John Fenwick on When Unity Efforts Fail

A number of papers from the aforementioned Anglican Patrimony Conference have been posted.  The one most intriguing to me is by John Fenwick, Primus of the Free Church of England and a key player in attempting to coordinate orthodox Anglican efforts in the U. K.

He reveals some very interesting history from the inside of the Canterbury-Rome unity push in the 70’s:

It was in the heady days of ARCIC 1. The Final Report had been sent around the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. Most of the responses were positive. It was expected to be officially endorsed at the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. The Vatican response was expected imminently. There was a feeling that something momentous was about to happen.

Prior to my appointment to Lambeth I had been lecturer in Christian worship at Trinity College, Bristol. Shortly after my arrival in the Ecumenical Affairs office, Christopher asked me to do some preliminary thinking about a liturgical project. (As Christopher put it, there’s no point in having a dog and barking yourself.) The project was what liturgical form the restoration of communion between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church might take. That was a heady request for a junior staff member! The most recent unity scheme around was the Covenant for Unity based on the Ten Propositions. That had proposed a day of liturgical events including the consecration of bishops. I remember working with that model and envisaging a service where the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury might jointly consecrate the first of a new generation of bishops whose Orders would be recognised by both Churches.

We were that close! Or at least so it seemed to some of those closely involved.

In retrospect that moment was a high water mark. The tide has been going out ever since.

As some may remember, the Vatican’s response not only did not come before the next Lambeth Conference as hoped; it did not come until 1991.  And not only the timing, but also its content was disappointing.

Even more disillusioning has been the Church of England’s liberal drift since then.  That leads Bishop Fenwick to make an interesting hypothesis:

I want to suggest that the Vatican’s 1991 response fits a pattern that has characterised ecumenical endeavour in the past half century – namely that unity initiatives have been halted by the refusal of what one might call the more conservative partner to act, and that as a result, the other partner has felt itself free to move further away from the historic Christian consensus.

I do not claim that what I am going to say has been rigorously historically tested, nor am I able to do so here, but I think the possibility of a pattern is worth considering.

And that pattern is simply that there seem to have been several occasions when the more conservative partner in a dialogue, by failing to take bold action, allowed the less conservative partner to move further away from traditional faith and practice.

And he gives other examples of this occurring, including failed efforts between Old Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

This pattern indeed merits consideration.  When jurisdictions are in the midst of unity efforts, their focus is often on how would merger/intercommunion affect us.  And that is certainly important.  But how it would affect the other party and the whole church, the Body of Christ, should not be overlooked.  And Fenwick does not let us ignore that, often for the disappointed party, a “move further away from traditional faith and practice” occurs after unity efforts fail.

Of course, in such cases we do not know what would have happened if unity efforts succeed.  For example, in the case of the Church of England and Roman Catholics, would Rome had been importing more liberalism to its harm? Would more Protestant-minded Anglicans feel pushed out of the Church of England?  I personally suspect the failure of ARCIC did more harm that what might have happened if it succeeded, and Fenwick seems to think that as well.  But we do not know.  And, yes, jurisdictions have to consider the stresses and pressures greater organizational unity may cause.  I sometimes wonder if the Anglican Church in North America, in its well meaning haste to bring Anglicans together, has not given such issues enough consideration.  If not done right, organizational unity can beget more disunity.

Nonetheless, Bishop Fenwick well reminds us that the good of the other party should be considered.  (And the bishops of the Reformed Episcopal Church have done just that in joining and remaining in ACNA.)  We should avoid causing sister churches to stumble by turning them away without very good reason.

Care should also be taken in missionary efforts where there are existing Anglican jurisdictions.  Accordingly, Fenwick, in his conclusion, let it be known he still has mixed feelings about the consecration of orthodox bishops in the U. K. outside of existing jurisdictions.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Fenwick’s paper (I agree, at least for the most part.), it contains most interesting insight not often presented.  Read it all.

My Issue with the Assumption of Mary

Yesterday (or today for those who prefer to transfer it), many Christians celebrated the Feast of the Assumption of Mary.

I did not. Moreover, I find it a sad day.

I find it sad not because I have anything against the doctrine and those who hold it. Quite the contrary, I highly respect many of those who affirm the doctrine and cherish my communion with them. Moreover, I think a case can be made for the Assumption of Mary.

Nevertheless, I do find it a secondary and speculative doctrine not at all central to the faith. And, though my opinion about its veracity is not strong, I do not hold to it.

But that is not my main issue with the doctrine. Really, my issue is with the dogma as proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1st, 1950. That he chose All Saints’ Day to issue his decree is the saddest of ironies. For on October 31st, 1950, one’s communion with Rome was unaffected by one’s opinion on the Assumption. But afterward?

. . . by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

So on November 1st, 1950 and afterward, if you do not hold to the Assumption, you better keep it to yourself or you are on the outs with Rome. For according to Rome, you have fallen away completely from the Faith.

It is tempting to have fun with such a brazen decree, but I will refrain.

For I find November 1st, 1950 and every August 15th an occasion for grief. For in 1950, the Roman Catholic Church became that much more sectarian, divisive, and uncatholic.

This is a vital difference between Roman Catholicism and orthodox Anglicanism. Many Anglicans hold to the Assumption of Mary. But I do not know of any which require assent to it for communion. And I have joyfully taken the sacrament with them on numerous occasions.

But to enter communion with Rome, I would have to confess that all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches is true, including the Assumption, thanks to the presumption of Pope Pius XII.

For any who pray for the unity of Christ’s church as I do, that is sad indeed.

About a Certain Sermon on Women Bishops . . .

When I heard that a Dr. Ann Paton of the Diocese of Pittsburgh gave a sermon urging that the new Anglican Church in North America allow women bishops, I was flabbergasted. And I am still flabbergasted. I am amazed that a supposed conservative (So we are told by reputable people.) would propose this when it would so clearly tear the new church asunder.

This isn’t just a women’s ordination matter. I would be saying similar things if a sermon urged the acceptance of lay presidency in the ACNA. A lot of work has gone into creating a unified orthodox Anglican church. And a lot of work will be needed to maintain and strengthen it. So for Dr. Paton to push something which would so obviously trash all that is . . . well, it’s more Episcopalian than Anglican.

A link to the sermon with lots of commentary may be found here.

The only good thing I can say about the sermon is that it illustrates the need for the issue of women’s ordination to be resolved and resolved well at the first provincial Synod this summer. The current course seems to be heading toward prohibiting women bishops and stating that no parish or jurisdiction will be obligated to recognize the validity of the holy orders of women. I think that is at least part of a good resolution.

Still, any such resolution needs to be very clear and in the canons. Both traditionalists and the likes of Dr. Paton need to see that women bishops and the like will not happen in the ACNA for the foreseeable future.

And if that means some who put their pet uncatholic causes above unity would migrate back to the Episcopal Church . . . then both jurisdictions would be improved.

A Resolution and a Plea

I perhaps should have made this post on New Years Day or before. But I’ve struggled with how to approach what I think needs to be said and still do even as I type this (which will probably show).

Those who peruse the big Anglican blogs know that “Communion Conservatives” (those who advocate contending for the faith by staying in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion) and “Federal Conservatives” (those who are convinced one or both of those bodies are too far gone to the point they think it best orthodox at least prepare to leave) are rather close to each other’s throats at the moment.

To be honest, I have my opinion as to which side is most at blame, but that’s not my concern right now. This post may even seem a bit vague because I don’t want to engage in figure pointing. For my concern is that anger between the two sides is getting to and past the point that it will make it difficult for these two sides of orthodox Anglicans to work together in the future.

That distresses me. If it turns out the Federal Conservatives are right and the Communion Conservative eventually find staying in TEC and the like to be untenable, I want the Comm-Cons to feel they have a refuge in Common Cause and/or whatever church bodies the Fed-Cons form. Likewise, if a miracle happens and the Anglican Communion or even the Episcopal Church sufficiently reforms, I want Fed-Cons to feel they can return. I hope the current divisions between the two are temporary. And even if Comm-Cons and Fed-Cons remain on different tracks, I want them to be able still to work together on those things they can.

For the sake of current and future unity and witness, both sides should step back and engage in self-criticism instead of undercutting the other side. And, yes, there has been willful undercutting of the efforts of faithful orthodox Anglicans by other committed orthodox Anglicans. That must stop.

Communion Conservatives should focus on what they are going to do in the current situation instead of undercutting what the Federal Conservatives are doing. Likewise, Federal Conservatives should focus on their direction and not ridicule the strategy of Communion Conservatives or say they are in any way unfaithful for staying.

And I include myself in that. I find some Communion Conservatives exasperating at times, and when I get in rant mode, my words can be rather sharp. So if I’ve said anything unhelpful about the Comm-Cons, I apologize. I will exercise the utmost care in what I write about them from henceforth, and I invite my good readers to hold me accountable in that.

Both sides need likewise to step back and repent or at least relent lest we become an ugly spectacle that makes our divisions harsher and more permanent and causes long lasting damage to orthodox Anglican unity and witness.

A Distressing Discussion

One of the things I love about – and that attracted me to – Anglicanism was that orthodox people of varying churchmanship could have communion in the same church. Far more so than I, at least, have seen elsewhere.

One of the most amazing services I’ve ever attended was a Holy Communion service at the last Reformed Episcopal General Council with our APA friends joining us as well. While we were receiving the sacrament, some were swaying back and forth to gospel songs, while a few of the priests were making crosses every chance they got like the Anglo-Caths they are. The only thing missing was incense. Worship styles ran the gamut yet fit into a whole.

That’s the closest I’ve come to seeing a service that looks like what Christ’s church looks like. I shed a tear or two it was so beautiful.

That’s what orthodox Anglicanism at its best looks like.

So this discussion at Stand Firm distresses me. When I hear people I respect suggest not only that evangelical and Anglo-Catholic orthodox Anglicans won’t be able to stick together, but even venture that perhaps they shouldn’t try too hard to stick together – well, I just pray they are proven wrong.

I revere J. I. Packer and I love my Anglo-Catholic friends (and prefer their style of worship). And I want to be in the same church and have communion with them.

And that’s the way it should be! Christ’s church includes all these. Why shouldn’t orthodox Anglicanism?

UPDATE: Dr. Packer has disavowed the article. It was mistakenly attributed to him.