Out of the Abundance of the Heart

Commentary by Robin G. Jordan

The Archbishop of Canterbury has released his long-awaited Advent letter. The letter takes a swipe at those provinces and dioceses that have intervened in the United States and those primates who have talked about boycotting the Lambeth Conference. Archbishop Williams seems more concerned about how the interventions has affected the bishops of the Episcopal Church than he is with the state of the Episcopal Church that prompted the interventions or the plight of orthodox Episcopalians in an increasingly apostate and heretical church. He blames the intervening provinces and dioceses for the Episcopal Church’s policy of intimidation, depositions, and litigation against orthodox Episcopalians who would realign themselves with an orthodox part of the Communion.

The letter ignores the fact that for Biblically faithful Anglicans more is at issue than the ordination of non-celibate gay men and lesbians, and the blessing of same gender unions. It glosses over the extent to which the Episcopal Church has departed from the apostolic faith. It asserts that no interventions should be sanctioned except "when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously," but this anomalous behavior was serious enough to compromise the province’s entire ministry and mission. It scolds the global South provinces and dioceses such as Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, Bolivia, and Recife for "taking to themselves the authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour's ministerial life or spiritual authenticity."

Williams made one point in the letter that is worthy of note. He wrote:

"The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments" [my emphasis].

Unfortunately he did not fully develop this point.

Unity in the Anglican Communion does, as Williams rightly notes, depend upon the ability of each part of the Anglican family of churches to recognize the following:

First, the other provinces and dioceses have received the same faith from the apostles. They are apostolic in the sense that Anglicans have classically understood apostolicity, which has nothing to do with ministerial succession but is entirely doctrinal. Their bishops may be viewed as successors to the apostles because they are upholding and propagating the apostolic faith.

Second, they are faithfully holding to the authentic apostolic faith. Their motivation for teaching and maintaining the doctrine of the apostles is loyalty to the Church’s Lord, Jesus Christ. It is not enough that they at one time shared the apostolic faith with the other members of the Anglican Communion or still hold to that faith on paper, they must actively teach and maintain it.

In the high priestly prayer Jesus prayed for the unity of those who believe in him through the word of the apostles. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they all may be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17:20-21 ESV). It is significant that Jesus asked the Father for the unity of those who come to faith in him through the apostolic witness. This witness is embodied in the New Testament. The unity of those who are believers through the apostolic witness then is God-given. It is the Father’s response to Jesus’ prayer. To those who came to hear him, Jesus said that he did nothing on his own authority. He spoke as the Father taught him. He always did things that were pleasing to God because God was with him (John 8:28-29). When he prayed for the unity of those who believed in him through the apostles’ message, we may reasonably conclude that he was doing God’s will.

If unity is indeed God-given, there cannot be true unity unless there is faith in Jesus Christ and that faith comes from hearing the apostolic testimony—the true Gospel. Jesus did not ask that those who believe in him through the apostles’ teaching may be one with those who reject that teaching, as has a large segment of the Episcopal Church, clergy and laity. His silence suggests that unity between believer and unbeliever are not God’s will.

In his Advent letter Williams goes on to criticize the intervening provinces and dioceses for in his opinion being too hasty in judging the spiritual condition of the Episcopal Church. This criticism reflects Williams’ own double mindedness more than it represents an objective appraisal of the state of the Episcopal Church. While Williams has publicly maintained the accepted doctrinal position of the Anglican Communion in the matter of human sexuality, he personally sympathizes with those who would give homosexuals a larger role in the Church and who would bless some forms of homosexual relationships. He has also shown little understanding or sympathy for evangelical and other Biblically faithful Anglicans. He has displayed a willingness to speak out on the behalf of gays but not for beleaguered orthodox Episcopalians. He sharply attacked a Nigerian bishop for statements that the bishop was alleged to have made about homosexuals without first substantiating the allegations. When it was subsequently determined that the bishop had not made the allegations, Williams did not offer him an apology. More recently, he presided at a "secret" Lesbian and Gay Clergy Consultation Eucharist.

The Episcopal Church has over the past forty years moved further and further away from the apostolic faith. A large segment of its clergy has embraced false teaching and are destroying the faith. This false teaching does not just relate to marriage and human sexuality, it involves the nature of God, the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the need for a Savior, and other core beliefs of "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints." The bishops of the Episcopal Church have not only failed to drive away false teaching but have become its leading proponents. The 2003 General Convention rejected Resolution B001 endorsing the historical formularies of orthodox Christianity. The 2003 General Convention consented to the election of Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, as the Bishop of New Hampshire and adopted Resolution C051, affirming the practice of blessing same sex unions. The 2006 General Convention refused to consider a resolution that would have affirmed the apostolic teaching that there is no salvation except through faith in Jesus Christ. The 2006 General Convention then elected a Presiding Bishop who has in her public statements asserted that Christianity is one of a number of ways to God and Jesus was not divine. Rather he provides us with an example of a very godly man. The Presiding Bishop has also stated that salvation comes through good works.

The Episcopal Church may, in this opening decade of the 21st century, have an orthodox element that is teaching and maintain apostolic doctrine but this element is disappearing. A number of orthodox bishops are approaching the mandatory retirement age. A number of orthodox bishops have demonstrated a susceptibility to cave into pressure from their radical colleagues and to compromise apostolic doctrine. Congregations that presently have an orthodox rector or vicar have no guarantee that their next pastor will be orthodox. Only two of the Episcopal Church’s seminaries—Nashotah House and Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry—are orthodox and they are becoming increasingly marginalized. Williams would have the other provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion relate to the Episcopal Church as if it continues to stand under the authority of Scripture as its "rule and ultimate standard of faith," to have an authentic ministry of Word and Sacraments, and to make the proclamation of the Gospel its first and great priority because this element has not yet disappeared. In essence, he is asking them to engage in denial.

In his second epistle John tells us that only where there is agreement on sound doctrine can there be meaningful fellowship. Such agreement no longer exists between a number of provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church. It is unrealistic to expect a restoration of fellowship between these churches and the Episcopal Church under the present circumstances. The type of discussions that Williams is proposing are not going to resolve the differences between these churches and the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has shown a decided unwillingness to change its theological direction and return to orthodoxy. William’s strategy remains as it has from the outset to keep orthodox Anglicans in conversation with the Episcopal Church until they make some kind of accommodation to the theological direction of the Episcopal Church. It is clear from his Advent letter that the restoration of Anglican orthodoxy in the Episcopal Church is not one of his priorities.

The liberal element in the Episcopal Church can be expected to enthusiastically greet this letter. Williams has to a large extent taken the Episcopal Church off the hook. The national church will be emboldened in its assault upon orthodox Episcopalians, those who for the time being remain a part of the denomination, as well as those who have disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church.

The letter also sends a clear message to orthodox Episcopalians. Do not look to Canterbury for help. Rowan Williams is no defender of the faith or protector of the faithful.