|
|
|
Comments, complaints, broken links, disappointed hopes - please contact the caretaker. 31/07/2009 |
Paul's Personal Pages [The Windsor Report - Summary] [Responses to the Report] The Windsor Report - My Comments
The way of reports in the middle of conflict is that the substance of what the Commission say is less important than the responses the contending groups make to it. In broad terms conservative groups are dissatisfied with this report and liberal groups, though not delighted, can live with it. [Links to some responses are here.] Nonetheless I wish to pick up some of what the report says ... Homosexuality [Top] The mandate of the Commission was to examine how the Anglican Communion might move forward - not to adjudicate on the substance of the issue of homosexuality. But it could not ignore the issue. The report states that the ordination of Gene Robinson and the authorization of services of blessing of same-sex unions have breached the bonds of affection which hold the Communion together, i.e. that they should not have happened. The Commission contrasts the way these things were done with the process which led to the recognition of women as priests. The first Anglican woman priest, Li Tim-Oi, was ordained in Hong Kong in war time conditions. The 1948 Lambeth Conference, despite the pleas of the Church of South China, decided against the ordination of women - a judgement accepted by the Province and by Florence Li who no longer practiced as a priest. By drawing this parallel, and by challenging those who wish to ordain and bless the unions of homosexuals to present a theological justification of their actions, the Commission envisage the possibility that these things may one day be acceptable to the Anglican Communion. The traditionalists utterly reject this possibility - just as their predecessors rejected the possibility of the ordination of women in 1948 (and in some cases to this day), yet it happened. The means by which unity is maintained [Top] 1) clear theological justification for proposed change This may seem self-evident in a church. We are accustomed to thinking that theological clarity actually or ideally precedes significant change. As a matter of historical fact it is more often the other way round: new practices that arise in changed circumstances or from different general approaches are subsequently given theological rationales - we do our theology retrospectively. A theological rationale is needed because this is how the actions of the church are legitimated to other church members and to outsiders. So theology is not the answer to why we do things, but the battleground of any contested change in church life. Any theological justification is likely to be countered by an alternative theological justification (and probably several) based on differing assumptions and from different perspectives. Given the existing gulf of theological presuppositions, methods and conclusions between liberals and traditionalists it is improbable that any theological exposition will find general favour - and this has always been the case (though the subjects and groups ebb and flow over time). 2) agreed ecclesiastical procedure should be followed Well, yes - but of course the whole issue is one of precisely what constitutes sufficient procedures on contentious issues in a Communion of autonomous provinces some of which (particularly ECUSA) are themselves deeply divided. 3) distinguish what is trivial (adiaphora) from what is not This, as the report says, is a principle deeply engrained in Anglicanism but in my view it should be treated with considerable suspicion. Of course, some things are more important than others - but exactly which things are more or less important depends on who you speak to and the circumstances the church is facing (and not on the inherent importance of the things themselves). So distinguishing the trivial isn't a way of winnowing out the things we need not spend time with from the rest, it is a political decision. If faith is a seamless robe any thread that you pull, however seemingly unimportant, may result in it unravelling. 4) subsidiarity: matters should be determined as close to the local level as is consistent with their significance. While this principle sounds fine it should again be treated with caution. To some extent it simply repeats the previous two points and combines proper procedures with a judgement on what is a significant matter. Greater suspicion should stem from the use of this principle in practice. It is the nature of organizations to pass matters up the line for decision rather than down; and once a decision is made at a higher level it is almost impossible for it to be delegated thereafter. Therefore decision making accumulates at higher levels, and is disguised by appeals to subsidiarity. And if roles and responsibilities, authority and lines of accountability in the Anglican Communion are sharpened and clarified then, slowly, less and less will be allowed to the individual province, let alone diocese. 5) the Communion is grounded in a relationship of trust and responsibility Yes. Exactly. That's what the fuss is all about: how do strangers from different parts of the world, and those in the same part of the world who hold passionately differing views, express their beliefs in mutually contradictory ways, act in ways that evince trust, responsibility and mutual respect? After all, one's faith is important enough to fight for ... 6) all these elements are held together in and by authority And of all these ideas authority is the most slippery. Dictionary definitions, let alone working definitions and theological discussions, are contradictory and far from straight forward. My own understanding is that authority is made real in practice (authority is what authority does). Although certain posts and jobs have authority ascribed to them within an organizational framework, it is still up to the individual post-holder to exercise that authority as effectively as they can. The other side of this coin is that authority is always contested - that every decision, every exercise of authority, is liable to challenge. And in an organization as fractious, amorphous and ill co-ordinated as the Anglican Communion, which prizes its sense of regional autonomy and personal independence, there is small chance of sorting out a fixed or final notion of authority either as an ideal or as organizational practice. Yet authority remains a central, vital notion for the church - in its absence there is no possibility of unity. And yet, put them all together, It seems to me that every single element of this exposition of the manner in which unity is maintained is ambiguous, contested, and to be regarded with a highly critical eye. Yet I would also conclude that this is a brilliant summary of where the Anglican Communion is and what it needs to take into account in order to move forwards together. These six elements together make a fragile skein of considerations which (if enough members value them) can keep the disparate Communion together. The task is political - to build a structure firm enough to substantiate the sense of Anglican identity and to hold the various politicking factions together in the same framework. There is never a fixed point at which the church can stop and say 'that's it, we've arrived' - there is only the continuing process of discernment of God's will. Where there is life there is growth, change, the possibility of new beginnings and changed understandings - in our relationship with God as in any other thing that we do - what doesn't change is dead. The most destructive thing of all is not people arguing together, but people proclaiming that their views express God's views - and that the convictions of other church members are therefore wrong. This stops the search to find God's will for the Anglican Communion dead in its tracks. Power in the Church [Top] This report is about power - about how to contain the jostling for power, and about the attempt to gain the power to define for others the nature and expression of faith in the Anglican tradition. 'Power' is just as difficult to define as the ideas discussed above, and is closely correlated with authority. As a working definition I favour power: the capacity to effect or prevent change (and authority: the right to make decisions). But clarity of definition is made much more difficult in a church because of a systemic denial of its importance: power is seen as good only when it is directly ascribed to God. The human exercise of power in the church is seen as somehow tainted, almost against God. The consequence is a deep dishonesty over power in the church: one the one hand the necessary exercise of power is disparaged, on the other hand those who exercise power in the church claim - explicitly or implicitly - that they act on God's behalf. Between these poles there is no space for a differentiated discussion about how power may properly be exercised. I suggest that open discussion of power in the church in political terms would be of considerable value to this debate. It would at least be honest: the present debate about power is conducted by proxy in ecclesiological, biblical or other categories. What these categories disguise is that, in churches as elsewhere, the exercise of power has real consequences for people - for their bodies, their livelihoods, their integrity and the regard in which they are held. I suggest that these consequences (and not attempts to claim correlation with divine truth) are the proper criteria by which to judge the exercise of power.
The scope for law in reinforcing unity [Top] [see my article What has Law got to offer the Church?] The hand of Professor Norman Doe can be detected in some of the sections relating to the existing law of the Anglican Communion and proposals for the future. His earlier proposal that Canon Law may be a fifth Instrument of Unity is acknowledged but not supported in practice. Professor Doe has suggested in the past that the various jurisdictions of the Anglican Communion find a common formula by which to acknowledge their membership of the Communion in their legal systems. But instead of 'an elaborate and all-embracing canon defining inter-Anglican relations' (para. 117) the Commission recommend a Covenant (see below). My argument is that the character of law in the church is that it reflects the majority will of the church (and the legacy of past agreement) - it can't create unity that is not there. By definition, where the church is divided there will not be enough agreement to write and agree a law.
Still to come: [Top]
please return soon, Paul |
