Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
These are difficult times for the Anglican Communion. The crisis in global Anglicanism is not so much over human sexuality but rather over questions of identity and authority. Some church leaders are advocating structural and canonical solutions to maintain the integrity of the Anglican Communion. A missiological perspective, however, sees communion as a gift from God fostered through relationships in mission across difference. The Decade of Evangelism and pan-Anglican efforts to address international debt and the HIV/AIDS pandemic are examples of communion in mission relationships. A missiological ecclesiology for the Anglican Communion will lift up, celebrate, and encourage more meaningful relationships in God's mission. The Anglican Congresses of 1908, 1954 and 1963 are expressions of such a missiological ecclesiology. The proposed 2008 Anglican Congress or Gathering will unite and foster a deeper sense of communion across Anglicanism through enlivened mission relationships.
1. A review of recent media perspectives on the crisis in Anglicanism from both United States and Nigerian perspectives is: Kirkpatrick, F., ‘The Anglican Crackup’Google Scholar and Ojo, M.A., ‘The View from Lagos’ in Religion in the News 6.3 (Fall 2003), pp. 1–6, 20–21.Google Scholar
2. For an interesting comparison of different perceptions of the demographics of the 1988 and 1998 Lambeth Conferences see Samuel, Vinay and Sugden, Christopher, Lambeth (1988): A View from the Two Thirds World (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1989)Google Scholar and Solheim, James E., Diversity or Disunity: Reflections on Lambeth 1998 (New York: Church Publishing, 1999).Google Scholar
3. The title ‘The Episcopal Church in the United States’ is technically speaking a misnomer because the Episcopal Church includes dioceses outside the United States such as the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Taiwan and others. Throughout this paper ‘the Episcopal Church’ will be used to refer to those dioceses who are part of the ‘Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States’.
4. ‘Archbishop Akinola attacks Archbishop Ndungane over “Gay Remarks”,’ Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) No. 3591, 23 09 2003, http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/35/75/acns3591.html.Google Scholar
5. One of the first public recommendations that ‘communion be suspended’ with the Episcopal Church was put forward under the names of Archbishops Drexel Gomez and Maurice Sinclair at the March 2001 Primates Meeting. See Gomez, Drexel W. and Sinclair, Maurice W. (eds.), To Mend the Net: Anglican Faith and Order for Renewed Mission (Carrollton, TX: The Ekklesia Society, 2000), p. 22 and below.Google Scholar
6. Previous to 1971, only two of the ‘four instruments of unity’ in the Anglican Communion existed, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference. The Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting did not come into being until 1971 and 1979, respectively.
7. In his book Highways and Hedges: Anglicanism and the Universal Church (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1985)Google Scholar, John Howe, Anglican Executive Officer from 1969–1971 and then first Secretary-General of the ACC, noted the three regular ‘conferences’ of Lambeth, the ACC and the Primates Meeting, as ‘significant in the consideration of recent developments in the Anglican Communion’ (pp. 59–60).
8. ACC, Many Gifts, One Spirit, Report of ACC-7: Singapore, 1987 (London: ACC, 1987), pp. 129–34.Google Scholar
9. ‘The Virginia Report’ in The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, (Harrisburg, PA:Morehouse Publishing for the Anglican Communion,1999), p. 63.Google Scholar
10. The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, pp. 398–99, italics in original.Google Scholar
11. The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, pp. 396–97Google Scholar. This resolution built on Resolution 18, The Anglican Communion: Identity and Authority of 1988 Lambeth resolution, that urged the Primates Meeting ‘to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters’. See Coleman, Roger (ed.), Resolutions of the Twelve Lambeth Conferences, 1867–1988 (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1992), pp. 207–208.Google Scholar
12. ‘Anglican Primates Meet in a Spirit of Hope and Holiness’, ACNS No. 2095, 28 03 2002, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2075/acns2095.html.Google Scholar
13. Doe, Norman, ‘Canon Law and Communion’, ACNS No. 2406, 8 03 2001, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2400/acns2406.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gomez, and Sinclair, , To Mend the Net, p. 22.Google Scholar
15. AAC, ‘Mission Statement’, http://www.AmericanAnglican.org/Home/HomeList.cfm?c=38.Google Scholar
16. ‘A Place to Stand, A Call to Action’, American Anglican Council News, 12 10 2003, http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=783&c=21.Google Scholar
17. ‘Post-Lambeth letter to attendees of the Dallas (Plano) Conference from Canon David Anderson and the Rev. David Roseberry’, American Anglican Council News, 17 10 2004, http://www.AmericanAnglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=808&c=21.Google Scholar
18. ‘A Statement by the Primates of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth Palace’, ACNS No. 3633, 16 10 2003, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3633.html.Google Scholar
19. ‘Anglican Communion Commission announced’, ACNS No. 3562, 28 10 2003, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/50/acns3652.html.Google Scholar
20. ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury Commission’, ACNS No. 3713, 18 12 2003, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/37/00/acns3713.cfm.Google Scholar
21. Gomez, Drexel, ‘Address to the Future of Anglicanism Conference’, Anglican Communion Institute, Charleston, South Carolina, 8 01 2004, http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/foa-gomez.html.Google Scholar
22. ‘Radio Interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury’, ACNS No. 3640, 18 10 2003, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/36/25/acns3640.htmlGoogle Scholar
23. ‘Communiqué from the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Mission and Evangelism’, ACNS No. 3707, 11 12 2003, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/37/00/acns3707.cfmGoogle Scholar
24. I am indebted to my colleague Titus Presler for his useful term describing the missiological principle of ‘mission in the dimension of difference’.
25. A more comprehensive discussion of this definition of Anglicanism is found in an initial presentation on the topic in Douglas, Ian T., ‘Anglican Identity and the Missio Dei: Implications for the American Convocation of Churches in Europe’, Anglican Theological Review 82.3 (2000), pp. 459–74.Google Scholar
26. While this paper focuses on Anglican expressions of communion, I do not want to imply that ‘communion in mission’ is solely limited to inter-Anglican relationships. Ecumenical relationships in mission are central to the universal Christian witness and service to God's mission.
27. I am indebted to Timothy Dakin's fine exposition of ‘communion in mission’. See Dakin, Timothy, ‘Communion in Mission: The Fellowship of the Holy Spirit’, CMS Newsletter 553 (04 2002), pp. 2–23.Google Scholar
28. Coleman, , Resolutions of the Twelve Lambeth Conferences, p. 221.Google Scholar
29. Johnson, Eleanor and Clark, John (eds.), Anglicans in Mission: A Transforming Journey (London: SPCK, 2000), p. 34.Google Scholar
30. Johnson, and Clark, , Anglicans in Mission, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar
31. The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, p. 352.Google Scholar
32. The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, p. 359.Google Scholar
33. The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, pp. 384–87.Google Scholar
34. ‘Jubilee, Debt Relief, and Poverty Reduction: A Biblical Message of Hope for Poor Countries’, A Statement by The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church (USA) for the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 15 June 1999, http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidhipc/index.html.
35. See the ‘Statement of the Bishop of Mardi, Uganda’, ACNS No. 2174, 11 07 2000, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2150/acns2174.html.Google Scholar
36. The figures presented on the level of debts cancelled and leveraged are provided in personal correspondence by Ms Jere Skipper, former International Policy Advisor in the Washington Office of the Episcopal Church and one of the primary drafters of the Bill.
37. ‘Congress Passes Debt Relief Measure to Aid Poor Countries’, Episcopal News Service No. 99–167, 18 11 1999, http://arc.episcopalchurch.org/ens/99-167.html.Google Scholar
38. ‘Our Vision, Our Hope: The First Step: All Africa Anglican AIDS Planning Framework’, ACNS No. 2601, 22 08 2001, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/acnsarchive/acns2600/acns2601.html.Google Scholar
39. ‘Our Vision, Our Hope’, Section 3: Our Mission.
40. Ogara, William Otiende and Webber, Howard (eds.), ‘CAPA/CORE Initiative Conference on Scaling Up our Responses to the HIV/AIDS Crisis: Conference Proceedings with Recommendations’, 26 09 2003, Fairview Hotel Nairobi, Kenya (unpublished photocopy), p. 7.Google Scholar
41. Prichard, Robert W., A History of the Episcopal Church (Harrisburg, VA: Morehouse Publishing, 1991), pp. 184–93.Google Scholar
42. Latourette, Kenneth Scott, The Great Century, 1800–1914, Vols. 4–6 of A History of the Expansion of Christianity (7 vols.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938–1946).Google Scholar
43. Pan-Anglican Congress, 1908, General Report with the Addresses at the Devotional Meetings (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1908), I, p. 1.Google Scholar
44. Pan-Anglican Congress, 1908, I, p. 11.Google Scholar
45. Pan-Anglican Congress, 1908, I, pp. 31–49.Google Scholar
46. Pan-Anglican Congress, 1908, I, p. 14.Google Scholar
47. Dawley, Powel Mills (ed.), Report of the Anglican Congress of 1954 (Greenwich, CT: Seabury Press, 1954), pp. 4–5, 252.Google Scholar
48. Dawley, , Report of the Anglican Congress of 1954, p. 3.Google Scholar
49. Dawley, , Report of the Anglican Congress of 1954, p. 215.Google Scholar
50. Dawley, , Report of the Anglican Congress of 1954, p. 3.Google Scholar
51. Fairweather, E.R. (ed.), Report of the Proceedings of the Anglican Congress 1963, (Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1963), p. 118.Google Scholar
52. Fairweather, , Proceedings of the Anglican Congress 1963, pp. 120–21.Google Scholar
53. Fairweather, , Proceedings of the Anglican Congress 1963, pp. 125–26.Google Scholar
54. Fairweather, , Proceedings of the Anglican Congress 1963, p. xii.Google Scholar
55. At the same meeting, The Revd Canon John L. Peterson, Secretary General of the ACC, in his first address to the Joint Standing Committee was planning on raising the same possibility. Once the Archbishop addressed the possibility of another Anglican Congress, Canon Peterson no longer felt the need to do the same. Personal correspondence with the author, 17 March 2004.
56. Item 3 from ‘The Minutes of the Meeting of the Joint Standing Committees of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council’, 03 1995.Google Scholar
57. Rosenthal, James M. and Currie, Nicola (eds.), Being Anglican in the Third Millennium: Anglican Consultative Council X (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 1997), p. 190.Google Scholar
58. ‘New Heart, New Spirit’, report of the Anglican Congress Feasibility Group, 05 1999 (unpublished photocopy).Google Scholar
59. ‘Appendix II of the Virginia Report: An Anglican Congress’, in The Official Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, p. 67.Google Scholar
60. ‘Appendix A: Memorandum Re Anglican Congress’, in Johnson, and Clark, , Anglicans in Mission, p. 118.Google Scholar
61. Rosenthal, James M. and Rodgers, Margaret (eds.), The Communion We Share: Anglican Consultative Council XI, Scotland (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2000), pp. 349–50.Google Scholar
62. Rosenthal, and Rodgers, , The Communion We Share, pp. 349–50.Google Scholar
63. ‘Extract from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, 27 February–2 March 2001’ (unpublished photocopy).
64. ‘Anglican Congress/Gathering Feasibility Group Report’ in Rosenthal, James M. (ed.), For the Life of the World: Anglican Consultative Council XII, Hong Kong (Harrisburg, London, New York: Morehouse Publishing, 2003), pp. 323–24.Google Scholar
65. Rosenthal, , For the Life of the World, p. 472.Google Scholar
66. Ostling, Richard N., ‘Bishop Denounces Episcopal Church's Policies on Gays’, The Washington Post, 4 04 2004, A08, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A48219-2004Apr3.html.Google Scholar
67. ‘Nigerian Archbishop Will Not Attend Committee Meeting’, ACNS No. 3790, 1 03 2004, http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/37/75/acns3790.cfm.Google Scholar
68. In his closing thoughts on the 1908 Congress, Bishop Montgomery reflected: ‘I write these lines during the last days of the Lambeth Conference and can assert, further, that the effect of the Congress is clearly visible in the Conference of Bishops. It is though some one had oiled all the machinery of business; there has been a new tone of increased hopefulness in the debates, a desire to be more definite and to have done with platitudes, to take action instead of making mere pronouncements. There has been an underlying feeling that the whole Church has been behind the bishops in the desire for wise action. There has been an increased note of warm friendliness among the Bishops. It is impossible to be too thankful to Almighty God for these blessings: and it may well be that we are not wrong in looking forward to a new era of work for God, more earnest and more united. The future is indeed bright’ (Pan-Anglican Congress, 1908, I, p. 14).Google Scholar
