Stand Firm Interviews: Dr. Kendall S. Harmon

Part 2 of 4

The Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall S. Harmon is a graduate of Bowdoin College, received his D.Phil. from Oxford University, and is Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina. He is editor of The Anglican Digest, which has the highest circulation of any periodical in the Anglican Communion, and he runs the web site TitusOneNine. He is one of America's leading voices of orthodox Anglicanism. I spoke with him via instant messenger during the week of July 12, 2004. All four installments of this series are available as a print-friendly PDF document. All 4 entries in blog format can be found here.

---

Greg Griffith: There have been reports that giving by dioceses to ECUSA is up 2%, which would seem to indicate that ECUSA's actions at the 74th General Convention haven't had the negative financial effect orthodox Episcopalians warned it would. But some have claimed that giving appears to be up only because some dioceses are dipping into their endowments to pay ECUSA. What's the truth about giving to the national church?

Dr. Kendall S. Harmon: It is important to state the giving issue clearly: Are all Episcopalians giving as much this year as they did last year to the national church? The answer to that question is no.

The way some national church officials are painting the issue is: What is the giving of DIOCESES to the national church year over year? They are not the same question.

Anyone who is aware of what is occurring in individual dioceses knows that things are not well, and that this is only the beginning. Because of the creation of the Lambeth Commission and the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a lot of people are still Episcopalian who would not otherwise be. Their patience and perseverance has been remarkable. But they are in strong disagreement with what has been done, and a number have redirected their giving.

Let us just consider some examples:

One of the best is the Diocese of North Carolina. According to the Raleigh News and Observer, churches in that diocese pledged $1.2 million less this year than last year. Yet the diocese is giving to the national church $763,100 dollars, according to a recent budget report… roughly the same as last year. How is this occurring? The diocese is eating the shortfall. It does not show up in the national figures at all, but if you look closely at the diocesan figures, it is there. That kind of situation is unsustainable.

The diocese of Georgia said pledges are down $186,452 from last year, out of a $1.8 million dollar budget. In the Diocese of East Carolina the 2004 asking budget was $1,644,678. The actual budget was $1,018,699, based on pledges presented. The 2003 budget was $1,330,531. So the new actual number is a year-over-year drop of over 23%.

The Diocese of Virginia approved an actual $3.9 million dollar budget this year, $900,000 less than last year.

The diocese of Mississippi started the year with a $630,000 deficit, and individual pledges were down $284,000. Mississippi cut its giving to the national church from 21% to 16.5%. No one in Mississippi can honestly say this is "not material."

I could go on, but the point is: At the grassroots level there are serious funding issues in a number of dioceses. Some of this is definitely the result of what occurred at Minneapolis.

Now, what would you expect from healthy leadership? They could say, "There are issues, and there will be in the short term, but we have ways we can work through this, and we are sorry some people object so strongly to what has occurred." That would tackle it head-on, and it would acknowledge what is clearly there.

But what do we get? At the Executive Council meeting in Florida we are told the amount of the shortfall is "not material," and now they are speaking about a slight increase at the most recent Executive Council meeting in Vermont.

This is just one of many aspects of institutional denial which we have going on right now. And the point is not that the Episcopal Church does not have the financial resources, the point is what it says about the grassroots.

GG: So far, the Global South has acted with startling resolve over ECUSA's actions. When ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold invited his delegation to the consecration of Uganda's new archbishop, announcing that a check for Uganda's poorest missions would accompany the delegation, Archbishop Nkoyoyo refused to seat them. He also refused the money, informing Griswold that "the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not for sale, even among the poorest of us who have no money."

African provinces, where most of the world's Anglicans reside, receive about 70% of their funding from the wealthy American and Canadian provinces, but they recently announced they have stopped taking funds from ECUSA.

Africans have so far tended to act in "binary mode" - that is, actions of ECUSA, Canterbury, Lambeth, et al., are deemed either acceptable or unacceptable, with no gray area in between. The Africans then take clear, direct action based on that decision. If the Africans continue to act in "binary mode," then Canterbury's actions regarding ECUSA either will or won't be satisfactory. If they're not, then isn't the future of the Anglican Communion doomed?

Dr. Kendall S. Harmon: The degree to which the Global South has been patient has been amazing, but Western reappraisiers have, for the most part, mistaken gracious patience for lack of resolve. As you point out, the Global South is well-focused.

As to the Communion's future, you need to consider three pieces of the puzzle: The Lambeth Commission report, the Primates' response to it, and Rowan Williams' response to it.

Inside the Lambeth Commission itself, you have interesting dynamics. Robin Eames has built a reputation on being a consensus builder, and so he is motivated to come out with something on which there is consensus. But this is a deep crisis that calls for a really creative solution. The more the Commission allows for creativity, the less the chance of there being a consensus. So for starters, getting a REAL proposal through is going to be a challenge.

It may not happen. Even if they make a strong and creative proposal, the Primates need to back it. And what will Rowan Williams decide? If the proposal is inadequate, the Primates might try to strengthen it, but could it be strengthened enough for the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury to stay solidly behind it?

Substantive discipline doesn't necessarily have to be "binary," as you describe it. That would certainly not fit the ACI proposal which is the most well-thought-through one out there - especially in the first two-thirds of the document, where it describes why the crisis is so deep. After a strong diagnosis section, the ACI basically proposes an international discipline involving sanctions on those bishops who voted for ratification of the New Hampshire election and C051, under certain conditions. While this international aspect of the proposal could emerge as a possible course of action, the proposal for the situation in the Episcopal Church itself is highly problematic. It involves an approach using AEO [Alternative Episcopal Oversight] in a different form than exists at present, which, alas, will be highly unworkable given the degree of deterioration in the Episcopal Church. Could it be strengthened appropriately? Will the Commission, much less the Primates as a whole, be open to this? The Commission's mandate, remember, is to make practical recommendations in order to maintain the highest level of communion not simply between member churches within the Anglican Communion, but also WITHIN those churches themselves. No solution which does not deal both with the international problem as well as provide major structural relief in the domestic North American situation will be sufficient. It is a Herculean challenge.

GG: At the Stand Firm meeting in May, you described the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, sometimes called the "conservative network," as a "United Anglican Missionary Protest Movement." Readers who haven't done so are encouraged to listen to your question-and-answer session, but could you expand on the Network's mission and goals, and especially its importance in the emerging Anglican realignment?

Dr. Kendall S. Harmon: Well, with regard to "united", I continue to hearken back to Bishop Bob Duncan's image from Plano One of the "re-gathering of the Anglican Diaspora." The letter of common cause is a very early preliminary step in that direction. We believe that real unity comes from the truth of the gospel and from God himself.

By the way, one of the clearest signs of a genuinely unified community is that they do not talk about unity, they simply live it out as a response to the gift that God gives them. If you are in a community which talks incessantly about unity, you can tell it is genuinely not united.

In terms of "Anglican", we believe that Anglicanism is a precious gift which has been handed down to us by those on whose shoulders we now stand. It means a balance between word and sacrament, a balance between the best of Roman Catholicism and the best of Protestantism, it means a community where the lovely saying of Meldenius, a Lutheran theologian, holds true: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity, is lived out well. We believe this crisis represents a decisive break with Anglican teaching and with the Anglican Communion and we wish to continue as faithful Anglicans.

In terms of "missionary", it is vital that we repent of the degree to which we have allowed maintenance to become not simply our priority but our whole way of life. That has to dramatically change. The Great Commission really does have to be our highest priority. It means that the greatest need the movement will have in the near future are for three things: apologists, church planters, and evangelists. How many Episcopal dioceses do you know that have any of those on their staff? How many seminaries are training people for that kind of ministry? There is a reason why, in the providence of God, we are being aligned with the Global South: These people bleed with a mission-based heart, it is the very pulse of their life. We have a lot to learn from them.

We are also called to "protest" any turning away from the historic Christian faith. People need to be aware that Luther not only taught justification by faith, but he also refuted justification by works. In the New Testament, the writer of Titus, speaking of a church leader, says that he or she "must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it" (Titus 1:9). For us this means we will continue to hold up the historic Christian standard on human sexuality and will continue to stand against departures from that standard, all the while avoiding attacks on persons and seeking to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

The last word is also crucial. It is a "movement", sailing into the uncharted waters of the future that God has for us. One of the key images of the church in her rich history is of the Army of God, not simply the called out ones, but the called up ones, called up to be men and women who serve and share Christ. There needs to be preparation, there needs to be strategic thinking, there needs to be anticipation, and, above all, there needs to be prayer.

I love the Old Testament image of God as a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of cloud by day. God is already at work in and for this future, and we need to come alive to the ways in which that future is forming. Part of that future is all these communities, previously referred to, which are emerging in many, many dioceses in different ways but around the same basic theme. Groups of Episcopalians are gathering and saying firmly: We wish to be Gospel-based Anglican people, we need to stand together in our time, we need to take common cause.

At Plano Two we had a missionary moment interspersed through our gathering in which each region shared something of what God was doing in their midst. I hope that will be a habit of this movement. We need to lift up people who are taking risks, planting churches, and sharing faith. I recently spoke to a friend who moved from Colorado to the East Coast to plant a church. Probably almost everyone in the movement does not know who he is. In the future, he is one of many whose story needs to be told.

Posted by Greg Griffith at July 19, 2004 08:07 PM (GMT -6:00)