My guess would be that it is one of many papers circulating amongst GAFCON invitees. It may have been made public because (from one of its statements) its author is annoyed at the secrecy of the present arrangements, seeing it as contrary to the spirit of the Gospel and counter-productive (though secrecy has helped keep the attention of liberal bloggers on the content and intent of the conference, e.g. here). It may have been leaked because of its relatively irenical tone, which probably puts it author on the 'left' of the gathering - though whether that's because it's safer to leak, or is an attempt to embarrass its author amongst harder line colleagues, is impossible to tell.
Nonetheless its introductory paragraphs are more in sorrow than arrogance, recognising the good intent of liberals. But motivation makes no difference: liberals are still wrong.
To pick out one interesting phrase:
Over the last ten years we have journeyed together in the search for a definition of faithful, orthodox Anglican identity.'Identity' is a highly complex phenomenon belying its meaning:
The quality or condition of being the same in substance, composition, nature, properties, or in particular qualities under consideration; absolute or essential sameness; oneness. (OED)The author here acknowledges that orthodoxy is not a given, that the distinction between 'faithful' and everyone else (i.e. not just the faithless but also those who claim to be faithful but are wrong) is hard to make but needs to be actively made, and that 'oneness' requires much more than similar theological attitudes. The journey is as important as the content of orthodoxy.
The next paragraph states:
We see a parallel between contemporary events and events in England in the sixteenth century. Then, the Catholic Church in England was faced with the choice of aligning itself with either Rome or Geneva. But, when forced to decide its identity, it sought to distinguish itself from both the practices of the Papacy and the excesses it associated with the more radical reformers. Now, after five centuries, a new fork in the road is appearing. Though this fork in the road may present itself publicly as a choice in relation to aberrant sexuality, the core issues are about whether or not there is one Word, accessible to all, and whether or not there is one Christ, accessible to all.This is the summation of the conflict. Sexuality became (and was chosen as) the shibboleth issue by which to divide friend from foe. In less divisive conflicts, where the goal is to shift the identity of the church a little or, more commonly, to prevent a shift, this would have been enough.
But the self-styled 'orthodox' clearly now believe they have failed and cannot succeed in their goal of shifting the identity of the Anglican Communion, or even just TEC, in what they deem to be an orthodox direction. The fork in the road is theirs, not the whole church's: what do the 'orthodox' do when they cannot win the battle for the soul of the whole Communion?
It is not sufficient to draw a line in the sand to achieve schism: it is also necessary to construct a distinct and separate identity for some of those who were previously all part of one community, whatever their differences.
So a new identity had to be constructed - with its own leadership, media and channels of communication, in-jokes, labels and identifying markers and, critically, its own finances, tests of membership and means of excluding the unwanted.
(The irony of a constructivist approach by those whose claim is to see 'reality as God intends us to see it' will probably be missed by conference delegates.)
Identity is constructed of three elements: the positive assertion of who 'we' are, the negative opposition to 'them' - enemies, outsiders, threats; and a field boundary beyond which the question is irrelevant. Who 'we' and 'they' are depends on context: e.g. we are orthodox against the liberals within the Anglican Church, but we are all Christians and not Hindus within the world's religions.
Amongst conservatives as a whole, and the GAFCONites in particular, the construction of a new identity is (I believe) coming to a head. Because they have lost the war they must now address internal battles: are they a segment in a Balkanised Communion or out of it altogether? Who should have effective power - well-funded, well-educated northern bishops or the indigenous leadership of the global south? How do they deal with things that currently divide them: ordained women, lay presidency? Do they need a shared attitude towards Islam or Israel - and, if so, whose? How do they train the next generation of orthodox leaders, and where, and by whom? How do they recognise (what are sufficient tests of) fellow orthodox from different parts of the world? How do they relate to non-Anglican but similarly orthodox ecclesial communities? Who speaks for them?
To create a new identity is to draw sharper and more rigid boundaries round who 'we' are. It is also to bottle up in an untested fragile and rigid structure divisions which have been suppressed by the threat of a common enemy bigger than internal differences.
To create a new identity is not easy. But it is not impossible either and, I suspect, it will be achieved (if with further splits, arguments and false dawns along the way). The only question is how big the new group will be and inevitably many of those who began the journey will not be there at its end and will nurse a sense of resentment and dissatisfaction for a long time to come.
In my judgement the journey to find 'a definition of faithful, orthodox Anglican identity' will work and schism will thus be embodied.
Paul Bagshaw
9 comments:
I don't know enough to predict schism, although neither do I see how it can be avoided in the long term.
But assuming there is a split, where will this leave 'liberal' Church? After years of finding an accomodation with conservative orthodoxy, isn't it going to be left with a mass of conservative-shaped infrastructure that will effectively give those conservatives who remain a veto on liberal and progressive initiatives for years to come?
Is anyone on the liberal end of things planning for how the Church of England without the schismatics might need to look if it's to have a hope of not continuing to slide into irrelevence for the majority of the population?
I don't agree with you. I don't think it shows any internal debate at all. What it does is address some liberal arguments (and some Catholic) about plurality, mystery and the Church. There is nothing there that puts up an internal argument.
See here for further explanation and for whom I think is the author:
http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/06/theyre-not-divided.html
Pluralist,
OK, I accept your comment in part. I do think that the construction of a new identity is coming to a head amongst conservatives as a whole – who are a far wider group than the GAFCONites. I accept your view that the ‘core leadership is not divided’ as I know no better. Indeed the statement that ‘we have journeyed together in the search for a definition of faithful, orthodox Anglican identity’ suggests that that journey is almost ended with a new, clear and agreed identity.
Yet all churches are coalitions. You may write the conclusion before the conference but you cannot expect to bring a thousand people together, let alone a thousand people who believe they are the cutting edge of the future church, without expecting variation of view and disagreements.
As to divisive issues I point you to the comments of Bishop Mouneer Anis (here) on the place of northern bishops and to the interview with Peter Jensen (here) and to Graham King’s nosology on the divide between Communion and non-Communion conservatives (here). That the Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical conservatives have much to divide them is self-evident (and a Liberal enemy has been useful in keeping them together). I perceive that Islam means different things in the demonology of US, Nigerian, Australian conservatives, and that Israel has a different role in their respective eschatologies. Questions of boundaries, the formation of future generations and public representation are everyday questions of churches.
It may well be that the GAFCON leaders are united amongst themselves, that’s just the first step. They have to persuade others not merely of the content of their agreement but also that these issues (and no others) are the essential matters.
Finally, I call in aid the general fissiparous history of conservative splinters (and, for that matter, the history of the political hard left). The claim to know truth is essentially divisive – I can’t see that being any different in the post-GAFCON Anglican world.
Dave,
I guess that post-schism thinking is probably happening but quietly: those with authority would not wish to be seen as working towards a schism they officially (and probably genuinely) wish to avoid, while those who have no authority can think and say what they like because no-one will take it too seriously.
However, FWiW, my first thought is that what's left after schism will not be a liberal church. In fact, if the most conservative leave, I guess that the hand of those who remain will actually be strengthened, at least in the short term. They will be able to say 'See what happens when you don't listen to us ...' with more justification.
Structures hold the allocation of power - they are bent in one direction or another by those who work within and interpret the structures (i.e. in their exercise power), and while structures can be more or less resistant to change I don't think they can be inherently conservative in themselves.
The Covenant (if that's what you have in mind) is a long way from ratification and I wouldn't be surprised to see some different versions post-Lambeth. My present lick-my-finger and test the wind unscientific guess is that some Covenant will happen, but it will be shorn of its penal clauses. This will reinforce those conservatives who wish to leave the Communion because it shows that their veto is unacceptable to the majority.
Still, who knows. If you're asking the question I guess other people are already working on answers.
Yeah - but Mouneer Anis is on the outside, and he has gone elsewhere, because he sees GAFCON as going to split the Global South. And it likely will.
I might be unclear in what I'm suggesting. The thousand turning up will, in large part, be listeners. It's like a series of concentric circles. At the moment it suits GAFCON to include in its entourage the extreme Anglo-Catholics who are themselves pushing for separated representation with an identifiable Anglicanism, though they may also have other routes (Traditional Anglican Communion?). I've no doubt they will split off from the main thrust of GAFCON which is evangelical. Global South will divide too, as will West and South.
The point is that GAFCON addresses the long time failure of evangelicals to get organised and not be undermined by itself, and that needs organisation and control and outsiders can either agree with it or stand aside while they get on with it.
What they have achieved is that they have several Anglican Provinces, particularly the African, and Sydney, as ballast, but this is Western driven and about the ever ongoing failure of evangelicals. It parallels Militant's attitude to the Labour Party in the 1970s and 1980s and its failure to be socialist despite talking the talk. In the end Kinnock booted them out, their actual strength was exposed as tiny, but the Labour Party went on to pretty much ditch socialism altogether as it had been understood. In the Anglican case, the equivalent of Militant has got many hanging on and joining in its train, some of whom will come towards the front, and others who will stay and then go. But the ballast gives them the means to operate well above their actual number.
Dave - There is a potential future that the Church that is left will have a conserving outlook, because of its habits and structures, but have broader interpretation.
The back of Anglo-Catholicism was broken by the split in its ranks, so that, although there is a difference, Anglo-Catholics fully C of E can be interpreted as liberal. The same division coming to evangelicals will lead to their very awkward decisions about whether to run off with GAFCON or whether to be C of E along with those they disagree with. Fulcrum represents the fault line - looking both ways. There is no doubt that GAFCON if successful will severely weaken the evangelicals in the Canterbury Communion and in the C of E.
It may be then that the centre shifts back again. Whether the liberals, so far staying together (I can think of how they will be next to divide), can then communicate this Church to the wider public is still debatable. There is still a cultural gap and so far liberals have been weak on any kind of reform that pioneering individuals have considered in past decades. They are such compromisers that conserving attitudes remain the stronger.
Pluralist,
A scattering of thoughts:
1) Liberals have never been a 'party' in quite the same way as either the Anglo-Catholics or the Evangelicals. They much prefer overlapping and imprecise 'networks' as, I think, some of your posts have shown.
Could they ever get together enough to wield power in an organized fashion?
2) Anglo-Catholics have declined (in the CofE at least) since the 1930s - I wonder what studies there are of successful church movements unable to capitalise on their achievements?
3) The internet has greatly increased every groups' ability to make international alliances. I wonder whether, amongst the consequences, there is an internal weakening perhaps as leaders look sideways for allies and away from their previous power bases?
4) Is there any chance that the bishops and bureaucrats who comprise both the national and the international power elite will welcome anyone else to the table? If not (and I think the answer is a definite 'no') then it is their agendas, differences and perspectives that will predominate. What will be the impact of schism on the 38 Primates first?
And, as I know you know, Sydney isn't a province - although it may well be an aussie battalion of the Heavenly Host.
Well there was a Broad Church movement that arose at the same time as the High Church movement, and the Broad Church people had its centrists and its radicals. I have my own copy of the thesis into a book of Yesterday's Radicals, about the co-operation between Anglicans and Unitarians in the nineteenth century.
It is in the nature of the differences between individuals that Broad Church could never be a unified party. There are also many liberal groups, and whereas the relationship between Anglican Conservative Evangelicals and Traditionalists and relationships with their continuing Churches are increasing, I don't see the same happening with the liberals now (I do but I'm an odd individual).
I think the geographical principle is under all kinds of attack now, and the ecumenical thing involves division and divided parts from different divisions joining up.
Post a Comment