I cannot say with much certainty what Abp. Williams “really” wants in the midst of this mess. Perhaps he himself doesn’t really know. But one thing I am certain of: if the American bishops of all stripes—and their dioceses and clergy—could agree to some response to this situation that would get the larger Communion out from under this fight, he would think this the proper and acceptable course. EVEN IF IT MEANT THAT A LARGE PORTION OF TEC DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE COMMUNION. He would not be happy with this, but he would find it acceptable, because it would be a way of dealing with a conflict that engaged the mature agreement of responsible Christian leaders, however difficult and costly. The current way of dealing with it—spreading it around the Communion like vomit with a rag—has proven not only costly, but scandalous.
My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this: that the “Windsor Bishops” resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direciton), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation); and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses. When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrphaical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops. TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life); it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.
This will not eliminate “diversity” from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion. We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift. But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops). They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission. I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted—and I still believe it can and should be—and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion.
As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury, Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point). If there is indeed “room” in the present moment to “maneuver”, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility. To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.
[Comment made at Stand Firm]
No comments:
Post a Comment