Friday afternoon of last week—when all heaven broke loose in Anglican newsland—I had the sad misfortune of actually having to work . . . unlike it seems, most Episcopalians that day. I traveled five hours to a business meeting in the deep South, and came back late late Saturday night and have kept my hand feverishly to the plow ever since.
As a result, I have missed almost all the comments on this and other blogs concerning the Camp Allen meeting. I was able to snatch a read of Matt Kennedy’s analysis early on Saturday morning, before my run [missed a turn on the trail and thus went on for way too long] and my meeting that day. And then caught a number of comments over on Kendall’s blog.
I could not help but note the gnashing of teeth, and hurling of sackcloth, and pouring of ashes that my fellow orthodox commenters were indulging in, and was very suprised at it. People were over in corners, sawing on their veins and committing hara kiri with a vengeance.
And when Matt stated that he could not be his usual optimistic self about the news, I knew that it was all up to me to inject a note of sunshine, blue skies, and scudding white clouds ino the picture!
Yes . . . it was all on me to be . . . The Optimist. ; > )
[Uh oh. Those who know me recognize that this means that the conservative Anglicans are doomed—my life is about grinding realism and bleak despair, while stoically doing one’s duty, not sunny optimism.]
I have been unrelentingly and publicly pessimistic over the past two long years about the possibility of Rowan Williams “taking an action”. My thesis has always been that he is willing to speak a whole lot, but unwilling to act, and hopes for the longest delay possible before any sort of culminating action takes place. My current belief is that he intends to attempt to merge together the disciplinary process with the covenant process and thus draw out the whole thing infinitely longer.
When the Windsor Report came out, I believed that it was a good and solid report that focused unrelentingly on the real issue of the Anglican Communion—our lack of ability to discipline provinces that engage in grossly heretical actions.
But I told several at the time that the Great Victory that Rowan Williams won in that report—THE GREAT VICTORY—was a two year delay. All of the intervening time between the release of the report and the Episcopal General Convention was essentially the carrying out of “make work” and “preliminaries” and fairly pointless from an ecclesial point of view. Most watchers knew this and some pointed it out over and over, despite our reasserting side’s continually desiring to look to the next meeting three months down the road as a “culminating point”. But no . . . Rowan achieved a delay of two years.
This delay was to serve as a means of softening the stances of both sides.
That softening—on either side—did not occur. Instead, many reasserters—including me—once we decided to hang on for the long term, also decided to take that time to engage in fruitful and thoughtful work with our fellow allies. The result was that two years later, our networks, communicaions, alliances, and efforts are greatly strengthened and broadened. In the meantime, the two sides within ECUSA are further polarized.
Before I churn through my thoughts on the Camp Allen meeting, I need to state three things:
1) My thoughts are not in any way in response to the many comments that I have *not* been able to read. They are simply my musings on the event, without reference to articles, analysis, or commenting.
2) I am vaguely aware of some fol de rol regarding Matt’s article. Sounds as if one fact he maintained was off—but I do not believe that fact really affected his analysis and I suspect that those who have denounced the article mainly don’t like his analysis—his clear stance based on his own constantly and consistently stated values and principles over the past year—but are using the “off fact” as the “reason” for their dislike of the analysis. I do not agree with Matt’s analysis, but my own thoughts in this article are not meant to respond to his analysis any more than any other analysis out there on the web.
3) I am proud to be friends and allies with Greg, Matt, Jackie, and Andy, along with many other various commenters, bloggers, and orthodox Anglican thinkers and writers. Their demonstrated courage, integrity, cleverness, and the willingness to engage in brutishly hard work on principle have continually and pleasantly surprised me [remember—I’m a pessimist!]. I have enormous respect for them, and recognize that God has blessed me by bringing me into their paths. Everyone of us will make errors and mistakes on a daily basis but our character is determined and demonstrated by our admissions and amends for any errors we discover, while maintaining with integrity and consistency and honor the stated principles and values that we hold to be the truth.
On to my thoughts about Camp Allen.
The Meeting
The strength of the meeting is that it took place, and took place publicly, with 21 Episcopal bishops and two Church of England bishops who are serving as liaisons to the Archbishop of Canterbury. No shootings or pie-throwing took place.
This meeting was a “first meeting” of those bishops who were 1) adhering to a strict criteria for admission, 2) interested in a set purpose [remaining within the Anglican Communion, and 3) meeting officially with representatives of Canterbury. It was a *closed meeting* to which not all ECUSA bishops were welcomed, although all were invited who could adhere to the criteria.
As a first meeting of this group, they are *light years* behind the Network bishops on community building, purpose statements, communication, trust, and action. They have a long ways to go before they have achieved any sort of community of purpose. And yet, it appears to me in reading the comments, that my Anglican-allies-in-theology desired that this group of bishops LEAPFROG over even the Network bishops and make statements and commitments far beyond those same Network bishops, which is a smaller and more cohesive group, and certainly far beyond the abilities of the “Windsor” bishops. I have to wonder what were people smoking that they expected that a larger group of bishops, hesitantly moving forward together, would make some bold pronouncement committing themselves to stating that they desire to leave ECUSA and be in a separate province, when a smaller group of bishops, the Network bishops, has not done so?
Do we no longer take into account human psychology, past behaviors, or reasonable analysis in our expectations?
Those who attended and signed their name to a document were courageous to do so. They did something very much out of their own “comfort zone”. Their attendance at the Camp Allen meeting can seem nothing more than an act of defiance and “breaking ranks” by certain bishops of the House of Bishops. And *especially* so by the sole female bishop in attendance, who attended and signed a solid statement that placed her in contention with certain other of her peers in the House of Bishops. Both “yes voting” bishops that signed the statement were extraordinarily courageous and they have demonstrated their commitment to the Communion and the Windsor Report in contradiction to the 60 some various other bishops who hold revisionist theology and voted yes to approve of Gene Robinson.
The Statement
Any statement that was issued, to my mind, was solely “icing on the cake” and had the meeting not issued a statement at all, the meeting would have been, from my perspective, a pronounced success.
Here we need to think about whether they needed to issue a statement at all. This meeting was a consultation of those bishops who adhered to four criteria for the meeting, and who wished to be with one another, take counsel together, and hear from two respected bishops of the Church of England, while also communicating their group’s intentions to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Their issuing a statement about such a consultation was, in one sense, somewhat odd. I attend “consultations” all the time: board meetings, steering committees, business meetings, consulting assignments, and on and on. But when our steering committee for Mere Anglicanism, for instance, completes its “Steering Committee” meeting, we do not issue a statement of all that we have decided that we *wish to do and hope to accomplish*. Yet these bishops of the Camp Allen meeting did so.
In light of the above facts, I would ask all of us to recall all the various “statements” of the Network which have *also* caused much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth by the orthodox. Does anyone also recall the advent of the Primates statement after their emergency Primates meeting? Does anyone recall the very first communication by the Network bishops? Both—and many more such statements, including the Windsor Report and the Dromantine Communique—were picked to the bone by the carrion, namely us. Some turned out to produce much fruit, others very little.
Some have also pointed out that the statement essentially serves as the sort of statement that it would have been nice to have heard from the General Convention: regret, commitment to the principles of Windsor, submission to the authority of scripture, and an acknowledgement of Christ as the way, the truth, and the life, the way of salvation.
But I like to think of it as the first statement of an alternate grouping of ECUSA bishops—a house of bishops, to be precise.
The Strategy
From the document, I also got the sense that these bishops are holding out for the real thing: a disciplined, ordered Communion. with a disciplined, ordered ECUSA. I am glad that they did not call for an interim, separate province. Such a call would be disaster, as it would take the pressure off of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates to make a very hard choice.
As it stands now, the choices are as follows. 1) Discipline ECUSA to save the Communion or 2) allow ECUSA to continue its merry way, and lose the Communion as we know it. The choices are stark and clear and very stressful to make. But we should not doubt for a moment that, were there to come into existence an alternate, interim provincial structure for the embattled orthodox ECUSAns—in effect, a third choice—the pressure would be considerably lessened to Make The Choice.
I am even concerned about a “representative” bishop to serve as an alternate at the Primates Meeting, since it de facto seems to set up two structures within one meeting.
Were two structures within one region, both in communion with Canterbury, for however temporary a time, to be developed . . . I have little doubt that many would announce merrily “see, this isn’t so bad—let’s go on like this until we are all reconciled in common mission and ministry.”
The end would be worse than the beginning.
The Network Bishops
I trust the Network bishops. I do not for a moment believe that their position, their stated stances and mission, are weakened by meeting with other bishops who may be less firm, purposeful, or stalwart. Frankly, I think that the Network bishops were *kind and gracious* to meet with the other Windsor bishops, and I think it most unlikely—considering that two of the Network bishops held firm at the New York meeting, even when offered a kingdom to rule over if they abandoned the orthodox parishes in non-Network dioceses—that they have come this far only to sell us all down the river. The Network bishops, by the grace of God, have never yet abandoned one another in their cause, despite the fact that even so small a group may not always agree on strategy or tactics. During more than two years of extreme stress, they have not caved and they have not fragmented.
The Kigali Statement
The strength of the Kigali statement was that 1) it was clearly [and surprisingly to some of our Worthy Opponents] communion-minded, 2) it places pressure for action on the instruments of unity within the Anglican Communion, especially the Primates as a whole, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, 3) it offers a practical means of differentiating the Windsor and Network bishops from the majority bishops of ECUSA by asking for a primatial representative in the councils of the Communion [although I pointed out above my concerns about this practical differentiation], and 4) it unifies the orthodox Primates around a baseline statement of requests. [Note that I stated “orthodox Primates” since some Primates within the region of the “South” are not.]
And here, I need to point out that, in fact, the Global South Primates are, smartly, using precisely the same model as the Camp Allen model, in one sense. They are not demanding as much as the most fervent and active of the Primates, but are merely creating a baseline around which all the orthodox Primates may agree and unify. Thus, there were no statements about *what would happen* should their requests not be met, in part I suspect because there is not agreement and unity on what the Primates would do and in part because it is in fact meant to be a moderate and gracious statement. And the statement did not announce what many liberal reappraisers had speculated and loudly predicted would occur prior to the meeting.
Some reappraisers have opined that Archbishop Akinola was “reined in” by more moderate Archbishops. I would opine that Archbishop Akinola is . . . a smart and strategic man whom they are sorely underestimating. ; > )
No, the Kigali statement was *so gentle* that my only fear is that Rowan Williams will not recognize any *consequences* should he refuse to act. That lack of consequences—the lack of perceived pain—may lead to further delay and hopes for appeasement.
But again, at the end of the day, both the Kigali statement and the Camp Allen statement sought a baseline of agreement and unification amongst the participants, plus placed pressure on those they had influence over [the Primates/ABC and the ECUSA HOB respectively], and made no mention of consequences should no action occur.
Three Principles That We Still Need To Learn
As I look at the scope of the flood of comments [though incomplete] that I have read from my allies, three principles spring to mind that I believe we should consider.
1) We are wrongly expecting others to make decisions that will make our own decisions as Episcopalians easier and simpler and less painful. I, as a person who is staying within ECUSA as best as I am able, and working hard while I am staying, long to no longer be bound to a national church that does not believe or promote the gospel. There is no spinning that simple fact. Our national leaders, in vast majority, do not believe or promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is very painful to be a part of a church whose national leaders are like this. It is, in fact, a repellant thing and has dire and practical consequences which I have spelled out elsewhere.
Others who are leaving ECUSA due to conscience or convenience or responsibility long to have their relationship with the Anglican Communion solidified and clarified. They want a body to belong to that is an “alternate” provincial structure in the Communion, just as much as I also think that my life would be easier with that solution.
But I believe that it is a false solution, one that trades an easier row to hoe for now for an even more tangled, indecisive mess of a communion later. It is a mess of pottage as the substitute for The Real Thing, the birthright, and I pray that God will keep the choices that we must consider very stark, very clear, and very uncompromising, for those choices will also, ultimately, be very similar to the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s choices.
2) We seem to have little confidence in our own leaders’ direction and purposefulness and commitment. Confidence means being calm and secure in including others in consultations with us, sure in the knowledge that, though we may learn from our more moderate allies, we will continue steadfastly in our chosen direction. Talking with others, consulting with others, listening to others, even signing statements with others, does not mean that our own plans will not continue or that we will be any less sure or strategically minded. Talking, consulting, listening means nothing more and nothing less. Refusing to be a part of such groups indicates, to me, a lack of confidence in our own identity. That lack of confidence may be accurately based on true lack and weakness, but if so, then that means we should strengthen our own identity, not closet ourselves away and refuse to mix it up with others.
3) We have not yet grasped the principle that small victories always must come before big victories. We want the Big Victory NOW. But in reality, Big Victories are preceded by breaking up the journey into small segments and tackling those segments with vigor, one at a time.
As conservatives, we tend to be highly idealistic. If we “compromise” attaining our Big Victory Now, we tend to imagine that we have compromised the core of our being, rather than behaved strategically. But our Worthy Opponents are well able to understand that a small resolution here, a little gathering there, an insignificant committee elsewhere all add up to small victories, which down the road have led to their Big Victory. Such small victories are not Fatal Hypocritical Compromises but are merely the steps on the road to a larger and greater destination.
Let’s face it. Either the Camp Allen bishops will fall apart, dwindle, melt down under 815 pressure and bullying, and ultimately cave . . . or the Camp Allen bishops will grow strong, gain a few more in numbers and gain a whole lot in identity and purpose and confidence. It will progress into a stronger coalition.
Only one of those two things will happen. In the case of the former, then we will all be able to look back at this meeting, shake our heads mournfully, and say “remember those poor old Camp Allen bishops—boy were they out of their league—what a failure.” Or . . . in the case of the latter, we will say “ah, the beginning of something wonderful and grand—that was that inaugural Camp Allen meeting—thank God those folks met and tried”.
Either the Camp Allen bishops are on their way to a Grand Failure or a Grand Success.
If a Grand Success, we should have no doubt that this meeting was certainly a small victory that preceeded a big victory. It was an inaugural, careful, cohesive, smallish group that met and issued a statement and communicated with one another and the representatives from the Church of England and began to form their identity. The group didn’t act ugly to one another or claw one another’s eyes out. If this was a small victory, we will toast their cleverness and boldness some time in the future.
But, as with all defeats and victories, only time will tell which it was.
Finale: Courage, Honor, & Risk-Taking
In conclusion, I have to admit that the comments of the last week left me sad, surprised, and disheartened with . . . Us.
What is wrong with us? Do we really expect it to be easy? Are we so spoiled that we act like small children making demands of God . . . or of people who are clearly not able or willing to make the decisions that we desire?
In my opinion, the comments, the despair, the complaints and laments, the predictions of doom were unbecoming; they *may* or may not have been truthful—but they were still unbecoming.
They were not befitting Roistering Episcopal Adventurers. We did not hold our heads up high and take the gifts—great gifts and unexpected treasures—offered us last week with grace and humility. We did not behave like the honorable, courageous, steadfast, considered, statesmanlike soldiers that we are supposed to learn to become. Instead we pawed through the gifts like greedy children, held them up to the light, critiqued them, and demanded more and better—as if we were somehow deserving, as if we had somehow earned them.
God forbid that any of us ever get thrown to the lions.
If that were to happen, pagan newspapers will certainly not write grudging articles of respect for the way we carried ourselves in suffering and martyrdom in the arena. Instead there will be headlines about how utterly ignominious and whiny and vain we all were, as we died, surprised and pettish. ; < ( Hopefully that is why we have never—any of us—had to endure that; it’s not as if anyone would become converted while observing us American Episcopalians suffer in our little church with our little demands and complaints and expectations.
The one word that has rung through my mind over the past days as I drove madly around from one place to another and considered all the cumulative comments and thoughts was a very non-politically correct word. It was . . . “pah!!!”
“Pah!” And maybe “faugh!” It’s the sort of word that perhaps Puddleglum the Marshwiggle would have used in the Chronicles of Narnia, or Gimli the dwarf in The Lord of the Rings.
I just wish that we could at least behave with some dignity and honor and nobility, even when we [falsely] think that we are defeated in a battle [which is not the war].
Beyond all of that, I have to tip my hat to the moderate Windsor bishops who showed up and strove to “take an action.” It may not have been the bold, lion-hearted action that I would have loved. But it was an effort to take an action. And heaven knows that even the *risk* of making an attempt at taking an action is generally deemed to be too much for most of our Episcopal leaders.
As the reasserting minority, we have cried out for some of the “moderates” to actually try to make a stab at doing something. And they did make a stab, however feeble. And it was a start at something that may turn into a victory or a defeat.
But in general, when a “moderate” and generally inactive person steps up and does something—however clumsy, or ill-formed, or ill-spoken—whether it is a bumbling and slightly incoherent speech at a convention, or a meek stab at stating some sort of traditional view of theology, or writing a resolution, or standing for an elected position somewhere it *is* actually a movement and an attempt. And the first thing that they should experience is some sort of “well done” or “nice try” or “thanks for the attempt” when they make a slight movement in the right direction. Any action is incredibly risky: action opens oneself up for criticism, for failure, for humiliation, and of course, from slings and arrows from the other side. It is risky to actually try to do something, and especially so for moderates.
Yet . . . if a moderate *does* take an action . . . he is officially in my books, no longer a moderate at all. He has crossed a line or a border or a bridge of no return.
Though I have grave doubts that any Camp Allen bishop will read these words, I will say that perhaps my “optimism” about their efforts, though, could be deemed somewhat lowering to the Camp Allen bishops. For I had very low expectations of them. Those low expectations—believing that they would generally behave as they have always done, with perhaps a slight improvement—kept me well insulated from hope for big actions and big statements.
For there was one last thing I thought all last week.
All of the sound and fury that we expended last week in critiquing their efforts actually . . . gave them too much credit and too much power. To me, the performance—a “nice performance”—should not have received all the rending of the score and stamping on the musical instruments by the angry audience, but should rather have received some polite applause, gracious but reserved words, and attention promptly removed to the more global Kigali statement.
I think it would have placed their efforts in the proper perspective—a “well done” and “good show”, but an acknowledgement that they are behind the wave of history, and not in advance of it.
And I certainly believe that it would have spoken better of us, erstwhile Roistering Episcopal Adventurers that we are.
71 Comments •
Roister on, Sister! Many of your comments about “our side” were on target, in my opinion. I’ll raise my glass high during the celebration of the Grand Success when you are praised for your efforts. Then I’ll strip my sleeves, turn to my neighbor and say, “these wounds…”