Wednesday, June 28, 2006
About the Lawsuit
I've been told that rumors abound in the Diocese of Central NY. One that I heard emanating from the Syracuse area is that the lawsuit that was filed by Fr. David Bollinger has been rescinded. This is not true. The judge in Tioga County said that he would review the three charges and notify both sides as to which charges he would allow to proceed to trial.
ABC Statement Sent to Diocesan Office for Distribution
As the headline suggests, I sent the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury to our diocesan office for distribution over the DioNews system. I have not yet received it through dionews and I expect that you haven't either. As has been typical over the last three years our diocese and the national church has been reluctant to release information that hasn't first been filtered through some Ministry of Truth (like Episcopal News Service, for example). As you might imagine some in ecusa were furious about the news coverage by bloggers at the recently concluded General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Again, people were getting news from services other than the ecusa Ministry of Truth. As you may not know, the Archbishop of Canterbury has a different viewpoint on the crisis in ecusa that we have been living through over the last three years. He has a different take on the remedy for the actions taken in 2003 and the inadequate response to the concerns of the Anglican Communion by General Convention 2006. You can view the statement by Rowan Williams below, as well as commentary.
The AAC's Response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Statement on the Future of the Anglican Communion
June 27, 2006
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Cynthia P. Brust
770-414-1515
The American Anglican Council’s Comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Statement on “Challenge and Hope” for the Anglican Communion
The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued his reflections today on the future of Anglicanism, emphasizing that this statement is not designed to preempt the Anglican Communion’s “necessary process of careful assessment of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) response to the Windsor Report.” Archbishop Williams describes his goal as defining a vision for “what kind of Anglican Communion we wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.” We at the American Anglican Council are grateful for the Archbishop’s careful and insightful analysis of the complex issues facing the Communion and support significant action to incorporate the spirit of his statement.
In noting the fact that the Episcopal Church acted unilaterally not only in the Anglican Communion but also within its own province, Archbishop Williams emphasizes that there are consequences for sacramental actions outside the bounds of Anglican faith and order:
“Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.”
Archbishop Williams also recognizes ECUSA’s failure to comply with the Windsor Report and Primates (February 2005 Dromantine Communiqué). The revisionist trajectory of the Episcopal Church is clear and uncompromising.
“The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula,” the statement reads.
ECUSA clearly abandoned basic Christian doctrines of Christ and salvation as well as marriage and sexuality at the 2003 and 2006 General Conventions. ECUSA has, therefore, made its decision to walk apart from Anglican faith and order.
We applaud the Archbishop’s clear assessment and his call for necessary structural changes embodied by “constituent” and “associate” churches centered upon a covenant with an “opt in” mechanism. We view this as a positive direction for the biblically faithful minority currently within ECUSA, and we commit to assist in an “ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements” of ECUSA. We view this proposal as the way to ensure clear theological and doctrinal unity based on Anglicanism’s traditional view of the supremacy of Scripture.
Archbishop Williams' vision offers a long-range direction for the Communion to consider and act upon. We urge the Anglican Instruments of Unity to act expeditiously to incorporate this vision. While a covenant process will be years in the making, nevertheless, we in America have an urgent need for temporary emergency pastoral protection through cross-provincial oversight.
The Diocese of Fort Worth has requested alternative primatial oversight, and we anticipate that a number of other dioceses will follow suit in the near future. The leadership of the American Anglican Council prays for and urges immediate implementation of such requests. Relief delayed is relief denied. In addition, we hear daily from individuals and congregations who are seeking help in leaving the heterodoxy of ECUSA and who have lost heart for Anglicanism. Many laity departing ECUSA are leaving quietly, going to Rome, independent churches, or most sadly, no church at all. This week, the largest church (in average Sunday attendance) in ECUSA, Christ Church, Plano, announced its decision to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. We fear tens of thousands of individuals will be lost from Anglicanism forever unless immediate, though interim, intervention is provided. The face of Anglicanism has been changed, and it behooves us to be creative in the midst of the restructuring process before us. The situation in the American church is rapidly deteriorating, and it is critical to act now in order to prevent the “balkanization” of the entire Anglican Communion.
-30-
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Cynthia P. Brust
770-414-1515
The American Anglican Council’s Comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Statement on “Challenge and Hope” for the Anglican Communion
The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued his reflections today on the future of Anglicanism, emphasizing that this statement is not designed to preempt the Anglican Communion’s “necessary process of careful assessment of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) response to the Windsor Report.” Archbishop Williams describes his goal as defining a vision for “what kind of Anglican Communion we wish to be and to explore how this vision might become more of a reality.” We at the American Anglican Council are grateful for the Archbishop’s careful and insightful analysis of the complex issues facing the Communion and support significant action to incorporate the spirit of his statement.
In noting the fact that the Episcopal Church acted unilaterally not only in the Anglican Communion but also within its own province, Archbishop Williams emphasizes that there are consequences for sacramental actions outside the bounds of Anglican faith and order:
“Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.”
Archbishop Williams also recognizes ECUSA’s failure to comply with the Windsor Report and Primates (February 2005 Dromantine Communiqué). The revisionist trajectory of the Episcopal Church is clear and uncompromising.
“The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula,” the statement reads.
ECUSA clearly abandoned basic Christian doctrines of Christ and salvation as well as marriage and sexuality at the 2003 and 2006 General Conventions. ECUSA has, therefore, made its decision to walk apart from Anglican faith and order.
We applaud the Archbishop’s clear assessment and his call for necessary structural changes embodied by “constituent” and “associate” churches centered upon a covenant with an “opt in” mechanism. We view this as a positive direction for the biblically faithful minority currently within ECUSA, and we commit to assist in an “ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements” of ECUSA. We view this proposal as the way to ensure clear theological and doctrinal unity based on Anglicanism’s traditional view of the supremacy of Scripture.
Archbishop Williams' vision offers a long-range direction for the Communion to consider and act upon. We urge the Anglican Instruments of Unity to act expeditiously to incorporate this vision. While a covenant process will be years in the making, nevertheless, we in America have an urgent need for temporary emergency pastoral protection through cross-provincial oversight.
The Diocese of Fort Worth has requested alternative primatial oversight, and we anticipate that a number of other dioceses will follow suit in the near future. The leadership of the American Anglican Council prays for and urges immediate implementation of such requests. Relief delayed is relief denied. In addition, we hear daily from individuals and congregations who are seeking help in leaving the heterodoxy of ECUSA and who have lost heart for Anglicanism. Many laity departing ECUSA are leaving quietly, going to Rome, independent churches, or most sadly, no church at all. This week, the largest church (in average Sunday attendance) in ECUSA, Christ Church, Plano, announced its decision to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. We fear tens of thousands of individuals will be lost from Anglicanism forever unless immediate, though interim, intervention is provided. The face of Anglicanism has been changed, and it behooves us to be creative in the midst of the restructuring process before us. The situation in the American church is rapidly deteriorating, and it is critical to act now in order to prevent the “balkanization” of the entire Anglican Communion.
-30-
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Worldwide Anglican church to split over gay bishop
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2245849,00.html
By Ruth Gledhill
The Archbishop of Canterbury has outlined plans to expel the Episcopal
Church of the US from the worldwide Anglican Church.
The US branch of Anglicanism is to be punished for consecrating the openly
gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled
the worldwide church to the brink of schism.
Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox
churches being accorded full, "constituent" membership and the rebel, pro-
gay liberals being consigned to "associate" membership.
All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a "covenant" which
will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members
of the Anglican church can agree.
But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the
US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish
Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a
document.
These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties
to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.
In a letter to the 37 other Primates of the provinces of the Anglican
Communion, Dr Rowan Williams says that such churches would be comparable to
the Methodist Church in Britain.
Ironically, in 2003 the Methodist Church signed a covenant with the Church
of England at a service at Westminster Central Hall witnessed by the Queen,
Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The fudged schism outlined in Dr Williams’ letter opens the door to the
possibility of Methodists moving slowly towards full unity with the
Anglicans, while Episcopalians fall by the wayside. Once Methodists start
ordaining bishops and Anglicans in England start ordaining women bishops,
there will be nothing to stop the two declaring full unity, unless the
Methodists also start consecrating gay bishops.
The proposals will be discussed soon at the next meeting of the standing
committee of the 38 Primates, and then at the Primates’ meeting in
February. They will come to the table of the worldwide church, along with
the wording of the proposed covenant, at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.
It is then that The Episcopal Church and others will face the choice of
signing up to biblical orthodoxy, or walking away from the Anglican
Communion table to the hinterland of "associate" status.
But as Anglicans find more common ground with Methodists, Lutherans,
Baptists and others, the next Archbishop of Canterbury could well decide to
resolve the problem of who to invite to the 2018 Lambeth Conference by
simply inviting the leaders of all churches in the Protestant world who
recognised each other’s sacraments. Or he (or she) might decide it is not
worth the fuss, and cancel the 2018 Lambeth Conference altogether.
By Ruth Gledhill
The Archbishop of Canterbury has outlined plans to expel the Episcopal
Church of the US from the worldwide Anglican Church.
The US branch of Anglicanism is to be punished for consecrating the openly
gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, an act which has propelled
the worldwide church to the brink of schism.
Dr Williams is proposing a two-track Anglican Communion, with orthodox
churches being accorded full, "constituent" membership and the rebel, pro-
gay liberals being consigned to "associate" membership.
All provinces will be offered the chance to sign up to a "covenant" which
will set out the traditional, biblical standards on which all full members
of the Anglican church can agree.
But it is highly unlikely that churches such as The Episcopal Church in the
US, the Anglican churches in Canada and New Zealand and even the Scottish
Episcopal Church would be able to commit themselves fully to such a
document.
These churches and any others that refused to sign up could opt to cut ties
to Canterbury altogether, or could choose to remain in associate status.
In a letter to the 37 other Primates of the provinces of the Anglican
Communion, Dr Rowan Williams says that such churches would be comparable to
the Methodist Church in Britain.
Ironically, in 2003 the Methodist Church signed a covenant with the Church
of England at a service at Westminster Central Hall witnessed by the Queen,
Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
The fudged schism outlined in Dr Williams’ letter opens the door to the
possibility of Methodists moving slowly towards full unity with the
Anglicans, while Episcopalians fall by the wayside. Once Methodists start
ordaining bishops and Anglicans in England start ordaining women bishops,
there will be nothing to stop the two declaring full unity, unless the
Methodists also start consecrating gay bishops.
The proposals will be discussed soon at the next meeting of the standing
committee of the 38 Primates, and then at the Primates’ meeting in
February. They will come to the table of the worldwide church, along with
the wording of the proposed covenant, at the Lambeth Conference in 2008.
It is then that The Episcopal Church and others will face the choice of
signing up to biblical orthodoxy, or walking away from the Anglican
Communion table to the hinterland of "associate" status.
But as Anglicans find more common ground with Methodists, Lutherans,
Baptists and others, the next Archbishop of Canterbury could well decide to
resolve the problem of who to invite to the 2018 Lambeth Conference by
simply inviting the leaders of all churches in the Protestant world who
recognised each other’s sacraments. Or he (or she) might decide it is not
worth the fuss, and cancel the 2018 Lambeth Conference altogether.
From the Archbishop of Canterbury
Archbishop's reflections on the Anglican Communion
27th June 2006
The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?
What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It’s about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against – and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).
It’s true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.
Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.
Anglican Decision-Making
And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue ‘in our own terms’? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn’t help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn’t. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of ‘listening to the experience’ of homosexual people hasn’t advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.
There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.
Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into ‘political’ struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.
Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.
Truth and Unity
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right.
But let’s suppose that there isn’t that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth (‘only the whole Church knows the whole Truth’ as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple – and indeed desirable – to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.
First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don’t run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn’t just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone’s interest – recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, ‘let each local church go its own way’; but once you’ve lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?
Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each other’s life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.
Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. ‘You have not chosen me but I have chosen you’, says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, ‘Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?’
The Anglican Identity
The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies – a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word ‘Communion’ means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.
Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We’re not. But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship – the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.
But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don’t compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.
Future Directions
The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The ‘associated’ Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the ‘constituent’ Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.
This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that ‘waiting for each other’ that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.
There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.
The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.
Conclusion
The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.
That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition – and by God’s grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.
© Rowan Williams 2006
27th June 2006
The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?
What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. It’s about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops. The American Church is in favour and others are against – and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).
It’s true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters; and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people. It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will. That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question.
Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes – which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society – there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms. Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching. And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about ‘inclusion’, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people. Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against – and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.
Anglican Decision-Making
And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue ‘in our own terms’? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesn’t help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasn’t. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of ‘listening to the experience’ of homosexual people hasn’t advanced very far in most of our churches, and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships.
There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops. But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership. The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report, but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.
Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into ‘political’ struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect. Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.
Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people. Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice. It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.
Truth and Unity
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that you’re right.
But let’s suppose that there isn’t that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth (‘only the whole Church knows the whole Truth’ as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple – and indeed desirable – to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.
First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions don’t run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesn’t just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyone’s interest – recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, ‘let each local church go its own way’; but once you’ve lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens?
Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each other’s life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.
Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. ‘You have not chosen me but I have chosen you’, says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, ‘Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?’
The Anglican Identity
The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies – a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word ‘Communion’ means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.
Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We’re not. But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship – the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments. We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.
But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like. We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we don’t compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.
Future Directions
The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures. The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The ‘associated’ Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the ‘constituent’ Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.
This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between ‘constituent’ and ‘associated’ elements; but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of God’s gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that ‘waiting for each other’ that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.
There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect. But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.
The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.
Conclusion
The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness. Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion.
That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition – and by God’s grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony.
© Rowan Williams 2006
Initial Observations on General Convention
Anglican Communion Institute
June 21, 2006
The Windsor-related resolutions coming out of General Convention today require, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has noted, some time for study before their significance and import can properly be evaluated. Such study, furthermore, must be done in the context of the wider Communion, and not simply from the limited perspective of our individual circumstances. However, a few initial observations can be made.
How General Convention practically engaged the "Windsor Process":
It was discouraging to watch as one of the most important decisions the Episcopal Church has had to face was telescoped into a final 24 hours of frantic parliamentary conflict and maneuvering. No one can claim that the issues were not well examined, diversely engaged, and publicly articulated over the course of the past 3 years. This therefore raises a series of questions:
* Why were last minute clarifications - from Windsor Commission members and representatives from elsewhere in the Communion - required before engaging the inadequacy of the language proposed by our own Special Commission, as if obvious comparisons between the two had never been made before?
* How is it that such inadequate language emerged in the first place?
* Why is it that so much time was spent on 2-minute ventilations instead of careful consultation with appropriate representatives from the Communion and our own leadership?
* How is it that our own Presiding Bishop waited, after three years of controversy, until the very last day of Convention to speak with direction about the demands of the Windsor "process" with respect to resolutions?
* How is it that our House of Bishops, after having insisted over several years that only the full General Convention had the authority to respond to Windsor, ended up having to bend the rules of Convention itself to squeeze out a whimpered reaction?
* How is it that, after all the clarifications of the past week - not to mention three years - no clearly responsive communion resolutions came to the floor for vote?
* How is it that the final resolution that passed, B033, in its second resolve actually contradicts the lop-sided vote in favor of the new Presiding Bishop Elect, not to mention other actions of the Convention?
If there is anything to be learned from this procedural quagmire, it is that the General Convention was not up to (and should never have been given the task of) dealing with this difficult set of issues. This, despite some Communion representatives' own (misguided) understanding that only General Convention was legally capable of responding to the Communion's needs. Much appropriate authority is vested in our bishops meeting in council that might well have addressed the pertinent matters had that authority been exercised thoughtfully together. Instead, we have been left to witness a conjunction of long-term corporate paralysis giving way to short-term conciliar seizures.
In short, the work of the Convention around these matters, despite the clearly engaged and committed labors of many individuals on committees and on the floor (and this valiant witness should not be overlooked), was a hodge-podge of far-too-little-far-too-late reflection and decision-making, that can be attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit only to the degree that we are convinced that divine Providence rules over the abject irresponsibility of men and women.
The tenor of the resolutions passed
It was very clear early on in the Convention's debates - both in committees, in hearings, and on the floor - that there was neither a substantive majority ready to uphold Windsor's actual recommendations, nor a coherent desire to find some alternative. Commitments were irreconcilably split, in theological terms, and the existence of some "middle way" was never practically demonstrated.
The insistence by the Special Committee and the pleas by a few that such a "middle way" not only constituted the "real" mind of the church, or that it was the "true vocation" of the church, or even that such a way could be coherently argued theologically proved futile, and probably contributed to the wasting of time and the increasing frustration of deputies and onlookers.
One important reality that seems to have emerged from this frustrated hope is that the notion of a "middle way" within Anglicanism may well be, to use a favorite phrase from the Convention debates, a "red herring". The larger Communion's theological commitments, whatever their real diversities, are not properly characterized as a "middle way" in anything but a broad ecumenical context (if that). Relative to this larger Communion, anything within the American Episcopal Church that could possible be called "moderate" or "compromising" is likely still to lie far outside the mainstream of the rest of the Anglican world.
Some years ago, the Episcopal Church was called, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, "out of step" with the Communion. There is no "middle" rhythm in this dance.
The final and crucial Resolution B033 represents such an "outlying" response to Windsor. It commits the General Convention to a common "process of healing and reconciliation" and calls upon Standing Committees and bishops to "exercise restraint" in refusing consent to episcopal candidates "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion".
Very few people, on a moment's reflection, will believe that this climactic statement to the Communion will satisfy the hopes and needs of most of those whose common ministry and mission has been compromised by the Episcopal Church's actions over the past few years, especially those actions bound up in Gene Robinson's consent and consecration and in the widespread performance of same-sex blessings in our church. The problems are three-fold:
1. Vagueness: B033 does not in fact mention the occasioning offense to the Communion's life of the nomination, election, consent, and consecration of a sexually active gay bishop, although this is what the Windsor Report's recommendations explicitly requested that the Episcopal Church deal with and even apologize for. It does not mention, either explicitly or by synonym, the cessation of such choices to the episcopacy.
Indeed, it couches its recommendations in such vague terms that, as noted before, it should (by normal logic) have "restrained" Bp. Jefferts-Schori's election as Presiding Bishop, given that her manner of conducting affairs in Nevada has been a long series of affronts to Windsor's recommendations, both specifically and ecclesiologically.
Likewise it should have "restrained" the consent to the bishop-elect of Northern California, due to his 3 marriages. Both of these elections will "strain" communion. But so will the election of any number of other possible candidates - because of their theology, marriage-status, personality, and so on.
Windsor was careful not to so broaden the category of communion-criteria as to eviscerate the possibility of dealing with a known and identifiable challenge to communion such as was necessary at this time, thereby providing clear guidance as to how a concept like "restraint" ought properly to be applied. Vagueness undermines order.
As Chief Justice John Roberts recently wrote, in arguing for "narrow rulings" at the Supreme Court, "the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is". B033 neither embodies coherence nor agreement. If it begs interpretation, it also promises exhaustion in ever agreeing on such interpretation.
2. Avoidance: The fact that same-sex blessings were not addressed at all, in either B033 or in any other resolution, represents a devastating lacuna in General Convention's response to Windsor. Given that the new Presiding Bishop-elect is a well-known facilitator of such blessings, this silence affords Bp. Jefferts-Schori at least a certain room to maneuver within Convention.
But if in fact B033 cannot point up the inconsistency between its recommendations and the actual actions of its leaders, then it only proves its own uselessness. In any case, leaving both the Communion and members of the Episcopal Church to guess at the status of same-sex blessings within this church seems, under the circumstances of the last few years' conflicts, to be a grave disservice to our common life and trust.
While the need to use "the exact language of Windsor" in its resolutions was perhaps overblown, at least within a context of genuine desire to respond positively, General Convention's refusal or failure even to address central elements of Windsor's requests, with or without exact language, only testifies to the Convention's own internal inadequacy to engage the Communion at the most basic level. It thus undercuts even the most generous reading of B033's first resolve. Here, for instance, is what the Windsor Report actually asks with respect to same-sex blessings:
While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops.
Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.
Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter (The Windsor Report, par. 144)
It seems evident, therefore, that General Convention set aside a major element of the Windsor Report's recommendations; and that the "invitation" to withdraw from representative functions in the Anglican Communion still stands - an invitation apparently now aimed at our own Presiding Bishop-Elect. It is hard to see why the Convention left their new leader hanging in this way.
3. Contradictions and loss of trust: It was instructive, if not exactly spiritually edifying, to have broadcast around the world the actual debates of committees, hearings, and floor-votes.
What becomes apparent in the summary of these is that there was little unified desire within the Convention to press forward with a positive response to Windsor's requests, nor was a there anything close to a common mind about what any of these requests actually signified or amounted to.
The final scurry to come up with B033, after the House of Deputies firmly rejected another stronger, but still vague omnibus resolution, did nothing except emphasize the press for expedience over substance, appearance over commitment. The question, "what can pass?" had overcome the question "what is required of us?".
The difficult fit between the Presiding Bishop-elect's theological practice and the claims by Convention to communion sensitivity is only one more element in this larger series of contradictory actions (including the House of Bishops' resolution opposing civil definitions of marriage as being between a man and a woman, a resolution rejecting traditional definitions of salvation in Christ , and more).
Other Windsor-related resolutions that did in fact pass, subsequent to the rejection by the House of Deputies of a more comprehensive (if still inadequate) omnibus resolution, simply lost their credibility in the shadow the Convention's desire to avoid response over the concrete matters at issue: A159 on "commitment to interdependence", A165 on the "listening process", and A166 on the "Covenent Process" all now seem as intent on pacifying gay members of the church as they do articulating any substantive change of heart and action by the church as a whole.
Indeed, given what Convention did in toto, it is hard to know what these resolutions actually mean. At this point of public exposure, it will be hard for members of this church or of other churches to trust any promise by the Episcopal Church to renewed Communion commitment.
There is simply too much now that has been written, said, and decided within the context of this Convention that indicates otherwise. Indeed, to have bishops, like Chane of Washington and others, immediately announce their intention to continue acting in ways contrary to Windsor's requests and Resolution B033 as passsed, provides more than a "mixed message"; it destroys the notion of common agreement altogether.
There was much talk on the Special Committee of providing the church and Communion some "space" to listen, learn, grow, and reconcile. Is the present chaotic and incompetent outcome to the General Convention a contradiction of that hope? Perhaps not.
Certainly the idea that there is something called "the highest degree of communion possible" that goes beyond "having my cake and eating it too" has been exploded. Still, the explosion may be salutary. Indeed, we are now in a position where we can all see very clearly the incapacities of this church to move forward together, both in the United States and within the Communion, under the present arrangements of leadership and decision-making.
This represents a clearing of the air, and one not particularly filled with acrimony, for all the robust interchange of the last few days. That is, we have entered a "space" where the Communion councils may now respond to the true condition of our church; where members of our church - bishops, dioceses, congregations, and clergy - may state clearly their commitments without engendering disbelief in response; and where the conjunction of the two - communion council and local commitment - may now permit a slow and orderly process of reconfiguration, perhaps even disengagement of the warring factions of this battered body, where Primates can work together and not at odds with one another, where bishops and clergy can amicably part ways if necessary, where others can wait with a confident patience and not a destructive demand for God to direct our sifting.
Certainly we have reached a moment of clarity; now we may pray for the maturity and self-control to walk through it without anger or recrimination.
END
June 21, 2006
The Windsor-related resolutions coming out of General Convention today require, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has noted, some time for study before their significance and import can properly be evaluated. Such study, furthermore, must be done in the context of the wider Communion, and not simply from the limited perspective of our individual circumstances. However, a few initial observations can be made.
How General Convention practically engaged the "Windsor Process":
It was discouraging to watch as one of the most important decisions the Episcopal Church has had to face was telescoped into a final 24 hours of frantic parliamentary conflict and maneuvering. No one can claim that the issues were not well examined, diversely engaged, and publicly articulated over the course of the past 3 years. This therefore raises a series of questions:
* Why were last minute clarifications - from Windsor Commission members and representatives from elsewhere in the Communion - required before engaging the inadequacy of the language proposed by our own Special Commission, as if obvious comparisons between the two had never been made before?
* How is it that such inadequate language emerged in the first place?
* Why is it that so much time was spent on 2-minute ventilations instead of careful consultation with appropriate representatives from the Communion and our own leadership?
* How is it that our own Presiding Bishop waited, after three years of controversy, until the very last day of Convention to speak with direction about the demands of the Windsor "process" with respect to resolutions?
* How is it that our House of Bishops, after having insisted over several years that only the full General Convention had the authority to respond to Windsor, ended up having to bend the rules of Convention itself to squeeze out a whimpered reaction?
* How is it that, after all the clarifications of the past week - not to mention three years - no clearly responsive communion resolutions came to the floor for vote?
* How is it that the final resolution that passed, B033, in its second resolve actually contradicts the lop-sided vote in favor of the new Presiding Bishop Elect, not to mention other actions of the Convention?
If there is anything to be learned from this procedural quagmire, it is that the General Convention was not up to (and should never have been given the task of) dealing with this difficult set of issues. This, despite some Communion representatives' own (misguided) understanding that only General Convention was legally capable of responding to the Communion's needs. Much appropriate authority is vested in our bishops meeting in council that might well have addressed the pertinent matters had that authority been exercised thoughtfully together. Instead, we have been left to witness a conjunction of long-term corporate paralysis giving way to short-term conciliar seizures.
In short, the work of the Convention around these matters, despite the clearly engaged and committed labors of many individuals on committees and on the floor (and this valiant witness should not be overlooked), was a hodge-podge of far-too-little-far-too-late reflection and decision-making, that can be attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit only to the degree that we are convinced that divine Providence rules over the abject irresponsibility of men and women.
The tenor of the resolutions passed
It was very clear early on in the Convention's debates - both in committees, in hearings, and on the floor - that there was neither a substantive majority ready to uphold Windsor's actual recommendations, nor a coherent desire to find some alternative. Commitments were irreconcilably split, in theological terms, and the existence of some "middle way" was never practically demonstrated.
The insistence by the Special Committee and the pleas by a few that such a "middle way" not only constituted the "real" mind of the church, or that it was the "true vocation" of the church, or even that such a way could be coherently argued theologically proved futile, and probably contributed to the wasting of time and the increasing frustration of deputies and onlookers.
One important reality that seems to have emerged from this frustrated hope is that the notion of a "middle way" within Anglicanism may well be, to use a favorite phrase from the Convention debates, a "red herring". The larger Communion's theological commitments, whatever their real diversities, are not properly characterized as a "middle way" in anything but a broad ecumenical context (if that). Relative to this larger Communion, anything within the American Episcopal Church that could possible be called "moderate" or "compromising" is likely still to lie far outside the mainstream of the rest of the Anglican world.
Some years ago, the Episcopal Church was called, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, "out of step" with the Communion. There is no "middle" rhythm in this dance.
The final and crucial Resolution B033 represents such an "outlying" response to Windsor. It commits the General Convention to a common "process of healing and reconciliation" and calls upon Standing Committees and bishops to "exercise restraint" in refusing consent to episcopal candidates "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion".
Very few people, on a moment's reflection, will believe that this climactic statement to the Communion will satisfy the hopes and needs of most of those whose common ministry and mission has been compromised by the Episcopal Church's actions over the past few years, especially those actions bound up in Gene Robinson's consent and consecration and in the widespread performance of same-sex blessings in our church. The problems are three-fold:
1. Vagueness: B033 does not in fact mention the occasioning offense to the Communion's life of the nomination, election, consent, and consecration of a sexually active gay bishop, although this is what the Windsor Report's recommendations explicitly requested that the Episcopal Church deal with and even apologize for. It does not mention, either explicitly or by synonym, the cessation of such choices to the episcopacy.
Indeed, it couches its recommendations in such vague terms that, as noted before, it should (by normal logic) have "restrained" Bp. Jefferts-Schori's election as Presiding Bishop, given that her manner of conducting affairs in Nevada has been a long series of affronts to Windsor's recommendations, both specifically and ecclesiologically.
Likewise it should have "restrained" the consent to the bishop-elect of Northern California, due to his 3 marriages. Both of these elections will "strain" communion. But so will the election of any number of other possible candidates - because of their theology, marriage-status, personality, and so on.
Windsor was careful not to so broaden the category of communion-criteria as to eviscerate the possibility of dealing with a known and identifiable challenge to communion such as was necessary at this time, thereby providing clear guidance as to how a concept like "restraint" ought properly to be applied. Vagueness undermines order.
As Chief Justice John Roberts recently wrote, in arguing for "narrow rulings" at the Supreme Court, "the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is". B033 neither embodies coherence nor agreement. If it begs interpretation, it also promises exhaustion in ever agreeing on such interpretation.
2. Avoidance: The fact that same-sex blessings were not addressed at all, in either B033 or in any other resolution, represents a devastating lacuna in General Convention's response to Windsor. Given that the new Presiding Bishop-elect is a well-known facilitator of such blessings, this silence affords Bp. Jefferts-Schori at least a certain room to maneuver within Convention.
But if in fact B033 cannot point up the inconsistency between its recommendations and the actual actions of its leaders, then it only proves its own uselessness. In any case, leaving both the Communion and members of the Episcopal Church to guess at the status of same-sex blessings within this church seems, under the circumstances of the last few years' conflicts, to be a grave disservice to our common life and trust.
While the need to use "the exact language of Windsor" in its resolutions was perhaps overblown, at least within a context of genuine desire to respond positively, General Convention's refusal or failure even to address central elements of Windsor's requests, with or without exact language, only testifies to the Convention's own internal inadequacy to engage the Communion at the most basic level. It thus undercuts even the most generous reading of B033's first resolve. Here, for instance, is what the Windsor Report actually asks with respect to same-sex blessings:
While we recognise that the Episcopal Church (USA) has by action of Convention made provision for the development of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions, the decision to authorise rests with diocesan bishops.
Because of the serious repercussions in the Communion, we call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation.
Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We recommend that provinces take responsibility for endeavouring to ensure commitment on the part of their bishops to the common life of the Communion on this matter (The Windsor Report, par. 144)
It seems evident, therefore, that General Convention set aside a major element of the Windsor Report's recommendations; and that the "invitation" to withdraw from representative functions in the Anglican Communion still stands - an invitation apparently now aimed at our own Presiding Bishop-Elect. It is hard to see why the Convention left their new leader hanging in this way.
3. Contradictions and loss of trust: It was instructive, if not exactly spiritually edifying, to have broadcast around the world the actual debates of committees, hearings, and floor-votes.
What becomes apparent in the summary of these is that there was little unified desire within the Convention to press forward with a positive response to Windsor's requests, nor was a there anything close to a common mind about what any of these requests actually signified or amounted to.
The final scurry to come up with B033, after the House of Deputies firmly rejected another stronger, but still vague omnibus resolution, did nothing except emphasize the press for expedience over substance, appearance over commitment. The question, "what can pass?" had overcome the question "what is required of us?".
The difficult fit between the Presiding Bishop-elect's theological practice and the claims by Convention to communion sensitivity is only one more element in this larger series of contradictory actions (including the House of Bishops' resolution opposing civil definitions of marriage as being between a man and a woman, a resolution rejecting traditional definitions of salvation in Christ , and more).
Other Windsor-related resolutions that did in fact pass, subsequent to the rejection by the House of Deputies of a more comprehensive (if still inadequate) omnibus resolution, simply lost their credibility in the shadow the Convention's desire to avoid response over the concrete matters at issue: A159 on "commitment to interdependence", A165 on the "listening process", and A166 on the "Covenent Process" all now seem as intent on pacifying gay members of the church as they do articulating any substantive change of heart and action by the church as a whole.
Indeed, given what Convention did in toto, it is hard to know what these resolutions actually mean. At this point of public exposure, it will be hard for members of this church or of other churches to trust any promise by the Episcopal Church to renewed Communion commitment.
There is simply too much now that has been written, said, and decided within the context of this Convention that indicates otherwise. Indeed, to have bishops, like Chane of Washington and others, immediately announce their intention to continue acting in ways contrary to Windsor's requests and Resolution B033 as passsed, provides more than a "mixed message"; it destroys the notion of common agreement altogether.
There was much talk on the Special Committee of providing the church and Communion some "space" to listen, learn, grow, and reconcile. Is the present chaotic and incompetent outcome to the General Convention a contradiction of that hope? Perhaps not.
Certainly the idea that there is something called "the highest degree of communion possible" that goes beyond "having my cake and eating it too" has been exploded. Still, the explosion may be salutary. Indeed, we are now in a position where we can all see very clearly the incapacities of this church to move forward together, both in the United States and within the Communion, under the present arrangements of leadership and decision-making.
This represents a clearing of the air, and one not particularly filled with acrimony, for all the robust interchange of the last few days. That is, we have entered a "space" where the Communion councils may now respond to the true condition of our church; where members of our church - bishops, dioceses, congregations, and clergy - may state clearly their commitments without engendering disbelief in response; and where the conjunction of the two - communion council and local commitment - may now permit a slow and orderly process of reconfiguration, perhaps even disengagement of the warring factions of this battered body, where Primates can work together and not at odds with one another, where bishops and clergy can amicably part ways if necessary, where others can wait with a confident patience and not a destructive demand for God to direct our sifting.
Certainly we have reached a moment of clarity; now we may pray for the maturity and self-control to walk through it without anger or recrimination.
END
Monday, June 26, 2006
A Report from General Convention
Raymond Dague:
General Convention 2006 CNY Journal
Even at the national level, “all politics is local,” said Tip O’Niell. That is as true in the church as it is in congress. Reflecting on the Episcopal Church’s General Convention which just concluded in Columbus, Ohio, most of the focus was on the resolutions adopted (or voted down) and the election of the new presiding bishop, and how they affected this once great but now declining denomination. But a look at the smaller picture at the local level is every bit as revealing as the pronouncements from the top.
The deputation from the Diocese of Central New York to the convention lead by Bishop Gladstone “Skip” Adams was not especially prominent in any of the big events in Columbus. Its low profile was probably similar to that of many other dioceses, as the bishops of the Anglican Communion Network, or the partisans of Integrity (the gay-activist movement within the Episcopal Church) took center stage with the media. But a close look at this one diocese at the convention is quite revealing, and explains much about how the Big Picture shook down in Columbus in mid-June of 2006.
The folks from the Diocese of Central New York posted announcements on the diocesan website describing what captured their attention. These messages found on the Central New York diocesan website make fascinating reading for what they say, and what they don’t say. The direct quotes from Your General Convention Deputation 2006 are in bold. link
Tuesday, June 13th, First Day
The message is entitled “Standing on the Threshold” and quotes “Author Annie Dillard [who] once compared crossing a threshold to opening a summer cottage. She said that when you enter, you have all the time there that you will ever have.” Quite a dreamy and exalted notion of what these people are there to do. Obviously there are great pronouncements coming from this body. We read on with great anticipation. There is a get-together session as people meet in small groups as sort of an ice-breaker. They write, “The House of Deputies’ discussion focused on community and story. Community is created by story and sustained by God’s love. We were given a set of three questions to help us share our faith story with deputies from all around the Episcopal Church, and invited to listen to each response around our tables with the “ears of curiosity, wonder, and love.” We heard some amazing stories and shared our own, mindful and thankful for the part that you, the Diocese of Central New York, play in the story of our own faith journey.” Community and story. Most interesting. In my parish we might get together and pray, or read and reflect on the Scriptures. That is the source of our commonness as a Christian community. Nothing much said of that here. Instead there is personal story as the source of community. Episcopalians are big on telling personal stories. That is what gay Episcopalians like to do over and over again. It is as if the personal story is the source of authority. They want us to have “conversation” with them where they can continually tell us their “stories.” Without a focus on the Scriptures, you have to look to something.
Thursday, June 15th, Third Day
“It has been a couple of very busy and long days here in Columbus, and we are beginning to settle into a routine. Each morning there are a variety of legislative hearings to attend where one may observe the work of the various commissions and committees that put together resolutions and amendments. If a Deputy is taking the day off, both the Deputy and Alternate must visit the credentialing office together to swap credentials both before and after the session(s) that the Alternate is seated as a Deputy in the House.” Apparently these folks are so heavily overworked that they must engage in a tag-team giving one another time to go to the Columbus zoo or take a nap. Good thing that this diocese spent the money to send its alternates as a second string so the starters would not be too overwhelmed by their duties. And it is only the third day! Whew!
There is no mention whatever of the huge public hearing on Wednesday evening where 1500 people stood in line for an hour to pack the grand ballroom of the convention hotel to hear dozens of speakers including Bishops Bob Duncan of the Network, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and the Archbishop of York (the second highest office in the Church of England) speak to the issue of compliance with The Windsor Report with implications as to whether the Episcopal Church will be excluded from the Anglican Communion. This event made the national news. Were the Central New York deputies even in attendance? Nothing of this was apparently worth communicating to the people back home, since the messages home are silent about it.
Friday, June 16th, Fourth Day
“Thursday was another very full day here in Columbus. The House of Deputies finally began to make some progress in moving through resolutions on the Daily Calendar.” In any other church convention, they would have adjourned by now and have gone home. Not these Episcopalians. It takes them till the third or fourth day to ‘finally begin to make some progress’ with the business of the convention. Maybe telling stories occupies too much of their time. And there is more. “Each resolution must be presented by the chair of the legislative committee responsible for bringing it to the floor. Others are given the opportunity to speak for or against, or to amend the resolution. At one point on Thursday there was an amendment to an amendment!” The very idea that convention life would be so complex that an amendment would be offered to an amendment! No wonder these folks need a day off now and then!
Saturday, June 17th, Fifth Day
“Many of the most difficult issues are still before us. Although we do sense some posturing going on around various topics, when we come together to worship God there is a prevailing sense that the Holy Spirit is very much among us. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. Where true love and charity are found, God is there.” Spiritual insight in the midst of “posturing,” they say. Canon Kendall Harmon commented that he has never heard as many references to the Holy Spirit as at this convention. God the Father is completely out of vogue, perhaps because of the need to revamp the Trinity to accommodate feminist sensibilities, and “Mother Jesus” would soon get attention with the election of a new presiding bishop. But the Holy Spirit is mentioned constantly. Mind you, it is the Holy Spirit unchecked by Holy Scripture. Some said that it was less the Holy Spirit than it was an appeal to Holy Self. “Me” and “my stories” were driving this convention. The only sense that this convention might be engulfed in controversy was the understated but non-specific comment that “we do sense some posturing going on around various topics.”
Sunday, June 18th, Sixth Day
“Celebrations” is the title of this post and “Saturday at General Convention was a day of celebrations.” The only hint of the business at hand is a comment that “We are kept busy from before dawn to long past dusk, but this is an incredible time. We are all making many connections with many friends both new and old, God’s good and faithful people. While we wrestle with difficult issues, there is indeed much to celebrate as the body of Christ in God’s Spirit-filled presence among us.” The post gives no sense as to what these “difficult issues” may be, or what thoughts the deputies from Central New York have concerning them.
Tuesday, June 20th, Eighth Day
The title of the message to the folks back home for this day is entitled “Whale Songs.” The message explains why. “Bishop Jefferts Schori drew a question related to shepherding House of Bishops, and was told that it might be like trying to herd cats. She thought for a moment, and said she didn’t know much about herding cats. The metaphor that she prefers, which best reflects her hopes, is that of the humpback whale. These whales come together to meet once or twice every year. They come from all parts of the ocean, each singing a song from their own region. When it is time to part, they all return home singing a new song. What a great metaphor for the House of Bishops, and for all of us. When we come together for communion we come singing our own songs and, unified and strengthened in the Blessed Sacrament, we go home with a new song in our hearts.” Am I actually reading this, or making it up?! Meetings of bishops and other Episcopalians are like a bunch of humpback whales? I guess that is what you get when you elect an oceanographer, turned inexperienced priest, turned inexperienced bishop to the highest office in the church. I wonder what songs there were singing when they went to Columbus, and what songs they sang as they left? Do these “songs” refer to doctrinal messages, or just to emotional feelings, or something else? Is this just some sentimental stuff without any real meaning?
And there were other high points, the Central New York deputies tell us. “Speaking of singing, Elisabeth Von Trapp of the famous Von Trapp family (The Sound of Music) provided music for the Eucharist. At the end of the service we sang Edelweiss with her; there aren’t words to describe what an incredible joy that was.” And to think that my church experience is impoverished with the lyrics of Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, and the English hymns arranged by Ralph Vaughan Williams.
Wednesday, June 21st, Ninth Day
The title for this message is “Middle of the Road” and it reveals much in the thinking of the deputies from this diocese, and perhaps others. They write on Wednesday morning (and before the last minute joint meeting of the house of bishops and house of deputies) of the Tuesday defeat of the Windsor “Resolution A161, regarding the election of Bishops, authorization of Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions, and pastoral care to gay and lesbian Christians, ... Those on the extremes (conservative and liberal) joined together to defeat the resolution. There is a large contingent, however, who remain in the middle of the muddle and who hope very much to find a way to move forward in a positive direction in our response to the Windsor Report.” This “large contingent” however was overwhelmingly defeated when this resolution was voted down. So much for the attempt to cling to the “Middle of the Road.” There is no via media (middle way) on this.
You can have a middle way between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the church as the term was originally used in the 17th century when it was used under the reign of Elizabeth I in the Church of England. Both sides were orthodox Christian, albeit with different liturgical and doctrinal spins. But neither tried to remake the Trinity, nor cook up a new set of moral rules to replace Biblically established moral behavior. Sure they argued, but they both believed the Nicene Creed, and neither side sang it only as an art form.
Today the tent of the 21st century Episcopal Church has no middle, except a tent which is torn to shreds. The tent which once stretched from the dioceses of Albany and Ft. Worth on the conservative end, and the dioceses of New Hampshire and California on the liberal end,
represent two incompatible versions of faith. One is Christian as articulated by two millennia of church expression: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. The other is syncretistic and Unitarian, but with the old liturgical language which they either do not believe, or which they revise to accommodate current cultural sensibilities with the claim that it is a new work of the Holy Spirit.
Central New York Bishop Skip Adams years ago expressed these thoughts on this when he reflected on the actions of the Episcopal Church consecrating a homosexual bishop who had a same sex partner in 2003:
"I do not in any way want to minimize the seriousness of these actions for the Church. Some of us see it as a great error cutting at the very root of what it means to be Christian. Others of us, including myself, see it as a movement of God’s Holy Spirit and a decision made in order to be more fully faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
The difference illustrated by these two views are as wide a gulf as can be, and they are irreconcilable despite the sentiments of “the muddle in the middle” to reconcile them under one broad tent. The tent is shredded, and both sides are running in opposite directions each with their tent poles, stakes, and canvas, while the “middle way” dissolves into a world of denial.
Thursday, June 22nd, The Day After
“By now, many of you will have heard about various resolutions that were considered on Wednesday, the last day of Convention. Difficult choices were made carefully and prayerfully.” This was all the Central New York deputies said about the last minute non-binding resolution by the convention which reads, “That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”
Talk about a "muddle in the middle”! It was rammed through, and opposed by both liberals and conservatives alike. It was a vague attempt to sew up the tent and patch the holes. To no avail. Nobody is happy with this, and we can all argue about what this means. Bishop Chane of Washington, D.C. issued a statement saying it means nothing, and that he is not bound by it. Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network Bishop Bob Duncan said, “The tear has widened. While we had hoped that this Church would repent and return to received Faith and Order, General Convention 2006 clearly failed to submit to the call, the spirit or the requirements of the Windsor Report. The middle has collapsed.”
Afterward
Where does this leave folks like people from Central New York and their bishop as they trudge home and claim that they cling to the “Middle of the Road” while really embracing the left? I suppose like humpback whales they could all sing Edelweiss, and go home with a new song as they think about the “Muddle in the Middle.” Such folk tend to scorn those of the left and the right. But to do so is to deny reality. There is not one church, but two churches with those in the middle standing on the open ground looking both left and right at a tent torn in half.
Jesus said in the Gospel of Mark, “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” Can the Episcopal Church long defy the logic of Jesus’ words?
Raymond Dague is an attorney with the Anglican Communion Network and a member of St. Andrews in the Valley, Syracuse, New York. He spent several days at General Convention 2006.
General Convention 2006 CNY Journal
Even at the national level, “all politics is local,” said Tip O’Niell. That is as true in the church as it is in congress. Reflecting on the Episcopal Church’s General Convention which just concluded in Columbus, Ohio, most of the focus was on the resolutions adopted (or voted down) and the election of the new presiding bishop, and how they affected this once great but now declining denomination. But a look at the smaller picture at the local level is every bit as revealing as the pronouncements from the top.
The deputation from the Diocese of Central New York to the convention lead by Bishop Gladstone “Skip” Adams was not especially prominent in any of the big events in Columbus. Its low profile was probably similar to that of many other dioceses, as the bishops of the Anglican Communion Network, or the partisans of Integrity (the gay-activist movement within the Episcopal Church) took center stage with the media. But a close look at this one diocese at the convention is quite revealing, and explains much about how the Big Picture shook down in Columbus in mid-June of 2006.
The folks from the Diocese of Central New York posted announcements on the diocesan website describing what captured their attention. These messages found on the Central New York diocesan website make fascinating reading for what they say, and what they don’t say. The direct quotes from Your General Convention Deputation 2006 are in bold. link
Tuesday, June 13th, First Day
The message is entitled “Standing on the Threshold” and quotes “Author Annie Dillard [who] once compared crossing a threshold to opening a summer cottage. She said that when you enter, you have all the time there that you will ever have.” Quite a dreamy and exalted notion of what these people are there to do. Obviously there are great pronouncements coming from this body. We read on with great anticipation. There is a get-together session as people meet in small groups as sort of an ice-breaker. They write, “The House of Deputies’ discussion focused on community and story. Community is created by story and sustained by God’s love. We were given a set of three questions to help us share our faith story with deputies from all around the Episcopal Church, and invited to listen to each response around our tables with the “ears of curiosity, wonder, and love.” We heard some amazing stories and shared our own, mindful and thankful for the part that you, the Diocese of Central New York, play in the story of our own faith journey.” Community and story. Most interesting. In my parish we might get together and pray, or read and reflect on the Scriptures. That is the source of our commonness as a Christian community. Nothing much said of that here. Instead there is personal story as the source of community. Episcopalians are big on telling personal stories. That is what gay Episcopalians like to do over and over again. It is as if the personal story is the source of authority. They want us to have “conversation” with them where they can continually tell us their “stories.” Without a focus on the Scriptures, you have to look to something.
Thursday, June 15th, Third Day
“It has been a couple of very busy and long days here in Columbus, and we are beginning to settle into a routine. Each morning there are a variety of legislative hearings to attend where one may observe the work of the various commissions and committees that put together resolutions and amendments. If a Deputy is taking the day off, both the Deputy and Alternate must visit the credentialing office together to swap credentials both before and after the session(s) that the Alternate is seated as a Deputy in the House.” Apparently these folks are so heavily overworked that they must engage in a tag-team giving one another time to go to the Columbus zoo or take a nap. Good thing that this diocese spent the money to send its alternates as a second string so the starters would not be too overwhelmed by their duties. And it is only the third day! Whew!
There is no mention whatever of the huge public hearing on Wednesday evening where 1500 people stood in line for an hour to pack the grand ballroom of the convention hotel to hear dozens of speakers including Bishops Bob Duncan of the Network, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and the Archbishop of York (the second highest office in the Church of England) speak to the issue of compliance with The Windsor Report with implications as to whether the Episcopal Church will be excluded from the Anglican Communion. This event made the national news. Were the Central New York deputies even in attendance? Nothing of this was apparently worth communicating to the people back home, since the messages home are silent about it.
Friday, June 16th, Fourth Day
“Thursday was another very full day here in Columbus. The House of Deputies finally began to make some progress in moving through resolutions on the Daily Calendar.” In any other church convention, they would have adjourned by now and have gone home. Not these Episcopalians. It takes them till the third or fourth day to ‘finally begin to make some progress’ with the business of the convention. Maybe telling stories occupies too much of their time. And there is more. “Each resolution must be presented by the chair of the legislative committee responsible for bringing it to the floor. Others are given the opportunity to speak for or against, or to amend the resolution. At one point on Thursday there was an amendment to an amendment!” The very idea that convention life would be so complex that an amendment would be offered to an amendment! No wonder these folks need a day off now and then!
Saturday, June 17th, Fifth Day
“Many of the most difficult issues are still before us. Although we do sense some posturing going on around various topics, when we come together to worship God there is a prevailing sense that the Holy Spirit is very much among us. Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. Where true love and charity are found, God is there.” Spiritual insight in the midst of “posturing,” they say. Canon Kendall Harmon commented that he has never heard as many references to the Holy Spirit as at this convention. God the Father is completely out of vogue, perhaps because of the need to revamp the Trinity to accommodate feminist sensibilities, and “Mother Jesus” would soon get attention with the election of a new presiding bishop. But the Holy Spirit is mentioned constantly. Mind you, it is the Holy Spirit unchecked by Holy Scripture. Some said that it was less the Holy Spirit than it was an appeal to Holy Self. “Me” and “my stories” were driving this convention. The only sense that this convention might be engulfed in controversy was the understated but non-specific comment that “we do sense some posturing going on around various topics.”
Sunday, June 18th, Sixth Day
“Celebrations” is the title of this post and “Saturday at General Convention was a day of celebrations.” The only hint of the business at hand is a comment that “We are kept busy from before dawn to long past dusk, but this is an incredible time. We are all making many connections with many friends both new and old, God’s good and faithful people. While we wrestle with difficult issues, there is indeed much to celebrate as the body of Christ in God’s Spirit-filled presence among us.” The post gives no sense as to what these “difficult issues” may be, or what thoughts the deputies from Central New York have concerning them.
Tuesday, June 20th, Eighth Day
The title of the message to the folks back home for this day is entitled “Whale Songs.” The message explains why. “Bishop Jefferts Schori drew a question related to shepherding House of Bishops, and was told that it might be like trying to herd cats. She thought for a moment, and said she didn’t know much about herding cats. The metaphor that she prefers, which best reflects her hopes, is that of the humpback whale. These whales come together to meet once or twice every year. They come from all parts of the ocean, each singing a song from their own region. When it is time to part, they all return home singing a new song. What a great metaphor for the House of Bishops, and for all of us. When we come together for communion we come singing our own songs and, unified and strengthened in the Blessed Sacrament, we go home with a new song in our hearts.” Am I actually reading this, or making it up?! Meetings of bishops and other Episcopalians are like a bunch of humpback whales? I guess that is what you get when you elect an oceanographer, turned inexperienced priest, turned inexperienced bishop to the highest office in the church. I wonder what songs there were singing when they went to Columbus, and what songs they sang as they left? Do these “songs” refer to doctrinal messages, or just to emotional feelings, or something else? Is this just some sentimental stuff without any real meaning?
And there were other high points, the Central New York deputies tell us. “Speaking of singing, Elisabeth Von Trapp of the famous Von Trapp family (The Sound of Music) provided music for the Eucharist. At the end of the service we sang Edelweiss with her; there aren’t words to describe what an incredible joy that was.” And to think that my church experience is impoverished with the lyrics of Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, and the English hymns arranged by Ralph Vaughan Williams.
Wednesday, June 21st, Ninth Day
The title for this message is “Middle of the Road” and it reveals much in the thinking of the deputies from this diocese, and perhaps others. They write on Wednesday morning (and before the last minute joint meeting of the house of bishops and house of deputies) of the Tuesday defeat of the Windsor “Resolution A161, regarding the election of Bishops, authorization of Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions, and pastoral care to gay and lesbian Christians, ... Those on the extremes (conservative and liberal) joined together to defeat the resolution. There is a large contingent, however, who remain in the middle of the muddle and who hope very much to find a way to move forward in a positive direction in our response to the Windsor Report.” This “large contingent” however was overwhelmingly defeated when this resolution was voted down. So much for the attempt to cling to the “Middle of the Road.” There is no via media (middle way) on this.
You can have a middle way between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical wings of the church as the term was originally used in the 17th century when it was used under the reign of Elizabeth I in the Church of England. Both sides were orthodox Christian, albeit with different liturgical and doctrinal spins. But neither tried to remake the Trinity, nor cook up a new set of moral rules to replace Biblically established moral behavior. Sure they argued, but they both believed the Nicene Creed, and neither side sang it only as an art form.
Today the tent of the 21st century Episcopal Church has no middle, except a tent which is torn to shreds. The tent which once stretched from the dioceses of Albany and Ft. Worth on the conservative end, and the dioceses of New Hampshire and California on the liberal end,
represent two incompatible versions of faith. One is Christian as articulated by two millennia of church expression: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. The other is syncretistic and Unitarian, but with the old liturgical language which they either do not believe, or which they revise to accommodate current cultural sensibilities with the claim that it is a new work of the Holy Spirit.
Central New York Bishop Skip Adams years ago expressed these thoughts on this when he reflected on the actions of the Episcopal Church consecrating a homosexual bishop who had a same sex partner in 2003:
"I do not in any way want to minimize the seriousness of these actions for the Church. Some of us see it as a great error cutting at the very root of what it means to be Christian. Others of us, including myself, see it as a movement of God’s Holy Spirit and a decision made in order to be more fully faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
The difference illustrated by these two views are as wide a gulf as can be, and they are irreconcilable despite the sentiments of “the muddle in the middle” to reconcile them under one broad tent. The tent is shredded, and both sides are running in opposite directions each with their tent poles, stakes, and canvas, while the “middle way” dissolves into a world of denial.
Thursday, June 22nd, The Day After
“By now, many of you will have heard about various resolutions that were considered on Wednesday, the last day of Convention. Difficult choices were made carefully and prayerfully.” This was all the Central New York deputies said about the last minute non-binding resolution by the convention which reads, “That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”
Talk about a "muddle in the middle”! It was rammed through, and opposed by both liberals and conservatives alike. It was a vague attempt to sew up the tent and patch the holes. To no avail. Nobody is happy with this, and we can all argue about what this means. Bishop Chane of Washington, D.C. issued a statement saying it means nothing, and that he is not bound by it. Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network Bishop Bob Duncan said, “The tear has widened. While we had hoped that this Church would repent and return to received Faith and Order, General Convention 2006 clearly failed to submit to the call, the spirit or the requirements of the Windsor Report. The middle has collapsed.”
Afterward
Where does this leave folks like people from Central New York and their bishop as they trudge home and claim that they cling to the “Middle of the Road” while really embracing the left? I suppose like humpback whales they could all sing Edelweiss, and go home with a new song as they think about the “Muddle in the Middle.” Such folk tend to scorn those of the left and the right. But to do so is to deny reality. There is not one church, but two churches with those in the middle standing on the open ground looking both left and right at a tent torn in half.
Jesus said in the Gospel of Mark, “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” Can the Episcopal Church long defy the logic of Jesus’ words?
Raymond Dague is an attorney with the Anglican Communion Network and a member of St. Andrews in the Valley, Syracuse, New York. He spent several days at General Convention 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)