Eames speaks at Virginia seminary on reality of Communion

Episcopal News Service
Issue:
Section:
ENS 100405-1

Posted: Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Most Rev. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland,
delivered one of two lectures October 4, titled "The Anglican Communion: A
Growing Reality," as part of Virginia Theological Seminary's 2005 Alumni
Convocation.

Recognized as senior primate and having served as chair of the Archbishop of
Canterbury's Commission on "Communion and Women in the Episcopate" and more
recently of the Lambeth Commission on Communion, Eames is considered a
leading authority on Anglican Communion affairs.

Eames will receive an honorary Doctorate from the Virginia Theological
Seminary and another from Berkeley Divinity School at Yale where he is
scheduled to deliver a lecture October 12.

The full text of Eames' October 4 lecture follows:

[Source: Church of Ireland]

THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION: A GROWING REALITY

It is an immense privilege and pleasure to have been invited to deliver two
lectures on Anglicanism here at the Virginia Theological Seminary. VTS will
always hold a special place in my affection and reflections. Among my
previous visits was to chair a meeting of the Inter-Anglican Theological and
Doctrinal Commission as we prepared what was to become known as the Virginia
Report, a theological analysis of the meaning of 'communion'. We gave this
Report the title 'Virginia' as a small token of our appreciation for the
hospitality and support of the Diocese of Virginia and its bishop and my
long-standing friend, Peter Lee; the support of Dean Martha Horne and the
VTS community and the membership of Bishop Mark Dyer. Those friendships mean
much to me and I acknowledge them today.

I have chosen as my subject for these reflections two aspects of our current
life as members of the Anglican Communion: what I term 'its reality' and
second, the role in our corporate life of communion. These reflections will
be subjective and personal. Due to time I will only be able to develop my
thoughts in a limited manner. However I offer those reflections to you at a
time when our world Communion is listening to many opinions and views as to
its nature and future.

It is debatable if the Anglican Communion has faced a more searching period,
more public scrutiny and more transparent heart-searching than in the past
two years. Our divisions have been all too obvious and our public agonising
has provoked sharply divided opinions, broken relationships and serious
questions about what Anglicans believe and practise. Above all those
divisions have compelled us to ask questions about what being in communion
means given diverse attitudes to deeply held convictions. But I have to ask
whether the debates we have seen are about the real issues which confront
the Anglican Communion? To put it plainly, has the sexuality debate hidden
other issues, other agendas and other questions of principle which are of
greater significance to the nature of Anglicanism? Has the Anglican
obsession with sexuality been merely the tip of an iceberg hiding other
deeper issues which will ultimately dictate the future of the Anglican
Communion?

On the surface the appointment of a practising gay bishop to the diocese of
New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church USA and the blessing of same sex
relationships in New Westminster, Canada, plunged Anglicanism into a crisis.
That crisis was manifested by dramatic statements, at times vitriolic words
and public denunciation of opposing opinions. In media terms -- and how the
media has enjoyed itself -- north America was portrayed as the focal point
of liberalism and the global south the defenders of conservatism. Those
terms soon became synonymous with others as the ecclesiastical fury gained
momentum : other aspects and identities which themselves evidenced the
complexities, contradictions and dilemmas of a Communion in crisis. As time
passed it was not possible to limit the struggle to a confrontation between
a liberal embracing north and a reactionary and conservative south. Within
many Provinces, not least here in the United States, issues about pastoral
recognition and protection of minority groups, justice and episcopal
leadership burst to the surface as attitudes, concerns and apprehensions
long dormant for other reasons became focused on the sexuality question.
With few exceptions the Anglican north and west began to recognise the
extent of internal diversity which had existed long before the name of Gene
Robinson became known internationally.

For the purposes of this first lecture let me consider what I call 'the
reality' of these questions.

First -- the tapestry before which our problems exist. The Anglican
Communion at present consists of some 80 million believers across the world.
We have proclaimed a historic relationship of inter-dependence and a
historic communion with the See of Canterbury. We have advanced the joint
theological approaches of Scripture, tradition and reason, we have
proclaimed the centrality of Scripture and our ecclesiology is based on
episcopacy and synodical structures. Yet beyond these features there is
another principle which has developed as the cement of our autonomous and
diverse world family.

The words 'bonds of affection' are the most overworked attempt to describe
what has held the Anglican Communion together. These words have been a
useful but not necessarily a clinical description of how a truly
international body of autonomous Provinces could relate. Pressures on those
bonds have come from many directions down through the years but of late have
greatly increased. When communion meant identifying with each other as
agreeing partners who all thought alike, bonds of affection were adequate.
But with rapid growth in size, growth of cultural difference and search for
structure their inadequacies and limitations became obvious. They were a
basis rather than a working entity. They were adequate when there were
identifiable aims and common purpose. They were happily used and embraced
when the Anglican Communion wanted the religious world to see and indeed
envy a cohesive family led by an Archbishop of Canterbury. They were
adequate when agreement existed simply because there was no division. But
they proved inadequate when pressures built up. As divisive issues surfaced
they became what bound together only those Provinces which agreed with each
other.

What was the nature of those pressures?

First we need to be aware of their historical context. For first generation
Anglicans the notion of Empire stemming from a mother country and a mother
Church 'Anglican' equated completely with colonialisation. The Book of
Common Prayer and the concepts of Anglican episcopacy bound the dioceses of
the Church of England to the colonies. The missionary outreach of the Church
of England was the Communion. This is how you do it -- this is how it works
-- this is what you need -- was the message. The context of the first
Lambeth Conferences made it plain that the mother Church and mother country
offered the benefits of English piety, English social structure and
religious Englishness and the expansion of the Empire also meant expansion
of a Canterbury-based establishment. The eclipse of colonialism was also the
eclipse of the influence of the Church it brought.

In that significant period the missionary societies were the first to
realise the change of emphasis. It was no longer 'do it our way' but a
gradual recognition that growth of cultural confidence, the shedding of
colonial power and the rising tide of local independence called for a
co-operative, supportive and diverse ministry in which the mother Church
among others would provide support for the new concept of indigenous
ministry. Without realising it a quiet revolution was taking place in
Anglicanism. From the early blue-print of Englishness the Anglican Communion
was discovering local autonomy: discovering -- but not yet recognising.
Little of the documentation I have examined of this period fully appreciated
the magnitude of the consequences of this change. Pictures on the walls of
my home of successive Lambeth Conferences illustrate some of this
transition. Pictures of bishops attending Lambeth Conferences demonstrated
this change most vividly to the outside world. The colour of skin, the
emergence of growing numbers of non-white bishops, spoke eloquently of an
irreversible trend. The new confidence, the challenge of local strength and
new elements of diversity should have spelt out warning signals that 'bonds
of affection' needed much more if this quiet revolution was to produce a
continuation of the concept of what I call 'practical communion.' Add to
that doctrinal controversies over the question of women in priesthood and
women in the episcopate which was to produce in the early 80s the seeds of
division and the stage was set for the current difficulties over sexuality.
But that is itself an over-simplification of historical development. For
other things were happening of equal significance.

I recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) views itself in historical terms
as part of the revolutionary movement which broke away from colonial
interest. Back in the eighteenth century this Church began a process which
is now taking on a new significance for other parts of our world-wide
Communion -- namely, how to inculturate outside the 'English' pattern. This
was done on a primarily democratic model. But not alone in a historical
context for ECUSA but now for the Communion as a whole : our history may
indicate the development of means to inculturate beyond the English scene --
the problems of today on which we focus stem in many ways from the results
of that process. How do we hold diversity together? Or as some are now
asking -- is that 'holding' a price too much for them to pay?

The historic significance of Canterbury itself for generations the fulcrum
of those 'bonds of affection' continued to be acknowledged in spirit. But
post colonialism and with its questions about the 'happy band of brothers'
was being replaced by the machinery of independence. Autonomy and in the
case of the Anglican Communion, provincial autonomy enshrined in provincial
synodical and constitutional enactment was beginning to raise questions
about the nature of the relationship between autonomous freedom and central
allegiance. This development was to place new emphasis on cultural as well
as doctrinal divergence. While 'bonds of affection' for the historic
significance of Canterbury continued it now existed alongside a new reality.
Was the real issue now as much about the nature of historic affection for
and authority granted to Canterbury and a changing world picture of growing
cultural and therefore doctrinal practice? I have heard the question asked:
has the centre of Anglicanism moved to somewhere south of the Sahara? I have
been present when without loss of historic affection for the See of
Canterbury voices have been raised and opinions expressed which have
compared the 'old world of Anglicanism' with 'the new realities of
Anglicanism.' Where were the structures to embrace this new pressure? Did we
give adequate thought to what structures were needed to hold the line of
relationships when the respective parts of that relationship was moving into
unchartered waters? Historically we had always refused the notion of central
authority. We did not want anything akin to the central curia of Rome.
Successive statements by Lambeth Conferences and meetings of the Anglican
Consultative Council said so. Anglicanism we believed then could survive on
those traditional 'bonds of affection' because we wanted it to survive –
because we had a relationship based on agreement to fundamental principles
which worked simply because we had never had real disagreement? I have
examined reports of synodical debates in several Provinces of our Communion
held during this period and I am convinced the scenario for our present
divisions was being painted. But we did not recognise it. Anglican
ecclesiology was developing along two lines : Provincial autonomy and
Provincial independence. Those two concepts were not necessarily identical.
But there was a third element. Growth of autonomous confidence with its
jealous protection of cultural as well as doctrinal freedom inevitably asked
questions about the structures which allowed 'bonds of affection' to
continue. All was well when there was general agreement. The distress
signals arose when we did not agree on everything. The events in ECUSA and
in particular the diocese of New Hampshire in 2004 lit a fire. But I have
often asked myself 'was this a division waiting to happen' and 'if it wasn't
sexuality questions which would divide the Anglican Communion so vividly and
dramatically would it have been something else?'

Here we need to emphasise not just tensions between Provinces but also
within Provinces. In the run-up to Windsor the Lambeth Commission saw such
tensions at first hand. Despite developments since Windsor those tensions
continue to exist within Provinces, within dioceses and indeed within
parishes.

I cannot over-emphasise the strength of conservative feeling about the
identity of authentic Christianity as being "Biblical Christianity."
Undoubtedly this is an authentic Christianity in its culture. To a
conservative Anglican it is the key issue. But what alarms me about our
current crisis is the failure to engage in dialogue on an agreed playing
field between two apparently opposing views. If Anglicanism is to maintain a
global community dialogue on an agreed transparent basis is essential.
Sadly, so far I have found little evidence that such a process is taking
place.

Such questioning brings me to another and perhaps more controversial issue.

Is the real question about authority rather than sexuality?

Not just authority in terms of the authority of interpretation of Holy
Scripture, but authority to be 'in communion' among diverse and autonomous
Provinces while we're growing not only in numerical strength but growing in
the confidence to question what communion meant if it maintained a historic
allegiance which satisfied 'the old world' but could not address the
divisions of 'the new'?

Much of the current crisis in Anglicanism turns on attitudes to the
authority of Scripture. Interpretation of Scripture itself and its
relationship to tradition and reason is one thing -- it is quite a different
matter when it is allowed to become an integral part of the process of
cultural approach to communion. In the preparation of the Windsor Report I
was made acutely aware of arguments on all sides which owed much of their
persuasive nature to what was seen as the norm of cultural experience in
north and south, east and west. A liberalist view spoke of the culture in
which life-styles shunned by a conservative culture were now the norm. Many
submissions I read in the production of Windsor quoted cultural approaches.
I well recall the argument from certain Provinces which spoke of the climate
of opposition to a liberal interpretation of Anglicanism from their Moslem
and Hindu neighbours.

Of course all this was evidence if evidence the Lambeth Commission needed
that cultural development across our Communion had become an equal if not a
dominant ingredient within the 'bonds of affection.' In saying that I need
to be aware that conservative Anglicanism resents any argument that places
cultural difference above questions of theological principle. They argue
obedience to God's Holy Word must not become eroded by reference to cultural
difference. The liberal argument of course takes the view that cultural
diversity has a great deal to say about what I would term the 'freedom of
Anglican autonomy.' Am I alone in thinking that at the root of those
clashes, irrespective of our personal allegiances or preferences, lies the
failure of succeeding generations of Anglicans to accept that there are
parameters to divergence in scriptural interpretation, there are boundaries
to ecclesiological autonomy and there are limitations to what a world family
of vague technical relationships can endure and still remain a cohesive
entity. I do not in any way question the depth of sincerity of the
conservative or liberal Anglican in any way. I seek only to try to decode
the pressures which were to produce reaction to New Hampshire and New
Westminster.

There are many dilemmas associated with what could be called 'the practical
working of communion' Broken communion declared between Provinces places
serious questions not only on relationships between such Provinces but on
others who are in communion relationships with them and with others.

For example, if one Province declares a broken relationship with another --
what does this mean for Provinces already in communion with it or with a
disassociated partner? Above all else it is an interesting question -- what
does such a rupture of relationships mean to other Provinces if broken
communion refers to the See of Canterbury? The commutations for ecclesiology
in such instances are immense. They underline again that 'bonds of
affection' based on fraternal gestures alone were never geared to meet the
challenge of division.

There is a secondary aspect to such a situation. How does such a fracture of
communion affect the day to day relationships and work of Anglican
organisations which do not owe allegiance to any one Province? I am thinking
of such as the Missionary Societies and the Mothers' Union. Their work and
witness over the years has provided communion in practical and realistic
ways. What are they to do in such a situation where their work and witness
spans many individual Provinces and involves many conflicting attitudes? In
a sense they are instruments of communion in their own right. I for one do
not want to see their influence simply eroded because of the fractures
between some Provinces. I also believe they represent useful, practical and
positive means of contact in such times of bewilderment for many clergy and
laity.

Just as it is difficult to be definitive of what communion between Provinces
means, so it is even more difficult to define the consequences of a broken
relationship.

The impressions of the Anglican Communion I gained in the preparation of the
Windsor Report are dominated by one word -- pain. I encountered the pain of
those who were hurt because they felt they had become voiceless. I saw the
pain of those who felt alienated from the hospitality of a parish or
diocesan experience. I saw and heard the pain of misunderstanding, the
painful consequences of angry words and the pain of broken relationships.
Those fractured relationships were not just between autonomous provinces but
perhaps were most visible at a level of great pastoral significance -- the
relationship of a bishop to his or her flock and the relationship of groups
and individuals to their pastors.

Calls for remedies for this current crisis abound. They range from
protection of minority parishes in dispute with the attitude of their bishop
to high level commissions such as the Lambeth Commission I had the privilege
to lead. But let me dwell on one aspect of a solution of which I have some
experience within my work in Northern Ireland. I refer to the concept of
reconciliation.

From experience in community peace-making and reconciliation I can share
some conclusions with you.

First, reconciliation cannot be enforced. Reconciliation comes when parties
wish to be reconciled.

Second, reconciliation involves pain just as the situation to be reconciled
causes hurt.

Third, reconciliation does not mean the total achievement of individual
aims. It speaks of honest compromise.

Fourth, reconciliation involves recognition of the possible and
acknowledgement of difference.

The process of reconciliation means a genuine attempt at listening and
understanding. It means no longer talking at one another but talking with
one another.

Do these aspects of a process have any relevance to world Anglicanism today?
But how in a voluntary allegiance of autonomous bodies do they work? They
raise again the question of structures of machinery. They question the
assertion which faced the compilers of the Windsor Report that there can be
no compromise on a deeply held principle such as the authority of Scripture.
They confront the element which says 'If you are not with us then you must
be against us.' Does this mean the current sickness at the heart of the
Anglican Communion cannot be addressed by any process of reconciliation?
Does it means there can be no compromise on questions of deep principle?

I believe there are fundamental questions which need to be asked not of
Anglicanism alone but within our Communion. I also believe they are
questions which perhaps have lain submerged for too long in any healthy
world debate in a world Church family. I believe in the future of our
Communion -- but I also believe we are only at the beginning of a period of
self-examination of fundamental issues if the Anglican Communion is to move
together into a future of self-confidence.

So, these are just some of the 'realities' which constitute the situation I
see as I look across the Anglican Communion today. In the second lecture I
will invite you to look with me at the realities of 'communion'. For the
present let me return to these current realities.

In the myriad of opinions and views I have heard and read in the past few
years one thought has received less prominence than I believe it deserves.
Is it just possible that future generations will look at this time not as a
negative era for Anglicanism but rather as an inevitable sign of growth, a
sign of maturity even in the history of a most diverse world Christian
family? In other words, is our present ecclesiastical crisis an inevitable
stage because of the very fact of diversity in theological, cultural and
doctrinal terms? If it is – then surely the real challenge for Anglicanism
is not in fact obsession with any one particular issue, but the challenge
contained in the question – what price communion, what price 'being
together' and do we honestly want to remain in relationships which mean
something of value? I suggest that is the true reality of the contemporary
Anglicanism. It is about what is really essential about being in communion
as Anglicans, about what we mean by relationships and about how realistic
historic structures are actually essential to a family 'in communion'.

Let me conclude this first lecture by drawing attention to a consequence of
our current structures in the Anglican Communion which to my mind most
clearly illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of adherence to traditional
'bonds of affection.'

I have tried to point out some of the consequences of an international
Church body in which aspiration to 'bonds' is more visible than application
to their realities. As far back as 1920 the Lambeth Conference concluded:

"The Churches represented in (the Communion) are indeed independent, but
independent with the Christian freedom which recognises the restraints of
truth and love. They are not free to deny the truth. They are not free to
ignore the fellowship."(1)

The Windsor Report(2) took this question and commented:

"This means that any development needs to be explored for its resonance with
the truth, and with the utmost charity on the part of all – charity that
grants that a new thing can be offered humbly and with integrity, and
charity that might refrain from an action which might harm a sister or
brother."

Since the publication of Windsor I have personally given much thought to
what all this means for the meaning of 'bonds of affection'. In the course
of that consideration I have found myself returning to the whole question of
limits to diversity. Are there essentials on which there must be universal
acceptance if Provinces are to be in complete communion? Are there issues
which diversity protects, on which there can be disagreements, but which are
not essential to full communion? If there are to be different levels of
essentials or non-essentials in this sense – who decides into which category
any action by an individual Church should fall?

Those are just some of the reflections which I will ask you to consider
tomorrow.

(The End)

(1) Lambeth Conference 1920, SPCK (1920) Evangelical Letter p.14.
(2) Windsor Report p.38.

© 2004, The Episcopal Church, USA. Episcopal News Service content may be
reprinted without permission as long as credit is given to ENS.