August 1, 2007

Plus ça change


The Church as Social Network




The crucible of pluralism






It will continue, but it will be changed.


Tobias Haller BSG



*Christopher said...

Your distinction between summation and enumeration is intriguing. I think I've grown in the sense that I find myself resonating with your progressive Communion emphasis. The Archbishop of Armagh's sermon states some of my concerns as does just about everything Archbishop Ndugane says on these matters.

My own concern is that any ecclesiology we consider to clarify our governance and polity has first adequately taken note of our variety in our history and in our present. We must begin with the descriptive before moving to the proscriptive and prescriptive. Most of the offerings I've read tend to start with a prescriptive and proscriptive starting place and often carry with them tendencies of one or another of our variety or a want to mush our varieties in compromise as if our middle way were a habit of all in some moderate way rather than the meeting and mingling of our varieties--and both tendencies makes me nervous.

Tobias said...

You have summed up the problem very well in this distinction between proscription and description. I generally find that this is where I run into disagreement with Dr. Radner, and to a greater extent C. Seitz -- in the tendency to see the proposed "cure" as already a reality.

An honest look at our history and our present shows we have not in the past had and do not at present have a communion-level judicatory -- and much as some see that as a solution (read, "prescription") it is not by any means clear that greater regulation is a more viable solution than greater tolerance. The implicit pressure is towards more structure rather than less -- but it is by no means clear that more regulation will preserve the church or the communion.

bls said...

This is a good one, Fr. Tobias.

I like the graphic, too; worth a thousand words, as they say. Reminds me a bit of Eliz. Bishop's Fish, for some reason.

Welcome back, too; hope your Convocation was a joyful one.

R said...

Tobias and Christopher,

Not surprisingly, I heartily concur.

Another way of saying the same thing might be that we are incarnational, that is, part of the present Body of Christ, so decription and seeking the work of the Spirit in the now of our Communion is paramount long before we assume to know where that Spirit is leading.

This shows a subtle, but important distinction between the "sides" in the sexuality controversy. We don't necessarily argue for a radically altered Anglicanism, but rather embrace the incarnational reality of our LGBT sisters and brothers and their covenanted relationships already part of the Body. This is why the accusation that we have torn the fabric of the Communion rings a bit hollow to me. No, we have merely disclosed what God has already been doing in our midst. We are being descriptive, yes, discerning the Body!

rick allen said...


There is nothing incoherent about the notion of the communion as a federation of practically independent provinces. But there does seem to be something arbitrary about the province (whether governed monarchicly or by assemblies) being the primary locus of legislative and disciplinary authority--unless what is constituative is really that dislike of "foreign prelates."

Grandmère Mimi said...

I think of Bishop Jenkins of Louisiana, my bishop, who did not answer my email and my letter which included questions about the direction he planned to take our diocese. Perhaps he did not want to put anything in writing.

He is a Windsor bishop - whatever meaning that description has come to have. I believe that he wanted to be a bridge between the two sides. He has said that he wanted to remain in the Anglican Communion and in the Episcopal Church, but he must have had some concern that realignment within the Episcopal Church might not go smoothly.

I don't understand how anyone could have thought that realignment would go smoothly. It seems a very long time ago that Bishop Jenkins was a candidate for presiding bishop.

My concern arose out of his response to the House of Bishops meeting At Camp Allen in Texas, which I could not make head nor tail of. That's why I wrote to question him, and I believe I may understand why he did not answer - not that I think ignoring me was quite the thing to do.


That is my prayer.

Tobias said...

Dear Rick,
Your question is so to the point that I am going to address it in a separate post...

Marshall said...


Notwithstanding that Tobias will be giving a learned and more thoughtful answer to your question about the province/nationa as locus of authority, I will point out that there is a structural answer as well. In fact there is no structure above the provincial level to exercise discipline. The Instruments of Communion have been limited in their authority; and until the recent innovations of some of the Primates at Primates' Meetings, have always stated clearly their limits. To this point, this communion has no structure comparable to that of the Roman church to supercede the authority of Province/Nation.

Now, as we move forward with a covenant process, and individual provinces decide how they will participate and whether they will accede, your question will become more relevant. Indeed, your question is most relevant in thinking about how to proceded in a covenant discussion (or whether; but I see some value in the discussion, without presuming I'll find the result acceptable).

Thus, I agree and have said that the descriptive work has to be done first. We cannot come together as Anglicans until we take the time to come to some terms of what we mean when we call ourselves "Anglican."

Malcolm+ said...

Rick said: 'unless what is constituative is really that dislike of "foreign prelates".'

Malcolm observes: Of course, that was really the crux of the matter in the English Reformation. In most respects, Henry's policy was focussed on the English Church's independence from a particular foreign prelate. Some subsequent decisions (ie the dissolution of the monasteries) were more opportunistic in their origins. But the break with Rome was ultimately about one question and one question only.

So, in a certain sense, one can logically argue that "the dislike of foreign prelates" is exactly the constituative piece in Anglicanism.

Now, I think that Anglicanism grew to be more than just that, and the subsequent four and a half centuries have seen the development of a broader Anglican ethos.

But the distrust of governance by foreign prelates has continued to be an important principle. This was the basis of most of the objections to the original Lambeth Conference, and both the invitations and the Conference plenary (reaffirmed by subsequent Lambeths) were careful to assert the principle that Conference decisions were advisory and admonitive only.

In creating the Primates Meeting, the question of authority was answered preemptively with an explicit denial that the Primates individually or collectively had any authority outwith their own Provinces.

Tobias said...

Thank you, Malcolm.

I think it also fair to point out that this is not a one-sided antipathy. +Abuja has made it clear from the beginning that his primary concern with TEC actions arises from his perception of them as threatening his church -- i.e., that TEC will expect or force him to follow suit. Hence the language of "unilateral" action, which normally applies to action against rather than action simply. It has been pointed out over and over that Gene Robinson has no jurisdiction outside his own diocese, and can take no "action" in or against another diocese without its proper diocesan's consent. This goes back to Nicea, as has been noted; so the Henrician notion of "no foreign bishop" rests on rather solid ground.

rick allen said...


But doesn't the concept of a general counsel itself imply that bishops in council have some greater jurisdiction than their own individual diocese? How is Nicea authoritative for the whole church?

The following from Will Roper's Life of his father-in-law nicely encapsulates the argument that the Whole has some precedence over the parts:


Tobias said...

I would say that Robinson has a voice but not jurisdiction. No one would suggest that the Governor of New York has "jurisdiction" in Idaho simply because he sits in the occasional gubernatorial conference; nor that a senator from one state has any authority in another.

It is true that when the governing body as a whole makes laws, then all agree to abide by them -- even those who disagree with the decisions. But one of the reasons we have conflict now is that Lambeth resolutions are being treated, by some, as if they were laws, when Lambeth has never been granted the authority to pass laws. Lambeth was specifically founded not to be a governing body, but a forum for discussion. This is where we get the confusion between what is and what [some think] ought to be.

Thomas More's testimony is touching, but calling on the surmised opinions of the dead is a risky basis for argument. For him to assume he held such a proxy, rather than simply stating that in his own judgment he could not assent to the Act, was a rhetorical flourish, but it hardly won his case. It also shows up once again the difference between the real and the ideal: that is, the actual definable legal structures of English Law vs. some surmised external universal consensus of either the past or the present. England was a nation of laws, and as More knew, he would have been better to stick with the tensions between the Act and Magna Carta, as these could be argued as facts on the ground.

rick allen said...

I'm sure you know that those arguments went nowhere as well:

And for proof thereof like as amongst divers other reasons and authorities he declared that this Realm, being but one member and small part of the Church, might not make a particular law dischargeable with the general law of Christ's holy Catholic Church, no more than the City of London, being but one poor member in respect of the whole Realm, might make a law against an Act of Parliament to bind the whole Realm unto: so further showed he, that it was contrary both to the laws and statutes of this land, yet unrepealed, as they might evidently perceive in Magna charta, Quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit et habeat omnia jura sua integra, at libertates suas illaesas, and contrary to that sacred oath which the King's Highness himself, and every other Christian prince always at their coronations received....

But this is just having fun with quotations, and nothing to your point.

Your senator and governor analogies are interesting because neither quite fits the case of a bishop. A governer governs a state, but a resolution of a governor's conference has no legal authority of itself. A senator's vote does make law binding the whole, but the senator, alone, has no authority strictly on his own, even in his own state.

Seems to me what is going on in Anglicanism is a choice between affirming the communion as a federation of independents or taking the road of "concilliarism" rejected by the Catholic Church at the dawn of the modern era. The danger of the former is greater and greater divergence between the provinces as new differences come up, as they undoubtedly will. The danger of the latter (I wouldn't characterize it as a danger, but in some Anglican circles I think it would be so viewed) would be the development of a magisterium outside of the national churches.

Tobias said...

Indeed, Rick, and I think St Thomas More knew full well that the sword of Magna Carta cut both ways -- that is, depending on the construction (or constructionism!) the 'liberty' of the Church of England could just as well have been liberty from Rome as from Hampton Court!

As to his other argument, I fear it is a classic case of petitio principii, since the allegiance of the C of E to the "whole Catholic Church" is precisely the matter under discussion. The false analogy with London vs. England apparent in the actual and real codes of English law that explicitly state that London can make no laws against the realm.

But, as you say, this is fun with history and perhaps not as much to the point as your closing comment.

I raised those two analogies without fleshing them out fully, as I acknowledge neither alone is complete: I'd suggest the governor in a conference of governors is like a bishop at Lambeth; and more like a senator in congress when seated in the House of Bishops. In the former case no legal power is even suggested, in the latter it is there, but as you note, held by the body and not the individual. This is what I mean when I say a bishop has no jurisdiction outside his or her own diocese.

I agree with your final paragraph, though I see less danger in the course of a coalition of independent churches, as I believe the natural evolution will eventually bring us to greater agreement over time. The danger of affinity networks is the hardening of opinion in self-sustaining conventicles.

Malcolm+ said...

Not only has Lambeth never claimed governing authority over the whole Communion, Lambeth itself has expressly denied that it has such authority - and that more than once.

One cannot change that of a whim - and certainly not without the consent of the would-be governed. I would submit that even a clear Lambeth resolution passed by an overwhelming majority and subscribed to by all but one of the Provinces would not be sufficient, canonically, to make this so.

There may well be a need to develop some sort of extra-Provincial governing or adjuducating authority. Had this issue arisen in the abstract, the idea of a Covenant may have been the way foreward towards a solution.

But my wife the lawyer advises that hard cases make bad law. We have seen this in the initial proposals for a Covenant, in which one "side" of the current dispute has clearly siezed control of the agenda in order to create a Communion in which their position "wins." These drafts are not about a Covenant to live together, but rather about a weapon with which those who disagree would be subdued.