Canon Bill Atwood to become Bishop

'This could be the start of something very big,' says a commenter on StandFirm, about George Conger's news in Living Church of Bill Atwood's pending consecration in August. Jonathan Petre picked up on it also and Thinking Anglicans has some links. Canon Atwood is the man behind Ekklesia, one of the leading traditionalist organisations in the US. We've posted a story on it online. Meanwhile, more on that covenant. I have rather lost my thread on this whole covenant business. Again, you can catch up, if you can follow it all, on Thinking Anglicans, but I've been forwarded an interesting and amusing General Synod document on the covenant which I am reproducing before. I'm not sure if it has already appeared anywhere or not, I would guess it is some kind of response to the one the other Jonathan wrote about the other day. But it is new to me at least and so might be to some of you. Anway, what I enjoyed most about this latest document was its suggestion of who is to blame for the 'crisis' in the Anglican Church. It is of course me. And Jonathan. And possibly even Stephen. Invitation to Lambeth, anyone?

Anglican Mainstream's response to this can be read here.

General Synod Paper

The Draft Anglican Covenant

1. The case for a Covenant has not been made out – the so-called crisis in the Anglican Communion has been greatly exaggerated by the media and by some within the Communion who have a vested interest in generating the crisis phenomenon.  We need to reclaim the agenda for ourselves.  The Communion has always been a federation of allied Churches which has lived with differences of views on a wide range of matters.  Trust has been strained across the Communion in the sense that some accuse others of breaking faith on certain issues in relation to human sexuality.  But vigorous disagreements are nothing new or startling for us.  The four instruments of the Communion are perfectly capable of dealing with difference.  It is also possible to argue that trust is not under strain; trust has been strengthened because we are now more open about our different expressions of faith within the body of Christ. 

2. The Covenant is an attempt to impose agreement where this did not exist before – a founding principle of Anglican ecclesiology is immortalised in the words of HM Queen Elizabeth I who did not wish “to make windows into men’s souls”.  When questioned about the Eucharist, she said “Christ was the word that spake it.  He took the bread and brake it; And what his words did make it that I believe and take it.”  There has never been a single version of “authentic Anglicanism” and a Covenant cannot begin to grapple with the existing diversity within our Church and the Communion.  A true family cannot exist without disagreements and neither can the Anglican Communion.  It is because we are in Communion with one another that we need to struggle with one another. 

3. The Covenant is a route to disunity – in drawing a sharp distinction between covenanters and non-covenanters, this process would create and constitute division rather than fostering continued Communion-wide dialogue.  Province A may have already declared itself out of Communion with province B, even though province B may still regard itself in Communion with province A.  People already refuse to share the Eucharist together.  But the current structures allow for people and provinces easily to re establish links re assert communion with one another.  The Covenant will institutionalise this process and make it harder. 

4. If the Communion needs a Covenant, we all need to agree about it; if we can all agree about it, we do not need a Covenant – the Covenant is process focused rather than outcome focused.  It ignores the “elephant in the room”: we need to learn to live with difference in witness to the world of Christ’s body broken for us.  The Covenant is displacement activity. 

5. The mechanisms in section 6 of the Covenant are woefully inadequate to establish what would be, in effect, a new order within the Anglican Communion and the Church of England – the four instruments of the Communion are satisfactory for a federation of allied churches but are not suitable institutions for a new order.  No indication is given as to where the balance of power would lie under the Covenant as between the four instruments or how they would operate together in order to enforce the covenant.  If a new order were to be established, it would require fundamental institutional reform.  It is not possible to superimpose a new order on the existing structure. 

6. The gift of Anglican ecclesiology is that it is both a Church catholic and reformed and this is undermined by the Covenant – the Church of England emerged from the Reformation with an essential balance between bishops and the people.  This is currently expressed in the jurisdiction of a bishop in Synod.  The Covenant fundamentally shifts the balance of power towards bishops in an unprecedented way.  Three of the instruments of the Communion are exclusively made up of bishops which subordinates the role of clergy and laity.  The Covenant fails to acknowledge that Anglican tradition has never accepted something akin to papal or curial authority, whilst also not being congregationalist.  It is critical that the Anglican tradition is maintained, clergy and lay participation synodically expressed with authority, and undue weight is not handed over to episcopally dominated structures.

7. Covenants with other Churches do not have the same legal significance as the draft Anglican Covenant – an expression of common will or mutual respect is very different to, in effect, subordinating the Church of England to the institutions of the Anglican Communion. 

8. The Covenant raises such fundamental issues that a period of careful reflection and reception is required – the Anglican tradition of living with difference is one of our core charisms.  It is not acceptable for General Synod to be bounced into endorsing the current approach to the Covenant without full reflection and debate.  Although the Primates may wish to debate the Covenant at the next Lambeth Conference and we may wish to pray for these deliberations, they should not be seen as having synodical endorsement when we have no idea what representations may be made on our behalf or what the shape of the final draft Covenant will be. 

The Very Revd Colin Slee (Deans 55); the Revd Brian Lewis (Chelmsford 90); the Revd Paul Collier (Southwark 217); John Ward (London 359); the Revd Canon Prof Marilyn McCord Adams (Universities 446)

Comments

[Alan Marsh]

"the Elizabethan settlement tried to establish the Anglican identity as widely as possible in order to include as many recusants and puritans as possible."

I'm afraid this is the folklore version of the period. The reality was that a specific place on the reformed spectrum was chosen for the Church of England, from which all others were excluded by means of the power of the state, not only the Church of Rome, but many protestant groups. Christendom in England was fractured into many pieces.

Wide sections of society were not only excluded from public life but persecuted, and some martyred.

As late as the 1870s subscription to the Articles was required in order to study at the ancient universities and there was massive discrimination of this kind in many areas of public life. Some remains on the statute book to this day.

The Church of England has never been a universalist association, although there are those who have been trying to make it so. They are now squeaking because they see their project foundering.

[I'd rather not say]

"Only the most dishonest person could argue that there is any room under the articles for foreign prelates to be involved in the governance of churches."

I think you need to explain your argument a little further under words of the Articles. And perhaps also explain why there is room for TEC to have a number of foreign diocese. Without merely arguing that it is different because it is different, or because it is acceptable when TEC approves of it.

[Malcolm French+]

John's description of Anglican history certainly seems more accurate than Alan's somewhat empty claim that Anglicanism has long had a series of theological litmus tests.

In fact, the Elizabethan settlement tried to establish the Anglican identity as widely as possible in order to include as many recusants and puritans as possible. However much it failed, that was still its intent. And the proto-formulary attched - the Articles of Religion - in general establish a limited number of things not believed rather than a list of things believed.

(Wonderful story about Arthur Michael Ramsey's time at Nashota House in Wisconsin. He preached a sermon on purgatory, and when challenged that "we don't believe in purgatory," is said to have responded that "we don't believe the Romish doctrine of purgatory.")

However, it is worth noting one of the examples where the Articles are quite unambiguous in rejecting a particular position. Only the most dishonest person could argue that there is any room under the articles for foreign prelates to be involved in the governance of churches.

And since the current Draft Covenant is nowt but a power-grab by foreign prelates . . .

[Robert Ian Williams]

Note how no one answers my accusation that the Covenant will not be able to define what constitutes heterosexual marriage...as there is already division and confusion within Anglicanism and the evangelical conservatives on this ie.can there be re-marriage after divorce.

[Alan Marsh]

No, John, this obfuscation will simply not do: " the Church of England was the home of those who were not willing to place theological differences above unity" Had this been so then unity with the See of Rome would have continued!

Over a period of about 40 years a defined identity WAS hammered out - imposed on the laity as well as the clergy. Only the clergy were required to subscribe to the Articles and be subject to canon law, but the identity of the reformed church was defined and maintained throughout the land in this way.

The traditional catholic religion of the people was largely erased and replaced by an English bible and an English liturgy. The formularies (Articles, Ordinal and Prayer Book) defined many aspects of church life and structure, including the primary authority of scripture, the nature of the sacraments, and the Trinitarian basis of the creeds. This is not "politics" as you call it but a theological reformation of a kind unique to England.

The Restoration was a restoration not only of the Crown but of the Church of England, as defined previously, but now enforced by a comprehensive Act of Uniformity. The result was the ejection of many dissenting ministers who refused to conform to the theological basis of the Church of England (having previously themselves ejected the Anglican clergy).

The Church of England as defined in 1661 (Articles, Ordinal, Prayer Book) did not embrace a whole series of contemporary religious movements - quakers, unitarians, presbyterians, recusants, etc - nor did it find itself capable of retaining within itself the Methodist movement, although its leaders were themselves Church of England clergymen of a very high calibre, as were many of the later Tractarians who converted to Rome.

The Church of England is not an infinitely flexible creature, although some like Arnold have sought to make it so, and some like you would wish it so. A church shorn of its doctrinal identity is no longer a church but a secular club.

The indications are, in the early drafts of the Covenant, that the historic formularies of the Church of England, which gave birth to almost all of the Anglican Communion, will be revisited and will form the basis for a common theological identity and for a common canon law, so that the priority of scripture, which underpins the English reformation, will form the basis of a Covenant. No province will be obliged to join, but if they wish to do so they will have to demonstrate that they share the same theological convictions as the other members - not merely the outward signs of clerical ordination.

[John]

Alan,
I didn't claim that there were no theological differences in the Reformation, nor that the Articles were not a statement of ecclesiological identity. Quite the reverse. And there's nothing "self-contradictory" about what I wrote.

During the English Reformation, the Church of England was the home of those who were not willing to place theological differences above unity, and of those for whom politics were more important than theology. Those who prized theological purity were found in the schismatic Protestant sects, and those who couldn't tolerate the dirtiness and ambiguity of politics got out while they could.

And I said quite explicitly that the Articles are mostly _about_ ecclesiology.

The clergical submission to formularies hides two realities. The first is the obvious fact that there has never been uniform theology in the CofE. Or do you maintain that there has been no theological debate of any significance in the CofE in the past 400 years? The second is the often-missed but crucial fact that this submission is required only of the clergy. The lay (by far the majority of the Church) need make no such submission.

Finally, as for your statement that "A Covenant will be nothing more than a reaffirmation", that rather assumes that you know what the Covenant will be. All we have now is a draft, and that draft is hardly a "reaffirmation" of anything, especially not the CofE. The proposed Covenant is entirely focused on the current dispute, and proposes radical new structures in an attempt to remove that dispute.

I will also point out, just to be clear, that I have no knowledge of who the people are who wrote the document about which Ruth posted here. I am judging simply on what they wrote - which was that the proposed Covenant does not sit easily with the nature of the CofE or the Anglican Communion, and has certain dangers associated with it.

pax et bonum

[Alan Marsh]

John, do re-read your alarmingly self-contradictory posting!

You really cannot claim that there were no theological differences at stake at the English Reformation, or at the Restoration, or that the Articles of Religion were not a statement of ecclesiological identity.

And throughout Anglican history, the clergy have been subject to canon law which requires their assent (in earlier days, subscription) to the theological formularies which define the Church of England, so that being an ordained minister is far more than the mere act of ordination, it is acceptance of a defined theological identity.

The problems which are now occurring are the result of the weakening of the Anglican identity by the replacement of subscription by assent, and by the failure of Anglican leadership properly to enforce that identity through theological training and the maintenance of doctrinal order.

A Covenant will be nothing more than a reaffirmation of the identity, theological and ecclesiological, of the Church of England, in partnership with other provinces of the Anglican Communion.

I can see why you and others would prefer this not to happen, which makes me all the more convinced that it should.

[John]

Alan,
You miss the point somewhat. Slee et al. aren't claiming that there is nothing to define Anglicanism (quite the reverse, in fact). What you should notice about your list of identifiers is that there are no theological points among them. The CofE has never been defined by its particular theology, unlike most Protestant churches.

Rather, the CofE is defined by its practice and worship, and by the recognition of common authority through the bishops. So, provided that one worships in a church with a duly ordained priest under the authority of the bishop, using an authorised liturgy, one is in an Anglican church. The particular theologies of individual members of that parish/congregation is largely irrelevant.

There have been variable numbers of points to which clergy have been expected to declare their assent, most famously the 39 Articles. But, again, many of those are not theological but ecclesiological - to do not with beliefs about God but beliefs about the Church. And none touch on any of these issues that seem so contentious at the moment.

Slee et al. see very clearly that the CofE is defined by those things that you mention (and some others). This is exactly the basis of their objection to the proposed Covenant - it seeks to elevate certain matters of theology that have never before been given this weight.

pax et bonum

[David Cohen]

The signatories to this appeal for diversity are also to be found, curiously enough, demanding an end to toleration for traditional Catholics in the Church of England.

How curious!

[Alan Marsh]

The Church of England has never been the kind of nebulous body claimed by Slee et al - at least until recently, and the proliferation of unbelieving senior clerics.

It defined itself in the sixteenth century as a national catholic church in allegiance to the king, not the pope. It defined itself as episcopal, against the puritans. It ejected the dissenters at the Restoration and imposed its Prayer Book, Articles and Ordinal. It requires its ministers to be episcopally ordained and to use authorised forms of worship. It has a clearly discernible identity distinct from all others. To claim otherwise betrays historical ignorance or Orwellian intentions.

[Shaun]

Frog, I think you've misunderstood the numbers - each synod member has a reference number for ease of identification, as andrewdb joked it's like a footballer's shirt number, nothing to do with the size of their 'electorate'.

[Robert Ian Williams]

Chris Sugden wants standardised moral teaching.....

The Anglican Communion has no standard teaching as to divorce and re-marriage.

As the majority of people are heterosexual in inclination it is incredible that this is not even an issue, for those who want a Covenant.

Surely any Covenant should affirm heterosexual marriage and state whether it is a life long indissoluable union or breakable by divorce...and if so on what grounds.

So riddled is the evangelical constituency with divorce and re-marriage , it is sidestepped by those who claim they are concerned about morality.

Chis Sugden refers to the sufficiency and authority of Scripture...yet his own evangelical constituency cannot agree what Holy Scripture says about divorce and re-marriage.

Of course he does not mention this, because he is trying to tell the homosexuals that the Scriptures are clear on moral issues, and it would make a mockery of his theory.

I believe that rhe Holy Scriptures need the clear interpretation of an unchanging Church, not the subjective fallible interpretation of Scripture by well meaning persons, which is the Protestant hall mark.

[Neal in Dallas]

Funny how the people complaining about the media are those whose interests are at risk because of revelations in the media that did not come out in the typical top-down-the institution-controls-the-flow-and content-of-information manner.

Do bloggers sometime reveal too much information? Yes. Is some of it untimely? Yes. But are all institutions better for the greater transparency from, particularly the newer forms of, media? Yes.

I would say that given the responses of Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda to the Lambeth invitations, the multiplicity of lawsuits and depositions and departures in the United States, not to mention Canada, that the alleged crisis in the Anglican Communion is far from overblown. Rather, these scholars and bishops ought to get out more, read the blogs, subscribe to a newspaper. They will discover that their first premise is definitely out of touch with reality.

If their first premise is out of touch with reality, then what of their other conclusions?

This seems to me to be reminiscent of Winnie the Pooh commenting, "Tut, tut, it looks like rain."

[Tom Jackson]

First and foremost, Christianity is about a personal relationship and understanding with God through the intervention and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Now, what on earth does that mean?

To me, it is simple. Having made the commitment to Christ - for whatever reason and by whatever means - you are working towards a relationship with a Supreme Being, an all-powerful God who to even the most devout Christian is 99+ percent beyond human comprehension.

In these circumstances, developing an understanding that will lead to a meaningful relationship is going to be next to impossible but that is where the Church and other Christians come in.

They have a responsibility to provide a foundation on which a structure of basic understanding can be erected. Everybody will experience a different approach and degree of completion where this structure is concerned but at the very least, it should be sufficient to support the next stage.

And that is to consider life, the world around us, the people we associate with and those we only have a vague, tenuous contact with, from a perspective that is now structured with some basic understanding of Christian teaching and belief - especially where the New Testament and Jesus Christ is concerned.

And that, of course, is where the difficulty starts. Homosexuality is a good example. I don't believe that Christian teaching should have a rule book that declares homosexuality is not normal and is unacceptable in people who officiate in the Church. I have come to that conclusion as part of the process described in the previous paragraph, applying my Christian awareness to the subject after a long, thoughtful and meditative process.

If someone asks me or I offer my opinion, that is what I will say and if a fellow Christian arrives at a different conclusion, so be it. As far as the Church is concerned, if my opinion is in the minority, that is something I have to accept and visa-versa. I may revisit the subject again or just accept that I will differ on this particular point but the majority view cannot be dismissed.

If I disagree to such an extent that I find myself at odds with the Church, there may come a time when I have to review the association I have with them. If it is that important where my understanding of Christianity is concerned, if after reviewing and testing against the foundation and structure of my relationship with God I still cannot agree, then I must find somewhere else, some other organisation which is more in line with my understanding.

I get concerned in situations where everything is spelt out, where there is no allowance for differing opinions and the use of an individual's reasoning in a particular situation. Of course, there is a need for basic structure, for the opportunity to listen and consider the deliberations of others - especially if they possess a wisdom, a degree of experience and Christian understanding that one cannot ignore.

And there has to be an agreement, a covenant if you like, which everyone understands and agrees to abide by; any group of people living or working together need to understand what is expected of them as individuals and as a group. But it can be taken too far and the covenant becomes a dictate where the individual is swallowed up by the group to the extent that - in the case of Christianity - a personal relationship with God is meaningless.

[Frog]

Ruth, you're right, the synod document from Slee etc does seem to suggest the pesky media have whipped up the crisis. I don't think you have, if that's any consolation.

This synod document is a complete nonsense, especially in light of numbering how many people you purport to represent, when they so patently do not. It is a little like numbering how many constituents you have as an MP, and inlcuding all those who would never vote for you.

[david skinner]

This is nothing more than consensual and relativistic thinking . Jesus Christ, the WORD made flesh is the head of the church - not us. Will Bill demand that all our names be in the book of life or none at all. Repent or be damned forever, Bill. Or is that politically incorrect?

[Robert Ian Williams]

Elizabeth the first not looking into men's souls!...that's rich ..why her nasty regime tortured and hunted down Catholics, and gave us some of our most glorious martyrs.

As regards the kenyan bishop..it is interesting that Kenya accepts women priests and Nigeria does not...so there are so many permeations amongst the so called orthodox...at least you know what the liberal agenda is.

[Chris Sugden]

The focus of the paper by Dean Slee and others is on agreement and disagreement. “The Covenant is an attempt to impose agreement where this did not exist before”. “A true family cannot exist without disagreements”. “The Anglican tradition of living with difference”. This is typical of the current approach to religion in a context of secularity. Since it is presumed that there is no standard of truth, no body of teaching, all we have is expression of our views and agreements and disagreements. Is it the case that we could have disagreements over the incarnation of the Son of God, or the Trinity? There may be people, very distinguished people, in the Anglican Communion who at one time or another have expressed deep reservations about some fundamental matters of doctrine. But what is at issue here is not that we are all totally agreed, or accept there may be some people who disagree. The question is what is the standard of teaching to which the Anglican Communion is committed. There is probably only one province that does not in its documents express what is expressed in Lambeth 1.10. That is the Province of Canada which at its General Synod in 2004 ) affirmed the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships.

The paper strongly dismisses the notion of a Covenant. It wants to remain with an unwritten constitution. Britain has an unwritten constitution. So who interprets the constitution when matters are in doubt or dispute? Well, the Government Executive, the Houses of Parliament, and the law lords. In other words, the people who run things, the people in power. The people in power are quite happy to have an unwritten constitution because it means that they can interpret tradition in the way that best suits them.

What we have as our foundation documents for the Anglican Communion is Holy Scripture first of all. We have a text. It is that text that is at the root of the tradition of the church. If they are in conflict, our polity says that Scripture wins.

A covenant is a text. It sets out clearly and simply our allegiance and obligations. The United States adopted a constitution to favour the common man precisely in contravention of the unwritten constitution which favours the establishment.

It is no accident that the opposition to the Covenant is being led by a senior Dean and a Regius Professor, pillars of the establishment. Neither of them has been elected to their post. Bishops and Archbishops throughout the communion (in all but the Church of England) are elected. The dean and professor’s comments about representation might be true if the whole Communion’s representation were founded on that the Church of England. It is not.

So we must have our eyes open when discussing this matter.

The issue is not about agreement and disagreement, but conformity to the standard of teaching of the faith, that is represented by the Communion as a family of churches rather than by individuals.

The issue is also about power – about the clarity of what the Communion is committed to which is public and accessible, not private and the preserve of a power elite.

[andrewdb]

Do they also wear a football jersey with the number on the back?

Do the different deanaries have different colour combinations?

[John]

Matt,
What's double-thinkish about this document? (Double-think is a term from Orwell's 1984 that refers specifically to believing two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time, and I can see no evidence of this in the posted document.) It makes some very cogent points about both the nature of the Church of England and the intentions and nature of the proposed Covenant. It's certainly true that the ABofC, acting alone, cannot enact a Covenant that is binding upon the Church of England. Nor can the Primates of any other Province force the CofE to accept any such thing. Just as any other member Province, the CofE has its own governmental structures and processes - and the members of that governmental system are certainly entitled to bring up their opinions on such matters.

pax et bonum

[Matt Wardman]

What are the numbers?

Deans (55) sounds as if all the Deans live in an asylum with Colin Slee in room 55.

Sorry - couldn't resist.

(rg writes: yes I was confused at first. but in fact you are more right than you know. general synod, esp the one coming up in York in July, sometimes does seem just that. the numbers are their general synod members. when they speak in debates they have to cry out first: 'Rowan Williams, Canterbury, number 1'. that's in case we in the press and public galleries don't know who they are. as if!)

[Matt Wardman]

To me - writing as someone not in the Church of England - there seems to be a lot of doublethink going on.

[Stephen Marsden]

Of course, in anything like an equitable Church, Fr Atwood would have been a bishop years ago!