Things May Be Better Off Than We Had Feared

This past Friday I wrote about the Second Report from the Windsor Continuation Group, and their suggestion that the Communion might benefit from a “Faith and Order Commission.” All the Reports of the WCG are now available on line, including the Third Report, which includes a suggestion for a “Pastoral Forum.”

With my concerns, I was interested to see this comment by Bishop Christopher Epting, retired of Iowa and Ecumenical Officer for the Episcopal Church. He’s in Lambeth, and he has more experience in these discussions than I, so I found his perception of the Faith and Order Commission meaningful and reassuring.

I have no real problem with the Communion-wide “Faith and Order Commission.” It is not intended (as the press had said) to be like the Vatican “Holy Office” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) with all kinds of powers to censure and discipline. It is simply the rolling together of the current International Anglican Doctrinal Commission and the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations (upon which I serve).

I don’t think merging them is a great idea — there is more than enought theological and ecumenical work for both Commissions — but this has been a done deal for some time, partly because of the cost of both Commissions. We need some kind of clearing house to which to refer matters of doctrine and discipline for discussion. The fact that we have not had such a thing in the past is why The Episcopal Church did not do more “consultation” in matters theological dealing with issues of human sexuality years ago.

He goes on to say, on the other hand

The suggested ”Pastoral Forum” is more problematic. It’s to be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and serve as an advisory group to the various Provinces when there are internal disputes and difficulties which affect the whole Communion. Such schemes have been tried (or at least floated) in recent years and have always failed. I’m not sure why this one will have any greater chance of success.

The WCG report described the Pastoral Forum idea in some detail, but the essential points are that the Pastoral Forum would “engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy as they arise or divisive actions that may be taken around the Communion;” and “would be responsible for addressing those anomalies of pastoral care arising in the Communion against the recommendations of the Windsor Report.”

I might have had more concern myself about the “Pastoral Forum,” if someone hadn’t noted how much it seemed like the Panel of Reference. In fact, does the WCG Report specifically connect it to the Panel of Reference, but it’s composition is much the same. Members would be appointed by and report to the Archbishop of Canterbury (oddly, the Report speaks both of the Archbishop as “President,” of an “episcopal chair” that he would appoint). It would be intended for consultation, and members could travel to meet with those concerned in disagreements.

In any case, and again, I do find the connection and similarity to the Panel of Reference does lower my blood pressure somewhat. Last year, I made the following comments about the work of the Panel of Reference:

• The Panel of Reference has established a history of recognizing the institutional, provincial integrity of the Episcopal Church...

• The Panel has established a pattern, in what few results we have from them, of preferring a return to established institutional boundaries while efforts at reconciliation are pursued. This pattern, expressed explicitly in this report, would strongly encourage maintaining within the Episcopal Church those dioceses and congregations that have sought to leave, at least until the Panel responds.

• The Panel has also established a pattern of withholding consideration while issues are being pursued in civil courts. With their preference for maintenance of the status quo ante, this would maintain real property within institutions of the Episcopal Church, again at least until recommendations were received...

• As the Panel is a creature of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he could hardly ignore the Panel’s recommendations. Neither, I think, could he issue any sort of “peremptory judgment” while the Panel consideration was in process (including excluding American bishops from Lambeth).

We might consider any Pastoral Forum in that light. A forum for consultation, with members that would respect the traditional respect within the Communion for provincial differences and local needs, would be much preferable to the juridical process in the Appendix to the St. Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican Covenant.

Of course, we don’t know how this will shake out. Indeed, we won’t really know until these matters – the final reports of both the Windsor Continuation Group and the Covenant Drafting Committee - are presented next year to the Anglican Consultative Council. But while we wait, as ready as we are to challenge unreasonable ideas, we should also be ready to consider at least ideas that might turn out in their implementation to be reasonable after all.

It's Still Not Safe

I am shocked and saddened today by the violent attack yesterday at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee. Knoxville is my home town; and growing up I knew well peers and families who worshipped in that congregation.

One point we need to note: according to reports today, the shooter left a letter in his vehicle before beginning his assault. In it, he expressed his rage at "the liberal movement." In an interview, the Knoxville Police Chief was asked whether the letter spoke of "the liberal movement" in general, or also specifically of GLBT persons and civil rights. His answer: "Both."

In these United States, the Unitarian Universalist Association is well associated with civil rights for all persons, including GLBT persons. So now is the Episcopal Church, if somewhat later and more slowly. It didn't happen in one of our churches; but it certainly could have.

Perhaps this is something that our Episcopal bishops can relate to other Anglican bishops in Lambeth: that while it is less unsafe to support civil rights for GLBT persons, it is not safe (much less to actually be a GLBT person; but that's something that they teach us, not something they need to learn). While some parts of the United States are more tolerant (often, I fear, in a 1960's sort of "some of my best friends are..." manner), many parts of the United States are not. Our belief that our GLBT siblings are as fully in Christ, and as fully redeemed as the rest of us, is quite countercultural in much of these United States (if not as markedly so as in their cultures).

Perhaps this is something that our Episcopal bishops can relate to other Anglican bishops in Lambeth - if any will listen....

What Ever Rowan Wants.... (Updated)

We’re all waiting today to hear more detail about the second report released today at Lambeth by the Windsor Continuation Group. Ruth Gledhill reports on it here and comments on it here, and Jim Naughton does both here at Episcopal Café.

The gist of the report is to recommend an effort at centralization and another at standardization (a distinction I note because the second supports the first but doesn’t require it; while the first certainly requires the second).

The effort at standardization would be further work of the group examining canon law across the Communion to release what Gledhill describes as “a ‘blueprint’ of canon law,” a step short of a single “code of canon law,” but certainly a tool for consistency. I suppose, like so much else, the result would depend on the extent to which the report might embrace variations in process and variations in content. If it were instead to be simply a tool to build from the “blueprint” a “code” of canon law, it would be something different – something of what Gledhill describes as “a fifth ‘instrument of communion.’”

The effort at centralization is more explicit. According to Gledhill, the report says, "We commend the suggestion for the setting up of an Anglican Communion Faith and Order Commission that could give guidance on the ecclesiological issues raised by our current crisis." Were this to be an arena for further discussion and listening, I suppose it could be useful. If instead it were to become an Anglican equivalent to the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition), defining by content the limits of the Anglican tradition, once again it would be something quite different from the Anglican tradition as we have known it.

Where would we find support for such an effort? According to Naughton,

"It is a flag raised to see who salutes at this stage," said the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. "I think there is a kind of head of steam behind [it], said Williams, adding that he was "quite enthusiastic" about the proposal.

He said without additional governing structures "we shall be flying further apart."

"There have to be protocols and conventions by which we recognize one another as churches," Williams added.

The last statement says a lot to me. I have written before of my convinction that Archbishop Williams would like to have a Communion more like what the Roman Catholic Church would officially recognize as “a church” (as opposed to a “defective ecclesiastical structure,” as they see us now). These efforts, sustained by strengthening of the Primates and weakening of the Anglican Consultative Council (something else that the Windsor Continuation Group supports), might well accomplish that, but at the expense of the Anglican Communion, not only as we have known it but as we thought it might shape up post-GAFCON.

Here’s how that shapes up for me. The Episcopal Church and some fellow-travelers will not embrace an Anglo-catholic centralized structure any more than we will embrace an Evangelical centralized structure, a la GAFCON/FOCA. However, neither will the GAFCON/FOCA types embrace the new Anglo-catholic structure just because it’s centralized. A new content-oriented approach will fail because ++Williams et al will still represent and be open to a progressive Western culture far more than the GAFCON/FOCA folks will find acceptable. The new Anglo-catholic centralists will likely be too sacramental and too focused on tradition to be comfortable with the sola scriptura crowd.

As a result, this will really only aggravate the divisiveness within the Communion, and especially within the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Australia, and, critically, within the Church of England. The Evangelicals won’t come back; the Latitudinarians will leave; and structural Anglo-catholics will wonder what happened. In the meantime, in those cultural contexts the churches of the Anglican tradition will only look weaker, meaner, and less consequential.

As I said, we need to wait for more – preferably, to see the document itself. However, these first reports suggest that in the interests of stability the Windsor Continuation Group will actually stimulate fragmentation. ++Williams would indeed have his “church,” perhaps; but it will be a lot smaller than he would hope.

Update: Matt Kennedy has offered his transcription of the Group's verbal presentation here.  Anglican Mainstream has it here.  It is all that we've already heard, and more....

I'm Sorry- They Said What?

On the web site Covenant, Andrew Goddard has posted an extensive critical analysis of the recent documents posted as responses from GAFCON primates to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the St. Andrew's Draft of the Anglican Covenant. It is well worth reading, and while it makes no judgement of where or how, demonstrates that, in those statements at least, something is seriously wrong.

While it is not where he wanted to end up, when he considers the problems with the documents in question, this is his determination:

These conclusions point fairly inexorably to the sad conclusion that the GAFCON movement, although it may talk about its commitment to the Communion and its reform and may appear to have given support to the established Windsor and covenant processes, seems determined to pursue its own agenda on its own terms and to weaken and undermine the wider Communion if it believes that it will not get from it exactly what it wants.

There is a Sufi teaching story. A man once came to the Mullah Nasruddin. "Mullah," he said, "let me borrow your clothesline."

"I can't," said the Mullah. "I'm using it to dry flour."

The man looked shocked. "You can't dry flour on a clothesline. That's hardly a good reason not to lend it to me."

Said the Mullah, "Since I didn't want to lend it anyway, it's reason enough."

Perhaps, deep in the heart of the GAFCON movement, some want to tell that story again.

Wordplay at Episcopal Cafe

My latest post is up at Episcopal Cafe. I've been thinking about the words we use - and right now, especially at Lambeth, the words we use are very important indeed.