Content provided in partnership with

Restoring the Bonds of Affection

Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2005 by Carroll, R William

<< Page 1 Continued from page 2. Previous | Next

What kind of memory is this? Johann Baptist Metz calls it "dangerous" and "subversive."23 Jesus proclaims a kingdom in which the first are last and the last are first (Mark 10:31; Matt. 19:30, 20:16; Luke 13:30). Before he is even born, Simeon calls him a "sign that will be opposed" (Luke 2:34). Jesus himself says that he will divide families (Luke 12:49-53, Matt. 10:34-39). He begins his ministry with a sermon so scandalous that the decent, religious people of his hometown try to kill him (Luke 4:29). After his resurrection, his followers are accused of turning "the world upside down" (Acts 17:6). Therefore, the Report is not convincing when it laments that Scripture should promote "unity, not division" (para. 62). In places, Scripture does speak of our unity in Christ.24 I consider this below.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Subsidiarity, Autonomy, and Communion

In the previous section, I argued that authority is "vested" neither in the biblical "message" nor in "accredited leaders" and that provisional authority should be dispersed among the priestly people of God,25 which interprets the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.26 To do so, I relied on the "dangerous memory" of Jesus preserved in the New Testament, as well as the equally biblical theology of ministry in the Prayer Book. Here, I make a similar move with regard to geography, making the case for polycentric Anglicanism.

The Report draws the wrong conclusions from the notion of subsidiarity, which it conscripts from ethics for service in ecclesiology.27 Subsidiarity refers to "the principle that matters should be decided as close to the local level as possible" (para. 38). If followed to its logical conclusion, it would imply emancipating local communities and individuals to assume adult responsibility for their discipleship. The church would emerge out of local, lay-led Christian action, as in Latin American base communities,28 many historic religious orders, and contemporary renewal movements. The Report, however, uses subsidiarity to centralize rather than disperse authority.29

It does so for two principal reasons. First, the authors doubt how much local decision-making is "possible," given the need to preserve unity, holiness, and orthodoxy (para. 2-5, 25-28). The more important a decision is, the less local it can be (para. 94). Unity is deemed so important that even decisions about matters of indifference (adiaphora) must be made at a global level, if local decisions might cause division (para. 82). Thus, the Report privileges Paul's teaching on scandal (para. 92-93; compare 1 Cor. 8:1-13, 10:27-33) over his face-to-face confrontation with Peter (Gal. 2:11-14). Apparently, no question of truth or justice can trump concern for unity. What if the issue were slavery or genocide?

Second, the Report claims that communion is the "fundamental limit to autonomy" (para. 82). Throughout paragraphs 72-86, the authors seek to clarify autonomy, a "much-misunderstood concept" (para. 72). Relying on the Virginia Report, they redefine autonomy in directions that support centralization. Ultimately, no local church may exercise its autonomy in any way that could compromise the "unity and good order of the Anglican Communion" (para. 84; compare para. 79). Now, quite correctly, the Report notes that autonomy is not "unlimited freedom" but "freedom-in-relation" (para. 80). Love for God and neighbor, as lived out in the ministry of Jesus, specifies and constitutes freedom as Christians understand it. "Autonomousq," however, means "self-governing." At present, it means that none of the Instruments of Unity has any binding, canonical authority. Each is consultative in character. The ties uniting Anglicans are "bonds of affection."

Restoring the Bonds of Affection

Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2005 by Carroll, R William

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference