1. The Network/Windsor Bishops and ++Canterbury are working out a solution that would enable an amicable separation between orthodox Episcopalians and 815. As described by Ms. Gledhill the compromise sounds a bit like some form of “parallel” province plan. Both sides would retain their membership in the Anglican Communion at least until Lambeth 2008.
Here is the relevant passage:
The most likely outcome is a “two-church solution” for the United States, allowing conservatives and liberals to exist, separate but side-by-side, as Anglicans. It would have implications for the worldwide communion, because many other provinces, including England, have similar problems.
The plan this week is to draw up a pact giving the appearance of unity, enabling a final deal to be hammered out at the Lambeth Conference in 2008
The biggest question I have with regard to this passage is whether this is Ms. Gledhill’s summary of the situation as it has been reported already or does this represent an “inside” summary from her source?
If it represents Ms. Gledhill’s own summation, I think there is good reason to disagree with at least part of it. Indeed, the talks must in some way center on the idea of an amicable separation or some kind of “cease fire” arrangement. However, Ms. Gledhill seems to have uncritically accepted the assumption that the Covenant creation process and the disciplinary process are one.
In fact, as the ABC has previously made quite clear and as I have argued before, the creation of a Communion covenant and the consideration of TEC’s response to the Windsor/Dromantine requests are two related but distinct mechanisms.
The primates will meet in February to consider the Episcopal Church’s answer to Windsor. The TEC’s answer has already been deemed inadequate by both the ABC and CAPA.
Thus, TEC’s attendance at Lambeth and her participation in the Covenant creation process is, at the very least, in question.
If, however, the paragraph above does not represent Ms. Gledhill’s own summary but inside information from a source, then perhaps the situation on the ground has changed. Perhaps the ABC is seeking to work out some form of arrangement that would effectively delay any serious Communion decision with regard to the Episcopal Church until lambeth?
That would fit with the second rather stunning revelation which, this time, is explicitly tied to her “source”.
Sources have told The Times that the aim is for Dr Williams to invite all 890 bishops and archbishops to the Lambeth Conference. That would include the gay Bishop Gene Robinson, whose consecration in 2003 triggered the crisis, and any other openly gay bishops consecrated since.
Although the Nigerian bishops are among those who have have pledged to boycott the conference if Bishop Robinson is present, sources hope that they might be persuaded to turn up if a settlement can be reached.
First of all we need to be very careful. “Sources” provide leaks for a purpose. Sometimes the purpose is “innocent”: to inform the public. At other times the purpose is not so innocent: To effect rather than reflect political circumstances.
If, for example, Ms. Gledhill’s sources are senior officials in the ACO, then there is good reason to believe that the leak is intended to shape the political landscape rather than reveal it. The ACO wants all 890 bishops to receive invitations including VGR and a leak indicating that this is the “aim” adds great deal of political pressure to the ABC.
This is not to criticize Ms. Gledhill. All good reporters (and Ms. Gledhill obviously is one) must tap inside sources to find scoops. The reader however, should not assume that all sources are created equal: caveat emptor.
That having been said, if it is true, this would be a disaster for Anglican orthodoxy worldwide and in North America.
It would effectively split the orthodox into two camps. Some of the more communion minded orthodox primates may live with the idea of VGR attending Lambeth, but it is unspeakably naïve to believe that Archbishops Akinola or Orombi or those the ACI identifies as “federal” primates might be persuaded to attend.
The invitation of non-compliant TEC bishops including VGR himself would fracture the Communion leaving the federal orthodox provinces on one side and a weakened group of orthodox primates, a solid block of revisionists, and the communion centrists on the other.
This Communion-wide split would be mirrored in the United States and Canada as North American orthodox Anglicans would be forced to choose sides between Canterbury, 815, and some of the more communion minded orthodox primates on one side and ++Nigeria et al on the other. The Network itself would probably be compromised in such an event.
It would be a complete disaster. I pray that Ms. Gledhill’s source is trying to effect rather than reflect the real situation. Otherwise the Anglican experiment may be drawing close to an end.
17 Comments •
Comments:
Matt’s analysis is spot-on. This is a moment of danger to the orthodox, whose own weaknesses and divisions have been masked by the continuous series of revisionist provocations that drive them together.
This “leak”, if that is what it is, is clearly a trial balloon. The real issue is: who wants all bishops (including Bp. Robinson and Bp. Schori)invited to Lambeth 2008? If it is Abp. Williams, then Matt is right and the future of Anglicanism is bleak, and likely brief. If it is somebody in the ACO speaking for the revisionists, then we still have a fighting chance to salvage both orthodoxy and Anglicanism.
Pray for the church. Pray very hard.