WIll You Walk Away? (Page 2)

Tonight, thanks to Thinking Anglicans, we learn of this petition to be presented by the Society for the Propagation of Reformed Evangelical Anglican Doctrine (SPREAD – quite a good acronym, as acronyms go) to the Third Global Anglican South to South Leadership Team and Primates Advisory Group. Since this is presented by Bishop Rucyahana, a bishop in Rwanda, and the Primates meet in September in Kigali, Rwanda, perhaps they intend to present it there.

I have skimmed the document, and its intent seems clear. This is a call for a clear break between folks of the Anglican Communion who are more biblically literalist and those whom the petitioners believe are not sufficiently literalist. Since I haven’t read it detail, I’m not going to look for holes in their argument, although I imagine some will find holes, especially questioning just how much biblical literalism is really representative of the Anglican Tradition.

Rather, I am interested in the fact that this document calls for a clear break between a group they call “Anglican,” best represented by Peter Akinola of Nigeria; and two groups, called "Revisionist" and represented by Rowan Williams of Canterbury (and extensively by Frank Griswold of the Episcopal Church) and "Traditionalists/Pragmatists," represented, interestingly enough, by George Carey, retired of Canterbury. The point of the break is whether each group believes “the Church is subordinate to Scripture’s supreme authority.” Revisionists purportedly don’t; and Traditionalists/Pragmatists don’t, or don’t enough.

I have suggested in other venues my thought that both Rowan Williams and Frank Griswold really believe that some form of reconciliation is possible, whatever we might mean by “the highest level of communion possible;” and that that possibility is maintained best by keeping everybody “at the table,” as the phrase has been. I have also suggested that this has another possible consequence: that if reconciliation is not possible, whoever breaks the Anglican Communion, it won’t be us. Yes, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada took steps; but others reacted out of proportion. Yes, Canterbury has seemed to vacillate, or at least to condemn no one; and others couldn’t wait to condemn. But, we’re not the ones who broke the Communion. We can’t be: we’re still at the table, hoping they'll listen. The moral high ground of being the last folks still seeking reconciliation may not be as good as accomplishing reconciliation; but it’s still better than actually turning away. (WHen I was more hopeful I reflected on just this question.)

And this document actually calls for some to turn away, to walk apart. It is a petition: it seeks a new Communion, holding to what it considers true (Reformed Evangelical) Anglican teaching. It asks Archbishop to take up the mantle and lead. It explicitly calls for action now, not waiting for Lambeth or an Anglican Covenant (as understood in the Windsor Document, where it was intended to maintain, once again, “the highest level of communion possible” among existing provinces of the existing Communion) or any alternative primatial or episcopal oversight. (Indeed, they have particular concerns about alternative oversight as “a two-edged sword.”)

This is clear. This calls for decision and decisive action. I will give the authors credit for that. I don’t question that they think they know what they’re saying, or that they mean what they say. I can’t go with them (in any sense of that phrase), but I respect their clarity Many have called for clarity before, especially in the last General Convention. I have always felt the call for clarity was tactical, intended to establish good reasons for breaking the Communion and the Episcopal Church. This document is strategic: “we can’t live with them anymore, and our vision and intent are to walk away. Please lead us where we want to go.”

How this is heard will indeed bring a great deal of clarity It will, first and foremost, put Archbishop Akinola on the spot: will he lead, or will he stall, and risk being marginalized as a leader in the new Communion? If someone leads, who will follow? Certainly, Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) wants this: one of the authors is one of their first bishops. But, which of the Primates will follow? And how will those provinces, those primates, that don’t want to follow react? After all, if they’re not “Anglicans” by the definitions of this documents, they are either heretical “Revisionists” or quisling “Traditionalists/Pragmatists.” This will certainly put Archbishop Williams on the spot, for entirely different reasons. How will he lead in the face of this confrontation? And what if no one leads in either direction?

Unfortunately (I do truly believe it is unfortunate), I do imagine someone will lead, whether Archbishop Akinola or another. I believe that timing this petition to coincide with the meeting of the Primates in Kigali, Rwanda, is intended to incite the walkout, to create the break. This may be the moment when some say, “The highest level of communion possible is no communion at all, and we see no point in staying any longer.” This may be the impetus for some to actually, definitively walk out the door.

And if so many will get what they want. Those who don’t want to live in or with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (and any church that doesn’t want to anathematize them) will have the break and the leadership they desire. Those at the other pole of the argument, who don’t want to live with the first group, will feel the freedom to follow where they believe the Holy Spirit is leading without having to wait for the slowest to catch up. Those in the middle, whether “mushy” or “fluid,” will see the possibility that the fighting will stop and we can get on with muddling through, being the best and most compassionate Christians we can.

Maybe everybody will get what he wants – well, maybe everybody except Christ.