|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
| |
|
Crisis in Koinonia (Short) |
By David Short Newspaper articles, prophecies of doom, and synod resolutions aside, Jesus is still building his church. For Anglicans, in a denomination that sanctions same sex unions, this now means changes in the shape of our relationships so they might help rather than hinder the mission of Christ. The new oppressive liberal orthodoxy in North America must choose between using the current denominational structures as instruments of coercion, or through an act of love, allow a realignment of relationships within different structural patterns. If those in power choose the first course of action, biblically orthodox Anglicans will be forced to choose between the gospel and Anglican structures. Either way the Anglican communion as we know it will cease to exist. And all this in a denomination supposedly known for its tolerance of diversity, its generosity of spirit, its comprehensiveness. Tolerance of diversity and comprehensiveness without boundaries are not virtues, however. They are vices. Jesus prayed for unity, but a unity apart from, or in opposition to, or founded on anything but the truth is at best meaningless and at worst wicked. The term highly favored by Anglicans since 1851 to describe our mutual relationships as being more than merely structural is communion (from the New Testament Greek word koinonia). It is an enormously hard working horse, harnessed to several weighty theological wagons: employed in the apostles' creed ('I believe in . . . the communion of saints'); and to describe the Lord's supper (holy communion); and, as well, as the inner reality, fabric and superstructure of the world wide association of Anglican congregations (the global communion). The concept of communion has been pressed into heavier service over the last 20 years to describe the levels of disunity created by the ordination of women to the priesthood. The first resolution of the 1988 Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops recognized that differences of opinion on the consecration of women to the episcopate will result in 'impaired' communion. Its first resolution affirmed that the archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the primates, should create a commission to examine the issue under the rubric of 'maintaining the highest possible degree of communion' between provinces that differ. Resolution 18 on 'The Anglican Communion: Identity and Authority' refined this global consultation process. This new Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, would 'undertake as a matter of urgency a further exploration of the meaning and nature of communion; with particular reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, the unity and order of the Church, and the unity and community of humanity.' The ensuing commission, called the Eames commission (named after the Most Revd Robert Eames, archbishop of Armagh) met five times and released its report in 1994. The work continued with a second commission which met at the Virginia Theological seminary and published its report in 1997: the Virginia report. There is now a third commission studying the meaning and maintenance of communion named the Sykes commission (after the Right Revd Professor Sykes). Both the Eames and the Virginia reports give considerable space to koinonia and its implications. Eames asserts that 'The basis of the Christian Church is that spiritual reality of koinonia,'(1) and the preface of the Virginia report affirms this: 'At the heart and center of the Anglican pilgrimage lies the concept of communion.'(2) Since 2002 the unilateral decisions and actions of one Canadian diocese and the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions and to consecrate as bishop an openly practicing homosexual, have deeply wounded unity within Anglicanism and elevated the importance of understanding koinonia. The biblically orthodox primates of the global south, appalled by the arrogant disregard for the instruments of Anglican unity,(3) have sought to indicate the extremity of injury to their relationship with the offending bodies by variously declaring communion 'impaired' or 'suspended' or 'broken' or even 'severed.' This reveals the unprecedented damage to unity the blessing of same sex unions has inflicted-damage which is of such a different order than the ordination of women that the former archbishop of Canterbury Dr. George Carey, described the decision of the diocese of New Westminster in Canada as 'schismatic,' a 'clear undermining of the sanctity of marriage' and 'an ecumenical embarrassment' as well. Archbishop Eames has been prevailed upon for a second time to chair an international commission of Anglican luminaries to cobble together a compromise structural solution. Others less sanguine are working for a global realignment based on what they discern to be the irreconcilable movement of two theological tectonic plates. My question concerns koinonia: can this horse do all the work we want it to, can it draw the various carts we assign to it? Are we in danger of crippling it? Do we have the right horse or is the horse a mule? We need to turn to the New Testament to understand 'communion'. 1. The New Testament Shape of Koinonia. The New Testament (NT) word for communion, koinonia and its cognates are translated in a variety of ways: 'participation, fellowship, sharing, partakers, communion, partnership.' Koinonia describes a particular kind of relationship between people created by their mutual fellowship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. There are three primary uses of koinonia in the NT. Like a triangle which requires three sides, the three uses of koinonia must all be held together or you end up with something different: the horse becomes a mule. Crisis in Koinonia - pg. 2 | |
home | |
(This page is maintained by Rev. Dr. John Oakes and Kirsten Oakes .) |
|