Three Anglican predictions

From the Diocese of Washington (D.C.) newspaper:

VIEWPOINT: the Rev. George Clifford
WASHINGTON WINDOW September 2006
www.edow.org

“The time has come for honesty.
Progressives must acknowledge what
conservatives already know: division is
inevitable.”

Opinion

Hans Christian Andersen's
much beloved children's
story, "The Emperor's
New Clothes," depicts an emperor
going naked because nobody is
willing to tell him the truth. The
Episcopal Church and the
Anglican Communion are in that
same situation today. Nobody
wants to speak what are becoming
three increasingly obvious truths
about the Communion's future.
First, the Anglican Communion's
center of gravity and de facto leadership
has shifted towards the
Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter
Akinola, and his conservative
allies. The adjective conservative is
especially apt as their avowed goal
is to conserve or sustain unchanging
fidelity to a form of
Christianity that emerged in the
4th century and was finalized in
the middle of the last millennium.
Today, many Anglicans find that
expression of Christianity incompatible
with scientific discoveries
as well as insights from contemporary
biblical, historical and theological
studies. These Anglicans,
aptly labeled progressives because
they believe that knowledge of
God and Scripture can increase
over time, want a big tent
Anglicanism with room for all,
where issues involving sex are not
litmus tests for admission. The
growing numerical majority of
Anglicans residing in the largely
conservative Global South with
their vociferous, unrelenting and
intransigent leaders continue to
drive this shift in Anglicanism's
center of gravity.
Second, that shift will soon cause
structural division within the
Anglican Communion.
Conservatives who reject the
blessing of same-sex relationships
and refuse to accept as a bishop a
person who openly lives in such a
relationship will move to distance
themselves from those with whom
they disagree. This includes the
Episcopal Church, several other
provinces and the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The Church of
England with its largely liberal
constituency and clergy already
has dioceses that allow the blessing
of same-sex relationships; at
least one high profile cleric, the
Dean of St. Alban's, openly lives
in a state recognized same-sex
union. The Archbishop of Nigeria
has made it clear that the
Archbishop of Canterbury must
repudiate same-sex relationships as
un-Christian to remain an orthodox
Christian.
The Lambeth Conference in
2008, rather than being a vehicle
for reconciliation, is
much more likely to
be the catalyst for formalizing
this division.
Archbishop Akinola
has already redefined
the conference's agenda.
Rowan Williams,
the Archbishop of
Canterbury, had
intended the agenda
to center around the
training and education
of bishops. Instead, the conference
will now focus on the current
controversies within the
Anglican Communion. Yet conservative
bishops threaten not to
attend if progressives are invited,
making dialogue and reconciliation
impossible. Anglicans who
refuse to pray with one another
and to talk with one another are
already, de facto, out of communion
with one another.
Third, two very different expressions
of the Anglican
Communion will shortly thereafter
emerge. Conservatives will
create a structure with centralized
authority, ensuring that all member
churches adhere to orthodoxy.
Progressives will retain a loose federation
based on common prayer
and communion with the
Archbishop of Canterbury. Debate
will persist for centuries over
which group faithfully and truthfully
represents Anglican identity
and heritage.
The time has come for honesty.
Progressives must acknowledge
what conservatives already know:
division is inevitable. Rather than
making futile efforts to placate
those for whom beliefs about sexual
ethics have become a litmus
test of Christian identity, progressives
should invest their time and
energy in living the gospel mandates
as they hear those mandates.
The time has come for hopeful
trust. When the prodigal son
requested his inheritance, his
father surely anticipated what the
son would do after leaving home.
Yet the father let his son go, hopeful
in trusting that years of love
would one day bear fruit and that
the prodigal would return home.
The Episcopal Church should
send those who choose to leave on
their way with God's blessing,
expectantly hopeful that they will
some day return.
Legal battles to retain property or
other assets bring no credit to
Christ, Christianity or the
Episcopal Church. The church has
always recognized that it is one
branch among many in the
Christian church. New
branches represent
structural breaks but
retain relational unity,
regardless of whether a
branch admits that
unity.
Although the ecumenical movements
of the 20th century seemed
to achieve little, exciting moves to
strengthen the relational and
structural bonds between some
branches of the church have
occurred. Examples include intercommunion
between various
Anglican provinces and Lutheran
churches and recent progress
towards the reunification of the
Church of England and British
Methodists.
Paul counseled the Corinthians
not to settle their disputes in the
law courts. Those who choose to
leave and those who remain within
the Episcopal Church will do
well to heed that advice. No matter
who ends up owning the property
or other resources, good stewardship
demands that the
resources support the work of
Christ's church rather than
expended in costly litigation.
The time has come to clothe the
emperor and to be about our
Father's business. We live in a
world where people die each day
because they have no bread, no
water, no healing touch. Christ
has called us to go, to make disciples,
to love our neighbor in his
name, to set the captive free and
to proclaim the acceptable year of
the Lord. If we do this, then in
the fullness of time we and those
who choose to walk apart will discover
ourselves feasting at the
same banquet.

George Clifford is a writer and
Episcopal priest who lives in
Raleigh, N.C.