Archive for July, 2009
Written by: Dr NT Wright (in collaboration with ACI and Fulcrum)
Thursday, July 30th, 2009
Introduction 1. In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. [...]
read more...
July 30 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
Mark Harris, member of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church (TEC) and writer of the blog PRELUDIUM is a perceptive and thoughtful commentator on the current scene within both TEC and the Anglican Communion. In two pieces, “The days ahead in the land of the dissatisfied: South Carolina, Albany, and points west” and “The Archbishop blows his ecclesial horn: the last trumpet has sounded,” he comments on the just published statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the recent actions of General Convention. He makes a number of observations and comments, some more accurate and apposite than others. However, one observation/comment in particular stands out and deserves thoughtful consideration, namely his claim that the position about the nature and structure of the Anglican Communion articulated by the Archbishop of Canterbury implies a form of global governance and hierarchy that runs all the way down. Fr. Harris’ claim deserves careful consideration because it has become already the default position of progressive defenders of TEC’s recent actions, and will without doubt stand near the center of TEC’s defense of the actions of its General Convention.
At the conclusion of “The days ahead…” Fr. Harris says that if, in the covenant process, allowance is made for buy in by individual dioceses, the result will (1) be “subversion of General Convention by dioceses voting in isolation of any provincial structure and (2) a direct hierarchical setup with allegiance all the way up the line.” In “Archbishop blows his ecclesial horn…” he speaks (negatively) of “the move for global governance in the Anglican Communion…”
read more...
July 29 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Monday, July 27th, 2009
The 76th General Convention has come and gone. In some ways it was exactly like all of the previous six General Conventions I have been to as your Bishop. Issues of human sexuality, and specifically homosexuality, were once again front and center and I will get to them in a moment.
But first let me say how totally proud I am of our deputation. Whether in the open hearings or in the legislative sessions – or, in the case of our Canon to the Ordinary, in the daily media briefings – they were engaged, faithful, active, and persistent.
In many of the hearings it seemed as if our people were virtually the only ones testifying for what I understand to be the orthodox position. (That is a slight overstatement, but not much of one.)
read more...
July 27 2009 | Articles
Written by: Communion Partners
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
originally posted at http://communionpartners.org/?p=64 104th Archbishop of Canterbury Lambeth Palace London, England SE1 7JU Your Grace: You will be sent a hard copy of this letter, statement and the list of signatories, but because of our desire to put this material in front of you soon, we are e-mailing this correspondence as well. We must [...]
read more...
July 21 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
At its recently concluded General Convention, The Episcopal Church passed resolutions that are widely regarded as repudiations of prior commitments to the Windsor moratoria that have been officially implemented by the Anglican Communion. Apparently reacting to the swift denunciation of these actions by many in the Communion, various constituencies in TEC are now scrambling to re-interpret General Convention’s actions. ENS withdrew and revised its story about a key vote and Convention participants have produced wildly inconsistent, if equally far-fetched, interpretations of what took place. Integrity continues to claim, however, that this Convention was a “virtual clean sweep” for their side.
read more...
July 21 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Friday, July 17th, 2009
In a joint letter sent today to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the President of its House of Deputies, the presiding officers of General Convention acknowledged that that body cannot speak for the whole church in crucial matters affecting the life of the Anglican Communion: Some are [...]
read more...
July 17 2009 | Articles
Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Tuesday, July 14th, 2009
We deeply regret yesterday’s decision by the House of Bishops to repudiate the Anglican Communion’s moratorium on the consecration of bishops living in homosexual relationships. As recently as May of this year, the Anglican Consultative Council officially affirmed the “implementation” in the Communion of the moratoria called for by the Windsor Report, including the moratorium [...]
read more...
July 14 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Professor Christopher Seitz
Saturday, July 11th, 2009
The President of the House of Deputies, in remarks made in an internet-viewable report of a private meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed the view that the polity of the Episcopal Church is unique (‘anomalous’)and must be appreciated as such (9 July 2009). This opinion appeared to be directed at an account of the church that has given and gives significant and prioritized room for communications and directives to be made from Bishop to Bishop. Another spokesperson present indicated that the Archbishop was told that communications from the Communion ought to be made to the General Convention, as the only authority able to respond, and not the Bishops.
We can leave to the side whether this account from the President and others is in reality fair, insofar as the Presiding Bishop of this church is a Bishop and is elected by the body presumably seen as unique, and other provinces of the communion could likewise ask for a special appreciation of this or that feature of their polity. Lambeth Conference is an Instrument of Communion and it is comprised of Bishops; the ACC has lay and clerical representation; and so forth. TEC’s polity has never been viewed as a hindrance to involvement in these Instruments before, and it is difficult to see how the General Convention is in some special position of senior authority above the Bishops (see below), or that laity and clergy in this church have ‘equal authority’ (so the President of the House of Bishops).
read more...
July 11 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Thursday, July 9th, 2009
My colleague Prof. Radner traces a significant history—one that locates the authority of Bishops as prior to that of the administrative structures into which they were later folded. The prior authority of the Episcopal Office, in the tradition of the church, rests not in its structural position within a hierarchical order but in self-expenditure on behalf of the church on the part of those who hold office. The self-expenditure of Bishops has through the ages assumed three forms. First and foremost is a pattern of holy life that reflects that of Christ; second, guardianship of the truth about God revealed in Christ; and third responsibility for the peace and good order of the church. Each of the forms of self-expenditure rests first of all in a form of personal agency rather than occupancy of a structural position.
It is to the priority of personal agency over political and administrative structure that Archbishop Rowan refers in his now well known and frequently quoted letter to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida. The Archbishop wrote, “The organic union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.” Prof Radner’s research makes it clear that the Archbishop has history on his side.
read more...
July 09 2009 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Thursday, July 9th, 2009
The proposed covenanting of Anglican churches that is embodied in the Covenant “process” now before the Anglican Communion has brought to the fore an important question: what is the appropriate “church” body to adopt the Covenant? Is it a province or a diocese? The question has already stirred acrimony in debate, because it is seen to touch at least two current sore spots in the Communion’s life: that is, the status of churches who a.) have left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, gone “under” the temporary jurisdiction of non-North American provinces, and are now forming a “new” North American province (ACNA), and b.) those dioceses within TEC whose bishops would like, if necessary, to covenant directly with other Anglican churches around the world, independently of their province’s decision on the matter. The issue of ecclesial status within the Communion raised by these cases is potentially fraught with legal and property implications, and therefore the theological issues behind it have been only partially examined in their own right. Yet the theological aspects are wide-reaching, touching not only on local and Communion ecclesial ordering, but on the character and shape of ecumenical vocation.
It was the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who personally pointed to the theological matter. In a letter of October 14, 2007 to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida, designed to be made public, the Archbishop made a more political point regarding the need for congregations to remain bound to their diocese. But he upheld this advice with an ecclesiological claim: “The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such…[there is a …] need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.” Here the Archbishop makes several important assertions: first, ecclesial unity is given directly through a bishop and diocese, not a province; second, by consequence, provincial “structures” are not organs of unity “as such”; thirdly, “national churches” are somehow equivalent in this regard to “provinces”; and fourthly, the “abstraction” of a national church may even therefore apply, in its lack of ecclesiological concreteness, to provinces.
read more...
July 09 2009 | Articles