Posted on 08/28/2005 7:17:23 AM PDT by sionnsar
At a pivotal meeting of the Anglican
Consultative Council in England, orthodox
sexuality teaching is affirmed and undergirded
in a key change in ACC membership, and
ECUSA and Canada get another request to
"withdraw." But could the Mother Church and
the Archbishop of Canterbury now face
effective suspension as well? Surprising new developments threaten a major shift in the
Anglican Communion’s crisis.
Report/Analysis By The Editor
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, the summer has seen calls for the U.S. Episcopal and Canadian Anglican Churches to "shape up or ship out" of the Anglican Communion become flashing neon signs.
In June, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) became the second of the Communion’s four advisory "instruments of unity" to ask both churches to withdraw from the ACC until the 2008 Lambeth Conference, while they decide between continued Communion membership and policies supporting homosexual practice.
The vote endorsing the effective suspension of the two bodies by Anglican primates (provincial leaders) last February was the more noteworthy in that it came–albeit narrowly–from the most historically liberal of the "instruments," and despite North American representatives’ best efforts to justify their provinces’ pro-gay decisions in presentations before the ACC.
Any hint that the U.S. Episcopal Church (ECUSA), at least, is now retreating from those decisions, after suffering a second rebuke, has not so far been evident, however. In the weeks after the ACC meeting, for example, ECUSA’s liberal hierarchy was silent as Connecticut and Eastern Michigan bishops acted to inhibit or depose orthodox priests who had not left ECUSA for "abandonment of communion"; in the Connecticut action, the bishop also forcibly seized the priest’s parish building. In the Michigan case, the deposed priest was the sixth faithful cleric lost to or pressured out of the diocese in just the last two years. (See more in "Focus.")
Nor did it seem coincidental that all this transpired around the same time that the now-fully-constituted Panel of Reference met in July to start monitoring alternate episcopal care for Anglican faithful at theological odds with their bishop. Indeed, as both of the just-disciplined Episcopal clerics had appealed to the Panel in recent months, the actions against them seem aimed at pre-empting the Panel, which had requested a stay in ecclesiastical and civil proceedings in cases under its review.
The liberal leaders may have been galvanized, as well, by the July announcement of a developing western hemisphere alliance of Anglican faithful that will transcend Communion boundaries. (Read more in the second special report.)
Earlier, of course, the Episcopal House of Bishops, responding to requests from Anglican primates and the 2004 Windsor Report, agreed not to authorize any public same-sex blessings, or consent to any new gay bishops–or straight ones–but only until the 2006 General Convention further pronounces on these matters.
What one might conclude from all this is not just what conservatives generally already believe: that most liberal ECUSA leaders will not retreat from their revisionist theology–that message certainly came across at the ACC meeting–or be receptive to the Panel, at least while it remains an unknown quantity. No, one is also tempted to surmise from recent developments that some liberal leaders have begun to accept and prepare for "walking apart" from the Communion. Significantly, July also saw a closed-door meeting in Los Angeles of 19 revisionist and conservative Episcopal bishops, evidently to discuss ways of finally resolving their deep conflict–including through a negotiated separation and division of church assets.
Whether or not that is the case, the Anglican Church of Kenya’s House of Bishops recently formalized a lot of the "buzz" around the Communion by petitioning Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to exclude from the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops the prelates of any province who flout the Communion’s sexuality teaching as expressed in Lambeth ’98 Resolution 1.10. The resolution–which supports traditional marriage and deems homosexual practice "incompatible with scripture"–has now been endorsed by all four Anglican "instruments" (which, in addition to the ACC and Lambeth, also include the Primates’ Meeting and the Archbishop of Canterbury). The Kenyan petition was delivered to Dr. Williams during his stop in Nairobi on July 20. Some believe that the requested exclusions from Lambeth could effect or start the formal expulsion of ECUSA and the Canadian Church from the Communion.
C Of E: Next On The Hot Seat?
At deadline, however, it appeared that there could a huge complication with this appeal, one that few have anticipated: What happens if the Archbishop of Canterbury himself and the rest of the Church of England’s hierarchy are among those under effective discipline by the time Lambeth is to start in Canterbury?
The specter of just such a major development in the Communion’s crisis had in fact already been raised at this writing by no less than the most prominent Anglican leader outside Britain, Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola.
IT ALL STARTED with Britain’s new Civil Partnerships Act, coming into effect December 5, which will give some marriage-like rights and benefits to homosexuals and others who register their partnerships (which may or may not be sexual in nature). However, as the Act bars partnerships between close relatives, critics say it is hard not to conclude that its main intent is creating a new form of "marriage." England’s Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) said the Act would likely affect up to 750 clergy (i.e., those presumably already in homosexual relationships and therefore in violation of church law).
Confronted with such an admittedly sticky predicament, the C of E prelates might have offered affected priests a choice between registering their same-sex partnerships or continuing as clergy in good standing. (That would risk the loss of up to 750 gay clergy, if LGCM’s figure is correct, but the church already seems unconcerned about possibly losing the same number of orthodox priests over women bishops.)
What the C of E’s House of Bishops (HOB) did in July, though, was declare in a pastoral statement that civil partnerships are not a form of marriage, and that clergy who register same-sex partnerships could remain in post–if they pledge to uphold church law by abstaining from sex.
Far from calming the situation, the policy fanned the flames of the Communion’s current controversy. Viewing the decision as absurdly unrealistic, and therefore as selling the pass on "gay marriage," Archbishop Akinola called for the Mother Church to be disciplined unless it recants. At least two other primates also have registered extreme dismay over the C of E policy.
In comments to London’s Sunday Times after reviewing the HOB statement and the Civil Partnerships Act, Akinola ridiculed the bishops’ decision, asking if they planned on placing cameras (dubbed "vicarcams" by one observer) in the bedrooms of their clergy.
"I believe that the temporary suspension of the Church of England is the right course of action to take. The church will be subjected to the same procedures and discipline that America and Canada faced," said the spiritual leader of nearly 18 million Anglicans.
Akinola, who also leads the potent Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, also pointedly reminded that he does not need to "come to Lambeth Palace in order to go to heaven."
In a separate statement, Akinola said that the Act makes plain "that what is being proposed is same-sex marriage in everything but name." He therefore found it "incomprehensible," in light of the HOB statement’s reaffirmation of historic sexuality teaching, that the bishops would "not find open participation in such ‘marriages’ to be repugnant to Holy Scriptures and incompatible with Holy Orders."
The African leader said the no-sex pledge to be extracted from clergy registering same-sex partnerships is "the height of hypocrisy...totally unworkable," and "invites deception and ridicule. How on earth can this be honored?"
Indeed, within days of Akinola’s statement, some gay C of E clergy were already saying they would give no assurance of sexual abstinence after registering their partnerships, and some C of E bishops were saying they would not request such assurance. LGCM predicted that, in other cases, clergy would lie to their bishops to remain faithful to their calling and their partners. And, more than 20 clergy pledged to offer church blessings to couples who have entered into civil partnerships, despite the bishops’ ban on the practice.
Akinola also noted "with alarm" that the statement proposes "a deliberate change" in discipline by not expecting the church to ask anything of laypeople who register same-sex partners before they are admitted to baptism, confirmation and communion.
"It seems clear that the [HOB] is determined to chart a course for the [C of E] that brings further division at a time when we are still struggling with fragmentation and disunity within the Communion," he stated. That "is not a path that we can follow," and is "clearly at odds" with the mind of the wider Communion. Akinola called on the English HOB to "renounce" its statement, in favor of historic sexuality doctrine.
The Sunday Times report quoted Central African Archbishop Bernard Malango as saying it is "very unfortunate" if Dr. Williams had backed the HOB policy (though presumably, he did)."It makes me sick. They have to explain what they mean by being married and having no sex. This is the final nail in the coffin of the entire Anglican Communion."
West Indies Archbishop Drexel Gomez said: "I don’t see how civil partnerships will work. I will have a difficult time explaining this; my people will take it in a negative way. This is an added threat at this moment of tension within the Communion. Two-thirds of the Communion will not be able to accept it." Twenty-two of the Communion’s 38 provinces have already reduced or broken communion with ECUSA over its support for actively homosexual bishop Gene Robinson and same-sex blessings.
Interestingly, The Sunday Times report by Alex Delmar-Morgan (not run in full in the published version but independently circulated online) indicated that the foreign primates seemed blindsided, not just by the C of E bishops’ position on civil partnerships, but by pro-gay trends they evidently were unaware were already extant in the C of E. They were "astonished," the story said, by reports (noted previously in TCC) that eight of ten C of E bishops voted for the Civil Partnerships Act in a House of Lords debate, and that at least 300 same-sex blessings take place annually in C of E parishes in violation of church policy. They were alarmed as well by LGCM’s claim that it sends out more than 1,000 packs containing liturgical and ministerial resources for same-sex ceremonies, and its prediction that more than 1,500 clergy will have registered their civil partnerships within five years.
"A move, which would be highly embarrassing, to suspend the Church of England would be akin to the Commonwealth expelling Britain, its founder member, and it would leave the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury in the anomalous positions of being leading Anglicans technically outside the Anglican Communion," wrote The Sunday Times.
At this writing, Williams had not yet commented publicly on the partnerships controversy, nor were there indications that the HOB might revisit the matter. At the same time, it remained to be seen whether, if the C of E bishops do not renounce their policy, most Anglican primates would support action to discipline the Mother Church in the same manner as the North American provinces. However, signs were that Anglican primates were taking the matter "very seriously," a well-placed source said, and Akinola planned to bring the issue to a meeting of global South primates in October. In the meantime, he asked his brother primates and bishops to "remain calm in the face of this new provocation." Liberals: Not Convincing In Nottingham
It was not just a summer heat wave that caused tensions at the June 19-28 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, a body of bishops, clergy and laity from across the Communion formed in 1968 "to facilitate the cooperative work" of Anglican provinces.
It was also the ubiquity there of two ACC delegations that Anglican primates had asked to withdraw from the meeting, held at England’s Nottingham University. While superficially acceding to the primates’ request, ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada still sent their respective three-member delegations to the ACC gathering as observers. Those delegations were in addition to representatives from both bodies invited to come and "set out the thinking behind" their churches’ support for homosexual practice.
Reports said that, while the "observing" U.S. and Canadian ACC delegates ended up seated apart from other ACC members during sessions and were separately housed, they were otherwise highly visible and loquacious as the Nottingham meeting got underway, showing up for "all sessions, meals, social gatherings"; "mingling" and "lobbying" openly, and conversing with ACC staff (whose office receives significant subsidies from the North American Churches). One U.S. ACC member, the Rev. Robert Sessum, was said to have participated in Finance Committee meetings.
"They came not as delegates but observers, but they carried on like they were delegates, with the result that a closed-door meeting was held briefly with the Archbishop of Canterbury to resolve the tensions," one report said.
But Archbishop Williams’ June 20 presidential address to the ACC, while complex and not thoroughly single-minded, had to be sobering for the liberals. Calling the state of the church "catastrophic," he said at one point:
"The question is...about what the Church requires in its ordained leaders and what patterns of relationship it will explicitly recognize as unquestionably revealing of God. On these matters, the Church is not persuaded that change is right. And where there is a strong scriptural presumption against change, a long consensus of teaching in Christian history, and a widespread ecumenical agreement, it may well be thought that change would need an exceptionally strong critical mass to justify it. That, I think, is where the Communion as a whole stands."
THE NEXT DAY, delegations from the North American provinces–pre-selected by their respective primates–were each given 90 minutes to explain their church’s recent pro-gay decisions, with ACC delegates listening in "respectful silence" virtually throughout, one eyewitness said.
In his remarks, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold likened ECUSA’s acceptance of active homosexuals to the early Church’s decision to admit righteous Gentiles without making them undergo circumcision.
He argued that biblical interpretations have been contested within Christianity from the start, and that biblical writers likely had no experience of "faithful" homosexual unions as exist today.
ECUSA, he said, had "not reached a common mind" on the gay issue. But he said "the overwhelming majority of Episcopalians are committed to living a life of unity in difference," a concept he commended to the whole Communion.
The Rev. Susan Russell, president of the Episcopal gay group, Integrity, likened the current debate over homosexuality to that over women’s ordination. It was not her sexuality that needed "healing," she said, but the Church’s theology. She admitted that her Pasadena, California, parish has been blessing same-sex couples for 14 years. "The arc of the gospel is bound towards inclusiveness," she contended.
Jane Tully, the founder of Clergy Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (C-FLAG), said one of her sons is gay but that "God made him" and apparently "God likes diversity."
Others speakers on the ECUSA team were New York Suffragan Bishop (and ACC member) Catherine Roskam, who participated in Gene Robinson’s consecration; Atlanta Bishop Neil Alexander, who voted for Robinson’s consecration; Louisiana Bishop Charles Jenkins, who voted against Robinson but who believes Griswold (Robinson’s chief consecrator) will guard his interests; and the Rev. Michael Battle, vice president of Virginia Theological Seminary, which allows enrollment by actively homosexual students.
In addition to their oral presentations in Nottingham, ECUSA representatives presented ACC members with To Set Our Hope on Christ, a 135-page work prepared by theologians and one historian in response to the request in Windsor Report paragraph 135. This asks ECUSA to explain "from within the sources of authority that..Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same-gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ."
The document maintains that a nearly 40-year discernment process in ECUSA has produced ‘a growing awareness of holiness in same-sex relationships."
THE CANADIAN TEAM said that their church’s General Synod had yet to take a position on same-sex blessings (though the Synod last year affirmed the "integrity and sanctity" of committed homosexual relationships), but that moves toward fuller inclusion make sense in a country that has moved to legalize same-sex "marriage." They also agreed that biblical authority is central to the debate but that there are "various ways of reading and understanding scripture" in the Communion.
The Very Rev. Peter Elliott, rector and dean of Christ Church Cathedral in the Diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver), said the courage of his church allowed him to be honest about being a partnered gay man. He said that, since 2003, there had been 14 rites celebrating homosexual unions in New Westminster, so far the only Canadian diocese to officially implement such rites. Elliott said he had conducted six of the 14 ceremonies, for couples who had been legally married beforehand under civil law.
Canadian Archbishop Andrew Hutchison contended that the gay issue "should not be church dividing," though his own theological commission has deemed same-sex blessings a doctrinal, not a pastoral matter.
Others tapped by Hutchison to appear were Robert Falby, the Diocese of Toronto’s chancellor and co-author of the "integrity and sanctity" resolution; Maria Jane Highway, an "Indigenous Partner to General Synod" who supported the Synod’s 2004 resolution; and the Rev. Dr. Stephen Andrews, president of Thornloe University, and one of the principal authors of the just-mentioned Primate’s Theological Commission report. The report’s finding that blessing same-sex unions is a doctrinal matter means that the issue can only be decided by General Synod (which next meets in 2007), though New Westminster has refused to cease gay blessings in the meantime.
"Both delegations want fervently to remain in the Anglican Communion" and expressed regret for hurt feelings, "but offered no possibility of stepping back from past actions or future innovations" in regard to sexual morality, said a CHALLENGE reader who witnessed the presentations in Nottingham.
"They asked the ACC to accept `diversity’ in this matter as being something which is not communion-breaking." They clearly expect the rest of the Anglican world to follow their lead eventually, he said, because the change in their churches is "claimed to be directly analogous to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15...though no mention was made of the requirement imposed by the Church on Gentile converts in Acts 15:20."
Listeners were told that the Episcopal bishops "DEPO" (Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight) plan "was a great success," TCC’s eyewitness said. They were not told about financial and membership losses resulting from ECUSA’s pro-gay posture, or about those who have been "deposed or threatened merely for indicating dissent from the new ‘orthodoxy.’"
As well, a "Global South" statement and several conservative commentators noted that the presentations (especially that from the ECUSA panel) were short on theological justification or biblical exegesis to underpin claims that the Holy Spirit has authored an acceptance of homosexual practice, or explanations as to why the churches violated the Communion’s clear teaching as expressed in the Lambeth ’98 resolution. The global South statement noted that that resolution’s pledge to "listen to the experience of homosexual persons" must be preceded by an affirmation of the resolution’s main thrust.
ACC delegate and lawyer Stanley Isaacs from South East Asia–a region dominated by Muslims and Buddhists–said: "They gave us a story about how God loves them as everyone else, and how they love Jesus and their families. I am not convinced."
ON JUNE 22, the day after the presentations, the ACC adopted an amended version of a surprise resolution that had been introduced as the meeting began by delegate Isaacs, and backed by a dozen mainly African ACC members–notably including Nigeria’s Archbishop Akinola (the only primate currently on the ACC other than Dr. Williams, who serves as the ACC’s president).
The resolution–adopted in a closed session, secret ballot vote of 30-28 with four abstentions–affirmed Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the church’s normative teaching, and endorsed the primates’ call for the temporary withdrawal of ECUSA and the Canadian Church from the ACC, with delegates interpreting that to include the ACC Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Finance and Administration Committee; the two elected bodies manage ACC business when the Council is not in session. (The original resolution asked the churches to withdraw from all international Anglican structures, but it was evidently decided that the ACC delegates could only speak for their own "instrument.")
The closed session was requested by Archbishop Akinola, who wrote ACC Chairman, Bishop John Paterson of New Zealand, that "We dare not go forward from here without at least some indication of what comes next after listening to yesterday’s presentations" from the North American Churches.
"Nobody is trying to be cruel here," Isaacs said. Homosexuals "are part of the Church...But if you are saying they should be priests, or...married in the Church, that is a different ballgame altogether."
As the ACC is not set to meet again until after Lambeth ’08, the second vote for the two churches’ exclusion from the ACC has little practical punch, but still packed a strong psychological and symbolic wallop, as evidenced by the reactions of the two North American primates.
Bishop Griswold contended that the vote, which was "contingent on the absence of the six votes" from North American delegates, "reveals a divide" among ACC members. As a step in healing the divide, he stressed another, unanimously-adopted resolution on "listening" which endorses "a means of monitoring the work done on the subject of human sexuality" in the Communion, which will now include ECUSA’s To Set Our Hope on Christ.
Archbishop Hutchison said the vote does not significantly isolate North American liberals further, but also added that the resolution would have failed had the six missing delegates been allowed to participate. ("Does the person on trial," one observer asked in response, "get to join in the jury’s decision?")
The liberal leaders took another hit the same day, as well, as the ACC voted to change its constitution to include the 37 Anglican primates as ex officio members, a move Akinola said would improve relations and cooperation among the instruments of unity. The change, which will increase ACC membership from 78 to 115, responds to a Lambeth ’98 recommendation that the ACC had previously rejected. However, it will include steps to augment clerical and lay constituencies on the ACC to achieve proper balance.
The change will not be immediate, but must await the approval of the next Primates’ Meeting (slated for 2007, though some expect a meeting next year) and of two-thirds of Anglican provinces. (An intermediate step that apparently can be effected now was the ACC’s decision to combine the standing committees of the ACC and Primates’ Meeting.) Once accepted, though, the larger change in membership will clearly have a significant impact on a body that (as one observer put it) was "previously... skewed toward North Atlantic liberalism."
"The ACC is the most liberal of the...Communion’s instruments of unity, [but] the U.S. and Canada still lost [in Nottingham] and their jobs just got a whole lot harder," remarked the Midwest Conservative Journal. Reversal Of Fortune?
As implied by the primates’ February communiqué, responses from the 2006 Episcopal General Convention and 2007 Canadian General Synod are expected to finally decide whether the two churches will walk with or apart from the Communion–with any attempted "fudge" likely to be taken by the primates as a decision to walk apart. That conclusive judgment appears almost certain to be made by primates before Lambeth 2008, raising hopes that Lambeth will be fruitful rather than feud-full.
Plainly, though, the rather remarkable progress that this represents to conservative hopes for the Communion was threatening to become major regress at this writing, with the Communion’s roiled conflict perhaps engulfing even the Throne of St. Augustine. Scotland, too, still appeared poised to become a new front in the battle, as Anglican bishops there continued refusing to retract a controversial March declaration that being a practicing homosexual is not a bar to ministry.
And if the Mother Church–and the leader who decides attendees at and convenes the Lambeth Conference–are themselves under suspension by 2008, what then?
The recent meeting of Episcopal bishops in L.A. seemed to suggest that a "negotiated division" of ECUSA is being actively discussed. The question now, though, may be whether a far larger division is in view. n
Sources: Anglican Mainstream, Institute on Religion and Democracy, American Anglican Council, The Living Church, Anglican Communion News Service, The Daily Telegraph, Anglican Journal, The Times, Episcopal News Service, VirtueOnline, The Church of England Newspaper, The Guardian, The Standard, titusonenine.org, The Associated Press
The Panel Of Reference?
The Panel of Reference–commissioned by Anglican primates "as a matter of urgency" in February–still remains largely a question mark after it was at last fully constituted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in June and held its first meeting July 12-14.
At this writing, conservatives were still waiting (if with waning patience) to see if supervision by the 13-member Panel can help secure sufficient alternate episcopal oversight for faithful Anglicans at theological odds with their bishops, when it wields only moral and not binding authority.
"The acid test for the Panel will be whether the protection it offers proves adequate for those who are being harassed, oppressed, and forced to leave their jobs and their churches," said the Anglican Mainstream organization.
While petitioners may choose to reveal details of their appeals to the Panel, the Panel agreed to conduct its deliberations secretly, communicating its recommendations to the involved parties with Archbishop Williams’ consent.
So at this moment there was little more to go on but the Panel’s membership and the communiqué from its first (mainly organizational) meeting in London.
The communiqué said in part that the Panel recognizes in the "schemes of extended, shared or delegated episcopal ministry" established by various Anglican provinces "a real attempt...to meet the principled concerns of those...in serious theological dispute with their bishops or provinces over recent developments concerning questions of Christian doctrine and discipline." Noting "concerns...expressed about the adequacy of alternative pastoral oversight provided by the schemes," the Panel said it is "keeping [them] under review and will test their viability against the cases referred to it by the Archbishop of Canterbury." The latter statement refers to the fact parishes, dioceses and individuals seeking relief must first petition Archbishop Williams; he will in turn decide whether or not to refer the case to the Panel.
Conservative angst lingers over the man named to lead the Panel, former Australian Archbishop Peter Carnley, a liberal not known for providing for theological minorities in his own province. Carnley’s initial vision of the Panel was underwhelming to beleaguered faithful, and it appears under procedures adopted in July that he will have considerable influence on the Panel’s recommendations.
Still, the Panel appears to have a slight conservative majority. Some believe that means members will neutralize each other. On the other hand, as only a few members are well known, and there are some impressive credentials among them–several have legal backgrounds–there could be some surprises from the Panel.
In addition to Carnley, Panel members include: Michael Evans, QC, chairman of the Standing Committee of the Governing Body of the Church in Wales; the Rev. Dr. Joseph Galgalo, lecturer in systematic theology at St. Paul’s United Theological College, Limuru, Kenya; Bernard Georges, chancellor of the Province of the Indian Ocean; former Central African Primate Khotso Makhulu; the Rev. Canon John Moore, former director of the Intercontinental Church Society; Mrs. Rubie Nottage, chancellor of the Province of the West Indies and member of the Lambeth Commission on Communion; former Texas Bishop Claude Payne; Archbishop of York-designate John Sentamu; former Southern Cone Primate Maurice Sinclair; Robert Tong, member of the Anglican Church of Australia’s Church Law Commission, and Chairman of the Council of the Anglican Church League, Australia; the Rev. Stephen Trott, Church Commissioner and member of Church of England’s General Synod; and Ms. Fung Yi Wong, Anglican Consultative Council delegate from the province of Hong Kong. n
Find more information on the Panel in the second special report, and the story in "Focus" titled "Some Friendly Reminders For The Panel Of Reference."
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.