One of the things I hope Executive Council can do and your HOB will do is to refocus and reframe the question. I do not see that we need to choose between belonging to the church and protecting and caring for church members. That is not a gospel choice nor is that orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a wide river not a narrow stream. The genius of orthodoxy is that it has provided space and boundaries for many in different positions to come together and that is not just the genius of Anglican orthodoxy, but it is the genius of the entire Christian tradition. We are also being forced to choose between conformity and autonomy. This is also a false choice. The Anglican Communion is interdependent. Interdependence is a different matter altogether and it does not force these choices. The draft covenant seeks to move the Anglican Communion from a confederal system where authority is dispersed to a more centralized federalism. This sort of federalism makes the interdependence that characterizes confederation impossible. If this choice is accepted and made, then we will no longer have interdependence in the Anglican Communion...Your response to these developments at this meeting and in the HOB and in your meeting in June, all of which take place before the Canadian Synod, will have a huge impact on Canada. Your response will have not just an impact in Africa but in Canada and England and other provinces that do not wish to be forced into these false dichotomies that are being pushed by political agendas that have nothing to do with the gospel.
These were Bishop Michael Ingham’s words less than three weeks ago in Portland Oregon at the Executive Council meeting.
Our bishops were listening.
If the House of Bishop has indeed issued a Declaration of Independence, and I think they did, then Michael Ingham is perhaps, the Patrick Henry of this new revolution. His may have been the dramatic polemic voice that scratched itching episcopal ears, inspiring them to act.
And act they did.
It is tempting this morning to delve into a line by line analysis of this statement, demonstrating the bishops’ rich mischaracterization of the Windsor Report, Dromantine Communique, the meeting in Tanzania and the action and role of the communion primates. But I will resist that temptation in order to make some general observations.
First, the mischaracterizations in the present House of Bishops’ statement and resolutions are born of the deeply held delusion regarding the Windsor Report that took hold of our leaders shortly after the Report's release. Namely, that Windsor represented the first step in an ongoing “conversation” or “dialogue” rather than an initial attempt to build a cohesive structure for accountability and discipline into Communion relationships. This delusion led the Episcopal Church into misstep after misstep as our bishops misinterpreted the importance of Dromantine and Nottingham, consistently answering official Communion recommendations and requests with half-measures and unsatisfactory counter offers.
Our leaders never truly understood what had happened at Dromantine—that the Communion ground had shifted under their feet—until now.
Notice especially this sentence in point two of the bishops’ statement refusing the Pastoral Scheme:
“it [the Scheme] fundamentally changes the character of the Windsor process and the covenant design process in which we thought all the Anglican Churches were participating together.”
Of course it changes the character of the process in which they thought they were participating because the process in which they thought they were participating never existed.
But, again, I think they have begun to realize this now.
Second, the Bishops of the Episcopal Church, despite the past and/or future actions and/or decisions of the primates, have determined to relate to the Communion as if it were indeed the confederation described by Michael Ingham. This section of the HOB Statement is quite telling:
With great hope that we will continue to be welcome in the councils of the family of Churches we know as the Anglican Communion, we believe that to participate in the primates' Pastoral scheme would be injurious to The Episcopal Church for many reasons.
First, it [the Pastoral Scheme] 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.”
The bishops’ understanding of Anglican autonomy is one of “dispersed” authority. They will never submit to the structure of described in the Windsor Report because, in the words of Michael Ingham, such a structure represents a, “centralized federalism” that “makes the interdependence that characterizes confederation impossible. If this choice is accepted and made, then we will no longer have interdependence in the Anglican Communion.”
The Communion vision of provincial autonomy is one that weighs heavily toward accountability. The House of Bishop’ vision of autonomy is one that weighs heavily toward friendly, even familial, independence. The two, apparently, are incompatible.
Third, the House of Bishops is unwilling to revisit the question of same sex blessings and the consecration of non-celibate homosexual bishops within the time-frame required by the Dar Es Salaam Communique.
Rather than clarify the meaning of B033 or correct misreadings of the resolution as per the requests articulated in the Dar Es Salaam Communique the bishops reassert the sufficiency the original resolution:
“Our General Convention in 2006 struggled mightily and at great cost to many, not the least of whom are our gay and lesbian members, to respond favorably to the requests made of us in the Windsor Report and the primates' Dromantine Communiqué of 2005. We received a favorable response from the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates, which found that our effort had substantially met the concerns of the Windsor Report with the need to clarify our position on the blessing of same sex relationships.
They bemoan the primates rejection of Convention’s answer:
“Still, our efforts were not accepted by the primates in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué.”
And they reaffirm past General Convention decisions with regard to homosexuality:
“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.”
In order to understand the significance of the statement above, it must be remembered that the Episcopal Church rejects any distinction between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. It is the rejection of this distinction that drives bishops and other leaders in the Episcopal Church to consistently apply Canon 17 to questions of same-sex sexuality.
The proclamation that “gay and lesbian persons are full and equal participated in the life of Christ’s Church,” then, is made without regard to the question of celibacy.
Fourth: In anticipation of some sort of formal Communion division, the bishops have contributed the effort begun at the 75th General Convention to recast the image of the Episcopal Church from that of a national province to that of a global Church:
“we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the world.”
If need be New York can very well play her own Canterbury and 815 will make for a fine Lambeth palace.
Finally, the Episcopal Church will stand on principle even if it means Communion dissolution:
“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.”
This is perhaps as close as modern liberal Episcopalians can come to Luther’s: "Here I stand. I can do no other."
Concluding remarks:
This is perhaps the most admirable and honorable official statement yet from an Episcopalian body. The bishops are bold and forthright. They are to be commended. They have taken their stand.
The ideologues have overcome the institutionalists.
No more parsing words or peering through the cloud of carefully dense official emissions. We finally have honesty and clarity.
Now, at last, we face one another across the lines eye to eye.
We ought all take some time this morning to thank the Lord to whom so many of us have prayed for clarity and finality. I believe he has answered our prayers.
43 Comments •
Comments:
Try it sometime—it’s called “authority” and “unity”—it’s what makes a church catholic.
A very perceptive analysis, Matt+.
Let’s pray the ABC and other Primates reject attempts at appeasement and get on with a clean split.