From the Common Cause Partnership via Stand Firm:
Posted June 1, 2009 at 3:41 PM (2 days ago)
Editor's Note: The Rt. Rev. John H. Rodgers Jr. Th.D., retired dean of Trinity School for Ministry, offers an evangelical Anglican perspective on the Proposed Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America.
I am aware that there are several concerns articulated by various individuals concerning the Proposed Constitution and most particularly by Evangelicals concerning language about the Historic Episcopate being integral or inherent to the nature of the Church. We note it is not the fact of the Historic Episcopate that is the concern. Anglican Evangelicals have always treasured the Historic Episcopate and delighted in it when it is exercised in faithfulness to the Gospel. I would like to suggest three reasons why, at this last minute, such concerns should not cause any of us to hesitate to support the constitution as it has emerged.
The first is a practical and procedural reason. Each of us comes from one or more of the traditions that have long existed in orthodox, faithful Anglican life and may want to fine-tune certain expressions where we feel our tradition has not been adequately expressed. That is understandable. We need, however to address this together and in a thoughtful and official way. Surely we can find language about the Historic Episcopate that includes all of us. Second, the proposed constitution sets forth a new way of making Churchly decisions. The Council brings matters to the Assembly which votes them up or down. If voted down the matter goes back to Council with the objections and suggestions noted, in order to be brought to the next Assembly. Having served as a deputy to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church four times I can assure you the last thing we want to do is to fall back into the legislative pattern of TEC. Thirdly, If we do not agree with the Proposed Constitution at this founding Assembly then no Church is formed at this point. Consider the consequences of that. Fourthly, the language of Article I of the Proposed Constitution concerning the Historic Episcopate has been circulated and approved by the various constituent bodies that make up those present at the founding Assembly. It is the language of the Common Cause Partnership and has been before us for several years. It is now very late to propose changes at this point. It would be far better to sign the proposed Constitution, inform the Council of our concerns and suggestions and then let the Council work through such concerns so that any changes will have been worked through by all of the judicatories of the Church and brought back to the next Assembly for a hearing and agreement or sent back to Council for further work.
The second is a theological reason. According to traditional Evangelical theology and Anglican theology in general, a particular church order is not of the “esse” of the Church. It is not a defining mark of what is or is not a visible Church. With this Article 19 of the 39 Articles agrees. So does the language of the Anglican Communion, for the language found in the several Lambeth Conferences of the Anglican Communion refers time and again to the various Christian Bodies as Churches even when they are not ordered under the Historic Episcopate. The language found in Article 1 concerning the Historic Episcopate is not intended to set forth an “esse” position. Even more directly pertinent to the decision before us, since for a body to be a Church it must preach the Gospel faithfully, administer the sacraments of the Gospel in accord with Christ’s institution, and exercise faithful ecclesiastical discipline (see the Homily on Whitsunday) this concern regarding the language about the Historic Episcopate while significant and needing to be resolved need not stop us from forming a Church which bears the marks of a visible Church. Faithfulness to the Proposed Constitution will enable us to be such a Church. In fact, since we will be ordered under the Historic Episcopate we will be such a Church as Anglicans, an Anglican orthodox Church on mission. Being united so basically in the biblical, Apostolic Faith and mission, (look at the list of agreement in Article 1), it is incumbent on us to move ahead with vigor and joy. North American needs us to be such a Church; indeed, the world needs us to be such a Church on mission.
The Third reason refers to other concerns that have been articulated about structure and governance in Articles IV to XIV. Some point out that this ecclesiastical structure and way of operating is rather novel and does not continue the patterns with which we are familiar in North America. That is true. Those of us who have lived and exercised leadership in those familiar patterns find these new ways bear a note of fresh air, wisdom and promise. Let’s give them a try. If they prove to be cumbersome or lop-sided in any way, we can alter them. The procedures to make modifications are in place in the Proposed Constitution.
In summary, by all means, let us move ahead. Let us make our concerns clear so that the Council can do its work between Assemblies, just as we all in our dioceses, units, and congregations will have work to do. But, let us sign the Proposed Constitution so that we can do this together, as one in the Lord.
- The Rt. Rev. John H. Rodgers Jr. Th.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment