Anglican Ways: ON INCLUSIVENESS

Some confusion has arisen over what Anglican Ways means by ‘inclusive’. The difficulty appears to be either semantic or derived from a failure on the part of some to understand the nature of ‘inclusiveness’ and Anglican Ways. For that reason, it seems reasonable to give an account of what is meant by the term and the effect of that concept on the organisation known as ‘Anglican Ways’.

Different people have differing understandings of any term depending on their emphasis in education and appreciation of philosophical and theological concepts. Thus some clarification has become necessary at a level that gives expression to the depth of what is intended. In an attempt to convey both the meaning of the words employed and the intention of those words, I try here to unravel the concepts involved. Therefore, I set out a few basic ideas and their directional intention. Any organisation is subject to the understanding of its nature held by its members and their perceptions of its purpose, methodology and actions. How others perceive those things is dependent on the subjective approach of those others and often of their desire to reorganise a body to suit their perceived needs and peculiar philosophical approach.

Let me start first with the term Anglican Ways itself.

‘Anglican’ is a term of which we all believe we know the meaning. In short hand, it refers to those provinces of the Church which are in communion with the See of Canterbury and have usually derived from the missionary activities of the Church of England in various parts of the world. This diversity of location is most clearly seen as corresponding with the growth of the British Empire but is not confined to that ‘empire’ or indeed the present Commonwealth of Nations. Thus, Anglican churches can be found in the Middle East, European countries, South America and so on. The concept becomes loose in practical terms as there are other churches which enjoy a reciprocal relationship with Anglicanism though they are not Anglican. Some Lutheran Churches and Old Catholics have held this position.

Thus, ‘Anglican’ can be seen to embody a broad range of churches as well as a variety of theologies and ecclesiologies. All of these have a valid claim to being Anglican and all contribute something different and special to the whole body. Together they enrich one another and make a wonderful tapestry from many threads. Trouble arises when someone in one of the strands claims to be more right than the others and attempts to impose their beliefs and understandings on all the others without looking to see or understand the authenticity of differing models of theology and church. However, in general terms ‘Anglican’ is a broad concept accommodating many viewpoints, practices and even disciplines.

‘Ways’.
The use of ‘ways’ would seem self-explanatory but, in view of present misunderstandings, it seems that this too needs to be looked at more closely. The founding meeting of Anglican Ways (at which I was not present) deliberately chose this term with emphasis on the plural, in recognition of the many strands of Anglicanism referred to above. As I understand it, those present, were committed to a name choice that would make it possible for any group or individual to be a member of Anglican Ways on an equal footing with all others. Thus members of the ‘Latimer Fellowship’ or ‘Anglican Mainstream’ to name two such are welcome to join. Such organisations are also free to affiliate with Anglican Ways. The clear intention is that all are free to join and be members on the same basis as any others.

Paramount to Anglican Ways thinking is the triad of scripture, tradition and reason as espoused by the great divine Richard Hooker (1554-1600). It is also committed to a dynamic unity in which no part of the church seeks to dominate another or pre-empt the rights of another. In this it reflects the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury as ‘primus inter pares’ (first among equals.). The clear intention of the term is that all strands are treated equally and honourably without domination of one by another. It goes without saying that the proclamation and living of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is of primary concern and that the organisation is subject to that principle.

It also means that Anglican Ways will listen to viewpoints from many sources and seek to assess and evaluate those viewpoints in the light of the Gospel. In this it follows the liberal principle of being truth-seekers, always remembering that all truth is from God and as we come to understand it, our knowledge is expanded, as is our understanding of God. So it is that the use of ‘ways’ in the title expresses a great many things that do not appear on the surface and might not be obvious to the casual observer.

‘Inclusive’
Let’s start with the dictionary: (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 edition, p 1338)
inclusive a. L16… 1 That includes, encloses, or contains; esp. that includes rather than excludes (also foll. by of); including much or all, esp. all incidental or accessory items ; comprehensive. L16 2 That is included. L16 - M18.
Inclusive adv. LME. So as to include the stated limits or extremes in a series.
(I have omitted derivations and other finer points.)
It is clear from the dictionary definitions that ‘inclusive’ does not mean ‘exclusive’, yet one comment I read appeared to embrace such a meaning. Oxford shows indelibly that ‘inclusive’ means to contain all or to be comprehensive. And it is this connotation of comprehensiveness that best fits Anglican Ways usage of ‘inclusive’. The clear intention is that all who wish to become members and subscribe to the nature of Anglican Ways, as described above, are welcome. Any exclusion is not exercised by Anglican Ways but through the choice of those who prefer not to join or be members for their own reasons. It would not be appropriate, though, for a Moslem to seek membership, for such could not subscribe to the beliefs, aims, organisation or practices of the Anglican Church, but it would be appropriate for any Anglican of any persuasion to seek membership and such would be welcome. Exclusion would only occur when the prospective member him/herself decided not to join for what they considered good reason. One of the essentials of Anglican Ways is openness and the willingness to enter into true dialogue with others.

If others do not see AW in that light the fault may well lie with them. No one member of AW has the authority or right to attempt to change any feature of AW to suit their own outlook. The organisation is committed to using democratic procedures and any changes or alterations must be by consensus. In other words, Anglican Ways is a true child and representative of the Anglican Church as it has existed for centuries.

The question now is, who is this inclusiveness offered to, which is a far more urgent and important question than who is excluded - which could be seen as another way of saying ‘not wanted’. The short answer is, all are welcome who count themselves Anglican, although Anglican Ways is not so wrapped in itself as to believe it can achieve the impossible of keeping Anglicans together.
Nevertheless, it is committed to playing whatever part it can in promoting unity and understanding among various factions. That there are individuals who fail to understand the goals of AW, is a measure of the shortcomings exhibited by all of us. AW seeks to disseminate goodwill and a sense of sisterhood/brotherhood among all members and potential members. That we perhaps fail is again tribute to our humanity and our failure to meet the standards of Christ.

Anglican Ways aims, as listed, describe ‘inclusive’ to be “of all without discrimination based on ethnicity, social, economic or sexual status.” That is not a definitive list implying that others are excluded but an attempt to include in a positive way some sections of the community who are often discriminated against. However, before considering what is meant and intended by that, I need to affirm that the inclusiveness or comprehensiveness exercised by AW first includes the various orders described under the section on “Ways”. All Anglicans have the right to membership and that cannot be stressed too strongly. Again I stress that any exclusion is by choice of the person who seeks to be excluded. At times that will include those who wish to refashion AW to conform to their own views, so again I stress that AW, in its aims and practices, is bound by consensus and orthodox theology.

That leaves the question of those groups listed as being among the ones included. Again it must be realised that that list is not definitive and that there may well be others who qualify to be on it but were omitted through oversight or a failure to recognise their existence. However a brief overview of each is in order,

‘ethnicity’
The earlier word for this was ‘race’. There is though, only one race of humans, for all are descended from a common ancestor. Ethnic differences depict the changes in some through isolation, in-breeding, geographical features and so on. It is also important to realise that cultural differences have the same spread, indeed may have a greater spread, than ethnicity. What we affirm is that all such are of equal value in the sight of God and cannot, and will not, be excluded on the spurious ground that they are different or that they do not fit. All such are an integral part of humanity and accordingly are children of God and cannot be excluded because of a perceived alienness.

‘social status’
Again, this is reasonably obvious. We include all strata of society, rich and poor, and in between. Much as some might detest the idea, ‘boy racers’ have as much right to membership as any other if it provides what they want. The point is, we do not exclude because we do like the look of someone. Again,the exclusion is the choice of the one who does not seek membership. The unemployed, the manager, the poet and so on are all potential members. It is their choice.
‘economic status’ This is really covered by social status. We will welcome the rich and include the poor for that is in keeping with the being of Christ, although we may like to see the rich show some responsibility for the poor. That though, will also be dependent on the nature of affluence and of poverty, all of which is a topic on its own.

‘sexual status’
For many this is the crunch point. The fact is, that between 8½%and 10% of the population is born homosexual. However, that is not the whole story, for the range of human sexuality is much broader than is generally known and acknowledged. There is a whole range of sexual types whose definition, physically, is indefinite. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence is often rejected by religious people who have little understanding of the facts or, worse, do not want to have their prejudices disturbed. There are latent homosexuals who often exacerbate the problem by their denial and persecution of homosexuals. In Hitler’s Germany, there was an analagous situation in which concentration guards of hidden Jewish descent exercised the greatest violence against Jews. Similarly, in South Africa, some of the fiercest in exercising violence against Bantu had a Bantu grandparent. Tragically, many discriminate against people of different orientation and so practise injustices to Christ. Much more could be said but the reality is that AW practises inclusion at all levels, and again I stress that exclusion is the choice of the enquirer.

A great deal more could be said on any or all of the above, but let it be enough to emphasise that Anglican Ways is a concept which, among other things, seeks to create dialogue and understanding, and to maintain inclusiveness. For those with ears to hear, the message is there, and easy to hear and adopt. For those who want their own way, there are probably groups to suit them or they can form their own.
John Fisher