The Next Big Question

Via VirtueOnline:

By Charles Raven
http://www.anglicanspread.org/
May 18, 2010

Taking stock after the American Episcopal Church has consecrated its second bishop in a same sex relationship, and doubtless not the last, certain things seem to be clear; the North American revisionists are striking out regardless of the rest of the Communion, the Anglican Covenant has been effectively abandoned by the Global South as a means of restoring order and the Archbishop of Canterbury is an increasingly peripheral figure, as underlined by his silence on the Glasspool consecration this past weekend and his inaction beforehand.

But these clarifications bring to the foreground a question which many have so far been reluctant to face. According to Archbishop Peter Jensen, reflecting on last month's Fourth Global South to South Encounter in Singapore, the Communion is now in a 'post crisis phase', but where does that leave the Church of England, the mother church of the Communion? This church is still in what we might call a 'pre crisis' phase as one of those western churches which Dr Jensen warns 'have yet to come into their moment of truth' and for which 'there can no longer be, 'A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest...' (Proverbs 24:33). Instead they must wield, 'The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God' (Ephesians 6:17), if they wish to survive.'

So what might it mean to wield 'The sword of the Spirit' in an English context? If this is what the survival of the orthodox depends upon, working out what this means in practice is an urgent task. It would be very interesting if Peter Jensen were to enlarge on his point, but I suspect he might very reasonably believe that it is the orthodox within these churches who need to work things out and in fact a response is already emerging as the theological 'gathering power' of GAFCON and the Global South (to use Bishop Bill Atwood's illuminating phrase ) becomes stronger while the institutional influence of Canterbury declines.

The fundamental need, as always, is for a deep and biblically grounded spiritual awakening, but the freedom of the orthodox in the Church of England to maintain the necessary precondition of faithful gospel witness is now being jeopardised through the structures themselves. Like Anglo Catholics, although for different theological reasons, Conservative Evangelicals are recognising that the way the Church of England is proposing to proceed with the consecration of women as bishops forces biblical conscience and confirms that it is no longer a safe place for the gospel.

In a letter signed by 100 incumbents, Rod Thomas, the Chairman of Reform writes 'We see nothing but difficulty facing us'. On the key issues of selection for training and succession of parish ministry, there can be no confidence that the integrity of Evangelical witness can be sustained and therefore he warns that there may well be a need for 'the creation of new independent charitable trusts whose purpose will be to finance our future ministries'.

Such independent trusts would not of course be set up to fund independent churches, but to free orthodox Anglicans to work together as an authentic expression of global Anglicanism in England in accordance with the biblical ecclesiology embodied in the Jerusalem Declaration. Under English law, given the established status of the Church of England, it must be reckoned unlikely that a congregation under full alternative episcopal oversight without the permission of the Ordinary could retain the use of the parish church, but these are as yet unchartered waters and there are degrees of irregularity to be explored.

Yet whatever the legal consequences for buildings, this strategy of developing parallel structures seems inevitable. Some Evangelicals may be able to live with women bishops, but we can be sure that once this objective has been established, the revisionists will move on swiftly to concentrate their energies on applying the same arguments about rights and inclusion in favour of openly gay clergy. Recent addresses by the Bishops of Liverpool and Gloucester have helped to prepare the ground, both arguing, against the intention behind Lambeth Resolution 1.10 of 1998, that homosexuality does not touch on anything essential to the identity of orthodox faith. The history of the Anglican Communion over the past twelve years shows that neither side of the debate really believes that to be true, but in England it is enough to get the liberal cuckoo into its next ecclesiastical nest.

This kind of superficial compromise will no doubt be encouraged by the newly elected Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government which appears to be even more liberal on social issues than its Labour predecessor. Moreover, the Windsor Report made explicit the thinking of the Lambeth establishment after the crisis provoked by Gene Robinson's consecration in 2003 when it urged that lessons be learnt from the progress of the debate on women's ordination within the Communion, claiming in paragraph 21 that 'Anglicans can understand from this story that decision-making in the Communion on serious and contentious issues has been, and can be, carried out without division, despite a measure of impairment.' Such a confident claim sounds somewhat hollow in the light of contemporary English experience.

So given the revisionist trajectory along which the Church of England seems set to travel, the need for parallel structures based on the formation of charitable trusts which give an independent legal identity in law seems to be an essential precaution to safeguard continued Anglican gospel witness. A large parish church which is financially and socially strong might consider taking such a step unnecessary, but a recent change in the law governing charities in England and Wales has helped to expose how weak the legal position of a parish church really is.

For readers not familiar with English church governance, I should explain that each parish has an elected Parochial Church Council (PCC) which has responsibility for the financial and administrative life of the local church. In law, it is a charitable trust and its members are trustees - although it is doubtful that most PCC members realised this in the past - and the requirement for PCC's with an annual income of over £100,000 pa to register with the Charity Commission from 1 October 2008 has served to clarify something else - that the primary governing document for a PCC is the Parochial Church Councils (Powers) Measure 1956, as amended, safeguards, but pose a serious handicap to a parish facing a conscientious doctrinal difference with diocesan authorities.

In the first place, Section 6 of the Measure stipulates that a PCC cannot take acquire land or property without the consent of the diocese and such property must be held by the diocese as custodian trustee for the PCC. Secondly, according to Section 2 the PCC is not allowed to make any 'declaration of the doctrine of the Church on any question'.

So a PCC trying to argue that it should retain control of its property in a situation where a breach with a diocese has occurred on doctrinal grounds, as has happened all too often in North America, could presumably find itself losing in the courts on the basis that it had no legal competence to make a doctrinal judgement.

The Archbishop of Sydney saw at the global South gathering in Singapore confirmation that the Anglican Communion had 'passed its tipping point'. For the orthodox in the Church of England there may not be much time left in which to adjust to this new reality which has come about in large measure because of the failure of leadership on the part of their own Primate.

New structures need to be developed urgently and a good place to start would be with those twenty or more Anglican congregations in England which are already outside the formal organisation of the Church of England and could be recognised fully by GAFCON/Global South Primates without the legal uncertainties and problems which would no doubt arise with a normal parish church. It may be that these few churches could be the particular sign of a missionary and confessing Anglicanism which will wield the sword of the Spirit with a particular freedom, speaking the better word of the biblical new covenant in hope that the national Church itself may yet return to the ancient paths.

END