The recent election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to the Primates’ Standing Committee is a matter of considerable shock and disappointment.  For some, it is a matter of outrage, and not unfairly so.  Her election is perhaps the most destructive decision that could have been made by the Primates who recently gathered in Dublin.  Schori has repeatedly refused to lead the American Episcopal Church in observance of the moratoria called for by the Windsor Report, and she has done nothing to ameliorate the difficult conditions faced by many faithful Anglicans within the American province.  Indeed, these already difficult conditions have acutely worsened under her primacy, and membership decline in the Episcopal Church has only continued unabated.  How then can she be elected in good faith?

We do well to consider that this is not a question that must be answered by the Archbishop of Canterbury alone.  Rather, it is a question that must be answered by the Primates as a whole – and not just those who assembled in Dublin, but those who were absent for any reason at all.  Many forget this; too many are quick to assume that everything that happens in the Anglican Communion rests solely on the shoulders of the See of Canterbury, and too many are also quick to assume that non-attendance is somehow a badge of virtue.  Both assumptions are wrong.  The Primates’ Standing Committee is the responsibility of the Primates as a single Instrument of Unity and its composition is the product of what the Primates, as a whole, decide.  Thus it is the corporate body of Primates who must explain their decision.

This recognition, however, is not intended to detract from the pastoral primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Anglican Communion vests sovereignty in no single individual, but because Canterbury is at the center of the Anglican Communion, it has a pastoral weight that no other See carries.  It is said that the Archbishop is soon going to travel to some of the provinces of the Global South.  Perhaps he might consider coming to North America first?  He, more than any other Anglican Primate, needs to understand life on the ground among Anglicans in the United States of America.  It is acrimonious and painful, and its divisiveness seems to know no limit.  More than any other Primate, the Archbishop needs to know the epic level of hurt and betrayal felt by so many, and the ways that the recent decision has only exacerbated this situation.  (I myself am something of a fan of the Archbishop – an increasingly rare thing among North American Anglicans – and I would be happy to help arrange his travel itinerary should he visit.)

The spiritual and pastoral strain in North America is beginning to crush people – and not just any people, but faithful people.  I see it, I hear it, I read it, and each of these to an increasing degree.  Faithful Anglicans who have broken faith with no facet of Creed, Scripture, or Tradition are beleaguered in North America.  They cannot trust the Global South/GAFCON, for its bishops will shamelessly split orthodox dioceses from within.  Yet faithful Anglicans cannot trust the leadership of the American Episcopal Church, either.  As events of recent years suggest, adhering to Communion norms is a minority position in the American Episcopal Church which brings very, very few tangible rewards.  Indeed, it only brings long-suffering.  Dioceses have broken, parishes are withering, and yet some strive to remain faithful.  Do the Primates not know this?  If so, why do they not praise it, and why have they elected a Primate whose own leadership has proactively made things worse?

I write these things as a young American and faithful Anglican.  Because of this I cannot help but wonder: will I soon come to find that I have no Anglican parish in which to marry, and no such parish in which to baptize and raise my children?  Truly, we live in an evil day when are forced to ask such questions!  I do not offer this protest in a spirit of petulant demand; I am no child of the sixties.  I simply ask – no, I plead – that a word be spoken which indicates that the Primates of the Anglican Communion understand the urgency of their pastoral role, particularly to those Anglicans who struggle and are indeed breaking under conditions for which there is no alleviation in sight.  The Primates – all of them – need to reverse and revoke the appointment of the American Presiding Bishop to the Primates’ Standing Committee.  Anything else is the height of pastoral irresponsibility.

View the original post

Amen,
And thank you.

I agree - for a change!  Her appointment is an affront.

Meanwhile, We who were the moderates of a while back now look ever so sadly as today’s moderates will also be forced out or to conform.  I see no stopping ahead for KJS and her agenda.

One thing to remember - PBs are not PB forever!

Charlie Clauss - 18 February 2011 12:52 PM

One thing to remember - PBs are not PB forever!

However once Pandora has opened the box there is no turning back.  Or “you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.” However hard you try.

As a child of the sixties, I find the use of that phrase as a term of derision offensive. Many of us risked jail to protest segregation and the unjust war in Viet Nam.

While I find the ascendancy of the Primates to be unfortunate, they have the right to elect members to their Standing Committee.

Daniel Weir - 19 February 2011 11:27 AM

As a child of the sixties, I find the use of that phrase as a term of derision offensive. Many of us risked jail to protest segregation and the unjust war in Viet Nam.

How can one somehow arrogate exclusively to ones era and context this word “Protest?”  For many the protest to the TEC agenda, KJS’s agenda and the shenanigans of the ABC, ACO and the ACC has cost them their vocation, living and more.  They have risked these for the sake of Truth and God’s call on their lives.  I am of your generation and I PROTEST!  This is just as serious as the protests in the 60’s.

However once Pandora has opened the box there is no turning back.  Or “you cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.” However hard you try.

Luke 1:37

What if TEC gets fed up with the current PD’s adgenda (and there are hopeful signs), and when it comes time to pick a new PB, that person begins TEC on the long road back to health?

Thanks for this post Ben.  A few thoughts on it:

The recent election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to the Primates’ Standing Committee is a matter of considerable shock and disappointment.

Disappointment yes, but shock?  No, I was expecting that she would be re-elected.  The Americas include Canada (of same view as TEC), TEC, Mexico (TEC client province), Central America (TEC client province), Brazil (TEC client province), West Indies, and the Southern Cone.  At best you will have a 5-2 vote supporting whatever TEC would want.

We do well to consider that this is not a question that must be answered by the Archbishop of Canterbury alone.

True, but the ABC has repeatedly blocked the implementation of any serious consequences for TEC for its breaches of Communion moratoria and has played Machiavellian games to bend rules to allow TEC members to remain on Communion bodies which they should have been ineligible for.  This sent a pretty clear signal to any who “had ears to hear” that he had no respect for the moratoria.  Had Rowan Williams thrown his moral support behind serious consequences, I very much doubt that KJS would a member of the Standing Committee.

Rather, it is a question that must be answered by the Primates as a whole – and not just those who assembled in Dublin, but those who were absent for any reason at all.  Many forget this; too many are quick to assume that everything that happens in the Anglican Communion rests solely on the shoulders of the See of Canterbury, and too many are also quick to assume that non-attendance is somehow a badge of virtue.

For the reasons stated above, I doubt very much that the absent primates could have blocked KJS’s re-election.  Indeed, the only change that absent primates could have likely affected was the African representative.

He, more than any other Anglican Primate, needs to understand life on the ground among Anglicans in the United States of America.  It is acrimonious and painful, and its divisiveness seems to know no limit.  More than any other Primate, the Archbishop needs to know the epic level of hurt and betrayal felt by so many, and the ways that the recent decision has only exacerbated this situation.  (I myself am something of a fan of the Archbishop – an increasingly rare thing among North American Anglicans – and I would be happy to help arrange his travel itinerary should he visit.)

You are assuming that Rowan Williams doesn’t know what is going on in North America.  To make such an assumption after all the people that Rowan Williams has met, and after all that he has heard, and recognizing that, whatever else might be said about him, nobody can deny that he is an exceptionally intelligent individual, seems somewhat misplaced.  It seems to me that the most likely situation is that Rowan Williams knows exactly what is going on in North America and is not moved by this knowledge to act differently then he has.  It is this sad and disappointing realization that has caused me to have absolutely no confidence in Rowan Williams’ will or capacity to lead the Anglican Communion in the paths it needs to be led.

The spiritual and pastoral strain in North America is beginning to crush people – and not just any people, but faithful people.  I see it, I hear it, I read it, and each of these to an increasing degree.  Faithful Anglicans who have broken faith with no facet of Creed, Scripture, or Tradition are beleaguered in North America….Dioceses have broken, parishes are withering, and yet some strive to remain faithful.  Do the Primates not know this?  If so, why do they not praise it, and why have they elected a Primate whose own leadership has proactively made things worse?

Ben - the primates tried to do something about it back in 2007 with the Dar Communique.  This communique was only grudgingly agreed to by the GAFCON group, if you recall.  But it was TEC - aided and abetted by Rowan Williams - that led the charge to scuttle the plan.  And Rowan Williams not only declined to undertake the actions called for by the primates, he undertook unilateral action to sabotage the Communique.  The Primates that care about our situation in North America have tried to act, but have been stymied.  You clearly have no love for the “GAFCON primates” but there is also a reason why primates such as Chew, Earnest and Anis have stayed away from the Primates’ Meeting.  They believe that Rowan Williams has illegitimately sabotaged the Communion Instruments, thus rendering them impotent to address the situation in North America.  The unfortunate truth is this:  the primates who would do something to assist faithful Anglicans in North America through the Communion Instruments have been disenfranchised by Rowan Williams.  Rowan Williams clearly has no intention of doing anything.  There is no help coming from the official sources.  Calling for such action is whistling in the wind.

I write these things as a young American and faithful Anglican.  Because of this I cannot help but wonder: will I soon come to find that I have no Anglican parish in which to marry, and no such parish in which to baptize and raise my children?  Truly, we live in an evil day when are forced to ask such questions!  I do not offer this protest in a spirit of petulant demand; I am no child of the sixties.  I simply ask – no, I plead – that a word be spoken which indicates that the Primates of the Anglican Communion understand the urgency of their pastoral role, particularly to those Anglicans who struggle and are indeed breaking under conditions for which there is no alleviation in sight.  The Primates – all of them – need to reverse and revoke the appointment of the American Presiding Bishop to the Primates’ Standing Committee.  Anything else is the height of pastoral irresponsibility.

Sorry Ben, but Rowan Williams, the ACO, and their liberal allies are politically savvy enough to ensure that this appointment will not be reversed or revoked.  This same group was able to illegally seat members of the Anglican Communion Standing Committee and then have these appointments retroactively “legalized” even though they were in violation of the relevant constitution.  This was the same group at ACC-Jamaica that was able to illegally re-visit a decision that had just been made and overturn it.

I believe that a new era of anarchy has descended on the Anglican Communion.  The official Instruments of Communion are dominated by and in the firm control of people who do not care about young, faithful Anglicans in North America; who do not care if the parishes on the ground wither and die there; so long as they maintain their political control of the various institutions.  The long-term future of the Anglican Communion no longer rests with the now thoroughly discredited official Instruments, but rather with the Global South’s primates (and any others who wish to realize a comprehensive, united, future Anglican Communion).  And I think that Phillip Turner in particular, and the ACI generally, have recently written a number of excellent essays on what needs to be done on that front.  I agree with you that the GAFCON approach is not the preferred way forward.  But that doesn’t change the reality that the future of the Anglican Communion still rests with the Global South.  My recommendation to you is to engage with Turner, the ACI, Goddard, and, yes, with GAFCON supporters, in hammering out what you think needs to be in a future Communion.

I very much doubt that there will be any settled Anglican option across North America for some time to come, nor that the Anglican Communion will emerge from anarchy any time soon.  So, if you need to grieve the death of what once was, then best enter the first stage of grief now.  If you wish to work at helping lay the foundations for what might hopefully rise in the future, then begin a dialogue with those who will be creating that future.  I say this not because I think that the Global South ought to necessarily be the ones to save the Communion, only that they are the only ones in the position to actually do it.  If you have only one car that is capable of driving you out of the desert, you won’t gain much just criticizing the car or complaining about it, nor will you gain much by exhorting the other car that has ran out of gas and lost its wheels to begin driving again.

I agree.

I very much doubt that there will be any settled Anglican option across North America for some time to come, nor that the Anglican Communion will emerge from anarchy any time soon.  So, if you need to grieve the death of what once was, then best enter the first stage of grief now.  If you wish to work at helping lay the foundations for what might hopefully rise in the future, then begin a dialogue with those who will be creating that future.  I say this not because I think that the Global South ought to necessarily be the ones to save the Communion, only that they are the only ones in the position to actually do it.

I think that Philip Turner’s piece, just published, http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/ shows a desirable analysis as well as suggests a needed willingness for the Northern/Western Church to sit at the feet of those who lead in the Global South.  I certainly desire there to be a coming together of the insiders and outsiders, mutually to embrace one another and work together somehow, thus suspending criticism so that the tasks that Philip sets out may be worked on.  If I remember rightly last year the Rwandan Province called for a Council of the Church so as to do just that.

The orthodox of the Northern /Western part of what used to be the AC need to find a way to move forward rather than looking to what was.  I suggest and agree - the only way forward is with the GS.  None of us is perfect.  Some of us have been grieving for what was for a long time and have found ways to move on.

Fr. Ian Montgomery - 19 February 2011 01:47 PM

Daniel Weir - 19 February 2011 11:27 AM

As a child of the sixties, I find the use of that phrase as a term of derision offensive. Many of us risked jail to protest segregation and the unjust war in Viet Nam.

How can one somehow arrogate exclusively to ones era and context this word “Protest?”  For many the protest to the TEC agenda, KJS’s agenda and the shenanigans of the ABC, ACO and the ACC has cost them their vocation, living and more.  They have risked these for the sake of Truth and God’s call on their lives.  I am of your generation and I PROTEST!  This is just as serious as the protests in the 60’s.

Ian-
You seem to be reading more into my comment than was there. I affirm the value of protest, even when I disagree with it. My comment was simply a response to what I saw as a dismissive comment about our generation. I might have added that some children of the sixties, e.g., Jonathan Daniels, lost their lives in the struggles for justice.

Dan

You are correct Dan - I missed your point entirely - I apologize.  You and I are of the same generation, but I read the piece differently as I did your comment.
Have a Blessed Sunday - Mine was Cathedral in the morning and then shanty town this afternoon.  Otherwise pomp to poverty!  I prefer to work with the poor frankly and am blessed to be here.  Peace - Ian

Mr. Wirrel -

In general, I couldn’t agree more with your response to Mr. Guyer’s pained and heartfelt piece.  I too share the pain and frustration at the complete collapse of the Anglican Communion Instruments in the face of the wanton defacement of the Episcopal Church’s once noble escutcheon.  I have a major disagreement, however: Archbishop Williams is not a Machiavellian; he is - likely against his intellectual inclinations - a Hegelian.  Whatever else he has hoped to achieve over the last eight excruciatingly long years, the one thing he has never failed to ensure is that a place is made at the table for all and that those at table are exhorted to converse.  This cannot be news by now.  For Williams, discipline can never mean removal from conversation for conversation is the one means available to imperfect humanity to find Truth.  The consequences he talks of, whether last Pentecost or any other time, are of hurt relationships among the conversants, not removal - even temporarily - from the conversation. 

Two major problems herein are, of course, obvious:

1. The Hegelian process never forecloses the possibility of something currently considered false turning out, in a deeper sense, to be true.  Hence, the complete lack of theological raw material from which to construct a plausible Christian defense of the desiderata of the Homosexual Movement is no impediment.  Something is sure to turn up some day.  Of course, theoretically - and I don’t doubt that Archbishop Williams would, perhaps grudgingly, agree - the same could be said for racist theories, for instance.  By its nature the Hegelian process denies finality to the judgment about any truth claim.

This is, of course, no more believed by TEC’s leadership (who are very much convinced that final judgment has been rendered on racism, sexism, homophobia, biblical literalism, environmentalism and a host of other matters) than it is by those bishops of the Global South who, entirely aware of the half century of debate on homosexuality in the North, recognize that no plausible case has been made because it can’t (this, of course, is my own position, but I think I see it clearly enough in what many GS leaders are saying).  For both sides, there are matters that are very much closed to debate.  Mrs. Schori and many of the Americans have made abundantly clear that they consider the matter of homosexual “marriage” settled and that there is no possibility that they might be in the wrong.  Ditto, in reverse, pretty much the rest of the Christian world.

2. All the Hegelian can do is offer seats at the table; he cannot possibly force anybody into them.  The conversation, therefore, becomes only a conversation only among the willing.  I think it essential if one is to understand Archbishop Williams that one recognize that he earnestly wants every seat filled and everyone putting forth his heartfelt opinion.  He has no desire at all to see the Africans or anyone absent themselves.  I think he is fully aware that some people cannot, in good conscience, sit at table with certain others.  He simply cannot honor those conscientious requests by enforcing them himself.  I think he believes that he would thereby violate his own conscience, which demands that seats be offered to all.

This, obviously, has the perverse effect of limiting table attendance far more than would be achieved by simply removing one or two of the guests.  He cannot not know that.  The Americans are absolutely certain of the rightness of their position and have no intention of actually arguing for it, save in a thoroughly ad hoc manner the intention of which is to achieve the goal, not to explicate any depth of revealed or unearthed truth - truth being most certainly that which they feel strongly in their hearts, not that which God grants from outside.  The one and only thing they wish from outside is legitimacy.  This they understand they cannot grant to themselves but must have it conferred by others.  Having the seat at the table is tantamount to being granted legitimacy and they would no sooner absent themselves from the table than give up their political advocacy.  The Global South, by and large, particularly by dint of its Protestantism, can take or leave the table, depending on the conformance of its attendees and conduct of its affairs to what is revealed specifically in Holy Scripture.  Thus the Hegelian process sets itself up as a sort of one-way ratchet favoring the Americans and discouraging, say the Nigerians.  Those who know the truth and seek legitimacy will show up; those who know the Truth and seek communion in it will not.

I will say here that I wish matters had been pursued otherwise by the Orthodox.  I wish that they had better understood Archbishop Williams’ approach and made use of it to sideline the Americans and ultimately force them - for they have consciences, too, and less patience than even the most perfervid Protestants among our number - to absent themselves.  But I can’t help but suspect that this would have taken some Machiavellianism on our side and the consequences might not have been as desirable as I am tempted to think.

Hegelianism ultimately mistakes a means for an end and serves up mere inclusiveness, not catholicity.  By refusing to reject truth claims that can find no plausible purchase in Divine Revelation, by leaving it up to individual consciences what they can and cannot partake of, thereby removing, not the weakest but the strongest consciences from the discussion, the process becomes master rather than servant.  In Lewisian terms, the process cannot ultimately say to God, “Thy will be done”, for God’s will is not that we go on talking incessantly amongst ourselves as the sole or even primary means to find His Truth.  He will therefore say to it, “Thy will be done”, and the gabfest will wind down into utter irrelevancy.

Archbishop Williams, as I say, is no Machiavellian.  He has a conscience and is tirelessly and, I believe, quite courageously following it.  I think that the problem is that his conscience ultimately is not properly formed.  By refusing to exclude even extreme and clearly settled falsehoods, by throwing the conversation open to any and all, Revealed Truth becomes but one voice among many.  I can understand that he expects that the Holy Spirit will not be so sidelined and that that voice of Truth will prevail.  And He will.  But He does demand that some voices be silenced, that though the demons believe and though they speak the Truth - “Son of David, what have you to do with me?” - they must not be allowed to speak.  Not all things in the body are parts of the body and some must come out of it for its own health.  It is an errant conscience, not a missing one, that has so badly damaged our Communion.  It will be likely some time before she recovers and I fear that Archbishop Williams, an ultimately tragic figure, will alas not figure in the needed repair.

Daniel M.:  I was using “Machiavellian” in a very loose way.  While I agree with most of what you write, I am not convinced that Rowan Williams has always been acting above board or in good faith.  Had he stated at the outset his Hegelian leanings, then that would be one thing.  I think, however, that what has caused the increasing lack of trust and confidence in him is that he has suggested that he leans one way, then acts behind the scenes to ensure a contradictory result.  Why would he agree to the Dar Communique in the meeting and then undermine it?  Why would he do what he did at ACC-Jamaica?  Why would he apparently agree to the decision to ban Ashey as the Ugandan rep at ACC-Jamaica? (I see this as a disturbing indication of a double-standard in Williams in how he treats the white western churches and the non-white Global South churches).  Why would he acquiesce in the secret new ACC constitution?  Why would he acquiesce in illegally seating the TEC members on the new Standing Committee?  I refer to him as Machiavellian because he hasn’t been upfront with people, and has manipulated the levers of power to achieve a final result at variance from what he claimed to have desired.

I do, otherwise agree with your post.  I think that it is very wrong to suggest that Rowan Williams is simply TEC’s lap dog.  I think that the are operating on very different agendas, which just happen to overlap right now.  TEC desperately wants to remain a part of the formal structure of the Anglican Communion and so derive some legitimacy from that, while Rowan Williams simply wants to keep a discussion going with everyone, and that includes TEC.