The failure of Anglican Conciliarism

Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Ananias, Jul 27, 2022.

  1. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    The brouhaha over Resolution 1.10 continues to roil the Lambeth 2022 council even before it begins.

    This post is not meant to rehash the homosexuality debate, but rather to ponder why Anglicans have fallen away from the conciliar decision-making process. Anglicans have traditionally been very consensus-driven and deliberative as an organization. The "Anglican Communion" in former ages unified around the core principles of the Prayer Book, the Episcopate, the 39 Articles of Religion, and affirmation of various creeds and councils. This is what Anglicanism has meant, to a large degree -- to be an Anglican is to use the Prayer Book, to affirm certain creeds and confessions, and commit to a conciliar decision making process.

    Yet this model has decisively failed and it's worth asking why.

    A large measure of the problem, I believe, has to do with the fact that the overarching western liberal culture and ethos has simply drifted too far away from the rest of the world. The yawning chasm between orthodox and liberal Christianity is as much cultural as it is doctrinal. For many people culture trumps doctrine -- and I apply that to both sides in the conflict. And the large, rich, powerful west has grown very used to having the whip hand over the rest of the world in terms of culture and influence. We tell them what do to; they don't tell us what to do -- at least that seems to be the general feeling.

    And yet the global Christian churches are rising up against this high-handedness, not least because the people trying to assert control are, statistically, only a small fraction of the Christian church as a whole. African Anglicans are rightly asking why provinces that comprise only about 20% of the Communion should be able to dictate doctrine or practice for the rest. It's a fair question, and in former times councils would gather to hash out the issue and come to a consensus. But that's not happening now.

    What's happening now is that the liberal west is handing the rest of the world an ultimatum: here's our offer, take it or leave it. And the rest of the world, particularly the Africans who comprise a majority of the world's Anglicans, are likely to leave it. The process is as far from conciliar as can be imagined because no one is actually coming to the table willing to change their minds; they're coming to force the issue in their own favor.

    Nor is this problem specific to Anglicanism. Every major Christian denomination (including the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox) are going through the exact same pains. And it's for the same reason -- the west has, culturally and ethically, left the rest of the world behind.

    The question is: how can western and global churches learn to live together in this new reality without compromising the faith as handed down from the Apostles? The issues dividing us are fundamental -- even more fundamental in some ways than the issues that gave rise to the Reformation. Is a conciliar solution even possible?
     
  2. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I don’t think this is Anglican concilirism at all. The Lambeth Conference, since its institution in the 1860s, was NOT designed to enforce rules and boundaries on the Provinces. It was since that time more an advisory body, with no teeth on how the resolutions would be enforced. The clearest example is the famous Resolution 1.10 itself. Yes it was passed at Lambeth 1998; gay marriage was definitively ruled out by the worldwide consensus of all Anglican provinces. And? So what? The heretical provinces continued down their track unabashed. The Episcopal church consecrated an active sodomite Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003 (which set off the whole Anglican realignment).

    So the problem is that the Lambeth system is not Conciliarist enough. We need to see this thing fully realized.

    That’s why there’s a movement now to instill actual Conciliarism among the world’s provinces; unite them in such a way that there will be consequences, punishment and discipline for the Provinces which actively disobey the Communion. Canon Phil Ashey, leading ACNA canonist, wrote a book outlining the future of Anglicanism in this direction:

    Anglican Conciliarism - The Church Meeting to Decide Together https://a.co/d/eNzLk0O


    Here is his essay summarizing what you and I and all of us are desperately yearning and building towards:
    https://americananglican.org/conciliarism-what-does-it-really-mean/
     
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    What is the appropriate decision rule for a conciliar framework?
     
  4. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Authority in any government is vested not in their ability to make rules (anybody can declare something a rule, after all), but in their ability to enforce the rules they make. This enforcement varies by organization -- by coercion (physical, spiritual, or moral); by accomodation (adjusting the rules themselves); or by suasion (convincing the dissenting parties to reform by appeals to doctrine, brotherhood, fealty, family ties, etc.).

    The coercion model is the usual mechanism, because it enforces rules by levying punishments for non-compliance. In the context of churches, the consequences are referred to as "discipline", which can range from admonishment all the way up to excommunication (disfellowship). Until fairly recently as human history goes, ecclesial punishment included execution. The intent of the coercive model of enforcement is twofold: to incentivize compliance with consensus opinion on the one hand and to disincentivize dissent on the other. The coercive model also draws clear boundaries: some things are inside the law (rule); some things are outside the law (rule). When a rule is broken, the law/rule/covenant is broken and therefore brings the offender into the hazard of penalty (of which the root is 'penal').

    When a church makes a rule and then fails to enforce it, then the authority of the church is called into question. It would have been better in that case never to have made the rule at all. Any organization that fails to enforce its own rules has essentially abdicated its own authority as a rule-making body.

    EDIT: To make my point clear - the point of a church council is to form a consensus opinion, formulate it as a rule, and then enforce that rule on the churches within the Communion. Enforcement can take many forms, but complete noncompliance should never be an option.
     
  5. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I appreciate the clarification, but that’s not what I meant by 'decision rule'. I am asking, procedurally, what is the rule by which decisions ought to be made at the conciliar level? Simple majority, supermajority, unequally-weighted voting (e.g., by rank/seniority), ‘sense of the room’, etc.? The scenario is:
    -A bunch of bishops are gathered.
    -A decision must be made.
    -There is disagreement over what that decision should be.
    What should happen between that point, and the moment when the conciliar decision is promulgated? That’s what I’m asking.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  6. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    In this particular case, I would think the legislative process would follow the standard CofE Synodical legislative process. As far as I can tell, this process is conducted by simple majority vote. (Though in the discussion phase, several processes of Revision may take place before a final vote is called.) That's my take on it, anyway -- I'm no expert on the Lambeth process, so I'm certainly open to correction here.

    I also note that in Lambeth 2022, these "Calls" do not amount to actual Resolutions...explicitly to avoid having to enforce them in canon law, I suspect.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  7. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Thank you, that’s what I needed to know. So my next question is, if the decision rule is simple majority voting, what would cause an institution that routinely followed such a rule by consent to fail? (This ties back in to your OP; it’s not intended as a “rabbit trail”.)
     
  8. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    As I wrote above, even the Resolutions would not be enforceable in church law. That was the great weakness underlying Resolution 1.10. If only it were the case that once it passed, that it forthwith became church law in each Province of the Communion. But in actual course of history, the Resolution was passed in 1998, the Primates all went back to to their homes, and nothing changed for any of the Provinces. The architects of the Lambeth system in the 1800s did not foresee the strains which the system would be forced to endure.
     
  9. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    I think what you're fishing for here is a "conscience exemption" or "weaker-brother veto". But when you write "an institution that routinely followed such a rule by consent" you are making a mistake. It's not clear to me that the CofE or the other western Anglican provinces are actually following their own procedures in good faith. It's clear that the western provinces consider themselves autonomous at this point; some TEC bishops have straight-up said that even if I.10 is reaffirmed, they'll just ignore it. And they do this because they know there'll be no repercussions for their disobedience.

    This is something domestic police departments have to learn the hard way over and over again: if you let petty crime go unpunished, pretty soon more serious crime explodes because criminals think they can act with impunity. Police become unwilling to act without support from their leadership, and in the politicized leadership fears the mob. Authority is vested in enforcing the law, not in making the law.

    The CofE can no longer lead the Anglican world, in my view (even symbolically). Quite apart from their own internal dysfunctions, they have institutionally lost the trust not only of the other Anglican provinces, but of their own people. Even if they wanted to enforce their edicts on the rest of the Communion, they don't have the institutional or moral authority to do so.
     
  10. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I’m not “fishing” for anything. It’s a serious question. I’m asking what would cause a majority decision rule to make an institution fail.
    -One possibility is if the minority is unwilling to accept the majority’s decision.
    -Another possibility is if the minority is able to engineer a procedural veto.
    -Yet another possibility is that the subject matter itself is so divisive that voluntary consent isn’t achievable (e.g., slavery and the American Civil War).
    Which of these sounds most applicable to the situation at hand?
     
  11. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    You're trying to conduct a Socratic dialogue, but your axioms are flawed. (Incorrect axioms prevent a solution.) Here, you frame only three possibilities. There are lots of others -- the Council itself could be adjourned with no decision being made, the question(s) under contention may not be called for a vote at all, etc. "Failure" is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to legislation -- perhaps delay and obfuscation are the intended result. (This is often the case with national politics.)

    Consider a baseball game. A "game" is only properly constituted under the rulebook of the league -- a game not so constituted has no meaning under league rules. If both teams arrive at the venue with the intention of conducting league play, then they (and the venue) assent to conduct the game under the rulebook of the league.

    Now, let's say that the visiting team doesn't like the "ground rules" set for this particular field. League rules specify that since each playing field is unique, the home organization (which owns and operates the playing field) may set certain conditions upon use of the field, subject to league approval or disapproval. (Maybe the left-field fence is closer to the baseline than league standard, or the backstop further away from home plate, or some other locale-specific change.) Both teams assent not just to league rules, but also to the local ground rules, when they show up to play. Now let's say the visiting team loses but thinks the home team had an unfair advantage in how the ground rules were formulated: can they appeal their loss to the league and have the outcome reversed, or the game replayed? Most leagues say no; unless a specific and flagrant episode of cheating occurs, playing the game is an implicit assent to the ground rules.

    The church is analogous. Participation in the Conference as a voting Bishop signals an assent to the rules. (Otherwise, why bother going?) Participating in the vote indicates an acceptance of the results. There isn't -- and should not be -- a "sore loser" provision. The legislative way to overturn an unfavorable result is either to have the original rule repealed in a later vote, or by having new legislation passed that supercedes the old. If the legislative minority finds itself unable to do either of these things and finds the situation intolerable, it may choose to withdraw from the organization (though some compacts, as in the case of the US during the Civil War, prevent withdrawal -- the loser will be obligated to accept the results through coercion by the winning side). In modern times we have become used to the democratic route, but for most of human history the coercive route has been the norm. Both have strengths and weaknesses; historically the coercive method is more effective for long-term viability of the organizational structure.

    Pure democracies do not survive long in the wild for exactly this reason. The only reason the US government has lasted as long as it has is due to our federal structure where much political power is delegated to the several States. We are not, and have never been, a pure democracy.
     
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    A Socratic dialogue assumes that the interlocutor knows the conclusion in advance, and I claim no such knowledge.

    What appears to be the case here is my third option above, viz., that neither ‘side’ is willing to accept the result of a decision reached by a majority decision rule, irrespective of the outcome.

    What I do know is that the ‘Communion’ structure was one thing when the various African and Asian dioceses were also British territories, whose bishops were appointed by the Colonial Office. In the postwar world it’s merely a relic of a bygone era, but that fact alone doesn’t explain the roots of the division. I suspect these roots are ultimately economic rather than ideological. ‘Orthodox’ and ‘liberal’ aren’t mutually exclusive in any case, and collapsing the distinction between Doctrine and Discipline is itself constitutive of a new ‘orthodoxy’. If a permanent rupture in the Communion does occur, it seems safe to say that whatever results from it won’t be Anglicanism.

    To your last point, the problem is not with those who recognize that America falls far short of its historic ideals; the problem is with those who no longer hold those ideals, and actively encourage their rejection.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  13. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    Well, sure, but in the US as in Anglicanism, both sides are claiming fealty to the "real" ideals. In reality, both are deviant from it, just in different ways. Anglicanism has never been an "agreed upon" organization, even from the Reformation period. In their turn, Puritans, Baptists, and Methodists struck out on their own. Likewise America never had a "golden age" when our politics was entirely fraternal -- we fought a huge Civil War in which more than 10% of population died, for Heaven's sake, not even a century after our founding. And that was after fighting two wars against the British in quick succession that incurred significant domestic resistance (I probably would have been a loyal Tory myself, given my current convictions).

    I can't speak for others but only for myself when I say that the only rulebook I follow is the Bible. I am an Anglican because Anglicanism, in my estimation, is a true and faithful expression of Biblical truth. Our 32 Articles are, to me, as fine an expression of Reformation Christianity as has ever been produced, and I assent to their teachings wholeheartedly. I vigorously assent that the Book of Common Prayer is a splendid way to convey Biblical truth to the congregation during their assembly on the Lord's Day, and a great way to foster devotion for individuals during the rest of the week. I value the Episcopal structure as an effective and Biblically-sanctioned structure for guiding the Church. I was moved by the Holy Spirit to seek entry into the Anglican church, and by the grace of God and the love of my Christian brethren I was accepted.

    All of these things make me an Anglican. Yet others who claim the Anglican mantle would also insist that they hold to the 39 Articles, to use of the BCP, and to the episcopal form of church government. And we disagree on nearly everything, up to and including the Lordship of Jesus Christ (or at least our conception of it). So we now ask who is the "leaver" and who is the "remainer"? We can't both be right, and we can't in good conscience "agree to disagree" on central matters of doctrine.

    I argue that the orthodox are the remainers -- those who follow the historic teachings of their own church as established by the Bible, summarized in the 39 Articles, and organized under the codes and canons of the church. We insist that you cannot claim to follow Christ if you do not obey his commands or the Apostolic teachings of Scripture. We are not breaking fellowship; we are in fact trying to repair a fellowship that has been broken. We are contending for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

    Anglicans should never succumb to the world out of fear of offending other men; our goal should be to live without offending God.
     
  14. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The only part of that I agree with is the part being a Tory at the time of the War of Independence. :laugh: At the end of the day, the various Anglican churches - whether canonical or schismatic - are just another Protestant denomination, and an idiosyncratic one at that. Anglicanism has never claimed infallibility, indefectibility, or authority to speak in the name of the whole Church. Despite our having historically retained episcopacy for reasons of good order, we do not possess 'Catholic' orders nor are we a truly 'Catholic' body nor are we recognized as such. We are a Protestant body with a perpetual identity crisis inherited from the mother church, and the Communion is the product of an dismembered Empire that's never coming back. Given the overall differences in economic development between the various constituents of the Communion, what's been happening over the last several decades need not be surprising to anybody. As we try to work through these differences, it's important for Anglicans in general - and the schismatic churches in particular - not to be delusional about who and what we are.
     
  15. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    The way you’re speaking about this: needing external validation, “someone else” to approve, aspirations to infallibility, tells me you’ve based your approach to all this, the whole religion, on entirely fictional grounds. None of the Church Fathers, and I mean none, would have recognized your approach to church. The Tridentine Jesuits would nod at your approaches though. I’m sorry you’ve been bullied by imaginary theological bullies, Papist or EO, which created (entirely unnecessarily) these feelings of inadequacy. I’m extremely bullish on the future of Anglicanism.

    If this was the 90s or 2000s, when Anglican doctrines and hierarchy were disintegrating with no hope and no stopping, I’d have lost hope also. But now the Anglican world is filled with “Anglican fundamentalists” like myself. People are yearning for the 39 Articles. Someone has retypeset and republished an entire 1662 BCP, which is selling by the thousands.

    People are buying the 1662 BCP, out of pocket, unforced. Thousands of people. Has that happened to the religious books of any other major church?

    In 2000, there was no one to defend Lambeth 1.10. Now the entire Global South, not to mention Gafcon, is weaponized up to their gills, looking for the heretics to make a move so they can draw the gun first. This is not your parents Anglicanism. I’m sorry you can’t see that, blackpilled by approaches or principles that never held water.
     
    Othniel likes this.
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Utterly absurd analysis. I’m simply stating historical fact. The Articles of Religion are quite explicit that all particular Churches have erred at some point. It would be nice if there were an infallible guide like the Catholics and the Orthodox claim, but I cannot in good conscience accept such claims.

    I do hope that the constituents of the Communion find a way forward together, as it would be a shame to be divided in spite of our common heritage. In order for that to happen, though, the more ‘conservative’ jurisdictions would need to recognize that the Jerusalem Statement is in fact a new ‘orthodoxy’ and reject it accordingly, and the more ‘liberal’ jurisdictions would need to exercise considerably more self-restraint in their pursuit of progressive goals. I don’t think either of those things is likely to happen, and I think that’s sad on both counts. In jurisdictional terms, the ACNA and some of the African bishops are the 'arsonists' here, in that the reason there is division right now is because they have established rival sees where there were already Anglican bishops with jurisdiction, and there would have to be accounting for that. Those rivalries would have to disappear, with the split bodies rejoining back into one organization. On our side, there would need to be less of a national focus when pursuing various social initiatives, especially social ones, and more serious input taken from the rest of the Communion. Again, I see little chance of this happening, unfortunately.

    That being said, if the Communion splits, it’s not the end of the world. We’re just a Protestant denomination - one among many - and the breakaway groups, despite their protestations of ‘orthodoxy’, likely won’t much resemble historic Anglicanism after a few decades anyway, assuming they survive that long. Whether Christianity itself survives the next century is an open question. That’s what I meant about not being delusional about what we are. There’s little point in fighting over the best seats on a sinking ship, rather than trying to figure out how to keep the ship afloat.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  17. Stalwart

    Stalwart Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,723
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Country:
    America
    Religion:
    Anglican
    So are you just having an existential crisis? What's nice about having something that literally doesn't exist? If it did exist, then yeah I'd be onboard also. But since it doesn't, I'm much happier being in a historic Church which acts accordingly, rather than the Roman church which keep wishing, and get worse and worse year after year.

    If you have such thoughts, then I don't know how you can truly think that the very God of reality incarnated his Son, who literally resurrected from death. Like he was actually dead, and then he wasn't. Not in the stories, but actually, in our present world of skeptics, blockchain, smartphones, and Starbucks, someone actually dead, became not.

    And from him followed millennia of followers, apostles, and disciples, who literally were the holiest bunch of humans ever seen on this earth... for some reason. And to them, he said that he would be with them always.

    There's a non-zero chance that you've been doing this Christianity thing entirely for cultural reasons: the pretty chant, historic utterances, deep reflections from historic individuals. But all that's rubbish; just straw as Thomas Aquinas said; just menstrual cloth as Isaiah says. You're dealing with something much greater: you're dealing with the supernatural. Actual and real supernatural. Not just in the movies and stories, but actual and in the present day. If that's true and real, then none of what you said is possible.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  18. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Your feigned analysis is way off, again. I’m just a realist. I don’t know why you keep trying to turn this into a psychological thing. :dunno: You know exactly what is being argued here. There’s no reason to be ugly about it with cheap shots. :disgust:
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2022
  19. Ananias

    Ananias Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    842
    Likes Received:
    706
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    ACNA
    I know we disagree on mostly everything, Invictus, but let me offer you some hope here. Yes, Christianity is going through a very hard time -- but it's been through much harder times before. Yes, Christains are in conflict with each other as much as (or more than) the rest of the world -- but when has it ever been any different? Yes, the churches are full of doubt and fear -- but this is because they are run by fallen human beings who are full of doubt and fear.

    God will preserve his church. See Matt. 16:18:

    Christ has already won! We will not lose the ultimate battle because we cannot lose. Our lives are but a moment, and we do what we can while we are here. We should not worry about the whole wide world; we can only work in the small patch of it that we have influence over. If we hold fast to Jesus Christ as our great Savior and King through faith, we cannot fail in the task God has tasked us with.

    Christianity is not a numbers game. It never has been. We do not save people; God does that work himself. All we are asked to do is believe the Word by faith, live the Word, and preach the Word. We are not judged on how many come to Christ, but rather on how well we lived as obedient servants of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Kingdoms rise and fall, Nations rise and fall, but the church will endure until Christ comes. It may not be the specific instance of the Church we worship in right now -- who knows? I think Anglicanism has a long and fruitful future ahead of it. It may be fading in the west, but it is thriving elsewhere. (And I'm pretty optimistic about American Christianity over the long term; demographic trends favor a revival.)
     
    bwallac2335 likes this.
  20. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    We do agree that we would both be Tories if we went back in time to 1776. That means something. :thumbsup:
     
    Ananias likes this.