Faith Leaders and the Ebola Epidemic in Africa

If you're not on the list to receive headlines from the Anglican Communion News Service or the Episcopal News Service, you may have missed this (it was circulated by both services). Three bishops of Anglican dioceses in west Africa recently visited England where they spoke both to the Anglican Alliance and to General Synod about the church's response to and participation in the efforts against ebola in the recent epidemic. At the link above there is information about their meeting with Anglican Alliance, and also other information about responding to ebola.


One of the resources there that I found especially interesting was Keeping the Faith: The Role of Faith Leaders in the Ebola Response. This publication of Christian Aid is worth reviewing. It reports a study describing how religious leaders, both Christian and Muslim, were critical in gathering community support and convincing anxious communities to accept medical assistance. While the document is quite long, the Executive Summary, beginning on page 8, describes the findings well. Initially, some communities feared the government intervention as much as the disease. After disease had struck a village or a family, there was significant stigma. Initially, the medical workers were not interested in participation from faith leaders. However, once engaged, faith leaders were able to provide educators whose authority was accepted to help communities understand the disease and the necessary help. They were also able to provide support for disrupted families and communities, and to address directly the issues of stigma.

We were anxious in the United States about ebola, even though the risks to the population as a whole were small and manageable. This report speaks from the center of the outbreak, where risks were great and resources for control thin. It's helpful to see how faith leaders, with their established authority in their communities, were able to take the lead in providing care for prevention, treatment, and community need. I hope you'll take time to at least read the Executive Summary.

The Anglican Health Network Carries On

I learned yesterday that a new edition of the Newsletter of the Anglican Health Network is available. Paul Holley, Coordinator of the Network, has shared that news. It isn't actually up at the AHN web site yet, but you can read it here.

The Network has had some changes lately, including some loss of donors. However, it continues to share information and resources about health care activities across the Anglican Communion. So, take a look at this edition of the newsletter; and then from the web site look at earlier editions. There are many health care ministries across the Communion, and the Newsletter of the Network is helping to spread the word.

Newest from the Anglican Health Network (Updated)

I have had news today from Paul Holley, Coordinator of the Anglican Health Network. The AHN is sponsoring a conference in April titled Faith in Health and Healing. You can access the portal here.

From the portal, you can access the document Faith in Health & Healing: Integrating the church with health services. Even if you're not going to the conference, this is well worth reading. In preparation for the conference, Paul has pulled together materials from his planning team, and published them in one volume. There are brief introductions to a variety of topics, with such catchy titles as, "Health, dying, and human flourishing;" "Medicine and people: medicalisation, personhood and religious experience;" and "The church in the governance and deliver of health services." There's a nice section chaplaincy in the National Health Service, and a couple of brief case studies.

I don't know how many of my readers would be able to attend the conference itself. As much as I would enjoy it, I won't be able to go. However, the pre-conference paper is well worth reviewing on its own merit. So, take a look at the portal and the plan for the conference; and by all means read what has been prepared.

Update 2/18/2013: In addition to the materials for the Faith in Health And Healing Conference, there is a new Anglican Health Network Newsletter. There seem to be some difficulties at the AHN web site. So, if you're interested you can access here in the web pages of the Standing Commission on Health. It is also well worth reviewing.

General Convention 2012: Reactions to the Denominational Health Plan

Things come full circle. One of the reasons I started blogging six years ago was to comment on legislation and issues at the 2006 General Convention. Now we’re coming to the 2012 Convention.

So, I’ve started watching the legislation being posted for this summer’s Convention. As a reminder (and especially for those for whom details of General Convention are new territory), resolutions to General Convention come in four categories. “A” resolutions come from commissions, committees, agencies, and boards (CCAB’s) of the Episcopal Church. “B” resolutions come from bishops. “D” resolutions come from deputies.

And then there are “C” resolutions. C resolutions come because a diocesan convention or a provincial meeting (in Episcopal parlance a province is a regional gathering of dioceses) have passed a resolution on a subject that included instructions to “memorialize” the General Convention on the subject. That is, a diocesan convention or a provincial meeting passes a resolution to express an opinion and to put that opinion before General Convention as a resolution.

So far, C resolutions are the only ones that have been posted on line. You can already see on line those that have been posted (and I’m sure there will be more).

Right now, the significant majority of C resolutions posted are on the subject of Structural Reform, and most of those have almost identical language. However, there are a few outliers, and two have my attention. That’s because their subject is the Denominational Health Plan, an effort of the Church Medical Trust based on Resolution A177 in 2009. The resolution specified that the plan should be implemented no later than the end of this year. It specified that the Church Medical Trust would offer a plan (or, really a selection of plans), and that within those dioceses had a number of choices. However, one choice it didn’t include (and a choice that is available under canons before this change) was whether or not to participate. That is, dioceses of the Episcopal Church in the United States, their congregations, and any agencies they would designate as “Episcopal” have to participate in the plan. Now, individuals can opt out if they have other provision for health insurance; but institutions can’t opt out. The point of that is to have as many lives as possible covered in the insurance plan; because the more folks you have covered in the plan, the lower the premium (at last in general). (I wrote more about 2009-A177 at the time.)

So far, two dioceses have submitted C resolutions on the Denominational Health Plan, both asking that it’s implementation be delayed. However, they really say two very different things. One is resolution C22 from the Diocese of West Missouri. It calls on General Convention suspend implementation of the Denominational Health Plan “pending consideration of a more equitable and unified Denominational Health Plan that eliminates unfair regional differences and dramatic cost disparities between dioceses…” The point of this is

That the 77th General Convention instruct the Church Medical Trust to formulate a plan that creates a single, unified national plan for the entire Episcopal Church with no variance in premium costs from diocese to diocese, thereby eliminating dramatic cost differences for similar health insurance coverage between dioceses and regions of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the suspension of implementation of the Denominational Health

Plan is lifted only when the Church Medical Trust presents a revised, unified

national plan consistent with the intent of this resolution to the Executive Council….

The result of this would be, if you will, truly a single plan for the Episcopal Church in which all would still be required to participate. It would be, essentially, an ecclesial form of a single payer plan covering a single, all encompassing risk pool. The suspension is in place until this is done which could take a while; and this resolution calls for things to stay as they are until that can be offered.

This is different from resolution C27 from the Diocese of Central New York. That resolution calls for the Denominational Health Plan to be delayed another three years. It also maintains that all Episcopal diocese, parishes, and institutions would be required to offer health insurance to clergy and lay employees. However, “each diocese or other ecclesiastical organization or body subject to the authority of the church has the right to make decisions as to whether the Episcopal Church Medical Trust or another plan sponsor shall provide health insurance;…”

This is a different result. While it does require all dioceses, congregations, and institutions to provide health care, and requires it within a limited period of time, it specifically rejects a single denominational plan, or having a choice of plans but only from those offered through the Church Medical Trust. This might improve things for some clergy and for many lay professionals, but it resists a church-wide mandate in favor of a multiplicity of health plans – essentially, an incremental change within the same health insurance market that we already have. It would not result in a single risk pool.

Now, full disclosure: for those who didn’t already know, West Missouri is my diocese. Although I voted on the resolution that resulted in C22, I did not participate in preparing it (and I’m not saying how I voted). My only point in this post is to note how different would be the results of these two resolutions. It could raise the question of what problem proposers of each wish to address. C22 is about equity for institutions across the Church accomplished by universal participation. C27 is about freedom of choice for institutions within the Church, albeit with a requirement that all provide something – essentially an individual mandate.

It does seem to reflect the same sort of arguments about providing health care that we’re hearing in the wider American society. Granted, both proposals are progressive enough to require some coverage (after all, we are Episcopalians); but the means, the choices, and (presumably) the costs would be very different.

Even with delay and suspension both of these plans will be overtaken by events if the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented. In that case, passing C27 could result in some dioceses, congregations, and/or institutions could find their coverage through state insurance exchanges. In addition, I will be surprised if there are not additional resolutions from bishops and/or deputies, which may offer other, different models.

Which brings us to this question: what sort of employer do we want the Episcopal Church to be. That’s not simply a matter of whether we think it important to offer health insurance. Not only do both these resolutions require it, but existing canons require it (albeit for a more limited collection of employees). Rather, this might be seen as another expression of the question whether the Episcopal Church is a single body made up of its dependent dioceses; or whether we are an association made up of dioceses which are themselves  associations of congregations and institutions. Both these opinions are being expressed within the Episcopal Church today, and perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that they might be expressed in a variety ways, including this.

And perhaps that ought to be an aspect of any General Convention, and of any resolution to General Convention. Every day we have the opportunity to ask the question of what kind of church the Episcopal Church wants to be. Moreover, I can’t think of a better forum in which to ask the question than General Convention. It is, really, the same vocational question each of us faces, writ large: what is God calling us to do now? These resolutions raise the specific issue of health insurance for Church professionals. Other resolutions will raise other issues. However, the larger context remains the same: in each issue, to what is God calling the Episcopal Church now? Or, to put it more personally, as it were: before God what sort of institution do we want the Episcopal Church to be?

Chaplaincy Care: A Human Right?

This week the leadership of the Church of England met in General Synod.  While most folks were watching other issues (notably, progress toward ordination of women to the Episcopate in the Church of England), they did address other issues. Notably, they passed this motion:

That this Synod, mindful of Our Lord’s ministry of healing and his charge to his disciples to heal the sick in his name:

    (a) affirm the ministry of all who promote health and wholeness in body, mind and spirit, and, recognising in particular the role of chaplains in the NHS as an expression of the Church of England’s commitment to minister to all in the community, whether as patients or healthcare workers, call upon Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that chaplaincy provision remains part of the core structure of a National Health Service committed to physical, mental and spiritual health;

    (b) call upon Her Majesty’s Government to apply as the test to any proposed changes to the NHS whether they are best calculated to secure the provision throughout the country of effective and efficient healthcare services provided free at the point of delivery and according to clinical need;

    (c) commend the work of mission agencies and the networks of the Anglican Communion in embodying the churches’ contribution to health and wholeness and promoting fairer sharing of health resources worldwide.

This resolution was based on the background paper, “Health Care and the Church’s Mission: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council.”  (You can find the motion and the link to the report as a part of this  report at Thinking Anglicans.)The reason for the paper is provided in the Introduction:

The NHS is currently undergoing the most thorough revision and reconstruction in its sixty year-old history. The NHS that emerges from this process will shape the delivery of healthcare in England for decades to come. It is, therefore, appropriate for the Church to look at the current and prospective state of healthcare delivery in England, focusing on particular areas of interest and concern that are pertinent to the Church’s healing ministry and mission.

This paper is worth the time of any of us in chaplaincy, and especially for those of us who are Episcopalians and Anglicans. For one thing, it provides a discussion of spiritual care and its importance in health care generally, and in the National Health Service in particular. It includes this remarkable statement: “Delivery of spiritual care is the responsibility of all professionals in a multi-disciplinary healthcare team, but on the grounds of care, efficiency and human rights, it is essential that chaplains continue to play a central frontline role in ensuring that appropriate spiritual and religious care are extended to all patients, clients and staff.”

The reference to human rights is one that perhaps many of us might not have addressed. The paper makes reference both to the European Convention on HumanRights, and to “The Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility ofIndividuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect UniversallyRecognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” of the United Nations. The conclusion reached by the Mission and Public Affairs Council based on human rights is similar to that many in the United States have reached based on civil rights: that patients in the hospital are functionally not free, and that to protect their rights to religious expression it is necessary to make a positive provision for spiritual care.  As the report states,

This requires the NHS not only to allow freedom of religious belief and practice, but also to take all reasonable steps to promote such freedoms, enabling patients, clients and staff to express and to practise their beliefs. While these rights have to be set alongside other rights, such as those associated with privacy, the NHS has, nonetheless, an obligation to promote rights associated with religious belief and practice.

In this light, they review information from a survey of National Health System patients admitted in 2009 and 2010.

In 2009/10, there were 14,537,712 hospital admissions in England. An analysis of the ‘Picker Inpatients surveys’ between 2007 and 2009, indicates that, on average, 22% of hospital patients identified belief as being ‘an issue’, with 17.7% of patients wishing to practise their religion while in hospital. 2.1% of patients, however, reported that their beliefs were not fully respected and 2.9% were not able to practise their religion as they had wished. Using the 2009/10 NHS statistics, this translates into absolute figures of 3,198,297 patients for whom belief was ‘an issue’. 2,573,175 patients wished to practise their religion while in hospital, but 305,291 patients did not have their beliefs fully respected and 421,594 patients were not able to practise their religion as they had wished.

So, in 2009 and 2010 there were more than 14 million admissions. Perhaps 20 per cent would say that belief was “an issue,” and/or that they wished to practice their faith while admitted. Of those more than 14 million, two percent felt their beliefs were not respected; and almost three percent were not able to practice their religion. The report notes that, while the percentages might seem small, they represent more than 400,000, and perhaps more than 700,000 admissions. (I grant that the higher number is unlikely, with an expectation that there is a great deal of overlap between these two groups. It remains that even the smaller number represents a large number of dissatisfied patients, and just within England’s National Health Service.)

The report then notes what provision the National Health Service has made:

This hospital population was served by some five hundred ‘whole-time-equivalent’ chaplains who made approximately one million patient-visits between them. Chaplains also attend to the needs of critically ill patients and neonates who were not surveyed, as well as to families and staff, and many serve on ethical committees or manage bereavement or other services. Given this workload, it is fair to say that the NHS may already be close to failing to fulfil its human rights obligations. Five hundred whole- time-equivalent chaplains is a tiny contingent, compared with the 140,897 doctors, 417,164 nurses and 44,661 managers employed in a National Health Service workforce that totals almost one and a half million. (Emphasis mine)

In the United States, at least, a discussion framed by freedom of religion (and often by freedom from religion) seems to overlook that meeting the spiritual needs of hospital patients (like the military and prisoners and others who are functionally not able to freely exercise their beliefs) requires this positive provision. This report approaches the issue from the other direction, from the perspective specifically of protecting those rights. The Church of England is concerned that the National Health Service may be failing in adequately protecting human rights. One wonders whether in the United States where hospital care is not systematized, much less national, we’re also failing by that measure.

As I said, the paper is worth our time to review. It is of course interesting to hear how the Mission and Public Affairs Council has understood the importance of and provision for chaplaincy within the National Health Service. Beyond that, though, it can provide us with a different perspective from which we might analyze how well we are and aren’t doing in our own context.

Yes, Virginia, There Are Evangelical Episcopalians

Among the many places where I'm connected is LinkedIn. If you're not familiar with it, it's much like Facebook, but with an entirely professional focus.  Like other social networking sites, there are topical groups, including one for folks interested in the Episcopal Church. This week one member posted this question: "Are there any fellow evangelical Episcopalians out there?" This was my answer.

I think there are evangelical Episcopalians - by which I mean folks who experience Scripture as central to their faith, and who experience joy in living before Christ and sharing that with others, both within and without the congregation. Few of them are thorough-going Biblical literalists; but most believe the Gospels faithfully relate the experiences of the Evangelists with Christ, and that at least most of the events described, including the miraculous events, are historical.

By and large, they are not tied to a particular style of worship, although they enjoy some "praise" music. As the Prayer Book since 1979 has emphasized the Eucharist as normative Sunday worship, they have the Eucharist on Sundays, and not Morning Prayer. At the same time, most don't attend congregations where the liturgy is chanted most Sundays, or where incense is used, unless for Easter or certain special occasions.

Some of them are uncomfortable about decisions that the General Convention has made. However, they feel established in and supported in their individual congregations, and pastorally supported by clergy even when they disagree with them; and so they continue in the Episcopal Church. They see things changing around them, and regret some of the changes; but they have enough hope in Christ that they don't feel they have to fight things they can't control.

I spend half of my Sundays supplying in one church or another in two adjacent dioceses, and I meet these folks all the time. I'm happy they're with me in worship. 

 I know that the word "evangelical" when applied to an Episcopalian or other Anglican has meant something a little different: a literal use of more of Scripture, especially on social issues; a more exclusivist understanding of salvation; and, unfortunately, anti-Episcopal Church sentiments at home, and that plus anti-American culture sentiments abroad. However, I will stand by this as more accurate to the evangelical Christian tradition as folks live it out in the Episcopal Church; and I'm happy to have them with me in worship, and in my diocese, and in the Episcopal Church.

Notes for Episcopal Chaplains (and Others)

I have a couple of things I want to bring to your attention. First, a new edition of the AHN Newsletter is up on the Anglican Health Network web site. It's always a good reminder of healthcare activities across the Communion, many of which are supported in our institutions and our dioceses in the Episcopal Church. This edition has something closer to home: an article by AEHC member Matt Cobb about chaplaincy, AEHC, and international connections. The article begins on page 6. Go take a look.

And while you're looking, there's other articles of interest. On page 5 there's an article on chaplaincy in the National Health Service in the UK. It's an opportunity to consider a different model. The next article is from a psychologist at Rush University. Episcopal chaplaincy is well represented at Rush/Pres/St. Luke's from Bishop Anderson House. Spend some time with these and other articles in the AHN Newsletter.

The second thing I want to let you know about is plans for our AEHC events when the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC) meets next month in Dallas (you can get more details about the APC events here). All of our events will take place Friday, March 25, at the convention hotel, the Hyatt Regency DFW. Our speaker at the Banquet will be Lee Hogan, Program Director for the Anglican Health Network. Here is the schedule of events:


7:15- Holy Eucharist
8:15-Breakfast
9:15-Annual meeting
6:00p- Pre-Banquet reception in the Hospitality Suite Rm. # 1372
7:00- Banquet- Lee Hogan Program Director for the Anglican Health Network.


The cost of these events will be $100 total. Please send your registration and money to the address below:


Babs France
4223 Swift Ave
San Diego, CA 92104-6605


Folks on the AEHC e-list have received notice and a registration form, and there will also be a mailing to AEHC members; but there's no need for you to wait.  Send your contact information and a check by March 11, and we'll be happy to have you join us.
So, check out the AHN Newsletter. Then, make plans to hear a representative of AHN when we gather for our annual meeting. I hope to see all of you there.

I'm Up Again...

at the Episcopal Cafe.  My first piece for the new year went up today.  And don't let the headline frighten you: I haven't lost my Biblical center or my orthodoxy.  I'm really concerned about the limits of the phrase "an organic communion," and the way I think we often conflate that with our image of the Body of Christ.

Well, you may or may not agree.  So, take a look; and feel free to let me know what you think, whether at the Cafe or here.  We can have some good discussions (look at the one about the General Ordination Exams), and we'd be happy to have you come join the fun.

For Episcopal Chaplains: Info on the 2011 Annual Meeting of AEHC

Let me share a brief note for my Episcopal chaplain colleagues.  Members of the Executive Committee of the Assembly of Episcopal Healthcare Chaplains (AEHC) are making preparations for our next Annual Meeting.  Once again this year we will meet in the context of the Annual Conference of the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC), meeting in Dallas March 24 through 27.  At this point, it appears that AEHC events will take place Friday, March 25.

Again this year AEHC will sponsor the Episcopal Breakfast on that Friday morning.  In light of changes to the APC Conference schedule, we will also incorporate the AEHC Conference Eucharist and the Annual Meeting into the Breakfast.  We will also have the AEHC Annual Banquet that Friday evening.  Our speaker will be Lee Hogan, Program coordinator for the Anglican Health Network (AHN).  He is particularly involved in the Health Microinsurance program that the AHN is piloting in Tanzania.  I have met Mr. Hogan, and have heard him speak on this subject.  His conviction about the program is contagious.  Look for more information as details are made final.

And if you’d like recent information about the Anglican Health Network, check out the website.  The October Newsletter is available there, with information about the Health Microinsurance program, and about growth of hospitals in India’s Kerala State, supported by the Church of South India.  It’s exciting reading for those of us who are interested in not only knowing about but supporting health ministries across the Communion.

The New Game of the Proposed Anglican Covenant

The words are flying like a game of dodgeball on a playground. All of the players have points to score, and they do their best to combine speed and accuracy. The players twist and turn, trying to avoid being struck. When the balls do hit home, they certainly sting. None of the players really wants anyone else to walk away from the game, to take a ball and go home. At the same time, each of the players is wondering if elimination in the game will become elimination from the game, as if having to leave the field of play also means having to leave the neighborhood.

The topic is the Anglican Covenant. The occasion and the sense of urgency is the meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England, where there will be an initial vote on the Anglican Covenant as proposed. Proponents of the Covenant seem to seek in the same breath to be reassuring and convicting. Opponents seem convicted but certainly not reassured. Godwin’s Law has been cited.

Perhaps I’m too well informed, but I’ve been reading and paying attention. I think I understand several themes in the argument. Opponents say that this document creates new institutions, institutions that have authority at least for signatory churches, and perhaps within the existing Instruments of Communion. Proponents point out (with some merit) that there aren’t new institutions, and that any authority is persuasive and commendatory, and not juridical. Proponents say that the Covenant respects the autonomy and internal structures of signatory churches, and point to explicit language within the Draft. Opponents say that the commitments the Covenant seems to require undermine local constitutional structures in ways that belie the explicit language. Opponents say that the Covenant creates a coercive environment in which one province’s displeasure can stifle Spirit-led innovation, or at least make the cost such innovation excommunication. Proponents say that the Covenant provides ground rules to keep signatory churches in conversation while such differences are discussed, and so prevent excommunication, or at least forestall it as long as possible.

Yesterday, Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity Faith and Order for the Anglican Communion Office issued an interpretive comment.  That, too, has become part of the game, another ball to be thrown, another target to be thrown at. However, it did include one comment that everyone would agree to, if not to the same point. If we are to comment on the Covenant as proposed, we need to read it.

So, I went back and read it again, looking perhaps for a new way to think about it. That’s when I discovered something I found a bit confusing. It is that the Covenant doesn’t really clarify the relationship between churches of the Anglican Communion and signatory churches of the Anglican Covenant.

Now, that’s not obvious at first. After all, it is titled, “The Anglican Communion Covenant.” Moreover, in the Preamble it states that those who “solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments” come from the “Churches of the Anglican Communion.” Much of the text is dedicated to describing a common heritage among churches in the Anglican Communion. However, all that notwithstanding, the relationship between the churches of the Anglican Communion and the signatory churches remains unclear.

The thing is, the Covenant as proposed only applies to signatory churches. That’s clear, isn’t it? Churches that don’t sign on aren’t bound by the Covenant. This is clear in Section 4, considered critical enough that it survived three revisions. Certainly, the hope of those who propose it is that all the churches of the Anglican Communion will sign: as paragraph 4.1.4 states, “Every Church of the Anglican Communion, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council, is invited to enter into this Covenant according to its own constitutional procedures.” This clarifies a couple of important things. First, the proposers have decided that participation in the Anglican Communion is defined by the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) – and, so, not by signing onto the Covenant. So, if the Anglican Communion is those churches recognized by the ACC, signatory churches of the Covenant are something else – churches of the Anglican Covenant.

The next paragraph goes even further in making the distinction:

(4.1.5) The Instruments of Communion may invite other Churches to adopt the Covenant using the same procedures as set out by the Anglican Consultative Council for the amendment of its schedule of membership. Adoption of this Covenant does not confer any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion, which shall be decided by those Instruments themselves.

Now, this creates an even more interesting distinction. See, while some other churches may adopt the Covenant in response to an invitation to join the ACC (“procedures… for the amendment of [ACC] membership”), it’s also possible to adopt without that invitation. Under what other circumstances would adoption not “confer any right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion?” Adoption that includes joining the ACC would certainly confer such rights.

And, of course, “This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.” So, the Covenant has no meaning, no authority for any Church that doesn’t adopt it; and even for a Church that does adopt it internally (“through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons.”), adoption in itself does not make the Church a member of the Anglican Communion as defined by membership in the ACC.

This is confirmed by the acceptance of the reverse:

(4.3.1) Any covenanting Church may decide to withdraw from the Covenant. Although such withdrawal does not imply an automatic withdrawal from the Instruments of Communion or a repudiation of its Anglican character, it may raise a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, and of compatibility with the principles incorporated within it, and trigger the provisions set out in section 4.2 above.

So, just as adoption of the Covenant doesn’t make a church a member Church of the Anglican Communion, withdrawal from the Covenant doesn’t in itself remove one from the Anglican Communion. It would certainly “raise a question relating to the meaning of the Covenant, and of compatibility with the principles incorporated within it,” and perhaps even “trigger the provisions set out in section 4.2 above.” But, those provisions are only applicable for those who have signed the Covenant, and not automatically to the Churches of the Communion

But, what about all those commitments made in the first three sections, commitments that are intended as meaningful consequences of accepting the characteristics of the Anglican heritage as described in those sections? While Anglicans broadly may accept them (indeed, with a few small reservations I can accept them), they are only grounds per se for agreement, or for disagreement, for those churches that sign on to the Covenant. Indeed, the commitments themselves state again and again that they are not specifically Anglican, but are “common pilgrimage with the whole Body of Christ” (1.2.8) and part of “the work of the whole people of God” (2.2.4)

So, we really do have two bodies. We have the Churches of the Anglican Communion, defined as such (at least for the Covenant) by the Constitution of the ACC; and we have this other body of those churches that are signatory to the Covenant. These two bodies are broadly overlapping but not identical. So, at least at the beginning, we have the Churches of the Anglican Communion and the Churches of the Anglican Covenant.

I grant you, it does add to the confusion that the Churches of the Anglican Covenant plan to make use of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion as overseer of common life and arbiter of differences. It doesn’t help that in disputes there is consultation with and deference to the Instruments of [the Anglican] Communion, even apparently for churches that have no “right of recognition by, or membership of, the Instruments of Communion.”

However, as I read this Covenant as proposed, it makes an important distinction between the Churches of the Anglican Communion and what I have called “the Churches of the Anglican Covenant.” Under the Covenant, “Churches of the Anglican Covenant” are accountable under the Covenant’s provisions to one another, and even (through respect for the Instruments) to Churches of the Anglican Communion. However, a church of the Anglican Communion (a member of ACC) is not necessarily accountable to a Church of the Covenant (whether or not that church is a member of ACC).

So, for example, we can do a thought experiment. Say that Uganda and Australia sign the Covenant and the Episcopal Church doesn’t. Say then that Uganda raises with Australia an issue regarding lay or diaconal presidency at the Eucharist. Under the Covenant Australia is accountable to Uganda. However, the Standing Committee would consult with one or more of the Instruments; and the Episcopal Church participates in three of them (Lambeth, the Primates meetings, and, critically, the ACC). So, even without signing the Covenant, the Episcopal Church would be at least influential in the recommendations to the Standing Committee, and so (at least possibly) in the recommendations of the Standing Committee to Australia – recommendations that, if not accepted, could lead to discipline of Australia under the Covenant.

I like my games analogy for understanding this, but I want to suggest different games. Bid whist is not contract bridge is not spades. All three games have similar play, but rules that are different in important ways. So, by establishing a new set of rules for those who sign on, the Covenant creates a new body and a new game – a coherent game, certainly, but not one by which players of other, earlier games are bound. There is no automatic relationship, and no automatic accountability, between a Church of the Anglican Communion and a Church of the Anglican Covenant. Canon Barnett-Cowan actually does get this. Look again at her statement,

It is also not true that non-signatories would no longer count as part of the Communion. There will be Provinces which have adopted the Covenant, and there may be (though one hopes not) Provinces which have not. They are equally members of the Anglican Communion, according to the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council. The difference would be that signatories will have made a commitment to live in that communion in a particularly enhanced way, and to a process of consultation and common discernment.

So, Churches of the Communion remain Churches of the Communion; and Churches of the Covenant, who may or may not be a Church of the Communion, have decided to embrace external accountability, and all the limitations that might come with it. Is this an “enhanced” way of “[living] in that communion?” Well, no, since member churches of the Covenant are not automatically members of the Anglican Communion; but also, yes, if perhaps in the sense that the penalties for differences within the Churches of the Covenant might be said to be “enhanced.”

Without doubt, and within its own terms, the Anglican Covenant as proposed creates a “new game,” refined from the terms of the “old game” as contract bridge was refined from whist. It creates less two tiers within the Communion and more two overlapping bodies, one accountable within the terms of the Communion (however few and vague they may be), and one accountable both within the terms of the Communion and of the Covenant. Somehow, I can’t imagine that bringing more clarity. Instead, it seems to me to bring less; and if it brings less clarity, then something less than “the highest degree of communion possible.” (3.2.7) And if that’s the result, I don’t see why the Episcopal Church, or any other Church, should be all that interested.

Looking Again at the Anglican Health Network

Once again the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) has met.  There have been the predictable comments rejecting the Episcopal Church.  However, during the buildup to the conference many comments were repeated about Uganda specifically not accepting financial assistance from the Episcopal Church or sources within the Episcopal Church – even as some were noting support for the conference from Trinity Episcopal Church, Wall Street.  Logistical support form Trinity notwithstanding, it was because of decisions like Uganda’s that caused me concern about loss of support for joint ministries.

Which brings me to the Anglican Health Network.

It’s been a while since I mentioned the Anglican Health Network here “at the Bedside,” as it were.  In that time, a lot has happened, and it’s worth sharing.  Here are some highlights you can find at the Network’s web site:

• There’s the Health Microinsurance Project, now being piloted in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and in Karakonam, India.  The idea is to apply the same principles to health insurance that have been so effective and so important in providing microcredit, small business loans in developing countries.  The Network has brought together individuals and dioceses that can provide some seed money, but the intent is that this will become self-sustaining.  It will allow thousands to take advantage of medical care that is already around them but beyond their financial reach.  In fact, the India project has already registered 25,000 members.
• You can access the Newsletters of the Anglican Health Network.  This summer’s Newsletter has articles on malaria, with a sidebar on the Nets for Life Program; on health issues at the G20 Summit; and health ministries in Haiti.
• There are links to Anglican and Episcopal hospitals and health ministries around the Communion.
• There’s even a blog with periodic posts by Paul Holley, Coordinator of the Network.

The Network grew from ideas shared at the first International Episcopal/Anglican Healthcare Ministries Conference in Houston, Texas, in January, 2009.  Individuals and institutions in the Episcopal Church are involved, and have been involved from the beginning.  However, the Network has taken off with some important programs.  We have a lot more going on in health ministries in the Anglican Communion than most of us know.  The Anglican Health Network web site is a good place to start learning about it.

Some Out-Loud Thinking About Ecclesiology

Yesterday I was reading this post on Thinking Anglicans about the struggles toward ordination of women to the episcopate in the Church of England. This article from Andrew Goddard, linked at the TA post, made a reference to Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Evangelicals in the Church of England having “different ecclesiologies.”


In responding, I made the comment, “As for Mr. Goddard's analysis: I was struck by the comment that Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Evangelicals have "different ecclesiologies." Notwithstanding some differences in opinion, how can those with different ecclesiologies claim to be in the same institution?”

One person responded to my question with his own: “Good question -- but aren't you a bit late in asking it, since it has been the case ever since 1559?” (And thank you for that, Mr. Tighe.)

I had some thoughts about that which I posted (I think; the process didn’t seem to function smoothly), but which I also thought I would share here.

Well, late, yes, although I wouldn't have dated it to 1559 so much as after the Tractarians; but perhaps late, yes.

However, I think the "different ecclesiologies" as laid out by Mr. Goddard are more different, more polarized than I experience in the Episcopal Church. My experience is of a theology of episkope that balances functional and charismatic understandings - that is, a vocation to specific functions for which the Spirit provide the person the specific charismatic gifts. Perhaps most folks in the Church of England think (when they think about it at all) much the same, and Mr. Goddard presents the poles for clarification and sake of argument. However, the wider rhetoric, and especially all the talk of "taint," suggests that there are indeed folks in the Church of England embracing the extreme positions.

Perhaps the question isn't why they're still in the Church of England (if not exactly "together"), and not in the Episcopal Church. In the American context, where all ecclesial communities are matters of choice and none is "by law established," the extremes have largely left, forming new communities (and, two points: rhetoric from some notwithstanding, no one has been thrown out, but some have walked away based on conscience, feeling, as we often say, "better fed spiritually;" and second, there are indeed splinters in the American context more liberal than the Episcopal Church). One wonders if without Establishment these folks would have chosen to stay in. So, is the answer to my question that they remain together legally for reasons that don't affect their theologies of the episcopate?

Just a thought.

More on Cowboy Poker: Newest at Episcopal Cafe

For some time, I've found a helpful metaphor for our Anglican controversies in "bull" or "cowboy poker."  Indeed, I've written about Williams "calling the game" for cowboy poker here and here, with passing references elsewhere.

Well, I think that has reached a new stage, and the consequences of this are becoming clear.  My latest piece is up at the Episcopal Cafe, and it's on this topic: how Rowan Williams has lost control of this game of cowboy poker, and what this is now doing to the Communion.  Take a look, and feel free to tell us what you think, either at the Cafe or here.

All Form and Blessed Little Substance

Since last week, we have been looking at two primatial pastorals. The first was the Pentecost Letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The second was the Pastoral Letter from Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori. The usual suspects have been having the expected discussions. (For my favorites, check  here and here.)

My contention is that much has hung on what the Archbishop meant in his letter when he wrote

I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged.

I have been saying that much hangs on that word “formally,” emphasized in the Archbishop’s own text. It was in response to this that the Presiding Bishop wrote in her letter,

We are distressed at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the Communion. We note that these seem to be limited to those which "have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion." We are further distressed that such sanctions do not, apparently, apply to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private. Why is there no sanction on those who continue with a double standard? In our context bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a "failure of nerve."

Well, it appears that we now have an answer, or at least a partial answer, to the question of what "formally" means in the letter from Canon Kearon. That is, we know where we stand "formally," because we have (or, critically for Canterbury, our House of Bishops has) consented to the election and ordination of a partnered lesbian to the episcopate. Of course, we knew where we stood before.

So, what about the others, those who have taken actions and may have rescinded them? Apparently, they get to report for themselves, if it's at all vague. Canon Kearon writes, "I have written to the Primate of the Southern Cone, whose interventions in other provinces are referred to in the Windsor Continuation Group Report asking him for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces." So, nothing to Nigeria, or to Uganda, or to Kenya, perhaps because they have transferred authority to ACNA? Somehow, that whole issue seems unclear, at least to the good Canon. One of his remaining questions is, "whether maintaining within the fellowship of one’s Provincial House of Bishops, a bishop who is exercising episcopal ministry in another province without the expressed permission of that province or the local bishop, constitutes an intervention and is therefore a breach of the third moratorium." That would seem to simply eliminate at a stroke most of the "interventions" that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have suffered. How is it that this is unclear in Canterbury?

And, of course, there is nothing about “to those parts of the Communion that continue to hold one view in public and exhibit other behaviors in private.” While such things are certainly happening in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada, perhaps the most egregious example is the Church of England. There “formal” accommodation has been made for civil partnerships even for clergy (although there is the fig leaf of asking the clergy to be celibate within such a relationship). However, reporters within the Church of England tell us often how many such relationships, including those of clergy, are blessed in the Church. However, to address that would require the Archbishop to address his own house.

I could say, “It’s easier to focus on what is formally done, and ignore the informal,” but the fact is that this is where the Episcopal Church has been on the moratorium on blessing same sex couples. We have not blessed in General Convention blessing such relationships, but a number of dioceses (including my own) have approved processes for doing so. At the same time, we haven’t denied officially that such things happen. We’ve only denied that we have taken any “formal” action, at least until this last General Convention (and even that was no more sweeping than to allow a “local option”). However, to ignore what was “formally” done because it was “formally” undone, especially when it was only undone after establishing a new ecclesial entity within a member national church, certainly seems perfidious.

I have come to the conclusion that the Episcopal Church should concentrate on maintaining communion with the Church of England and membership on the Anglican Consultative Council, and if not signing this Covenant results in a “second-tier” membership, so be it. However, having so narrowly applied the consequences of all the actions that have divided the Communion, when so many have participated, can only seriously undermine trust in Canterbury, not only in the Anglican provinces in North America, but throughout the Communion.

At Episcopal Cafe: Dr. Poon on the Anglican Communion, Third Reflection

My newest piece is up today at Episcopal Cafe.  It is in fact my third reflection on Michael Poon’s paper on the Communion and Covenant, “The Anglican Communion as Communion of Churches: on the historic significance of the Anglican Covenant.”  Earlier posts are here and here.  As you will see in this last piece, I am no longer hopeful about the Anglican Communion in its current (already altered) form.  So, take a look and take some thought, and leave a comment.  This continues to be an important topic for us in the Episcopal Church, whatever happens with the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Covenant.

Dr. Poon on the Anglican Communion: Second Reflection

There’s a reason that I have styled these responses to Dr. Poon’s paper “reflections.” It is that I am not the scholar that Dr. Poon is (as kind as he’s been in his interest in my opinion), and his paper certainly deserves a proper scholarly response.

However, I also appreciate the value of responses that are thoughtful but not scholarly. For several years I was a member of the Internal Review Board in the hospital where I worked. While I developed over time some expertise in the informed consent process, the scientists made clear that they also appreciated “questions from ignorance.” Occasionally I did raise something they hadn’t thought about, but more often I helped them see what they needed to explain in greater detail.

With that in mind, several questions from ignorance have come to mind. The first is to look at the historical review. Dr. Poon begins at a familiar point: “Two ecclesial actions precipitated the present disputes. In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster decided to authorize services for same-sex unions. In 2003, the Episcopal Church (USA) appointed a priest in a committed same-sex relationship as one of its bishops.”

Beginning with those events makes some sense, but I wonder if others wouldn’t make just as much. For example, what might it have meant to begin with Lambeth 1998, and specifically with the events around Lambeth resolution 1998-1.10. This shaped the context within which subsequent events occurred. What might that context have looked like had a different report on human sexuality been presented? It has been reported that there was a report that was displaced by resolution 1.10. What might that context have looked like had all provincial/national churches actively engaged in the listening, assurances and pastoral ministry to gay and lesbian persons enjoined in items c. and d. of resolution 1.10? What might that context have looked like if no measure had been passed, and Resolution 64 of Lambeth 1988 were to stand, reaffirming a call from Lambeth 1978 (Resolution 10) for “deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research,” and in light of that calling for “each province to reassess, in the light of such study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation?” Interpretation of, and actions based on those interpretations of Lambeth 1.10 (both its content and its authority) would seem significant for understanding the import for the Communion of events of 2002 and 2003, as well as the Singapore ordinations and formation of the Anglican Mission in the Americas in 2000.

Here’s a second question. There are differences of opinion about the authority of the Windsor Report, and about the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group. Both were produced by bodies appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Windsor Report was received by the Primates Meeting at Dromantine, while the WCG Report was received by the recent meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council. However, there are also differences of opinion about the authority of the See of Canterbury and of the other Instruments. Indeed, Dr. Poon’s paper refers to differing views on Canterbury in paragraphs 21 and 22. These differences would also seem to affect understandings of the Windsor Report and the WCG Report as normative documents for the Communion.

It would seem to me that it is in fact a theological project – an ecclesiological project – to describe appropriately the authority of the See of Canterbury, as well as the other Instruments, in relation to the member churches. There have been numerous statements in Lambeth resolutions about the limitations of Lambeth, from the first meeting. A number of Archbishops of Canterbury, Rowan Williams included, have made clear their own senses of the limitations on their jurisdiction. It would seem a theological project, and not a management project, to determine and offer for reception understandings of the forms and limits of authority of the various Instruments.

That is, as Dr. Poon notes, the direction given by the Anglican Consultative Council to the Inter- Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO):

to undertake a study of the role and responsibility in the Communion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting; the ecclesiological rationale of each, and the relationships between them, in line with the Windsor Continuation Group Report (Resolution 14.09g)

Is there not, then, grounds to wait and see the results of this work, and to offer that for reception, as critical to understanding relations in the Communion generally, and the functions of the Instruments specifically? Would not this work offer our best or at least our first interpretive lens for the Covenant’s descriptions of the Instruments and their roles?

Now, Dr. Poon has a concern about the next resolution from the ACC meeting:

The Anglican Consultative Council, in the light of the Resolution 14.08 of ACC-14 on the WCG Report, asks that the report of the study undertaken by IASCUFO includes a study of the existing papers developed within our Communion and of current best practices in governance for multi-layered complex organizations, and makes recommendations to ACC-15 on ways in which the effectiveness of the Instruments of Communion may be enhanced. (Resolution 14.10)

His interpretation is that the theological project will be undermined if not actually displaced by a managerial treatise. He comments, ““Best practices” and “enhancement” are corporate-world speak. This Resolution took a managerial view of the instruments. But ecclesial deficit and corporate failing are two different matters altogether.” Granted; but perhaps the theological review and the managerial review are not mutually exclusive. It seems unlikely that the Communion will cease to be multi-layered and complex, whatever the results of the theological work. Even with this concern, wouldn’t our historic practices of reception within the Communion suggest waiting to see the IASCUFO report before dismissing it?

I’m sure I’ll have other questions from ignorance, but these seem like reasonable questions to start with.

Dr. Poon on the Anglican Communion: First Reflection

Many of us have seen the recent paper by Dr. Michael Poon of the Center for the Study of Christianity in Asia titled, “The Anglican Communion as Communion of Churches: on the historic significance of the Anglican Covenant.” It has certainly gotten attention, and perhaps especially among those in the Episcopal Church concerned about an Anglican covenant or about specifically the draft Anglican Covenant as we have received it. The title alone has caused some folks to wax eloquent – and sometimes to wax without much eloquence.

I had planned to read it anyway, but Dr. Poon was gracious enough to email me and encourage me to do so. I had left a comment at Thinking Anglicans, and he and I had exchanged emails before on other topics of Anglican interest, and I was flattered that he was interested in my comments. I stand by what I wrote at Thinking Anglicans, that while I disagree with him, I respect Dr. Poon. Among the theologians of the Anglican Global South I have always found him thoughtful and respectful of those with whom he disagrees, and truly interested in engagement and debate.

There are several facets in my reaction to his paper, but let me begin by differing with some of my colleagues among progressive Episcopalians and Anglicans: this is not per se a paper about the Anglican Covenant. The title is accurate: this is a paper about the ecclesial character and characteristics of the Anglican Communion. Dr. Poon argues that as an ecclesial body the Anglican Communion has an “ecclesial deficit,” one that would perhaps mean that the Communion is not a “communion” at all. He then argues that the draft Anglican Covenant as we have it before us now, or more accurately, I think, a particular interpretation of the draft Anglican Covenant, is a tool to remedy that deficit.

I think the best way to understand the “ecclesial deficit” as Dr. Poon sees it is to look at two statements. The first is a sentence that he has chosen from the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group:

The challenge remains for Anglicans to come to a common stance and acceptance of the authority which we will give to the instruments, structures and processes of the Communion which can lead to decisions that carry force in the life of the Churches of the Communion.

He then reflects further on this description of “communion:”

To be sure, all Anglican Churches are willing to belong to the Anglican Communion. That is not the issue if “communion” is merely a matter of social fellowship between autonomous churches. National councils of churches and even Protestant Christian World Communions are such instances of communion. “Instruments of consultation” would do for these forms of fellowship. They are sufficient for fostering spiritual and social bonds of affection. What WCG has in mind is whether the Anglican Communion is at the verge of a historic decision. Are the Anglican Churches that are “in communion” with one another able to affirm they are indeed a Communion of Churches with one ecclesial identity?

So, the evidence of “ecclesial deficit” is that the Anglican Communion does not have “one ecclesial identity” expressed in “decisions that carry force for the life of the Churches of the Communion.”

Dr. Poon leans heavily on this section of the Report of the Windsor Continuation Group. I have commented before on that part of the Report, as well as on the related language of “separated Churches and communities… [that] we believe… suffer from defects” in the declaration Dominus Iesus written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (and now, of course, Benedict XVI). Critical in appreciating what Dr. Poon (and cited in his paper) is this from the WCG Report:

To be a communion, as opposed to a federation or association, is fundamentally to acknowledge that the fellowship of Churches is not a human construct; it is the gracious gift of God. Churches are enabled to live in communion because they recognise one another as truly an expression of the One Church of Jesus Christ.

We are all conscious, I think, of our various (and often confused and confusing) uses of the term “communion.” In this instance, the WCG has a specific approach in mind, as raised in the next paragraph:

The question of the limits of diversity becomes acute when major differences arise in the life of the communion of the Churches which concern the faith, order or moral life of the Communion. It is then that Anglicans need a common understanding of how together, in communion, they can, guided by the Spirit, discern and decide together. What are the sources that need to be brought to bear on any issue? What are the structures through which discernment takes place? What is the nature of their authority to guide discernment, to speak the mind of the Communion and even to request restraint while open reception takes place and the Churches of the Communion come to discover the mind of Christ for them?

“What are the structures, and what is the nature of their authority?” So, for the WCG, and by his usage for Dr. Poon, authoritative structures are essential for the Anglican Communion to truly be a Communion of churches.

In that light, the language of Dominus Iesus becomes helpful. Let me return to the paragraph cited in my earlier post.

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

This is helpful in two ways. First, it emphasizes that the Church of Rome sees its authoritative structures as not “a human construct.” They are continuous from the time of Peter, established by the primacy of Peter (as Rome understands it), and formed and sustained by the will of God. Second, the model envisioned in the WCG Report (and consistent with the intent of Archbishop Williams), and supported in Dr. Poon’s paper, is for the Anglican Communion to be recognizable as a “true particular church” (what we might style a church whose defects are minor). I don’t know that anyone would consider that an attainable goal, as Rome continues to deny Anglican participation in the historic episcopate. That hasn’t changed since the Leo XIII, and has recently been reaffirmed, once again by Cardinal Ratzinger prior to his elevation. However, to have authoritative structures that can speak with one voice, in no small part because consistency (if not absolute conformity) is enforceable, is the model.

To me, this presents a previous question. Do we as Anglicans really want to affirm this Roman image of structures that are not a human construct? That seems in itself ahistorical in general, and denial of our Reformation history in particular. A significant part of the Reformers’ critique was that Roman structures and concepts, and especially the authority of the Papacy, were significantly if not entirely human, distortions of the models in Scripture and the experience of the early Church.

It also seems counter to the Anglican tradition of incarnational theology; for arguably it is only in our life in Christ, empowered by the Spirit, that we are able to come together in fellowship. I would hesitate to see that as somehow dependent on structure, much less a particular structure.  Nor would I want to suggest that particular structures would constitute a significant hindrance to the movement of the Spirit, even though some would certainly seem to us more or less conducive.

That question, I think, shines a different light on Dr. Poon’s comments that this “ecclesial deficit” is neither “an oversight” nor “an accident.” Certainly, our current structures and relationships are not continuations of imperial structures, whether Roman or British (or Asian: I have some further thoughts about the contexts in which the Holy Catholic Churches of China, Japan, and Korea were established). However, I would ask if it were not the case that our roots in the Reformation, and especially the English Reformation, included turning away from imperial structures as models for unity. Is that not for us related to Hooker looking for his models not to the Imperial Roman Church after Constantinian but to the pre-Imperial Church just prior, with the faith of the Church taking shape between the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. If I recall my history correctly, that period was much more open, and much less structured than the Roman Church would become once it was the religion of the Empire.

Arguably, it was also remarkably creative. I might wonder whether we would be better served in our current differences to continue discussing rather than to recapitulate structures of the past. Certainly, I can follow Dr. Poon’s argument that his articulation of the draft Anglican Covenant could provide authoritative structures (although I think his interpretation of the functions of the Instruments goes well beyond the text). I can see how the draft Anglican Covenant as we have it might produce an institution closer to the Roman idea of a “true particular church.” I’m not convinced, however, that such a structure would be faithful to our Anglican heritage and experience. Would it better pass on “the faith once delivered to the saints?” Perhaps, although I’m not sure; for our Reformation ancestors weren’t convinced it worked for Rome. From a question of mission, would it serve? It might serve ecumenically for recognition from Rome and Constantinople (although current issues of the Roman view still remain). However, would it be flexible enough, creative enough to respond to the cultural dynamics of a changing world? Once again, our Reformation ancestors weren’t convinced for Rome; nor were our more immediate ancestors so convinced for the British Empire, for they chose to recognize national and regional churches instead of continuing as the Church of England in diverse places.

One of the last statements from Clarence Pope, sometime Episcopal Bishop of Fort Worth, was that “the Catholic experiment in Anglicanism has failed.” Dr. Poon’s reflection has logic, even if I don’t find it compelling. However, it is consistent with what Archbishop Williams and his structures press for, and with the wishes of many Anglican leaders around the globe. This model may prevail; in which case Clarence Pope may well have spoken too soon.

Asking the Important Questions of Pastoral Visitors

So, there's been a visit to the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada by two Pastoral Visitors from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  They have, we are told, prepared a report for Archbishop Williams.  However, we haven't seen the report.  So far, all we've seen is a news article in the Anglican Journal that quotes from the report.

Like all other such events in the Anglican world, this has occasioned great discussion.  It's been reported at Episcopal Café.  It's been the topic for long discourse at Thinking Anglicans.  Mark Harris has raised his own questions.  The Pluralist has speculated about what might have been said in the report (to, I will say, great effect). But, all of this has been based on the one Anglican Journal article.  Again, we haven't seen the report.

My own reflections are based on the article as well, but specifically on passages in the article that are cited as quotations from the report itself.  I have raised these questions elsewhere, but I think they're perhaps the most important.

First, let me look at the comments about us Episcopalians.

The visitors said they were also reminded frequently by bishops that "Canada is not the USA." While the United States is seen as a melting pot culture where religious and ethnic groups are synthesized into "Americans," Canadians "genuinely value and seek to live with diversity."  Differences between the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church were underscored, including the area of Christology. "We sensed that in Canada there was a general consensus on the nature of orthodoxy, with fewer extreme views of the kind that have led to some of the aberrations south of the border," the report said. "Even the bishops who were strongly progressive in the matter of same-sex blessings insisted that they stood firmly within the creedal mainstream." This, the report said, is "an encouraging sign that it allows for a more obviously Christ-centered approach to issues that currently divide the Communion, to say nothing of the wider church."

I want to hear, whether from Canadian bishops, Canadian theologians, or the Pastoral Visitors, just how the Episcopal bishops and the ACoC bishops differ on Christology.  We've been arguing for along time that the issues that divide us are largely matters of discipline, and not matters of Creedal theology.  Even the Canadian report on these issues has spoken of them as "matters of doctrine, but not of core doctrine."  It seems to me that Christology is a matter of first-order, and suggestions that Christology differs between two national churches within the Communion are a serious concern.

By the same token, we have argued that not only are our bishops "within the creedal mainstream," but that our "aberrations" are specifically and deliberately "Christ-centered."  Our reference to the Baptismal Covenant should speak to that, even in churches within the Communion that don't use it (and, by the way, the Church of England does use it, if within more limited contexts than the Episcopal Church).

So, allegations that we differ on Christology, and that we aren't centered on the Creeds, call for a more specific description.  Simply thrown out off hand in the inferences of these Pastoral Visitors, they are scurrilous, and as scandalous as the "extreme views" that Visitors apparently deplore.  True, these are allegations that we have heard before; but those who have made them have failed to actually point out how our actions alter the Church's understanding of the person and work of Christ, or how they alter understanding of the Creeds.  Pastoral Visitors from Canterbury ought to meet a higher standard.

By the same token, I wonder how Canadian bishops respond to this point, much less Archbishop Hiltz and include this in describing the Report as "good" and "accurate:"

[The report] Reiterated an earlier observation made by the visitors that the meeting of bishops was "relaxed and relational," and that while this has merits, "one casualty of this user-friendly meeting was perhaps a certain lack of theological depth." It noted that "very few of the items discussed were approached via theological first principles, the stress being much more on pragmatic outcomes."  While this may be "unduly critical," the visitors said, "we do not believe that the House is not without its theological heavyweights." Rather, they simply question "whether their expertise is made as widely available as it might be…"

This seems to me to be a classic example of damning by faint praise.  Are they suggesting that there is no "theological depth" behind the "stress… on pragmatic outcomes?"  True, they acknowledge (albeit grudgingly) that there are "theological heavyweights" in the Canadian house; but the clear implication is that the House as a whole, and most bishops within it, aren't doing their theology.

This suggests narrowness in the perspective of the Pastoral Visitors.  The first is that the format of a "relaxed and relational" gathering is unfamiliar to the Visitors.  Perhaps they expected more of a formal theological lecture, followed by intellectual discourse on "first principles."  Certainly, that's one way of approaching things.  Perhaps, too, the Visitors continue the neo-Platonic tradition within the Church that we deduce actions from principles, instead of inferring principles from observation (as I think the Romans do).  However, one would expect the Visitors to be able to discern other ways of functioning, and to ask intelligent questions when they don't understand.  Again, Pastoral Visitors for Canterbury should meet a higher standard.  (I think it also speaks to ecclesial issues,  expectations that bishops rather than General Synod should direct the Church, a criticism we've certainly heard here; but that's not as clear.)

So, what are we to do with this partial report on the report, lacking context?  Many are expressing outrage at another slap at the Episcopal Church, and at what they see as an effort to divide Anglicans in the Episcopal Church and Anglicans in Canada.  Perhaps those things are true, but I'm still more worried about the questions I see as more critical.  How are we differing on Christology, and on interpretation of the Creeds?  How are their approaches Christ-centered when ours are not?  How are the deliberations of the Canadian House of Bishops somehow not theologically grounded, or not "theological enough?"  The report of the Pastoral Visitors should be explicit on matters so important.  If it's not, neither Canterbury or the rest of us in the Communion are well served.  They're simply unfounded, unexplored allegations, of the sort we've heard for years.  Yes, others have said such things; but Pastoral Visitors for Canterbury should meet a higher standard.