On Being Servants for the Greater Cause: A Response to Stephen Noll on Rowan Cantuar


Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, Singapore
Director, Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia
Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain:
Temptation shall not come in this kind again
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
The natural vigour in the venial sin
Is the way in which our lives begin.
. . .
While I ate out of the King’s dish
To become servant of God was never my wish.
Servants of God has chance of greater sin
And sorrow, than the man who serves a king.
For those who serve the greater cause may make the cause serve them,
Still doing right: and striving with political men
May make that cause political, not by what they do
But by what they are.

(The words of Thomas Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury, in T S Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral, Part I)

I am grateful to Stephen Noll for responding to my article ‘Farewell to Babel: Rowan Cantuar as Servant of Unity for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Communion’. Stephen identifies several common concerns between us.  Noll noted that we both plead ‘the central authority of the Holy Scripture’ in ecclesial life.  I would hasten to add that the Communion world-wide, including the younger churches in Asia, Africa and Latin America, need to heed this call. The younger churches are equally in danger of ‘replacing key teachings’ of the historic faith by various forms of ideology.  I shall attempt the following response in the spirit of friendly conversation across the continents.

Noll exhorts me ‘Look not to Cantuar’.  He points out that he differs with me on two counts: ‘the present constitution of the office and the man who currently fills it.’ Indeed, I would disagree on his response to the two questions above.  Our disagreement however runs deeper.  We part ways on how the questions should be framed in the first place. Noll’s reasons for ‘Look not to Cantuar’ suggest that if the office of Canterbury were internationalised, and if a true man of God assumes office, then Noll would reverse his position and look to Cantuar. Well, I do not.  I hold a more sober view on Canterbury. I simply commend his departure from the ideologues and encourage him to make good his promise to be a servant of unity for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Communion.  Servanthood means precisely servanthood.  I do not use it as a code-word for pontifex maximus. To suggest that I ask Rowan Cantuar to be ‘Primate of Primates’ and ‘the uniter of the Communion’ would be a grave misunderstanding.  Indeed, my response to Noll is ‘Look not to Cantuar’ or indeed any person to provide the final solution.

Let me explain. I do not think that authoritarian and structural proposals can cure the present woes of the Communion. I do not believe that even if a ‘godly’ archbishop – by Noll’s standards – were in office, he should have ‘the sole power to determine who’s in and who’s out of the Anglican Communion’, or should ‘read the riot act to the idolaters’.  The Communion is never meant to be ordered primarily along institutional lines. Our bonds are primarily theological and missiological in nature.  I fear that while most of what Stephen Noll advocates may be ‘right’, he is in danger of – to use T S Eliot’s words in the Murder of the Cathedral – doing them for the ‘wrong reasons’. Servants of God who are serving the greater cause have the chance of greater sin and sorrow, to make the cause serve them: ‘Striving with political men / May make that cause political, not by what they do / But by what they are.’ Christian leaders in the Global South are as much prone to such temptation as those in the West. I suppose that archbishops could still be murdered in cathedrals because they reject such means to serve the greater cause.  ‘The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God (James 1:20).’

Far from defending Rowan Williams and of enhancing his role, I suggest that we should consider each other’s role with sober judgment (Romans 12:3).  Rowan Williams has been chosen with due process to become the Archbishop of Canterbury.  It happened; God allowed it. I have to accept this decision and work within this reality, in the same way that others accept us in discharging our present responsibilities and offices, unequal though we are to the high calling. The particular challenges and manner of discipleship that Rowan Williams assume as the Archbishop of Canterbury are best situated within the particular contexts of today. I take what he professes – as the Archbishop of Canterbury – in its face value, and hold him accountable to it.  It is on that basis that I critically engage him to ‘deliver the goods’ – to act upon his own insight that he is ‘servant’ rather than ‘focus’ of the Communion.

More importantly, look not to Cantuar! It is to ourselves that Saint Paul asks each of us to examine with sober judgment. What does it mean for us to present our bodies as living sacrifice, and to be transformed by the renewal of our mind that we may prove what is the will of God for us today (Romans 12: 1-3)? Here, Noll points out that we need to discern the ‘advance of Christianity’ in Africa, Asia, and Latin America as we think through the future of the Communion. What are the advances? I believe that it is not simply a matter of the gravitational shift in Christian population. It is much more fundamental.

(1) Churches in continents outside of Europe and North America must be understood and engaged as full partners in their own terms. We say farewell to the days when churches in the West would carve out their spheres of influences in the ‘dark continents’, and evaluate Christianity in mission fields along their own theological and ecclesiastical lines. ‘Look not to the West’ for benchmarks, even among the venerated men and women of God of yesteryears and of today.

(2) Churches in the South can contribute to a renewed understanding of mission, and expose the dependence of the Anglican Communion on capitalistic values.  Hitherto missionary activities followed the paradigm of East-West exchanges. Missionary activities adopted uncritically the idea of progress, as if the western world and churches can ride on the brute force of material wealth and technological superiority to proffer a post liberal understanding of secular state and human rights.  Today, Christians outside of the west through their own cooperation without resorting to financial help from the materially rich West offer an example of how the church of God can triumph under different socio-political systems. 

(3) Churches in the South need to bring about a refreshed imagination and passion to the study of Christian doctrines, that young people today would rediscover the relevance of sola fide and sola gratia in the ordering of human societies. Orthodoxy is more than a matter of formal assent to formularies. Christians from every age must discern again for themselves the new battle lines in the socio-political realities of the day.  Otherwise, we would simply be Christian tourists rather than pilgrims and confessors of the faith, as if we have fought the fight with Saint Peter by having a holiday in Vatican.  The South to South Encounter Communiqué raises the concern for better coordination in theological education. I believe churches in the South need to deepen their reflection on their own particular pilgrimage alongside the nation building processes.  Such lines of reflection would help Christians to recover a social vision for their societies and nations.

Should we continue to engage the West?  I believe so, even from our ‘opponents’; and in particular, they help to spur us on to give a coherent account of human sexuality and more importantly, an understanding of the church. 

Finally, what do I expect of Canterbury today? Well, nothing more and nothing less than what we should expect from a Primate of the Church of England; nothing more and nothing less than what we should expect from an archbishop.  He is required to publicly renounce the ideological reshaping of the Communion that puts him to be the focus of unity.  He must uphold the decisions of the Dromantine Communiqué. He should discharge the duties of his office. Above all, he must teach; even so we are required to discern and test all spirits. At the same time, we who are lesser mortals in our idyllic existence in academic institutions (or monastic cells!) need to be charitable to him, and work together with him in good faith. For the temptations that face servants of the greater cause do sorely lurk among the corridors in Lambeth, even were at work among former chairs who armed themselves with breastplates of sterling evangelical formularies.


Ash Wednesday 2006

    Comments & Responses

  1. I received an email from Ian Welsh, and post here with his permission. - Editor


    Noll and Poon are helping many of us in trying to sort out our feelings about the future directions of Anglicanism. I share many of their ideas andin typical Anglican tradition, I seem to hold opposite views simultaneously and enthusiastically, such being the via media mentality!

    I am second to none in respect for John Stott but I believe he was offered purple but declined and was never denied. I think his field of service hasbeen much wider than it might have if he had been burdened with episcopal office.

    I share Noll’s query about Poon’s vision of any Christian person, bishop or layperson, being a ‘servant of God for this time in history’. I have no idea what that means but I think Poon is right to emphasise ‘servanthood’ in a discussion of institutional life and theology. Servanthood is undeniably the right focus for a Christian to adopt although it will vary from person to person and circumstances.

    Noll seems to favour some kind of authoritarian view of the church expressed through doctrinal statements. Fat chance of success, given the history of personalities and schismatism.The oaths taken by nearly every Anglican priest and bishop for four hundred years have not in any way limited dissent.

    I endorse the ‘central authority of Holy Scripture’ but it is hard to avoid asking what we mean by that phrase in the 21st century. It is certainly a form of language not used in the 39 Articles. The relevant article says no more than: Article VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

    The idea that some kind of international theological compact might solve the issue falls flat on its face against the history of the 39 Articles. Almost every priest and bishop of the past 400 years has taken an oath to uphold these convictional principles and we are where we are.

    Many of the issues being debated at the present time are not ‘conclusively’proved other than through personal conviction that varies from person to person, a point Poon makes, rightly in my opinion, when he talks about each Christian working out their faith (Romans 12: 1-3). I suspect inside all of the present Anglican angst there is a struggle going on over ideology, theology and church leadership and management, rather than a genuine issue of ‘servanthood’. It remains that the majority of church income, for example, is spent within and on the institution, rather than in service to humanity.
    We are talking about an institution governed by Anglo-European cultural concepts and laws and perhaps, as Poon suggests, by ‘capitalistic values’ although I am not clear what he is implying. When I saw the recent photographs of bishops from the Singapore consecration I did wonder a bit where the ‘refreshed imagination and passion’ in relation to Christian life and doctrines was going to come from.

    The wider question, given that Anglicans seem to agree on not having anything resembling the papal office, is why we need a ‘Cantuar’ at all? I don’t share Noll’s drift towards an authoritarian kind of Conciliar Papacy that rotates the job by as yet undefined and probably unattainable means. It will be as unrepresentative as any version of ‘Cantuar’.

    I am puzzled, as I think Poon is, by how Noll thinks the Anglican Communion might ‘discipline’ the Episcopal Church. It is a far more delicate issue than mere outrage countenances. Given our Anglican liking for ‘Scripture, tradition and reason’ legalisms do not seem very helpful even in argument.

    Noll’s objection to a ‘dogmatic policy of appeasement’ needs to be viewed against his apparent desire for some kind of dogmatic way of ‘dealing with the provocations of the North American churches.’ The ‘majority’ in the Anglican Communion is not a divine creation, although it may well be a ‘divine comedy’ to people outside. What does ‘deal with’ mean in practice. More schism, I suspect.

    The issue of ‘in’ or ‘out’ of communion with Canterbury is a pretty dodgy way of doing God’s business. The Church of England in South Africa is excluded because of 19th century colonial politics that has nothing to do with its spiritual or theological positions. No sign of leadership from the ‘south’ on that long-standing injustice. There are several, perhaps many, similar ‘outages’ on the AnglicansOnline website. Many Anglican-type churches that uphold Scripture, episcopacy and the Articles are excluded.

    I agree entirely with Noll that the ‘Cantuar’ tradition of leadership is a neo-colonial hangover and is now an irrelevancy but it may be that it is a utilitarian irrelevance that is convenient and not yet a handicap. It is certainly beyond argument that an historic archbishopric with little support from its nominal members is hardly in a position to posit leadership or direction for world-wide Anglicanism. But eve so, who is doing provincial, national or international leadership and management any better? Canterbury is doing no worse, overall, than the rest of England or, for that matter, the Anglican Church in most places.

    Noll’s American ‘republican’ views on the English Establishment seem to colour his unreasonable critique of Archbishop Williams and the ‘Cantuar’ issue. I agree with Poon that Williams is a genuine man of God seeking to right by all Anglicans, and indeed the church at large, while avoiding what Noll seems to want, i.e., some kind of ‘throne’ pronouncements that he does not have the authority to enforce. I do not think that any of the ‘Cantuars’ can be accused of following a British Government line on international
    Anglicanism. One can look askance at the process that seems to offend a democratic sense of electoral propriety but then a lot of us looked askance at New Hampshire’s outcome using the American process.

    I see no reason why the office of Presiding Bishop of world Anglicanism should not be internationalised as Noll suggests although I simply can’t see how it could be done with any greater success than the present model. I wonder how he proposes to free the selection process from the ‘convictional’ dimension. I wonder what real authority a rotating presidency would have. It doesn’t seem to have any worthwhile value in the primatial arena of national Anglican churches-certainly none in Australia other than a little prestige and media attention.

    Noll’s admiring comments on the way the Catholic Church has positioned itself on family issues smack of authoritarianism. No amount of dogmatic theological statements can ever work over time in holding things together in an institution where the only glue is in the willingness of people to cooperate. 

    Rome came up with papal infallibility and its use has been the exception rather than the rule. Many Catholics ignore official rulings, as birth-control amply demonstrates. Papal leadership has not resolved the sexual problems of the celibate Catholic clergy any more than marriage has solved it for Anglicans and Protestants.  Authoritarianism has not eased the problem of homosexuals who are also genuine Christians any more than other genuine Christians can claim to be free of sin. As Paul said, we see through a glass darkly, and we need to keep the limitations of our personal positions in the forefront of our eagerness to judge others.

    It may be that God has plans for the Anglican Church that are still to be displayed. I certainly don’t think that throwing out the bath will guarantee a new bath that will hold cleaner water.

    Ian Welch
    Anglican layperson
    Canberra, Australia.

    Posted by  on  03/02  at  10:10 PM

  2. We really should examine the concept of spheres of commonality and interests. It seems that there is a general desire for a common structural frame that allows for both independence of action in arovence and a true sharing of common traditions. It is not a question that can be determined by coercion or authoritarian decree.

    Why not consider regional Synods and a Communion wide General Conventions as models of authority. The leadership of the Synods and Conventions could be determined by the respective bodies using their own self determined canons of organization, I would suggest that the combination of independent provinces meeting in regional Synods could address the concerns of specific areas far better then any distant authoritarian administrator be it Canterbury or Bangkok

    The delicate balance of outside influence could certainly be managed within smaller regional structures organized around interests specific to the area and population being served. General concerns could be addressed in a true Communion wide Convention. A Convention that allows the laity an equal voice in the governance of the church. Without the material support of the laity there is no church. The Bishops alone are only one voice in the Body of Christ.

    Posted by  on  03/03  at  07:01 AM

  3. These “independent provinces” sound to me like a group of similar but different denominations just co-operating together.

    Overall, this is certainly an idea, but isn’t this just designed to defend ECUSA as it is, rather than putting together a solid inter-provincial framework?

    How would you suggest dealing with renegade independent provinces, eg ones that started to deny the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus, or the existence of God etc etc?

    Posted by  on  03/04  at  02:07 AM

  4. William,

    Regional Synods are certainly part of ‘a solid inter-provincial framework’ in my mind. They would be self organized to preserve regional and cultural variations free of outside interference.  A General Council of the Anglican Communion would be used to address communion wide goals and issues. The laity would be an essential and equal partner in the Synods and Council. It is after all their offerings that allow the church to maintain itself and grow.

    The proposal isn’t really designed to deal with ECUSA as such; it is designed to deal with the development of the Anglican Communion in all parts of the world. It is a proposal designed to relieve the fear of any western forms or concepts usurping or repressing non-western development in the Anglican Communion.

    The churches in North America do not face the same problems faced by the churches in Nigeria or the Sudan. I think those problems are best solved by the local and regional churches without direction from the possibly tainted ‘Church of the West’.

    I am sure that the prayers of the whole Anglican Communion will be heard by Christ to help us resolve our problems in North American. I am also certain that our prayers would be helpful with others as they work with Christ to solve their own problems.

    We have enough problems on are plate right now without imagining new ones for the future. If the need were to arise, then we would have to take the same approach we now take towards in our discussions with Islam and Judaism I suspect. In any case, Christ will give us the tools by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    Posted by  on  03/04  at  04:47 AM

  5. Mccabe, I was not imagining new problems, I was anticipating what would happen, due to current conflicts, as soon as any new structure was set up.

    Anyway, have you thought about the worldly problem of how to get from where we are now in the Anglican Communion to where you suggest. I can see that ECUSA (and several others) would not accept anything that restrained their independent actions, while others (much of the global south) would not accept being tied to independent-minded provinces who want to go their own way.

    ECUSA has every right, under ECUSA canon law, to carry on changing its beliefs. So continue changing them and go your own way. The Anglican Communion will survive without ECUSA.

    Posted by  on  03/08  at  10:49 PM

  6. You wrote: “I can see that ECUSA (and several others) would not accept anything that restrained their independent actions, while others (much of the global south) would not accept being tied to independent-minded provinces who want to go their own way.”

    William, I thought the purpose was to find ways in which the Anglican Communion could be preserved? Is not preservation of ‘uniqueness’ within the Anglican Coomunion a part of saving the whole communion. The above two articles are devoted to that discussion and the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Communion. I do not think that any one person or office can be the solution to the present conflict in the communion.

    In many of the articles posted on this site, the Global South comments on the present or past domination of the western churches inside of the historic communion. I am proposing synods and councils as a tool for healing past hurts and moving us towards a new communion that really represents all aspects of the Anglican tradition.

    If the Global South wants dominion over its’ own affairs, it already has that under the present structure. If the Global South really wants total domination of all the provinces ,then it will have to break the present structure.

    From my point of view, many bishops in the Global South seem to invite episcopal chaos, material greed and overt coercion into the present system under the guise of neo-orthodoxy. From my point of view, many bishops in the Global South have already demonstarted that bringing the healing love of Christ to a broken world is not their true goal.

    Posted by  on  03/09  at  06:57 AM

  7. As to the last but one paragraph, I would say that it is ECUSA that has changed and is now trying to force those changes onto the rest of us.

    In the last paragraph, which global south bishops are you talking about? Please could you share a few names and actions with us? Who are you lashing out at, and what about?

    Posted by  on  03/10  at  12:32 AM

  8. Why do you make this so personal William? I have seen nothing issued by ECUSA that ‘force’ any other province to change its’ structure, canon law or doctrines.

    As for specific bishops, look at the convetion summaries of ECUSA and read the names of non-ECUSA bishops working to undermind the unity and discipline of ECUSA. Read the signatures of the various Global South meetings attacking ECUSA. Read the names of those Primates that would not come to the Lord’s Table at the last Primates meeting.

    Posted by  on  03/10  at  07:31 AM
    9. Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Cathedral opened amid great joy, vibrancy in Sudan

Previous entry: LOOK NOT TO CANTUAR : A Friendly Rejoinder to Michael Poon - by Stephen Noll

<< Back to main