Category Archives: ang communion

The esse of the church

Posted on by

This might have been titled ‘Starting to leave the ABC’, as I am continuing to muse on and digest Rowan’s recent letter… Click ‘full post’ for text.

What is an apostle – what does it mean to be an apostolic church (as claimed in the creed)? ‘Apostle’ literally means one who is sent – as when early in his ministry Jesus sent his disciples out in pairs to preach to the people of Israel – but more commonly it means to be a witness to the resurrection. This after all is the historical origin of the church, and that is the sense in which St Paul is an apostle, following Road to Damascus experience.

Now one of the ways in which the church has understood itself to be in succession to the apostles is through the laying on of hands, whereby Peter and the apostles laid hands on the first Bishops, and they then laid hands on their successors down the generations. Now this is a deeply rooted biblical principle, whereby spiritual gifts are passed on in this manner. Consider Moses (Deut 34.9), St Peter (Acts 8.17) and the advice in Hebrews 6.1-2.

However, this is, to say the least, a source of some debates between different denominations. To put the question formally, is the laying on of hands the sine qua non of apostolic faith? This is a particular debate between the Church of England and the Methodist church – for the Methodist claim is that whilst there was no explicit transmission of apostolicity in terms of an episcopal laying on of hands and consecration, nevertheless the apostolic faith is preserved in the Methodist church. What might that mean?

Well, if the heart of apostolicity is witnessing to the resurrection then we can ask: what does it mean to be a witness? Surely the heart of witnessing to the resurrection is the transformation of life within the believing community, ie the presence of the fruits of the spirit. In other words, where there is the presence of love as a way of life, modelled on Christ’s own love for his community, then that is a sign that the apostolic faith is present. This would seem to be especially so when a way of life is modelled at great expense, eg martyrdom or other extreme sufferings.

So why am I musing on this at the moment? Consider Rowan’s letter to the Central Floridians, where he said:

The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing… I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.

Now I can understand what Rowan is getting at with these remarks – in one sense it is a straightforward declaration of catholic ecclesiology, one with which I have customarily been in instinctive sympathy. Yet what the remarks have clarified for me is an increasing awareness that this catholic ecclesiology is insufficient, and potentially harmful. I’m not about to become a congregationalist but I’m much more open than I have been to that perspective. In large part it’s the impact of spending time getting to know my colleagues in the other churches on the island (I’m chair of our Churches Together organisation). What I want to ask is: what is missing when this catholic ecclesiology is absent? Or, to put that differently, in what way (if any) is, say, a Methodist Christian lacking something? The answer I would want to try and explore would involve some sort of description of the wider church, ie that episcopacy in this catholic sense is precisely about acknowledging being a part of a wider whole, and acknowledging the boundaries of unity set up by that wider whole.

The trouble is that this wider whole is itself fragmented, the fundamental fragmentation coming in the 11th century between East and West. In this situation of brokenness an insistence on catholic unity can itself undermine the more fundamental purpose of witnessing to the apostolic faith itself. That is, the preservation of a catholic ecclesiology can itself prevent the Christ-like love which is the primary hallmark of apostolic witness. This seems especially likely in the US.

It seems particularly bizarre in Anglican terms to elevate this catholic ecclesiology above the national identity, for the Church of England was formed as national church; as I understand it, the CofE is in its self understanding ‘the church in England’, ie the catholic church as defined by national boundaries. (John Richardson has an extremely interesting post on this here with which I am in much sympathy. I often find myself in sympathy with John’s point of view, even when I disagree with him, which some might find surprising). I have often thought that, with regard to the Reformation debates, and the Roman Catholic dismissal of the validity of Anglican orders, the important point was the continuity of the church communities in place; in other words, that Christ remained present with his people no matter what was going on in the stratosphere of Kings and Popes. The real problem with that, though, is that the acceptance of other Christian denominations in the 19th Century was the most important change in Anglican ecclesiology – for that turned the Church of England from being simply the catholic church in this land into just another denomination.

I’m coming to the conclusion that the Church of England is about to metamorphose. I was tempted to say ‘die’ but one of the things I ponder much is the high quality of people whom I see as potential ordinands (I’m Warden of Ordinands in this area of Essex). God is really much too busy with strengthening the resources of the church beneath the surface for the CofE to simply ‘die’; there’s also the small matter of establishment which acts like the lead keel allowing the yacht to withstand the harshest of storms. I wonder if there is a place that members of Fulcrum and Affirming Catholicism could stand in, as that might be the form which ‘inherits’ the structures of the CofE (see this post). A secondary question is: would I want to stand there? As time goes on I am more and more committed to the essential task of gathering the Body together – that’s what this current Learning Church sequence is really all about. Fragmentation is a sin – yet we are mired in sin and cannot avoid it. We are going to be forced to choose.

More worried

Posted on by

I try not to say anything too often about the Anglican Communion controversies, but I’ve just read a letter from Rowan that I find really strange. I had thought I could understand – and sympathise – with his approach, but this one is staggering. It’ll take me some time to digest. It’s the abandonment of provincial authority which is mind-bending – he appears to be inviting dioceses to reject archi-episcopal authority. It’s as if he is expecting a) the broader communion to reject TEC; b) TEC to split; and c) some TEC dioceses to ‘abandon the sinking ship’.

If that IS what he’s arguing for then for the first time I might find myself really disagreeing with the ABC, something I never thought I’d say. It’ll take me some time to be convinced of that though.

The text of the letter is here.
Some analysis at Fr Jake and ‘The Blog’ (via MP).
I’d be keen to know what *Christopher or James Alison make of it all.

One other thing I’ve been pondering (partly as a spin off from the Learning Church talks – which I think I will do a write up of here, to compensate for the recording failure): the TEC struggle is often presented as being between the biblically conservative and the socially liberal. When thought of like that I’m quite clear that the ‘biblically conservative’ are no such thing and whatever else I might think about these issues I would not be standing with them. Yet there seems to me to be a large number of ‘middle voices’ (this is one) who don’t fit into either category. I take the line of episcopal authority very seriously – which is why I think the episcopi vagranti are much greater offences against orthodoxy than Gene Robinson. Assuming that he is, of course, and I’m not persuaded of that by any means. Actually that sounds mealy-mouthed. I recognise him as a Bishop, validly elected and consecrated, and I think it’s a good thing on the whole. I just think that there are lots of other issues and noises going on here which confuse the issue and TEC has this reliable habit of shooting itself in the foot and telling the rest of the world ‘go f___ yourself’ which is rather unattractive in a Christian body however understandable it is in terms of US history and culture.

I just wonder what the ‘blowback’ of all this is going to be in England. Clearly the Scottish Episcopal church will stick with TEC, and it won’t be the only one. I had been expecting the “biblical conservatives” to split off – but if Rowan’s strategy is what this letter indicates then he will be strengthening that faction – which is frankly a distinct minority in the CofE – and antagonising (inviting to leave?) a rather larger cohort of moderately progressive clergy and congregations. In other words, it seems to me that if the “biblical conservatives” were the ones to leave then the status quo was essentially tenable. There would be turbulence, but in ten, fifteen years time the CofE would be recognisably the same. The only difference would be that the closeted gay bishops would be publicly accepted gay bishops. This way round though…. a phrase about nails and coffins comes to mind, especially when taken in conjunction with the women bishops issue.

I’m just worried, much more worried than I have been for a while.

UPDATE: I found this quite comforting as a summary of Rowan’s letter:

It seems to me that Rowan Williams is implying the following:

– ‘Windsor bishops-and-dioceses’ should not contemplate realignment with ‘other provinces’ because to do so would not ‘improve’ their stature in terms of Anglican unity and identity.
– ‘Windsor priests’ should not contemplate realignment with ‘other provinces’ because to abandon sacramental [union] with their ‘Windsor Bishop and Diocese’ would threaten their stature in terms of Anglican unity and identity.

Bishops

Posted on by


Dave Walker puts his finger on it once more.

Got me to thinking about what a difficult job Bishops do, and what I think about situations like this. Seems to me that:

– part of the definition of accepting Bishops is accepting their eucharistic ministry;
– rejecting the administration of communion whilst accepting ordination from the same bishop tells of an utterly bankrupt understanding of the sacraments;
– if this is rejected then pretty much the whole structure of Anglicanism is rejected. So why stay?

If you haven’t got an idea what I’m talking about then a) you’re a lucky person, and b) you can go here for the story.

UPDATE: John Richardson always writes stimulating stuff (that means: he’s got a very well thought through position that I often disagree with!), but this post is excellent, and worthy of much pondering.

A real church

Posted on by

After all my reflections on lay presidency, the Holy Father reiterates the Roman perspective that the CofE isn’t a real church in any case, because it doesn’t recognise him as head of the church in the sense that he wants to be recognised. Ah well.

As I think I’ve said before, I serve a community that worships in a place that has seen continuous worship in the name of Jesus for well over a thousand years. I’m enough of a bottom-up congregationalist to think that this is important, and that the corruptions of Popes and Kings don’t overcome that essential fact.

Until we are ALL united, none of us can claim to be THE church. I do see the Pope as the successor of Peter, and I do think that says something significant – I just think that Peter would have less concern for central control and precedent.

“It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us….”

Wily Welshmen

Posted on by

In the midst of great busyness I’m catching up on a few blogs I haven’t read for a bit – and was glad to find a point of view on ++Rowan that chimes with my own perceptions (ie it isn’t all hate):

…it appears to me that this current action on the part of the wily Welshman is a diplomatic move that gives +Abuja every reason to refuse to remain in Communion with Canterbury. As the Church of Nigeria constitution has already been amended to pave the way, it is now a simple matter to stroll apart in a globally southern manner.

See in particular the comment from Nicholas the Wonder Worker below the main post. Rowan is playing a much deeper game than people give him credit for, including people one might expect to have the charity and intelligence to have perceived it.

Prayer, friendship and Christian Unity

Posted on by

Reading this post at one of my favourite blogsites reminds me of the sermon I preached last Sunday. I’ve gone off posting sermons on the blog – it’s a bit like drinking left-over beer the morning after – and these days my sermons tend just to be a list of bullet points anyhow – but writing this one up into something coherent might have some merit (and I can make some things even clearer in the rendition). Click full post for text.

In our gospel reading this morning we have the climax of Jesus’ teaching at the Last Supper (John 17.20-end) and it takes the form of a prayer. I’d like to begin my remarks this morning by repeating some general points about prayer, because it is something that I get asked about a lot.

The first point to make about prayer is that it is about a relationship, the relationship that you have between you and God. As with any relationship it requires time if it isn’t to wither, and the more time that you give to it, the deeper the relationship will become. What keeps the relationship going is communication, and communication needs to be a two way thing. If you had a relationship with someone who spent all their time talking and never listening to a word you said then that relationship would need some fairly fundamental repair work if it was going to have a future. The same thing applies to your relationship with God – you need to spend at least half the time listening, even more than 50% if you think that what God has to say is more important than what you have to say.

The second thing that I would emphasise is honesty. There is absolutely no point in offering up a piety which isn’t rooted in your own heart. If what you really desire is a bright red Ferrari, or to win the lottery, it is absolutely pointless to spend your prayer time asking for world peace or an end to hunger. God isn’t deceived by this – the only person being deceived is yourself. So if you want a red Ferrari – pray for a red Ferrari! The whole point about prayer is that it is a process of learning to be honest with ourselves – and therefore to become more intimately acquainted with our deepest desires. For as Augustine put it, our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God – and nothing else will satisfy us. Prayer is the way in which we learn this truth about ourselves, as we journey inwards and find God within.

A further aspect about prayer – about listening to God – is bound up with the notion of obedience and submission. Now this is difficult. It isn’t something to be attempted half-heartedly, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is terribly difficult to follow God’s will – much easier to follow our own – and we know this because even Jesus found it hard. Think of Gethsemane, when Jesus was sweating blood because it was so difficult. Yet it is very much the point of prayer – of conforming our will to God’s will.

And when we can do this – on those occasions that we do manage to do this – then our prayers are rewarded and we develop a fundamental trust in God and his purposes for us and for the world. The thing is, God is in charge and his purposes will be accomplished. When we spend time in prayer; when we nurture our relationship with Him and listen to His will for us; when we finally start to see that God is God – then we receive a gift, the peace which this world cannot give. We don’t have to take all the burdens of the world upon our shoulders; we can simply get on with being obedient, and leaving the big questions to Him.

My heart is not proud, O LORD, my eyes are not haughty; I do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me.
But I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with its mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me.
O Israel, put your hope in the LORD both now and forevermore.

So why am I talking about prayer today? Well, my fundamental point will become clear in a moment, but surely if ever someone’s prayer is going to be answered, surely Jesus’ prayer will be? And what is Jesus praying for?

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.

Jesus is praying that all who believe in him might be one, that there might be Christian unity, and that this unity is not simply the witness to the glory of Christian truth, but that this unity is how Christ is within us – that it is how we share in the life of the Trinity.

Surely some mistake? How can Jesus’ prayer have been answered, when we just look around us at the ways that Christians accuse each other and break with each other?

Let’s return to what prayer is about. It is about developing a relationship, and it is about submitting our will to God’s will. That is, it is not about our feelings but about aligning our desires and choices with God’s desires and choices. For God’s will shall be accomplished, and we either fall in with that or we resist it.

And do we believe that Jesus’ will was aligned with that of the Father? And if so, is Jesus’ prayer answered or not?

It seems to me that it is answered; put differently, it means that Christian Unity – when we are all one and the glory of the gospel is manifested to the world – is not something that we have to achieve or accomplish, it is something that we have to discover. It already exists. It is simply that the desires of our sinful and fallen world do a very good job of obscuring that reality from our vision.

The truth is that our salvation, our unity, this is not an individualistic thing. It is not a case of all signing up to the same doctrinal basis of faith, or all agreeing on the same form of words. That is the unity of a Nuremberg rally; it is not the unity of the Trinity. We are made in the image of God – and that image is fundamentally personal and relational – in other words our identity as human beings is found first and foremost through our relationships with one another.

So how then are we to discover this Christian Unity which is Christ’s bequest to us? I think there is a simple word which sums it up: friendship. No longer do I call you servants but I call you friends, for I have made everything known to you. It is through the pursuit of friendship that we discover our unity as Christians – a unity which is embedded much more deeply within us than our own self-image, for it is an essential aspect of being made in the image of God. Friendship with other Christians is, then, our duty and our joy.

Of course, another way of describing a friend is companion – the one with whom we break bread. I am sympathetic to the idea that sharing communion is not the final sign of the achievement of unity, but the principal way in which that unity is revealed. Yet that is a discussion all of its own.

I believe that friendship is the fundamental theological category – and imperative! – needed for exploring Christian unity. That is, it is precisely through forming friendships with others, not friendships with a hidden agenda, seeking to convert or dominate, but a friendship modelled on the pattern of Christ himself – without judgement, without condemnation, with love, with acceptance – it is this friendship, the gradual deepening awareness one with another, it is this which allows us to discover our unity, and which allows us to participate in the difference and unity of the Trinity.

I believe that friendship stands to Christian unity in the way that prayer stands to our relationship with God, and that they are the virtues which correspond to our keeping the two great commandments. Prayer is how we love God; friendship is how we love our neighbour; and it is through the pursuit of these two things that Christ’s image is revealed in us. So let us commit ourselves anew to prayer, to friendship, and to the breaking of bread. Amen.