Tom Wright reveals the Lambeth Commission’s thinking
WHEN you’re stuck in the mud, you need two things. First, you need to find solid ground underneath the mud. Second, you need to know which way to go to find the road ahead. Only then can you take the steps — which may themselves involve getting even muddier than you are already — from where you are to where you need to be.
That is the shape of the Windsor report. Sections A and B find the solid ground, which really is down there somewhere, if only we could get our feet on to it, and explains a little about how we got into the mud in the first place. Section C sets up some signposts for where we should be aiming in the long term, the solid road that would help us to avoid getting stuck like this again. Only then, in Section D, do we suggest to the Archbishop and the Primates (to whom we report, and who alone can move our recommendations forward) the steps that ought to be taken to extricate ourselves from our present muddle and mess.
We on the Commission were determined not to let our wider reflections be distorted by the immediate problems. There might in principle have been many issues that would have raised the same questions about how we act together as a Communion.
One good thing to emerge is a reminder, particularly to the Church of England, that there is such a thing as the Anglican Communion. It is both far more and far less than the old Empire at prayer, and membership has given enormous support to many beleaguered Christians, for instance in countries such as Sudan and Pakistan.
The question is: how can this Communion be enabled to flourish, above all in its task of bringing the gospel of Jesus to the world that needs it so badly?
WE WERE happily unanimous that we must remain a “communion”, not something looser like a federation. Nor do we want to create any equivalent of a papacy and curia: not simply because we want to be different from Rome, but for good reasons about the nature of authority within the Church. Healthy ecclesiology includes a dynamic interplay, under God and in the power of the Spirit, between scripture, episcopacy, and the whole people of God. We rejoice that the Anglican tradition provides a framework where this can flourish.
The fact that it seems not to have done so in the past few years indicates that things have become unbalanced, which is why the somewhat ad hoc “instruments of unity” that have evolved — the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury — have proved insufficient to cope with the new questions. That is why, in Section C, we urge a further “tuning up” of the “instruments”, to include a Council of Advice to support and assist the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, crucially, an Anglican Covenant to provide a framework within which our future life together can flourish.
The basis for this is a fresh consideration of the key concepts of autonomy, adiaphora (“things indifferent”), and “subsidiarity” (the principle of deciding all matters as close to the local level as possible).
These work together. Autonomy doesn’t mean total independence: I have autonomy over what I grow in my garden, but, if I grow a plant that invades your garden, you will ask me to prune it. Many matters can and should be dealt with locally, but some inevitably involve the wider Church, and then local initiatives become questionable.
Similarly, all Anglicans know that there are differences we can live with (for example, bread or wafers at the eucharist); equally, there are some we can’t (suppose we tried to consecrate a practising Muslim as a bishop?). We all celebrate diversity; the question is: what sorts of diversity are appropriate, and hence capable of local expression without damaging wider unity, and what sorts are inappropriate?
One leading bishop said to me the other day: “I want us to make room for both opinions in the Church.” That simply ducks the question, as well as satisfying neither extreme. It assumes that the issue of sexual behaviour is one of the “things indifferent”. But the question before us is precisely whether or not that is the case. These issues — of how we “do” communion — lie at the heart of the report.
THE recommendations in Section D have already been criticised by some as too weak and by others as too strong. Note carefully what is said in the crucial paragraphs 134 and 144: we invite the persons concerned with the events in New Hampshire and New Westminster to express regret that “the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached” in the actions that were taken.
This is far more than merely saying, in effect: “We regret that some of you weren’t up to speed with modern thinking, and so have been puzzled and hurt.” It is saying: “We recognise that there were proper constraints, belonging to the bonds of affection at the heart of our common life, and we went ahead and breached them.” Everything else follows from this, including the similar, though not identical, request to bishops who have intervened in other bishops’ jurisdictions (paragraph 155).
We have set our face against speculating very far on what might happen if these requests, and the others that flow from them, do not find a favourable response. We were clear, though, that the Anglican Communion is called to take forward God’s mission in the world as a communion. We were also clear that, for the sake of that mission, we must work much harder than before at the rich unity-in-diversity that declares to the world that Jesus is Lord.
Dr Tom Wright is Bishop of Durham and a member of the Lambeth Commission.
04 May 2006 at 1:01 pm
Once again we have a wonderful article to read. This one by Bishop Wright is well worth discussion. It is an excellent summary of the major issues ‘The Communion’ faces.
I was reminded in a sermon I heard recently that we must always remember that true ‘communion’ is with the Lord alone. It is the gift of the Eucharistic Feast. It is the gift given by Christ himself to his flock to feed his sheep. It makes no difference who the person next to you is at the “Communion” rail. The gift is from Christ himself to you and that person next to you. It is His body sacrificed for us all. It is his given of himself as nourishment to each individual at the His “Communion” rail. Christ invites all of his flock to His Eucharistic Feast. It is not given to us to take away what he has freely given to us. It is a His sacrifice once offered for all of us. The only real “Communion” is the Eucharistic Feast.
09 May 2006 at 6:31 am
It’s been well over a year since the initial release of the Lambeth Commission’s report and its drafters are still trying to explain their reasoning behind it. Had they done the right thing, namely, anathematized the pansexual revisionists and commended the Global South primates for their pastoral interventions on behalf of the beleaguered faithful, none of this perpetual rationalization would be necessary. Instead, they attempted to draw a moral equivalence between the power-hungry revisionists and the faithful shepherds of the Global South. For that alone, they deserve the scorn of faithful Anglicans in all parts of the world.
09 May 2006 at 8:25 am
From the above comment:
“Had they done the right thing, namely, anathematized the pansexual revisionists and commended the Global South primates for their pastoral interventions on behalf of the beleaguered faithful, none of this perpetual rationalization would be necessary.”
Is this a statement in favor of cultural xenophobia and ecclesiastical imperialism? I pray to God that all sides refrain from such extremism.
I pray that we all remember that Christ Jesus taught us to ‘love your enemy as yourself”.
I pray that we remember that Christ Jesus taught us in Matt 18: 21-22
“21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”
10 May 2006 at 7:36 am
I stand by my statement. If that makes me a “cultural xenophobe” or an “ecclesiastical imperialist” in the eyes of those who push the pansexual agenda, then so be it. I’m happy to wear your labels as a badge of honor.
10 May 2006 at 1:06 pm
James wouldn’t it be better to be Christian? I picked those words from Christ to us because they remind me that it is not the behavior of the other that Christ focused on in his comment. He reminds us that it is our response that marks us as one of his own. He didn’t say that the other ‘brother’ had to change. He said Peter had to change.
12 May 2006 at 1:05 am
Matt 5: 21-24
” 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…
anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
I only asked if it was an argument in favor of those points of view. It was James that identified himself with the tags. I focused on his argument. I wonder why there is no comment about the words of Christ that I offered as counter point. Once again the attack is against me as a person and not the argument I presented.
12 May 2006 at 1:09 am
Matt 5: 21-24
“21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…
anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
I only asked if it was an argument in favor of those points of view. It was James that identified himself with the tags. I focused on his argument. I wonder why there is no comment about the words of Christ that I offered as counter point. Once again the attack is against me as a person and not the argument I presented.
12 May 2006 at 4:24 am
The quote from Christ written by Matthew stands by itself. It makes of mention of repentance.
Please explain this statement to me.
“Had they done the right thing, namely, anathematized the pansexual revisionists and commended the Global South primates for their pastoral interventions on behalf of the beleaguered faithful, none of this perpetual rationalization would be necessary.”
It is the statement I referenced. It is an open attack on the bishops and members of my church ECUSA. It clearly approves of intervention into another church’s affairs that has been condemned by the Winsor Report. A report that was written with the assistance of bishops from the Global South.
You write: “You and your Prophet Gene are in that category. You have stated that you wanted to walk alone and not with the Global South Bishops. Are you better than Lambeth?” Isn’t this an attack made on our Presiding Bishop? We (ECUSA) are not bound by Lambeth Council. Neither is your church whatever it’s name.
I have stated over and over again that the two groups are at a point were it may well be in the best interest of both sides to develop our own strategies for doing the work of Christ. It is not a win/lose situation. St. Peter and St paul fought and still went on to do the work of Christ in building the kingdom.
I have suggested that we use the Orthodox churches as a model for the greater Aglican faith community. What I am opposed to is the suggestion that you can govern my church. I am equally opposed to the idea that we can govern your church. What I am opposed to is the concept that your attacks on my church should not be challenged with Biblical or other reasonable responses. We don’t have to agree. We do have to obey Christ and attempt to love each other as best we can.
12 May 2006 at 10:40 am
My statement was merely an observation as to why the drafters of the Windsor Report have to keep turning out one rationalization after another, over a year after the report’s initial release.
Instead of doing the right thing, the drafters of the Windsor Report tried to draw a moral equivalence between North America’s apostasy and the Global South’s pastoral provision for the victims of that apostasy. Hence, they have drawn much criticism, not so much for this gratuitous equivocation per se, but for the methodology through which they arrived at their conclusions. The North American embrace of a homosexual bishop and same sex marriage rites was characterized not as a departure from the faith once delivered, but as little more than an act of bad etiquette. It wasn’t very “nice” of them to consecrate Boy Gene without first discussing the matter with the rest of the Communion. Using that logic, it is easy to see how they would also conclude that the Global South interventions were also not very “nice.” But the logic is so utterly flawed as to be embarrassing to anyone with a third grade education.
Suppose a man sets fire to his house while his wife and children are inside. His next door neighbor sees the fire, runs into the house, and rescues the wife and children. Using the logic of the Windsor Report, the arsonist and would-be murderer who started the fire would get a slap on the wrist, but the neighbor who saved the lives of a mother and her children would be charged with trespassing.
There is never any need to apologize for doing the right thing. If the Windsor Report had done so, the Anglican Communion would have long since moved beyond this trivial matter and focused on far more important things, like fulfilling the commandment of Christ to make disciples of all nations.
12 May 2006 at 10:49 am
Thank you James for your comments. Your have clarified your position. Clarity is what is needed most at this point.