How should we understand the bonds that hold us together in society and church?
One of the most complicated, chaotic, and devastating periods of English history unfolded over fifteen years between 1138 and 1153. In later times, this period came to be known as “The Anarchy” on account of its dire practical consequences.
Its precipitating cause was the death, in the White Ship disaster of 1120, of William Adelin the only legitimate son of King Henry I (c. 1068 – 1 December 1135), King of England from 1100 to his death in 1135 – despite being merely the fourth son of William the Conqueror.
At the time of William the Conqueror’s own death, the prevailing rules of succession in western Europe were dangerously various. In some parts of France, primogeniture (giving succession to the eldest son) was growing in popularity. But in other parts of Europe, including Normandy and England, the tradition was for lands to be divided, which was the pattern followed in this case – and this then led to much disputation before Henry I seized the English crown.
With the later unexpected drowning of Henry’s only son and heir, William, Henry I sought to leave the throne to his daughter, Empress Matilda, but he had been only partially successful in convincing the nobility (including the later King Stephen) to swear support to her before he died. Thus, on Henry’s death in 1135, his nephew, Stephen of Blois, despite his prior pledge of homage and fidelity, simply seized the throne with the help of his brother Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester. His rapid coronation, with episcopal support, seemed to show that an act of coronation and political acceptance could de facto override prior oaths and otherwise seemingly definitive de jure blood‑right.
Nonetheless, Henry’s daughter Matilda understood herself to be the lawful heir, relying on personal homage and sworn fidelity rather than any written succession law; thus, a devastating civil war ensued that left much of England effectively ungoverned.
Stephen’s seizure of the throne depended heavily on episcopal backing, as Henry of Blois and other bishops argued that oaths to Matilda could be set aside for the wider good of the salus regni. Their action in doing this established the church’s role as arbiter of conscience and political necessity. As royal authority collapsed, the leading bishops and abbots were able thus to expand their ecclesiastical jurisdiction and privileges over the civil sphere. This development was, however, later targeted by Henry II in the Constitutions of Clarendon when he reasserted royal control, but before that, the Church’s refusal to crown Stephen’s own son Eustace, on the pragmatic ground that it would not be conducive to peace and order, had again shown the bishops acting in the role of constitutional gatekeepers to the succession, not mere ritual functionaries.
The eventual Treaty of Winchester, of 1153, effectively rewrote the law of succession by collective agreement, acknowledging Stephen as king – but only for life personally – as it withheld any right of succession from his heirs, and instead designated Henry (Later Henry II) the eldest son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, and the Empress Matilda, as Stephen’s heir.
This settlement thus retrospectively (and arbitrarily for the moment), endorsed the original rebellion against Matilda – but established that, thereafter upon the death of Stephen, succession would be grounded in legal concepts of hereditary right. Thus did a conciliar decision, and public peace, substantively erase any constitutional legacy from Stephen’s reign, by enshrining Henry I’s prior and original arrangements in law (along with attendant matters of land distribution) upon Stephen’s death. The treaty also highlighted the role of “the community” of the realm—namely king, magnates, and church—whose joint assent could legitimate a change in the dynastic course of succession in a manner determined by higher things than the mere force of arms.
Thus the crisis clarified key ideas later central to the English polity. In practice, the hard experience of multiple baronial fiefdoms, fragmented justice, and competing royal claims underlined the need for a stronger, more legally anchored understanding of kingship, which then helped, in turn, to shape Henry II’s later reforms – in respect of royal justice and administration. (Later represented as embodying “restorations” of Henry I’s “good laws.”)
The time of the Anarchy thus affixed in political and ecclesio-political thought four pillars of the Anglo‑Norman (and later) constitution making that were of great importance, namely hereditary succession, ecclesiastical guardianship, conciliar authority, and the (normally) binding force of oaths. These were principles upon which much of the course of later constitutional theory would build.
But what, we might ask, does all this seemingly remote history have to do with matters of our present faith and our church?
The answer is that such history is highly illustrative – and even cautionary – when we think now about some of the challenges currently facing the Anglican Communion. The times outlined above – albeit from the medieval past – illustrate powerfully the need for a conceptual and constitutional “glue” to be accepted as a given by all the relevant parties (or stakeholders to use the modern term) if, not only secular society, but even the Church itself is to hold together.
There is rising doubt as to what exactly the glue is, which is very much at the heart of the current slow burning crisis in the global Communion. The various actions and statements emanating from the GAFCON meeting in Nigeria this last week have given new impetus to all of this even though they do little in fact to change or resolve them.
Lent is a very good time in which to dwell thus, not only upon our personal challenges but also upon what our understanding of the nature of the church has to tell us and why it matters to our spiritual well being.
The matter of what it is that ties us all to the Church of God, and more specifically that part of it which is the Anglican Communion, merits particular reflection at a time when it is widely acknowledged to be under stress or even crisis. To use once more the image cited earlier, it is indeed a good question just what comprises the glue!
The recent statements and actions of the latest GAFCON gathering, which has just ended in Nigeria, have gained considerable attention and they are indeed important – even though exactly which Provinces in the Anglican Communion were formally represented is not entirely clear, or indeed how many Primates of Provinces were present in an official, as distinct from personal, capacity.
It would seem that, officially, fully engaged Provinces of the existing Anglican Communion participating comprised three, namely Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda, and that they were also officially represented by their respective three Primates. These Provinces probably represent between them around 35 million Anglicans. The Anglican Communion as a whole is thought to have somewhere between 85 and 100m followers distributed worldwide across 47 member Churches and Provinces.
Here, it has to be noted that, by contrast, The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches includes over half the Provinces and member churches of the historic Communion. This body has yet fully to give practical expression to their reservations about the current state of the Communion; it would also share many of the concerns of GAFCON about the need to uphold the historic teaching morals and doctrine of the Anglican heritage, but it has shown a marked determination to remain in active engagement with the historic Anglican Structures even though recognising that, they will indeed have to change, and that is feeding into the reforms being proposed by the Nairobi-Cairo process (of which more is said below).
In terms of the official actions taken, and things declared by GAFCON in Nigeria, attention has to focus on the Abuja Affirmation of 7th March in particular.
This made an extremely important historical point in recalling that:
“At the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, Archbishop Charles Longley stated its purpose as:
[for] cementing yet more firmly the bonds of Christian communion between Churches acknowledging one Lord, one faith, one baptism, connected not only by the ties of kindred, but by common formularies…our very presence here is a witness to our resolution to maintain the faith which we hold in common as our priceless heritage, set forth in our Liturgy and other formularies.”
The Affirmation then goes on to say that the new body they are forming, namely the Global Anglican Communion:
“is neither a breakaway Communion nor an alternative Communion. The Jerusalem Statement (issued by the first GAFCON Assembly in Jerusalem in 2008) clearly says that “We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it”. What has occurred instead is a shift of the stewardship of the Anglican Communion from the Canterbury Instruments to the Global Anglican Communion. We are returning the Anglican Communion to its roots. The Global Anglican Communion is not a new Communion, but the historic Anglican Communion reordered from within…..
Christian unity is not based on shared human values, inherited institutional structures or a common commitment to mission. These are merely the fruit of Christian unity, not its essence. According to John 17, Christian unity is union with Christ,….”
This would seem very specific in making clear that they are not leaving the Anglican Communion, but thus clarity is then rather obscured by the declarations made elsewhere which repudiate the Anglican Communion’s existing structures as when it is declared that:
“The leadership of the Canterbury Instruments of Communion have failed to exercise discipline and maintain the biblical witness and uphold fundamental Anglican doctrine as expressed in its Reformation Formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer including the Ordinal). Instead, these Instruments seek to hold together a confused communion of institutional co-existence, based on the fiction of “walking together” with those who are walking away from the truth of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus….
We “reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates’ Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.”
And it is further stated in consequence that:
“leadership in the Global Anglican Communion requires a principled disengagement from the Canterbury Instruments. Leaders who hold office in the Global Anglican Communion must not attend future Primates’ Meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor attend the Lambeth Conference, nor attend ACC meetings or participate in Commissions of the ACC, nor personally approve financial contributions to the ACC. It is also expected that they will not receive financial assistance from compromised sources. …
A full and public disengagement from these structures is necessary. The clear and consistent teaching of the New Testament is that those who seek to lead the church astray must not be tolerated and Christians must refuse to have fellowship with those who promote false teaching (Romans 16:17; 2 John 10-11; Revelation 2:20).”
All of this leaves unclear exactly how the signers of the Affirmation suppose that it is obligatory to refuse all participation in the historic structures of the Communion while at the same time not leaving it.
It is possible that a kind of participation, through commonality of belief, is what is meant and that this commonality would entail a kind of participation independent of formal structures. If so, this would suggest some further work can and must be done to explore this. If so too, here is indeed an element of paradox evolving for Anglicans worldwide. On the one hand, the new Global Anglican Communion will be only for those who agree with each other on a defined body of confessional statements. On the other hand, the historic Anglican Communion structures are searching for a way to stay connected without having to agree on too much at all.
Meanwhile, there is a whole other strand of importance to note. This consists of the work currently being done within the existing structures of the historic Anglican Communion under the existing Anglican Consultative Council, which will decide upon the “Nairobi-Cairo Proposals” later this year.
If adopted, these proposals will remove the requirement to be in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury as a condition for being Anglican, and substitute merely a requirement to have an historic connection. They will also remove from the Archbishop of Canterbury the role of convening and chairing the decennial Lambeth Conferences, and of setting the agenda for them. And this is all being done with a view to enabling Anglicans, no matter their theological diversity, to “walk together to the maximum possible degree.” Ideas that comprise radical surgery indeed!
So where does this leave things, and where is the Communion as a whole headed? These are questions too large to address adequately here. However, it can be said that there is clearly a growing problem about what it is that holds Anglicans together and that is precisely what made the curious history of the Medieval English time Anarchy so interesting: for that was rooted in challenges about how structural continuity of sovereignty, in secular society, could be maintained such that all levels in society were held together under the monarch.
What the whole experience demonstrated was that its resolution required a collective commitment to the assorted elements that comprised the needed glue, namely: validly recognized succession at the highest level, together with ecclesiastical guardianship (to act as guarantor of proper processes in times of crisis) and a form of conciliar authority able to convene those (stakeholders) essential to the needed continuity – with over and above all this – a clear upholding of the (normally) binding force of solemn undertakings of mutual obligation.
It is not too hard to see that something similar will need to be reaffirmed, in the fullness of time, by all those who would assert that they are and wish to remain Anglican.
Some kind of mutual obligation to do what is necessary to sustain this identity through time will be necessary if the identity is to continue to have meaning.
A level of commitment to work together and respect the mind of the whole would also seem entailed. This will not be easy, either for those persuaded of the value of their newest insights, on the one hand, or for those who wish to see historic structures of the church maintained on the other.
But then, even the most cursory acquaintance with the history of the church over the millennia would suggest that it is only by the most profound deliverance of God’s grace that the Church has survived at all!
The activities of its members have always been a challenge, and have always made clear it has never been a mere human creation. It can exist only because it is indeed the Church of God.
Nothing less could be the object of the hope and faith that is ours.