Speech of Dr. Mary Tanner to House of Bishops
Episcopal News Service. October 4, 1989 [89181]
PHILADELPHIA, September 23 -- You have invited me to speak to you about the themes of reception and provisionality as these are used in the report of the Eames Commission. The commission was picking up and building upon themes expounded in the earlier report of the Primates' Working Group, Women and the Episcopate, the Grindrod report, prepared for the Lambeth Conference. It was that earlier report which suggested that if a province of the Anglican Communion should decide, through its own legislative processes, and after due consultation through the Primates' meeting and the Lambeth Conference, to proceed to consecrate a woman to the episcopate, that act should be understood to be within a much larger, spiritual process of reception, a process of reception, which, the report emphasized, should be understood to be an open process of reception. Some have seen this as introducing within the Anglican Communion a new sacred notion that is being made to carry too much weight, without sufficient definition. A newspaper in England was less polite in calling it "fudge."
The theme of reception is not an idiosyncratic move on the part of Anglicans to get themselves out of a tight corner. The concept is not new; it belongs to the ancient church, and long before Anglicans began using it in relation to the current debate on the ordination of women, it was already firmly established in relation to the work of Vatican II and in relation to receiving the insights of ecumenical dialogues. The notion of reception describes how the church of Christ, under the power of the Holy Spirit, comes to a mind on matters that affect the whole church. It is about our life together under the power of the Holy Spirit.
In the New Testament, in the case of the admission of the Gentiles to the church and the matter of circumcision, Paul's actions in one part of the expanding church were in advance of the decision of the whole church. Before this was determined to be right, it had to be agreed by the "Apostles, elders and the whole church" (Acts 15). The decision of the apostolic council of Jerusalem was transmitted by messengers to the church in Antioch. The church there rejoiced in the decision. Although the word receive or accept is not, in fact, used here, the validity of the so-called apostle's decree is confirmed by its reception.
Similarly, the decrees of the early councils, including Nicaea, though definitive, were not absolute. Councils were ecumenical not because the emperor called them, not because the bishops issued official statements. Rather, they became ecumenical because over a period of several centuries the majority of Christians accepted the Nicene Creed and other conciliar formulas. And, touching our own Anglican identity and unity we often forget that it took several decades for episcopacy to be received fully and unquestionably as fundamental to the Church of England. The process of reception thus belonged to the life of the primitive church and to our own church as a way of the Body of Christ discerning and being kept in the faith of the Lord.
The first thing that strikes me is that forming the mind of the church depended upon the whole people of God, the working together of ordained and lay. Although a clear role for discerning and pronouncing, for leading and guiding, was exercised by the bishops in council (there was a proper authority of councils), it was exercised within the life of the whole people of God. The model is not one in which councils pronounce and people blindly obey; not the model of an authoritarian hierarchy telling a passive, acquiescent laity what to believe or what to do. Forming the mind of the church involves listening to the people, articulating the mind of the body in councils and, beyond that, the receiving and embodying of that mind in the life of the whole church; only then can councils be seen to have spoken according to the mind of the Spirit.
This view of reception was hammered out and is clearly set out, remarkably clearly, in the first authority text of the final report of ARCIC. That agreed text clearly states:
"The perception of God's will for his Church does not belong only to the ordained ministry but is shared by all its members. All who live faithfully within the koinonia may become sensitive to the leading of the Spirit and be brought towards a deeper understanding of the Gospel. Ordained ministers commissioned to discern these insights and give authoritative expression to them are part of the community, sharing its quest for understanding the Gospel in obedience to Christ and receptive to the needs and concerns of all."
Then follows what I imagine was a much discussed passage but is crucial for Anglicans. "The community, for its part, must respond to and assess the insights and teaching of the ordained ministers. Through this continuing process of discernment and response, in which faith is expressed and the Gospel pastorally applied, the Holy Spirit declares the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the faithful may live freely under the discipline of the Gospel." Here is a description of a process of reception that is long and spiritual, that depends upon the interdependence of lay and ordained. It is thoroughly Anglican and in tune with the view of reception basic to the Eames report.
It is not the reception itself that creates the truth of a matter. Reception is, rather, the final indication that a decision has fulfilled the necessary conditions for it to be a true expression of the faith.
A delicate middle path is trodden by ARCIC. On one hand, the view is rejected that a definition has no authority until it is accepted by the whole church and derives its authority solely from that acceptance. At the same time, it is rejected that a council is so evidently self-sufficient that its definitions owe nothing to reception. Reception does not make a definition true -- it confirms truth, or the reverse.
Discovering the mind of the church on a particular matter involves listening to the mind of the people, articulating that mind in councils or synods and, beyond that, the receiving and embodying of that mind in the life of the whole church, not just the life of a particular local church or a provincial church, but, as in the early church, in the communion of local churches. The maintaining of the faith is both corporate and ultimately universal. This lengthy and spiritual process of reception is crucial for Anglicans to maintain in their dialogues with other Christians, and it is crucial that we actually live out the doctrine of reception in our own life here and now. If we fail to uphold this, we shall collude with an almost infallible view of councils and thus lose sight of the specifically Anglican Reformation insight of the role and place of the whole people of God. The post-conciliar phase of reception is crucial as the Eames report maintains.
Nevertheless, within this overall process of discernment and reception, the decisions of synods do mark a special moment: They have a special place. Synods, Anglican synods, bring together lay, clergy, and bishops; and after lengthy process of debate and consultation, their decisions, though not absolute, deserve and must command respect and serious response. They ought not to be dismissed lightly for they represent a significant and responsible moment in the corporate and, ultimately, universal process of reception.
The problem is that when all of this is accepted in theory and held in balance in words on a page of a text like the Eames report, it is hard to put into practice. It is hard for us Anglicans to face a challenge about the universal ministry of unity when Anglicans are struggling to understand the structures of unity and authority that bind them together. Certainly within the Church of England we have hardly begun to know what it is to be part of a worldwide communion, with the responsibilities of belongingness that this entails, with the tolerance and mutual forbearance in love this requires of us. What weight do we put on our double commitment to provincial authority and provincial interdependence? We dare not say to one another, "I have no need of you." We belong together in a single communion of life and love, in a single community of discernment, interpretation, and reception. Unless we strive to maintain this, we become congregational provinces, at best a loose federation, and so give up on the Anglican vision of organic unity. So, in forming a mind on a matter that touches the fundamentals of our life of belonging, we need one another. We need one another in the period of discerning the mind of the church, and we need one another, even after our provincial synods have spoken, in testing and receiving the mind of the church. We cannot go it alone. And, while there is division in the universal church, we need other Christians as we discern and receive. The Eames report was surely right to suggest that a matter cannot be deemed to be settled beyond any shadow of doubt until it is received by the whole church. I believe that it is right to acknowledge that there has been a genuine attempt to listen, through the work of the Grindrod report, through the work at Lambeth, through ecumenical dialogue: there has been a taking seriously of our interdependence in the process leading to your decision. That openness to the communion has to be continued in the ongoing reception process.
This leads me to comment upon the question of the openness of the process of reception so stressed by the Eames report. A matter is not decided conclusively by a council, be it a diocesan synod, General Convention, or Lambeth Conference; nor indeed would it be within a genuinely universal council; councils may and sometimes have erred. Anglicans have that written into their foundation documents. It is possible for a conciliar decision not to be received, for it simply not to stand the test of time or to be reversed. Whenever a matter is tested by the church through the reception process, there is, necessarily, an openness about the question. If it is of God, it will by the power of the Spirit flourish; if not, it withers.
Of course we all have to reckon with the fact that there is a very special difficulty when what is being tested in the reception process is not simply a doctrine to be discerned but a doctrine as it were embodied in persons, more particularly, embodied in persons in the ordered ministry that is an essential bond of the communion of the church. There is thus a "facticity" about what is being put to the test, as the bishop of London keeps reminding us; or, as Professor Henry Chadwick is reported to have said, "I can explain a doctrine, but not a woman." We cannot fail to see the force of this. And yet is not too much made of this notion of facticity as if there were never before a case of facticity about what was being received? What of the opening of the church to Gentiles and the question of circumcision? But more than that, could there ever be a genuine process of reception if the ordination of women as priests and bishops remained a disembodied concept? How could we receive in the full sense of the word? For to receive is to receive into our lives, to be changed in the process by God's grace, to embody that into our lives -- or indeed to refuse to incorporate it. The facticity element is uncomfortable, but is it not a very necessity, entailed by the concept of reception? Moreover, to submit a decision or an action to an open process of reception is, as the Eames report says, to admit that there is a degree of provisionality about the matter being put to the test of reception.
It is very important to pause for a moment over the notion of provisionality as used in the Eames report, for it seems to me there has been much misunderstanding of the commission's position on provisionality. When the report speaks in paragraph 21 of "the principle of accepting a degree of provisionality" during the reception process, the report was not speaking of the validity, fruitfulness, or truthfulness of the ministry of women episcopally ordained. No negative judgment was being passed upon the ministry of ordained women as such. What was being maintained was that within an open process of reception there is inevitably a provisionality about the development itself within the ordering of the church's universal ministry. It is important that this is spoken with clarity and with gentleness so that it is not misheard or misinterpreted.
Provisionality refers to the development itself and not to the validity or otherwise of any particular woman's ministry. There ought to be no doubt about the meaning in the Eames report, for paragraph 21 compares the issue of provisionality in relation to women bishops with a similar use of the word in relation to all ministry in a divided Christendom. To say that all ministry is in a sense provisional until it is united within a single ministry in a visibly united church is not to deny the actual fruitfulness and validity of the ministry of any one of you here and now. In the same way, to talk about the provisionality of the episcopal ministry of women is not to deny the fruitfulness or validity of their ministry.
And this leads me to my final reflections. To believe these things about an open process of reception in discovering the mind of Christ for the church has implications for the way we live together while the matter is being settled. It must mean giving room to those whose views differ from our own. But does not weight have to be given to the fact that provincial councils, acting responsibly, do have a special place? Also that bishops as the focus of unity in their dioceses and in the collegiality of their House also have a special role. This dual ministry of unity has to be weighed carefully. As one of our English House of Bishops put it, somewhat crudely, but the point is clear, "the higher up in the pile you get the less room for maneuver there is." The collegiality of the House must count for something. A bishop who in all conscience differs from the House ought at the very least to draw back from saying that it is impossible for the universal church to ordain women. It is one thing to say that we have not the authority to change the unbroken tradition of the church, another to declare it is impossible for all times.
The temptation of an open process of reception is that we shall all, whatever side we are on, act in such a way that we signal we know best and that there is in fact no openness about reception. An open process of reception under the guidance of the Holy Spirit makes demands on all of us.
For those in favor, who rejoice in what they see as a right and timely development, it means learning to recognize what it feels like for those on the other side to fear that the very efficacy of the sacraments is endangered. There are those who fear that to make a change in the sex of the celebrant of the Eucharist, or the person who ordains, raises doubts about the efficacy of the sacrament and in so doing prevents Christian women and men from appropriating the gifts of God's grace with confidence and without presumption. And although we all know that the sacramental gift is not itself dependent upon the faith of the person who receives, nevertheless faith is necessary to discern God's gift. The fears of those, very real fears, who feel that the reliability of the sacrament itself would be endangered by a change in the sex of the ordained person ought not to be treated lightly, for such a change does endanger their response of faith.
The Episcopal Visitors scheme is intended to recognize this and care for such people, as, indeed, was the suggestion for collegial ordinations. Of course, any such scheme needs to be very carefully set out and sensitively worded. If the process of reception is truly an open one, it ought surely not to be so worded that it implies the inevitability of the outcome. Those in favor have another duty in the open process of reception. They need to recognize that the matter is not settled beyond doubt: advocacy cannot be left behind. Sensitive advocacy both within a province and between provinces has to continue. Those in favor have to proclaim why it is good news. There is value in the debate itself, for it compels us to examine what we believe about the church, about ourselves as men and women, what we believe about God and God's mission in the world. Equally, for those who remain opposed, there are jealousies and vulnerabilities of the other side to be respected. And if the dissenting will is to remain effectively within the Communion, ought it not to be expressed within the confines of the one synodical structure, and not over against that structure? This is not to deny room for movements of dissent. But once new conciliar structures are set up and become the locus of dissent, is not there at least the danger that the two groups begin to define themselves over against one another, with their separate badges of identity and belongingness? More and more matters accrue as badges of identity, separation is entrenched, and the breaches are harder and harder to heal. In this way, "open reception" within a single communion of life and witness is hindered. If the process of reception is to be effective, both sides need one another in a single conciliar life. And just as those in favor retain an advocacy role, so those against have the task of sharing why their continuing opposition is Gospel, why it is good news for today's world that women should not be ordained.
To believe in a truly open process of reception means each side being prepared to witness coherently and to protect its own jealousies. But within conciliar fellowship, it also means the costly way of listening to and understanding the position of others. In this balance of testifying and listening, we prepare the place for the Spirit to act and to lead us into all truth.
Reception is not a sociological process, or a democratic movement looking for majority votes. It is about opening ourselves to cooperate with God's prevenient grace. If we could get hold of this, we could afford the generosity towards one another, within a province and between provinces, in a truly open and spiritual process of reception. The temptation for many of us is that we grow weary and give up on the process in favor of other priorities of evangelization and mission. But the way you live with this within the Episcopal Church of America is important for all of us in the Anglican Communion and beyond: it is itself a way of evangelization and mission.
"It is at best that you can see the issue as gift. And if it is gift, it is gift not only because it opens up deep and wide theological questions, but because it also touches the levels of pain and passion which test what it means that we love our enemies. The world is used to unity of all sorts. But it is not used to such possibilities as this -- that those who find the exclusion of women from the priesthood (or the episcopate) an intolerable apartheid and those who find their inclusion a violation of God's will should enter one another's suffering" (Elizabeth Templeton).
To live faithfully within a process of reception that is truly open is about witnessing, in the power of the Spirit, to the unique and costly way of the Christian Gospel of reconciliation and love. What could be more about evangelization and mission than that?