from The Tablet

Editorial, 19 July 2008

Grace under pressure

Bishops of the Anglican Communion have gathered for the Lambeth Conference, which has begun with a retreat. But the calm atmosphere of prayer and contemplation evoked by the word seems to be in strong contrast with the rancorous character of the preliminaries so far. There does not seem to be much grace about the place, and with grace comes respect. Perhaps the retreat will go some way towards repairing that, although the refusal of a significant number of conservative bishops to take part at all rather limits the scope for a mood change. And if the Holy Spirit is after all there to guide them, where is his kindly light likely to lead?

A return to fundamentals might help. The Anglican Communion prefers not to have a precise definition of itself: "being in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury" raises the question of what being in communion really means. The nearest the Anglican Communion has by way of a self-description can be found in the various theological reports that have been commissioned over the years to address certain internal problems of church order, chiefly over female ordination. And what characterises them is reliance on a theology of "church", an ecclesiology, that was hammered out in the course of various projects undertaken by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (Arcic), especially those on authority. International Anglicanism has come to use this "Arcic theology" as a way of describing itself to itself. And thus it has come to bear a considerable resemblance to post-Second Vatican Council Catholic ecclesiology.

But in the Catholic Church there is an emotional bond accompanying this ecclesiology, concerning the importance of the Petrine office of the Bishop of Rome and the sense of loyalty and respect the office engenders. Arcic theology notwithstanding, there does not seem to be an adequate parallel in the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, Anglicans would say that they do not need it, and that the Roman example, where papal devotion sometimes seems to them excessive and lacking in decorum, is not a good advertisement.

That absence may be why it would not seem natural to speak of "submission to Canterbury", "conversion to Canterbury", in the way those are spoken of with reference to Rome. But "conversion to Canterbury" does rather describe what the Anglican Communion most needs at the present time: a metanoia, or change of heart, a willingness to submit particular interests to the needs of the common good in a humble spirit of repentance and charity; and above all, a respect for the leader who in a particular way stands in the place of Christ as his representative (or "vicar"), and embodies the unity of the Church in his own person.

This year may be the year it becomes apparent that without such regard, the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury is truly impossible and the unity of the Anglican Communion is not achievable. Or to put it another way, it is now for those who do not want a papal model of leadership in the Anglican Communion to show that they can find the mutual respect and goodwill - in short, the grace of God - to work together for the good of the Church without one. If they cannot, the Anglican Communion seems destined to fall apart.