Partition

For a few weeks during my year of graduate work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I dated an Israeli medical student. One afternoon we went to see the movie Gandhi followed by dinner at his apartment. While we prepared our meal, we talked about the movie. The scenes of the refugee columns and the Hindu/Muslim violence affected him deeply. He asked over and over again how people could do that to each other. How could they force their neighbors from their homes? How could they kill each other in the name of God? I stared at him incredulously. "Joni, I have one word for you," I said. "Palestine." That was the beginning of the end of our relationship.

Memories of that evening came back to me this afternoon as I watched a couple of episodes of Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy. Like Gandhi, it has scenes of refugees and Muslim/Hindu violence. However, the Masterpiece Theatre production focuses on Mountbatten's years in India as Britain granted independence to India and Pakistan rather than being a biography of his entire life. As such, the miniseries looks at the personalities and forces that ultimately resulted in the partition of India into two separate nations. Watching the events play out on my computer screen I found myself thinking about the current situation in the Anglican Communion. Who is playing what role in our little drama? Is Rowan Williams Gandhi, doing everything he can think of to avoid partition at all costs? Or is he Mountbatten, coming to the realization that partition is inevitable? Perhaps Peter Akinola is Mountbatten, forcing everyone to face a harsh reality. Would that leave Katharine Jefferts Schori in the role of Gandhi? And who is Jinnah, insisting that there is no solution but to have a separate Pakistan? Robert Duncan? Matyn Minns? Gregory Venables?

No matter who plays who, it is clear that, similar to the situation in India, ideologies have hardened and partition is on the brink of becoming an unpleasant and unavoidable permanent reality. Brad Drell writes, "At GC2009, there will be blood on the floor over the leaving of whole Dioceses of the church." If all sides in this tempest in the Anglican teapot cannot find a way to live and work together in spite of their disagreements, the metaphorical blood will not be on the floor of the next General Convention, it will be shed long before that. As those who wish to disaffiliate themselves from the Episcopal Church take larger and larger steps to seek refuge with more conservative jurisdictions, the flow of refugees in the other direction will begin. At first it will probably be confined to liberal congregations looking to leave conservative dioceses such as San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth as they attempt to leave the Episcopal Church. That will be bloody enough. If, however, this trend transforms itself into an actual partition of the Anglican Communion into two or more separate entities (remember that Pakistan eventually split, with East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh), then the streams of refugees will no longer be confined to the Episcopal Church. They will spread across the Anglican Provinces around the world.

If partition is inevitable, and we are, in fact, creating two or more new Anglican entities out of the Communion, how do we avoid a violent and bloody one? What are those of us on all sides willing to give up in order to make the transition as peaceful and smooth as possible? Or are we all like Joni, unable to see the atrocities in our own provinces while weeping and gnashing our teeth at what goes on in others? And if compromise is not possible, what then? Do we truly understand the realities of partition? Are any of us really prepared to triage the survivors?

I don't know. The answer is I just don't know.

Peace,
Jeffri