Joint Standing Committee of Primates and ACC

November 26, 2008

Reports are out today suggesting that the meeting underway of this select group of primates (including ours) and leaders of the Anglican Consultative Council might take some kind of action against the Province of the Southern Cone (such as asking them to refrain from being voting members at some future meetings rather as was done with Canada and TEC) for their role in seeking to undermine the polity of TEC. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5232937.ece There is no rumor that this will be extended to Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria. The two conservative primates on the committee have declined to attend the meeting. I wouldn’t hold my breath that there will be any action taken, or at least any action that really makes a difference in where we are headed. The underlying challenge of a more or less formal schism is that there a number of churches, --most notably the C of E who have significant leadership who would want to go with the GAFCON crowd. This will make for a really tricky situation for an established church, but could open up some really fruitful missionary fields for expressions of Anglicanism not tied up with the incredibly top-heavy and top-down structures of the C of E in which major issues for clergy seeking positions are questions like ‘will you wear vestments?’ This sense that there is a potentially exciting mission field in England can be held by conservatives and liberals alike.

Journals

November 26, 2008

Two of my favorite journals arrived in the same week: The Anglican Theological Review (Fall 2008, Vol.90, No.4) and The Journal of Anglican Studies (Vol. 6.2, December 2008). They both contain articles offering cautionary notes with regard to the proposed ‘Anglican Covenant’. In ATR, Christopher Craig Brittain writes Confession Obsession? Core Doctrine and the Anxieties of Anglican Theology, arguing that the notion of ‘core doctrine’ (sometimes expressed in terms of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral—see your Prayer Book) is a slippery thing and not as foundational as it might seem. In JAS, Frederick Quinn writes Covenants and Anglicans: An Uneasy Fit recalling us to our Anglican roots that declined the confessional route in the Reformation and chose a path different from that of both Rome and Westminster.

These ideas become important in a series of articles about Anglican Christianity in Asia asking questions similar to those I asked during a visit to the Anglican Church of Brazil as to why anyone would want to follow this path outside of English Heritage. The answer keeps on building on those roots which provide a serious and relational alternative to purity type churches.

The purity church is taken on in some ATR articles, but none more so than an excellent piece by the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, an Episcopalian formerly at Yale and someone whom I enjoy and respect: Marilyn McCord Adams. She has written Shaking the Foundations: LGBT Bishops and Blessings in the Fullness of Time. Her argument is compelling and straightforward. Liberals should not compromise their conscientious content-beliefs while in the majority. It si legitimate and desirable that beliefs that were once held by a tolerated minority who could not set institutional direction should now be given unqualified institutional form as an expression of good news made incarnate, and conservative beliefs should become a tolerated minority. Compromises like flying bishops and ‘moratoria’ and a pan-Anglican covenant, all at the expense of LGBT Christians, are ways in which the conservative minority is attempting to ensure a conservative expression of the faith for a long time to come. The way forward, she argues, is to give institutional expression to liberal content-convictions by authorizing the ordaining and blessing of non-celibate LGBTs. You can read this in our parish library.

A New Province?

November 24, 2008

How will the proposed new anti-gay province play out internationally? It is unlikely to win a large measure of formal approval. Even in the unlikely event that a majority of primates wanted to support the new province, they would be making a recommendation to the Anglican Consultative Council who would only be able to recognize said province with a two thirds majority.

More possible is something like this: some primates (the usual culprits) declare themselves in communion with the new province. The Archbishop of Canterbury remains silent and keeps putting his eggs in the covenant basket. Some kind of covenant is widely approved in the communion that has some element of centralized control to it and The Episcopal Church (along with a few others) declines to consent. The main C of E lawyer, The Rev’d Canon Gregory Cameron has floated the idea that individual dioceses may be able to sign on to the covenant even if their province does not. (I’m still looking for that reference –can anyone help?) and so some of those who wish to remain Anglican at any price sign on bringing a further disintegration of the Episcopal Church in particular and Anglican polity in general. Eventually Anglicanism is redefined or realigned in some way and TEC is left looking for its own network. Goodness knows what happens to the C of E in all this.

I hope that will not happen but am not sanguine. What is an alternative picture? The idea that the ABC might simply declare GAFCON and the new province out of order, the GAFCON crew formally depart and start something like ‘Africanism’ or ‘Sydneyism’ is, I fear, a fantasy coming from my notion of broad and traditional Anglicanism.

Secretary of State

November 24, 2008

I wonder if Barack Obama reads my blog. Here is part of my entry from March 15 of this year:

“I am persuaded that Barack Obama should be the Democratic nominee. While I would prefer Hillary Clinton, it seems that her only chance is to persuade enough super-delegates to go against the popular democratic vote which I fear would be a pyrrhic victory at best. I find it difficult to imagine that either democratic candidate would see Hillary Clinton as Vice President, but shouldn’t they begin having private conversations about a role for her? How about her at the State Department (with Bill as a kind of ‘roving ambassador’ or perhaps ambassador to the UN)?”

A Differing View from Communion Partners

November 19, 2008

A differing point of view to my previous post (which I find quite hopeful) is expressed by Ephraim Radner for the “Communion Partners. He does not think that the Primates or Anglican Communion Council will recognize a parallel province for North America. Communion partners is a gathering of self-styled ‘traditionalists’ within TEC who, if I’m reading their material correctly, would be completely congenial to me except that they resist any affirmation of GLBT people. You can read it here: http://covenant-communion.com/?p=983

Archbishop Duncan

November 18, 2008

So December will see the official ‘launching’ of an additional Anglican Province for North America with the deposed Bishop of Pittsburgh (now a bishop of the border crossing province of the Southern Cone) as Archbishop. A number of primates (the usual suspects) have said that they will ‘recognize’ the new province. (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17952/) Cantaur meanwhile maintains his customary and unhelpful silence, although The Washington Times reports that he invited Bishop Duncan to submit an application for a new province in October. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/breakaway-episcopalians-to-unveil-constitution/) If he condemns the new province as a travesty of catholic faith and order he will help formalize the fragmentation of Anglicanism and bring enormous problems upon the Church of England who are deeply divided but hanging together under the law of the land. If he supports the province either overtly or tacitly by his silence (my best bet for his initial response) he will continue the process of the Episcopal Church being cast out of the communion in some formal way for advocating and acting upon the full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons as such in the life of the church. This will be seen as the price of Anglican ‘unity’ and will mean that Anglicanism will be willing to be defined, less by broad, relational, graceful, generous, inviting theology and more, (like Rome in the view of many) by what it is against. At that point the battle over who ‘represents the brand’ or ‘holds the franchise’ would not be worth fighting as we would not want to be associated with the ’brand name of bigotry’ dressed up as gospel in a kind of Orwellian twist.

I would see the recognition of a ‘parallel province’, as an extraordinary innovation, and significantly more destructive of traditional polity than ‘border crossing’. In such a brave new world I hope the Episcopal Church would move swiftly to begin seeking partners throughout the world in order to sustain the possibility of broad, relational graceful, generous, inviting catholicity. One of the first steps would be a move to begin planting churches in England in which our way of living and proclaiming the gospel would be welcomed by many as a breath of fresh air (while doubtless condemned by others as American arrogance).

My question is how we would do such a thing decently and in order. Would England (or elsewhere) become a missionary district established by General Convention? A Suffragan operation akin to the Bishop for the Armed Forces or Bishop in Europe? An extension of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe (although we would be seeking to introduce English Episcopalianism rather than extending an essentially ex-pat operation)? A somewhat random diocesan mission?

I will be writing to some friends seeking response, thoughts and ideas to this bare bones, but quite serious, proposal, and would appreciate, welcome and encourage vigorous debate and response here. (I will even break a rule of this blog and join in the responses if a real conversation gets underway.)

Council

November 17, 2008

The Annual council of the Diocese of Atlanta took place last Friday and Saturday with All Saints represented by the clergy, Tom Cox, Bruce Garner, Richard Hall, Florence Holmes and Robert Wadell with Mimi Spang present as an alternate. There were wonderful presentations on Millennium Development Goals including a video presentation prepared by our own Amanda Meng. A number of resolutions were passed including one that asks us to begin every meeting, Bible study, class or other gathering in the life of our parishes for one year beginning with the First Sunday of Advent with a question. That question is along the lines of ‘what difference does what we are doing here make to the poor?’ I hope it will be a useful spiritual exercise for us. It is not the kind of resolution that I expect to be honored in very many places and would have preferred to see it tabled, a motion that was made and which failed.

More memorable were two resolutions, one of which asks General Convention to prepare liturgies for same gender unions and another which asks General Convention to repeal a resolution which among other things urged ‘restraint’ in the election of a gay or lesbian person to the episcopate. While these generated discussion in committee they both passed with neither amendment nor debate on the floor of Council. This suggests to me both a kind of acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships as within the bounds of our common life among the leadership of our diocese. It might also mean that the voices of opposition have left the Episcopal Church. While I welcome the lack of heat that these resolutions generated, I hope that my suspicion that conservative voices have gone elsewhere is wrong. It is a loss that I would mourn. On the other had perhaps these votes represent spiritual growth. That we could celebrate.

The Bishop of Rio de Janeiro was with us for Council and attended All Saints’ for worship yesterday. He clearly welcomes our relationship with his Cathedral and has a vision for the growth of the diocese among not only the poor, but also the educated middle classes of Brazil who sometimes find themselves disenfranchised by the church of their birth for a variety of reasons. This attention to a sustainable and sustaining infrastructure for the mission of the church is good news and a hopeful sign to me.