Is ‘comprehensive’ Anglicanism possible?
Two competing visions for Australia’s Anglicans – a ‘comprehensive’ mix of progressives and others or a church divided by theology and geography have emerged from a debate in Queensland.
Progressives put forward the ideal of “comprehensive Anglicanism” in the Anglican Church of Australia. A recent example is from the Archbishop of Brisbane, Phillip Aspinall, whose presidential address (speech to a church parliament) has received a strong reply from a Brisbane priest/minister, Peter Judge-Mears of St john’s Wishart.
What the Archbishop said
“Different emphases on the authority and interpretation of the scriptures, the place of reason, science and changing social contexts and the importance of heritage, antiquity and tradition all contribute to different sorts of Anglicanism today, Archbishop Aspinall said.
“In large part, they are responsible for the sharp and deeply felt differences that have arisen in our own generation about human sexuality and same-sex marriage and relationships, among other issues.
“On the one hand, there is an approach which insists on a single, narrow interpretation of the scriptures which must be authoritative for everyone and hence if you don’t see it this way then ‘please leave us.’ Or if your Bishop doesn’t see things this way, or if you even suspect that, then we’ll provide another bishop to look after you.
“On the other hand, there is another approach which allows for more exploration, a broader range of possibilities in shifting contexts, a tendency towards including rather than excluding. Yes, different views might seem contradictory, which makes for messiness, but this broader approach is willing to live with tensions while pursuing a deeper, broader grasp of the truth in which apparent paradoxes may ultimately be resolved. It is comprehensive for the sake of embracing the complexity and nuances of truth rather than ‘anything goes’ for the sake of cheap institutional peace.”
The “please leave us” quote references a presidential address by the former Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies. The Aspinall speech critiques the dioceses of Sydney for
- requiring school heads to oppose same-sex marriage
- donating $1m to the ‘no” case in the marriage postal survey
- Bishops consecrating a bishop for a “breakaway” evangelical Anglican church in New Zealand.
Aspinall revealed that Davies had requested that a New Zealand bishop be disinvited from a gathering of the Australian bishops following the adoption of a blessing service for same-sex civil marriages in that country. Aspinall alleged that Davies threatened a bishop boycott.
In contrast to Sydney’s “narrow” path, Archbishop Aspinall described the Diocese of south Queensland’s approach: “It’s against this backdrop that this diocese has adopted ‘comprehensive Anglican identity and purpose’ as a key focus area. We want to articulate, embrace and foster this comprehensive approach to Anglicanism. As I explained last year, Comprehensive Anglicanism tries to live with paradox and ambiguity by affirming the truth present in various perspectives which are in tension with one another. It tries to ensure that all the voices and perspectives are at the table and heard empathetically, even though that means living with tensions, apparent contradictions and paradoxes.”
What the priest said
In “An open letter to Archbishop Phillip,” Peter Judge-Mears of St John’s, Wishart in suburban Brisbane, writes a critique of his Archbishop’s vision of comprehensiveness.
Defending an evangelical view of Scripture, he writes, “You had described those ‘who study the scriptures with care and insight’ as those who ‘say the biblical presuppositions no longer stand therefore the moral rules based on those presuppositions and rationale no longer must be regarded as prescriptive and we have the responsibility to revisit in our own generation questions about what responsible, holy, life-giving sexual expression looks like today.'”
Judge-Mears alleges a lack of belief in the Bible. “Behind this view (and indeed the other two straw-man arguments which [emeritus professor of New Testament at Murdoch University] William Loader knocked down) stands the presupposition that the Scriptures are a purely human invention (contrary to Article XX and Section 2 of the Constitution). Yet as an Evangelical Anglican, I cannot hold that view. They are, as our Constitution says, ‘given by inspiration of God.’ In the words of 2 Peter 1:21, ‘no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.'”
Judge-Mears alleges a double standard. “About 10 years ago I sat at a deanery meeting where a conservative Anglo-Catholic priest raised concerns about recent decisions in the Church. Your response to him was to suggest he leave the Anglican Church and go and join the ordinariate. Yet when Archbishop Glenn Davies gave much the same message at a Sydney Synod to those who wanted to change the doctrine of our Church, you were indignant. For many years positions on committees in this Diocese have been held overwhelmingly (and sometimes exclusively) by those who identify as Liberals. Yet when the same phenomena occurred with the elections at General Synod (this time with Evangelicals) you were aggrieved. Where was that grief at monochrome committees when last year’s Synod rejected a motion to ensure that all three traditions were represented on the committees of our own Diocese?”
In a strongly-worded passage, Judge-Mears alleges that a climate of hate is fostered towards the Sydney diocese. “When I had not been long in this Diocese, I attended a clergy conference. I chose to sit at a table with people I did not know and was greeted. Who was I? Where had I come from? Where did I train? When I answered the last of these questions, the table erupted with laughter and then dismissed me.
“I ate the remainder of the meal ignored. Almost every year since then I have heard you attack the Diocese of Sydney; Moore College; and evangelical belief. You have styled Evangelicals as rabid, flat-earth, fundamentalists unable to think rationally. You repeatedly claimed “reason” as the special province of the Liberal tradition alone. You have fuelled a hatred for the Diocese of Sydney that this Diocese loves to hate.”
At the General Synod
Archbishop Aspinall is critical of the election results at the recent General Synod, the Anglicans’ national church parliament.
“Unfortunately, to my mind, this kind of [“comprehensive”] outlook failed to prevail at the recent General Synod. That failure is reflected in the election results. With the single exception of [ the President of the Queensland Court of Appeal], Debra Mullins, every clergy and lay member elected to the new Standing Committee comes from a decidedly evangelical perspective. Similarly, every person elected to the Primate Election Board comes from that same perspective.
“Other more catholic, liberal and comprehensive perspectives may be brought to Standing Committee by the three elected diocesan Bishops and some of the ex officio metropolitans. However, despite appeals for a degree of generosity to include some of these other voices on the Standing Committee Executive, only one such Bishop was elected, and that is only because the current rules require there to be at least one Bishop.”
“These and other indicators suggest to me that nurturing our vision of comprehensive Anglicanism in the life of the Church has never been more important nor more at risk.”
A good question is whether a “vision of comprehensive Anglicanism” is more at risk when conservatives dominate the election results at the general Synod than when progressives had the numbers in the past.
The General Synod saw a seismic shift in the numbers, with the House of Clergy (ministers) and laity (the unordained delegates) becoming dominated by a broad evangelical grouping.
The meeting did appear to be dominated by two factions – although borrowing the helpful term “tendencies” from the old Communist Party of Australia might be better. Neither tendency is monochrome. For example, the evangelical group included people both for and against women’s ordination.
But it was the terrain on which the debates at General Synod were held, mainly on the issue of whether marriage should be only between a man and a woman, that would have reinforced both the conservative and progressive coalitions.
Voting in the House of Bishops, a progressive majority produced a progressive bloc of three in two critical elections – for the Standing committee (that Aspinall notes) and for the Appellate tribunal, the Anglicans “supreme court.” If comprehensiveness is a virtue, why not allocate one of these positions to a conservative?
The voting method the Anglicans use, which is a simple first past the post system, is a factor that needs to be taken into account. The election results in an overwhelming majority of cases were very similar, which resulted in solid votes for the conservatives in the Houses of Clergy and Laity and for progressives in polls by the house of Bishops.
This system tends to lead to one group or another dominating the outcome unless leaders of a tendency advocate for a vote for someone on “the other side” This observer found no evidence that this sort of activity occurred at General Synod by either progressives or conservatives.
Is comprehension likely?
The “official” American Anglican church, the Episcopal Church, held its General convention this week. A motion passed to make a significant change to their prayerbook. The definition of “prayerbook” is being widened to include all authorised services, whether printed in the book or not.
The change “would, for the first time, define the Book of Common Prayer as ‘those liturgical forms and other texts authorised by the General Convention.’ In other words, liturgies that are not in the current prayer book – such as same-sex marriage rites and gender-expansive liturgies – could be elevated to ‘prayer book status’ whether they are replacing parts of the prayer book or standing on their own,” the Episcopal News Service reports.
The new provision further states” “The Book of Common Prayer, as now established or hereafter amended by the General Convention, shall be in use in all the Dioceses of this Church.”
This change makes it more likely that same-sex marriage is further entrenched as the official doctrine of that Church.
In Australia, however, the more likely outcome is that different regions of the country will arrive at different views on the blessing of same-sex civil marriages.
There are regions or Anglican dioceses where there is a mix of opinions. Melbourne, for example, has large numbers of progressives and conservatives. But Sydney or Brisbane, where one view dominates, are much harder to describe as “comprehensive.”
Suppose Judge-Mears’ claims of mockery or a climate of hatred are credible. In that case, it is also true that one finds a critical attitude towards liberal or progressive Dioceses in evangelical circles sometimes robustly expressed.
It is a fact that there are strong points of disagreement. Professor Dorothy Lee points out that there are significant grounds for agreement here.
In Sydney, there are a few Anglo-Catholic churches. In Brisbane, there are some evangelical parishes. It is hard to be in the minority in either place.
As far as I am aware, there are no Brisbane’s St Francis College graduates in Sydney, although I can find the old anglo-catholic Morpeth College in the year-book listings. In a different view of Southern Queensland’s “comprehensiveness, ” Sydney identifies as a theologically conservative diocese.
In Brisbane, a small number of Sydney’s Moore Theological College graduates are present in the ministry. If “Comprehensive Anglicanism” is to be realised, those advocating for it probably should provide more facts on the ground. Welcoming ministers and church planting from the opposite point of view would put meat on the bones of comprehensiveness.
Whether one is sympathetic to Apsinall’s vision of “comprehensiveness” or supports the theologically conservative stand of Sydney and others, a task for all would be to avoid mockery. Delegates to the General Synod managed to debate in a restrained manner. It was good to see.