Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent letter to Primates
To
Primates of the Anglican Communion &
Moderators of the United Churches
Greetings in the name of the One ‘who is and was and is to come, the
Almighty’, as we prepare in this Advent season to celebrate once
more his first coming and pray for the grace to greet him when he
comes in glory.
You will by now, I hope, have received my earlier letter summarising
the responses from Primates to the Joint Standing Committee’s
analysis of the New Orleans statement from the House of Bishops of
The Episcopal Church. In that letter, I promised to write with some
further reflections and proposals, and this is the purpose of the
present communication. Although I am writing in the first instance
to my fellow-primates, I hope you will share this letter widely with
your bishops and people.
As I said in that earlier letter, the responses received from
primates differed in their assessment of the situation. Slightly
more than half of the replies received signalled a willingness to
accept the Joint Standing Committee’s analysis of the New Orleans
statement, but the rest regarded both the statement and the Standing
Committee’s comments as an inadequate response to what had been
requested by the primates in Dar-es-Salaam.
So we have no consensus about the New Orleans statement. It is also
the case that some of the more negative assessments from primates
were clearly influenced by the reported remarks of individual
bishops in The Episcopal Church who either declared their
unwillingness to abide by the terms of the statement or argued that
it did not imply any change in current policies. It should be noted
too that some of the positive responses reflected a deep desire to
put the question decisively behind us as a Communion; some of these
also expressed dissatisfaction with our present channels of
discussion and communication.
Where does this leave us as a Communion? Because we have no single
central executive authority, the answer to this is not a simple one.
However, it is important to try and state what common ground there
is before we attempt to move forward; and it is historically an
aspect of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to ‘articulate
the mind of the Communion’ in moments of tension and controversy, as
the Windsor Report puts it (para. 109). I do so out of the profound
conviction that the existence of our Communion is truly a gift of
God to the wholeness of Christ’s Church and that all of us will be
seriously wounded and diminished if our Communion fractures any
further; but also out of the no less profound conviction that our
identity as Anglicans is not something without boundaries. What I am
writing here is an attempt to set out where some of those boundaries
lie and why they matter for our witness to the world as well as for
our own integrity and mutual respect.
The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses;
and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but
on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other
local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and
are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate
who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To
put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the
same ‘constitutive elements’ in one another. This means in turn that
each local church receives from others and recognises in others the
same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to
engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.
So a full relationship of communion will mean:
(i) The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of
Scripture as ‘the rule and ultimate standard of faith’, in the words
of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy
Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers
and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the
living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of
Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our
listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both
offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the
Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one
another ‘standing under’ the word of Scripture. Because of this
recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the
interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process.
Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be
undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in
the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition
alone.
(ii) The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and
Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who
has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts
and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised
as performing the same tasks – of teaching and pastoral care and
admonition, of assembling God’s people for worship, above all at the
Holy Communion. The principle that one local church should not
intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this
trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God
provides what is needed for each local community.
(iii) The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority
of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News.
When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic
ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to
support each other’s efforts to win people for Christ and to serve
the world in his Name. Communion thus means the sharing of resources
and skills in order to enable one another to proclaim and serve in
this way.
It is in this context that we must think about the present crisis,
which is in significant part a crisis about whether we can fully,
honestly and gratefully recognise these gifts in each other.
The debates about sexuality, significant as they may be, are
symptoms of our confusion about these basic principles of
recognition. It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between
those who are ‘for’ and those who are ‘against’ the welcoming of
homosexual people in the Church. The Instruments of Communion have
consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our
Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice
and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of
homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and
loving service that we owe to all in Christ’s name. But the deeper
question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to
be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the
wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name
of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an
acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any
consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change
in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.
This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union
or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the
character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of
whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one
family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family
makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of
Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church,
it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far
they are still speaking the same language. And because what one
local church says is naturally taken as representative of what
others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities
being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which
they simply have not considered.
Where such a situation arises, it becomes important to clarify that
the Communion as a whole is not committed to receiving the new
interpretation and that there must be ways in which others can
appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which
they have not agreed. This is important in our relations with our
own local contexts and equally in our ecumenical (and interfaith)
encounters, to avoid confusion and deep misunderstanding.
The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that,
since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and
understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of
mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits
itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some
to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of
parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for
distant provinces.
Successive Lambeth Conferences and Primates’ Meetings have, however,
cautioned very strongly against such provision. It creates a
seriously anomalous position. It does not appeal to a clear or
universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church’s
ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry
and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal
wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral
care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance. The
view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in
recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It
would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be
overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded,
not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was
so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the
province was undertaking. Without such a condition, the risk is
magnified of smaller and smaller groups taking to themselves the
authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour’s ministerial
life or spiritual authenticity. The gospels and the epistles of Paul
alike warn us against a hasty final judgement on the spiritual state
of our neighbours.
While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed
by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth
Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly
said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference
clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This
is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along
with the common reading of the majority within the Christian
churches worldwide and through the centuries.
Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official
organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene
Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to
same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the
degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family
by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent
advice of the Instruments of Communion. The repeated requests for
clarification to The Episcopal Church, difficult and frustrating as
they have proved for that province, have been an attempt by the
Communion at large to deal with the many anxieties expressed in this
regard. The matter is further complicated by the fact that several
within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of
bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced
themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed
in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops
who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report
in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked
for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical
implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the
situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be
regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common
deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If
their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the
Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church,
they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion. The practical
challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful,
sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own
province and with the wider Communion.
That challenge is not best addressed by a series of ad hoc
arrangements with individual provinces elsewhere, as the Dar-es-Salaam
communiqué made plain. The New Orleans statement, along with many
individual statements by bishops in TEC, expresses the anger felt by
many in the US – as also in Canada – about uncontrolled
intervention, and it is evident that this is not doing anything to
advance or assist local solutions that will have some theological
and canonical solidity.
I believe that we as a Communion must recognise two things in
respect of the current position in TEC. First: most if not all of
the bishops present in New Orleans were seeking in all honesty to
find a way of meeting the requests of the primates and to express a
sense of responsibility towards the Communion and their concern for
and loyalty to it. It is of enormous importance that the Communion
overall does not forget its responsibility to and for that large
body of prayerful opinion in The Episcopal Church which sincerely
desires to work in full harmony with others, particularly those
bishops who have clearly expressed their desire to work within the
framework both of the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions,
and that it does not give way to the temptation to view The
Episcopal Church as a monochrome body. Second: it is practically
impossible to imagine any further elucidation or elaboration coming
from TEC after the successive statements and resolutions from last
year’s General Convention onwards. A good deal of time and effort
has gone into the responses they have already produced, and it is
extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more
substantial consensus than that which is now before us.
The exact interpretation of the New Orleans statements, as the
responses from around the Communion indicate, is disputable. I do
not see how the commitment not to confirm any election to the
episcopate of a partnered gay or lesbian person can mean anything
other than what it says. But the declaration on same-sex blessings
is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous
statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the
Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously
a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what
others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the
name of the Church at large.
A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not
accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation
or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work
remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far
seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected.
Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling
disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam
communiqué expressed profound disquiet on this matter, addressed to
all parties.
A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been
the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General
Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those
in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in
General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the
House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the
Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a
decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological
issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but
about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive
charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for
sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap
between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the
ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and
this needs to be addressed.
The exchange between TEC and the wider Communion has now been
continuing for some four years, and it would be unrealistic and
ungrateful to expect more from TEC in terms of clarification.
Whatever our individual perspectives, I think we need to honour the
intentions and the hard work done by the bishops of TEC. For many of
them, this has been a very costly and demanding experience, testing
both heart and conscience. But now we need to determine a way
forward.
The whole of this discussion is naturally affected by what people
are thinking about the character and scope of the Lambeth
Conference, and I need to say a word about this here. Thus far,
invitations have been issued with two considerations in mind.
First: I have not felt able to invite those whose episcopal
ordination was carried through against the counsel of the
Instruments of Communion, and I have not seen any reason to revisit
this (the reference in the New Orleans statement to the Archbishop
of Canterbury’s ‘expressed desire’ to invite the Bishop of New
Hampshire misunderstands what was said earlier this year, when the
question was left open as to whether the Bishop, as a
non-participant, could conceivably be present as a guest at some
point or at some optional event). And while (as I have said above) I
understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called
to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be
no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or
legitimised by the Communion overall.
I acknowledge that this limitation on invitations will pose problems
for some in its outworking. But I would strongly urge those whose
strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are
prepared to offer for the sake of a Conference that will have some
general credibility in and for the Communion overall.
Second: I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance
of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with
those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing
the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a
Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where
diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to
foreclose the discussion – for example – of what sort of Covenant
document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for
granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the
question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining
tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those
who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how
deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the
Conference’s agenda.
How then should the Lambeth Conference be viewed? It is not a
canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation.
It is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion,
seeking an authoritative common voice. It is also a meeting designed
to strengthen and deepen the sense of what the episcopal vocation
is.
Some reactions to my original invitation have implied that meeting
for prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry
is somehow a way of avoiding difficult issues. On the contrary: I
would insist that only in such a context can we usefully address
divisive issues. If, as the opening section of this letter claimed,
our difficulties have their root in whether or how far we can
recognise the same gospel and ministry in diverse places and
policies, we need to engage more not less directly with each other.
This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth
does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a
challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that
will be as widely owned as may be.
And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a
refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection. We are being
asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part
of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples. I do not think
this is either an incidental matter or an evasion of more basic
questions.
This means some hard reflective work in preparation for the
Conference - including pursuing conversations with each other across
the current divisions. There will also be a number of documents
circulating which will feed into the Conference’s discussions, in
particular the work of the Covenant Design Group, the resources
available from the dialogues with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox
Churches, the Report of the Doctrinal commission and the papers
coming from IASCER. Also significant will be the papers on the core
elements of Anglican ministerial education and formation prepared by
the group advising the Primates on Theological Education in the
Anglican Communion, and the paper on the theology of inter faith
relations prepared by the Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON),
Generous Love.
But direct contact and open exchange of convictions will be crucial.
Whatever happens, we are bound to seek for fruitful ways of carrying
forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or
difficulty to others. Whatever happens, certain aspects of our
‘relational’ communion will continue independently of the debates
and decisions at the level of canons and hierarchies.
Given the differences in response to The Episcopal Church revealed
in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that
there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships
between TEC and other provinces. Much work remains to be done. But –
once again, I refer back to my introductory thoughts – that work is
about some basic questions of fidelity to Scripture and identity in
ministry and mission, not only about the one issue of sexuality. It
is about what it means for the Anglican Communion to behave with a
consistency that allows us to face, both honestly and charitably,
the deeply painful question of who we can and cannot recognise as
sharing the same calling and task.
Finally, what specific recommendations emerge from these thoughts?
I propose two different but related courses of action during the
months ahead. I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated
conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and
those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally,
to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding.
Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will
attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify
ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other
parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and
people who will assist in this.
I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose
task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint
Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth
Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising
from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and
to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the
discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant
process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the
present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual
bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to
participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including
ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current
developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor
and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates’
Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of
bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the
moment, the question of ‘who speaks for the Communion?’ is
surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the
people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in
unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the
Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who
represents the Communion cannot be evaded. The principles set out at
the beginning of this letter will, I hope, assist in clarifying what
needs to be said about this. Not everyone carrying the name of
Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share
as a global fellowship. I continue to hope that the discussion of
the Covenant before, during and beyond Lambeth will give us a
positive rallying-point.
A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at
present seems to presuppose that any change from our current
deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any
such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental
faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined. I
cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as
Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as
we think and pray our way through Advent.
The coming of Christ in the flesh and the declaration of the good
news of his saving purpose was not a matter of human planning and
ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was
a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience
of Mary and whose effect was to create a new community of God’s sons
and daughters. As we look forward, what is there for us to do but
pray, obey and be ready for God’s re-creating work through the
eternal and unchanging Saviour, Jesus Christ?
‘The Spirit and the bride say, “Come”… Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The
grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen’ (Rev.22.17,
20-21).
