From the San Francisco Chronicle

Feel-good church displaces faith

Michael Bertaut

Thursday, February 22, 2007

As a "conservative" Episcopalian, I have a real problem with the church that may be difficult for others to understand. For those on the outside, the Episcopal Church's problems may seem like a mishmash of issues that society largely has moved beyond. From within, however, there is something more important going on.

Contrary to what the more liberal elements of the church's leadership (and unfortunately much of the media coverage) would have you believe, what is happening within the Episcopal Church has nothing to do with sexual preference, same-sex marriage, female clerics or a host of other accusations hurled at us for disagreeing with the church leadership. These are symptoms. Much as an elevated temperature may point to a deadly infection, the disease itself is worse. The Episcopal Church is suffering from an acute case of fear.

The more liberal among us fear irrelevancy. The process of de-coupling the Episcopal Church from historic Anglicanism coincides pretty closely with the revolutionary attitudes of the 1960s, when our benign trust in leadership was shattered by governments that did a lot of bad things behind our backs. The next generation didn't want the same old church as their parents. Church enrollment dropped; fear took root that the institution would decline and perhaps disappear.

In the 1970s, church leadership believed social justice could trump fear. It began to "fix" the church by discarding the beloved 1928 Book of Common Prayer. The 1979 version, with its watered-down requirements and weak translations of Scripture, was designed to be easy to read. Out went Shakespeare, in came Mr. Rogers. The revisionists celebrated, but church attendance did not improve. Fear grew.

That fueled demand for female clerics. In the 1980s, female priests appeared, followed closely by bishops. Enrollment declined further; fear increased.

This brings us to the latest innovation to stop the decline, "the full inclusion of baptized Christians in the full life of the Church." That's code for "we need homosexual priests and bishops, same-sex blessings and marriages." Today, enrollment is still slipping.

Make no mistake; the battle within the U.S. Episcopal Church is not about intolerance, gender or sexual preference. It is about fear leading to theological amnesia. And fear has driven out the purpose of the church. Loosening the rules to attract more congregants instead has driven more away. Making it easier to be a member is not what works to retain the faithful. It's all about how you cast your theology in your life -- is your faith your anchor or just something that makes you feel good?

I place a very high value on caring for the sick and feeding the hungry. Christian churches do this. But is that their raison d'etre? Absolutely not.

The Christian church was founded in the first century to lead people into faith in Jesus Christ. The means they chose to do this was to illuminate who Christ was to help the faithful understand what He wants of us. With that faith, Christians still believe we can develop a relationship with Him.

Historically, this illumination was gained through reading the Bible. The Bible offers four different accounts (the Gospels) that agree on these points: Jesus was both man and God. He rose from the dead. He had expectations of us that clearly included not embracing sin.

These accounts show that his definitions of sin were in sync with Jewish law of the time. He even said He wouldn't change one thing in that law. To be a Christian is to accept that, if Jesus said it, we are subservient to it. That's been mainline Christian theology for almost 2,000 years.

So now I find myself, as one who tries to embrace the law as Jesus explained it, forced to break it in order to remain an Episcopalian. I am forced to support and encourage others to sin. Jesus said that helping someone else to sin was worse than committing the sin yourself.

Now you understand my fear. If I stay in the Episcopal Church, I have to embrace and support behavior clearly identified by Jesus as sinful. If I leave the church, I am "intolerant," "homophobic" or just plain "mean-spirited."

I am simply trying to do what Jesus told me to do. He said, "Love God with all your heart, mind and soul. And love your neighbor as yourself."

If I know someone I love is going to endanger their soul by doing the wrong thing, is it an act of love to embrace the wrong action? Jesus clearly loved sinners, but despised their sin.

The other side fears irrelevancy, I fear Hell. Come to think of it, maybe we're both afraid of the same thing ...

Michael Bertaut is treasurer of Christ Church Episcopal in Gonzales, La.

This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle

New York Times: Anglicans Rebuke U.S. Branch on Same-Sex Unions

February 20, 2007

By SHARON LaFRANIERE and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Facing a possible churchwide schism, the Anglican Communion yesterday gave its Episcopal branch in the United States less than eight months to ban blessings of same-sex unions or risk a reduced role in the world’s third-largest Christian denomination.

Anglican leaders also established a separate council and a vicar to help address the concerns of conservative American dioceses that have been alienated by the Episcopal Church’s support of gay clergy and blessings of same-sex unions. Although the presiding American bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, agreed to the arrangement, some conservatives described it as an extraordinary check on her authority.

The directive, issued after a five-day meeting of three dozen top leaders of the Anglican church gathering in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, constituted a severe rebuke of the small but affluent American branch. Conservative Anglicans described the communiqué as a landmark document that affirms the primacy of Scripture and church doctrine for the world’s 77 million Anglicans, only 2.3 million of whom are Episcopalians.

“This is very, very, very significant,” said Bill Atwood, who serves as a strategist for a group of the conservative bishops. “It was either call the Episcopal Church back or lose the Anglican Communion, and the group agreed it was better to call the Episcopal Church back.”

The decision comes after years of debate and remonstrations within the Anglican Communion over whether and how to force the Episcopal leaders to conform to the wider church’s view of homosexuality — a controversy that has also enveloped other mainline Christian denominations.

Episcopalians in favor of gay rights immediately urged American bishops to reject the demands. “The American church is not going to just roll over and turn back the clock on blessings,” said the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest in Los Angeles and president of Integrity, an Episcopalian gay rights group.

Anglican church teaching, reiterated in a series of meetings since 1998, states that sex is reserved for married heterosexual couples. The Episcopal Church directly challenged that teaching in 2003 by consecrating V. Gene Robinson, a gay man living with his partner, as bishop of New Hampshire. The church’s bishops have also allowed priests to bless gay unions.

In response, more than a third of the other Anglican churches around the world — by some counts more than half — have curtailed their interaction with the Episcopal Church. The church has also faced an internal rebellion from nearly one-tenth of its dioceses, which have appealed to the Anglican Communion to free them from oversight by the presiding Episcopal bishop, Bishop Jefferts Schori. Several dozen more parishes have aligned themselves with bishops outside the United States whose churches are more conservative theologically.

At a late-night news conference in Dar es Salaam, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury, the denomination’s spiritual leader, said the group hammered out “an interim solution that certainly falls very short of resolving all the disputes.”

Tensions ran so high at the meeting that church officials abandoned the traditional group photo of the leaders on Sunday. Even church services were a tense affair as seven conservative archbishops declined communion rather than celebrate the Eucharist with Bishop Jefferts Schori.

The communiqué yesterday detailed at length what the Episcopal Church should do to heal the rift over homosexuality. It called on the House of Bishops to adopt an explicit ban against blessings of same-sex unions and to make clear that clergy in homosexual relationships cannot be confirmed as bishops.

In June, Episcopal leaders asked dioceses to refrain from consecrating openly gay bishops, but some dioceses continued to put forward candidates.

Ten of the 110 Episcopal dioceses officially permit same-sex blessings, according to Clinton Bradley, administrator of Integrity, the gay rights group. Others allow priests to perform blessings if couples request them, he said.

To assuage the concerns of traditional American dioceses, the primates, the general equivalent of an archbishop, essentially allowed conservatives to elect their own “primatial vicar.” The vicar is to report to a council of five members, two of whom will be selected by Bishop Jefferts Schori, the communiqué states. She and the council together will decide the vicar’s powers.

Analysts described the arrangement as highly unusual for the Anglican Communion, where primates have clear lines of authority and full responsibility for their own geographical regions.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before, but then the American Episcopal Church went pretty far off the reservation, very much counter to what the Anglican Communion said was its policy,” said David Hein, a religion professor at Hood College in Maryland and co-author of the book “The Episcopalians.”

“It is an unprecedented response to an unprecedented action.”

The move at least partly satisfied the demands of conservative Episcopal leaders in the United States, who have been begging the Anglican Communion for what they call “alternative oversight.” Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, a leader of the conservative Episcopalians, said he told the Anglican primates on Thursday that Bishop Jefferts Schori was unacceptable as a leader because she supported the consecration of Bishop Robinson in 2003 and had sanctioned the blessing of same-sex unions.

How Bishop Jefferts Schori will sell the directive to Episcopal leaders is unclear. “I’ll be very eager to hear from the presiding bishop,” said Canon Jim Naughton, director of communications for the Diocese of Washington, and a liberal blogger who followed the Tanzania meeting closely. “You have to assume that she was involved in crafting this, so I think she’s asking us to trust her that she can bring this off while protecting our integrity as a church.”

The primates said their instructions were intended to reassure other Anglicans “who have lost faith in the Episcopal Church,” to minister to conservative Episcopalians who have rebelled against their leadership’s more liberal stance and ultimately to curtail efforts by bishops from other countries to take over parishes within the United States.

“If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion,” the communiqué said.

The communiqué also attempted to settle the problem of legal battles within the Episcopal Church.

In the diocese of Virginia and several others, some congregations have voted to leave the Episcopal Church and take their properties with them. Earlier this month, the Episcopal Church joined a lawsuit to keep the properties. The Anglican leaders urged both sides to back off, saying that the lawsuits should be suspended and the congregations should take no steps to “alienate property from the Episcopal Church.”

“None of us agreed that litigation or counter litigation can be a proper way forward for a Christian body,” Archbishop Williams said at his news conference.

BBC News: Gay ultimatum for Anglicans in US

Anglican leaders have issued an ultimatum to the US Church by demanding an end to the appointment of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex couples.

US bishops have until 30 September to respond to the communique, issued after archbishops met in Tanzania.

The leaders also announced that the US Episcopal Church must allow members who oppose gay clergy to worship under a newly formed pastoral council.

The crisis began when the US Church approved an openly-gay bishop in 2003.

Conservative churchgoers were angered by that decision, as they believe homosexuality is contrary to the Church's teachings.

However, liberal Anglicans have argued that biblical teachings on justice and inclusion should take precedence.

'Unequivocal covenant'

The communique drafted by the archbishops in Tanzania comes after a series of meetings aimed at preventing a worldwide split on the issue.

The document calls for the US House of Bishops to "make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions".

It also asks for confirmation that "a candidate for Episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent - unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion".

It concluded: "If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best.

"And this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion."

'Dignity' hope

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said the document provided "a challenge to both sides".

"A challenge to the Episcopal Church to clarify its position, a challenge also to those who have intervened from elsewhere to see if they can negotiate their way towards an acceptable, equitable, settlement."

He admitted the communique would "certainly fall very short of resolving all the disputes", but said it would "provide a way of moving forward with dignity".

The document announced the setting up of a pastoral council to represent the international church leaders in the US.

Anglicans who do not agree with the Episcopal Church's stance on homosexuality will be able to worship separately to the others, under the auspices of the council.

The body will be made of up five members - three of whom will be appointed by non-US clergy.

Groups such as Integrity, which represents Episcopal gays and lesbians, have accused the leaders of bigotry and urged Episcopalians to lobby their bishops to reject the demands.

Anglican leaders in many parts of the world were angered by the consecration of openly-gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.

The Communiqué of the primates' Meeting in Dar es Salaam

19th February 2007

1. We, the primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, gathered for mutual consultation and prayer at Dar es Salaam between 15th and 19th February 2007 at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury and as guests of the Primate of Tanzania, Archbishop Donald Leo Mtetemela. The meeting convened in an atmosphere of mutual graciousness as the primates sought together to seek the will of God for the future life of the Communion. We are grateful for the warm hospitality and generosity of Archbishop Donald and his Church members, many of whom have worked hard to ensure that our visit has been pleasant and comfortable, including our travel to Zanzibar on the Sunday.

2. The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed to our number fourteen new primates, and on the Wednesday before our meeting started, he led the new primates in an afternoon of discussion about their role. We give thanks for the ministry of those primates who have completed their term of office.

3. Over these days, we have also spent time in prayer and Bible Study, and reflected upon the wide range of mission and service undertaken across the Communion. While the tensions that we face as a Communion commanded our attention, the extensive discipleship of Anglicans across the world reminds us of our first task to respond to God’s call in Christ. We are grateful for the sustaining prayer which has been offered across the Communion as we meet.

4. On Sunday 18th February, we travelled to the island of Zanzibar, where we joined a celebration of the Holy Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral, built on the site of the old slave market. The Archbishop of Canterbury preached, and commemorated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom, which had begun a process that led to the abolition of the slave market in Zanzibar ninety years later. At that service, the Archbishop of Canterbury admitted Mrs Hellen Wangusa as the new Anglican Observer at the United Nations. We warmly welcome Hellen to her post.

5. We welcomed the presence of the President of Zanzibar at lunch on Sunday, and the opportunity for the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet with the President of Tanzania in the course of the meeting.

The Millennium Development Goals

6. We were delighted to hear from Mrs Wangusa about her vision for her post of Anglican Observer at the United Nations. She also spoke to us about the World Millennium Development Goals, while Archbishop Ndungane also spoke to us as Chair of the Task Team on Poverty and Trade, and the forthcoming conference on Towards Effective Anglican Mission in South Africa next month. We were inspired and challenged by these presentations.

Theological Education in the Anglican Communion

7. We also heard a report from Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables and Mrs Clare Amos on the work of the primates’ Working Party on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion. The group has focussed on developing “grids” which set out the appropriate educational and developmental targets which can be applied in the education of those in ministry in the life of the Church. We warmly commend the work which the group is doing, especially on the work which reminds us that the role of the bishop is to enable the theological education of the clergy and laity of the diocese. We also welcome the scheme that the group has developed for the distribution of basic theological texts to our theological colleges across the world, the preparations for the Anglican Way Consultation in Singapore in May this year, and the appointment of three Regional Associates to work with the group. The primates affirmed the work of the Group, and urged study and reception of its work in the life of the Communion.

The Hermeneutics Project

8. We agreed to proceed with a worldwide study of hermeneutics (the methods of interpreting scripture). The primates have joined the Joint Standing Committee in asking the Anglican Communion Office to develop options for carrying the study forward following the Lambeth Conference in 2008. A report will be presented to the Joint Standing Committee next year.

Following through the Windsor Report

9. Since the controversial events of 2003, we have faced the reality of increased tension in the life of the Anglican Communion – tension so deep that the fabric of our common life together has been torn. The Windsor Report of 2004 described the Communion as suffering from an “illness”. This “illness” arises from a breakdown in the trust and mutual recognition of one another as faithful disciples of Christ, which should be among the first fruits of our Communion in Christ with one another.

10. The Windsor Report identified two threats to our common life: first, certain developments in the life and ministry of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada which challenged the standard of teaching on human sexuality articulated in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10; and second, interventions in the life of those Provinces which arose as reactions to the urgent pastoral needs that certain primates perceived. The Windsor Report did not see a “moral equivalence” between these events, since the cross-boundary interventions arose from a deep concern for the welfare of Anglicans in the face of innovation. Nevertheless both innovation and intervention are central factors placing strains on our common life. The Windsor Report recognised this (TWR Section D) and invited the Instruments of Communion to call for a moratorium of such actions .

11. What has been quite clear throughout this period is that the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 is the standard of teaching which is presupposed in the Windsor Report and from which the primates have worked. This restates the traditional teaching of the Christian Church that “in view of the teaching of Scripture, [the Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage”, and applies this to several areas which are discussed further below. The primates have reaffirmed this teaching in all their recent meetings , and indicated how a change in the formal teaching of any one Province would indicate a departure from the standard upheld by the Communion as a whole.

12. At our last meeting in Dromantine, the primates called for certain actions to address the situation in our common life, and to address those challenges to the teaching of the Lambeth Resolution which had been raised by recent developments. Now in Dar es Salaam, we have had to give attention to the progress that has been made.
The Listening Process

13. The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, committed the Provinces “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and called “all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals”. The initiation of this process of listening was requested formally by the primates at Dromantine and commissioned by ACC-13. We received a report from Canon Philip Groves, the Facilitator of the Listening Process, on the progress of his work. We wish to affirm this work in collating various research studies, statements and other material from the Provinces. We look forward to this material being made more fully available across the Communion for study and reflection, and to the preparation of material to assist the bishops at 2008 Lambeth Conference.

The Panel of Reference

14. We are grateful to the retired Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley for being with us to update us on the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Panel of Reference. This was established by the Archbishop in response to the request of the primates at Dromantine “to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches” for “groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces” . Archbishop Peter informed us of the careful work which this Panel undertakes on our behalf, although he pointed to the difficulty of the work with which it has been charged arising from the conflicted and polarised situations which the Panel must address on the basis of the slender resources which can be given to the work. We were grateful for his report, and for the work so far undertaken by the Panel.

The Anglican Covenant

15. Archbishop Drexel Gomez reported to us on the work of the Covenant Design Group. The Group met in Nassau last month, and has made substantial progress. We commend the Report of the Covenant Design Group for study and urge the Provinces to submit an initial response to the draft through the Anglican Communion Office by the end of 2007. In the meantime, we hope that the Anglican Communion Office will move in the near future to the publication of the minutes of the discussion that we have had, together with the minutes of the Joint Standing Committee’s discussion, so that some of the ideas and reflection that have already begun to emerge might assist and stimulate reflection throughout the Communion.

16. The proposal is that a revised draft will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference, so that the bishops may offer further reflections and contributions. Following a further round of consultation, a final text will be presented to ACC-14, and then, if adopted as definitive, offered to the Provinces for ratification. The covenant process will conclude when any definitive text is adopted or rejected finally through the synodical processes of the Provinces.

The Episcopal Church

17. At the heart of our tensions is the belief that The Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 by consenting to the episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and by permitting Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion.

18. In 2005 the primates asked The Episcopal Church to consider specific requests made by the Windsor Report . On the first day of our meeting, we were joined by the members of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council as we considered the responses of the 75th General Convention. This is the first time that we have been joined by the Standing Committee at a primates’ Meeting, and we welcome and commend the spirit of closer co-operation between the Instruments of Communion.

19. We are grateful for the comprehensive and clear report commissioned by the Joint Standing Committee. We heard from the Presiding Bishop and three other bishops representing different perspectives within The Episcopal Church. Each spoke passionately about their understanding of the problems which The Episcopal Church faces, and possible ways forward. Each of the four, in their own way, looked to the primates to assist The Episcopal Church. We are grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury for enabling us on this occasion to hear directly this range of views.

20. We believe several factors must be faced together. First, the Episcopal Church has taken seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report, and we express our gratitude for the consideration by the 75th General Convention.

21. However, secondly, we believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us.

22. The standard of teaching stated in Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 asserted that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions”. The primates stated in their pastoral letter of May 2003,
“The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.”.

23. Further, some of us believe that Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention does not in fact give the assurances requested in the Windsor Report.

24. The response of The Episcopal Church to the requests made at Dromantine has not persuaded this meeting that we are yet in a position to recognise that The Episcopal Church has mended its broken relationships.

25. It is also clear that a significant number of bishops, clergy and lay people in The Episcopal Church are committed to the proposals of the Windsor Report and the standard of teaching presupposed in it (cf paragraph 11). These faithful people feel great pain at what they perceive to be the failure of The Episcopal Church to adopt the Windsor proposals in full. They desire to find a way to remain in faithful fellowship with the Anglican Communion. They believe that they should have the liberty to practice and live by that expression of Anglican faith which they believe to be true. We are deeply concerned that so great has been the estrangement between some of the faithful and The Episcopal Church that this has led to recrimination, hostility and even to disputes in the civil courts.

26. The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore, those primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.

27. A further complication is that a number of dioceses or their bishops have indicated, for a variety of reasons, that they are unable in conscience to accept the primacy of the Presiding Bishop in The Episcopal Church, and have requested the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates to consider making provision for some sort of alternative primatial ministry. At the same time we recognise that the Presiding Bishop has been duly elected in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which must be respected.

28. These pastoral needs, together with the requests from those making presentations to this meeting, have moved us to consider how the primates might contribute to healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church and more broadly. We believe that it would be a tragedy if The Episcopal Church was to fracture, and we are committed to doing what we can to preserve and uphold its life. While we may support such processes, such change and development which is required must be generated within its own life.

The Future

29. We believe that the establishment of a Covenant for the Churches of the Anglican Communion in the longer term may lead to the trust required to re-establish our interdependent life. By making explicit what Anglicans mean by the “bonds of affection” and securing the commitment of each Province to those bonds, the structures of our common life can be articulated and enhanced.

30. However, an interim response is required in the period until the Covenant is secured. For there to be healing in the life of the Communion in the interim, it seems that the recommendations of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the primates’ Statement at Dromantine, are the most clear and comprehensive principles on which our common life may be re-established.

31. Three urgent needs exist. First, those of us who have lost trust in The Episcopal Church need to be re-assured that there is a genuine readiness in The Episcopal Church to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

32. Second, those of us who have intervened in other jurisdictions believe that we cannot abandon those who have appealed to us for pastoral care in situations in which they find themselves at odds with the normal jurisdiction. For interventions to cease, what is required in their view is a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to provide individuals and congregations alienated from The Episcopal Church with adequate space to flourish within the life of that church in the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process.

33. Third, the Presiding Bishop has reminded us that in The Episcopal Church there are those who have lost trust in the primates and bishops of certain of our Provinces because they fear that they are all too ready to undermine or subvert the polity of The Episcopal Church. In their view, there is an urgent need to embrace the recommendations of the Windsor Report and to bring an end to all interventions.

34. Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church. Many in the House of Bishops are unlikely to commit themselves to further requests for clarity from the primates unless they believe that actions that they perceive to undermine the polity of The Episcopal Church will be brought to an end. Through our discussions, the primates have become convinced that pastoral strategies are required to address these three urgent needs simultaneously.

35. Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement. We offer them to the wider Communion, and in particular to the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the hope that they will enable us to find a way forward together for the period leading up to the conclusion of the Covenant Process. We also hope that the provisions of this pastoral scheme will mean that no further interventions will be necessary since bishops within The Episcopal Church will themselves provide the extended episcopal ministry required.

Wider Application

36. The primates recognise that such pastoral needs as those considered here are not limited to The Episcopal Church alone. Nor do such pastoral needs arise only in relation to issues of human sexuality. The primates believe that until a covenant for the Anglican Communion is secured, it may be appropriate for the Instruments of Communion to request the use of this or a similar scheme in other contexts should urgent pastoral needs arise.

Conclusion

37. Throughout this meeting, the primates have worked and prayed for the healing and unity of the Anglican Communion. We also pray that the Anglican Communion may be renewed in its discipleship and mission in proclaiming the Gospel. We recognise that we have been wrestling with demanding and difficult issues and we commend the results of our deliberations to the prayers of the people. We do not underestimate the difficulties and heart-searching that our proposals will cause, but we believe that commitment to the ways forward which we propose can bring healing and reconciliation across the Communion.

Notes

1. Namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates’ Meeting.

2. Cf The Windsor Report and the Statement of the primates at Dromantine.

3. Gramado, May 2003; Lambeth, October 2003; Dromantine, February 2005.

4. Dromantine Statement, paragraph 15.

5. The Episcopal Church is the name adopted by the Church formerly known as The Episcopal Church (USA). The Province operates across a number of nations, and decided that it was more true to its international nature not to use thedesignation USA. It should not be confused with those other Provinces and Churches of the Anglican Communion which share the name “Episcopal Church”.

6. (1) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion (2) the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. (TWR §134)
(3) 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. (TWR §144)
A fourth request (TWR §135) was discharged by the presentation of The Episcopal Church made at ACC-13 in Nottingham, UK, in 2005.

6. Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes; Bishop Christopher Epting, Deputy for Ecumenical Affairs in The Episcopal Church; Bishop Bruce McPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, President of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, and a member of the “Camp Allen” bishops.

7. Set out and discussed in the Report of the Communion Sub-Group presented at the Meeting.

The Key Recommendations of the primates

Foundations

The primates recognise the urgency of the current situation and therefore emphasise the need to:

• affirm the Windsor Report (TWR) and the standard of teaching commanding respect across the Communion (most recently expressed in Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference);


• set in place a Covenant for the Anglican Communion;


• encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion;


• respect the proper constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding the interdependent life and mutual responsibility of the Churches, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole;


• respond pastorally and provide for those groups alienated by recent developments in the Episcopal Church.

In order to address these foundations and apply them in the difficult situation which arises at present in The Episcopal Church, we recommend the following actions. The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required.

A Pastoral Council

• The primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.


• The Council will work in co-operation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the scheme proposed below to


• negotiate the necessary structures for pastoral care which would meet the requests of the Windsor Report (TWR, §147–155) and the primates’ requests in the Lambeth Statement of October 2003 [1];


• authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme, including the criteria for participation of bishops, dioceses and congregations in the scheme;


• assure the effectiveness of the structures for pastoral care;


• liaise with those other primates of the Anglican Communion who currently have care of parishes to seek a secure way forward for those parishes within the scheme;


• facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation within The Episcopal Church, between The Episcopal Church and congregations alienated from it, and between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion (TWR, §156);


• advise the Presiding Bishop and the Instruments of Communion;


• monitor the response of The Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report;


• consider whether any of the courses of action contemplated by the Windsor Report §157 should be applied to the life of The Episcopal Church or its bishops, and, if appropriate, to recommend such action to The Episcopal Church and its institutions and to the Instruments of Communion;


• take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme and report to the primates.

A Pastoral Scheme

* We recognise that there are individuals, congregations and clergy, who in the current situation, feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or of the Presiding Bishop, and some of whom have sought the oversight of other jurisdictions.
* We have received representations from a number of bishops of The Episcopal Church who have expressed a commitment to a number of principles set out in two recent letters[2] . We recognise that these bishops are taking those actions which they believe necessary to sustain full communion with the Anglican Communion.
* We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar.

On this basis, the primates recommend that structures for pastoral care be established in conjunction with the Pastoral Council, to enable such individuals, congregations and clergy to exercise their ministries and congregational life within The Episcopal Church, and that

* the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop invite the bishops expressing a commitment to “the Camp Allen principles” [3], or as otherwise determined by the Pastoral Council, to participate in the pastoral scheme ;
* in consultation with the Council and with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who shall be responsible to the Council;
* the Presiding Bishop in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.

We believe that such a scheme is robust enough to function and provide sufficient space for those who are unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or the Presiding Bishop to have a secure place within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion until such time as the Covenant Process is complete. At that time, other provisions may become necessary.

Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible.

On Clarifying the Response to Windsor

The primates recognise the seriousness with which The Episcopal Church addressed the requests of the Windsor Report put to it by the primates at their Dromantine Meeting. They value and accept the apology and the request for forgiveness made [4]. While they appreciate the actions of the 75th General Convention which offer some affirmation of the Windsor Report and its recommendations, they deeply regret a lack of clarity about certain of those responses.

In particular, the primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

On property disputes

The primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

Appendix One

“The Camp Allen Principles”

The commitments expressed in the letter of 22nd September 2006 were:

* an acceptance of Lambeth 1998 Res. I.10 as expressing, on its given topic, the mind of the Communion to which we subject our own teaching and discipline;
* an acceptance of the Windsor Report, as interpreted by the primates at Dromantine, as outlining the Communion’s “way forward” for our own church’s reconciliation and witness within the Communion;
* a personal acceptance by each of us of the particular recommendations made by the Windsor Report to ECUSA, and a pledge to comply with them;
* a clear sense that General Convention 2006 did not adequately respond to the requests made of ECUSA by the Communion through the Windsor Report;
* a clear belief that we faithfully represent ECUSA in accordance with this church’s Constitution and Canons, as properly interpreted by the Scripture and our historic faith and discipline;
* a desire to provide a common witness through which faithful Anglican Episcopalians committed to our Communion life might join together for the renewal of our church and the furtherance of the mission of Christ Jesus.

The principles expressed in the letter of 11th January 2007 were:

1. It is our hope that you will explicitly recognize that we are in full communion with you in order to maintain the integrity of our ministries within our dioceses and the larger Church.
2. We are prepared, among other things, to work with the primates and with others in our American context to make provision for the varying needs of individuals, congregations, dioceses and clergy to continue to exercise their ministries as the Covenant process unfolds. This includes the needs of those seeking primatial ministry from outside the United States, those dioceses and parishes unable to accept the ordination of women, and congregations which sense they can no longer be inside the Episcopal Church.
3. We are prepared to offer oversight, with the agreement of the local bishop, of congregations in dioceses whose bishops are not fully supportive of Communion teaching and discipline.
4. We are prepared to offer oversight to congregations who are currently under foreign jurisdictions in consultation with the bishops and primates involved.
5. Finally, we respectfully request that the primates address the issue of congregations within our dioceses seeking oversight in foreign jurisdictions. We are Communion-committed bishops and find the option of turning to foreign oversight presents anomalies which weaken our own diocesan familieis and places strains on the Communion as a whole.

Notes:

1. Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the primates (Lambeth, October 2003)

2. Namely, a letter of 22nd September 2006 to the Archbishop of Canterbury and a further letter of 11th 2007 to the primates setting out a number of commitments and proposals. These commitments and principles are colloquially known as “the Camp Allen principles”. (see Appendix One)
3. As set out in Appendix One.

4. Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another. The Communion Sub-Group added the comment: “These words were not lightly offered, and should not be lighted received.”

From the Editor's Column of The Living Church

Hostile Takeover - The Diocese of Central New York, which already had filed a lawsuit against St. Andrew's Church, Syracuse, filed another motion in its attempt to take over the church's property. The national Episcopal Church also participated in this one. Is this really worth the cost of litigation?

2/25/07, p. 11

Amid Lowered Tensions, Primates Review Draft Covenant

From The Living Church

02/16/2007

• Print/Download

The Episcopal Church remained the focus of the second day of the Anglican primates’ meeting Friday in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The primates continued their discussion of The Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report, received a draft version of the proposed Anglican Covenant, followed the progress of the Panel of Reference, and heard a presentation on the status of the “listening process” within the Anglican Communion.

Outside the meeting, a statement of broken communion released on behalf of seven primates explained why they could not participate in the Eucharist with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori generated controversy, but had no impact on the day’s events, participants in the meeting told a reporter for The Living Church.

Conference spokesman Archbishop Phillip Aspinall of Australia told the media that he was unaware of the statement, but noted that it had “no new implications.” It was an “expression of the fact that relationships” within the Communion were perceived as “fractured.”

At the 2005 meeting in Northern Ireland, 14 primates declined to receive the Eucharist with Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. In Dar es Salaam, the formerly recusant primates of the West Indies, Pakistan, Central Africa, Congo and Tanzania received with Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, as did the new primate of the Indian Ocean. The primate of Sudan, who in 2005 did not receive, is absent from Dar es Salaam. Two primates who arrived late to the meeting, representing the Philippines and Myanmar, were not present for the controversy.

Different times, circumstances and people prompted this change, one Global South leader noted, adding however that the resumption of eucharistic fellowship by some did not represent a relaxation of opprobrium for the actions of The Episcopal Church.

Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies noted that there were three camps: “those that had made no formal statement in response to The Episcopal Church’s actions, which included those supportive of its actions as well as those with no stated opinion; those in impaired communion; and those in broken communion.

The Province of the West Indies was in a state of “impaired communion” with The Episcopal Church, he explained. It was “no longer business as usual,” as links were not severed, but “the relationship will be dealt with as needs arise.”

Pre-meeting tensions and maneuvering also appear to have abated. The mood inside the meeting, one participant said, was considerably different than that of the 2005 session in Northern Ireland, with a noticeable drop in tension.

On the second day of the meeting the primates “moved from the intense listening mode,” Archbishop Aspinall said, to a “free and frank exchange of views” during the morning session. Following Morning Prayer, discussions continued on The Episcopal Church. There are some “real tensions for us to work through,” Archbishop Aspinall noted.

During the afternoon, a draft copy of an Anglican Covenant was presented by Archbishop Gomez. While the details will not be released until Feb. 19, after it had been circulated electronically to the bishops of the Communion, the covenant will not “deal with subjects” of specific concern, but will “provide a framework” for “mutual accountability,” Archbishop Gomez said.

It will be a “statement of classical Anglicanism,” he said, and was “faithful to our tradition.” The timeline proposed by the covenant design group would be a period of discussion and modification leading up to the Lambeth Conference in 2008; a revision by the conference that would then be returned to the primates for final corrections followed by distribution to the Communion’s 38 provinces for ratification.

Archbishop Peter Carnley, former Primate of Australia, then presented a report on the Panel of Reference. He noted that the panel had been subject to three sets of difficulties: the “sheer effort to establish the facts”; constraints provided by pending litigation in some instances; and “human problems.”

The conference spokesman noted the primates asked “very blunt” questions as to whether the “outcomes achieved were proportionate to the work of the panel.” Further constraints were imposed by human failings, he added. “There must be a will for reconciliation for the panel to be effective,” Archbishop Carnley noted.

The primates concluded their discussion of the panel and the covenant and received a presentation on the “listening process” by Canon Phil Groves. Canon Groves outlined preliminary proposals on the process for the 2008 Lambeth Conference, but noted that in some circumstances it would be necessary to “establish safe ground” in certain societies for “people to feel safe” to allow it to continue productively.

On the third day of the meeting, the primates are scheduled to discuss theological education across the Communion and to continue discussion of The Episcopal Church. No decision on its status has been made, Archbishop Aspinall noted, but one Global South primate noted the discussions appeared to him to be reaching a climax.

(The Rev.) George Conger

Communion Broken, Says Global South

From The Living Church:

02/16/2007

• Print/Download

Members of the Global South coalition of Anglican primates, meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, released a statement today stating they could not share “in the Holy Communion” with their fellow primates today due to the presence of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Released via the Church of Nigeria’s website on the afternoon of the second day of the conference, the question of corporate communion services arose when the seven refused to receive the sacrament Friday in the first Eucharist of the five-day meeting.

The primates of Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Southeast Asia, the Southern Cone, Uganda, and West Africa released a statement saying their “deliberate” stance was a “poignant reminder” of the brokenness of the Anglican Communion.

“We are unable to come to the Holy Table with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church because to do so would be a violation of Scriptural teaching and the traditional Anglican understanding,” the seven primates wrote, citing words of the prayer book, “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith”

News of the broken communion arose at an impromptu press briefing at 1:30 p.m., given by Canon James Rosenthal, director of communications for the Anglican Consultative Council. Canon Rosenthal said that some of the Global South primates had attended the corporate Eucharist that day, the first of the conference.

This followed a press chase of Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria shortly after the primates’ broke for lunch and worship. Dressed in mufti, Archbishop Akinola was spotted by reporters lounging in the lobby on the second floor of the White Sands Hotel, site of the conference.

As Archbishop Akinola descended the stairs, with a sheet of papers and file folders in his hand, a paparazzi frenzy began as photographers, reporters and television cameras descended upon the Nigerian church leader.

As questions were shouted at him, Archbishop Akinola responded “no comment” and placed his files in front of his face and began running back toward the “ring of steel,” the security cordon surrounding the primates’ section of the hotel.

Pursued by reporters including one clad in a bathing suit and towel, the archbishop made good his escape.

Later in the afternoon, taking a side route, Archbishop Akinola returned to the office and was closeted with the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Bishop of the Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America. A press briefing by Bishop Minns is expected later.

Canon Robert Williams, director of communications for The Episcopal Church, was also summoned by Bishop Jefferts Schori. Canon Williams told The Living Church the Presiding Bishop would not be commenting, however, until after the close of the meeting.

The statement of no-communion was first made in September’s Kigali communiqué from the Global South primates, which said they were not “able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us.” The “table,” one African primate noted was a deliberate choice of language and reflected the wording of the Book of Common Prayer (1662).

In February 2005, at the primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland, leaders of the Global South coalition refused to share the Eucharist with Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold. No statement on broken communion with Canadian Archbishop Andrew Hutchison has been made at the conference.

(The Rev.) George Conger

Cordial Day of Listening Marks Opening Sessions in Tanzania

From The Living Church:

02/15/2007

• Print/Download

An opening-day impasse was averted after pre-meeting negotiations led to a relaxation of demands from the Global South primates’ coalition that the question of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s attendance at the meeting be the first order of business during their meeting in Tanzania.

In what was described by Australian Archbishop Phillip Aspinall as a “day of intense listening” characterized by “graciousness, patience and care,” the primates gathered at a hotel near Dar es Salaam heard an address by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, received a report from an advisory group appointed by the joint standing committee of the primates and Anglican Consultative Council on The Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report, and heard presentations from three American bishops and Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori.

In his opening remarks, described as “moving” by one listener, Archbishop Williams welcomed the primates and spoke to the importance of their work and collegiality. He also spoke to his great affection for The Episcopal Church.

The Archbishop of Canterbury recounted his experiences on Sept. 11, 2001 when he and other Episcopalians at Trinity Church Wall Street in lower Manhattan were trapped for a number of hours by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers. This experience had given Archbishop Williams a deep affection for the United States and The Episcopal Church and had led to a bonding with the people with whom he shared the day’s experiences.

The primates heard a presentation on The Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report. In reviewing the main points of the document, Archbishop Aspinall said the report concluded The Episcopal Church had conformed to “two out of three of the Windsor Reports requests, with more work to be done.”

General Convention “probably did the most that could have been done” on the question of a moratorium on the consecration of non-celibate gay clergy to the episcopate. However, Archbishop Aspinall said the report’s authors were “not convinced” that the response by General Convention to the Windsor Report’s request that The Episcopal Church bring to a halt public rites for the blessing of same sex-unions was adequate.

The Episcopal Church’s expression of regret adopted at General Convention did not provide a “full satisfaction” as it did not “use the precise language” of the Windsor Report. But it was concluded that it was “sufficient to meet the requests of the primates.”

The report had been completed approximately six months ago, conference spokesmen noted, and had been delivered to the primates today. Archbishop Aspinall stressed that “no decisions have been taken” on the report and that the task of the primates over the coming days was to make a “collective response” to the report.

The opening session was one of “process,” agreed Canadian Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, with “civil and cordial” conversation characterizing the morning.

Asked where this report left The Episcopal Church, Archbishop Aspinall said “the question has to wait until tomorrow,” but that it was “fair to say that more work needed to be done.”

At 12:15 p.m. the primates broke for noonday prayers. A corporate Eucharist was not celebrated, Archbishop Aspinall said, with the primates participating in a service of “penitence” led by the conference chaplains, the bishops of Western Tanganyika and Dar es Salaam.

The Global South primates will not celebrate the Eucharist with the Presiding Bishop, one primate told a reporter for The Living Church. They continue to stand behind their September declaration that they would “not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a Primate at the table with us.” The “table” he noted, is the language used for an altar as found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

When the meeting resumed after lunch, the primates concluded their reception of the advisory group report, and began a three-hour session devoted to presentations on The Episcopal Church made by Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana, and the Rt. Rev. C. Christopher Epting, Presiding Bishop’s deputy for interfaith and ecumenical relations.

Gathered in a circle in the chapel area, the primates listened first to Bishop MacPherson, then bishops Duncan, Epting and Schori, with the total presentation lasting approximately an hour. There followed approximately two hours of discussion and questions to the American bishops.

Archbishop Aspinall said the bishops “explained their constituencies” and “frankly and passionately” described the state of The Episcopal Church. The views raised by the four bishops ranged from pain and confusion on the part of those who do not share the majority position to criticism of “unwanted and uninvited” interventions by Global South primates into the United States. The lengths of the presentations varied from 10 to 20 minutes, with one listener remarking that Bishop MacPherson spoke with particular passion.

The four bishops offered a number of potential scenarios that would enable The Episcopal Church to “explore a way for the primates to create a space for healing and reconciliation in the United States,” Archbishop Aspinall said, adding that during the follow-up discussion “no decisions” were reached and “no specific proposals” were “debated in detail.”

The four American bishops were charged to keep silent by the primates about their presentations until the meeting’s close on Monday. Bishops MacPherson and Epting return to the United States on Friday, while Bishop Duncan will remain in Dar es Salaam at a nearby hotel through the end of the conference.

Primates and conference staffers from across the theological spectrum agreed the day had been a productive start to the debate over The Episcopal Church, but that no clear course of action had taken hold of the meeting.. However, “whatever happens, we still will be friends,” Archbishop John Chew of South East Asia concluded.

(The Rev.) George Conger

Anglican Storm Clouds

From First Things:

By Jordan Hylden

Thursday, February 15, 2007, 8:21 AM

“I fear schism,” Rowan Williams told the BBC, and with good reason. Today the annual meeting of the Anglican Communion officially begins in Tanzania, and it is not at all clear that the communion will last the week. No fewer than thirty-seven Anglican archbishops have assembled at a hotel in Dar-es-Salaam, charged with the task of deciding what to do about the communion’s recalcitrant American branch, otherwise known as the Episcopal Church. Archbishop Williams’ biggest problem is that not all the archbishops are on speaking terms with one another. “I fear the situation slipping out of my control,” he went on to tell the BBC. Indeed, it may already have done so.

Archbishop Williams, in a sermon last summer titled “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today,” noted that Anglicans have uneasily coexisted for generations as three distinct groups in one church: evangelicals, catholics, and liberals. Part of being an Anglican, he argued, is believing that all three groups have something to learn from one another. Most Christians would agree with his point. But the practical difficulty of it is that the three groups increasingly live in separate thought-worlds, each with its own distinct vocabularies and ideas about what it means to be a Christian. These divisions, long simmering beneath the surface of the maddeningly diverse Anglican brew, have now come to the surface in Tanzania. If this week’s meeting results in serious schism—which is a very distinct possibility—it will be because the three camps finally prove unable to talk to one another, and hence go their separate ways.

The liberal camp is best represented by Katherine Jefferts Schori and her Episcopal Church, over which she presides as top bishop. In recent years, Episcopalians have made headlines for the ordination of Gene Robinson, a non-celibate gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire. This in fact is the presenting problem for Anglicans this week in Tanzania. Against the repeatedly expressed wishes of international Anglican bodies, Schori, along with most of the Episcopal Church, continues to defend Robinson’s consecration. But the problem, unfortunately, goes far deeper than that. In essence, the theological position represented by Schori has reached the point at which it no longer exists in the same thought-world as traditional Christianity.

Perhaps the best examples of this are Marcus Borg, an influential Episcopalian biblical scholar, and John Shelby Spong, the outspoken former bishop of Newark. Neither Borg nor Spong believe in doctrines such as the Resurrection, the Atonement, the authority of Scripture, or the divinity of Christ. Spong, in fact, does not believe in God. Most Christians think these matters are absolutely essential, but in the thought-world of theological liberalism they are not. Much more central, from this point of view, is the Church’s role as servant to the world. Rather than preach the repentance of sin and forgiveness of Christ, the liberal church primarily exists to help create the “kingdom of God” by advocating for social justice, inclusion, and so on. In Schori’s new book, A Wing and a Prayer, it seems that she does, in fact, affirm doctrines like Christ’s divinity and resurrection. But for liberals such as Schori, such matters are relatively unimportant. For Schori, disagreement on such issues is possible, even desirable, within the Church. The only nonnegotiable doctrines have to do with the Church’s new central mission, defined as matters like gay rights and the UN Millennium Development goals.

Time and again, Anglican evangelicals have accused Episcopalian liberals of defying Scripture, while catholics have accused them of defying tradition and church order. But since neither scriptural nor ecclesial authority are primary points of reference for Episcopalian liberals, such arguments have had no avail, nor will they ever. Understood this way, while Schori will begin tomorrow’s meeting as an Anglican primate, we can confidently predict that she will not stay for long. She and the liberals whom she represents live in another conceptual universe and so will soon be politely asked to return to New York where they belong. The details remain to be sorted out, but it is likely that most of the Episcopal Church will be demoted to second-rank Anglican status, leaving an orthodox remnant to form what eventually will become a new Anglican province in the United States.

Evangelicals comprise the second major Anglican group at Tanzania and in effect are currently led by the primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola. Evangelicals have a long and proud history in the Anglican church, reaching back from John Stott to Charles Simeon to William Wilberforce, and most famously to John and Charles Wesley. In step with the heart of Anglican faith, they have for centuries faithfully preached the primacy of Scripture and the gospel of Christ’s grace. In recent times, however, they have made headlines more frequently for threatening to leave the Anglican Communion. In fact, paradoxically, it may well be Anglican evangelicals that pose the greatest danger to the long-term unity and orthodoxy, and thus the very existence, of the Anglican Communion.

Akinola and those who follow him are at present quite exercised by the actions of Schori’s Episcopal Church, and understandably so. Akinola’s evangelicals want the Episcopal Church to be strongly disciplined forthwith, and the sooner the better. In this they find no resistance, in principle, from Rowan Williams and the Anglican catholics. But unfortunately for Williams, Akinola has so far not shown a great deal of interest in preserving the communion’s historic unity. In fact, he has at every possible opportunity telegraphed his willingness to cut ties if his conditions are not met, not least at the present meeting.

Evangelical brinksmanship in Tanzania has currently reached its peak. Meeting in a hotel down the street from the official conference center, Akinola’s evangelicals have made public a number of pointed requests. First on their list is the dismissal of Katherine Jefferts Schori from the primates’ meeting, a not unexpected request. Second, and more surprisingly, is the dismissal of the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who as Primate of England was invited by Rowan Williams to represent the Church of England, thereby freeing up Williams to act as the meeting’s chair. This new invitation apparently was perceived as a threat by Akinola, in part because it was not done in consultation with the primatial college and perhaps also due to mistrust of England’s position. Akinola, in an exceptionally sharp challenge to what he called Williams’ fait accompli, brought an extra Nigerian archbishop along as well. It is an unfortunate development, and not only because of the way in which it makes trust and cooperation between England and the Global South that much more difficult. Sentamu, a native Ugandan who has forcefully and winsomely stood for historic Anglican faith in his adopted England, is also a theological ally, and ought to be welcomed by evangelicals as such. One hopes that this will be realized sooner rather than later.

Details are currently a bit fuzzy on the remainder of the Global South primates’ requests, but reports are that they also want a new American province to be formed forthwith as an immediate replacement for the Episcopal Church. At present, it is unclear if this is meant literally. If so, and if Akinola brooks no dissent on this point or others, it may well result in full-blown global schism. Akinola has shown little patience for compromise in the past, and this may well be his final line in the sand, after which he and the Global South will depart permanently. But their proposal is, to put it mildly, dead on arrival. It would apparently require Episcopalian conservatives to, in effect, abandon the Episcopal Church by next week, bypassing established constitutional processes for creating a new Anglican province and preempting entirely next year’s pan-Anglican conference in London. For most American and English conservatives, most of whom want to work with rather than against the Archbishop of Canterbury, this will not wash.

Other reports seem to paint Akinola’s proposal in a different light, and hopefully they are correct. But if this is the line taken by Anglican evangelicals—the continual proposal of impossible demands with no room for dissent—then the result will almost surely be that their reach will exceed their grasp. By demanding too much, they will achieve nothing at all, thereby losing the single most promising opportunity since the English Reformation to ensure the long-term unity and orthodoxy of Anglican Christianity.

If Anglican evangelicals take the path forged by so many Dissenters before them, not least among them John and Charles Wesley, it will eventually result only in the endless multiplication of denominational factions, just like the Baptists, Congregationalists, and Methodists—not to mention the Plymouth Brethren and the Independents—of centuries past. The Reformation logic of faction leads only to more faction, and as the dismal present status of various denominational entities attests, it does not even necessarily lead to orthodox Christianity. An evangelical exodus would also almost assuredly tip the numerical balance among those who remain with Canterbury to theological liberalism, thus dooming those Christians for whom catholic church order is essential to a sorry fate.

The present hope is that Anglican evangelicals will realize that not only is the gospel necessary for the sake of the Church, but also that the Church is necessary for the sake of the gospel. Historically, evangelicals have not troubled themselves very much with ecclesiology, assuming that the teaching of Scripture is plain, and that the Church is essentially a group of like-minded Christians who band together in fellowship to share the gospel. Unfortunately, the problem with this has always been that people think that Scripture plainly supports all kinds of things, thus leading to a never-ending plethora of denominations. Christ’s body on earth is therefore increasingly fractured and broken, Christian witness is damaged, and our Lord’s prayer that we all may be one recedes ever further into the past.

It is here where the wisdom of the third Anglican group, the catholics, absolutely must be heard this week in Tanzania. These Anglicans, represented best by Rowan Williams and the American theologian Ephraim Radner, believe just as strongly as the evangelicals in the bedrock truths of Christianity, but also think that the Church itself is an essential part of God’s plan for us to discern truth. Being Reformation Christians, Anglican catholics know that sometimes the Church can be wrong, thus needing always to test herself by the standard of Scripture. But they point out that while Scripture itself may be clear, we Christians are sinful and perverse, so that we stand in need of the whole body of Christ to discover God’s will for his Church.

The hope of Anglican catholics, then, for today’s meeting is that Anglicans of all stripes will commit to live in unity under the authority of Scripture, prayerfully seeking the mind of Christ together as the body of Christ. While firmly supporting disciplinary action against the Episcopal Church, Anglican catholics hope to do so within the proper bounds of life together in ecclesial communion. One may hope that Anglican evangelicals will realize that the Gospel is served best in no other way. One may even hope that liberals who have not gone the way of Schori and Spong will do likewise.

At this critical moment in Anglican history, evangelicals and catholics have need of each other more than ever. Sadly, there is no guarantee they will embrace each other as brothers in Christ, or even that they will learn how to understand one another. After hundreds of years filled with faith and struggle, the beautiful dream of the Anglican Communion—which sought truly to live out the maxim “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity”—may turn out to be a dream that failed.

Jordan Hylden is a junior fellow at First Things.