Victories & Defeats on the Fields of "Process"

Stand Firm ^ | 2/15/2007 | Sarah Hey

[sionnsar]

At one point, a week ago, the agenda was to devote [drum roll] four hours to the discussion of the Episcopal Church and its response to the Windsor Report. There were to be 16 official sessions, four of them Bible Studies, three for "administrative meetings" and six others for single issues like the church in China, theological education, the "listening process", and the Millennium Development Goals. Two sessions were to be granted to Bishop Jefferts-Schori to defend the Episcopal church. Thanks to George Conger, and his article for The Church of England Newspaper on the agenda, we learned all of this on February 1 or thereabouts. . . . My how things have changed. So far, we have had three sessions on the Episcopal church -- a full day -- and according to the press briefing Friday morning is also to be taken up with the isssue.

To put it coldly and brutally -- the revisionists won the process victory on the "report" and the conservatives won the process victory on the "agenda."

We are at a 1-1 score and we are only in the first quarter of the game.

---

As we all know by now, it is going to be a very long long five days.

As I mentioned in this morning's panel discussion, there are about a dozen options for discipline, new provinces, and the covenant, all of which are "variables" or "negotiation streams" that one puts into the equation or brings to the table, depending on your metaphor. The Tanzania meeting could appoint a college of bishops, it could allow internal episcopal oversight to parishes in other revisionist dioceses, it could recommend denying invitations to Lambeth of non-Windsor compliant bishops, it could strengthen the covenant draft, it could . . . take any number of positive actions that we have not yet imagined.

But one thing is quite clear. The battles that are being fought -- the battles that lead to victory or defeat in the "Anglican Wars" -- are over "process."

Let's talk a bit about "process".

One of the ways that one accomplishes decisions that one wishes to accomplish in a group is by placing "facts on the ground" in advance of decisions. Those facts might be, oh, say illegal consecrations. They might be apparatchiks making "official, public pronouncements" declaring certain items "off limits". They might be unbalanced appointments of committees. And of course, they might be, say, a report issued from a subcommittee.

Whatever the means, "process" decisions are important, as they ultimately [though not inevitably] lead to "actual" decisions of a body as a whole. But be that as it may, the more that "process" decisions guide a body's deliberations, the more we can assume that the actual body is divided as to goals, values, and even foundational worldviews. A body that is "unified" in these matters, depends far less on process decisions than a body that is divided.

Here might be a good place to recognize the five groups that are represented at Tanzania, each with their own agendas, values, and worldviews. On the "conservative" side are the "Federal conservatives" and the "Communion conservatives". Ominous rumblings from both sides, attempting to blame the other should defeat of the conservative position occur at this meeting have begun. Jordan Hylden's article in First Things, for example, seems to imply that, if the evangelicals do not "yield" their values and agendas, the communion will be lost and it will be the evangelical's fault. I have heard the same from the opposite side.

Let me assure, personally, both conservative "groups" that I and many others will have no sympathy for these cries of blame by either side, should they dramatically fail at working together. Both groups are made up of lovers of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and there is no excuse for not respecting and working through the values of those groups so that both may live in integrity within the Communion. No excuse.

On the liberal side, we have the radical "Federal revisionists" like Katharine Jefferts-Schori, and the moderate "Communion Revisionists", like the new primate of Hong Kong. I place Rowan Williams in the "Communion revisionist's" group, and it is clear that, through a brilliant use of process, he intends to keep as many Provinces within the group as possible, with as little discipline as possible and as much delay as possible.

All four of these groups -- along with the Anglican Communion Office -- arrive with strikingly different agendas, although the agendas of the federal and communion conservatives should be quite close. All will use "process" decisions to further their agendas.

Rowan Williams knew what sort of report on ECUSA's compliance with the Windsor Report would be submitted to the primates, and there is no doubt that the report by the sub-committee declaring the compliance by ECUSA furthers Rowan William's goals.

We can also assume that all five of the rest of the members of the committee knew about the report as it would be inconceivable that they would be kept unaware of their own committee's report.

What the report represents is not an "actual" decision by the body of primates, but a "process" decision by the subcommittee. The "process" decision is designed to advance the agenda of one segment of the four groups -- the "communion revisionists" and tangentially, of course, the ACO -- and lead to an "actual" decision of the whole body.

As such, it represents a "process" defeat for our side -- and a massive failure of process for one of the actually "conservative" members of the subcommittee, Archbishop Malango.

What might Archbishop Malango have done, in the "process", to deal with such a report?

Well, one "process" way of handling such a report would be to issue a strong minority report that differed from the "majority" report. At that point, several things are accomplished. A new "report" is "placed on the ground", the "majority report" ceases to be a "unanimous" report. And there are then two "competing" reports established.

This did not happen, for whatever tragic reason.

But let us all remind ourselves that, often, conservatives lamentably fail at "process victories". Somehow it is considered that process is beneath us, that the process is unworthy of us, and that simply "good sense" and a pure heart will win the day. That attitude, as I have argued before, is a gnostic attitude, one that fancies itself "removed" from the physical realities of this world.

If you are presently serving on a frustrating committee, do not resign. Find allies if you can. Fight the "process" battle. And serve your allies at the end of the day, even if it means going through the time, energy, and bravery of issuing your own minority report. Leave your allies with *something* to hang on to -- as would have been helpful in the case of this subcommittee.

Naturally, some [less canny] revisionists have declared Unilateral and Complete victory. Interestingly, often when many canons are against them, they proclaim "time for further listening, conversation, and revisions to the canons". But when subcommittee reports are for them, they declare unilateral victory and hopefully and helpfully point us to the exit doors. ; > )

Leaving that particular "process" battle to the side, we must also take note of another process battle that has been fought -- and won by the conservatives.

At one point, a week ago, the agenda was to devote [drum roll] four hours to the discussion of the Episcopal Church and its response to the Windsor Report. There were to be 16 official sessions, four of them Bible Studies, three for "administrative meetings" and six others for single issues like the church in China, theological education, the "listening process", and the Millennium Development Goals. Two sessions were to be granted to Bishop Jefferts-Schori to defend the Episcopal church. Thanks to George Conger, and his article for The Church of England Newspaper on the agenda, we learned all of this on February 1 or thereabouts.

In other words, the agenda was to be 1) littered with comparatively meaningless trifles that ate up the time, 2) backloaded the important stuff, and 3) limited in the amount of time allowed to face the manifold and deep issues confronting the communion. Furthermore, the session with the three bishops invited from the Episcopal church was to take place on Wednesday, and not in the midst of the official day of the meeting on Thursday -- as in fact later happened.

. . . My how things have changed. So far, we have had three sessions on the Episcopal church -- a full day -- and according to the press briefing Friday morning is also to be taken up with the isssue.

To put it coldly and brutally -- the revisionists won the process victory on the "report" and the conservatives won the process victory on the "agenda."

We are at a 1-1 score and we are only in the first quarter of the game.

Now.

If all of this strikes you as a bit mind-boggling, and depressing, you are a human being with a pulse. It is indeed very saddening that a Christian community is down to making decisions based on process victories and defeats.

Imagine, if you will, that Matt Kennedy and I, by some terrible happenstance, ended up "in charge" of the Anglican Communion. Matt is the Grand High Potentate of All Anglitania, and I am the Chief Chancellor and Officiant of Liturgical Primacy. As StandFirm commenters well know, Matt and I have fevered disagreements on certain aspects of the Anglican Communion, and broadly speaking he might be categorized as a "federal conservative" and I as a "communion conservative". Our disagreements have been, shall we say, "vigorously" pursued on occasion.

Let's suppose that at our Annual Summit of All Anglitania and Liturgical Primacy we bring our various committee members, undersecretaries, administrators, and Liturgical Minions to this meeting and after our Grand Parade, we settle down to resolve our differences regarding the ecclesiology of Anglicanism in a spirit of unity, grace, and truth.

Matt Kennedy opens with a startling announcement. The Constitutional Committee -- of which he is the chair -- has issued a Special Report declaring that it is now unconstitutional to not receive the PCA denomination as a full "constituent" denomination of the church. An undersecretary of Matt's rises and promptly makes a motion to receive this report "in a spirit of study and humility." The startled and muddled summit votes to do so, at which time Matt rises and announces that the Summit has "received the report".

Blogland is abuzz with this "Special Constitutional Report" that has been "received". On the communion side of the aisle, there is much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands. When our side of the aisle attempts to point out that we had had only voted to "study" the report, the other side points out that we actually voted on "receiving" the report, and that the study follows the reception and was simply a "descriptive object of the prepositional phrase".

But the next day, the Agenda Committee, of which I am the chair" announces that the "Summit Agenda" has been released, and it is entered into the Summit Record. Thirty minutes after entering it into the Summit Record, I stand and announce that we must consider a constitutional ban on all non-Anglican denominations entering into "constituent communion". When Matt protests this, pointing to his "Special Constitutional Report" I point out that the agenda has placed that discussion *last* in the final 15 minutes of the Summit which ends a week hence. Further, the report has not been "accepted" and will not be up for "acceptance" until that last 15 minutes. At this time, the agenda states that we will be discussing the constitutional ban on all non-Anglican denominations and that is not open to amendment.

And on it goes.

I need hardly point out that those in the blogosphere -- those Anglican Christians who had looked to Matt Kennedy and Sarah Hey to resolve our differences in a spirit of unity, grace, and truth -- should be Very Concerned at this point.

It is clear that Matt and I will not be resolving our differences as Christians, but will rather be resolving our differences using "process battles".

In the same way, we should all be troubled that the process battles that we will be enduring over the next four days reveal a terrible disunity in the Anglican Communion. And the more process battles are won or lost -- for either side -- the more apparent it will be how divided we are.

On the other hand . . . we should have some perspective about the upcoming painful next few days.

Each day will bring a victory. Each day will bring a defeat.

That's the "process" game that we are playing and that I believe that God has called us to.

We may be confident, however, that God can accomplish anything that He desires. He may desire that we muddle along, working as hard as we can with what few "process tools" that we have. And that's okay. We are fortunate that we have human beings who have slowly but surely learned to use these process tools.

But God may also desire to show forth His power and in a sudden bold move, create a way where there was no way. He can do that too.

While we watch these advances, and retreats, and charges, and "flanking maneuvers" -- let us pray, watch, hope, and stay strong together.

God can save us at any time, in any way, and in whatever place. We are in His hands.

And the Anglican Communion is in His hands, to do with as He pleases.

[sionnsar]

[To the Anglican ping list: No doubt the majority of you will have quit and hit the "Back" icon before you reached the end of this piece, or this comment. But I think Sarah has something important to say here, if only because I have seen these "process victories" won by the libs to the detriment of my (former) diocese in what was then called PECUSA. --sionnsar]

But let us all remind ourselves that, often, conservatives lamentably fail at "process victories". Somehow it is considered that process is beneath us, that the process is unworthy of us, and that simply "good sense" and a pure heart will win the day. That attitude, as I have argued before, is a gnostic attitude, one that fancies itself "removed" from the physical realities of this world.

If you are presently serving on a frustrating committee, do not resign. Find allies if you can. Fight the "process" battle. And serve your allies at the end of the day, even if it means going through the time, energy, and bravery of issuing your own minority report. Leave your allies with *something* to hang on to -- as would have been helpful in the case of this subcommittee.

[sionnsar]

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[Kolokotronis]

+Nicholas of Myra knew all about "process". At the Council of Nicea, "Santa Claus" simply got up and punched out Arius the heretic.

[sionnsar]

LOL!!

[Kolokotronis]

Firey people, those Greeks!

[beelzepug]

Anglicanism as a "processed" product. Kind of like Velveeta, another processed product. Looks a little like cheese, smells a bit like cheese, even has a slightly cheesy flavor. But Brothers, it ain't cheese!

[WashingtonSource]

Love it. I wish someone would punch out Rowan and throw Madame Schori out on her skinny little ass.

[sionnsar]

Anglicanism as a "processed" product.

Now now, I know you know better...

[sionnsar]

Love it. I wish someone would punch out Rowan and throw Madame Schori out on her skinny little ass.

how very un-Anglican of you! *\;-)

[beelzepug]

Yes, but I find it so frustrating. As long as the process is followed, the outcome is really not that important. I realize you've had a sufficient amount of time to move away from all that; I, on the other hand, only four years removed, keep hoping that someone will have the cajones to finally say, "Enough!".

I suppose it would be healthier to get over it.

[sionnsar]

Well, I did get over it over the decades since my departure. It's been less easy since I took on this ping list -- and I am still waiting for the Global South to say, "Enough!"