Lambeth 2008, the future of Anglicanism
The Ecumenical Implications
St Mary’s Nottingham - 2nd Sunday in Lent
Sunday 17th February 2008
Numbers 21: 4-9
Luke 14: 27-33
Introduction
Over the years there have been a number of really significant contributors to the Ecumenical Movement: the Abbé Coutunier for the Roman Catholic Church; Bishop George Bell from the Church of England, Brother Roger of Taizé from the Reformed Tradition. When it comes to Orthodoxy it is more difficult to number them, but in the 1960s and 70s a key player was Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was undoubtedly an ‘operator’, but he was someone who understood how to do business with the western Church and he was committed to the ‘ecumenical vision.’ His death was one of those dramatic moments in Church history, since he died in the arms of Pope Paul VI. His visit to Rome involved complex politics and he suffered a fatal heart attack in the midst of it. Archbishop Robert Runcie used to tell a story of Nikodim’s funeral liturgy in Moscow which sheds significant light on my subject.
The great and the good of all traditions were gathered in Moscow. The Great Archdeacon who was to mastermind the rite presided over the rehearsal. First he turned to Cardinal Willebrands who had come representing the Pope. ‘You, Your Eminence will lead in the Roman Catholic representatives worldwide.’ Then turning to Metropolitan Bartholomew, he said: ‘And you, Your Excellency will represent the Oecumencial Patriarch and all Orthodox.’ Finally he turned to Runcie, then Bishop of St Albans and Chair of the Anglican/Orthodox dialogue: ‘And then you, Your Excellency you will represent……..(and then there was a long gap)…… you will represent the rest!’
Ironically this sums up the place of Anglicanism within the whole of God’s Church and its contribution to ecumenical relationships. The Church of England, for that is where Anglicanism begins, is manifestly neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic, although it retains a full sacramental life and the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons – as do those other two world communions. But then, although the Church of England was undoubtedly borne of the Reformation, it is unquestionably not a classically Protestant church. It has no confessional document like Lutheranism’s Augsburg Confession or Calvin’s Institutes like the Reformed church. So it retains its own uniqueness. It is, as it often proclaims, ‘Catholic but reformed.’
It is this uniqueness which means that the Church of England and Anglicanism as a whole, with both its strengths and its weaknesses, gives its gifts and its flaws to the Ecumenical Movement. Often Anglicans are said to represent a ‘bridge church’ which straddles the chasm between Catholic and Protestant. Its very comprehensiveness, commentators argue, gives it the opportunity to reach out beyond itself in either direction. Others argue that it is this very comprehensiveness that makes Anglicanism such a slippery partner in any dialogue. Roman Catholics and Orthodox may want to ask: ‘Are you really catholic?’ Those borne of the Reformation may question whether Anglicanism is actually reformed.
This then is the key starting point. Only the other day I attended a Eucharist where someone prayed positively, giving thanks for Anglicans’ generosity of heart. That is another way of describing it as comprehensive. But somewhere in my heart I wondered – is that still true? Does, or can, Anglicanism retain its breadth, generosity and comprehensiveness or are the forces of legalism and constraint beginning to encircle our borders. Indeed will they even tear us apart? I am going to proceed in trying to answer this by asking some more questions. So here is the first one:
1. What is the Lambeth Conference?
One cannot quite answer that without a touch of history. When I was serving in Norfolk I remember asking where the Anglican Communion began. I know that for Norfolkmen the answer would never be taken seriously if the answer was not ‘in Norfolk.’ In fact there is a reasonable argument that indirectly, at least, that is true. Indeed I could be more precise and say that the seeds of the communion lie just to the south of Forncett Steam Museum in the former rectory of Forncett St. Mary. The incumbent there, in the mid nineteenth century, was one John Colenso who was preferred from that parish in Norfolk to become Bishop of Natal in South Africa. He soon became controversial by writing what we would now call ‘biblical critical studies.’ These included questions about the historicity of the stories of Adam and Eve and of some of the other ‘saga-like’ material on the early Israelite Patriarchs.
Nowadays, for most of us, Colenso’s writings would be unremarkable and if anything rather good. At the time, however, they profoundly offended the faithful. Bishop Gray, Colenso’s more senior colleague in Capetown, sought to unseat him and replace him with someone less controversial and more orthodox. People took up defensive positions and the Church in South Africa threatened to be split asunder. Ultimately the position became so serious that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Longley knew he had to intervene. So in 1867 he invited bishops from across the world to a conference at Lambeth Palace. By no means every bishop came. Indeed the Archbishop of York stayed away! This, however, was the birth of the Lambeth Conference of bishops which has met about every ten years ever since. In this too lay the seeds of the Anglican Communion. Indeed the coining of the word ‘Anglicanism’ can be traced to this period. Anglican, therefore is a very modern word.
2. What does this say about Anglicanism?
Perhaps one of the key points to remember here is to whom the invitations were sent. They were sent to individual bishops and not to churches or provinces or even dioceses. Indeed there were no provinces or churches as we know them. Furthermore some of the dioceses were unimaginably vast. When he was made bishop in India, Bishop Heber (writer of ‘From Greenland’s icy mountains’, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy’ and other hymns) was bishop over a diocese that included much of Asia - and Australia was thrown in for good measure too. The fact that the invitations went to individual bishops and not to provinces, dioceses or ‘national churches’ was crucial. It is still the case and it remains essential, as we shall see. First of all, it means that it is my decision and no one else’s to attend the Conference. No one can force me to go, nor stop me from going, if the Archbishop of Canterbury invites me. Secondly it reminds us how the Church of God is constituted. What we describe as the ‘local Church’ is not a province nor even a national church like the Church of England or The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. The ‘local Church’ is the diocese presided over by its bishop. That is an understanding shared by Anglicans, Orthodox, Roman Catholics and many others engaged in ecumenical dialogue.
So, apart from the Lambeth Conference and the local Church (the dioceses), what else marks out the Anglican Communion? Well, first of all, a key to it all is he who issues these invitations to the Lambeth Conference, that is, the Archbishop of Canterbury. One of the marks of Anglicanism is that bishops and dioceses look to the Archbishop of Canterbury for a ‘primacy of honour’. The Archbishop of Canterbury is neither a Pope nor a Chief Executive. He has no direct jurisdiction in any diocese outside his own. He does, however, attract a loyalty, a primacy of honour within the communion. He is, along with the Lambeth Conference, in rather ugly language, one of the ‘four instruments of communion’.
The other two instruments are much more recent. In the 1960s, during Archbishop Michael Ramsey’s archiepiscopate, the Anglican Consultative Council, a body involving bishops, clergy and laity worldwide was established. It is what it says, only consultative; it has no jurisdiction. It is not necessarily chaired by a bishop, although its president is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Still more recently, the Primate’s Meeting, comprised by the leaders of the provinces, has been seen as forming a fourth instrument of communion.
All these, however, are simply instruments aimed to keep us all in communion. The real distinctiveness of Anglicanism is something shared with the whole western Church and with Orthodoxy. The Creeds, the first four ecumenical councils, the dominical sacraments, the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons – these define our undertanding of the Church. In the late nineteenth century, church leaders in Chicago and then later at the Lambeth Conference set out formula, including what they believed gave the Church of God its shape. They did so in what is now called the Chicago –Lambeth Quadrilateral. The Quadrilateral, first conceived in Chicago in 1886, sets out what Anglicans believe are the essentials for ecumenical dialogue between churches. In doing so, the Quadrilateral also acts as a skeleton, a basis for ecclesiology, that in other words, is a basis for a doctrine of the Church. The Quadrilateral includes:
- The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.
- The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of faith. (Apostles’ Creed added by Lambeth 1888).
- The Two Dominical (that is given by our Lord) Sacraments – Baptism and the Eucharist with the unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution. (‘In the same night that he was betrayed he gave thanks and said……..’ ).
- The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his Church.
What is the Church?
Now I have not come here this evening to give you a fully blown lecture on ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church. Nevertheless, if I am to give hints as to how our partner churches in dialogue are to respond to this year’s Lambeth Conference, I may need to be a little more explicit. I shall, however, be as terse as I am able to be while still giving some hints. The bones of it are all there in the Nicene Creed. Each time we say it we affirm four key marks of the Church. We affirm that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Now much ink has been spilt on each of these words. I shall be very brief. First, the Church of God must be one, so unity is no luxury; it is imperative that we work towards it. Secondly, it is holy. That is where much of the controversy over infallibility and indefectibility arise. If the Church is holy then surely it must not be tainted or corrupt. But then how does the Church relate to the Kingdom of God. We know that the Kingdom has not yet been established. Thirdly, the Church is Catholic, which means it is universal. Bishops are intended to be a sign of this. Loyalty/allegiance to one bishop is a mark, as I said, of the local church. Bishops also, however, are part of a world- wide college which manifests the church’s catholicity. At present we know that in a divided Church there is a variety of colleges of bishops. Nevertheless one college is the mark of catholicity. Finally the Church is apostolic. This means that as with Jesus’ apostles we are always called to God’s mission; that is our primary task. Apostolicity, however, also mirrors catholicity. If catholicity means universality in geography – one Church throughout the world, apostolicity means universality in time – one church down the ages. The ‘laying on of hands’ at ordination is a sign of this. The apostolic mission is passed down through the centuries.
Now all this is beautifully summarised and enlarged upon in one of the most neglected of the ARCIC documents, Church as Communion. That common statement sets out the key constituents of God’s Church as agreed by a group of theologians appointed to the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission by the two churches. This may give you the bare bones of an understanding of the doctrine of the Church. That is one of the keys as to how others will see us in the light of the Lambeth Conference later this year.
What are the Issues?
Some of you, like me, may be old enough to remember the heady days when ecumenism was a buzz word and we all thought unity was just around the corner. In 1968 the General Synod debated a unity scheme with the Methodist Church in England and then rejected the scheme. In 1972 the same scheme was debated again and once more rejected. This left its scars but it left one positive legacy: the ordinal which we used from the late 1970s onwards until last year, was borne of the Anglican-Methodist conversations. The ordinal is the book which sets out the rites for ordination. It is another key document in understanding the doctrine of the Church.
The biggest surprise of the Twentieth Century for Roman Catholicism was Pope John XXIII. As was said at the time, ‘he opened the windows of the Vatican’ to let fresh air circulate. From that came the second Vatican Council. Two documents produced then were ground-breaking: Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and then Unitatis Redintegratio, the Decree on Ecumenism. By now Pope Paul VI had taken over. Both he and Pope John had met with Geoffrey Fisher and Michael Ramsey-successive Archbishops of Canterbury. Hopes were high: ARCIC was established and the Anglican Centre in Rome founded. My favourite book of this period is Peter Hebblethwaite’s The Runaway Church. It breathes the excitement of the period. It suggests a Church engaging with the world in a host of different ways. I love the final paragraph of his foreword.
A litany of indebtedness would take up too much space. But thanks to all those from Cracow to Chicago who have stayed up late to talk it over and shared the hope for the Church which makes faith possible.
Enormous strides have been made by all our churches. Liturgy has been renewed; engagement with society has prospered viz Faith in the City etc; women have begun to take a proper part in the life of the Church. So I could go on and catalogue more. Unity too has prospered in a way that no one could have imagined even fifty years ago. With Roman Catholics, Anglicans have reached a broad measure of agreement on the eucharist and ministry. Anglicans and Lutherans in Britain, Ireland and the Nordic and Baltic countries are effectively one Church through the Porvoo Common Statement. The Church of England and the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, through the Meissen Agreement, can show eucharistic communion, and so I could continue. So why is there so much gloom around?
In a way the answer to that question takes us back to the last Lambeth Conference in 1998. On that occasion a fairly strong resolution was passed on homosexuality and the Church. Since then provinces in developing countries and some individuals in the Episcopal Church in America have been keen to take a firm line against a more liberal approach. The consecration of an openly homosexual as Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, brought the issue to a head. Now there are several issues in one here. First is the broad question of how the Episcopal Church made its decision. Surely, it is agreed, it could be seen that such a move would be controversial. Why did no one consult more widely in the Communion? Secondly it is argued by some that attitudes to moral issues are effectively first order issues relating directly to our faith, what we believe. In this case this first order issue is about what authority we give to Scripture on moral issues and how we interpret scripture. Finally there is the question as to whether a public minister of the gospel is required to be even more careful about his/her moral life than lay people.
None of these issues is clear cut or agreed by all, and we may wish to return to them later. They do, however, raise questions for the maintaining of communion within Anglicanism and they also raise questions by our ecumenical partners. What does the Episcopal Church’s ignoring of consultation say about patterns of authority with the Anglican Communion? This is a key issue for our ecumenical partners. What is an appropriate approach to the authority and interpretation of the Scripture? Both these questions appear to be causing the Roman Catholic Church to be hesitant about establishing ARCIC III. Similar uncertainties focus on the ordination of women to the episcopate. Here the atmosphere is foggier still. Some of our own fellow Christians in the Porvoo churches in the Nordic and Baltic countries are exercised by the opposite fact. They already have women bishops. Can they be properly in communion with a Church which does not?
These are questions over which the Church of England’s House of Bishops has struggled long and hard. I have emerged from most of those meetings for the past three years with a heavy heart. How are people going to respond to the Windsor Report? The Episcopal Church has tried to go some way to answering the questions it raises. Will an Anglican covenant make a difference and is it possible anyway to draft such a covenant that can be embraced by all?
Final Reflection
Let me conclude with a final brief reflection partly provoked by our two readings at Evensong tonight. Our first reading describes an embittered Moses, a leader whose people are impatient and dissatisfied. The parallels are obvious, but can the Archbishop of Canterbury manufacture from somewhere a bronze serpent which neutralises the aggression from across the Communion? Is there some path which may possibly redeem our rather soured and flawed relationships. The gospel reading is equally provocative in its resonances. Jesus uses two instructive images to illuminate a particular point. Would anyone embark on constructing a tower without being sure he has the wherewithal to complete it? Or who would enter on a battle without being clear that in principle he could win it? Have our local churches really thought about the implications of their actions for the Communion? Have the instruments of communion been responsible enough in providing structures for consultation and the maintenance of communion?
Finally we are challenged by Jesus to bear our own cross. Might this not have a message for all? Living in one household is always painful, ask any honest husband or wife, parent or child. It will mean living with difference and disagreement. That, for me, ought to be the task of this coming Lambeth Conference. It has, after all, been a hallmark of Anglicanism.