CRISIS IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION — BY REV. DR. ANDREW GODDARD

It appears beyond doubt that this coming year will prove decisive for the future of worldwide Anglicanism. Attention has now—thankfully—shifted from disputes over homosexuality to questions concerning what the Anglican Communion is and how it must change if it is to survive the current crisis.

It is therefore important to understand why there is a crisis without reference to same-sex unions and ‘gay bishops’; similar issues could arise in relation to a number of different areas, for example in relation to lay presidency at the Eucharist. What has happened is that one diocese (New Westminster in Canada) and a whole province (The Episcopal Church of the United States of America, ECUSA) have taken decisions that violate the mind of the wider Anglican Communion.

Furthermore, that Communion and the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which it is a part, holds those actions to be contrary to Scripture. The Communion has also repeatedly urged restraint from radical innovations until they can be more widely recognised as legitimate expressions of Christian faith and practice.

This has produced a crisis at three levels: within the innovating provinces, between those provinces and other provinces, and in relation to the Communion’s four current ‘instruments of unity’ (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Meeting, the Lambeth Conference, and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)).

Is This Really Novel?

Of course, some argue we are simply re-visiting the questions raised when parts of the Communion began ordaining women priests and bishops, and that the appointment of an Eames Commission confirms this continuity. Although similarities exist with the impairment of communion from women’s ordination, it would be a serious error to treat the current situation as equivalent.

Firstly, there are substantive theological differences. The presenting issue is one where, only five years ago, the bishops at Lambeth overwhelmingly agreed they could declare certain conduct ‘incompatible with Scripture’.

Secondly, there are significant procedural differences. The Anglican Communion lacks a central legal authority. It is, therefore, a recognised communion principle that member churches are advised ‘not to take action regarding issues which are of concern to the whole Anglican Communion without consultation with a Lambeth Conference or with the episcopate through the Primates Committee’.

Thirdly, the political realities are now totally different. Relationships between provinces absorbed the innovation over women’s ordination and the diversity it produced in the Anglican family. Already, however, provinces have clearly stated their relationship with New Westminster and ECUSA has been severely impaired.

ECUSA Schism?

The Lambeth Primates Meeting said, “Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care…”

However, the Presiding Bishop’s decision to proceed as chief consecrator in New Hampshire, combined with a history of ‘liberal’ bishops acting in a most illiberal and authoritarian manner, makes this solution very difficult to achieve.

The recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes could create a structure in canonical continuity with ECUSA but also in full acceptance of the Communion’s teaching on sexuality and the disciplines of common life within communion.

Inevitably, there is a real danger of a quagmire of legal actions over property and other matters and the accusation of ‘schism’ will be hurled at those in this network. This is, however, different from the actions that led to the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) in 2000.

In a real sense it is ECUSA’s understanding of ‘autonomy’—and its consequent disregard for mutual accountability within the church of Christ—that represents the real ‘schism’.

Whither the Communion?

The Anglican Communion acts in two main forms. First it exists through the relationships between the various provinces within the Communion… The potential seriousness of this was clear when the Primates warned that if the consecration proceeded, “we have reached a crucial and critical point… the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy… the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world…”

There is a widespread commitment, especially in the Global South, to a real and deepening worldwide Anglican Communion. There is no great desire for a looser ‘federation’ where autonomy and pluriformity over-ride mutual accountability and orthodoxy.

The challenge here is that Anglicans have eschewed any central legal authority within the Communion. Even now there is no great desire for a standing, hierarchical jurisdictional authority at a supra-provincial level.

However, the last Lambeth Conference called on the Primates Meeting to include among its responsibilities, “intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces…”

There is already a proposal—in To Mend the Net—as to how that might be accomplished… involving the creation of ‘observer status’ within international meetings of the Communion for those who have distanced themselves by their actions from the Communion’s teaching.

What About the Church of England?

The Church of England historically lies at the heart of the Anglican Communion… From the day of his appointment, Archbishop Rowan Williams has made clear his commitment to the Anglican Communion and the dangers in disregarding its teaching on human sexuality.

Faced with this stark decision, some in an already polarised situation may welcome the showdown… Many, however, will feel torn…

It is, therefore, important to keep debates over sexuality distinct from debates over the nature and future of the Anglican Communion, even if they are now closely related.

The issue is not whether the Communion can continue as before and accept different policies on human sexuality as it has on women’s ordination. It is clear that this is a non-starter.

The issue is whether a way can be found within the Communion to uphold its teaching and the disciplines of a common life. This will require in some manner rebuking or disciplining provinces that unilaterally break with it and exalt ‘autonomy’ at the expense of ‘mutual accountability’. Sadly, if the Communion fails to do this, there is a real risk it will divide into separate international bodies.

Many fear we are entering a period that could witness the Anglican Communion… experience the painful words of Yeats’ The Second Coming:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…

The challenge is to continue to pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury and all serving on his Commission, and to discern how the special gift of communion we have been given… can be provided with structures that enable communion to deepen and be extended to others in the body of Christ.

END