Feed my sheep
Sunday of the Octave of St Peter: 2nd July, 2006
Fr John Davis, Vicar of St Peter's, Eastern Hill
Many of us have been disturbed and saddened by media reports this week regarding the alleged death of Anglicanism as we know it. This is not a matter that I wish to avoid: it must be addressed. I will be taking the opportunity to place these reports in a somewhat wider context, to help us all think these things through. We need to be informed.
Might it be said at once: we are not dead yet! To paraphrase a famous quip: 'The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated'. But the situation is serious. There is profound disagreement. There are wide cultural differences. Parts of the Church are scarcely on speaking terms. World Anglicanism does not have centralised structures to deal with this in a decisive and 'one size fits all' way, as for example the Roman Catholic Church does. That is not the sort of Church we are. What does exist is the freedom of members of a voluntary association to leave, or the possibility for a power struggle for the control of such an association to become very bitter. For some time now, we have been going through the early stages of such a struggle and it is not pretty. More is to come – and things could go in a number of different directions. Barney Swartz told us yesterday in The Age (1July 2006) that the conservatives are winning, but by that he meant the Archbishop of Nigeria. Not just yet; and further I would put the proposition that, in terms of classic Anglican polity, the conservatives in this debate are those who are arguing for the retention of regional autonomy.
Meanwhile all this reminds me of that wonderful early scene in Pride and Prejudice when Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy find themselves dancing together at the ball at Netherby. The formal structures of the dance – the weaving in and out of other participants, the briefest of the barely civil courtesies, the unhidden distaste, the desire to be somewhere, anywhere else – all this gave us a sizzling image of a couple that was not going anywhere. Maybe that is where world Anglicanism is, but not just yet. Jane Austen had some surprises up her sleeve. Maybe God the Holy Spirit does too. But this particular dance set has already been going on since 2003.
From the beginning of our Anglican walking separately from Rome in the 16th century, we have understood and claimed the right to differ on matters of importance in doctrine, worship and ethics. These are the issues again, now. Authority, decision-making, acceptable degrees of local variation, power, faithfulness. The presenting 16th century issue – the need for a male heir for the King – seemed important at the time. The presenting issue now – how the Church deals with same sex relations – is important to many. But is it a fellowship breaking issue? Is it something to split a Church over? A hundred years from now, what will this look like?
Archbishop Jensen of Sydney has spoken in the language of separation, as before a divorce. He sounds like he would be pleased with that outcome. Clarity at last. So would some of his most vigorous opponents. Justice at last. Newspaper reporters – some better informed in the nuances and complexities of church politics than others – have referred to an alleged ultimatum from the Archbishop of Canterbury directed at the Episcopal Church. Others have already begun speculating on which parts of the international Church might be included in a new top league of Anglican-ness and which in a second division of associates. It needs to be said again: We are nowhere near that situation yet. There is no covenant. There is no agreed process.
The concept of an Anglican Communion is a mid 19th century development. It first found expression in the Lambeth Conference of 1867. By far the greatest enthusiasm for this came from the Church in Canada and the United States. But we were there too. The English were not terribly interested and more than a little suspicious. The idea of an Anglican Communion that has some parts saying that others who have been constituent from the beginning can no longer belong, is very new indeed – it is about three years old.
A lot is being said about Lambeth resolutions or the opinions of some groups of archbishops, or the decisions taken in some international meetings. None of these is juridical; none has the force of law, none has the power to compel. This is how we are. Above the constitutional and legal realities of each of the various autonomous Churches of the Anglican Communion exists nothing more than persuasion and what is left of a shared story, a common prayer and bonds of affection. For many thousands of Anglican parishes and communities of faith around the world, that has been sufficient and agreeable.
The Anglican ordering of just how this works out has been done for some 450 years at the level of a particular and national Church – what we call a Province. [see Article XXXIV] . These provinces are now spread all around the world – there are 37 of them – all in communion with the See of Canterbury. In present day Australia our province is made up of 23 dioceses, including our own of Melbourne, with an elected Primate or chief bishop to preside at a three-yearly General Synod. This deals with matters of more than diocesan concern.
This is all an example of what is called 'subsidiarity' – taking responsibility and making decisions about things at the lowest appropriate level of the organisation. For instance, we can decide whether we want to reseal the floor of this church and whether we can afford it, but the diocese has already determined the structures and the accountabilities for such a decision to be made. And Heritage Victoria as an arm of the government also has a say and powers in our case. Alternatively, a parish may agree to the appointment of a priest, but the Archbishop has to agree to licence or ordain that priest and the general synod will have determined and defined who may be a priest in the first place – subject to the agreed standards of the Church. This is 'subsidiarity'. This is the way we do things.
The question now is, what about the rolling mess that has emerged internationally? This is arising from decisions made about the election in 2003 of a bishop in the United States by the diocese of New Hampshire. This bishop is living in a committed long term same sex relationship. He was elected by due synodical process and the election was legally confirmed at the top level of the existing decision-making process – the General Convention and the House of Bishops. The recent General Convention saw the Bishop of New Hampshire still in place. An autonomous province has acted autonomously.
That action has not been acceptable, particularly to what is called the 'Global South', under the leadership of Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria. It has been declared that the only possible way forward is to add a new further level to these existing diocesan and provincial structures – an international level. That is what is now being proposed. This is to determine what would require Communion – wide agreement for change, as well as Communion – wide affirmation for what we already hold in common.
This would represent a very substantial shift from the system of dispersed authority that presently applies, and has applied since the Reformation. Both liberals and conservatives have some big questions about this. Archbishop Jensen knows the value of his local autonomy (though ironically in the Australian context, the diocese of Sydney fought tooth and nail for 50 years to prevent it.) The established Church of England might not even be legally able to be anything other than autonomous.
The language being used is that of 'covenant'. This is a word that is both very familiar to us from the Scriptures and very unfamiliar for us Anglicans in terms of ecclesial organisation. A covenant is a formal and solemn agreement between parties, involving responsibilities and accountabilities on both sides. It can be like a treaty that can clarify what has been unclear or in dispute. It can be like a marriage commitment: a celebration and an explicit declaration, joyfully done.
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a very substantial Reflection dated 27th June 2006. It is addressed 'To the Bishops, clergy and faithful of the Anglican Communion' and so I draw it to your attention. He very strongly argues for the need of a new international covenant that all the various autonomous Anglican provinces would be asked to agree to. This would be designed to express what it is necessary to hold and to be, to be Anglican, and it would place a limit on all existing provincial autonomy. It is an idea proposed in last year's Windsor Report.
Under this proposal then, a Province would be given the opportunity to sign up to this as yet unspecified statement or covenant. If they do agree, then they are to be what the Archbishop of Canterbury is calling 'constituent' Anglicans, if they do not, they may be 'associate' Anglicans. It has been widely interpreted as a way to get rid of the Americans and the Canadians. But as I said at the beginning, we are a long way from there yet.
But what form might this covenant take? In Australia for instance we actually already have a covenant – although we have not called it that. We have a covenant between the 23 dioceses here in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. We call it the "Fundamental Declarations" of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. For 60 years in the first part of the last century these were discussed and shaped. In 1961, we declared them to be unchanging and binding. They declare for us what it is to be Anglican. In broad terms, they reflect the shape of the Lambeth Quadrilateral. We can take on more, but we may not take on less.
These three short sections declare this Australian Church to be part of a wider whole. They mandate the Christian faith as professed by the Church from 'primitive times': as expressed in the Creeds, as declared in the Scriptures which hold 'all things necessary for salvation', and as lived, taught and followed in Christian discipleship, the sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, and in the context of the threefold order of ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. This is actually our existing covenant that we have with each other here already. It has been very carefully crafted. So, we do have a shape of a covenant here, that was hammered out in the most diverse and divided of any of the provinces of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps in all humility, we could offer it. After all, we in all our Australian different-ness agree to it now.
An international covenant on similar terms would in principle hold no fears. It is one thing however to have an agreed statement or covenant. It is another to have adequate and honest provision for interpretation and dispute resolution in the form of an ultimate agreed Appellate Tribunal or court of appeal. Both are necessary. Any international covenant would have to build that in, in an acceptable way.
As a Church, we have in Australia claimed the local authority and autonomy to express, to order or to revise what we have received, subject to those unchanging Fundamental Declarations. We have declared that our authorised standard of worship and doctrine is the Book of Common Prayer 1662. We have declared that Communion with the Church of England or any other Church, is with those who are able to agree with our basic Fundamental Declarations. This is deliberately ecumenically open ended.
Perhaps internationally then there would also need to be an important second level, just as we have. We call them "Ruling Principles" in our constitution. They can with difficulty be changed. These are second level issues that can be discussed. By implication, those who drew up our constitution did not consider them to be 'communion breaking'.
It is here however where the limits of diversity of interpretation are named and declared. It would therefore be in the formulation of clauses in this category that any potential international covenant would stand or fall. A truly representative commission from all Provinces of the Communion would need to work hard and fast. This will still take time and prayerful consideration. Maybe after all this is what the Archbishop of Canterbury is looking for. Perhaps he is saying to us all, take a very deep breath. Do you really want to break apart over this?
I myself have very strong doubts that this suggested covenant process will be able to work. To go back to the separation and divorce analogy that Archbishop Jensen has used, we know that no amount of counselling or discussion will produce reconciliation, without mutual goodwill and trust and the desire of both sides to try to make things work. I am not at all sure that that is the case. I have also highlighted the profound shift in principle that this move to limit provincial autonomy would involve.
The gospel reading we had today for this Sunday within the octave of St Peter (Jn 21:15-19) is very moving and powerful. The risen Lord is talking to the one who has so recently denied him three times. Perhaps nicely balancing those three denials, Jesus asks Peter three times: 'Simon son of John do you love me?' Three times an increasingly distressed Peter answers 'Lord you know that I love you.' Three times the response comes back:
Feed my lambs.
Tend my sheep.
Feed my sheep.
There is one clear message for the community of faith and its leaders.
From that declared love is to flow action: care for them, work together with them, be with them, feed and tend them.
Jesus did not say: 'Believe these right things', or 'Have this interpretation of Scripture' or 'Be a perfect person' or 'You are no good; you have denied me'. From the relationship of love in Jesus flows the relationship with the 'lambs and sheep' that are the Lord's. This commission carries great responsibility. It is clear about priorities. There is a powerful message there for us, at this difficult and upsetting time.
I am very happy to be an Anglican. I am very happy to be the Vicar of this fine parish. I am happy to be in a place that continues to offer nurture and support in challenging times. So then, let this be said strongly and with hope: we all have a place here: we all have a call to Christian discipleship and service, to respond to and to grow in; we all have a faith and a tradition to honour and a community to build. No amount of disturbance further up the food chain should divert us from that!
The Lord be with you.
Dr John Davis is the Vicar of St Peter's Eastern Hill, the historic Anglican parish church of Melbourne, and author of Australian Anglicans and their Constitution, Acorn Press, Canberra 1993.
| 