Can We Walk Together?

Commentary by Robin Jordan

Can the member churches of the Anglican Communion continue to walk together? Western Anglican churches have in the past 50 years become increasingly radicalized while at the same time declining. This radicalization can in part be attributed to the growing secularization of the culture of the geographic regions over which these churches have jurisdiction—Canada, Great Britain, and the United States; the assimilation of secular values by these churches; and the strong influence of post-modern and post-Christian thought upon many of their leaders. In the Episcopal Church USA radicals with their own ideological agenda have been seeking to establish their own rival tradition to orthodox Christianity while claiming to represent authentic Christianity. These radicals dismiss orthodox Christianity as a minority view when in fact it is the view of most Anglicans outside of the American Episcopal Church. To this end these radicals draw upon the radical Biblical and theological scholarship of a very small group of individuals who, despite their book sales and media coverage, are not in the mainstream of Biblical and theological scholarship but are on the radical fringes of that scholarship. Their controversial views sell books and attract media attention, creating the false impression that they are leading voices in Biblical and theological scholarship, on the cutting edge of that scholarship. In actuality, they are simply the most radical voices. They represent something like 6% of contemporary Bible scholars and theologians. The work of today’s leading Bible scholars and theologians is for the most part published in scholarly journals after intense review and does not have the popular appeal of the controversial opinions of this tiny group of radicals.

The views of this quite small group of radical scholars particularly holds an appeal for what Philip Jenkins describes as "seekers" and "Jesus-lovers", individuals who reject organized religion for various reasons and have a cafeteria approach to spirituality. These individuals may be nominal Christians but embrace a wide range of diverse beliefs taken from Far Eastern religions, neo-paganism, New Age thought, and occultism. It is individuals in these two groups that the radicals would have become the norm for members of the American Episcopal Church. This is why you hear so much talk among the radicals about doctrinal diversity.

Radical notions of spirituality are not Christian nor orthodox. They are inspired by non-Christian spiritual traditions. This is why a growing number of Episcopalians walk the labyrinth, practice Wicca, and identify themselves with Gnosticism and other ancient heresies. There is a tendency to erroneously view these heresies as alternate Christianities that were displaced by orthodox Christianity. In a number of communities the Episcopal Church has become a church on the radical fringe of Christianity. Radical Episcopalians are apt to welcome and celebrate homosexual relationships and other extramarital sexual relationships as alternate life style options. In recent years the radicals have exercised considerable influence upon the rest of the Episcopal Church. Their views have become increasingly accepted in the denomination. The Episcopal Church has become a church that mirrors the more radical aspects of American popular culture. One factor behind this development in the Episcopal Church is that the denomination has become the home of former evangelicals who fled to the Episcopal Church from more fundamentalist denominations. They have in reaction to the excesses of their former churches been open to the views of the radicals and have moved from one extreme to another.

Despite the influence of the catholicizing movements of the 19th century Anglicanism is essentially an evangelical, reformed faith. Both the 19th century catholicizing movements and the 20th century radical movement have sought to redefine Anglicanism, to remake the Anglican tradition in their own image. The 19th century catholicizing movements endeavored to reintroduce Medieval Roman doctrinal innovations into the Anglican Church; the 20th century radical movement, doctrinal innovations of its own. Both movements claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for these innovations.

Anglicanism is "catholic" in so far as it adheres to the teaching of the Primitive Faith, that is to say, the teaching of the Christian Church in first five centuries of existence, where that teaching is not contrary to the holy Scriptures. The Anglican Way is "evangelical" in that it affirms the supremacy of the Bible as "God’s Word written" in matters of faith and practice. Anglicans holds that "it is not lawful for the Church to order anything contrary to God’s written Word." They believe that the Church may not "expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage" and further believe that "although the Church is witness and guardian to holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture, nor is it to enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation." Anglicanism is "reformed" in that the English Reformers and their successors sought to purify the English Church of non-Biblical innovations in doctrine and worship that the English Church had adopted during the Church of Rome’s domination of Western Christianity in the Middle Ages or inherited from the Celtic Church. While the Anglican Way has permitted some latitude in non-essential matters, it has never encouraged the kind of doctrinal diversity that the radicals espouse. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion are a classical statement of Anglicanism stressing as they do five core beliefs—"the inspiration of the Bible, the existence of the one true God as three persons (Trinity), the diety and substitutionary atonement of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the physical return of Christ." Those who, for example, deny the bodily resurrection of Christ are on the fringes of both Christianity and Anglicanism.

The Church of England, the mother church of the member churches of the Anglican Communion, has not escaped the radicalization that affects the Western Anglican churches. In the Church of England the selection of the church’s leading bishops is largely a political decision in the hands of the English government and the political party in power. The Prime Minister nominates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York who are then formally appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. Consequently, at a time when the world Anglican Communion needs strong orthodox leadership, Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair nominated for the office of Archbishop of Canterbury the liberal Archbishop of Wales Rowan Williams who was known to have radical Biblical and theological views and whom the Blair Government thought would be able to relate to Great Britain’s increasingly post-modern, post-Christian culture. Williams has been ineffectual in his response to the crisis in the Anglican Communion precipitated by the Episcopal Church USA’s confirmation and consecration of a non-celibate homosexual as the bishop of New Hampshire and authorization of the blessing of homosexual relationships. While Williams has expressed support for the orthodox view of marriage and human sexuality and urged the American Episcopal Church not to take these radical steps, he has not concealed his sympathy for those involved in homosexual relationships.

With pressure groups in the United Kingdom calling for a liberal successor to the retiring Archbishop of York David Hope, liberal English bishops turning a blind eye to the blessing of homosexual relationships in their dioceses, and eight liberal bishops voting for the enactment of civil partnership legislation giving homosexual couples similar rights to married heterosexual couples, we are likely to see increased tension between radicals and orthodox in the Church of England. These developments are also likely to exacerbate the crisis in the Anglican Communion. The radicals in the Episcopal Church USA cannot be expected to listen to an Archbishop of Canterbury whose own church is divided over the issue of homosexual relationships and whose liberal bishops take actions similar to their radical brethren in the American Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church cannot be expected to rein in its radical bishops when the Church of England’s radical leaders are free to do what they please.

At this stage in the present crisis severing ties with the Western Anglican churches may be the most appropriate step that the global South Anglican provinces, the centre of orthodoxy in the Anglican Communion, can take until the Western Anglican churches put their houses in order. Such an action would leave the orthodox in the Western Anglican churches faced with the choice of remaining in an increasingly radicalized church or separating from that body, forming a more orthodox church, and uniting with other orthodox Anglican churches in a World Fellowship of Orthodox Anglican Churches with the global South Anglican provinces as its core.

These decisions will not be easy ones and will cause a great deal of soul searching. Which is the best road to follow? To try to stay together as a Communion? Or for radicals and orthodox to go their separate ways? If radicals and orthodox decide to walk separately from each other, what shall individual dioceses and parishes do? What should individual orthodox Anglican Christians do? Whatever we choose to do, we need to count the cost. Are we willing to make the sacrifices that each choice entails? To start all over again as a parish? To meet in school gymnasiums, movie theatres, borrowed sanctuaries, malls, storefronts, and houses? What is more important to us? Brass candlesticks, stained glass windows, hand embroidered kneelers? Or following Christ? Do we want to accumulate material treasures for ourselves here on earth? Or store up spiritual treasures for ourselves in heaven? Remember that we can be very poor in the things of this world and yet be rich beyond compare in the things of heaven. To walk with Christ, all we need is Christ.

Note: This commentary was written before the release of Rowan Williams' recent 4-page letter to the leading bishops of the Anglican Communion. William's letter is bound to affect relations between him and orthodox leaders in the Western Anglican churches and the global South Anglican provinces.