wfn.org | [ENS] Eames delivers second lecture on Communion at Virginia seminary

["Matthew Davies" <mdavies@episcopalchurch.org>]

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

Eames delivers second lecture on Communion at Virginia seminary

ENS 100505-1

[Episcopal News Service] The Most Rev. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh
and
Primate of All Ireland, delivered the second of two lectures October 5,
titled "The Anglican Communion: What Communion?" 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 received an honorary Doctorate from the Virginia Theological
Seminary
October 4 and will be granted another from Berkeley Divinity School at
Yale
where he is scheduled to deliver the Pitt lecture October 12.

The full text of Eames' October 5 lecture follows.

Eames' October 4 lecture, "The Anglican Communion: A Growing Reality,"
can
be found online at:
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_68335_ENG_HTM.htm

THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION: WHAT COMMUNION?

Yesterday in my first lecture I tried to suggest that there is a
relationship between the historic growth of the Anglican Communion and
the
emergence of difficult issues which threaten our common life. I also
suggested that it is possible to turn crisis into opportunity.

In this second lecture I want to say something about Anglican
understanding
of what 'communion' means, the implications of the relationship we call
'being in communion' and then to look ahead into the future of the
Anglican
Communion.

I am concerned that the full implications of the Windsor Report and the
process it involves returns to the centre of our thinking as a
Communion, As
I said in the Introduction to that Report, Windsor must be seen as part
of a
process. Windsor did not seek to address the rights and wrongs of the
sexuality question. That was not the task given to the Lambeth
Commission.
It was a Report on how Anglicanism could address deep differences, deep
divisions on principle and it is about methodology. It is my own
conviction
that in the history of the Anglican Communion the value or otherwise of
Windsor must be judged by the process of which it is part -- but only a
part. Windsor was not just born out of controversy. It was, I believe an
honest attempt by a diverse group of Anglican scholars and leaders to
address how bonds of affection, autonomy and diversity could face up to
divisive issues -- and such issues will I am convinced continue to arise
in
the years to come. As we prepared the Report I often asked myself the
question -- how much does Anglicanism really want to overcome obstacles
to
corporate communion when there is such diversity on the nature of that
'communion' itself?

But, back to Windsor. The process the Report spoke of found its early
manifestation in the Primates Meeting at Dromantine in Northern Ireland
and
the meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council at Nottingham in
England in
June 2005.

The Primates Meeting gave general approval to the thrust of Windsor and
the
ACC meeting received submissions from ECUSA and the Anglican Church of
Canada. The responses of both those gatherings are well documented and I
do
not need to elaborate on them in this lecture.

So, where does Windsor stand now -- what has happened since it was
published?

What I want to do is to express my personal view and personal
interpretation
of the initial reaction of the north American Anglican Churches to
Windsor.
What follows is my personal opinion and is not based on consultation
with
other members of the Lambeth Commission who are entitled to their own
reactions.

First, Windsor recommended that

"the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the
proper
constraints of the bonds of affection were beached in the events
surrounding
the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire,
and
for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of
regret
would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain
within
the Communion." (para 134)

In my opinion the decisions of the House of Bishops in the Episcopal
Church
(USA) met that request. In fact looking at the precise wording of
Windsor
and the statements of the House of Bishops it is arguable the reaction
exceeded what was asked for by the Windsor Report. They have gone so far
as
to express their 'repentance' at the damage caused to the Anglican
Communion
by a failure to consult adequately -- a mode of language the Lambeth
Commission felt unable to ask of them.

The Lambeth Commission recognised there was genuine disagreement on the
sexuality issue across our Communion and that that disagreement could
not be
settled easily one way or another. I have to say as Chair of the
Commission
that those members who held the liberal view could not have been
expected to
sign the Windsor Report if they had felt the Report's conclusions meant
that
the debate on the Church's attitude to human sexuality was closed. (see
par
146). In all honesty I have to say that just as this was necessary to
provide a unanimous Windsor Report so if the Anglican Communion is to
remain
united there can be no blanket condemnation of an on-going process of
discernment about the right way, under God and in the spirit of the
Gospel,
to accommodate the reality of faithful Christians who happen to be
homosexually orientated within the life of the Communion. To do
otherwise is
to court schism.

Let me put it plainly. This is not a struggle between two north American
Provinces and other Provinces. It is not a struggle between 36 Provinces
and
2 on how to 'discipline' the 'wayward'. Rather it is a struggle to
discern
how to meet conservative concerns for proper biblical interpretation AND
liberal consensus for justice and inclusion for minorities who claim
they
face prejudice and discrimination. In my many contacts on a personal
level
with the episcopal leadership of ECUSA since Windsor was published I am
now
convinced that there is a new and realistic recognition of the reactions
across the Communion and an acknowledgement that actions taken in the
Episcopal Church (USA) had consequences which were not adequately
recognised
in advance.

I must also note that there has been wide divergence of opinion as to
the
nature of 'regret' to be expressed. Conservative opinion has demanded
that
'regret' should embrace not just regret for the world-wide consequences
of
actions in north America, but acknowledgement that the actions of ECUSA
and
the diocese of New Westminster, Canada, were 'wrong'. To this north
America
has continued to emphasise the importance of prolonged internal debate
prior
to those developments, in the case of ECUSA over nearly 40 years.(1)

(1) To Set Our Hope on Christ 2005 page 4.

Careful study of Windsor will show that the Lambeth Commission did not
choose to condemn the decisions per se. It addressed the consequences,
the
lack of consultation and the perception that any Province or diocese
could
take internal action without due regard to the effect such actions would
have on the rest of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps it was inevitable
that
semantics would embrace divergent interpretations. But I am aware and
acknowledge that some interpretations of 'regret' as used by Windsor
could
allow opposing opinions to ask for more than was originally intended by
the
Windsor Report. Again I must ask for careful reflection on the terms of
the
mandate given to the Lambeth Commission. To put it another way,
individual
Provinces and individual episcopal and other leaders are entitled to ask
more of ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada than regret for
consequences.
But I must defend my colleagues of the Lambeth Commission in terms of
their
remit.

Windsor went on to indicate that

"pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators
of
Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether
they
should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican
Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable
the
healing of the Communion. We advise that in the formation of their
consciences, those involved consider the common good of the Anglican
Communion, and seek advice through their primate and the Archbishop of
Canterbury. We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate
respect to such conscientious decisions."
Presentations of the thinking of ECUSA and the Canadian Church were made
to
the Nottingham meeting of ACC and while the status of attendance at this
gathering is a separate matter, I believe that the request for regret in
the
terms of the Windsor Report has been gmet and now the issue of
withdrawal
from the councils of the Communion by consecrators which was dependant
on
that expression can be questioned.

Thirdly, paragraph 134 of Windsor recommended that

"the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the
election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the
episcopate
who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the
Anglican Communion emerges."

My reading of the Covenant of the Episcopal House of Bishops is that it
exceeds what was requested of them by Windsor. Notwithstanding the fact
that
consents to all elections are being withheld by the House of Bishops a
strict interpretation of Windsor convinces me that the American bishops
have
met the request of the Windsor Report.

Also relevant are the provisions of paragraphs 143 and 144 for both the
American and Canadian churches in respect to public Rites of Blessing
for
same-sex unions. Paragraph 143 stated : "For thee sake of our common
life,
we call upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to honour the
Primates'
Pastoral Letter of May 2003, by not proceeding to authorise public Rites
of
Blessing for same sex unions." Paragraph 144 added: "we call for a
moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have
authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to
express
regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were
breached
by such authorisation. Pending such expression of regret, we recommend
that
such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they
should
withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican
Communion.
We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to
ensure
commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the
Communion
on this matter."

Once again, both the bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the
Anglican
Church of Canada have in my opinion met the precise wording of Windsor.
The
American bishops have convenanted not to authorise such rites, or bless
same-sex unions. True, the covenant only holds until General Convention
has
deliberated and decided on these issues, and there may be a new context
to
which reactions has to be made then: but the primates acknowledged their
willingness to allow space for the synodical processes of the churches
to
work in their Dromantine statement. For the present, the Episcopal
Church
(USA) has fulfilled the requests of the Windsor Report in so far as
their
polity will allow.

The Canadian authorities have also now indicated their willingness to
postpone decisions on these subjects until General Synod has had a
chance to
consider the Primate's Theological Commission's findings that blessings
of
same-sex unions are matters of doctrine, and thus subject to provincial
determination, and the approval of two successive General Synods of the
church. New Westminster has not applied a full moratorium on such rites,
but
has indicated it will go no further, whilst Bishop Michael Ingham has
expressed his regret at the consequences of his actions in the manner
indicated in the Windsor Report.

The reactions of the bishops of ECUSA are included in their publication
'To
Set Our Hope On Christ' and the public statements of both Canada and
ECUSA,
including their presentations to the ACC at Nottingham must be read in
the
light of the due process of both Churches. A process of reception in
both
Churches is continuing so far as the Windsor Report is concerned. It is
not
yet possible to talk of 'the final reaction' of either to Windsor. The
Synodical process of both is yet to be completed. Division remains in
both
Churches. The appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury of a Panel of
Reference to assist where alienation or internal division exists in
terms of
such as alternative episcopal oversight is a recognition of this fact.
Windsor recommended a Council of Advice to support the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The Primates have developed this concept and now a Panel of
Reference is in operation.

What all this amounts to is a question which I would again submit lies
close
to the heart of Anglican understanding or the lack of it : who or what
speaks for a Province? What statement contains the authoritative voice
of an
Anglican Province? Once more we are compelled to turn back to the pros
and
cons of Anglican autonomy. Synodical process is at the centre of our
understanding. But in a Communion which gives moral authority to
Instruments
of Unity or Communion and rejoices in dispersed authority I have to ask
--
is it possible to recognise a simple authority representative of one
opinion
on behalf of a Province?

Let me make it clear once more that what I have said is my personal
opinion.. I have also to point out that the process of decision-making
in
both the north American Churches involves more than decisions by the
respective House of Bishops. I recognise that the structures of Anglican
policy in north America involve Convention and General Synod structures.
Other decisions are awaited in the States and in Canada following the
developments to which I have referred. The opinions I have just
expressed
are based on the evidence I have seen to date of the official reactions
of
episcopal leadership in both the States and Canada. Those opinions I put
forward as a contribution to the on-going debate. My plea is that
whatever
one's loyalty may be in the cauldron of our  current crisis objectivity
demands fairness in the process of evaluating what has already been said
and
decided.

May I put it this way. In terms of exact wording of the Windsor Report
so
far as the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada are
concerned -- so far so good but much remains .
Perhaps we need to recall the plea of the Windsor Report for generosity
and
charity towards steps taken to meet the requests of the Report. Let us
under
God find it in our hearts no matter what our individual views on the
issues
may be to adopt that generosity and charity in these days. (para. 156)

In short, I think we find ourselves in a situation where the North
American
churches have taken the Windsor Report, and the subsequent Statement of
the
Primates at Dromantine, extremely seriously, and have complied, in so
far as
it lies within the power of bodies less than their national synod, to
meet
the requests made of them.

The suggestion in the Windsor Report that the creation of an Anglican
Covenant epitomises much of the real dilemma for a diverse fellowship of
Provinces attempting to live in some degree of communion. What I have
said
about Provincial autonomy hopefully illustrates the strength of
diversity.
It also underlines what I see as its weakness in producing unity beyond
mere
bonds of affection.

Beyond the reactions I have mentioned in north America lies a continuing
picture of divided opinions. Hurt and dismay remains obvious in parishes
and
dioceses of both ECUSA and Canada. Opinions continue to be expressed
here
which do not encourage any expectation of reconciliation as I have
described
that process in my first lecture. Judgement must await the decisions of
the
other synodical organs of both Churches before anyone can attempt a full
assessment of an overall situation. For the moment as one who has long
valued the contribution of north America to the Anglican Communion I
share
the pain of ECUSA and Canada.

Beyond these shores since Windsor contrary views have continued to
surface.
The global south has produced alternative suggestions to how Anglicanism
could be organised among those the world terms 'conservative opinion'.
The
depth of feeling among conservative Anglicanism is beyond denial. From a
position of dismissing Windsor as irrelevant to the basic issues there
have
been voices calling for radical reassessment of relationships. In my
opinion
prior to the next Lambeth Conference the furtherance of such
alternatives
raise serious issues not just about 'bonds of affection' but about the
nature of authority as it has been accepted through the history of the
Communion.. I can understand the frustration which has produced much of
this
reaction.. But I believe  there needs to be much greater understanding
of
the long-term consequences of developments which could turn the diverse
voice of an Anglican Communion into a divided family other traditions of
the
Christian Church would find it hard to take seriously.
The Windsor Report contained the suggestion that an agreed Covenant
could
help to produce the circumstances where degrees of common purpose and
accepted norms of principle regulated the life of the Anglican
Communion.
This suggestion took Anglicanism to the heart of the autonomy dilemma.
To
what extent did diversity and the realities within Provincial autonomy
for
self-Provincial government dictate independence? The argument to which I
would subscribe is that as long as total autonomy in the ecclesiological
sense is a reality differences such as at present will continue to be a
threat to any common expression of Anglicanism.

I submit that the Covenant proposal in Windsor is not the revolutionary
document some commentators have described it to be. As Professor Norman
Doe
of Cardiff University has put it:
"For the most part it (the Covenant) is a restatement of classical
Anglicanism. Generally, of the eighty-five separate provisions,
contained in
the twenty-seven articles, fifty-nine are derived from existing Anglican
texts and twenty-six are 'new' formulations, but themselves either
adapted
from existing ecumenical documents ... or based on the recommendations
of
the Lambeth Commission." (2)

Windsor produced the Covenant idea not as some final proposal demanding
acceptance of every word and comma. We put it forward as an ideal, not
written in stone, but rather as a tangible concept of how communion and
the
living in communion could assume working reality. It is also vital to
understand that this suggestion is not a threat to Provincial autonomy
so
jealously protected throughout the Communion. Local autonomy is
recognised
in this suggestion. But what is surely achieved in the Covenant proposal
is
the recognition that there are instances where divisive issues
threatening
the common life of Anglicanism can be addressed from a common
starting-point? If it is accepted as a way forward and something like it
included in Provincial constitutions the essentials of inter-Anglican
relations will be recognised. If recognised - then protected. It
challenges
traditional thinking on 'bonds of affection' as the sole ingredient in
relationships within our Communion.

Now as a lawyer I recognise the advantages of a Covenant proposal. It is
tidy, it is a source of clarity. As a Primate whose Province since
disestablishment in 1869 has sternly protected what I would term 'self
regulation through synodical government and process' I equally recognise
if
autonomy is our sole criteria this concept will have little attraction.
To
that I have to say - how much do we want to avoid future deeply damaging
divisions, open conflict and erosion of the being in communion concept?

(2) Ecclesiastical Law Journal, July 2005, page 160

Anglicanism has already embraced the Covenant principle in ecumenical
relations. Provincial links with other traditions have involved
agreements
which are in fact covenants. As others have argued the historic
Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral was in essence a form of covenant. May I
also
join with those who have regarded the Windsor suggestion of a Covenant
relationship as classical Anglicanism?

As an example I would quote the Called to Common Mission agreement of
the
Episcopal Church (USA) with the Lutherans. This agreement binds the
partners
to particular commitments, especially the Lutherans to the historic
episcopate. There was cost to both parties in that agreement. The
"Churches
uniting in Christ" process which is the wider ecumenical process in the
States sees several denominations binding themselves into commitments
about
Church order and doctrine together.

If churches can reach out to each other in these and many other
agreements
such as the Porvoo Agreement between the Baltic Churches and those in
the
United Kingdom -- why I ask do we find it so difficult to reach out to
other
members of the same family?

The Lambeth Commission concluded

"the case for adoption of an Anglican Covenant is overwhelming."

The Primates have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to encourage
discussion
of the concept prior to the next Lambeth Conference. I for one am
convinced
that eventually Anglicanism will incorporate the Covenant principle in
some
form. I believe this will happen not necessarily because it will be an
end
in itself but simply because we can no longer live with the danger of
major
crisis such as at present.

So where does all I have said in these two lectures lead me to personal
conclusions about the future of the Anglican Communion?

My personal opinion is that two documents should remain central to our
thinking about the future. The Virginia Report of 1996 completed on this
campus and the Windsor Report point us in a direction. In Virginia we
tried
to see 'communion' as an expression of our Anglican understanding of the
Gift of God to His Church. In Virginia we saw that communion with the
triune
God lies at the centre of our Anglican pilgrimage. In Windsor we tried
to
see how the transparency of communion was more than theological theory.
It
has practical application. But in both Reports I continue to see in the
light of my years of Episcopal service the benefits but also the dangers
of
bonds of affection' alone. Controversial it may be for a Communion which
is
jealous of provincial autonomy and fearful of a central curia to
contemplate
any attempt to produce agreed protocol which will bind us all. But is
there
any realistic alternative to some restriction on complete autonomy? Is
there
an alternative to something akin to the Covenant concept of Windsor?
Will
the day come when the lessons of our current divisions will again remind
us
we are in bonds of affection when all is going well -- but in serious
trouble when we cannot agree?

At the centre of all we are discussing is the question of how we relate
to
each other. Historians could claim that Anglicanism has been obsessed
with
the nature of authority. But surely it could be claimed that whether we
have
been too pre-occupied by authority, communion or the meaning of autonomy
or
not, there is now emerging a real need to understand what relationships
mean
within Anglicanism. What are the basic theological considerations of
what
constitutes how we relate to each other? What should guide Anglicans
when
they seek to build or maintain relationships with fellow-Anglicans or
with
other traditions? Such questions are not in my submission restricted to
human relationships. They take us to the heart of the way forward for
the
Anglican Communion. They are some of the real needs to emerge from a
Communion in crisis.

I remain a convinced Anglican. I remain a firm believer that God has a
purpose for the Anglican Communion. But I also remain convinced that the
Anglican attitude to the nature of the Church needs fresh recognition,
that
Anglicanism needs a theology of relationships and that a new feeling of
trust across our Communion cries out for new means of cementing what we
all
most long for -- unity in the life of Christ.

--
To SUBSCRIBE to enslist, send a blank email message, from the address
which
you wish subscribed, to: join-enslist@epicom.org

Send QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS to news@episcopalchurch.org

The enslist is published by Episcopal News Service:
  http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens

--