[Bumped] Reflections on Round One of the Lambeth Invitations: Part One

[I am bumping these two articles about the early release of the Lambeth invitations in order to remind people of some important principles that I think are very much in play now many months later.]

It has been an interesting 24 hours.  I find myself very exhilarated by it all, I have to admit, as we hurtle towards clarity and resolution.

I want to offer some length reflections on all that has happened over the past 24 hours.  I am certain that they are calculated to offend everyone, at some point in the below essay.  ; > )  [Although I include a winkie, I still think that it’s probably true that everyone will be offended.]  Please know that I am not trying to offend, but I’ve stored up a lot and need to unleash it on the hapless blog audience here.

This essay includes four sections in two parts: 1) Thoughts on CANA, 2) The Positives, 3) The Negatives, and 4) What are some options?

Thoughts on CANA

Oddly enough, I need to start with CANA.

Back when the installation of Bishop Minns was announced a number of blog comments and emails were addressed to me on this subject.  I tried to respond to them, but I want to put myself on the record publicly with four thoughts about CANA that will also connect with the news of the Lambeth invitations yesterday.

1) Many emailed with “wonderment” and “bemusement” about what on earth all the Episcopalians had to be happy about.  What on earth could CANA provide, they asked.

I was stunned at this level of deep naivete and oblivion. 

Here is what CANA provides.

—Escape from the chaotic black hole that is ECUSA.  While many families and individuals can afford to “look to history” and hang in there with a long-term vision of the Communion and catholicity, others can not do so.  They need to leave, either for their own health, or for the health of their children, or for the health of the small group of Anglican Christians that have gathered together and that are likely to be fractured by the vortex that is ECUSA.

—Affiliation with a somewhat stable province of the Anglican Communion.  Although most decisions to leave ECUSA are, by definition, somewhat “congregational” in nature, the desire to be connected with a Primate and province of the Anglican Communion is a healthy desire, and is not a “kicking over the traces” of hierarchy or authority as a solely congregational based form of governance would be.  Instead a congregation is overseen by a rector, overseen by a bishop, overseen by a Primate, and stabilized by a Provincial canonical structure.  This is a good thing.

The only other Anglican entity that I know of that offers such a thing is the AMiA.  From those two, one spreads in outward concentric circles away from the Communion to Common Cause, which currently includes the REC and the APA.  From thence are further circles outward, away from the Communion, such as other Continuing churches [who would respond, perhaps, with these words: “that’s not a bug, that’s a feature!”].

—Connection with a network of like-minded parishes who have chosen to be a part of CANA.  In the case of the state of Virginia, a CANA parish has a diocese to which to belong—which I might add will cause no end of competition for the ECUSA diocese of Virginia. 

CANA appears to be a stable, carefully constructed entity, that is integrally interwoven with the structure of its sending Province, Nigeria.  This is a bit more than is offered by most other Primates of the Communion in their provided alternative oversight.  I look for more parishes to join CANA, frankly, over the coming months.

Friends, these are good things.  It is understandable that individuals, families, and parishes would wish to have them.

2) It is not that those who have joined or developed CANA do not have any interest in or attachment to the Anglican Communion.  After all, why would they have troubled to join themselves to an Anglican Communion province if that were true?

It is true, though, that the vast majority of those who have joined CANA have experienced two realization.  First, they would rather have a healthy local and regional structure then be a part of a corrupt national body, even if that means that they are not officially counted as a jurisdiction within the Anglican Communion and their bishop is not invited to partake in the councils of the church.  Second, they have lost belief, in large part, that the Anglican Communion will discipline itself or maintain the boundaries and identity that is necessary for a church to be a powerful, directed, moving and active river, rather than a fetid, malaria-laden, stagnant swamp.

We may disagree ardently with those two realizations.  But once a group of people have come to one or both realizations—they are lost to ECUSA.  There is no reason why we should be surprised by that, or outraged when such people take actions to deal with those realizations.

3) On the other hand . . . it is indeed possible for members of the Episcopal church who wish to see a unified, communion-recognized, Canterbury-affiliated solution to disagree with the attempt to develop a new province within the U.S. that is approved by a single Primate in advance of a Canterbury recognized, communion-wide solution.

It is also possible for people to disagree with the “CANA solution” while sincerely and earnestly wishing those who have joined and are joining CANA all the blessings and success in the world.  You see, the success of CANA does not mean, necessarily, that there can be no success for the Anglican Communion.  CANA and a disciplined, ordered Anglican Communion could exist very well in the same universe, and I have no doubt that it would do so.  In fact, were the Anglican Communion to discipline itself, it would then be far easier for CANA and the Anglican Communion to move towards unity—indeed, almost a matter of form. 

I think that reasserting Anglicans seem to fall into two camps here in their feelings about CANA.  The one camp thinks that CANA is not the wisest of decisions—and I fall into that camp.  The other camp is happy to see Anglicans all together in an Anglican entity within the U.S., outside of ECUSA—and I fall into that camp.

It is actually possible for both attitudes to come together in one person.  I have no intention of leaving ECUSA to join CANA, and at the same time I am very happy for those who have done so, understanding and empathising with their belief that they needed to depart.  I hope that the CANA churches grow and thrive.  I hope that their bishop and priests and people are filled with joy and liveliness.

I liken my attitude to the same attitude I’ve had when a friend has shared his or her thinking about a job, or a relationship, or a planned adventure.  I may not believe that the job or relationship or planned adventure is the “best plan” . . . I may even point out some weaknesses in the plan, to my eye . . . but once the decision is made, I will hope for the best and attempt to be an encouraging voice.  It may be, for instance, that a friend of mine has dated and married a person that I believe not to be a “great match”.  During the dating process, I generally will express my concerns one or two times, but if the two are married, I will support and encourage and pray for the best for that marriage [as long as nothing intrinsically immoral in the fact of the marriage exists].

4) Many emailed or commented with “anger” and “outrage” about what on earth all the reasserting Episcopalians had to be upset about with the start of CANA.  What on earth couldn’t CANA provide, they asked, that ECUSA in all of its failure had failed at.  Those who did not avidly support CANA, join CANA, attend the Minns installation service, and publicly state that they believed that this was the Best Solution in the Anglican World, were horrible people and in fact were traitors to Jesus Christ.  Clearly the only reason they were not hustling off to join CANA was because they were either a) purple prelates addicted to pensions, prestige, and power or b) raging revisionists or c) craven cowards all.

Here things get delicate for a “communion conservative”.

While understanding the desire to leave ECUSA, and deeply respecting the articulate, bright, courageous, rather liberal Martyn Minns [yes, he’s pretty liberal], I have deep concerns about the start of CANA.

Please hear me.  Understanding and empathy and respect for the members of CANA are very different from believing that the start of CANA may not have been the “best plan” for a unified, coherent, ordered Anglican Communion.

Now we delve into a bit of history—history which I have laboriously articulated over countless threads in the past years, [and which apparently no one cares about, except when they are offended over some perceived slight].

Back in 2000, when the Primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons. 

First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.

—The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion” in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury” with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together” “by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” and that they are “particular or national churches”.

—Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries”. 

—Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official” franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.

Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.

Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion—that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion.  There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion—but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese.  An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese. 

Were a bishop of an alternate Anglican entity within the U.S. to be recognized as in communion with Canterbury, that would be the de facto establishment of an alternate province within the region of the U.S.  There would then be two Canterbury-recognized Anglican entities within one geographic territory. But that creation of a Canterbury-recognized alternate province of the Anglican Communion has not, in fact, occurred . . . yet.

In his letter regarding those consecrations for the AMiA Carey said:

“In the case of this particular consecration, neither the constitution of the Province of South East Asia nor that of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, to whose primates John Rodgers and Charles Murphy have sworn an oath of canonical obedience, have been followed. In addition, Anglican polity requires that ordained ministers should be properly authorised to pursue their ministry in the Province within which they wish to work, and according to the Canon law of that Province. It appears that this is not the intention in this case, and it is doubtful in the present circumstances whether such authorisation would be forthcoming.

Therefore, whilst recognising John Rodgers and Charles Murphy as faithful and committed ministers of the Gospel, I have to conclude that I cannot recognise their episcopal ministry until such time as a full rapprochement and reconciliation has taken place between them and the appropriate authorities within the Episcopal Church of the United States. . . . It is difficult to understand how this action can be reconciled with this tradition or how it can be seen to ‘guard the Church’, without the support or even the knowledge of the vast majority of the bishops of our Communion. Indeed, even those who have worked most closely on these matters were not in agreement over this consecration.”

[As a side-note, let me point out that the two more minor considerations mentioned by Carey—constitutionality of the Province doing the consecrating, and knowledge by the Primates that the action of the CANA consecration was going to take place—seem to have been taken care of by the Province of Nigeria. The actions were both constitutional and well-publicized.  Let me also note that Carey mentions this little tidbit in the letter—“. . . and that is why the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and I set up an international conversation between bishops of different views, an experiment which was so successful that it will meet again later this year”—which sort of “gives the lie” to all of those protestations that there has been no communion-wide “dialogue” and “conversation”.]

And again, in another letter Archbishop Carey said this in regards to further consecrations:

“I regard last year’s consecrations in Singapore as at best, highly irregular and at worst, simply schismatic. I have made my position in relation to them transparently clear - but, in case there remains any doubt, let me repeat: I cannot recognise John Rodgers and Chuck Murphy as bishops in communion with me unless they are fully reconciled to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.”

Let me, after belaboring the above, point out two things.  First, I would greatly like to see ECUSA stripped of its recognition as the Anglican Communion church in the U.S.  Second, not being recognized by Canterbury and therefore as a jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion does not mean that CANA is not a part of the Province of Nigeria.  And finally, people who have cheerfully escaped the insanity of ECUSA think and care very little about whether they are “recognized by Canterbury” or “in the Anglican Communion”.  In fact, they care less and less as the months and years march on.  In addition, none of the facts listed above say anything about a) whether departing ex-ECUSAns are “Anglican”—they are, b) whether they are Christians—surely so, c) whether they did or did not do “the right thing” [who knows], and d) whether the definition of the Anglican Communion and who is within it is a “good thing” or not.

All of the above, I think, matters very little to departing ECUSAns.  They are just happy to be gone!  And I should also note that Bishop Minns appears to have a certain, er, “je ne sais quois” about being denied an invitation to Lambeth as well.  Contrast his reasoned, calm, impersonal release concerning the invitations yesterday to, oh say . . . Bishop Robinson’s objections.  Bishop Minns, I suspect, is in all of this for the long haul, and is further quite satisfied with being a bishop recognized by the Province of Nigeria.  I have immense respect for his response and am pleased [though unsurprised] that it is not the sputterings of a person who fancies himself, in a rather overdramatic manner, as a “martyr for a cause”.

But I go through the above thoughts regarding new provinces, CANA, the nature of the communion, and more because I think it is important to be very clear and careful about the truth.

It is important because:

1) The truth is always important to acknowledge—and the truth shall set us free.

2) The definition of the Anglican Communion, and its centering on Canterbury, and the principle of one province per region may be stupid, ridiculous, and arcane, but I am very loathe to redefine it before the fact, and to encourage the postmodern philosophy of words and concepts and ideas as “written in water”, an idea dearly cherished by the progressives in ECUSA.  It disturbs me when people try to redefine words and concepts prior to their actual “redefinition”.

3) When we do not acknowledge the truth, we prevent Episcopalians and Anglicans from recognizing a) the dire and serious situation all of us in ECUSA are in, and b) the important things that desperately need to happen here in the US, which is the establishment of an alternate provinced connected with the AC. 

4) If we attempt to redefine the Anglican Communion to mean “any Anglican entity that is connected with a province of the Anglican Communion” then even were ECUSA to be booted wholesale from the Anglican Communion, that would make no difference.

Bishops Chane, and Robinson, and Bennison, and Parsley would promptly trot right over to the Province of South Africa, be consecrated as “bishops of the Province of South Africa”, and return to the U.S. and resume their diocesan seats, claiming all the while to be “in the Anglican Communion” and with the full expectation of being invited to the councils of the church in that communion because they are “bishops of the Province of South Africa”.

To summarize about the events of yesterday in regards to CANA.  When the ABC states that he does not “recognize the ministry” of Bishop Minns, he is not saying that Bishop Minns is not a Christian, or not an Anglican.  He is also not saying that Bishop Minns is not a bishop of the province of Nigeria.  We should note that there was some pressure on George Carey to declare the consecration of Bishops Murphy, Rodgers, and other AMiA bishops as “invalid”—thus declaring that they are not “bishops” because their consecration was not accomplished by the requisite Anglican bishops or sacramental act.  Instead George Carey pronounced those consecrations “irregular” [not “invalid”] and indeed, pointed out how such consecrations might be “regularized”.  Saying that Bishop Minns is not serving within a recognized province in the U.S. [which is ECUSA only] and is thus not a bishop of the Anglican Communion [which is necessarily those provinces which have bishops whom Canterbury recognizes] is not a denial that Bishop Minns is in fact a bishop.  Thus in Kenneth Kearon’s comments, he noted the “irregular” consecration, but not the “invalid” consecration of both AMiA and CANA bishops.

As we shall see later on, this recognition of the differences between the two words “irregular” and “invalid” will be developed later on in a, shall we say, more interesting and fruitful direction.

In conclusion of this section regarding CANA, I will quote from a previous article concerning Six Themes to Observe—this particular theme regards the denial of consequences:

“In the meantime, other bishops cheerily announce that they are still totally engaged and connected with Global South provinces—there has been no chilling of relations. Or if there has been that is only because of the hateful Archbishop Akinola, and the laity still love us all. Or if the laity do not—then the women do. In fact, there is this new “Anglican Women” group fostered by Phoebe Griswold that proves it. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within the Anglican Communion.

In the meantime, clergy and parishes and laypeople who have left ECUSA announce that they are “still in the Anglican Communion”. Or they announce that even if they are out of the Anglican Communion “it doesn’t matter, since we have an Anglican Communion primate”. Or “it doesn’t matter, since any day now a new province will be formed that allows us to be in the Anglican Communion no matter what”. Or . . . “really all of this stuff that looks like fragmentation of the Anglican witness is actually the orthodox uniting, and we are all really unified even though it looks as if we are becoming more balkanized”. Or “our leaving will force the Archbishop of Canterbury to act to discipline ECUSA and acknowledge our group, after the fact, even if Canterbury did not do so a mere seven years ago for the AMiA.” They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within the Anglican Communion.

In the meantime, laypeople who have not left ECUSA wish to continue under the happy illusion that “really only a few bad apples in ECUSA are making it look so bad” and that, given enough time, “ECUSA will be reformed”. Or . . . “by virtue of our being in communion with the ABC, we are still in communion with provinces of the Global South”. Or “we are in a Network diocese, so all is well.”

One of the classic trends that I continue to notice, as we all struggle to deny the *consequences* of whatever painful actions that we are taking, is the cheery translocation into the present time the hopes of the future.

If someday we *hope* for ECUSA to be reformed—then it has already happened. If someday we *hope* for a new province in the US that is in communion with Canterbury, then it has already happened. If someday we *hope* that Canterbury will discipline ECUSA, then it has already happened. If someday we *hope* for Anglican splinter groups to be united, then it has already happened. If someday we hope—as a “Windsor wannabe” bishop—that we will be invited to Lambeth, then it has already happened.”

The Positives of Yesterday’s Initial Invitation List to the Lambeth Meeting

As we’ll see in the remainder of this article, we will use the above thoughts about CANA as a foundation for thoughts about the ECUSA invitations.

1) Something historic happened yesterday.  For the first time, one of the 108 dioceses of the Episcopal church in the U.S.—the legitimate accepted franchise of the Anglican Communion within this region—will not have a representative bishop at the Anglican Communion’s gathering of bishops at Lambeth.  The force of this recognition has actually grown for me since the announcement yesterday morning.

Yesterday, I felt a little like I felt on the day that the house of bishops consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop, only in reverse.  As I watched the likely approval of Robinson occur in 2003—knew about his election, knew about the straw poll of the HOB that had been conducted prior to the convention, knew about the campaign, was totally prepared for its happening—nevertheless, the consent to the consecration of Gene Robinson that day struck a blow that I have never recovered from fully.  I had been very well aware of and prepared for the consent.  But, as with the death of a loved one, no matter how well prepared you feel, it still strikes with tremendous force.  I hope never to go through something like the months that followed.  It set the seal on the fate and the nature of the Episcopal church.  We will continue to see the fruits of that decision for generations that follow.

In the same way, though of course all of us had vaguely hoped for [okay, some of were less hopeful than others] some initial exercise of discipline of ECUSA for its actions, the bald fact of a bishop of the Episcopal church not being recognized by Canterbury—for that is exactly what a non-invitation to Lambeth is—was striking.  It really stunned me when I read of it yesterday.

Frankly, there is really no “spinning” this for either side in the debacle that is the Episcopal church.  Some reasserters have attempted to grasp defeat out of this highly symbolic victory by bleating that it does not really matter because Rowan Williams said that the Lambeth meeting “has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers” and “is not a formal Synod or Council of the Communion”—none of which, I might add, has ever been true of any Lambeth meeting!

That’s a little like saying “provinces of the Anglican Communion are autonomous” and “the Anglican Communion cannot make canonical or legislative decisions for individual autonomous provinces” . . . and of course that is true.  But those facts are not really relevant.  The Lambeth meeting is that place where the bishops recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury gather.  It is where the bishops who are therefore part of the Anglican Communion are invited to take counsel together.  It is one of the councils of the church which is the Anglican Communion.  It is pointless to pay all of this attention over the past four years to whom is invited to Lambeth . . .  to project that the ABC will not refuse to invite anyone and will really invite all bishops . . . to be insulted that Bishop Minns was not invited . . .  and then to act as if a non-invitation to Lambeth for Bishop Robinson does not really matter.

It matters.  And attempts to soften the blow by Archbishop Williams stating that the “invitation to the Conference has never been seen as “a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy” or that the meeting is “not to legislate” is cold comfort indeed, particularly when in the same sentence as the denial of legislative authority [since it is “not a formal Synod or Council of the Anglican Communion”] Rowan Williams says that the meeting will “define something more about our common identity” and elsewhere “get more clarity about the limits of our diversity,” among other things.

The offer to come as a “guest” is nice, of course, but were Bishop Minns to be invited as a “guest” we would all still know that, in fact, Bishop Minns is not considered a bishop of the Anglican Communion.  And Bishop Minns supporters would still be insulted.

Bishop Robinson has not received the acknowledgement of being a bishop of the Anglican Communion.  When he states “While I appreciate the acknowledgement that I am a duly elected and consecrated Bishop of the Church. . . ” it is the Episcopal church for which he was consecrated bishop, as Kearon made clear in his statement: “according to the canons of the Episcopal Church”. 

He is indeed a bishop of the Episcopal church . . . just as Bishop Minns is a bishop of the Church of Nigeria.

When Kenneth Kearon states that there was “no question that Gene Robinson had been duly elected and consecrated” that is a statement that the consecration was valid.

A valid consecration.  A ministry within a recognized province of the Communion. 

But . . . as with Bishop Minns . . .  not a bishop of the Anglican Communion.  The thing that makes the decision even more astounding to me is that, frankly, I did not expect Bishop Minns to be invited as a participant—he is a bishop of an entity that is not an Anglican Communion recognized province in the U.S.

But for Bishop Robinson to not be invited—that is something different.  He is a bishop of the Communion-recognized province in the U.S. . . . but it appears that he has not been given “full recognition” [again a quote from Kearon’s interview] by Rowan Williams as a bishop of the Anglican Communion.

2) This is the opening bid in a 14 month negotiation process.

That’s sad to state in such a bald way.  One would hope that a “man’s word was his bond” and that plain speaking would occur.  But there it is.  We’re in the Anglican Communion and so . . . most statements about possible actions are negotiable until the actual planned action or event actually takes place and is therefore irrevocably “in the past”.  Somewhat ironically, both Bishop Minns and Bishop Jefferts Schori acknowledge that there is still plenty of time for things to change—both in a positive direction and in a negative direction.

3) The actions of Canterbury in exercising his prerogative to invite, not invite, or “withdraw” invitations to the Lambeth meeting do not at all preclude the Primates acting after the moratoria deadling of September 30.  There is always the possibility of another Primates meeting after September 30 and, [as others have stated who are more authoritative than a lay peon like me], I would not be surprised to see that occur.  The idea that the last word has now been spoken with regard to ECUSA demonstrates, shall we say, a certain lack of imagination.

4) Finally, we must ask why the ABC actually took the action of releasing the invitations this early when it had been openly speculated and indeed suggested by various communion authorities that that invitation release would occur in late 2007.  Would it not have been easier on Rowan Williams to wait until later to issue invitations?  The positive possibility is that Canterbury wished to a) clearly demonstrate, yet again, that yes, he does have the authority to invite or not invite, b) indicate that he means business regarding the past actions of ECUSA and that those actions indeed bear consequences, and c) produce a “shot across the bow” prior to potential further action on the part of ECUSA, the Primates, and indeed the ABC. 

In Part Two of this essay—to be posted tomorrow morning—I will review the negatives and what options are available.

37 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.