|
Presentation, 9/8/07 I want to begin with a story that might resonate with the people in this room. A man was walking across a bridge one day when he saw another man standing on the edge, about to jump off. He immediately ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. The first man said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well ... are you religious or atheist?" "Religious." "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist." "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God." "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" To which the first man said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off the bridge. Sounds almost too familiar to be funny, doesn’t it? My purpose here today, as a long time observer of secular and churchly politics, is to offer some information and analysis that I hope will help you evaluate the current situation facing our church. Some of this will be familiar to some of you here, because I gave some of this same information to a group in Dallas almost a year ago. Much of this will be bullet points, so I can cover as much information as possible in the time we have. Our church is now moving through a time of turmoil. As Tom Woodward has very persuasively pointed out on the Episcopal Majority website, there are people working very hard to undermine The Episcopal Church in order to replace it with a church made in their own image, one in which “restrictive codes replace sacramental presence and orthodox moralisms replace our faith.” As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, this is a movement led in the US church almost entirely by white male priests and male bishops. Woodward points out that sexual diversity is merely the presenting issue in all this. “The foundational issue is about where the locus of authority will reside in the Anglicanism of the future.” As has happened before every meeting of the Primates or General Convention, the runup to the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans has been accompanied by an increasing level of noise generated by those who would destroy The Episcopal Church. Statements are flying fast and furious, and last week, three white male priests were consecracted bishops by the African Provinces of Kenya and Uganda, consecrations attended by the Bishop of Fort Worth. [Copies of Bishop Iker’s statement about what he calls the impending realignment of the Anglican Communion are available at this meeting.] The point of all of this noise and activity is to raise as much anxiety as possible. In the midst of all this noise, information is our best friend as we make our way among the fog of words being put out by those threatening schism. Here are some facts:
Yes, I said a constitutional amendment. The ACC has a constitution, the only “universally pre-agreed written constitution of the Anglican Communion.” This constitution was adopted unanimously by the General Synods/General Conventions of every Province in the Anglican Communion in 1969. Canon Brooks reports that The ACC Constitution explicitly defines the role of the Primates’ Meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the Council. In Article 3 (“Membership”), it constitutes a list of the schedule of membership, which is attached to and made a part of the ACC Constitution, which explicitly lists by name all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, including The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Because this list is part of the only written constitution of the Anglican Communion, the usual way of deleting a Province from the list is by constitutional amendment. Brooks concludes that the only written constitution of the Anglican Communion makes it clear that neither the Primates nor the Archbishop of Canterbury acting alone can legally “alter the schedule” of Provinces of the Communion listed in the ACC Constitution. “Any claim or threat to the contrary has no constitutional standing.” All this sounds good, but let me raise a caution. One thing I’ve learned from attending Lambeth and watching actions of leaders in the wider communion is that small regard is given to such things. We Americans are used to “playing by the rules,” paying attention to such things as constitutions and canons and written procdures. That’s not always the case elsewhere. The ground can feel awfully slippery at times. And even in America, those who would destroy The Episcopal Church have demonstrated no qualms is attempted to create “new rules and new structures solely by loudly asserting them and making threats.” Woodward amd others have pointed out that they have gotten away with this for much too long because no one, neither the leadership of The Episcopal Church nor The Anglican Communion, challenged them on their lies and misrepresentations. And you know what? That strategy has worked very well for them, right up until General Covention 2006. Our election of Katharine Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson changed all that. Our new leadership is finally challenging their flagrant lies and blatant attempts to take Episcopal Church property – eliciting loud cries of persecution from them -- and one hopes that the Archbishop of Canterbury will take heart and courage from our leadership’s example. The Windsor Report is a prime example of the way the schismatics have twisted and misrepresented things. If you remember, when the Windsor Report was first issued, conservatives were very unhappy with it and denounced it as inadequate. But when they realized it was the best they were going to get, they suddenly elevated it to the level of Holy Writ, portrayint it as being held over the head of The Episcopal Church like some flaming sword of a vengeful God. “Submit or be kicked out,” they claimed it said. The problem was, the Windsor Report did not say that. Archbishop Robin Eames, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor Report, says in his introduction: "This report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage toward healing and reconciliation." Let’s repeat that – it’s a report. It’s not a judgment. It’s not legislation. It’s not Holy Writ. You can’t submit to a report. The Most Reverend Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales and one of the drafters of the Windsor Report said in his 2006 Presidential Address, "... we did not have in mind a covenant that was prescriptive and detailed and intrusive. What we did have in mind was what ECUSA did at its convention in July." The truth is the Windsor Report itself was a very flawed document that focused so tightly on Institutional Preservation that it left no room for the workings of the Holy Spirit. It did recognize that The Episcopal Church and the Canadian Church acted within the bounds of their Canons and Constitution, but after that, it went downhill. The Windsor Report – according to its own creators – was supposed to start a discussion, not end one. But it did so in such a clumsy ham fisted way that it short-circuited the discussion it hoped for. Among its deficiencies was its laughably inaccurate account of the history of the ordination of women and its reception in the Communion. It also skated very lightly indeed over the way the Communion historically has dealt with anyone other than white males. It proposed a completely un-Anglican confessional document and called for a highly centralized non-elected authority of clerics to run the Anglican Communion. It also called for a convoluted process by which all Episcopal elections anywhere – and one assumes appointments in the places where bishops are appointed, not elected – would have to be approved by the entire Communion, as would other controversial matters. One assumes this unelected Curia would get to decide what is “controversial” and what is not. And, as we all know -- it called on The Episcopal Church to impose indefinite moratoria on the episcopal election of any more gay people living in committed relationships and on same-sex unions, quite offensively placing the entire burden on one small of group of our sisters and brothers in Christ. So deficient is this document that at their first meeting after it was issued, the Primates dismissed it as “inadequate” as did all – all – of the conservative groups in The Episcopal Church. It was only after they realized that the Windsor Report was all they were going to get out of Lambeth that they began to represent it as a legislative judgment passed on The Episcopal Church by the rest of the Communion. But no matter how much sturm und drang they kept raising, and no matter how many meetings various groups of bishops may have, the General Convention is the only body in The Episcopal Church with the authority to respond to the Windsor Report. Bonnie Anderson pointed out in her letter in response to the Camp Allen meeting [of the so-called Windsor bishops] and the Kigali Statement that “The Windsor Report was issued as one part of a process. The responsibility for the response to the Windsor Report belongs to the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, a bicameral legislature with representation from lay and clergy as well as bishops. At the 75th General Convention, our response was made. Our bishops certainly can and do meet together. However, when decisions affecting the whole Episcopal Church are made, representatives of the whole Episcopal Church need to be present for the conversations as well as the possible decision making.” The Windsor Report was written to the whole communion, not just The Episcopal Church. Its purpose was not to explore the subject of homosexuality, but to explore ways to remain in communion with one another while holding serious disagreements. It is the conservatives who have turned the so-called “Windsor Process”into a shambles. If you will remember, the Windsor Report strongly urged bishops to stop interfering in provinces and dioceses other than their own. It also repeated the urgings of Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988 and 1998 for the entire communion to engage in a listening process in which they would listen to the experiences of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ. Out of that list, the Episcopal Church has done more to participate in – or if you prefer, to “comply” with -- the Windsor Process than any other province. So when bishops started calling themselves “”Windsor compliant” because they forbid same sex blessings and have condemned the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, one might ask about the listening process in their dioceses and the letters they have written to admonish fellow bishops who have continued to make extra-territorial incursions – such as ordaining priests of the Episcopal Church a bishop in the Church of Nigeria or the Church of Uganda or the Church of Kenya with the mandate to minister to people in The Episcopal Church. Our bishop in Fort Worth is certainly not “Windsor compliant.” He is not even “partially Windsor compliant.” But events began overtaking the WR within weeks of it being issued. Many Primates ignored its request that Primates not interfere with the business of Provinces not their own. Meetings in Cairo and Pittsburgh made it clear that many already had decided to split from The Episcopal Church no matter what General Convention did in Columbus. So it was no surprise that many began to fling accusations that General Convention “thumbed its nose” at the Windsor Report even before Convention was over. This is not helpful. Such rhetoric insults the hard thoughtful and prayerful work done by bishops, priests and deputies on the resolutions dealing with the report. Yes, GC 2006 didn't do absolutely everything that the WR suggested, but as several have noted, neither has anyone else. As many have pointed out, we're more “Windsor Compliant” than most. The last minute passage of B033 – the infamous one that said, 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 -- was handled badly, and many people felt spiritually beat up, not only by the passage of the resolution, but by the manner it which it was presented and the pressure put on both houses by the presiding bishop and the presiding bishop elect. And for what? Within minutes of its passage, conservatives were issuing loud complaints that it was not enough to satisfy them. I believe that most faithful people want to work this out. But I also believe the reason so many Episcopalians are instinctively uneasy with The Windsor Report is that it is a very institutional-centered document reflecting the highly hierarchical nature of some Provinces of our Communion. For instance, much of the Communion still doesn’t "get" that we elect bishops, we don't appoint them. This is the kind of misunderstanding that has caused the Scottish Episcopal Church and New Zealand and Australia to share our skepticism. Another reason the majority of Episcopalians are dubious about the Windsor Report’s suggested Anglican Covenant is its almost total disregard of the role of laity in the governance of our church and in the larger Communion. Tom Woodward asserts rightly that The Episcopal Church has three things that form the framework within which we live, move and have our being – the Book of Common Prayer, our commitment to Scripture, tradition and reason as the things that determine doctrine, and the full participation of the laity in our worship and governance. Indeed, he points out, page 855 in the Book of Common Prayer lists the laity as the first order of ministry in The Episcopal Church. It asks, “Who are the ministers of the Church?” And it answers, “The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests and deacons.” Get that? Lay persons are mentioned BEFORE bishops. Which brings me to another reason for our unease with the idea of a Covenant that sets up a Curia. It is our Baptismal Covenant, which since 1979 has become part of our spiritual DNA. As a friend of mine pointed out, unlike the very hierarchical Windsor Report, the Baptismal Covenant is crafted to reflect a pre-hierarchical Church: the Church of Paul, where we have different functions rather than more or less power. That's a very significant distinction. Like almost everything the schismatics say, The Windsor Report is all about the institutional church, not about the Gospel. It’s good to remember that Jesus never envisioned a "church" at all: he preached exclusively about the Kingdom of God. So when people say – as many have in the wake of General Convention – that “the Baptismal Covenant trumps Windsor" they are saying that "Jesus and Paul trump religious institutions". Another reason for our unease is that the recommendations of the Windsor Report are being so obviously selectively accepted and selectively "enforced." Which brings me to the impact the Windsor Report has had on the leadership of Rowan Williams. The Archbishop of Canterbury apparently has no problem with everyone being “partially Windsor compliant.” It’s been pointed out that while Rowan has made some mild statements about stopping foreign incursions by some bishops in Africa, he has never strongly encouraged them to stop the incursions nor has he even suggested they initiate a meaningful listening process. Williams’ worst sin of omission is his shameful failure to challenge the actions of the Church of Nigeria in its vociferous support of the criminalization of homosexuality in Nigeria – laws that can lead to the imprisonment and death of gay and lesbian people, as well as the imprisonment of anyone who speaks out in their behalf! All of Rowan’s admonitions have been aimed at The Episcopal Church, and to a lesser degree, The Anglican Church in Canada. But if anyone has thumbed its nose at the Windsor Report, it is those in the Anglican Communion who have ignored the provisions of the report aimed at them. The Episcopal Church is at least struggling with it. What the Archbishop of Canterbury has tried to do is articulate in his indirect oh-so-British way that he has no authority to make anyone do anything outside the Church of England, so he’d like us to work this out amongst ourselves. Because no matter how much some Primates may act like it, there is no actual structure to enforce decisions made by any extra-national group in the World Wide Anglican Communion. In the end, the integrity of The Windsor Report has been lost because the Archbishop of Canterbury has held us to one standard and the rest of the Anglican Communion to another. Now let’s talk about the Primates. I think there is a good reason why the Primates Meeting raised concerns. It is bishops only who are meeting, and Episcopalians always get nervous when bishops are in a room by themselves. It increases the chances of bishops behaving badly. First the Kigali Communique. It was issued by a meeting of Global South Primates, held September 19-22, 2006, in Kigali, Rwanda. It criticized the 75th General Convention's response to the Windsor Report and announced that "some of us will not be able to recognize" the Episcopal Church's next Presiding Bishop "as a Primate at the table with us" at the next Anglican Primates' Meeting, set for February 2007 in Tanzania. Perhaps the best response to the meeting in Kigali came from Bonnie Anderson. She wrote: “The Global South Primates who recently met at Kigali have a right to meet, but no right to make decisions for the Anglican Communion. They have expressed concern about the perceived unilateral actions taken the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2003. However, their statement is truly a unilateral act.” She pointed out that, “In their statement they distance themselves from Bishop Jefferts Schori for holding views that are similar to those held by Bishop Griswold, Bishop Browning before and other Primates currently. There is nothing unique in her views. What is unique is her gender in the circle of primates. That seems to be their biggest objection. I note with sadness that the Kigali communiqué does not extend the courtesy of referring to Bishop Jefferts Schori as a bishop, where everyone else is referred to with titles. It adds a low note that is not worthy of the faith espoused in the document.” Here it is important to point out that questions quickly emerged as to just how many bishops who were at the meeting in Kigali actually signed on to this statement, or indeed, even knew about it. Anglican Church of Southern Africa Archbishop Ndungane has said that while he and Canon Livingstone Ngewu were present in Kigali, neither of them was made aware even of the possibility of a communiqué in the name of the Primates of the Global South, prior to its release. That was followed by a statement from the Episcopal Church in the Philippines (ECP) which clarified that its Prime Bishop, the Most Rev. Ignacio C. Soliba, "did not attend the meeting and was not a signatory to the so-called Kigali Communiqué." There are 38 Provinces in the Anglican Communion. So now we’re down from 20 primates to 18. That’s not even half of the provinces in the Communion, must less a majority. Still, the Kigali Statement DID raise concerns. It was interference in the Episcopal Church's affairs of the most outrageous sort – essentially theyfor an alternate Primate to be sent from the Episcopal Church to the meeting in Tanzania. The Statement also proposed active planning for a structure that they clearly intend to be accepted as the official Anglican province representing the USA. The Episcopal Majority spoke for many of us when they said that most of us were – and still are -- hoping that the various actors within Anglicanism were in good faith looking for a solution to our present difficulties. If the meeting in Kigali didn’t obliterate that hope, it certainly dimmed it. The meeting revealed a large group within the Church determined to mold the Communion in their neo-Puritan image. Forget the Windsor Process. The Rt. Reverend Peter Akinola and his Global South buddies are out to establish a new Anglicanism. The Statement speaks of their intent to set up, under their sole guidance, a parallel ecclesiastical structure in America: "We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion. We understand the serious implications of this determination. We believe that we would be failing in our apostolic witness if we do not make this provision for those who hold firmly to a commitment to historic Anglican faith.” They also announced, "At the next meeting of the Primates in February 2007 some of us will not be able to recognize Katharine Jefferts Schori as a primate at the table with us. Others will be in impaired communion with her as a representative of The Episcopal Church." They arrogantly demanded that some other bishop represent the Episcopal Church. The best thing that can be said about the Kigali Statement is that it gave us clarity. First, any hope that there can be some accommodation with Archbishop Akinola over the matters which divide us was gone. Indeed, many are beginning to fear that the trajectory set by Akinola is more likely to end up looking like extremist fundamentalist Islam and Christianity than anything Anglican. This was all in the runup to the Primates Meeting at Dar es Salaam, Tanszania. Despite the threats in the Kigali Statement, Katharine Jefferts Schori was seated at the meeting and nearly all the Primates worshipped with her. Then they issued another Communique. In it, they issued this ultimatum: “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...” They proposed a “Pastoral Council” to take care of those who requested Alternate Primatial Oversight. The proposed "Pastoral Council." would consist of four Archbishops who are not members of the Episcopal Church. These members would “..authorise protocols for the functioning of such a scheme...and take whatever reasonable action is needed to give effect to this scheme...” So foreign bishops would be making authorizations and taking actions that will affect the Episcopal Church. Hmmm. Then the communiqué went on with its demands: ...In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
The communiqué expressed deep concern expressed for "those groups alienated," which is clearly intended to be a reference to the extreme conservatives. There was not one word of concern for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters or the Via Media parishes trapped in extremist dioceses. And finally, there is this statement regarding border crossings: “...Those who have intervened believe it would be inappropriate to bring an end to interventions until there is change in The Episcopal Church...” As Father Jake put it on his blog, Fr. Jake Stops the World, “So, those Archbishops who are plundering the assets of TEC, in clear non-compliance with the Windsor Report, will be allowed to continue their plundering raids until TEC becomes Windsor compliant??? We live in bizarre times.” The House of Bishops roundly rejected the Primates Pastoral Council scheme, saying: “...we believe that to participate in the Primates' Pastoral scheme would be injurious to The Episcopal Church for many reasons. First, it violates our church law in that it would call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution. Second, it fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were participating together. Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England. Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates...” They also stated: ...Other Anglican bishops, indeed including some Primates, have violated our provincial boundaries and caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to our difficulties in solving our problems and in attempting to communicate for ourselves with our Anglican brothers and sisters. We have been repeatedly assured that boundary violations are inappropriate under the most ancient authorities and should cease. The Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998 did so. The Windsor Report did so. The Dromantine Communiqué did so. None of these assurances has been heeded. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué affirms the principle that boundary violations are impermissible, but then sets conditions for ending those violations, conditions that are simply impossible for us to meet without calling a special meeting of our General Convention... The House of Bishops will deal with the other ultimatums at their upcoming meeting in New Orleans, the meeting at which the Archbishop of Canterbury will meet with them. But their statement gives us a really good sense of the direction they are heading: “...We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision...” I say, Hooray for the bishops! What got lost in all the furor over the Primates Communiqué was the Anglican Communion Sub-Group report to the Primates. The sub-group – which consists of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Central Africa Bernard Malango, Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan, Chancellor of the Province of West Africa Philippa Amable, and Church of England representative Elizabeth Paver – was charged with assisting Dr. Williams and Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general for the Anglican Communion, in evaluating the U.S. Episcopal Church’s response to the 2004 Windsor Report and February 2005 primates’ requests. The report was completed last fall but has just now become available to both the primates and the public. They concluded that TEC has complied with the Windsor Report and had met nearly all “demands” placed on it. No wonder the conservative wanted everyone to ignore it. The next big event after the Primates meeting in Tanzania was the issuance of invitations to Lambeth. All TEC bishops except Gene Robinson were elected. To the shock of the conservatives, Martyn Minns, newly consecrated bishop of the Church of Nigeria and bishop to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America or CANA, was not invited because CANA is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Not only that, but the AMIA and another Brazilian group were ignored. In one fell swoop, all three groups were denied legitimacy as bone fide Anglicans. This is a huge blow to the efforts of those who want to replace TEC as THE Anglican presence in America. Hard to become the Anglican presence if the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t think you’re Anglican. It also pretty much put paid to their arguments in court that they are simply transferring property from one part of the Communion to another. Also, contrary to what the conservative assert, the Global South is NOT united in opposition to TEC. Proof can be found in part in the statement of Latin American Bishops including three Primates who met in late May. Calling themselves the Global Center, and building on a statement written in Panama in 2005, the group acknowledged theological differences within the group and within the communion. They indicated that they also were less than thrilled with developments in the U.S. and Canada in 2002 and 03; on the other hand, they said "we have also experienced that the plurality and diversity we represent has become a rich source for growth, rather than a cause for controversy and division." This group of bishops and primates criticize “the polarization regarding the biblical and theological positions manifested in the Anglican Communion, during the last years; positions known as Global North and Global South, non reconcilable in their character and putting the unity in the Communion at risk." They want to be identified as neither Global South or North but “as disciples of Jesus, called to live out the mandate of love (St. John 15:17), we declare our commitment to be together and with all our strength, struggle for unity, as an act of obedience to His will expressed in the Holy Scriptures." Andrew Garns of the Diocese of Bethlehem has done an excellent analysis of the current situation at The Episcopal Café online. He pointed out that many Primates are also uneasy about imposing on TEC something that might be imposed on them someday and that “Many Bishops and Primates feel that they are being drawn into a fight that is not theirs and is a distraction to boot.” He also rightly points out that “recent court actions have taken some of the romance out of the movement as well. The original plan was to bleed the Episcopal Church dry one expensive legal cut at a time. The reverse may be true. Recent rulings in South Carolina and Florida have shown that to simply build a new Anglican province on the property and assets of the old may not work. Bishops, Standing Committees and their chancellors have discovered that the responsibilities imposed on them by their respective states, let alone the constitution, canons and oaths at ordination, don't simply go away because dissidents want them to. “Some reasserters resent the fact that the Episcopal Church had defended its polity and property in court, but just as earlier ideas of “just letting them go” on the part of progressives was deemed unhelpful, so are notions of simply ignoring civil and church law just to make peace. Both ideas are destructive to common life and future mission.” Garns also addresses a question I have often wondered about – “how long can a movement sing a one-note chant? Since the turn of this century, these groups have coalesced around human sexuality, particularly the blessing of same-sex relationships and the consecration of Gene Robinson. But how long will these groups be able to put aside their own theological diversity in the name of anger over a bishop? How long can a movement of Anglicans with differing views of worship, discipline, the ordination of women, and with different cultures hold together around one issue and ignore other issues that affect their future together? Either the groups will fly apart along cultural, doctrinal and jurisdictional lines or else they will have to find their unity in their diversity.” Garns reminds us that “Anglicanism is important not just because it is the third largest Christian body in the world, but also because of the style of Christian unity Anglicanism models: it is based neither on doctrine nor on central authority but on communion. “The movement has, at least for this moment, run out of steam because of the hard lessons of communion over many centuries. Either we choose to come together in the name of Jesus Christ, or we choose to stay apart. What we are learning is that not only is Communion a gift from God, it is an act of the will. Whether these groups stay at the table or leave will depend on each one's tolerance for ambiguity as we all try to live the Gospel together in a complex world.” I agree with Michael Russell of the House of Bishops/House of Deputies list -- Our problems boil down to – and I know this is completely simplistic -- We've never done it that way and Most people don't approve. Like many in The Episcopal Church I personally do not think that the Church exceeds her authority by ordaining or blessing the relationships of gay and lesbians. Homosexuality is not a moral condition. It is an existential one. This means the behavior is only immoral if it is not done in love and mutuality and with consent -- as is the case with heterosexuals. Otherwise those two criteria -- we’ve never done it this way and most people don’t approve -- are the same we used for approving slavery, racism and the subjugation of women. As Russell reminded us, just because 70% of the Anglican Communion lives in cultures that stress the subordination of women doesn't make it right, any more than the suggestion that 70 percent of the Anglican Communion does not include gay and lesbians in the life and ministry of the church makes that right. Something new is emerging. That means we live in a scary time. We must be careful not to let fear over ride faith in a loving God. We have two things on which to hang our hope for the future. One is the rule of law. The job of those in the via media is to keep the issue of the rule of law in front of every one -- all of us, liberal, conservative, moderate – all of us. And the second, of course, is our faith in a loving God. I want to close by talking about what I consider the issue that underlies the Windsor Report, the Kigali statement, the Primates’ Communique, and even the invitations to Lambeth -- and that is impaired communion. It’s a phrase that’s tossed around with alarming ease these days for such a serious matter. It’s always presented as a prelude to that other serious sin – schism. I’m very familiar with the phrase, because ever since it was founded, my diocese has been in “impaired” or “broken” communion with all bishops who ordain women, with all Primates who ordain women, with all bishops who are women and, of course, with all priests who are women. We are in broken or impaired communion with Bishop Gene Robinson and with all bishops and deputies who voted to confirm his election. We are in broken or impaired communion with all bishops who participated in his consecration. We are in broken or impaired communion with any bishop anywhere who allows same-sex blessings and with any priest anywhere who performs one. We also are out of communion with any male priests ordained by bishops who are women. EXCEPT, we are in communion with any of the above who are in the Network. I think. It gets confusing. Now some of the primates are saying they are not in communion with our presiding bishop elect. To say that many of the Primates either cannot be in communion or are in "impaired communion" with Katharine Jefferts Schori represents what the English group Inclusive Church calls “a theological and ecclesiological nonsense. . . The sacrament of Holy Communion is a sacrament given to us by God. It is not capable of impairment.” We who trust in God must give thanks to God for the gift of communion; it is as the Body of Christ that we exist. Communion is God’s gift to give, not ours to hand out only to those of which we approve or with which we agree. The place where this comes clear to me is the altar rail. If my bishop is celebrating, I make a point to take communion from his hand, because we are in communion with one another whether we like it or not. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. That doesn’t mean we have to like each other – but we are commanded to love one another. If we can strive to do that, and more importantly, trust in a God who loves us beyond all we deserve or can understand, all will be well. All manner of things will be well.
Be sure to visit the blogspot Desert's Child by Katie Sherrod See also: A response concerning Bishop Jack Iker’s statement about the “Episcopalians for the Future” forum |