'Holding fast and holding On': The Instruments of the Anglican Communion

ANGLICAN COMMUNION PARTNERS

‘Holding Fast and Holding On’: The Instruments of the Anglican Communion

ST MARTIN'S HOUSTON. APRIL 16 2009

I am delighted to be with you for this Conference and to speak to the title given to me: Holding Fast and Holding On: The Instruments of the Anglican communion’.

If I may begin with a general comment: I am entirely committed to the unity and integrity of the Anglican Communion, as a former Archbishop of Canterbury should be. I share the sadness of so many that we are today a broken and divided Communion, and I support the efforts of my successor, Dr.Rowan Williams, and other Primates in their attempts to repair what has been damaged. Indeed, that is what Anglican Communion Partners seeks to do; to find positive ways of healing our wounded Communion.

‘Holding Fast and Holding On’ is an attractive title. It echoes, of course, verses in the NT which speak of commitment to the truth revealed to us: ‘Hold fast what is good’, ‘hold fast the form of sound words’, ‘hold fast our confidence ‘ and ‘hold fast our confession’. It also reminds me of a vivid picture from last week in London where travelling down the escalator at Paddington Station I saw a young mother holding firmly in her arms a young child. Though the crowds jostled her, she was holding fast and the child was holding on!

We too are a young Communion. Just over 200 hundred years ago there was no Anglican bishop residing outside the British Isles. We are now an international Communion rooted in over 150 countries. We lost our English centredness years ago. The Lambeth Conference which brings together bishops from the 36 Provinces every ten years, numbers over 800. The Anglican Church is to be found in a huge variety of contexts. It is at work among the very poorest of peoples in the world. It too has its share of martyrs.

Its ministry is enriched by many who have distinguished themselves in fighting for human rights and social justice. I think of Archbishop Janani Luwum whose heroic witness in Uganda during the fearsome reign of Idi Amin led to his imprisonment and subsequent murder. I think of Desmond Tutu whose distinguished ministry in South Africa was rewarded with the Nobel Prize. I think also of Bishop Dinis Singulane, whose contribution towards peace in Mozambique has been outstanding, and continues to be so. There is so much we can be proud of in political, social, environment and mission activity. Central to Anglicanism is a theology focused on the Incarnation of our Lord. It insists that Christianity must be lived out where people suffer and die. It stresses that faith without works lacks substance and works without faith is but social action. We believe in bringing home to people God's protest against anything that dehumanises his world and harms those made in his image and likeness. Anglicanism can be modestly proud of its enormous investment in hospitals, clinics, schools and homes in so many parts of the world. My many visits to Africa, which continue today, constantly make me aware of the rich contribution that our Communion makes to that needy continent. Yet that witness and engagement is desperately undermined and, indeed, imperilled by our divisions and alienation from one another.

But I have rushed ahead of myself. As a young Communion, as we have grown, so we have had to create our own organisational structures and in this story the Episcopal Church of the United States has played an important role.

What are these ‘instruments of Unity’? They are, of course, the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican consultative Council and the Primates Meeting. These four elements of our Communion did not commence life at the same point in time. The ACC and the Primates Meeting, indeed, enter the story at a much later date.

But most of us are familiar with the the narrative of the Anglican Communion. The first two instruments – the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference began to set a trajectory for greater co-operation across the multitude of different churches etc which were primarily planted by mission. Crisis was, of course, the reason that the Lambeth Conference came into being – just as crisis and conflict has tended throughout the communion’s history to be a means of drawing us closer together. It is very significant that the cry to hold the First Lambeth Conference did not arise from within England but from the colonies. The impetus for it came from a dispute in South Africa where Bishop Colenso had fallen out with Archbishop Frank Gray for promoting advanced ideas about the Old Testament. The Canadian Bishops wrote to Archbishop Longley asking him to convene a meeting of all Bishops to respond to this and other matters of common concern. The Archbishop sought the advice of his English colleagues. Some were firmly against the idea and when that first Lambeth Conference met in 1867 the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London absented themselves. That first Conference met at Lambeth Palace and there were just 76 bishops present with only one black bishop, the famous Samuel Crowther of West Africa. All men, all but one white – what a far cry from today. Fifty years later, at the end of the 1920 Lambeth Conference, the assembled bishops wanted to express their thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to his wife, Mrs Davidson, for their hospitality. For the first time ever a woman stepped onto the platform and the then Bishop of Pennsylvania in presenting her with a gift said: ‘We don’t want this to be taken as a sign that women will be admitted in the episcopate!’ Little did they know that 78 years later that would have become a reality.

As time went on the Lambeth Conference grew in number and significance. The immediate post-war aftermath and the break-up of the Empire was to see developing world provinces beginning to govern themselves and being set free to do so by Archbishop Fisher.

Under Archbishop Michael Ramsey, the great ecumenical dialogues began especially with the Roman Catholic Church. This gave the Anglican Communion another impetus towards greater unity and cooperation. The Anglican Communion was presenting itself as a worldwide church through these dialogues and not merely as a set of autonomous provinces. In 1968 the first executive officer was appointed, Stephen Baynes. 10 years later in 1968 the Lambeth Conference called for the establishment of the Anglican Consultative Council and this met for the first time in 1971. Later Archbishop Coggan called the first Primate’s Meeting as meeting in which the leaders of the provinces could meet together, reflect on matters of mutual concern between the meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council.

From 1968 black bishops started to appear in greater numbers; at first their voice was reticent and hesitant but confidence was not long in coming. I recall the 1988 Lambeth Conference when Desmond Tutu, David Gitari, and other African bishops spoke with power and exhorted the Conference to speak on behalf of the poor and victimized. The 1998 Conference, over which I presided, saw the greatest number of bishops ever coming together for mutual prayer, shared counsel and to debate issues that threatened our common life. The Resolutions of the Conference were an important part of the assembly because they witnessed to common agreement. Although they had no power over the Communion to coerce provinces to follow suit, they had strong moral force. Many of the Resolutions on moral, social, political as well as mission issues were issued at the request of Provinces which needed the strength of the Communion behind them.

However, it was at the 1988 Lambeth Conference that storm clouds started to appear. The issue at the time was the Ordination of women as priests. It is now forgotten that Archbishop Robert Runcie’s great concern was the unity of the Communion. Presciently, Robert addressed the theological problem head-on. He stressed interdependence over autonomy. In his powerful opening address to the 1988 Lambeth Conference he set out the alternatives for the Anglican Communion. While arguing that the survival of Anglicanism was not an end in itself because the Anglican churches have never claimed to be more than a part of the ‘One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’. Therefore Anglicanism has a “radically provisional character which we must never allow to be obscured.”

One aspect of Anglicanism, he argued, is its ‘Reformation inheritance of national or provincial autonomy’. It is opposed to centralism encourages variety. He acknowledged this as a great good. While Anglicans speak of a “dispersed authority” and want nothing to do with developing an alternative Papacy, nevertheless he believed there were problems on the horizon which the current Anglican structures couldn’t cope with.

“It can be put this way: are we being called through events and their theological interpretation to move from independence to interdependence? If we answer yes, then we cannot dodge the question of how this is to be given ‘flesh’: how is our interdependence articulated and made effective; how is it to be structured? Without losing a proper – but perhaps modified – provincial autonomy this will probably mean a critical examination of the notion of ‘dispersed authority. We need to have confidence that authority is not dispersed to the point of dissolution and ineffectiveness.”

He put it in starker terms at the end of his talk: “I believe the choice between independence and interdependence already set before us as a Communion in embryo 25 years ago, is quite simply the choice between unity or gradual fragmentation.”

Of course, Archbishop Runcie also appointed the first Eames Commission to attempt to resolve the crisis brought about by the ordination of women both as priests and bishops. This was also a steer towards greater consultation on divisive matters, and a structure that could cope with division.

During my time as Archbishop the importance of the Communion to the office of Archbishop of Canterbury continued to develop as did the structures. It was clear following the Rwanda genocide that in certain situations only an Archbishop of Canterbury could intervene, with the advice of the Primates and in certain final cases such as the ratification of a new constitution, the Anglican Consultative Council. A yearly primates’ meeting was also to follow, to develop policy between the Lambeth Conference’s, and the importance of the Joint Standing Committee also came to be seen as a kind of executive holding the ACC, Primates, and Lambeth Conferences together between meetings. In other words, this trajectory of the post-war period was being developed under each Archbishop of Canterbury, often in response to crisis, undergirded by the ecumenical dialogues and with full agreement of the Communion. Resolutions of both the Lambeth Conferences and the Anglican Consultative speak of a desire to move closer together in greater mutuality and interdependence.

The Anglican Communion has been moving from provincial autonomy to closer interdependence for well over a century. Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference have repeatedly called for this. Furthermore, the structures have developed in the post-war period, as a result of both historical pressure, ecumenical dialogue and conflict towards a trajectory of interdependence. It is only since 2003 that this interdependence and mutuality has seriously been questioned. After all, provincial autonomy might very well be the state of affairs we’re living with today, but it is not a theological principle in and of itself. It is not congruent with New Testament ecclesiology, but merely a by-product of the early-modern-era in which the nation-state was emerging at exactly the same moment as the Reformation. In short, provincial autonomy may be a valuable thing, but it is not the goal of a Church – unity and mission are goals– separation and fragmentation are not.

So, let me summarise. The Anglican Instruments of Unity have arisen primarily out of conflict, and a desire to be true to our ecumenical goals. In 1867 the Lambeth Conference came into being as a result of the Colenso crisis. 1968 saw the introduction of the Anglican Consultative Council as part of the post-war era of building international institutions to bring lay leadership into the task of handling disputes, misunderstandings and challenges. The Primates Meeting came on the cusp of the great debates over women’s ordination and has had an important role ever since.

But let us go back to the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In short he invites, presides and recognises.

These three characteristics give the office of Archbishop its role at the heart of the Anglican Communion. Although only the ‘Primus inter pares’, the Archbishop of Canterbury is president of the Anglican Communion – He presides over each of its instruments of unity. The Archbishops have always resisted a patriarchal or papal role in Anglican Communion affairs, but they have a very real influence. They can steer, push and lead but they can’t rule.

There is however some direct power which the Archbishop can have. Firstly, they invite to the Lambeth Conference. Archbishops of Canterbury can use this power to invite Anglican bishops from all over the world, but they can also withhold invitations, as they have done, for example, to the AMiA bishops, or historically bishops of the Church of England in South Africa.

Secondly, Archbishops of Canterbury ‘recognise’ who is Anglican and who is not. Although this is a task of consultation with the Archbishop of York, and the Primates, there is a real sense in which the Archbishop of Canterbury has a personal ministry of recognising whom he is in communion with. Although it is the Anglican Consultative that deals legislatively deals with a new Province, the Archbishop of Canterbury has a crucial role in first recognising that province, as I had with the Province of Korea and Hong Kong.

Thirdly, the presidential role in the Anglican Communion is an important role that the Archbishop of Canterbury plays. He does so, not as a kind of patriarch, nor by chairing sessions of the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and so on. The Archbishop of Canterbury leads by having a goal and a vision for the Communion. The Communion may be, to quote the familiar mantra of the Communion - Episcopally led and synodically-governed. But this leadership can only be conducted with the agreement of the Communion and its instruments.

The two new developments in the office of Archbishop since 2003 might give us pause for thought. First of all, the Archbishop of Canterbury has come to be known as a ‘focus of unity’ rather than an ‘instrument of unity’. Secondly, the Archbishop of York has been appointed to the Primates’ Meeting to represent the Church of England. It is puzzling to know what these changes have done to the role of Archbishop of Canterbury in the Anglican Communion. Do they give the office of Archbishop a more passive, reflective role in the life of the Communion, or a more patriarchal one? Has there been sufficient discussion of these changes, and how they might effect the future ministry of Archbishops of Canterbury? If it is true that the Instruments of Unity have to be given a personal face through the office of Archbishop exercising his ministry alongside them, is there a danger that these changes will have left the Archbishop of Canterbury in a purely passive, mediatory role, stripping him of the potential to lead?

The other instruments of unity

Since 2003 there has been an undercurrent of conflict among the instruments of unity. The Lambeth Conference has come under severe criticism since 1998 because it does not represent clergy and laity, the Primates meeting has been criticised for overstepping its powers, and the democratic make-up of the Anglican Consultative Council has also come under scrutiny. Even the office of Archbishop has come under attack by those who object to his historical role.

Yet is there any reason to think that however much we tinker with the bureaucratic structures our problems will be solved in the Anglican Communion? We can take the ‘New Labour’ route of throwing as many new initiatives as we want at the crisis, but the basic theological problem remains. The Anglican Communion instruments are all we have. It may well be that an Anglican Communion Covenant will solve the underlying problem of an ‘authority deficit’, but agreement over the covenant remains some way off. In the meantime, the Anglican Communion has to be led and the Communion has to struggle to work as a united body.

What then is the present situation?

A realistic view might conclude rather starkly that it is far from clear if the Instruments of Unity have much of a future! The convening power of the ABC is apparently diminished as over 300 bishops declined his invitation to the last Lambeth Conference – an historically unprecedented event. We should not underestimate the significance of such absenteeism. Regrettable though I consider such the absence of many African bishops, the procession of bishops as the opening Service of the last Lambeth Communion revealed the crisis of the Communion as it was overwhelmingly white.
This in turn undermined the significance of the Lambeth Conference itself which was made to look additionally irrelevant by the fact it was allowed to take no decisions (such as it might have done on the Covenant which by rights should have been thrashed out there rather than by the ACC). And the ACC itself looks an increasingly odd body as it struggles to fulfill with more enhanced powers that he had to start with, on a budget that is wholly inadequate. While it makes much commotion about being the only international body to involve the laity, there are real questions concerning if these members are truly representative of men and women in the pew.

The one instrument of Unity that seems to have been emerging into a position of strength in recent decades is that of the Primates' meeting but predictably that trend is vigorously resisted by the ACC which feels threatened by it while certain Provinces -notably in North America – desire total autonomy theologically from the Communion, while at the same time imposing total autocracy within their boundaries. This, ironically and oddly in such a democratic nation as the United States – the land of the free and the home of the brave – a system of Prince Bishops has arisen who appear to have unfettered control over their (rapidly diminishing) flocks from which are being driven out all who dissent from the regnant liberalism.lay people are very important, but surely we are an EPISCOPAL church and there should be no embarrassment or hesitation about empowering Primates in the Church to have real and special authority within our international councils. Those who want to resist this are surely fighting for a different idea of the church from the one Anglicanism has inherited.

So, the question is: Are we heading ever more towards a loose federation of ecclesial bodies, united by a shared history becoming more and more distant, and tied by bonds of affection – or are we serious about being a Communion, united by doctrine and a shared faith, and thus willing to pay the price this will entail to recover what we have lost?

That is a wonderful dream. Is there any evidence that Anglican leaders are willing to pay the price? Let me quote my own son in the current edition of the Church of England Newspaper. Andrew writes: ‘The problem that Anglicanism essentially has is one of ‘authority-deficit’. By that I mean we have no structures, nor any agreed-upon adjudication that can deal with the radically different interpretations of Christianity that we actually have. Does the latest version of the long-mooted Anglican Covenant, now known as the Ridley-Cambridge draft, address this deficit? Much of the Covenant’s language is merely descriptive of the Anglican Communion as it is now. It is composed of autonomous provinces which for a long time have been on a trajectory of greater interdependence. Its Instruments of Unity have grown and developed over centuries in response to a desire for greater mutuality, ecumenical dialogue as well as conflict and crisis. The Anglican Communion as we have it today is an historical accident. No-one would have invented an untidy mess like it had they been allowed to start from scratch. But since we can’t start from scratch we can do our best to scrape together something that at least might halt the fragmentation and schism which none of us really desire’.

The sorrowful conclusion is that the Episcopal Church of the United States, by ordaining Gene Robinson, against the strong advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the moral authority of Lambeth ’98, the appeals of the primates’ meeting, has led the Anglican Communion into the worst crisis it has ever faced and from which it is unlikely to recover. Indeed, the African Churches, by far the strongest part of our Communion, will only cease their support of traditionalists in ECUSA if Gene Robinson leaves and a moratorium on ordaining practicing homosexuals and lesbians is made. Since that is not likely to happen, we should in all honesty give up any pretence of being a Communion and acknowledge that we are a Federation of Episcopal Churches. This gloomy conclusion however offers the Anglican Communion Partners a real role in building bridges, encouraging growth and preparing for that day – should it come – when new leaders will arise in the States and Canada who will value the Communion and align ECUSA and the Canadian Church with the rest of us. We will be waiting in hope.