EDITOR'S
NOTEBOOK
(From the December 2002 Issue of the Anglican Free Press, Volume 19, Number 4)
By the Rev'd Gavin Dunbar
Apostasy and Fidelity in New Westminster
The flow of self-righteous sophistry from Bishop Ingham has indeed been impressive. The measure passed by the synod of New Westminster and approved by him does not break with the Church's teaching on marriage, because it is only the blessing of same-sex unions - as if the doctrine of marriage applied only to those within it. The measure does not need approval from the wider church, because it is a matter of local mission - in which case everything, surely, is a matter of local mission. It is the blunt criticism from the Archbishop of Canterbury that is imperiling the unity of the Anglican Communion, not the unilateral action of the dioceses of New Westminster- a comment Herod Antipas might have levelled at John the Baptist. It is not correct to say that New Westminster has acted without regard for the Anglican Communion's teaching on marriage, as recently reaffirmed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference - because the synod and bishop were fully aware of the Lambeth resolution when they decided to ignore it. Canadian civil law is "far advanced" on same-sex rights and equality - as if the teaching of the Church were determined by secular authorities. And so on. The more he wraps himself in a fog of obfuscation, the more nakedly he exposes the arrogance and emptiness of his position.
The flow of sophistry cannot, however, altogether disguise the fact that the Bishop and Synod of New Westminster have unilaterally broken with the Anglican Communion's teaching on marriage. In consequence, a number of dissenting parishes in that diocese (notably the great evangelical parish of St. John's Shaughnessy), which have banded together as the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW), have declared themselves determined to abide in that teaching , and therefore to be out of communion with Bishop Ingham. It is a difficult position. Of course the Bishop has offered them certain guarantees - at the cost of submission - but bitter experience has shown those to be worthless in the long run. At this point, it is not clear to an outside what other prospects lie before them, though no doubt they are being vigorously explored.
If there is one hopeful sign in this situation, it is that institutional solidarity, which was just about the sole dogma of the liberals over the past thirty years, shows signs of crumbling. Michael Ingham, for all his Martin-Luther (King) posturings, is an establishment figure, the Primate's former secretary, a Canadian representative on the Anglican Consultative Council, a Church House darling. Nevertheless, he and his synod haven't found it difficult to defy the House of Bishops' guidelines despite repeated warnings. In a much quieter way, the conservative minority in the House of Bishops, by maintaining a united and public line of criticism of Bishop Ingham, have also helped to stick the knife into institutional solidarity. After a thirty-year trend towards bureaucratic centralization, we are now increasingly a Church composed of dioceses in ever-looser association. With courage, and patience, from the faithful in New Westminster, this could well work to their advantage.
Like other parishes before them which have sought to maintain the Anglican tradition of Christianity (in various other aspects, such as ordained ministry or liturgy) against a revolutionary agenda adopted by the diocesan bishop, they face a costly fight to amintain the integrity of their religious convictions. They deserve the fullest sympathy and support from other orthodox Anglicans, at least in word and in prayer. Even more so, they force us to consider once again how we are to deal with the decay of the Christian churches in the West. One could do worse than to ponder these words of Robert Crouse, from a paper on "Tradition and Renewal" delivered at the 1993 Atlantic Theological Conference:
"In our present predicament, we naturally look for shortcuts, or at least for clear and feasible and practical solutions. But I'm afraid that our situation admits of no easy answers.
I tell you naught for your comfort,Obviously, Anglicanism is in deep trouble, and one naturally casts about for remedies or alternatives. But such alternatives as I've heard suggested seem, to me, impossibly abstract - for me, at least. Although I have the greatest respect for other forms of Christian tradition, Anglicanism is the way in which I am Christian - it's the shape of my Christian memoria, and it's not really optional for me. And, as a matter of fact, I think that the malaise that afflicts Anglicanism afflicts the whole of Christiandom (indeed, the whole of modern culture), although the disease must work itself out. Insofar as our criterion is experience, it will only be by bitter and devastating experience that we shall learn the limits and insufficiency of subjective freedom.
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.
[G.K. Chesterton, "Ballad of the White Horse"]
I think we must be prepared to suffer the aberrations, and hold fast, learning what it means to rejoice in tribulations, until the time of renewal comes. Now is a time of testing: hold fast and carry on. Your faith is after all more precious than gold, which is tried by fire....
....Finally, may I add just a word of advice from a great Father of the Church, St. Gregory the Great, who sent St. Augustine to Canterbury; St. Gregory the Great, who lived and worked amidst the ruins of civilization. "In the midst of the unsteady flow of time" says St. Gregory, "the man of God knows how to keep steady the steps of his mind" (Moralia in Job xxxi, 28, 55]. We might do well to heed the advice and emulated the example of Gregory, whose epitaph says, "In a straitened age, he disdained to be discouraged, though the world failed." Wonderful words: "He disdained to be discouraged." Let us disdain to be discouraged!
The See of Canterbury
After last summer's dramatic events in the diocese of New Westminster, came the appointment of Rowan Williams, the present Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Monmouth, as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury. With his bushy eyebrows and white beard, he also looks rather like a wizard misplaced from a "Harry Potter" movie, or one of the old Welsh bards with whose modern guild he is associated. An academic theologian - he occupied the prestigious poast of Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and wrote a well-received book on the Arian heresy - he is closely associated with the Cambridge-based theological movement know as "radical orthodoxy" as well as the somewhat more nebulous movement know as "affirming catholicism".Much more could be said about "radical orthodoxy", but it is a rather dubious theological project that does not provide Christian orthodoxy the stable theological and historical foundation it promises. In terms of "Style" and "issues" the combination of radical orthodoxy and affirming catholicism means high-church Anglo-Catholicism in ceremonial and spirituality, a certain orthodoxy in doctrines touching credal faith (such as the corporeal reality of the Resurrection ) and a certain radicalism in everything else. He is personally in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England; of women priests and bishops; of the recognition of stable homosexual relationships; and of new liturgies; and he is sharply critical of the sexualisation of young children and of western military responses to terrorism.
As for Williams' likely institutional influence, he will be Archbishop for a long time. He is only 52 years old and does not have to retire until he is 70 - one would be a fool to predict the trajectory of such a long period of time. He has already signalled a tack towards the centre, as indeed he must. In a letter to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, on July 23rd, he distinguished between "personal theories and interpretations and the majority conviction of my Church". "An archbishop is not someone elected to fulfil a programme or manifesto of his own devising, but to serve the whole Communion. He does not have the freedom to prescribe belief for the Church at large".
In particular, "the Lambeth resolution of 1998 [on sexuality] declares what is the mind of the overwhelming majority of the Communion, and what the Communion will and will not approve or authorise." However, he makes clear that his own support for this resolution is rather minimal: "I accept that any individual diocese or even province that officially overturns or repudiates this resolution poses a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion" (emphasis added). He does not express the hope "that we can bold to the urgent common priority of mission and evangelism, and avoid the temptation of becoming trapped in questions where the politics of our culture sets the agenda". Yet it is hard to see how he is going to prevent that happening, when it is precisely the "politics of our culture" that "sets the agenda" for many North American, and English, bishops. The advocates of socially 'progressive' causes, are probably right therefore, to welcome his appointment. If they cannot expect to receive outright support from him of their agenda, they can certainly expect him to offer it less resistance.
What is Bishop Williams' solution to "a substantial problem for the sacramental unity of the Communion"? He hints: "my main hope will be to try and maintain a prayerful listening to Scripture envisaged by Lambeth". It's not a very promising assurance. It sounds rather like the usual p.c. cant, ostensibly espousing a cautious moderation while in fact permissive in the face of radical change. By now, we know what "prayerful listening" too often means: endless "dialogue" in which all points of view are entertained equally, and leading to the overturning of the official consensus. And it is a long way from what is actually needed: punitive sanctions against the offenders, whereby they suffer the consequences of their actions. Unsurprisingly, many conservatives have low expectations of this new Archbishop. It will be up to him to prove that he can be trusted with his office and its influence.
- END -
© St. Peter Pubications, Charlottetown, PEI, Canada, 2002.
All rights reserved.