A minor revolution may be taking place in the history of the Anglican Communion. Firstly a little historical context is helpful to understand what is being proposed.
The Anglican Communion came into fruition rather organically in the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1787 Charles Inglis, Bishop of Nova Scotia was appointed with Jurisdiction over all of British North America. He was the first of what would become a series of 'Colonial Bishops' appointed by the King within the Church of England. Inglis had sailed to the US on behalf of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, which still exists today in the for of USPG.
Other Colonial Bishops were appointed and a slow process of development through the 19th century led to increasing independence of national Churches under 'Metropolitan Bishops'. In 1841 the Colonial Bishoprics Council was established, which formalised more Dioceses and Metropolitan Bishops and in 1867 the first Lambeth Conference took place at the invitation of Archbishop Longley.
This marked the start of a more fomalised structure, whereby Provinces established effective autonomy from England, which became endorsed under the structures established and agreed globally. It is those structures that we have inherited today.
The strange thing about the Anglican Communion, however, is that in ceding virtually all central authority to its Provinces there remains very little in the institution or structures that join the member provinces together. They are instead bound together by history and by a willingness to call themselves members of a Communion and to meet and work together.
Recently, it is the second of these that has come under significant strain. Member provinces have disagreed on issues of sexuality with such ferocity that some have rejected communion fellowship with other members. Conservative provinces have boycotted attendance at the Lambeth Conference where bishops who have endorsed same-sex marriage and 'liberal' position on sexuality are invited. They have also recognised the break-away Anglican Church of North America and established various forms of collaboration outside the traditional structures of the Anglican Communion. Following the Church of England's more modest proposals under Living in Love and Faith, some have rejected the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury entirely.
Despite this, the actual authority if the Archbishop of Canterbury is very limited. Justin Welby has repeatedly used the phrase 'I'm not a pope' to try to be clear that he is not in a position of direct authority over any of the global provinces of the Anglican Communion except his own.
He holds a traditional position of authority within the communion as a focus for unity, with power only to invite bishops to the Lambeth Conference and to act as President of the Anglican Consultative Council, a body which itself has very limited powers to work collaboratively and advise members church on global affairs.
Nevertheless, if even the Lambeth Conference cannot meet in full and the ACC cannot function effectively due to boycotts, then change must come.
With that context, the Anglican Consultative Council asked the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO), one of its permanent committees, to look at reform. The IASCUFO is made up of 18 members, around two thirds of whom are from the Global South. At the last ACC meeting, the IASCUFO put a report forward proposing further work be done and in response the ACC:
1. Welcomes the proposal from the Inter-Anglican Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) to explore theological questions regarding structure and decision-making to help address our differences in the Anglican Communion;
2. Affirms the importance of seeking to walk together to the highest degree possible, and learning from our ecumenical conversations how to accommodate differentiation patiently and respectfully;
3. Asks the IASCUFO for any proposals that may impact the ACC constitution to be brought for full discussion to the ACC-19 [its next meeting in 2026]; and
4. Asks IASCUFO to proceed with this work and report its progress to the Instruments of Communion
Mouse observes that there are some limits to this brief, in that it comes from the ACC and cannot impact on wider issues beyond the remit of the ACC. As such, some topics such as the role of the Lambeth Conference and the Primates Meetings, two key instruments of communion, are out of scope.
It is also explicit that the remit and purpose of this work is to find ways of resolving our current differences. While some of the commentary talks about post-colonial power structures, the brief was simply to find ways to manage our current differences, so that talk appears to Mouse to be somewhat beside the point.
Bishops at the Lambeth Conference
On 18 December, the IASCUFO published a lenghty report, under the stewardship of our very own Graham Tomlin. It proposes two changes which the report itself accepts are models, but with the hope for more significant impact.
1. To change the description of the Anglican Communion from one which describes provinces as being 'in communion' with Canterbury to merely having a 'historical connection' with Canterbury.
2. To remove the Archbishop of Canterbury from being permanent president of the ACC and introduce a rotating Chair.
The hope is that it will enable the Communion to move on from a period of intense division to one in which members can genuinely 'walk together' while accepting that differences exist. The report is honest about the depth of division, suggesting it may even be an existential threat to the Communion.
The proposals recognises both that member provinces are genuinely autonomous in their decision-making but also want to remain in some way part of a global communion and in downgrading the role of Archbishop of Canterbury also accepts that England is no longer the center of the Anglican world.
If successful, it would mark an extraordinary and unexpected success in Justin Welby's attempts at reconciliation within the Anglican Communion, finally taking practical steps in implementing the declared intention of 'walking together' in some form.
Mouse has a few questions, however.
The obvious question is whether these minor technical changes will be sufficient to placate militarised conservatives who have previously insisted that 'Godly discipline' be exercised over churches which have introduced policies on human sexuality with which they disagree. Mouse is sceptical on that front.
The description of the Anglican Communion to be amended originates only from the 1930 Lambeth Conference. the IASCUFO paper argues that it is de facto the primary definition as it is the one which is most commonly referred to, but it is not something which sits in a formal constitution or legally binding document, so this move is symbolic at best. It may be something which allows those in a form of impaired communion to stay within the Anglican Communion in good conscience, but it doesn't change much in practice.
Secondly, it reduces the concept of Anglicanism to little more than an acceptance of the name. If provinces are no longer willing to say they are actually in communion with each other, then in what way are they actually part of a communion? Mouse could understand a proposal which changed the perspective from being in communion with Canterbury to being in Communion with one another, but simply one which has a historical connection to Canterbury is watered down to homeopathic levels.
Rowan Williams' solution to this connundrum was to attempt to introduce a 'Covenant'. The 1988 Lambeth Conference called for a "common declaration" that would assist a coherent doctrinal identity for the Communion, but no such declaration was produced. In 2004 the Windsor report called for a declaration from provinces to 'bind themselves' to each other by a covenant and a paper was produced by the ACC in 2006 titled Towards an Anglican Covenant discussing a way forward. Rowan Williams ran with the idea as Archbishop, largely in response to the troubles the Communion was finding itself in. But his efforts failed to convince. The final nail in the coffin was a rejection by a majority of the dioceses in the Church of England in 2012, which meant the proposal could not be taken forward in the Church of England. It came shortly before the end of William's retirement and the concept was not taken forward by his successor.
Mouse's final observation is that the process for appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury is underway and under reforms brought about by the Church of England, this includes greater representation from the Anglican Communion in recognition of Canterbury's global role. In July 2022 the rules were changed to include five representatives from the Anglican Communion on the 17 member committee who decides on the new Archbishop and representation from the Diocese of Canterbury was cut from six to three. It is rather unfortunate timing that these are being put into action at the same time as the proposals to significantly downgrade the Archbishop's global role. Had these proposals come sooner it is unlikely the Church of England would have changed the rules on appointing the new Archbishop.
Mouse's final observation is that the process for appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury is underway and under reforms brought about by the Church of England, this includes greater representation from the Anglican Communion in recognition of Canterbury's global role. In July 2022 the rules were changed to include five representatives from the Anglican Communion on the 17 member committee who decides on the new Archbishop and representation from the Diocese of Canterbury was cut from six to three. It is rather unfortunate timing that these are being put into action at the same time as the proposals to significantly downgrade the Archbishop's global role. Had these proposals come sooner it is unlikely the Church of England would have changed the rules on appointing the new Archbishop.
0 comments:
Post a Comment