| |
|
|
|
Lambeth Can Be What It Wants To Be |
|
|
|
Written by Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
|
|
Tuesday, 05 June 2007 |
Summary
Why the wrangling over Lambeth? If nothing else, the present debate over invitations to and attendance at the upcoming Lambeth Conference offers an important opportunity to reflect on the character of the Church as a body that gathers, takes common counsel, and makes representative decisions. Specifically, some of the public statements over these matters being offered by various parties within the Anglican Communion expose some deep misunderstandings as well as some marvelous opportunities.
One of the main expressions of misunderstanding lies in the stated
desire – first declared by certain American liberals, and now taken up
from their own side by some American and some African conservatives –
to leave the Lambeth Conference behind as a gathering unworthy of their
attendance. Writing as a conservative myself, I must address the
latter group most explicitly
It is true that we find that it is hard and perhaps impossible any
longer to “recognize” our church within the liberal hegemony dominating
TEC. And it is natural that we would feel, as a result, a certain
anger driven by sadness, disappointment, and alarm. It is even natural
that such feelings would motivate us to seek separation from that which
seems alien and heretical to us, and to attempt to forge links with a
form of Christian belief and practice that coheres with our own
self-recognition. But all of this need not and should not drive us to
refuse to meet within the larger church in a Christian spirit and
confront our differences and their effects. Such refusal, it seems,
runs counter both to Christian charity and to the way in which
Christians have sought to settle differences over the ages (see below):
namely, by gathering in council to deal face to face with matters that
divide.
The Lambeth conference is not a “council” in one common sense of the
term, insofar as it has no “formal juridical” authority. In the
context of a divided church, however, it is not clear exactly what
“juridical” means in a truly Christian sense. What gathering of
Christians can truly claim today such apostolic authority as to
“decide” the truth in a controverted case where there are always other
parties, with their own “juridically” qualified gatherings ready to
contradict such decisions? In any case, I will argue that conciliar
gatherings are not primarily defined in terms of their juridical
functions anyway, but in terms of their charismatic authority, lodged
in the lives of (some/the majority of) their own members.
At the very least, then, the Lambeth Conference is like a council in that its purpose from the beginning
has been to confront divisive issues with both truth and charity,
engaged through the work of the Holy Spirit, and so nourishing and
preserving unity in the midst of division. Thus, to insist that
agreement be present before meeting – and despite previous meetings!
-- is simply to void the purpose of the meeting in the first place.
Further, to separate precipitously from a body that no longer resembles
Christian truth and practice as one understands them, or that seems
incapable to upholding them, is to foreclose on the pneumatic promises
of providence that call us into council in the first place.
The above points do not entail the conclusion that discipline cannot or
should not be imposed on those who persist in an alien way or who
scandalize by their behavior. I, like many others, believe such
discipline is in fact required. Still, such alien and scandalous life
should be confronted rather than avoided by absenting oneself from an
encounter in the Lord and refusing the obligation to hold to account in
the power of the Lord. The primary point behind all this is that
Christians have been given a divine narrative and vocation that insists
upon engaged suffering as a means of witness, rather than upon
departure and beginning anew as a means of protest and
self-protection. Thus, the prophets (e.g. Jeremiah) and Christ suffer
among their people. They do not leave them to form another people.
The Conciliar Life of the Church in Anglican terms
I am a strong believer in the “conciliar” nature of the Church – that
is, in the Church as making her decisions in common “council”. I have
argued for this in various places, and believe that Anglicanism,
perhaps more than most other Christian traditions of the present, is
divinely gifted to live out this common Christian vocation. Because I
am an Anglican, however, I understand the conciliar character of the
Church in a particular way.
First, I believe that the Church’s councils are ordered specifically
around her bishops, as representatives of her apostolic ordering in
communion. This does not mean that only bishops can take
authoritative counsel for the Church, but rather that this is where
such counsel finds its regularized articulation. There are good
Scriptural and historical reasons for holding this position. Second,
because the Church herself is imbued with the corrupted character of
her members, her people and her leaders (including bishops!) are not
infallible, and therefore her councils “may err”, even in “matters of
faith”, or in things pertaining to the “Word of God” (Articles 19 and
21), the last of which stands as our ultimate authority in all aspects
of our life, including counsel.
These two points taken together have a number of important
implications. Among them is the fact that Christian councils
themselves can never be sufficient on their own – either as some single
and “super” council, or as specific local ones, whether of bishops or
of clergy and laity. Rather, the Church’s councils work as an
interlocking and integrated series of mutually informing and eventually
reinforcing gatherings of discernment and decision, only whose breadth
and extent provide the perceived “authority” of her teaching and
discipline, as they finally find voice in the common teaching of the
Church’s bishops. Local and wider councils or “synods” – a word that
simply means a “common path” or “walking together” – that include the
variety of representative decision-making in our churches, must find
their place and finally be shaped by and submitted to the full range of
conciliar decision-making that happens over time. The Eastern Orthodox
refer to this in terms of “reception”, the historical process by which
the Holy Spirit demonstrates decisions to be conformable or not to the
Word of God and the truth of Christ.
Indeed, another important implication of an Anglican view of the
Church’s conciliar character is that decision-making is a fundamentally
historical process in its Christian integrity, and not something
that just happens at one go. Conciliarity is both embodied only over
time, and it is perceived in its authority only over time. This
happens as conciliar discernment and decision on a particular matter is
apprehended as being coherent and congruent with the Church’s vocation
as the Scripturally-bound vessel of the Lord Jesus’ life.
A further implication, then, of an Anglican notion of the Church’s
conciliar character, is that the interlocking and integrated series of
her gatherings of discernment be ordered, so as to provide the
accountable means for their mutual influence and shaping in and through
the vicissitudes of time. It is precisely because of the
corrupted and fallible nature of the Church’s councils as historical
entities that they take place in a fashion that follows a regular,
organizationally predictable, and thereby responsible shape, one that
is capable therefore of being steadily judged within a context of
historical movement. Disordered and irregular counsel is the enemy of
the Church’s authority.
The charismatic character of conciliar authority
In light of all this, I would emphasize that the real basis for the
authoritative nature of the Church’s conciliar vocation is not,
therefore, the entity of a “council” in itself. Councils are not
Scripture. Councils themselves are not the Holy Spirit. Councils
guarantee nothing. Just because one has a council – local or wider –
does not mean that what it decides has any authority in Christian
terms. Rather, the basis for the authoritative nature of the Church’s
conciliar vocation lies in the faithful perseverance of its members in
common over time, that is, in their willingness to live the Christian
life together “for the Lord” and “in the Lord”. Since the authority of
councils derive from their place in a historical series, it is grasped
only retrospectively, and it is possible to do this only because one
has carried through with the conciliar life together long enough and
through a perseverant life of faithfulness on such a path that the
truth is apprehended together. A synod may indeed come to a decision
that is “true” in the sense of conforming to and displaying the truth
of Scripture, but that council may never gain “authority” in the Church
because it never took place within the extended conciliar life of the
Church in such a way that its truth was apprehended.
The place where the Holy Spirit “authorizes” a council, therefore, is
not first in the abstract nature of its decisions nor even in the
juridically-defined and defining shape of a given gathering. It is in
the ongoing Christian life of those making decisions and receiving
them. Councils are authoritative when they are perceived, that is, as
being “holy”, enacted by holy people and received by holy people,
conformed to the Scriptural shape of God’s will. True councils are
“charismatic”, in the qualification used by Orthodox theologians.
Councils are authoritative, not only when they speak the “truth” (this
is not a sufficient condition for conciliar authority), but when they
are filled with and give rise to the gifts and fruit of the Spirit –
faith, generosity, and so on, and “love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Rom.
12:6ff.; Gal. 5:22f.). This should not be a surprise, Scripturally
speaking: for it is the “gathering in my Name (cf. Mt. 18:20), in its
rich and profound sense of the Spirit’s common life, that is promised
the presence of Jesus. The Church “over time”, and hence as a truly
conciliar reality, exists as Christ’s Body only as she embodies the
Holy Spirit’s gifts and fruit in this sense that allows her to gather
at all (1 Cor. 12).
The necessary and essential link between council and Holy Spirit,
understood in the sense above, underscores a paradoxical reality: the
Church’s councils need not be wholly “pure” in their make-up to be valid and authoritative. Rather they require only that some
of their members be holy and, more importantly, that such holiness
persist in the midst of the Church’s errors and sin. For the Spirit is
“sent”; the Spirit does not constitute. The Spirit inhabits; the
Spirit does not embody. This is the model of the apostolic church of
Jesus, at the Last Supper and Passion: the holiness of the Church –
and her councils – is given in the means by which her saints
demonstrate the Spirit’s fruit within the Church’s fallenness, by the
exercise of truthful witness, mercy and charity with and among
her corrupted members, as Jesus did not only towards his persecutors,
but towards his own followers who would and who did eventually abandon
Him.
In light of this discussion, we can answer a number of questions
currently being raised about attendance at the Lambeth Conference of
Anglican bishops. We can do so by observing the character of the
Church’s first great councils – e.g. Nicea and Constantinople – and
seeing how in fact they conform to the outline of conciliar life
suggested above, and how they clarify current concerns. Although these
two councils represent something “new”, from the perspective of
history, they were not in fact “primordial”. They emerged from and
took their place within an existing and long line of previous councils,
some of considerable significance and weight. As “councils”, they are
“general”, not de novo.
Does one sit in council with those with whom one is out of communion?
Nicea answered this question affirmatively: present were not only the
Novationist schismatic bishop Acesius, but also Arians (including Arius
himself!) who had previously and formally broken with bishops of the
(finally decided) “orthodox” party. One does not need to share the
Eucharist with another Christian in order for the counsel of the Holy
Spirit to be authoritatively pursued among them.
In the midst of disputes within the Church, including ones that cut
deeply and that burden us today, this reality (more fully demonstrated
below) cuts in all kinds of directions.
Does one sit in council with heretics?
Invited to Nicea, as we know, were Arius and his friends and supporters
(e.g. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who ended up causing so much trouble for
the orthodox after Nicea, despite signing on to the final agreement).
The first Council of Constantinople, over 50 years after Nicea, had to
revisit with much anguish and conflict the very matters already decided
at Nicea. This means that the later council, by definition, was one
engaged with known “heretics”, established as such by a previous
council. Yet that did not prevent the council’s gathering and its
engagement of orthodox and heretic together.
Does one sit in council with the excommunicated?
As the previous question and response show, “heresy” can already be
conciliarly defined and still be engaged subsequently on a personal
level at another council. Hence, Arius, along with at least two
African bishops, Secondus and Theonus, had been formally condemned and
excommunicated by a formal Alexandrian synod, some time before Nicea
convened. Yet Bp. Alexander (and Athanasius, his then-secretary) met
with them at Nicea. Both Nicea and Constantinople gathered bishops who
had, at various times, been excommunicated and even exiled by opposing
parties.
One of the questions to be asked in the context of the above is, “does
not counsel with heretics and the excommunicated threaten the
corruption of the council itself and of the church subsequently?”.
This question has been posed within the Anglican Communion currently in
terms of TEC being a liberal “heresy” similar to a “gangrene” or
“cancer” whose presence cannot be tolerated in council for fear of
contamination. Clearly this was not the view of those participating
in the first councils of the Church, including the first two Ecumenical
Councils. It was not so because the nature of Christian conciliarity,
as we have explained, is founded on the power of the Holy Spirit within
the lives of those taking council, not uniformly, but simply really –
just as Jesus’ authority in the Church is based on His own pneumatic
life, not on His members’ uniformly.
Certainly, there are a variety of responses given in the New Testament
church to heresy or immorality within the Christian community. In all
cases where possible, discipline is exercised. But discipline within
the New Testament is not uniform – as Paul’s experience with the “false
apostles” at Corinth makes clear – and is often set aside in favor of
the “power” of the Spirit’s “demonstration” in the lives of the
Church’s saints, regardless of the failures of others around them.
Indeed, the one text in the New Testament regarding “gangrene” (2 Tim.
2:17) is not about complete disengagement with heretics, but about the
proper kind of engagement, based not on drawn out controversy
but on a particular kind of charismatic posture and example as a
teacher (2 Tim. 2:24ff.) that leads the erring person to “repentance”.
The point here is that a council may choose to invite or not, on the
basis of discipline or not – none of this validates or invalidates a
council. These are prudential decisions, not matters of faith (see below).
Does one sit at council with those who have betrayed previous councils?
Following Nicea, an entire array of Arians and related “heretics”
continued to agitate and in fact often “triumph” ecclesially through
episcopal establishement and numerous new councils, both local and
wider. Many, although not all, of these subsequent councils were
attended by “orthodox”, who knowingly came to gatherings in which they
were outnumbered, deceived, and mistreated. Their attendance, where
possible, was based on the courage, calm, and faith granted them by the
Holy Spirit, not on juridical realities. Such councils were often
later judged to be invalid; but not because of their initial gathering,
but rather because of their fruit. I personally believe it to be the
case that, at certain point, if one can no longer trust the word of
certain members of the Church, their presence at the Church’s councils
do indeed become problematic. But again, to what degree is a
prudential decision, not one based on principle.
Does non-invitation of potentially worthy attendees invalidate a council?
The Bishop of Rome was never invited to (nor did he or his formal
representative attend) the Council of Constantinople (and he was, at
the time, out of communion with the Council’s president, Melitius, as
well as with others present). Yet, in time – and not a long time
either – the Council of Constantinople was recognized by the Pope as a
valid “ecumenical” council, despite not even having a formal papal
representative present.
The conclusion here, to restate a point made before and well-grounded
in conciliar theology, is that councils are authoritative in their
historical reception, not in their immediate form. The form, however,
points to the character of the council in an initial way, and
eventually reveals that inner character over time: one comes to
council, and God does His work.
Is the Lambeth Conference a council?
Councils are determined retrospectively by their fruit. There have
been “rules” formulated for determining a council’s legitimacy
(especially in Western churches, though less so in the East), but these
are not in themselves sufficient or even necessary, certainly not
always clear (cf. Constantinople I, and various other disputed
councils).
The Lambeth Conference was not, as we know, initially understood to be
a “synod” of juridical authority; nor is it yet so considered in any
clear way. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently wrote that the
Conference “is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the
Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the
standing of all the participants”. This statement is technically true,
but it is perhaps misleading. What in fact does “formal” mean in a
conciliar church where the work of the Holy Spirit itself in the lives
of a council’s participants grants a council authority? Does it apply
simply to the “regular” aspect of a council – in which case, however,
Lambeth is surely such a gathering. And, as we saw, an authoritative
and regularized council may invite all kinds of attendees, without
necessarily being “absolutely clear about the standing of all the
participants”. It is the Spirit that lets us “stand” or “fall” (cf.
Rom. 14:4) – we should not worry about others. Finally, the Lambeth
Conferences have in fact been in the process of being received in more
and more clearly “conciliar” ways, wherein “moral authority” (already
recognized by many) has assumed an embodied disciplinary authority, if
not yet one that has been well defined. What does seem clear
is that the Lambeth Conference already functions as part of the
interlocking reality of the Anglican Communion’s discerning and
decision-making life in a way that is essential and effective.
If this is so, we need to understand what exactly is happening when the
Archbishop of Canterbury makes decisions and statements regarding a
given Lambeth Conference. First and foremost, he is not ruling on the
authority of Lambeth as a council of the Communion. That is not his
role nor his purview. Only the Holy Spirit rules on a council! And
the Lambeth Conference has been the subject of this pneumatic ruling
already now for some years. Thus, while the Archbishop of Canterbury
has the authority “to invite”, he does not have the authority to
declare a gathering a true council or not. Not even the Lambeth
Conference!
But what of the “invitations” themselves? The Archbishop of Canterbury
may, and he should, exercise his authority to invite in as prudentially
acute a way as possible, given all the various needs and pressures at
work in the Communion especially in our day. The “regular” and
“ordered” character of the Anglican Communion’s life has given him this
role. This has happened not only through both the providence and
accidents of time, but conciliarly, through the “received” acceptance
of his role from the first Lambeth Conference until now, and this
follows the pattern whereby most councils are convened through
particular ordered means and persons. And until this particular
pattern within the Communion is altered in a regularized fashion, the
role is his to fulfill in as faithful a way as possible. This we pray
he will do. It is possible that this role will one day be altered; but
it cannot be simply altered by individual fiat from some quarter of the Communion, apart from the conciliar life of the Communion itself.
For instance, the Archbishop appears to have specific disciplinary and
pastoral reasons why he will not invite Gene Robinson to Lambeth, or
Martyn Minns, or several other bishops from around the Communion – e.g.
their presence is egregiously scandalous or confusing or preemptive of
certain decisions yet to be made. The point isn’t that there is a grid
by which to measure exactly levels of scandal or confusion as attached
to specific individuals: is Robinson more “scandalous” than Arius?
There is no such template. Rather, the Archbishop must simply do the
best he can to weigh the practical realities of attendance and
non-attendance, given the goal of conciliar gathering itself. He also
may well have such reasons in the future for withdrawing or further
limiting or expanding his invitations. We may agree or disagree with
the Archbishop’s assumed or explicit reasoning, but the invitations
themselves are appropriately offered within the context of such
prudential and disciplinary reasoning, and the conciliar value of Lambeth simply does not hang on the particulars of the invitations themselves.
Whoever is invited is being called through the formal and ordered means
of the church’s conciliar life; and the calling should be heeded.
At the same time, the Archbishop can and should integrate, as far as
possible and in as prudent a way possible, his decisions about all this
with the other representative councils of the Communion. Our current
Archbishop has made it clear that he views his role as an “instrument”
and “focus” of unity to be properly exercised within the college of
Primates especially. Should the prudential concerns of his invitations
demand it, he should rightly submit his invitations to the common
counsel of his colleagues. And they indeed demand it, as I see it, in
light of the very concrete concerns articulated by the Primates in
their last meeting, concerns about TEC and the Communion that impinge
directly on the Lambeth Conference’s ability to strengthen our common
life and witness.
My own view (and that of others) has long been that TEC’s behavior has
been so brazenly destructive of the Communion’s conciliar life on a
number of levels, that the entire American church’s college of bishops
should not be invited to Lambeth at all. Without some major, formal,
and agreed recommitment to the character of conciliar life, TEC’s
participation in the Communion’s gathering threatens to be subversive,
not edifying, inevitably confusing, not clarifying. The Anglican
Communion is not “the Catholic Church” tout court, by a long
shot, and requires a kind of conserving energy that goes beyond
whole-sale pneumatic openness-within-order. Individual TEC bishops
might, if they so chose, petition Canterbury and the Primates for a
seat at Lambeth on the basis of affirming a commitment to the
principles the Primates themselves laid out in their recent Communiqué
(the “Camp Allen Principles”) – this may already be implied in
Canterbury’s current invitation, although this is not wholly clear --
or at least a commitment to previous Lambeth resolutions, whose
imposing legitimacy has now been clearly affirmed by the interlocking
agreement of other Anglican Communion synods.
Perhaps something like this is still possible in the post –September
30th Anglican world, when TEC’s House of Bishops will have given their
common response to the Primates. Many of us hope for this and urge
this, of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates themselves.
But my opinion is only that – an opinion among many. I have no role in
inviting, and I can only advise, from the farthest distance, on the
character of prudence demanded by the current situation. The Lambeth
Conference should go on with (preferably) or without imposed criteria.
Even the most pessimistic “conservative” must agree that the numbers
are there for traditionalist bishops to do whatever they discern as
fitting, if they indeed show up and pursue it. That is the nature of a
council: if "what they pursue" is right, it will stick.
But quite apart from Canterbury or this or that party’s hopes or
judgments, Lambeth can be, in terms of the Holy Spirit’s leading,
whatever it wants to be. Neither Canterbury, nor the Design Committee,
nor those who do not attend can make or unmake the conciliar character
of Lambeth. And those who do attend may well, should they choose to
exercise the tools of the Spirit they are given (to the degree that any
of us have such a “choice”), transform through the Spirit’s work
whatever the Lambeth Conference may initially appear to be into a true
and authoritative council of the Communion and even of the Church at
large. The Holy Spirit controls the course of a gathering of saints;
and the saints are eager to work with God. The Church of Christ
eagerly seeks counsel together, even when its “formal councils” are
obscured.
And why would anyone wish to be otherwise than eager in this regard?
There are clearly those who want to declare the Lambeth Conference
conciliarly ineffective, and to depose it from (or deny it) any
conciliar role, even before it convenes. A question to be asked of
these people is whether they want to declare themselves, before the
fact, as letting go of the charismatic calling of the Church. For, in
the context of the Christian faith and the Church’s life, they need not
do so. “Talking down” the Conference or deliberately absenting oneself
from it may or may not undermine the authority of Lambeth (indeed,
depending on how it is done, it may in fact enhance it!). But if it so
undermines it, it also may well undermine the authority of those who
deliberately reject the Conference itself. For such preemptive
rejection will cloud the eagerness, trouble the faith, dampen the fire,
quench the Spirit. Let archbishops and their episcopal colleges come
and “fight the good fight”, sustained – as surely they will be – by the
Holy Spirit of God. These are good people, whose deepest hopes the
Lord would shape and honor. Let those who pray, come together and
pray; let those who serve, come together and serve; let those who
teach, come together and teach; let those who heal, come together and
heal. Let the Holy Spirit list where He will within the Church as she
gathers in the name of Jesus.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 05 June 2007 )
|
|
|
|
|
