“We are conscious that we all stand together at the foot of the Cross of Jesus Christ, so we know that to turn away from each other would be to turn away from the Cross.” Communiqué from the Primates of the Anglican Communion, March 28, 2000 THAT WAS THE THEOLOGICAL HEART of the communiqué agreed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion and Moderators of its United Churches meeting in Porto, Portugal in their first meeting after the 1998 Lambeth Conference.(1) They had gathered amid fears and threats of disunity in the aftermath of the Conference’s Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality. I was present all through the Primates’ Meeting in Porto, during which I also attended the meetings of the group of Archbishops (chosen to represent differing views) who drafted the agreed communiqué. The story behind the communiqué has not, so far as I know, been told. Now, over twenty-six years later, as the Anglican Consultative Council gathers in Belfast and wrestles with Communion-dividing issues that are directly connected with those discussed in the communiqué, I find what happened in Porto prophetically relevant to the current situation of the Anglican Communion. What happened there has not so much been forgotten as never really studied, taken to heart and followed through. Its significance was broadly hinted at in the communiqué. But behind those hints lay what a brief communiqué could not describe: the fellowship of the rest of the Meeting – the Eucharists, the Bible studies, the sharing of what was going on in each province of the Communion, the meals, the frank talking in formal sessions, the lively informal conversations, and in particular two things: the discussions of the group drafting the communiqué, chaired by the Archbishop of Armagh, Robin Eames; and an extra session on the Bible, squeezed into an already packed schedule at the insistence of some of the Archbishops. It all added up to a very remarkable event, and one with a powerful lesson for the Anglican Communion now. In what follows, the communiqué’s broad hints that something important had happened will be noted, together with the quality of the process that led to the communiqué being agreed. This will then lead into an account of the intense conversations centred on the Bible, and in particular on the Letter to the Ephesians and its way of understanding the death of Jesus. The main lesson I have drawn from all this is one that has been deepened and intensified during the past twenty-six years, leading to participation in the development of the practice of Biblical Reasoning. That will be described and commended as a practice for our times in the Anglican Communion and in Christian ecumenical engagement, one that is deeply in line with the core lesson to be drawn from the Porto Meeting, and seeks to fulfil its neglected potential. The image that occurs to me is of the Porto Meeting as a seed, dormant for twenty-six years, whose time has come to be watered, germinate, grow, and flower. The Communiqué – Hints and Process Read and reread the communiqué. No doubt readers will have a wide range of reactions, including, “Are we still stuck there?” For my purpose in this article, I want to point up five things. The first is the obvious depth of disagreement among the Primates, and also, as I witnessed, the frankness with which they spoke to each other. The second is the far greater depth and breadth of agreement, which allowed the disagreement to be held “in the family” and even be “life-giving”. I remember walking the streets of Porto one night with Ben Quash(2) (we were both there for the Bible studies) reflecting on how the day had shown this unity in diversity through the spirit of the collegiality, the reports, and the contributions in discussion, coming from men (it was all men then) with major responsibilities all around the world. This was a global Communion determined to stay united. The third is the very clear statement of theological agreement around the Lambeth Quadrilateral: “We believe that the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate. Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion.” There could even be “severely impaired communion” on other matters, but the Lambeth Quadrilateral was non-negotiable. The fourth, in line with the Quadrilateral, is the vital importance of the Bible, on which all agree even if they interpret it differently on some points. I will say more about this. The fifth, and most important of all, is the utter centrality of the cross: “We are conscious that we all stand together at the foot of the Cross of Jesus Christ, so we know that to turn away from each other would be to turn away from the Cross.” This too will be discussed further. How did all this come about? In terms of process, it was fascinating to follow the movement of the drafting group from its first meeting (in which Archbishop Eames frankly said that he doubted whether it was possible to arrive at an agreed communiqué) to the final text. The process reminded me of what George Lindbeck, a Lutheran observer at the Second Vatican Council, vividly described happening in Rome during its sessions. As bishops, theologians and observers gathered, formally and informally, they drew on scripture and tradition (ressourcement), they were concerned to engage, both critically and constructively, with the contemporary world (aggiornamento), and they had intense conversations (conversazione), mostly centred on the Bible and other Christian texts. And, as a result of these conversations, fresh texts were produced for the flourishing of the Church. Yet, sadly, in the aftermath of the Council, such intensive conversation around texts among those with diverse positions was not sustained, and there was considerable polarisation, symbolised...
