|
 he
anonymous essay “What
it will take” that was recently posted to the
Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) Web site looks at eight arguments
advancing the adequacy of the resolutions proposed by the Special
Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and it
finds them wanting. The task that Christopher Wells and I set out for me
here was to review the ACI essay in light of our dialog. I will
not dissect the ACI arguments and examine the resolutions
with the same detail found in “What Should General Convention 2006 Do?”
Alas, this exercise may be less enlightening than we had hoped. I will,
however, have more to say in a separate conclusion. The headings
like the one below are taken from “What it will take.”
Firstly: The expression
of regret is clear and strong and meets what is asked of ECUSA by The
Windsor Report (TWR).
The ACI disputes both points with respect to
Resolution A160 Expression of Regret. Apparently, it would like
something along the lines of “We’re sorry we did it; we know [or,
perhaps even better, knew] it was wrong; and we won’t do it again.” The
Institute argues that the apology here—essentially the same as was
earlier tendered by the House of Bishops—is inadequate. It is one of the
frustrations of this whole affair that no one quite seems to know (1)
what an adequate apology is supposed to look like, or even (2) who gets
to decide whether an apology is adequate. This is the kind of confusion
that results when there are no rules in place, but some parties act as
if there are. The Windsor Report (§134) recommended that
the Episcopal Church (USA) be
invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds
of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and
consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the
consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would
represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the
Communion
Resolution A160 seems to satisfy this request.
General Convention is unlikely to admit its actions were wrong because
most Episcopalians (those at General Convention, anyway) do not believe
they were. One has to question the ethics of demanding contrition when
there is no sense of having done anything wrong.
Secondly: ECUSA can do no more than these resolutions because it has
a clear and long-standing commitment to LGBT people and it cannot be
expected to go back on these commitments at GC 06, indeed it must (as it
does in some of the proposed resolutions) clearly restate and reaffirm
those commitments.
The ACI suggests that General Convention, if it believes this, “should
recognise that their understanding of their
commitments to LGBT people is strictly incompatible and irreconcilable
with their commitments to the Communion.” However accommodating General
Convention might want to be here, it is, in a moral sense, caught
between Scylla and Charybdis. It is one thing to agree to jump overboard
voluntarily because one has been asked to lighten a sinking ship. It is
quite another to agree to throw someone else overboard for the same
purpose. The most charitable view here would be that there are plusses
and minuses both to “accommodating” the Anglican Communion and
“accommodating” LGBT people.
Thirdly: To demand full and clear compliance with TWR is a sign that
certain people are just being punitive and sticking to the letter of the
law in relation to ECUSA. This is perhaps evidence that conservatives
will never be satisfied as, in a quest for a ‘pure church’, they want
ECUSA to become something it is not and never shall be.
I have no idea what “sticking to the letter of the law” refers to here.
It is not clear to me that there is any relevant law to stick to.
Anyway, ACI says that, if the Episcopal Church does not coöperate
with the Communion, then it cannot complain if it is judged to have
“walked apart,” and it recommends that our church “call their bluff,”
referring to people who seem determined not to be satisfied. Again, of
course, there is the problem of who has to be satisfied.
Fourthly: Those most insistent that ECUSA
comply fully are not applying the same stringency in relation to TWR’s
other main recommendations, notably the cross-boundary interventions by
some in the Global South.
ACI has a long explanation of why diocesan
boundary crossings are not the indignity many think them to be. If
communion implies mutual accountability, however, why should the
Episcopal Church not insist on a moratorium on any parish within the
bounds of an Episcopal diocese coming under the authority of any bishop
of another province? The Special Commission should, perhaps, be asked this
question.
Fifthly: Even if ECUSA at GC
fails to respond fully and unambiguously to TWR, the trajectory of
ECUSA’s response to Windsor is clearly strongly in the right direction
and so it would be wrong to then penalise them.
The whole premise of
the ACI essay begins to seem silly by this point. The essay is
countering arguments “that have been advanced in various circles,”
although no details or citations are offered. The ACI argument is of the
“on one hand ... on the other hand” variety. Most notably, however, the
essay points to the scolding of the House of Bishops by the Bishop of
Exeter regarding the inadequacy of the “exercise very considerable
caution” language of Resolution A161 Election of Bishops. (Episcopal
bishops are said to have been alarmed, rather than incensed by this.) Is
it really proper to treat our church like a wayward child? General
Convention should do what it is going to do and take the consequences,
whatever they may be. Our constitutional slowness in responding to
rapidly changing situations is rightly pointed out by the ACI. We
probably have the best polity we can afford. In the short run, in any
case, it is what it is. Perhaps
General Convention should give advice to the House of Bishops and
Executive Council, suggesting what they should do in various
circumstances that might arise. This would, I suspect, make a very
interesting topic of discussion in Columbus.
Sixthly: This call ‘to exercise very
considerable caution’ is the best that can be gained from GC because the
structure of ECUSA’s polity means GC lacks authority in relation to the
process of ‘the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of
bishops’.
The ACI spends a whole page on this one. I do
no think the argument the ACI is trying to refute actually holds much
water. Apparently, the Special Commission considered an outright
moratorium and rejected the idea, not, apparently, because it considered
such a move unlawful or ineffective.
Seventhly: As ‘actions speak louder than
words’ and in practice 'extreme caution' means that it won't happen
again this level of commitment should be acceptable to the wider
Communion for as long as such caution is shown.
(Does any native American speaker use the word
“seventhly”?) I wonder if the ACI is not fighting a straw man here
(should I have said “straw person”?). Nevertheless, Resolution A161 is
surely going to be one of the most controversial resolutions, and it is
difficult to defend against the charge that the proposal from the
Special Commission is disingenuous. More straightforward would be
for us to say that we will not implement a moratorium but that we will urge
Episcopalians not to elect gay bishops simply to make a point. What veto
power do we get in return over, say Nigerian bishops? Can we demand a moratorium
on bishops in other provinces who think women should not be
ordained? If communion is to mean anything, should we not speak plainly
to one another and dispense with the winks and nods. The Anglican
tendency to hid the truth behind weasel words should be
subjected to serious theological scrutiny. I suspect that one could make a
case for minimizing it in Christian dialog.
Eighthly:
The proposed resolution on pastoral care and DEPO should be sufficient
for those who remain unhappy with ECUSA’s actions or who wish for
stronger commitment to TWR’s proposals.
The ACI seems not especially fond of DEPO:
“Many parishes committed to the Communion and TWR who find their bishop
is not willing to accept TWR in full will find it difficult to receive
his or her pastoral care or even, in some cases, recognise his or her
jurisdiction.” I am perplexed that willingness to accept a complex and
controversial report “in full” can be considered adequate justification
for having nothing to do with one’s local bishop. Am I missing something
here? The Episcopal Church is being asked to submit to the “authority”
of the Anglican primates who, in fact, have no authority over our
church, yet Episcopalians are expected to reject the legitimate
authority of their bishop simply because he or she does not hold a
committee report in reverence?
The ACI concludes its piece with speculation
on what will happen if the response from the Episcopal Church “falls
short.” (It will, in the eyes of some, of course.) Because this section
is largely speculative, I will not say much about it. The last
paragraph, however, is chilling:
Alongside this ways could perhaps
also be found of assisting more orderly differentiation within ECUSA.
Recognising the centrality of the diocese within Anglican structures,
diocesan conventions and bishops could be encouraged to take on board
the full requirements of TWR and walk the painful path of
reconciliation. If this were to happen then it would allow the Communion
greater clarity in distinguishing within ECUSA between those committed
to TWR and those who are satisfied simply with an inadequate response
from GC and who, in many cases, are committed to follow what they
believe is a prophetic path in disregard for Communion teaching and the
disciplines of interdependent life in communion.
This is nothing short of a threat to divide
and conquer the Episcopal Church, arguably the result desired by the Network
of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The willingness of elements
of the Anglican Communion to resort to such unprecedented and extra-legal
tactics hardly encourages the move toward a more thoroughgoing
“autonomy-in-communion.”
Previous: “Communion,” Once More with Feeling by Christopher
Wells
Next:
Resolutions for What Sort of Communion? or Against Craftiness! by
Christopher Wells
|
