As traditional, liturgical churches go, the Anglican Church has long enjoyed a reputation of being a fairly liberal denomination, despite having orthodox factions within it.
However, in recent years the disparity between the relatively liberal theologies of Canterbury, the seat of ecclesiastical authority within the Anglican Communion, and some of the African and Asian provinces has widened considerably.
The Anglican Communion has a complex, even complicated, structure. While the Church of England—centred at Canterbury under the Archbishop of Canterbury—is generally seen as “Mother Church” with the Archbishop functioning as the spiritual head of not only the Church of England but also of the worldwide Anglican Communion, there is no central authority.
The Anglican Communion is comprised of thirty-eight “provinces”, each headed by a Primate (either a bishop or an archbishop) and each province has its own governance. As such, the Archbishop of Canterbury is really nothing more than ‘first amongst equals’ when it comes to other archbishops within the Communion with no actual authority over them, such as the Pope has over his cardinals and archbishops
The very structure that has allowed the Communion to be democratic and adaptive is now the structure that may well tear the church apart.
The Communion functions by consultation and consensus under the symbolic and unifying influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury and three consultative and collaborative international bodies (namely, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting).
The Anglican Communion has no international juridical organization. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s role is strictly symbolic and unifying and the Communion’s three international bodies’ resolutions have no legal effect on the independent provinces of the Communion. Taken together, however, the four components function as “instruments of communion”, since all churches of the communion participate in them.
In recent years the tone of discussion within these entities has tipped over into heated, and often divisive, debates over conformity in areas of doctrine, discipline, worship, and ethics. The most notable example has been the objection of many Provinces, particularly in Africa and Asia, to the changing role of homosexuals in the North American churches.
The more conservative Provinces (one might even say reactionary) have long been uncomfortable with the general acceptance of lesbians and gay men within the Western churches. However the debate kicked into overdrive with the blessing of same-sex unions by Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster, the ordination and consecration of openly gay men and lesbians involved in same-sex relationships—and therefore clearly not celibate—as priests and, most controversially, the elevation of the openly gay Gene Robinson to Archbishop of New Hampshire. Several African and Asian Primates have threatened to leave the Communion and/or form a rival series of churches that would be, in their view, “truly Anglican.”
Those who objected to these affirmative actions condemned them as unscriptural, unilateral, and without the prior agreement of the Communion. In response, the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada—the two Provinces responsible for the broader acceptance of lesbians and gay men within the hierarchy—argued the actions had, in fact, been undertaken following lengthy scriptural and theological reflection and in accordance with their own canons and constitutions as permitted and encouraged by the Anglican Communion’s structure. Both Provinces also claimed that extensive consultation with other Provinces of the Communion had occurred and, based on those discussions, they felt the decisions reached were permissible and valid.
Another area of controversy has been around the ordination of women as bishops.
Within the Anglican Church, as in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, bishops are viewed as the successors of the Twelve Apostles and possess the same authority in matters of faith and morals, the administration of sacraments, power, and responsibility as those chosen by Christ to preach His message. While women have held pastoral and ministerial positions in Anglican churches for some time with little controversy, the idea of female bishops appears to be too much for the African and Asian Primates to handle.
The paradox here is that the Anglican Church in Africa and Asia is a vestige of a colonial past. Given that the African and Asian archbishops are now presenting themselves as “more Anglican than Anglican” is, it strikes me, the epitome of irony.
Cultural influences are also at work. While women’s and GLBTQ rights have made huge strides forward in the last 30-odd years in Western Europe and North America, such is not the case in many Asian and most African nations. Uganda, for instance, is currently trying to bring in legislation that would impose the death penalty on “practicing homosexuals” (see my January 2010 column) and there remains a general, and false, perception throughout much of the Third World that homosexuality is a perversion introduced to the locals by their colonial masters.
It would appear, then, that Third World Anglican bishops are being highly selective when it comes to what they will condemn as “neo-colonialism” and what they will accept. Clearly, being an Anglican has worked out very well for these individuals and given them a far higher standard of living than their average countryman (or woman).
That many of them have been involved in good works in their own countries is not in doubt; I am sure they have, being good Christians and all. However, involving themselves with the Church has allowed them access to levels of education unreachable for the average person, a secure professional position, housing (and often quite comfortable housing, even by Western standards and certainly by local ones), opportunity for advancement, and a degree of influence on a local, regional, national and often international scale.
I agree that a candidate for the priesthood and certainly a candidate for the bishopric should be vetted in order to ensure he, or she, is worthy and meets the requirements, both tangible and intangible, of the vocation. And I have no doubt whatsoever taking holy orders, as it used to be called, is a vocation; not everyone is cut out to serve in such a capacity. It takes a particular personality type to deal with not only the spiritual issues but the practical day-to-day struggles of one’s parishioners. As bishop there is even more responsibility and struggle; it’s not an enviable job, I shouldn’t think.
However, I do not agree that one’s gender or one’s orientation needs to be part of the process. Many heterosexual men are not “priest material” and many heterosexual male Anglican priests are perhaps quite satisfactory ministers but are simply not the stuff bishops are made of. On the other hand, many gay men and lesbians would make excellent priests, not in spite of their orientation but because of it.
Back when I was still churched, I encountered a few religious who were gay, some of who were, relatively speaking, openly gay. When I say that an individual would make an excellent priest because of their homosexual orientation what I mean is, such individuals were often more aware of what it was like to be ‘the other’, to be outside what is considered mainstream and “normal” and, as such, often had a more defined empathy, a deeper sensitivity, for those they ministered to.
This is not to say those who are heterosexually oriented do not have empathy. Of course they do. But it operates on a different level. I suppose the closest analogy I can come up with (and it’s a tricky one, I know) is if one is a member of an ethnic or racial minority one has a more profound (if that is the word) empathy occurring than one who is part of the dominant culture. One has firsthand knowledge and an understanding of the struggles many people deal with and can apply their experience to other experiences.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is facing a difficult situation and has warned that if the Anglican Communion cannot resolve the conflicts over these issues the Communion will descend into “chaos.” In an address to the General Synod in February, Williams urged the clergy to listen to one another rather than continuing to pursue a “zero-sum, self-congratulating” position.
“Certain decisions made by some provinces impact so heavily on the conscience and mission of others that fellowship is strained or shattered and trust destroyed,” he said.
The General Synod is the Church of England’s national assembly. The synod committee responsible for drafting new rules on the issue of ordination announced it had rejected some proposals from ‘traditionalists.’ Amongst those were proposals to create a special class of bishops, and therefore special dioceses, to minister to those within the church opposed to having women and openly gay and lesbian individuals within the hierarchy.
While long seen as an advocate for gay and lesbian rights, Williams criticized the American Episcopal Church for “pre-empting the will of the wider Church” over its policy on the consecration of openly gay bishops. I think that is bit of a red herring as there is currently only one openly gay bishop within the American Church; Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire.
He has also had public disagreements with Bishop Ingham over his allowing the blessing of same-sex unions within the New Westminster diocese following the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada. As bishop, Ingham was well within his rights to do so, but it has generally been viewed as a slap in the face to the wider Communion. One of the reactions to Ingham has been for eight of his parishes to reject him as bishop and to seek membership with what is known as The Anglican Network, a conservative and traditionalist communion of disaffected Anglicans.
The African and Asian Primates have attempted to sever ties with New Westminster and to interfere in diocesan matters, and wealthy conservative Episcopalians are reportedly “pumping millions” into a campaign to undermine Ingham and his bishopric.
Such carryings-on are destructive. Anglican bishops are autonomous and do not answer to Canterbury in the manner Catholic bishops would answer to Rome. While it is feasible the Archbishop of Canterbury, as spiritual head of the Church, might step in and censure a bishop whose actions were so egregious as to do real harm, it would have to be quite an extreme situation before he would do so. And it would not be the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury that would do so; rather, he would bring the matter before one of the international bodies, such as the Consultative Council or perhaps the Primates’ Meeting and it would be one of those bodies that would bring a wayward bishop to heel.
Even at that, it is very difficult and a laborious process to enact. If a bishop was so rebellious, so out of line as to deserve censure, it would be up to his parishioners to petition for his removal or to take steps, such as the eight churches in New Westminster have done, to reject the particular bishop’s authority over them. Such a move is not to be taken lightly and it isn’t.
So, to have the bishops from other dioceses and other Provinces interfere in the internal workings of a given Anglican diocese is...well...simply not done. Here the English roots of the Church are very evident because it is considered ‘bad form’.
Yet, we have the African and Asian Primates doing exactly that, issuing all sorts of preposterous and damaging comments, issuing ultimatums, threatening to tear apart the very Communion they swore to uphold, simply because they disagree (however vehemently) with the decisions of other bishops. If a Province takes issue with the blessing of same-sex unions, the recognition of same-sex marriage, or the installation of women as bishops, then that particular Province is free to not do so. It is not free, however, to presume to tell another Province it cannot recognize or bless same-sex unions, or consecrate female bishops.
If the Provincial Primate believes another Province or bishop doing so goes against the spirit of Anglicanism or somehow threatens the theology of the Communion, there are mechanisms in place to address that. The Lambeth Conference, which is held every ten years, would likely be the place to raise concerns as it expresses ‘the mind of the communion’ on various issues. Resolutions coming out of a Conference have no legal effect, but they are nonetheless influential and generally are viewed as expressing the will of the Communion and therefore adhered to by the various Provinces.
An awkward process, I grant you, but it has worked fairly well for over a hundred years and allows for cooler heads to prevail. The current situation, rife as it is with accusation and counter-accusation and ultimatums, is destructive.
The traditionalists need to back off and follow the appropriate procedures so that not only they, but all involved can be heard; the arguments, both pro and con, understood; a consensus reached. It’s a long process, but a necessary one, and one that should be undertaken in the true spirit of Anglicanism: that of respect and accommodation.
