AT SIXES AND SEVENS

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Having read its latest communication two or three times, I’m convinced that the Anglican Communion Institutedoesn’t know which Anglican end is up anymore:

The Dublin gathering of Primates—is it a “Primates’ Meeting” when so many are not attending?—is soon to happen. Many are the views on whether conservative Primates should attend, and the reasons pro and con equally many. We hold a range of views among ourselves, but we are unanimous in our hope that the Primates of the Global South will be united in their response.

Of course, it will be a tragedy if even one primate sits this meeting out.

Moreover, opinions of others are irrelevant at this point: it will be the case that a major block of the Communion will not be represented at the Meeting. To say it is ‘only ten’; or to argue that the Primates don’t represent their Provinces; or to say it should be more; or to question whether the Primates’ Meeting is a bona fide gathering at all – all of this simply shows how degenerated has become the very basic life of the Communion, as measured against what has been a tacit fellowship in charity and mission not all that long ago. One ought properly to conclude that just one Primate not appearing is a terrible thing.

It’s right about here that this thing starts to go off the rails.

Reasonable people may and do disagree about attendance at this meeting. Still, we are seeing a tragic development and a public scandal, which by now many have become accustomed to if they have not simply turned away.

Gracious. Whatever might that be?

Whatever one’s view of the matter, there is one perspective that is particularly disturbing in its implications. It argues that the Archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow administrators – or in some versions, the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church — are conniving and manipulative, perhaps even heretical, and that the meeting is a sham.

Let’s examine that statement, shall we? By any serious measure, the Americans are heretical. The 2003 Primates Meeting communiqué requests were completely ignored by the US and Canada. So were 2005′s.

The 2007 Primates Meetings recommendations were put out of their misery by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. And Dr. Williams deliberately structured the 2008 Lambeth Conference to not have to deal with the North Americans. If it walks like a duck, as they say.

Surely people are entitled to this view, or for that matter, its opposite: such is the confusing state of affairs we find ourselves in, and manifold is the evidence to be used to draw this conclusion or that – indeed, by those who are otherwise opponents in our parlous season.

So “there is one perspective that is particularly disturbing in its implications” but “people are entitled to this view, or for that matter, its opposite?” What does that even mean?

It is not that people have sized up this or that Primate in this or that way that is so disturbing. What is the truly serious area of concern is this: the claim that, given the character of e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury, there is nothing that can be done about the Meeting.

Body of work and all that.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is held to be an immovable force, impregnable and beyond challenge. The effect of this is to give him an authority virtually beyond the scale of the Bishop of Rome. A council of the church, if we are right in holding that the Primates’ Meeting is such, is not really a council and cannot be, according to this view. The will of the Primates cannot, must not, be capable of expression. The iron hand of the Archbishop of Canterbury is beyond the reach of fellow Primates.

Um…what the hell are you talking about?!! This has never been about the Archbishop of Canterbury having unlimited power and authority and I have no idea where you dreamed that one up.

The Current Unpleasantness has been, in large part, about Dr. Williams refusing to use what power he does have or claiming he has no power at all!! My gracious lord of Canterbury could have told Frank Griswold to stay away from the 2005 Primates Meeting, he could have told Mrs Schori the same thing in 2007 and he could have structured the 2008 Lambeth Conference so that the controversy was directly and finally dealt with.

But Dr. Williams chose not to do any of those things. The reason why I believe that he chose not to do any of those things is because, at heart, he agrees with the path the Americans have chosen. And he also knows that if he were to side with any form of traditional Christianity, he would be written out of polite European society. Forever.

It matters little in such an understanding of the situation whether ten, one, or twenty were not to appear. If the Primates Meeting is not really a Council of the Church and if the Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to defeat any influence from those fellow Bishops whose actual leadership and authority in the Provinces is not in question, then it must be renamed. It is The Archbishop of Canterbury Meeting. And if this is the true state of affairs, will the Primates as a total body accede to this? Whose responsibility is it to assure that the Primates’ Meeting is a Primates’ Meeting if not the Primates themselves? Perhaps one does not need to be in Dublin in a couple of weeks to answer this question, but an answer must be found all the same.

Whatever. I think the ACI inwardly realizes that an Anglican split is coming. This piece suggests, to me anyway, that it has not yet outwardly reconciled itself to that fact. But an Anglican split is coming anyway whether the ACI wants it to or not.