A middle reasonable ground–developments from February
Easter 5: 24th April, 2005
Fr John Davis, Vicar of St Peter's, Eastern Hill
Preached at Evensong, St George's, Goodwood, Adelaide.
We are considering issues relating to struggles for the future direction of our part of the Christian church in Australia in the week when Cardinal Ratzinger – a household word in Catholic theological and ecclesial circles for a generation – has become Pope Benedict XVI. We are not alone. Someone speaking to South Australian Anglicans in 2005 does not have to do much in the way of back grounding dysfunction and distress. Public disrepute, financial disarray, 'no-go' areas and all the while a long-vacant metropolitan see – this is how many see us.
In the bigger scene, the Anglican Communion as a whole is still struggling to come to terms with substantial change. There is every indication that this will not be successful. The trouble for Anglicanism internationally is that it is attempting to come to grips with the doctrinal and/or church disciplinary developments surrounding the ordination and consecration of women, and more recently same sex issues, at exactly the same time as it is – after nearly 150 years of loose association based on a variously shared history – attempting to provide an appropriate international structure for doing so. A Windsor Report 40 years ago accepted and in place would have us with a very different Anglican communion today.
In Australia, the growing polarisation within the Anglican Church is very clear. Sydney's national and international radical evangelical power, the Wickham Terrace consecration, growing pressure for the consecration of a bishop who is a woman outside the General Synod structures, behind the scenes manoeuvring about the forthcoming election of Primate and consequent deathly silence from the whole bench of bishops about anything, a sad passing of a Church we thought we knew and loved – that is where we are today. Will it be possible or is it desirable to hold this together, either nationally or internationally. That is the question. What voices will need to be heard much more clearly if the extremes are not to hold sway.
In our Australian Church nationally we have deliberately embraced a parliamentary and therefore potentially adversarial model of decision making in our representative synods. This is all very well is you are dealing with nuts and bolts and structures. But what if you are dealing with doctrine. What if you are dealing with a fundamentally differing and contradictory understanding of who and why and what we are. We have a problem, Houston.
There is something remarkably different and very special about the diocese of Sydney. It is quite unique within the Anglican Communion with its radical fundamental evangelicalism and its power and influence. It is superbly led, theologically coherent, well organised, well trained, very rich and very large. By comparison the rest of our Church looks pretty amateurish.
Some Anglo Catholics have been happy to make common cause with Sydney diocese because of their opposition to women bishops, though not on the Sydney grounds of the inherent appropriate subordination of women to men. But on just about every other contentious theological, ecclesiological or social issue one could think of, Sydney would be the complete ideological opponent of what the Anglo Catholic tradition would stand for. This is something to be remembered when political alliances are considered or continued.
In a highly regionalised and poorly led organization, if one substantial part has its act together and the others do not, or just cannot agree, then this has some pretty clear organisational implications. It should go without saying that this is also what faces the diocese of Melbourne in the forthcoming election process for a new Archbishop, early in 2006. This is much less of an issue for you in Adelaide.
Regarding the last General Synod, there are some strong feelings about the defeat of the women bishops legislation in particular. Even more isolated in the current scheme of things are those who would wish to look afresh at the issues involved in same sex relationships. The implications of the Windsor Report on this matter and the various international responses are still obviously a current hot potato. There the attitude of the Diocese of Sydney is even more visceral.
There remains the real and dangerous growing possibility that around Australia diocesan level frustration with the political fact of the emerging virtual veto by Sydney for the foreseeable future, of movement or development in either of the above two areas will result in the breakdown and collapse of the present structures of the Anglican Church of Australia. Some dioceses may consider going it alone, if they can get away with it, just indeed incidentally as the Diocese of Sydney is already quietly doing itself on the question of Lay Presidency at the Eucharist. We are obviously in for bumpy times ahead.
The continuing controversy regarding the consecration last February in Philadelphia of David Chislett as a bishop of The Traditional Anglican Communion – a Church not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury – while still attempting to remain the incumbent of an Anglican parish in the diocese of Brisbane, is just the most recent example of developing tensions. The decision of the Tribunal and the Archbishop of Brisbane is imminent. The Bishop of The Murray was of course one on the consecrating bishops and it is not clear how the House of Bishops in the absence of a primate is dealing with that. For what it is worth, I do not see this move as an appropriate answer to the difficulties faced by 'traditional Anglicans' but then, is the situation at all assisted in South Australia by the recent indication that we no longer have mutual recognition of even male ministries across diocesan boundaries? That is what can be assumed from the Adelaide diocesan refusal to permit a mere foot soldier in these battles to preach next Trinity Sunday at a nearby church to this. This is if you like, meeting extremism with extremism and it is absolute gift to those who might otherwise be on the back foot.
In Australia the clearest battle lines regarding 'continuing Anglicanism' are being drawn in Queensland and in South Australia. The February consecration was announced on the Internet as it was happening by a leading Australian supporter in the following striking terms: 'This step is a crossing of the Rubicon with all that this implies for us.' For those who face some challenges in the area of ancient Roman military history, that is another way of saying that this is indeed a very serious matter and, now that this considered step has been taken, there is no turning back. He goes on:
'Indeed, given the harsh reality of the circumstances I would draw a parallel with the ordinations and consecrations undertaken in prison camps during the dark days of Soviet tyranny to ensure survival of apostolic ministry to the faithful in the face of hostility and persecution.'
This issue will very shortly become much clearer and decisions will be taken that will be hard to go back on.
Carpe diem is a Latin motto about taking the opportunity that is presenting itself – 'seize the day' it says. Behind it is a presupposition about assurance and hope, about leadership and confidence. And it is also a phrase that resonates with a degree of determination for difficult times.
In some senses I was actually delighted last year when the Dean of Sydney's headlined observations from that conference in England about the Archbishop of Canterbury and King's College got such substantial coverage. Do you remember? It really helped to focus the issues and to make clear the choices. As I certainly said at the time in a couple letters to various editors that got published, this was just going too far for the rest of us Anglicans to be remaining compliantly silent.
Now therefore at this particular time in the history and development of the Anglican Church of Australia we have another period when the issues are being very starkly put before us. Again, it really does help focus the issues. But a dismissing ridicule or spluttering indignation is nowhere near enough.
We need to be working actively to offer clear alternatives, clear responses, and clear ecclesial governance. In times like these and in a Church like ours, I have to say that means some very clear burdens and obligations falling on our own shoulders, whether or not we hold any high office, – indeed obligations on the shoulders of anyone who has eyes to see that there are actually pretty clear basic issues at stake here.
If we are silent now and offer nothing (except just to keep things nicely ticking over locally), then we will be failing badly. There is leadership required, there is teaching, there is example; there are different models of faithfulness and discipleship that must be affirmed and lived out – however and wherever we find that to be possible.
If those of us who happen to be hold alternative views have the courage and the quiet confidence to try to take it on, there are some big gaps that together we just might be able to address. This is in the context of a Church that both nationally and at the local level has some very serious and substantial problems of leadership and oversight – of episcope.
If there are those of us around who would wish to declare for a different approach to what it is to be an Anglican Christian to that, for instance, of the Dean of Sydney and all that he represents, then we are indeed going to need to stand up and be counted. If as well, there are those of us who do not at all agree that the consecration in Philadelphia last February will solve problems here in Australia then our concerns need to be articulated, because a very clear understanding of what it is to be an Anglican Christian is at stake there too. We absolutely need to encourage others of a similar view to join us and to speak out. Action is now needed, and active choice. In either of these areas, silence is consent and resolute continuing division on second level issues is weakness.
We are in the middle of what is developing into a major battle for the very soul of what it is to be an Anglican. It is happening at a world level. It is happening within the Australian Church nationally. It is happening at the diocesan level wherever we are.
Internationally, much depends on the reception of the Windsor Report, at the Anglican Communion level. There is every indication that a major split will break apart the Anglican Communion. Some say that what has already happened with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting moves against the North Americans over same sex issues. Choices are having to be made and priorities determined. Alliances are being formed.
Who is to be called upon the pay the price of unity this time? Whole national Churches? The Archbishop of Canterbury? An expendable minority? Are unity and diversity therefore no longer equally possible? For those of us watching on the sidelines there are questions: What does integrity demand of us? What does the Gospel demand of us?
There are immediate presenting issues and there are more basic underlying ones. The fundamentalist extremism that is represented so well by the Dean of Sydney – what he does, what he says, what he turfs out of that cathedral, what he teaches, who he will have nothing to do with – also presents the rest of us with a clear representative choice. Does he speak for us? Is this cut and dried, so very black and white understanding ours? Is this the God, the Church, the community that is ours? Would the Archbishop of Sydney, elected Primate next July in a deal to save the unity of the Church in Australia, speak for us?
Alternatively, does the action of Forward in Faith Australia looking, it seems, to be working for a parallel Church for continuing Anglicans address the concerns adequately either?
Are either of these directions the way? Is this to be the Church and the community that is ours? Are we hearing anywhere the language of bridge building or bridge-mending? A middle reasonable ground is crying out to be taken, if it is not already too late.
If the crisis in the wider Church continues to unfold, people are going to be forced into making choices. Some will choose in disgust or despair to give up the whole enterprise. Some may agree wholeheartedly with the Dean of Sydney. Some may agree whole-heartedly with the rector of All Saints' Wickham Terrace and whatever new role he may seek to undertake.
Some though will be looking for parishes, groups, living traditions within catholic Anglicanism, that can speak strongly and clearly with a different voice, and with a generous heart, despite all that is going on. Some group, some places, somewhere, anywhere, strong enough, brave enough together to offer and to stand as a legitimate alternative – handing the torch of this vision to a later generation in better times.
This is going to have to be an expression of our common catholic Anglicanism that offers renewed life and hope in the faith; in this more generous middle ground. Obviously, there are going to be some very loud and strong voices who are not going to be in that place. The extremes are writing the agenda. Anglican polarisation has now developed to such an extent that many who have managed to hold on this long may despair at finding anyone anywhere articulating a vision and an ecclesiology of the Church that they can at all recognize and identify with. In the context of a papacy of Benedict XVI, that is very sad. This is the very challenging situation we are in today as Australian Anglicans. A middle reasonable ground is the presenting challenge that is the desperate and urgent need of this day.
| 