BISHOPS have a duty to go on praying and talking together, face to face, with those with whom they disagree; and the reduction of member Churches to “associate” status suggests a refusal to accept criticism, says the third Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission in its Kuala Lumpur report, published on Tuesday.
The report, Communion, Hope and Conflict, offers a “transferable” method of study for individuals, groups, dioceses, and provinces to use to pursue their concerns for unity, says its chairman, the former Bishop of Ely, Dr Stephen Sykes, in his foreword.
“It provides a vision of ‘dynamic catholicity’ which sees constant change and renewal as a necessary condition, not just a challenge to the Church,” he writes.
“From the experience of working with this Commission, I have learned something which has also been immensely important to me during my recent illness, and that is the power of the simple words of Jesus, ‘do not be anxious’. It is anxiety that sells newspapers — and is often a powerful lever for the manipulation of political change, including change within the Church. But it is not the way of Christ.”
In a press release issued by the Anglican Communion Office, the Bishop said that the report demonstrated the underlying foundations on which Anglican identity was built: “attention to the Bible, the vocation towards holiness, respect for local cultures, the gifts of discernment and diversity, mutual accountability, and the development of appropriate competencies to articulate the mind of the Church.
“These principles are themselves the subjects of current debate; the contention of this report is that clarifying such issues not only maintains communion, but actually enriches the sense of common life and purpose that the Communion seeks.”
To assist the process, the report sets out four key questions for Anglicans worldwide; six propositions for debate; and four further questions for clarification.
The 24-member commission, with four observers and four administrative staff, discourages any loosening of the Communion. “For various reasons, some participants in the present debates seem intent on loosening the links in the Communion by speaking of it in terms of a confederation, or becoming ‘cousins, not brothers and sisters’ in Christ,” they write.
“Others have suggested that a constructive way forward may be to allow a form of associate status within the Communion. These proposals seem to amount to a refusal to accept the possibility of external critcism; theologically, they dilute Anglican fellowship from something grounded in covenant love, to a matter of historic association.”
Given the present state of the Anglican Communion, the authors say, “it is the special collegial responsibility of the bishop to be at prayer for and with fellow colleagues. This is particularly relevant for those bishops who are in conflict with one another.
“Their failure to attend fervently to this ordinal vow weakens the body of Christ for which they have responsibility. This in turn weakens the bonds all the baptised share with one another.”
Communion, koinonia, the report says, is intended by Christ to involve “much more than simply an alliance of like-minded believers”. It “transcends and can therefore transform differences: networks of conviction tend merely to reinforce them.”
The Communion is called to stand alongside those “on the edge”, and the commission warns: “Edges are important, reminding us that local situations have much to teach any apparent centre. The wind of the Spirit is blowing in new directions in our world, and it is our task to follow.”
It sees “communication” as a key concept — cognate with the word “communion” — and attempts to do more than set out conflicting positions, but rather to form a synthesis. “This is not a ‘Wikipedia-theology’ in which any opinion can be offered — or contradicted,” it says. Its reflections are based on the model of “dispersed authority”, implying “mutual accountability”.
It notes that during the past decade there has been a renewed emphasis on the unity as well as the diversity of scripture, which means that “listening to the Bible together can be a restorative as well as disturbing experience for the Christian community.”
In its deliberations, “Major differences emerged between those who thought in principle the clarity (‘perspicuity’) of scripture meant that a common mind could be reached about the meaning and implications of a passage, and others who felt that cultural differences between readers — as well as between readers and the text — meant that any such unanimity would be impossible to achieve.
“Current hermeneutical studies suggest that such pessimism is unwarranted, and that the ideal of a Church whose thoughts and actions are moulded by a habitual response to the message of the Bible is worth pursuing.
“However, any expectation that interpretations of scripture will ever be totally uncontested is discounted by the experience of history, if not the very character of the Bible itself. Knowledge of God’s purposes in scripture will always be partial in the Church, yet it will be sufficient for the patient pursuit of truth and holiness, if there is a corporate willingness to respond to what is understood in particular circumstances. For this reason methods of cross-cultural and trans-generational reading of the Bible are to be encouraged.”
As with other ethical matters, the commission sees no reason why attention should not be given to issues of human sexuality under the Communion’s present circumstances. “This will involve more than theoretical considerations: it would ask, quite personally and directly, in which way does the gospel offer good news to Christians with differing sexual orientations. A holistic Anglican tradition will seek to combine the best elements of traditional moral philosophy with the practice of theological ethics, involving spiritual issues of vocation and discernnment.
“This will need, first, an appreciation of the interdependence of ‘command ethics’ (in which the central issue is obedience to God’s instructions) and the ethics of ‘human flourishing’ (in which the central issue is the fulfilment of the humanity which God has created). Secondly, attention must be extended to the way in which innovations in Christian belief and practice can be understood, evaluated and judged within an Anglican fellowship. What is not possible is that the discussion of belief and practice, doctrine and ethics, should be carried on independently of each other.”
On past evidence, Anglicans take questions of context seriously; and “It might be argued that the Anglican experience of companionship links, partnerships in mission, inter-Anglican networks, mission societies and religious orders (not to mention the availability of cheap air travel and the Internet) can all act as significant ‘instruments of communion’, almost irrespective of more formal ecclesial structures.
“These partnerships take on increasing importance, theological as well as practical, at a time of temporary disruption in the relationship between different parts of the Anglican world.”
Some disputes are peripheral; some are crucial, “and must in due course be decided upon, if the Church is to retain its unity, holiness and claim of catholicity”, the report says.
While some are looking for “lines in the sand” to define the Anglican fellowship, “The Commission is persuaded that while numerous attempts have been made by Anglican theologians to identify core doctrines or fundamental articles, that quest has never been settled beyond dispute. In the present intellectual climate it is even clearer that such a strategy would conceal still more foundational problems of authority.”
In the Church described in Acts, says the report, “The matter of circumcision being essential for salvation could have turned away many believers from Christian faith and the Church. Such issues could only be resolved through face-to-face meetings.”
The future life of the Communion will depend on “a renewed sense of commonality”, says the commission. “Part of the difficulty in sustaining that vision is derived from hierarchical views of power and authority, so prominent in social, managerial and political life.”
The question must be asked whether the existing “instruments of communion” are capable of “theological (not just managerial) development” to use the possibilities opened up by the Windsor process to address questions about legitimate diversity and unity. “If there is not the time or will to achieve this, it appears that Anglicans will become increasingly marginalised and fragmented as a movement within world Christianity.”
The obligation to seek “the highest level of communion possible” is “a laudable ambition, a vocation even. Yet unless we are clear what sort of communion is anticipated for congregational, local, regional or global fellowship, the terminology can be used merely to justify higher-level organisational arrangements without ever analysing how they contribute to communion itself.” Communion “from below”, the report says, “is real communion — arguably the most vital aspect of koinonia with God and neighbour, and it is from ‘below’ that the Commission has worked in its conversations with the Churches, and in its reflections in this report.”
If shared doctrines and ideals or common participation in mission lack “the support of coherent global structures, then the Anglican Communion will be immeasurably weakened. In the light of the gospel, weak and fragile things are not to be despised.
“Talk of broken communion has often been a form of exchange to gain rhetorical advantage, and carries with it an all-too-facile notion of communion in the Church. Such a notion glosses over far too lightly the actual brokenness of the church community. It also eclipses the vocation of each individual and community to walk in the steps of the crucified Christ.”
Communion, Conflict and Hope: The Kuala Lumpur report (Anglican Communion Office, £5.95; 978-0-9558261-1-5; phone 020 7313 3919). The text can also be downloaded from the internet at www.aco.org/ministry/theological/iatdc/docs/communion_conflict_&_hope.pdf
|
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
.gif "Caris Magazine for girls aged 11 to 16 © site")
