Why This Rumour Matters

A rumour was highlighted at Inclusive Church that Rev. Dr Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream will be consecrated bishop. When I first heard about this, I suggested buckets of ice cold water because it is a juicy rumour that will run on little evidence.

Since then Chris Sugden has written a piece for his own so-called Anglican Mainstream website that I think makes this rumour more likely not less. It is not a very substantial article, and not out of keeping with much else, and full of hyperbole and bias, but it does in effect act as a Tract for This Time. I think this is so much twaddle, but it hardly matters what I think. This is the effective bit:

Globalisation as the judgement of God

In the view of a senior Anglican bishop, globalization is an effective judgment of God on the idolatry of the nationalism of the Anglican community.

He does not say who this senior bishop is (odd really, as they are in agreement), but raising something to "judgment" is important evangelical-speak. Now of itself this might be an approval of setting up a system of prelates to make each national Church go the speed of the slowest in order that this somehow keeps the Anglican Communion together. Then it would be in accordance with the Covenant process, though it is now concerned itself about handing too much power to bishops at an international level. The argument, though, isn't about this. It is about:

Orthodox Anglicans are also forming global networks with those who share the universal biblical gospel. Different networks are now sharing the same geographical space.

In other words, as in the United States, it is about African Anglican bishops consecrating Americans to be under them rather than the home Church to be under their control and uphold orthodoxy as they see it. It is also a justification for this being Africans of different Anglican Churches all in there together, and having to co-operate so there is less fragmentation of this claimed orthodoxy.

The last part of this article to highlight is this:

Those who share a common biblical faith in the Communion are building new international networks, relationships and coalitions through which God is building an Anglican Communion for the 21st century.

In other words this is not confined to the United States. Canada is now actively being considered for the same treatment.

To return to the rumour. Chris Sugden has worked closely with the Global South schismatics at Tanzania in February 2007. He was there at the alternative headquarters where messages were passed to and fro and was a crucial setting for the negotiations that turned a largely positive Windsor Process report on the The Episcopal Church (USA) into a directive and hostile Communiqué of the Primates with a 30 September deadline.

It is my view that if, after 30 September, with Rowan Williams's invitations to Lambeth 2008 staying as they are, and The Episcopal Church having not met the conditions set (an overisght system for internal dissidents with international oversight - not acceptable; the House of Bishops of TEC must state that all it’s members will unequivocally not authorise or allow any same-sex blessings nor consent to the consecration of any person as a Bishop who is living in a same-sex union - neither can be done effectively as these are matters for the General Covention in 2009), the Global South will act or look like the biggest case ever of a Grand Old Duke of York marching troops down again. Incidentally the Global South boundary crossers are suposed to have paused their actions, but they haven't.

One act will be setting up a Not the Lambeth Conference for 2008, probably somewhere down the road. Already, the Archbishop of York (Canterbury is having three months off) has said this is in effect schism, but another act will surely be around the failure of the Archbishop of Canterbury himself in inviting those who consecrated Gene Robinson in 2003, a bishop in an active gay relationship, whilst not inviting the boundary crossers consecrated by various African Churches. Plus the rather fundamentalist Diocese of Sydney is suggesting an alternative meeting. The Archbishop of York says that invitations to Lambeth can be withdrawn if Americans show no willingness to engage in Communion strengthening processes. They have shown such willing, and do so even though they cannot meet the Tanzanian requirements. The Archbishop of Canterbury, fresh from his break, will visit the American House of Bishops close to the apparent deadline of 30 September. He may regard their position as inadequate, but may continue to invite them to Lambeth as willing to engage. The boundary crossers will also meet beforehand.

There is some suggestion that Rowan Williams, on the basis of an accusatory lack of backbone, will be bullied into withdrawing the invitations to The Episcopal Church bishops. On the basis of York's statement, this turnaround itself would force a schism. He may also be bullied but less and invite the boundary crossing bishops as well as the TEC ones. This might keep one big meeting going. He is, though, aware of the bullied charge, asked about it in a Time interview, and may just stick to his guns. His belief in patience is why TEC should still be able to attend Lambeth, despite the distance regarding Tanzania, but this will not satisfy those, including Chris Sugden, who helped engineer the Communiqué.

So September 30 is a big day, for these Africans and boundary-crossers, and let us assume that the troops are not marched down the hill again. There will be declarations of failure in the Archbishop of Canterbury, that England will be seen as out of step too. There is also plenty for the Global South to go on about the compromises the English Church has made with gay equality legislation (that produces such muddle in the Church of England that its middling approach still gets it found guilty of discrimination as in the John Reaney - Bishop Priddis Diocese of Hereford tribunal). My view is that Chris Sugden is a prime candidate by association for consecration as an African bishop to organise so called orthodox Anglicanism the UK.

Now there is a case already of such a consecrated bishop. This is Sandy Millar in 2005 in Uganda. There is a difference, however, and it is this:

Archbishop Orombi stressed that the Archbishop of Canterbury had requested him to appoint and consecrate Sandy Millar in August 2004.

Permission was granted. The Bishop of London approved. Sandy Millar stands at the production and marketing head of the Alpha Course, so he is something of an organiser, but it is not hostile. The difference with Chris Sugden in such a case as after 30 September is that, after all his work, it would be a hostile act against the existing Anglican Communion and against the Church of England.

Chris Sugden as African bishop would be be to organise sympathetic congregations, these apparently big ones with plenty of money. It would be to identify areas with more liberal congregations and set up hostile church plants. It would connect with Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and Oak Hill, London as ministerial training colleges. The General Synod would be greatly unimpressed, seeing some congregations change allegiance, a new Covenant (there is one ready - scroll down and add the Theological Statement), diversions of monies, competition with existing bishops. There would be civil war in the Church of England.

So the in effect Tract sets up the intellectual basis for this post September 30 act. God's judgment, it claims. Well you can get higher than God, and you can't get more determined than having a judgment (a fantastic hotline from the divine give to these Conservative Evangelicals!). The Tract is preparation.

It seems to me that the juicy rumour needs a little less in the way of ice cold water. The evidence for it is the same - except this Tract-like article. The troops are amassing at the top of the hill (and this article is another justification for them) - the only issue now is, after a meeting of the Generals in September 2007, what they are going to do. They have already met in preparation for the coming meeting!

Incidentally, as an add-on to this, some associated with these, like Ephraim Radner of the self-named Anglican Communion Institute, are getting cold feet. They realise that the actions of some of the Global South archbishops and bishops, plus others like Chris Sugden, will in effect hand the Anglican Communion to a stronger proportion of moderates and liberals. They are saying slow down, because the idea is to remove TEC, not remove themselves. Funny, really, this late in the day realisation that schismatics cause schism. However, the Global South grouping is perhaps fed up with too many compromises, and what they really wanted (and have wanted all along) is them to call the shots and refashion the structures their way.

If they do, the main Anglican Communion can become a much more tolerant entity again, of Churches autonomus and interdependent, able to be more inclusive, less reliant of the illusion of Covenant devices (what would be the point of one?) and able to be diverse in theology and make some litergy more progressive. Once the break is made, the gap gets wide quickly.

Let's see what happens.

Covenant passes on

So by about two to one the Covenant has passed this stage of its life, rather like an embryo in intensive care (perhaps indeed its mother is in intensive care) with no idea who its father is - how quite its features will appear. At a point where, we are told, nothing is committed in substance, a third of representatives were against it.

All the amendments were lost, either to democratise it (synodically) or to give it some doctrinal strength. The latter amendment is quite interesting, backed by a traditionalist Conservative Evangelical pressure group, the Church Society, to make the Covenant biblical and connected to the 39 Articles - in other words doctrine instead of its process. You would think conversionist Conservative Evangelicals would agree, but they don't. Or, rather, they don't now. That's the rub.

Conservative Evangelicals in favour of it want to stop homosexual faithful relationships in ministry (certainly, wider too), which they pursue to the point of obsession, but they are also in a long haul "strategic" (Richard Turnbull, Wycliffe College) effort by intended congregational organisation to overrun the liberals (as well as exclude America's The Episcopal Church from the Communion). So a Covenant is but one strategy of restriction, and they say too that it is all about biblical authority, what I'd call their selective literalism. But Affirming Catholicism were also reluctantly in favour, who want the same Covenant document to affirm the dignity of difference including, presumably, variations of interpretation regarding the Bible and the inclusion of faithful homosexual relationships. These are, of course, mutually exclusive.

Odd alliances here, then: the Open Evangelicals of Fucrum were in favour and even produced a joint approach with one leading member of Affirming Catholicism. The latter think they are part of the Anglican centre, as in the old Broad Church, and the former think they are the new centre ground. There is no centre ground, however, because the Conservative Evangelicals to the right of the Open Evangelicals find themselves unable to accept any liberals (and even Open Evangelicals trouble them). Also odd in outcome was the Church Society and the Modern Churchpeople's Union both being against the Covenant. They have entirely different, even opposite positions in substance, but come out with roughly the same positions against its process. This should not be surprising: those who think they are a centre of a bureaucracy support the means to hold it together; those who are towards the edges take up more principled positions on the ideology of the bureaucracy. It was always so, and especially heightened at a time of potential schism.

The speech that Bishop Tom Wright gave he could give any time. It was (after some speeches against the Covenant): "I dare you" to vote against the Covenant, that it was passed with a big majority last time, that there are poorer Anglicans depending on the vote (???), that to vote against is disloyal to the (absent) Archbishop of Canterbury. This is a script to use every time, and is like the big kid in the playground. It is why the vote, even at an early stage, was an important point to stop it, but of course most doubters are being asked to give it the benefit of the doubt, while a draft text gets worked on more.

Plus Archbishop Drexel Gomez, who'd been working on the text with his group, and will, said that there is legitimate concern about its international process being over-reliant on bishops (when the Anglican Churches are qualified episcopacies - due to priests and laypeople having votes too; a Covenant operation to decide whether the action of one Church was acceptable to the Communion could have no other people involved than that of leading bishops).

People who voted for it therefore did so for a variety of reasons. When the text is presented, presumably with a more acceptable process in deciding restrictions, then those in favour this time will start to divide up. It won't satisfy those who find the text not restrictive enough, and it won't satisfy those who find the text too restrictive: and the reason to have a Covenant is because of the chasm between these, and trying to find a way to hold everyone together.

There is another problem. This Covenant could take up to 2012 to become fully operational. Yet on 30 September 2007 The Episcopal Church (TEC) has to agree to abide by Primate-issued restrictions regarding no (more) faithful active gay relationships in its bishops and no authorised blessings for gay couples. It should agree to an internationally based system of oversight for its own ultra-orthodox dissidents. TEC cannot hold a General Convention to decide such an intention until 2009, and its bishops cannot decide alone: but already they have advised rejection of international oversight as against TEC's own laws (as indeed might the Church of England when the final Covenant text is presented). Despite the late 2007 deadline, the Archbishop of Canterbury has already sent out invitations to American bishops to the Lambeth Conference of 2008, excluding only Gene Robinson (the one openly gay bishop - who may still be invited as non-voting) from the American Church, and excluding all the dissident bishops consecrated by African Churches to work inside the United States.

The basis of action (making TEC an Associate member only of the Communion) is presumably only meaninful in the Covenant process, but the Covenant will be far from ready on September 30 2007. The discussions are intended to continue by all sides at Lambeth 2008. However, the consecrators of the dissident American bishops in Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda are stating more or less clearly that if their bishops are excluded these whole provinces will not go, and these are the ones who have pushed for Anglican Communion unity based on their selective literalism and against TEC. Sydney, a peculiar fundamentalist diocese in Australia, might organise a Not the Lambeth Conference - the Africans and their American offshoots might go to that instead.

In other words, before the embryo Covenant has even grown into a recognisable shape the schism could be underway. Only last week the Archbishop of All Nigeria said that the Anglican Communion does not have to go through Lambeth.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams relents in the face of such bullying, to invite those boundary crossers he has excluded, he will lose even more credibility. Sometimes it seems as if he acts according to who twists his arm the most. The Windsor Process, guided by rowan Williams, had found in favour of TEC on two thirds of matters and neutral on one third: this was then overturned by the meeting of Primates in Tanzania in February 2007 and a September 2007 deadline imposed on TEC - though now the Archbishop seems to be circumventing this. This is why someone like Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham, who counts himself as close to the Archbishop, stands up with his big man act: he has done this before prior to the Tanzania meeting. It is a case of trouble at the top.

So it could be that as this embryo Covenant continues in intensive care; events may simply overtake it. It is too long a pregnancy. The baby, should it be born, may have a father unacceptable to some of the relatives: indeed it cannot please all.

And, even now, at this stage, one third is a big minority. Well, a coherent third can win a general election, but a third in a Church cannot be asked to sign up to something that, in effect, is extra to what is the situation at present.

I suppose we must allow for miracles, but the one third is bound to grow as the shape of the thing to come reveals itself: the Conservative Evangelicals of all kinds will be demanding more and, presumably, Affirming Catholicism will have to withdraw support (unless it abandons those faithful homosexuals as its co-founder, a certain Rowan Williams, did). But before then, the Conservative Evangelicals especially in Africa, but spreading out, may well have so organised themselves to render the whole purpose of having a Covenant redundant.

Is the Archbishop an Anglican?

There is a jokey question, isn't there, that follows any statement of the obvious: "Is the Pope a Catholic?" You cannot quite say it of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, even though he is indeed Anglican.

On the one hand he definintely is Anglican in the sense that he believes in listening and talking, which implies compromise between parties, and he does not see himself as in any sense equivalent of a pope but as a facilitator to all sides. His nuanced theology, that sees Christianity as a narrative with narratives, which moves this way and then that way with the details, and finding tentative conclusions, is clearly consistent with Anglican reasoning.

The trouble is, Rowan Williams keeps changing, and his views seem to be drawing on the Catholic side with this job as Archbishop. Back in 2000 (April 8, to be precise) he wrote:

In the last analysis, Anglicanism has always been wary of a central executive power. It has worked on the assumption that a common ecclesial language and theological method take you a long way, and its authority has been a mixture of authoritative texts and a process of rather untidy corporate interpretation of them. The primates’ meeting showed no signs of wanting to become a ruling synod. Its one plea was for more frequent meeting, and this is likely to happen: the present strains on the communion are severe enough for personal contact and consultation to be imperative, so that actions are not taken without awareness of the wider context. The next few years will undoubtedly be increasingly painful and difficult for many Anglicans; but this particular meeting suggested that the classical Anglican method was not dead yet – and that the sheer experience of sustained biblical reflection (wonderfully led by David Ford of Cambridge) and uninhibited theological conversation may yet save Anglicanism from its own variety of the Vatican I débâcle.

In 2000

Now he is proposing a Covenant to restrict what Churches in the Anglican Communion can do themselves without getting agreement of others, and a decision making of the Primates gathered together on disputes because the Anglican Consultative Council (which has lay representation) does not meet often enough. The Archbishop talks about process, so it is as if the Primates become the Congregation for the Process of the Faith, rather as the Roman Catholics have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the successor of The Inquisition). It is centralisation and a departure for Anglicanism, which has always had Churches and their polities as the centres of authority, who have discussed among themselves, perhaps innovated and then other Churches have either found they cannot agree or end up agreeing and acting later. This flexibility is threatened by centralisation, as is the mix of lay and clerical in each Church.

The Archbishop's position as a non-pope is this, as stated to Time:

I'm now in a position where I'm bound to say the teaching of the Church is this, the consensus is this. We have not changed our minds corporately. It's not for me to exploit my position to push a change.

Source a
Source b

This is what is being applied to these institutional changes. Some say that the corporate is equivalent to 'The Body of Christ' and so should act as one. That argument should mean joining with the Roman Catholics and Orthodox, to why stop at Anglicanism. And if we do stope at Anglicanism for its argument, then Anglicanism is made up of autonomous Churches representing different cultural settings.

I am though here as much interested in Rowan Williams' own theology. Since his job started it sometimes seen that he has abandoned his previous published views and is sort of standing on his head. Again in Time, just before the comment above, he was asked and then stated:

You yourself once thought it possible that same-sex relationships might be legitimate in God's eyes.

Yes, I argued that in 1987. I still think that the points I made there and the questions I raised were worth making as part of the ongoing discussion. I'm not recanting.

He has not stopped the expression of all his views, however. Some that he had he is now expressing. He was brought up in an Anglo-Catholic setting, and has beliefs consistent with this background. In an interview in the Tablet in 2006, he said:

I went a few months ago to give at talk at the Roman Catholic cathedral in Southwark, just down the road. And, interestingly, I was asked what I believed about the eucharist. I think my questioner was a bit surprised when I said: “Of course I believe in the real presence. I believe that Christ is active in the sacrament, and that it’s not something we do, as an act of mental remembrance.

Catholic Herald

He furthermore said this:

It was a curate in the parish who, when I was about 14, lent me some of his books to read, including St Teresa’s autobiography. So I was beginning to find my way in this, to understand a bit about the monastic tradition, about traditions of prayer. The teaching we had in the parish was solidly sacramental, very much focused on the Eucharist. It was old-fashioned High Churchery, but with very serious emphasis on the centrality of the Sunday morning parish Eucharist and the daily Mass in the parish. That’s what I grew up with and it still forms who I am and what I am as a Christian.

He considered becoming a Roman Catholic too:

I thought about it a lot for several years, during most of my student years. That was a time when the biggest influences on me were coming from one or another kind of Catholic environment. I was reading St John of the Cross and a lot of that tradition. I was making retreats regularly at Benedictine monasteries. Also, writers like Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar were the people who got me excited. And I was thinking about whether my calling was in monastic life and, if so, was it in that sort of context? The thing I couldn’t quite manage was, as it were, signing up to the theology of the papacy as it evolved. I couldn’t cope with Vatican I.

He also disliked the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace.

The question that comes to my mind, however, is whether these are such a big deal. He must find more agreement with Benedict XVI in theology than disagreement. They somehow seem to be characters who can have worthy conversations. Rowan Williams is positive about Marion theology, for example, and about associated icons, but not quite as emotional as John Paul II (interview as above).

This is being written whilst Rowan Williams is on a sabbatical for study. He is in a Roman Catholic institution in the United States, out of reach regarding present controversies.

With this background, what of present experience and the controversies? In my view, he could, slowly, be coming to a view that a Church needs order, and needs to be effectively One. He could be facing a failure in Anglicanism to accept what has been his policy of centralisation by process. Should it happen, this would be a considerable blow, and may be instructive as regards Church order.

He would find Roman Catholicism different, without women priests. In the same interview he said:

I think perhaps what one doesn’t always realise is how very, very normal this has come to feel for the huge majority of Anglicans and it hasn’t undermined what people feel about the ministry of the sacraments. So that now that putting it back in the bottle is not an option. I don’t think it has transformed or renewed the Church of England in spectacular ways. Equally, I don’t think it has corrupted or ruined the Church of England in spectacular ways. It has somehow got into the bloodstream and I don’t give it a second thought these days, in terms of regular worship.

One should not mistake Rowan Williams' nuanced manner for a lack of acceptance of women priests. He was not showing any reluctance. However, Church order does allow him to sacrifice social groups, and just as he has with gay people, he could just with women. One can imagine him being progressive regarding women's ministry, but from a colective position say it has not been decided yet. He applies, of course, theological conviction in the Anglican Church (or, rather, much of it) to their ordination, and this in the Church of England in particular, but won't use that argument in a consistent fashion in one Church and then another to gay people. Logically he could say whilst he has personal views favouring women's ordination, there is no consensus for this in the Church as a whole, and it should move as one.

It is not impossible, in my view, that this Archbishop could end up doing a John Henry Newman. He could equally go Orthodox (and there are fewer objections to Orthodoxy, surely?). I would never have thought this before he became Archbishop, because he was such an Anglician theologian and enjoying its freedom of expression, but elements of his thought have become dominant and, along with ecclesiastical events, might make a more orderly Communion more attractive to his theology and spirituality.