Note: I have changed the title from "A Gift Squandered and Allies Rebuffed" to the present "A Lost Opportunity". I am doing this for two reasons. First, it was written when I believed, based on a report from Greg Griffith, that all the Windsor bishops had been given knowledge of the contents of the Kigali Communique prior to the release of the Camp Allen Statement. It turns out that some had this knowledge, but not all. Second, the language was intended to point to the resulting "effect" of the Camp Allen statement, not the motives of the signers. But for some readers, the wording seemed to impugn persons and motives rather than actions and effects. As I said, that was not my intent, but I am removing it anyway so as not to cause offense. The new title continues to reflect my analysis below. Matt
This is one of the few times in the last year that I cannot offer an optimistic assessment for the orthodox cause in North America.
I am quite persuaded that the meeting at Camp Allen has done great harm. The immediate cause is some information I received last night that confirmed an educated guess I had made earlier in the day. But more about that later.
If you followed this thread yesterday afternoon, then you know that I was, from the beginning, not a fan of the Camp Allen statement.
There were two reasons.
First the Camp Allen Statement represents nothing substantially new when compared to previous letters/statements of the Windsor Bishops. In fact, compared to the letter the group of Windsor bishops wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2005 following the March House of Bishops meeting, the Camp Allen Statement is a significant step back.
Compare this key section from the 2005 letter in which the assembled bishops affirm Lambeth 1.10 and 2. boldly state that the differences between Windsor bishops and the rest of the church are irreconcilable:
As bishops, we take with utmost seriousness the vows made at our consecration. We consider it a sacred responsibility “to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.” Those within ECUSA who continue to act in opposition to the normative teachings of the Anglican Communion, expressed in resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth conference, the Windsor Report, and the , make healing and reconciliation within ECUSA and thePrimates’ Communique communion all the more difficult.
At the recent meeting of our House of Bishops, several of us spoke with Bishop Griswold concerning what we believe to be “irreconcilable differences” in the life of our Church. His response was to note the language of “irreconcilable differences” is “faithless.” We believe, however, it is precisely contradictory, mutually exclusive positions regarding essential matters of faith and practice dividing our Church and threatening the unity and mission of the Anglican Communion. The report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops, made prior to the General Convention 2003, noted there exists within our Church mutually exclusive theological positions on the matter of homosexual practice. This has not changed and has become even more apparent over these past 18 months.
With this section from the Camp Allen Statement in which the assembled bishops:
1. affirm the Windsor Report and Lambeth 1.10
but
2. a) drop the “irreconcilable differences” language in favor of “recognizing” that both compliant and non-compliant parishes need a “safe place” and that “some” dioceses need APO, and b) step back from any suggestion that they, as a group, want or need an alternative ecclesial structure c) pledge to work within the structures of the Episcopal Church with their Episcopal “collegues”
The Windsor Report properly belongs within the larger framework of Anglican teaching, as expressed, not least, in successive Lambeth Conferences, including the resolutions of Lambeth 1998 (among which is Resolution 1.10). We understand this to be the mind of the Communion for teaching and discipline.
We recognize that many congregations within The Episcopal Church need a safe space within which to live out the integrity of their faith in compliance with the Windsor Report. We also recognize that there are some congregations that do not accept the provisions of the Windsor Report. We pledge ourselves to work with our Episcopal colleagues to care for all God’s people in our dioceses.
Within our group are needs for various levels of response to the conflicts in the church. While here we have worked diligently to achieve unity across these lines. We recognize the need of some among us for an alternative primatial relationship. This recognition does not weaken our fundamental theological and ecclesial commitments. Rather, our unity has strengthened them, and for this we thank God.”
Those on various comment threads suggesting this statement represents a great first step for this group are dead wrong. This is a devastating step back.
I did not have high hopes for this meeting, but I did, at the very least, have an expectation that the Windsor bishops would not move away from their originally strong position with regard to non-compliant dioceses.
If only they had kept the “irreconcilable differences” language. But they did not and because they did not there will likely be disastrous consequences.
Why?
This is where the second reason for my original disappointment comes to the fore.
The Kigali Communique was posted on the Global South Anglican website at around 11:15am Eastern Time. It was put up on Stand Firm and titusonenine at 11:19am (these original post-times have changed on the site because the postings have been updated)
The Communique is a remarkable document that unites both “Communion” and “Federal” conservative/orthodox primates. With one voice they call for a separate ecclesial structure in the United States:
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.
This is not a call for a church within the body that currently calls itself the Episcopal Church, but for a distinctly separate entity.
They even ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite an American bishop, chosen by the orthodox dioceses and parishes in the United States, to attend and participate in the February primates meeting.
The Kigali Statement essentially calls for a new Anglican province in North American with a new primatial head.
These requests, made by a united block of primates representing the majority of Anglican Communion provinces, place a great deal of pressure on Canterbury.
But the force of the Global South appeal was rooted in the expressed need of the orthodox minority in the Episcopal Church. This need was articulated in the Windsor Bishop’s March 2005 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury and most recently in the Network dioceses appeal for APO following GC2006.
This is where the timing of the statements becomes crucial. My fear yesterday was that the Camp Allen bishops had read and digested the Kigali Communiqué before releasing their own statement later in the afternoon. In that case the Camp Allen statement would represent something of a rejection of or distancing from the Global South requests.
My fear was based on rumors I had heard earlier in the day that some key people in the continental United States possessed copies of the Communiqué prior to its posting on the Global South website at 11:15am EST. I reasoned that if these key people had it, the bishops must have had it.
I voiced this concern on this titusonenine thread. Soon afterwards, I received news from someone in Africa who was unaware of any circulation of the Communique prior to its release. I breathed a slight sigh of relief and mentioned noted this on the titusonenine thread linked above.
Then came the call.
As Greg reported last night, Stand Firm has learned that the Kigali Communiqué was in fact circulated at the Camp Allen meeting prior to the release of Camp Allen Statement.1
That means that the bishops there knew very well what sort of structure the primates were willing to promote and establish. They knew it and they rejected it. Instead they proposed to:
“work with our Episcopal colleagues to care for all God’s people in our dioceses.”
The Camp Allen bishops, together, stepped back from any suggestion that such a structure is necessary and in so doing they both damaged the cause of orthodoxy in North America and weakened the position of their Global South allies prior to the meeting of the primates in February.
While recognizing that some feel the need for some form of APO, the Camp Allen group, as a whole, plans to move forward within the structures of the Episcopal Church as it is currently constituted with no hint whatsoever of “irreconcilable differences”.
The Camp Allen Statement sucks the force and weight out of the Kigali Communiqué requests and significantly reduces any pressure the Archbishop of Canterbury might have felt to provide structural relief for North American orthodox Anglican parishes and dioceses.
In February, the Archbishop of Canterbury need only ask the Global South, “Why should I recognize or establish a structure for which the Windsor Compliant bishops have not asked?”
The Camp Allen Statement takes political power and momentum away from the Global South and gives it to 815.
The best hope now for a North American orthodox Anglican body tied to Canterbury lies solely with the Network and various APO requests.
But it will require the Network bishops to step forward and affirm the Kigali Communiqué in full and reassert, strongly, often, and without a hint of compromise, the need for a separate structure that includes both the APO dioceses and Network parishes in non-Network dioceses.
The lesson of the Camp Allen debacle is that in the battle for orthodoxy it is a mistake to seek a superficial consensus with those whose fear of institutional dissolution or divorce from Canterbury is greater than their zeal for the Faith of the Apostles. Such alliances may broaden the coalition but they also weaken its resolve and hinder its success.
1UPDATE from Greg Griffith: A clarification: In my report that Matt referenced above he notes that I used the word "circulated." I used that word as I think most lay people understand it to mean: That the information was known by some bishops at the meeting and passed on to other bishops. I am now told that when bishops use the word "circulated" in reference to something like this, what they mean is that a paper copy is placed in their hands with the knowledge, approval, and imprimatur of the chair. That is not the case, nor was it exactly the information I received. A summary of what was expected to be released from Kigali, which turned out to be accurate, was provided to some bishops by other means, several hours before the Camp Allen statement was released. Stand Firm sincerely regrets and takes full responsibility for this misunderstanding.
And so do I. Some bishops knew the substance of the Kigali Communique. Others did not.
One of my assertions, namely that the Camp Allen bishops, as a body, essentially rejected the Kigali Communique is not true because not all knew the substance of it.
I apologize and accept full responsibility for the contents of this article.
Matt+
95 Comments •
Comments:
A weakening of knees, a failure of will, a failure of leadership…God help us…