The Primates' Statement of 16 October 2003
Commentary by Anglican Communion Institute
PARA 1
The Primates of the Anglican Communion and the Moderators of the United Churches, meeting together at Lambeth Palace on the 15th and 16th October, 2003, wish to express our gratitude to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for calling us together in response to recent events in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, and the Episcopal Church (USA), and welcoming us into his home so that we might take counsel together, and to seek to discern, in an atmosphere of common prayer and worship, the will and guidance of the Holy Spirit for the common life of the thirty-eight provinces which constitute our Communion.
Comment:
It is of vital importance that the Primates agreed to issue a statement to which all could give their agreement as it is a sign of commitment to the Communion and it is possible a stronger statement could have been issued but only at the expense of a premature break among the Primates. Once this is granted - and some will think it was a bad decision - it is hard to see how what follows could be any stronger and the strength of parts of it are remarkable. It is important that all agree it was right to convene in the light of recent events given that initially some thought the Global South primates would need to convene a separate meeting and many claimed a meeting was not necessary.
Their two-fold aim is important. First, they 'take counsel together' and part of the definition of the Communion is churches 'are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference' (LC 1930, Res 49). It is important to ask, therefore what 'mutual loyalty' requires of signatories to this statement. Second, they 'seek to discern, in an atmosphere of common prayer and worship, the will and guidance of the Holy Spirit'. Many claim the Spirit is leading the innovations in North America. If they are serious about being led by the Spirit then this statement must be given due weight and not dismissed within 24 hours. This leading of the Spirit is in relation to the 'common life of the 38 provinces' and if the Spirit leads and gives a common life then language of 'autonomy' must immediately be recast away from a liberal political understanding. Presumably what follows is their discernment as to the Spirit's guidance.
PARA 2
At a time of tension, we have struggled at great cost with the issues before us, but have also been renewed and strengthened in our Communion with one another through our worship and study of the Bible. This has led us into a deeper commitment to work together, and we affirm our pride in the Anglican inheritance of faith and order and our firm desire to remain part of a Communion, where what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us in proclaiming Good News to the world.
Comment:
The centrality of worship and Scripture in the Communion is re-iterated and 'a deeper commitment to work together' must - if it is genuine - have concrete implications for action in the light of the stark situation outlined in what follows. Given the predictions that many provinces were eager to break away from the Communion unless they got their way this commitment is highly significant. While it is clear that much more is still held in common, there is a clear acknowledgment here that there are divisions and the depth and seriousness of these is evident later.
PARA 3
At this time we feel the profound pain and uncertainty shared by others about our Christian discipleship in the light of controversial decisions by the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise a Public Rite of Blessing for those in committed same sex relationships, and by the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to confirm the election of a priest in a committed same sex relationship to the office and work of a Bishop.
Comment:
The cause of the problem is here clearly stated and those responsible are named (although the lack of acknowledgment of ECUSA's 'local option' for same-sex blessings (in resolution C-051) is a serious omission it presumably is included alongside New Westminster's decisions). These decisions are said to have caused 'profound pain' and 'uncertainty about our Christian discipleship' both in the Communion and further afield. Already it is clear that the Primates are far from seeing these as within the bounds of Anglican diversity.
PARA 4
These actions threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ's Church, our mission and witness, and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology, and polarised Christian opinion.
Comment:
The full extent of the seriousness of these actions is here laid out in a way which few have commented on but really could not be stronger. They threaten four central features of life as a Communion - unity within, relations with other Christians, mission and witness in the world, and relations with other faiths. The 'uncertainty about our Christian discipleship' is even more serious given that the world is 'already confused in sexuality, morality and theology'. The claim that these actions are simply the outworking of the 'inclusive gospel' is difficult to uphold in the light of this paragraph.
PARA 5
As Primates of our Communion seeking to exercise the "enhanced responsibility" entrusted to us by successive Lambeth Conferences, we re-affirm our common understanding of the centrality and authority of Scripture in determining the basis of our faith. Whilst we acknowledge a legitimate diversity of interpretation that arises in the Church, this diversity does not mean that some of us take the authority of Scripture more lightly than others. Nevertheless, each province needs to be aware of the possible effects of its interpretation of Scripture on the life of other provinces in the Communion. We commit ourselves afresh to mutual respect whilst seeking from the Lord a correct discernment of how God's Word speaks to us in our contemporary world.
Comment:
The willingness of the Primates to exercise 'enhanced responsibility' is very welcome and the nature of this is evident in the paragraphs that follow. The reference to 'legitimate diversity of interpretation' is ambiguous. There is clearly also 'illegitimate diversity' and given the reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 it would appear that 'interpretation' which rejects the view that homosexual practice is 'unbiblical' is not 'legitimate' within Anglicanism. The tendency to set the boundaries of interpretation by the effect on the church is weaker than one which would speak of Scripture interpreting Scripture but even this weaker test would appear to rule out the revisionist interpretations at least at present. There is a clear restatement that Scripture is central and discerning how God's Word speaks is the task of the church. Again the reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10 shows what that discernment is in relation to homosexuality.
PARA 6
We also re-affirm the resolutions made by the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 on issues of human sexuality as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues. We commend the report of that Conference in its entirety to all members of the Anglican Communion, valuing especially its emphasis on the need "to listen to the experience of homosexual persons, and to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ"; and its acknowledgement of the need for ongoing study on questions of human sexuality.
Comment:
This is of vital importance as the resolution is often dismissed and disparaged by revisionists. It now is strongly reaffirmed and commands the respect of the Communion. It is hard to see how recent actions show that respect. It is no longer possible to say the Communion does not have a mind on this or that (as with women's ordination) it respects two different views. The reference to 'present' position does open the door to change but it does not require or expect change. It is vital that all the listening and ongoing study must take place within the agreed position and important that no process has been set up by the Primates to alter that position despite the wishes of some for a Commission on Sexuality.
PARA 7
Therefore, as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of provinces to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to alter unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. They do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means that none has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion.
Comment:
The language not just of regret but deep regret is strong and is clearly directed against New Westminster and ECUSA. The use of 'as a body' enabled those most directly implicated (Griswold and Peers) to distance themselves but in so doing they distance themselves from two of the instruments of unity within the Communion and so marginalise themselves. It is unfortunate that the grounds for regret are not more strongly stated. The following sentences make clear that the 'alternative teaching' in North America is not accepted as within the bounds of Anglican teaching which remain as stated in Lambeth I.10. There is now no doubt that there is 'the teaching of the Anglican Communion' and that revisionists have departed from it when they use their 'juridical autonomy' to make changes without regard to the 'mutual interdependence of the provinces' that is part of the Communion. Given that there is not doctrinal autonomy this effectively states that ECUSA has substituted an un-Anglican teaching for that of the Communion and this must place its position within the Communion under a shadow.
PARA 8
To this extent, therefore, we must make clear that recent actions in New Westminster and in the Episcopal Church (USA) do not express the mind of our Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardise our sacramental fellowship with each other. We have a particular concern for those who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province in such matters. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.
Comment:
The implications of this action are now starkly stated and in so doing it is shown that 'sacramental fellowship' is based on shared teaching. By acting against the mind of the Communion as a whole, that fellowship - which earlier the Primates stated they wished to deepen - is jeopardised. The Primates then act to support those who, faithful to the Communion, 'feel bound to dissent from the teaching and practice of their province'. The reaffirmation of autonomy and integrity reflects the serious strains these are now under and in order to prevent this teaching being undermined the Primates, through the Archbishop of Canterbury, have called on provinces to consult with the wider Communion in order to ensure 'adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care'. Notably this shows a lack of total confidence in the internal governing authorities and does not promise the innovating bishops that they will retain jurisdiction. It is clear they are held to be the ones who have jeopardised sacramental fellowship. This is a major step on the part of the Primates, answers the call made for them to act on behalf of those upholding traditional teaching, and signals a major realignment within innovating provinces and dioceses.
PARA 9
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the constitutional framework within which the election and confirmation of a new bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes place. As Primates, it is not for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another province. We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy and the expression of critical opinion by others on the internal actions of a province. Nevertheless, many Primates have pointed to the grave difficulties that this election has raised and will continue to raise. In most of our provinces the election of Canon Gene Robinson would not have been possible since his chosen lifestyle would give rise to a canonical impediment to his consecration as a bishop.
Comment:
The limits of autonomy are here struggled with by the Primates. Despite the fact that the Primates draw back from constituting themselves as a Supreme Court, the balance of support is given to those who offer 'critical opinion' in this case. The novelty of the actions and the recognition that most Anglican provinces could not legally have acted in this way is telling, especially given recent discussions about canon law as a potential 'fifth instrument of unity' in the Communion. The willingness of a province to accept as a bishop someone most other provinces are legally prohibited from electing shows again how much this marginalises ECUSA within the Communion.
PARA 10
If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA).
Comment:
This really is the strongest paragraph, especially in the light of the opening statements about being strengthened in commitment to the Communion. The use of 'If..' shows that this is not a foregone conclusion and implicitly appeals for the consecration not to proceed. The four consequences of this action are stark - 'crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion', 'the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy', 'the ministry of one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world', 'many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with ECUSA' (note that this is not simply 'impaired communion'). The Primates Meeting cannot take these action but if a majority of primates and their provinces act in this way then the effect on ECUSA's standing in the Communion will be enormous. To proceed with actions knowing that these are the consequences requires a very strong case and conviction of the rightness of one's actions. If the consecration proceeds then - unless ECUSA voluntarily remove themselves from the Communion which they are free to do - 'this will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level'. It must be asked how anyone can with any integrity claim to be committed to the Communion and proceed with such an action. It is clear that ECUSA will be marginalised and that the whole Communion itself risks breaking apart. The determination of the majority of the Primates, especially from the Global South, is here clearly stated and it is clear that the cause of these consequences is the consecration of Gene Robinson in disregard for Communion teaching.
PARA 11
Similar considerations apply to the situation pertaining in the Diocese of New Westminster.
Comment:
The importance of this single-sentence paragraph must not be lost. It shows that New Westminster (and by implication proceeding with C-051 in ECUSA) are as much a threat to the Communion as the consecration of Robinson.
PARA 12
We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise . We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months.
Comment:
Having looked into this abyss, the Primates seek to find a way forward that is not a mad rush into chaos. The relevant resolution (IV.13 on Unity within Provinces of the Anglican Communion) reads - 'This Conference: (a) notes with gratitude the ministry of support which the Archbishop of Canterbury has been able to give in Sudan and Rwanda, and recognises that he is called upon to render assistance from time to time in a variety of situations; (b) in view of the very grave difficulties encountered in the internal affairs of some Provinces of the Communion, invites the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Commission to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for him to exercise an extra-ordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a Province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion within the said Province and between the said Province and the rest of the Anglican Communion'.
The central role is that of Canterbury and his call to maintain communion within and between provinces. This, along with its specific focus on the current crisis, presumably distinguish if from the Sykes Commission. The level of action in Sudan and Rwanda shows how strong the action required might be. It is clear that the dangers identified above need to be addressed by deep theological and legal reflection - they are not simply akin to previous differences and disagreements e.g. over women's ordination. The urgency is such that twelve months is the maximum time-frame. It is clear that this Commission will provide, within a year, the framework for a major realignment within ECUSA, New Westminster and the wider Communion and that claims to 'autonomy' which disregard the mind of the Communion will now inevitably lead to 'intervention' and new structures.
PARA 13
We urge our provinces not to act precipitately on these wider questions, but take time to share in this process of reflection and to consider their own constitutional requirements as individual provinces face up to potential realignments.
Comment:
It is not clear what these 'wider questions' are but presumably this relates to disregarding territorial integrity and making decisions on remaining in communion with provinces who remain in communion with ECUSA. It is clear that the Primates do not call for no actions but rather no precipitous actions and that the primates are aware that their own bishops and synods are likely to demand a response to the innovations in North America. The important legal changes needed in many provinces also requires more time to be taken and the effects are boldly stated - 'potential realignments'.
PARA 14
Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised. We encourage the Network of Legal Advisers established by the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Hong Kong in 2002, to bring to completion the work which they have already begun on this question.
Comment:
Again the legal lacuna at the heart of the Communion is noted and the need for some Communion-wide legal framework appears to be acknowledged here.
PARA 15
It is clear that recent controversies have opened debates within the life of our Communion which will not be resolved until there has been a lengthy process of prayer, reflection and substantial work in and alongside the Commission which we have recommended. We pray that God will equip our Communion to be equal to the task and challenges which lie before it.
Comment:
Again the cause of these debates is clear - 'recent controversies' refers back to the 'controversial decisions' in New Westminster and ECUSA. There is hope for resolution but only after a long process. It is noteworthy that the work needed is not restricted to the Commission and the whole context in which this work is set by this statement is clearly favourable to the orthodox and unlikely to benefit the innovators.
"Now I appeal to the elders of your community, as a fellow elder and a witness to Christ's sufferings, and as one who has shared in the glory to be revealed: look after the flock of God whose shepherd you are." (1 Peter 5.1,2a)
Comment:
A powerful Scripture reminding us of the task we are all called to! Its implications are clear for those whose actions threaten to tear the fabric of the Communion at the deepest level and to jeopardise its sacramental unity by overturning its teaching.
