the south because he and the AAC have none in themselves. The AAC is a parasitic organization.” (in an article on Virtue Online.) My question is, are we seeing here the very changes that the Chapman Report predicted – that the AAC would give way to the Network and that both are only elements in a wider tag team match, in which a new entity, the Anglican Global Initiative (or something like it) claims to be an “orthodox” Anglican Communion and the Network folk look to that entity as the locus for their broader “Anglican” patriarchy, and in turn the basis for their claim to be the “real” Anglicans in North America.
About question one I received one answer. That person wondered why I had asked the question since it was evident to him that we had not done what was asked. However, no member of the commission has answered or is likely to until someone on this list forwards the question to them. Please do so. The question again is this: Do Writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked?
I understand from an undisclosed source that Archbishop Eames believes we have (but perhaps that is wrong.) It would be good to hear from the writers.
About question two: Several persons pointed out that in an interview by David Virtue about a year ago with Bishop Wantland the bishop voiced roughly the same opinion and proposal. So the possibility of a "new" Anglican patriarchy has been discussed before. The fact that Alexandria is mentioned on both occasions is more than happenstance. I am inclined to believe that Virtue's interview was in major respects accurate, that the proposal for a Global Anglican Initiative was genuine, and that these possibilities stand in the wings ready to go if realignment does not take place within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and if the Archbishop of Canterbury decides to invite us to Lambeth 2008. It might well be that later this year there will indeed be a meeting to "stage" the walkout either at Lambeth or before. Thanks to those who wrote me privately.
About question three: I have the assurance of several correspondents that what is unfolding is precisely the direction laid out by Champan. The strategy of several organizations, each meshed with others, all diverting the focus of outsiders from their constant aim - namely (as Canon Anderson likes to think of it) to win the war. At a time when making war, and making it badly, and for wrong caused, is both a clear talent of the United States and it damnation, I would advise Canon Anderson to choose some other imagery to bolster his sense of righteousness. War making language is bravado, but its mirror in the world is an obscenity.
(i) Do the writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked? I mean, the actual writers, and or Archbishop Eames.
(ii) The “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative speaks of forming a new Anglican Communion body with headquarters in Lagos and Nassau, the Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango speaks of a headquarters in Alexandra. Both the found proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative and the Virtue interview have been disavowed by some elements wishing realignment. There has been an attempt to discredit both. There has been the effort discredit Pittsburgh’s Via Media group and David Virtue, both reporting on what they found. My question here is: Has Alexandria been mentioned as a location for a new Anglican entity before? By who? I believe I have heard this before, but can’t find a citation.
(iii) The heated exchange between Canon Anderson of the AAC and David Virtue led Virtue to denounce the AAC in the following words, “What irks Anderson and others of his kind is that they have lost the power to change anything. The power has moved to the Global South and the AAC is a succubus, drawing from the spiritual life blood of the south because he and the AAC have none in themselves. The AAC is a parasitic organization.” (in an article on Virtue Online.) My question is, are we seeing here the very changes that the Chapman Report predicted – that the AAC would give way to the Network and that both are only elements in a wider tag team match, in which a new entity, the Anglican Global Initiative (or something like it) claims to be an “orthodox” Anglican Communion and the Network folk look to that entity as the locus for their broader “Anglican” patriarchy, and in turn the basis for their claim to be the “real” Anglicans in North America.
About question one I received one answer. That person wondered why I had asked the question since it was evident to him that we had not done what was asked. However, no member of the commission has answered or is likely to until someone on this list forwards the question to them. Please do so. The question again is this: Do Writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked?
I understand from an undisclosed source that Archbishop Eames believes we have (but perhaps that is wrong.) It would be good to hear from the writers.
About question two: Several persons pointed out that in an interview by David Virtue about a year ago with Bishop Wantland the bishop voiced roughly the same opinion and proposal. So the possibility of a "new" Anglican patriarchy has been discussed before. The fact that Alexandria is mentioned on both occasions is more than happenstance. I am inclined to believe that Virtue's interview was in major respects accurate, that the proposal for a Global Anglican Initiative was genuine, and that these possibilities stand in the wings ready to go if realignment does not take place within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and if the Archbishop of Canterbury decides to invite us to Lambeth 2008. It might well be that later this year there will indeed be a meeting to "stage" the walkout either at Lambeth or before. Thanks to those who wrote me privately.
About question three: I have the assurance of several correspondents that what is unfolding is precisely the direction laid out by Champan. The strategy of several organizations, each meshed with others, all diverting the focus of outsiders from their constant aim - namely (as Canon Anderson likes to think of it) to win the war. At a time when making war, and making it badly, and for wrong caused, is both a clear talent of the United States and it damnation, I would advise Canon Anderson to choose some other imagery to bolster his sense of righteousness. War making language is bravado, but its mirror in the world is an obscenity.
6/28/2005
Three Questions
I’ve been “off line” vis a vis the HoB/D list since the third of June. Prior to that I started making little errors in attribution, small asides that were unnecessary, and generally was too spiritually tense. So partially as a matter of spiritual discipline I stopped writing.
It was refreshing, even though such intervening matters as the publication of “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” the ACC meeting, the “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative, the David Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango and the
Well, having regained a bit of balance, and perhaps even a bit of perspective I’m glad to be back “on line.”
I have three questions:
(i) Do the writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked? I mean, the actual writers, and or Archbishop Eames.
(ii) The “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative speaks of forming a new Anglican Communion body with headquarters in
(iii) The heated exchange between Canon Anderson of the
Question 1 can be answered pretty straightforwardly by members of the Windsor Report committee.
Question 2 is a piece of detective work:
Question 3 is the broader question of strategy, and thus the one most open to a variety of responses. I was interested to see that today David Virtue posted a more detailed opinion on VIRTUEONLINE Digest - 23 Jun 2005 to 28 Jun 2005 (#2005-32) and that Brad Drell has weighed in (see http://descant.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=295 ).
The Studio
Well, I've taken some time to regroup and part of that is to find some space to write and paint, scratch and dream. The studio is an old converted (small) barbershop, sitting in the middle of an industrial park (notice the dump truck next to it with the beer keg on the top.) All the musing on the future of the Anglican Communion means nothing if the soul is not attended to.
6/06/2005
What the Canons of the Church of England say about the Anglican Communion
Thinking Anglicans , a really fine and important site for CofE and Anglican Communion reflections, just put up a link to the Church of England Canons. My thanks to them for posting this.
I thought I'd take a look and see what the Canons have to say about the Anglican Communion. The answer is, not much.
This is a brief look at two tidbits, and no doubt is wrong in some too obvious ways, and in some subtle ways as well, but it is a beginning. Forgive me for not being an expert on canons. I stand ready to be corrected (as always but sometimes with more or less grace).
The Index gives only one reference to the Anglican Communion, pgs 206-208, and there there is reference to one other section (6.2).
(a) There is no mention of the Church of England being a constituant member of the Anglican Communion. Instead there is a list of those Churches with which the Church of England is in communion.. which includes the member churches of the Anglican Communion. (pgs 206-208) The CofE canons do not say it's list of the churches of the Anglican Communion IS the Anglican Communion, but that its list is of those churches in communion with the Church of England. Which is just as well, since the full list includes a church not mentioned in this list, namely the C of E itself.
There is a note at the end of this list (p. 208) that "3. The advice contained in this note is given in good faith, but does not constitute a definitive ruling. Rule 54(5) of the Church Representation Rules provides that ‘if any question arises whether a Church is in communion with the Church of England, it shall be conclusively determined for the purposes of these rules by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York’. Section 6(2) of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 makes similar provision for the purposes of that Measure." Seemingly, then that list consists of the churches included finally, when there is a question, by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
There is a wonderful logic problem that I remember from college days: there is a book in the library that lists all the books that do not reference themselves in the text of their books. Does this book list itself or not?
The problem with the list is this sort of problem. The list of the churches of the Anglican Communion in the Canons of the C of E does not list the C of E as a member. And why should it? This is not a list of all the members of the Anglican Communion, but of those whose membership is dependent on some other member church of the Anglican Communion. The C of E IS a member church of the Anglican Communion everywhere but in the canons of the C of E, where it IS NOT, being the defining instrument by which the list is generated.
(b) The first section of the Canons says as follows: "A 1 Of the Church of England: The Church of England, established according to the laws of this realm under the Queen’s Majesty, belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ; and, as our duty to the said Church of England requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary." One presumes that the care taken regarding churches in communion with the C of E would extend this assertion to member churches of the Anglican Communion.
Other than these references, the second obliquely, there is no mention of the Anglican Communion as an extended community of churches belonging to the "true and apostolic Church of Christ."
Canon A 1, makes me wonder how such a canon would fare here, even removing the references to the Queen? What would happen if there was a canon that stated that "The Episcopal Church belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ, and, as our duty to the said Episcopal Church requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary."?
What then would we say to critics that believe that the Episcopal Church does not belong to the true, etc..., but is rather apostate, revisionist, etc.? Would we say, "no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary."?
I thought I'd take a look and see what the Canons have to say about the Anglican Communion. The answer is, not much.
This is a brief look at two tidbits, and no doubt is wrong in some too obvious ways, and in some subtle ways as well, but it is a beginning. Forgive me for not being an expert on canons. I stand ready to be corrected (as always but sometimes with more or less grace).
The Index gives only one reference to the Anglican Communion, pgs 206-208, and there there is reference to one other section (6.2).
(a) There is no mention of the Church of England being a constituant member of the Anglican Communion. Instead there is a list of those Churches with which the Church of England is in communion.. which includes the member churches of the Anglican Communion. (pgs 206-208) The CofE canons do not say it's list of the churches of the Anglican Communion IS the Anglican Communion, but that its list is of those churches in communion with the Church of England. Which is just as well, since the full list includes a church not mentioned in this list, namely the C of E itself.
There is a note at the end of this list (p. 208) that "3. The advice contained in this note is given in good faith, but does not constitute a definitive ruling. Rule 54(5) of the Church Representation Rules provides that ‘if any question arises whether a Church is in communion with the Church of England, it shall be conclusively determined for the purposes of these rules by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York’. Section 6(2) of the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 makes similar provision for the purposes of that Measure." Seemingly, then that list consists of the churches included finally, when there is a question, by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
There is a wonderful logic problem that I remember from college days: there is a book in the library that lists all the books that do not reference themselves in the text of their books. Does this book list itself or not?
The problem with the list is this sort of problem. The list of the churches of the Anglican Communion in the Canons of the C of E does not list the C of E as a member. And why should it? This is not a list of all the members of the Anglican Communion, but of those whose membership is dependent on some other member church of the Anglican Communion. The C of E IS a member church of the Anglican Communion everywhere but in the canons of the C of E, where it IS NOT, being the defining instrument by which the list is generated.
(b) The first section of the Canons says as follows: "A 1 Of the Church of England: The Church of England, established according to the laws of this realm under the Queen’s Majesty, belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ; and, as our duty to the said Church of England requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary." One presumes that the care taken regarding churches in communion with the C of E would extend this assertion to member churches of the Anglican Communion.
Other than these references, the second obliquely, there is no mention of the Anglican Communion as an extended community of churches belonging to the "true and apostolic Church of Christ."
Canon A 1, makes me wonder how such a canon would fare here, even removing the references to the Queen? What would happen if there was a canon that stated that "The Episcopal Church belongs to the true and apostolic Church of Christ, and, as our duty to the said Episcopal Church requires, we do constitute and ordain that no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary."?
What then would we say to critics that believe that the Episcopal Church does not belong to the true, etc..., but is rather apostate, revisionist, etc.? Would we say, "no member thereof shall be at liberty to maintain or hold the contrary."?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)