Fulcrum: Fulcrum Newsletter 17

Over a year ago, following the Bishop of Exeter's address to the American House of Bishops, I floated the idea that the current tensions within the Communion could be captured by reference to four quadrants. These were created by mapping views on X-Y axes with the X-axis representing one's attitude to Lambeth I.10 on sexuality (Left to Right from anti-I.10 to pro-I.10) and the Y-axis representing one's attitude to the Windsor Report on the nature of communion (High being pro-Windsor, low being anti-Windsor). What I simply labelled as Groups I-IV were then given labels by Graham Kings:

While I believe this four-fold categorisation still has value, I am also coming to the view that it has a number of weaknesses in the present situation and that a more complex and nuanced account must now be offered. The two areas of tension remain homosexuality and ecclesiology but I think they perhaps are best treated separately and a more careful delineation of positions offered.

On homosexuality, part of the problem is that I.10 contains a variety of statements and some people are very pro parts of it while being very opposed to other parts - Gene Robinson is very pro a listening process, Archbishop Akinola is strongly pro-I.10 in many respects but perhaps not that one.

On ecclesiology, there are those whose opposition to Windsor was focussed on its ecclesiology and those for whom the problem was more its concrete proposals in relation to the life of ECUSA/TEC in the current context. Furthermore, there are at least two distinct views opposed to its ecclesiology which the earlier categorisation tended to merge as simply 'anti-Windsor'.

I therefore want to propose a four-fold categorisation in relation to homosexuality (§2) and a three-fold categorisation in relation to ecclesiology (§3) before discussing how these inter-relate (§4) and how these relationships and tensions are played out concretely in the life of the Communion (§5). Finally, in the light of this analysis, an assessment can be made of the current state of the Windsor Process (§6).

2 The Anglican Spectrum on Homosexuality

As I've outlined previously in a recent Anvil editorial, I'm not sure how helpful it is to identify simply two camps on homosexuality. While any compartmentalisation is clearly open to challenge given that there is a wide spectrum of views, I think a four-fold distinction may prove helpful. This effectively sub-divides each of the traditional 'conservative' and 'liberal' groupings into a more 'hard' and more 'soft' version. Building on the earlier model it can be seen as moving on a horizontal axis which from left to right ranges from a whole-hearted gospel-based commitment to the full inclusion of same-sex partnered couples at all levels of church life through to an unshakeable conviction that all homosexual practice is sin and suggestions to the contrary must be opposed and rejected.

As always, labels are problematic and likely to annoy as much as elucidate but I think the 'conservative' view has those whose stance is more one of rejection and those whose approach is more one of reassertion. On the 'liberal' side, there are also two broad groupings which mirror these two groups and which I've labelled (the more central and paralleling reassertors) reassessors and reinterpreters.

2.1 Rejection

At its most extreme, the category of rejection tips over into 'homophobia' as seen in the written response of one American bishop in 1974 to the formation of Integrity within the American church in order to campaign for full inclusion:

Similar language is sadly still heard and even where such obvious revulsion towards anyone identifying as a homosexual is not expressed, the more moderate rejectionist position is marked by features such as:

2.2 Reassertion

The reasserter position agrees with the rejectionist in relation to the morality of homosexual behaviour. It too stresses the importance of upholding traditional church teaching that in God's intention sexual intercourse is for a man and a woman who are married to each other and thus the church should not commend or bless other sexual relationships or ordain anyone in a non-marital sexual relationship.

2.3 Reassessors

Mirroring the reasserters are the reassessors who believe we need to reassess (or, a possible alternative nomenclature, reappraise) the church's traditional teaching and practice. They are marked by a number of features:

This stance is (in its more moderate form) open to seeing the church entering a period of 'reception' in this area (as it has over the ordination of women). Even if not personally convinced of the correctness of change, many of this view are willing to treat the issues as one of indifference (adiaphora) and tolerate diversity and plurality within church teaching and practice in order to enable discernment of God's will.

2.4 Reinterpreters

Finally, there are those Christians - I've called them reinterpreters - who are firmly convinced advocates for the reinterpretation (or revision or reconfiguration) of traditional teaching and practice in relation to sexual ethics. In addition to a strong commitment to the features noted above of reassessors, among the characteristics of those in this part of the spectrum are:

Those at this end of the spectrum would therefore whole-heartedly support the stance of groups like Integrity, Changing Attitude and LGCM and, at the far extreme (mirroring the homophobic rejectionists), some are criticised for lacking or going beyond a distinctively Christian ethic.

2.5 Conclusion

Clearly these are four groupings across a complex spectrum and they are not water-tight. Individuals will also move between them over time. Even within one category there is a range of different attitudes and approaches. However, most individuals and groupings can be helpfully classified and distinguished in terms of the following spectrum of views:

3 The Ecclesiology Paradigms

Rather than simply labelling people as pro or anti Windsor, as in the original mapping, three broad visions of the nature of Anglican life in communion can be sketched.[ii]

3.1 Communion Catholicism

This is broadly the vision of the givenness of our inter-relationships in the body of Christ and the importance of interdependency and autonomy within our life in communion that is set out in the Windsor Report, especially section B where

3.2 Connectional Confessionalism

This is broadly the vision of inter-relationships in which member churches define themselves on a confessional basis (which may be broad or narrow) and understand their relationships with others as connections made on the basis of that shared confession or, where necessary, broken because of a lack of common confession. It appears to be the vision of ecclesial life found in, for example, the Diocese of Sydney and some forms of conservative evangelicalism and is perhaps also expressed in recent changes to the constitution of the Nigerian church to read (section 3.1):

3.3 Autonomous Inclusivism

This is broadly the vision that each province determines its own actions within its own jurisdiction in accordance with its own canons and constitution and the Anglican vision of diversity, comprehensiveness and inclusion is such that other Anglican provinces should honour and respect those decisions and continue to include one another and maintain bonds of communion even where there are significant disagreements on matters of theology, ethics or practice between them. This understanding of Anglican identity finds expression in large parts of TEC and also some of the wider 'inclusive church' networks.

4 The Practical Interaction of Ecclesiology Models and Sexuality Issues

In one sense there is no necessary correlation between one's place on the spectrum of views on homosexuality and one's ecclesiology. However, there do appear to be certain connections and the Windsor Report clearly spelled out its own understanding of how its 'communion catholicism' vision impacted on the tensions in the Communion over homosexuality.

4.1 Connectional confessionalism and A Rejectionist Stance

In the current situation it would appear that there is often a strong link between a more rejectionist stance on sexuality and the 'connectional confessionalist' ecclesiology. This is, in terms of the old model, the 'federal conservative' quadrant. This is in large part because those who feel strongest about defending the traditional sexual ethic see it as central to Christian confession. It is thus an issue where divergent paths or even moral disagreement in principle leads to impaired or broken communion. While that stance may fit within 'communion catholicism' it is often (perhaps in part because the way Windsor applied its vision to sexuality) connected to 'connectional confessionalism'.

4.2 Autonomous Inclusivism and a Reinterpreter Stance

The mirror image of this first stance is the tendency of those most committed to challenging the current teaching of the Communion in I.10 to embrace 'autonomous inclusivism' - the old 'federal liberal' quadrant. Once again there is here a tendency for a strong stance on sexuality issues to be tied to an ecclesiological vision which enables that stance to find fuller expression and here there is clearly a connection between emphasis on diversity and inclusivity in relation to human sexuality and in relation to life in a communion of churches. As above another pressure towards this correlation may be that the Windsor vision of the implications of 'communion catholicism' are particularly difficult for reinterpreters to accept.

4.3 Windsor's Communion Catholicism and Sexuality

The Windsor Report (TWR) set out an ecclesiology - broadly what I have categorised as 'communion catholicism'- and also applied it to the current situation in the communion especially in relation to differences over sexuality and the crisis that has resulted. It applied its vision in three ways:

4.3.1 Listening and Dialogue

TWR famously refused to take a stance of its own in relation to the spectrum of views on sexuality and the Commission's membership reflected a wide range of views on the issue: 'We repeat that we have not been invited, and are not intending, to comment or make recommendations on the theological and ethical matters concerning the practice of same sex relations and the blessing or ordination or consecration of those who engage in them' (para 43, italics original).

Implicitly it therefore held that it was possible for bona fide Anglicans to hold any of the four viewpoints on sexuality sketched above (with perhaps a few exceptions at either extreme). Indeed, the four categories I've offered have some similarity to the four sketched in the report from the subgroup on human sexuality at Lambeth 1998.

The existence of different conscientious convictions among Anglicans along the spectrum was not considered in itself a threat to our life together in communion. Nor was this diversity of view a reason for 'walking apart'. Rather, the report stressed the need for further, ongoing discussion, listening and study in this area, most fully in paras 145-146 ('debate on this issue cannot be closed whilst sincerely but radically different positions continue to be held across the Communion) but also para 26 ('further serious Communion-wide discussion of the relevant issues is clearly needed as a matter of urgency'). This clearly presented a challenge to certain people, especially those in the 'rejection' part of the spectrum.

4.3.2 Constraints on Action

Alongside this 'inclusive' position, however, TWR was also clear (as have been the Instruments) that the common mind of the Communion as a whole on this subject has been stated, notably in I.10. That common mind is broadly in the reasserter part of the spectrum (TWR paras 23-26, 43).

TWR therefore concluded that this meant that certain actions were not acceptable given its Anglican ecclesiology ('Communion Catholicism'). As a result, specific requests were made of TEC - an apology for past actions and a commitment to future moratoria. These are clearly major constraints for those who are convinced reinterpreters and, to a lesser extent, for reassessors. This is also where the vision of Windsor is most in tension with that of 'autonomous inclusivism'.

4.3.3 Good Order

TWR also made clear that its ecclesiology rendered it unacceptable for churches within the Communion to act in the jurisdiction of another diocese or province without the consent of its bishop. It therefore sought an end to these interventions. This goal was subsequently sought more directly by the Primates at Dar who even more explicitly recognised that it was the failure in TEC to constrain action which was the precipitating cause for such interventions. This is where the vision of Windsor is most in tension with that of 'connectional confessionalism' and also a restraint on the temptations faced by 'rejectionists'.

5 Agents in the Crisis

Before using this analysis to examine our current situation, its more theoretical and conceptual framework needs to engage with the material and political realities of life in Communion.

5.1 The Instruments

Over recent decades the Instruments have had to develop significantly to oversee and facilitate the Communion's common, diverse and often conflictual life. In particular, there have developed both the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primates' Meeting (and their respective Standing Committees) with the Anglican Communion Office (ACO) acting as the permanent secretariat of the ACC and facilitating the work not only of the Instruments but also various Communion-wide ministries and self-funding networks.

In recent years (and particularly during the current crisis) it has become clear that there are perceived to be tensions or even a power-play between the ACC/ACO and the Primates as to their respective roles and influence within the Instruments. Some see the ACO as too Western and liberal dominated (and point to its reliance on certain sources for funding) and have expressed frustration at the slowness of its processes. Others view the Primates as seeking - through their more regular meetings, their actions at Dromantine (especially in relation to ACC participation) and the role proposed for them in the draft covenant - to take on a more curial role and seize control of the Communion. There is also, of course, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury's staff at Lambeth with some evidence of divergences between their perception and agenda of events in the Communion and those of the ACO.

5.2 Autonomous Provinces

The slowness and relative powerlessness of the Instruments mean autonomous provinces continue to be a more powerful agent of change in the life of the Communion. It is actions at these levels - such as those in ECUSA/TEC and the appointment of missionary bishops and American missions by some African provinces - which tend to set the agenda to which the Instruments have to respond.

5.3 Coalitions of Provinces

The establishment - partly out of a frustration that they were not properly represented through ACO and the Instruments - of the Global South grouping of provinces has also added a new dynamic to the politics and discernment processes of the Communion. More recently there has also been the creation of a Global Center grouping. Particularly given the lack of formal regional instruments these intermediary bodies between the province and the Communion-wide Instruments could prove increasingly influential in the creation of power blocs that either fuel or diminish tensions and disagreements within the Communion as a whole.

5.4 International Networks

The importance of inter-provincial meetings and coalitions is increased because these inter-provincial groupings are often closely related to the various non-provincial but international networks, movements and pressure groups that have been established over recent years and increasingly brief leading bishops and Primates and appear on the fringes of meetings of the Instruments.

6 The Windsor Process: Where are we now and where might we be going?

6.1 Where are we now?: JSC's Conclusion

Following the meeting of TEC's HoB, the Joint Standing Committees of the ACC and the Primates issued a report. Although a minority view was expressed, the majority viewpoint within this was effectively that the second of Windsor's concerns outlined above - the need for apology and moratoria (see 4.3.2) - had now been adequately responded to by TEC. It was therefore argued that, as a result, the focus of the Instruments needed to be turned instead to the other two areas - listening and dialogue on sexuality (4.3.1) and resolving the problem of extra-provincial interventions in TEC (4.3.3) - and the wider covenant process as the next stage in articulating and making a commitment to the Windsor/Communion Catholicism view of our life together as an Anglican Communion.

6.2 Challenges to JSC: Different Assessments & Agendas for the Communion's Future

In taking stock of where we now find ourselves in the 'Windsor process' post-JSC there are three different levels of potentially serious disagreement:

6.2.1 Is JSC correct?

The most pressing issue is, of course, whether JSC is correct to see TEC as now 'Windsor-compliant' or whether in fact TEC has failed to provide the necessary assurances requested by the Primates at Dar. In an earlier article I have explained why I am not convinced by JSC's analysis. If JSC's assessment is, indeed, flawed then the Communion cannot simply focus on listening and ending interventions. Other major questions also remain for the Communion and its Instruments, particularly the in relation to the Lambeth Conference (which I hope to explore in a subsequent piece).

The further challenge is that even if the Instruments (5.1) commit themselves to JSC's positive assessment, it is clear that a significant number of the other key players identified above - particular provinces (5.2), the Global South coalition (5.3), and powerful political networks (5.4) - do not hold this view. Furthermore, they are likely to act on the basis of their negative judgment. In addition, it is clear that a good number of American bishops do not intend to act as JSC believe they have committed to act (and that more Canadian bishops are likely to join them). This means that the Windsor moratoria will probably not apply in practice in a number of dioceses, certainly in relation to authorised public rites of blessing.

This pressing question is, however, only the tip of the iceberg. It appears that although the three-fold Windsor response outlined above (4.3) continues to have much support (if only as 'the only poker game in town') it is not acceptable to a significant number of Anglicans.

6.2.2 Is Windsor's three-fold response on sexuality and ecclesial order right?

While obviously having the support of those who disagree with the status quo (broadly reasssessors and reinterpreters) there are many within the majority of Anglicans who support the status quo - some reasserters and all rejectionists - who have varying degrees of unease with the ongoing process of dialogue, listening and discernment.

For some, the very acceptance of the legitimacy of this range of views within Anglicanism (particularly among its leadership) is inconsistent with the clear statement of Lambeth I.10 (and biblical teaching) and this diversity of belief is the fundamental problem that needs addressing by the Communion. This leads to calls for people (certainly reinterpreters but also, as Rowan Williams discovered on his appointment, in some cases, also reassessors) to repent not simply of actions but of holding and articulating certain beliefs. Those who hold this view -especially if they are committed to or tempted by a connectional confessionalist ecclesiology - will find it very difficult to embrace this part of the post-Windsor process as they hold that differences of belief in this area are so serious that they must lead to impaired or broken communion.

For others, there is a concern about the process of listening and dialogue and its implicit agenda. Looking at how such processes have developed in certain provinces, there is a suspicion that this commitment is aimed at moving people to the left on the spectrum of views and creating a position where the Communion may begin to classify this subject as adiaphora and therefore change its stance in the second area of Windsor -

As noted above (4.3.2), this conclusion of Windsor is particularly objectionable to reinterpreters (and to a lesser extent reassessors). This is because it requires them not to act on their beliefs and on what they believe the Spirit is saying to the church. While some from that perspective will hold back on acting because of their ecclesiological convictions and out of a desire for unity, others (particularly if they are autonomous inclusivists) are likely to reject this as an unwarranted and oppressive constraint.

It would, however, be wrong to think all on the 'conservative' side are happy with the Windsor proposals here. They (particularly rejectionists but also many reasserters) have a number of concerns of which the five most serious are:

Those provinces who have suffered interventions are clearly eager for them to be brought to an end and denied Communion recognition. However, TEC has recently rejected the Communion's attempt to establish structures that would facilitate this (with appeals to what sounded like a more autonomous inclusivist rather than Communion Catholic ecclesiology) and now faces the prospect of not just parishes but dioceses seeking to affiliate with another province of the Communion.

Some object to Windsor's proposals in this area because of their different (connectional confessionalist) ecclesiology or because (even within a communion Catholicism mindset) they believe that the demands of mission require a rethinking of this particular aspect of traditional Anglican polity.

The more serious, but largely unanswered question, is what situation, within Windsor's own Communion catholic ecclesiology, could justify continuing (or, as sought by the Pastoral Scheme proposed by the Primates at Dar, containing in an orderly manner) the sort of interventions TWR wished to bring to an end and their imminent extension to dioceses realigning. The main possible justifications appear to fall into three (not mutually exclusive) categories:

One major political problem is that although such views in defence of intervention or realignment are held or treated sympathetically by many provinces, many in the Global South network and by certain lobby groups, they have been given little or no attention by the Instruments and are simply rejected outright by reinterpreters (especially those of an autonomous inclusivist viewpoint) and many reassessors.

Although there is probably still a fairly solid consensus behind the Windsor recommendations taken as a whole being the only way forward with integrity, in each of these three areas there are clearly powerful and opposing theological and political forces which are dissenting from this consensus. This makes the current situation and the future of the Windsor Process very fragile.

6.2.3 Is Windsor's ecclesiology one that the Communion should accept?

Finally, in addition to the question of whether Windsor has been accepted in TEC and whether its proposals in relation to sexuality are acceptable, there is the yet deeper question of Windsor's ecclesiology. This is now being subjected to scrutiny through the covenant process which, if the Communion can hold together, it is hoped will provide a firmer foundation for its future.

Some of the conflict over the proposed covenant relates to specific ways of implementing TWR's vision, especially as it relates to the political institutions of the Communion (eg the role it gives to the Primates).

Some conflict also arises because of the effect of the acceptance of the covenant on the dynamics of the sexuality debate where both reinterpreters and rejectionists may believe it will handicap them.

Some disagreement and conflict, however, relates to the deeper level of the competing ecclesiologies and visions of Anglicanism which I've categorised above in terms of connectional confessionalism (3.2) and autonomous inclusivism (3.3). Here, although there is little support for either of these ecclesiological perspectives within the Instruments (who are, of course, driving the covenant process), some provinces have at least tendencies in these directions (and these may spread through the development of Global South and Global Center blocs). In addition -perhaps reflecting their own status as autonomous, voluntarist and connectional groupings - there are signs that the various theological and political networks may be being drawn into propagating such understandings and thus resisting the covenant process.

7 Conclusion

There are clearly a number of centrifugal forces currently threatening the unity of the Anglican Communion. The focus of these for many is the issue of the proper response to same-sex unions and here I have suggested there is a wide spectrum of views among Anglicans which can be broadly classified into four groups: rejection, reassertion, reassessment and reinterpretation.

Faced with these divisions, the Communion responded by addressing the underlying ecclesiological questions relating to how we live together in communion and maintain our unity in the face of diversity. This produced the Windsor Report and now the Windsor Process (and within it the covenant process). This has articulated a vision of life in communion that I have called 'communion Catholicism' and then sought to apply that to the differences over sexuality.

The danger is that this process has, in turn, produced (or perhaps uncovered) further points of tension. At the level of principle there are new fracture lines developing as, competing with the Windsor vision, there are at least two other alternative ways of envisioning our life together - what I've called connectional confessionalism and autonomous inclusivism. These now supplement the tensions over sexuality and (in as much as there is a correlation between these and the two extremes of the sexuality spectrum) they may strengthen and reinforce them. At the level of practice there are those who, even if they share Windsor's vision of life in communion and reject these two alternative paradigms, are unhappy with at least some of Windsor's practical outworkings of this vision in relation to how the Communion should respond to its diversity over sexuality.

In addition to these three different levels of tension over more theoretical areas - attitudes to sexuality, visions of life in Communion, the implications of Windsor for sexuality - there is now the added and most pressing concrete question of discerning whether, if one accepts Windsor's proposals in relation to the current crisis, TEC has (as JSC argue)accepted and implemented Windsor's recommendations.

Finally, these forces are at play within and between at least four different institutional arenas within the Communion's life - individual provinces and their relationships with other provinces, the Instruments of Communion, coalitions of provinces, and unofficial networks of committed protagonists.

Miraculously, for the last five years (since the current high-level tensions really began with the decisions of New Westminster diocese) the Instruments have been able to bring together all the provinces (though at ACC Nottingham, TEC and Canada attended as observers) and facilitate ongoing conversation across these various divides and wide spectra of beliefs and visions for the Communion. It has done so even as inter-provincial relationships and eucharistic fellowship among the Primates broke down. The challenge now is whether and how that achievement can be maintained, especially in relation to Lambeth 2008, and, if it cannot, what sort of viable 'second best' arrangements can be developed or 'amicable separations' negotiated.

Endnotes

[ii] A different categorisation has recently been proposed by Miranda K. Hassett in Anglican Communion in Crisis: How Episcopal Dissidents and Their African Allies Are Reshaping Anglicanism (Princeton University Press, 2007). She describes two competing visions of (1) 'accountability globalism' (in which there is a belief that 'the dawning global era calls the Anglican Communion to establish clearer doctrinal standards and more accountability between provinces' (120) so there is a 'worldwide interprovincial accountability to fixed scriptural norms, clarified through intercultural correction, supported and enforced by a global orthodox Anglican majority' (127)) and (2) 'diversity globalism' (in which 'the primary ideal for international communion is diversity in unity, understood as sharing Christian fellowship across differences in culture, experience, and belief' (127) so there is a globalism 'founded on principles of tolerance within a federation of loosely unified provinces' (120)). Earlier she writes that 'northern liberals and moderates hold a vision of the Anglican Communion as embracing diversity within a loose and noncoercive unity of shared heritage and goodwill' (119) which suggests that her 'diversity globalism' is close to my third category of 'autonomous inclusivism'. It appears her account was developed pre-Windsor and (in part because she has two categories shaped by the US conflicts) the parallels between my categories and hers are not exact. Neverthless, I think those in Hassett's 'accountability' vision would broadly fit Windsor's 'communion catholicism' (although some may fall into my 'connectional confessionalism' just as some in her 'diversity' vision could place themselves as Windsor supporting 'communion catholics').

Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum

The Anglican Communion - Mapping the Terrain

Fulcrum Newsletter, November 2007

by Andrew Goddard

1 Introduction: An Earlier Attempt at Mapping