Picking Up The Pieces

If there's one thing I'm good at, because I've had to do it over and over again, it's picking up the pieces. Shattered careers, shattered relationships, shattered hopes, shattered dreams--basically, if it has fallen apart, I've picked up after it. Sometimes you can catch something before it completely comes apart, repair the damage, and even make it stronger. But sometimes there comes a point when you realize that there are only so many fingers you can stick in the levee, and the best thing you can do is move to higher ground and wait for the flood to pass. Only then can you move in, clean up the debris, salvage what you can, and rebuild.

Right now, the Church Center is broken. The layoffs resulting from the budget decisions of General Convention have affected the entire staff, both those who have lost their jobs and those of us who are still employed for the time being. One of my colleagues described it as the walking dead and the walking wounded. Those who were laid off are awaiting answers from Human Resources about their options and their severance packages. Those answers are slow in coming. Those of us who still have our jobs for the immediate future are waiting answers from upper management about how the work will be redistributed. Those answers are even slower in coming.

It's broken. Let if fall apart. Clean up. Start rebuilding.

The Anglican Communion is broken, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is running out of fingers to stick in the levee. It is clear to most of the Communion that one conservative faction will settle for nothing less than expulsion of the North American provinces unless they cave in to their demands. It is also clear that neither the Anglican Church of Canada nor the Episcopal Church is going to do so, especially in light of the conservatives' unwillingness to uphold all the articles of their beloved Windsor Report.

The Archbishop's latest attempt shore up the levee with the sandbags of a covenant and a two tier structure will not save the communion as it is. Can you imagine the battles that will ensue when the issue of lgbt people in the church as a criteria for first or second tier membership is in place? Provinces with women bishops? Second tier. Provinces that ordain women? Second tier. Provinces that don't hold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as the official BCP? Second tier. The flood will overwhelm the levee and probably cause worse damage than letting go the Communion now.

It's broken. Let it fall apart. Clean up. Start rebuilding.

If we aren't allowed to pick up the pieces, how can we move forward?

Peace,
Jeff

The Sound Of The Other Shoe Dropping

Ruth Gledhill, not known for always getting her facts... ummm... straight, wrote an article for the [London] Times Online titled "Liberal Anglicans declare war on conservatives in the Church." (Hat tip to the Mad Priest.) It was the final paragraph that caught my attention:

The Times has learnt that talks are already under way about forging permanent links between liberal parishes in England and The Episcopal Church, rather as the conservatives have linked up through the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and related bodies. A new US Episcopal Church outpost in London is also being considered, should any liberal parishes in England wish to affiliate with The Episcopal Church in the US in the way that many conservative US parishes have affiliated with evangelical provinces in Africa and the Southern Cone.

I don't know if it's true or not. We can't be sure without independent confirmation, given Gledhill's track record, and it may be that this was put out to push the envelope and perhaps even inflame the conservatives. So far the conservative blogs have been fairly quiet, but that could change at any moment.

I have no idea whether or not anyone has approached the Episcopal Church officially regarding the affiliation of liberal parishes from the Church of England. Quite frankly, given everything the Episcopal Church has said and done in response to parishes and dioceses affiliating themselves with other Anglican provinces, it would be hypocritical to accept such affiliations. On the other hand, perhaps it is time to say, "All bets are off, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander!"

The bulk of the article talks about efforts by a coalition of liberal organizations to document how many priests in the Church of England have blessed same-sex relationships and how many blessings have been done. How ironic that Rowan Williams' two-tier version of Anglicanism will have to apply to his own back yard.

Rowan Williams has no one to blame but himself. How long did he think his strategy of appeasing conservatives could hold the Anglican Communion together? Neville "Peace in Our Time" Chamberlain anyone? How long did he think the liberals, and many of the moderates, would tolerate the conservatives picking and choosing the parts of the REPORTS, which they insisted were Communion norms, to follow while holding liberal provinces to all of the parts?

And now the proverbial other shoe is dropping--perhaps even being thrown--out of the Church of England's own closet.

Peace,
Jeff

GAFCON - Level 2

At the end of January a group of 20 Anglican Evangelical bishops issued an open letter to the conservative primates who have publicly declared that they will not attend this summer's Lambeth Conference. This week those primates responded in an open letter, which is posted on the Church of Nigeria's web site. Note that while the letter from the British bishops is addressed directly to the five primates by their titles, the conservative bishops' response is posted as "GAFCON Response to English Evangelical Bishops." In the letter itself the five bishops identify themselves "as GAFCON Bishops and primates."

The GAFCON bishops are quite clear that two major reasons for their absence are (a) the presence of TEC bishops who participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, and (b) "the presence in some form or other of Gene Robinson and his male partner, and of 30 gay activists." They continue, "We would be the continual target of activist campaigners and media intrusion. In these circumstances we could not feel at home."

There it is in black and white, they are afraid of being around lbgt folks. They are afraid they will have to answer questions about their stance on lbgt folks in the church in public. They are holding a separate conference (the Global Anglican Future CONference) largely due to their desire to not be around lbgt folks and their supporters. They have raised their GAy Fear CONdition up another level.

So while these bishops "emphasise [sic] that this action is not intended to signal that we are walking out of the Communion," by naming themselves GAFCON Bishops they have signaled their intent to separate themselves from the larger Communion by boycotting the Lambeth Conference in July and organizing the June conference. They have even given up on the great hope of so many conservatives, the Anglican Covenant:

Currently the prospects do not seem good for what is proposed in any way to engage with our current difficulties or relate to the facts on the ground. The state of our broken Communion is not mended by the Covenant.

It is difficult not to view their separate conference as a major step toward realignment of, if not a splitting of, the Anglican Communion. All because they are afraid...

Peace,
Jeffri

Let Us Call Them What They Are

Terminology is often a difficult thing to grasp and define. Take for instance the current tempest in the Anglican teapot. I have always found "conservative" and "liberal" awkward ways to define the opposing ends of the spectrum. Kendall Harmon of TitusOneNine fame created the terms "reasserter" and "reappraiser," which have been enthusiastically adopted by the crowd at StandFirm. If only for that reason, I would find these labels offensive. And of course, there is the term "orthodox" which many on the "theological right" of the Anglican Communion have claimed as a definition of who they are, and is currently being used by the organizers of GAFCON. None of these terms completely capture the essence of the debate. For the purposes of this blog, from this point forward I will only use "conservative" to identify those on the "theological right" and "liberal" for those on the "theological left." Yes, they are awkward, but for me they are the closest to the issues under discussion in the Anglican Communion.

My reasons for selecting conservative and liberal are numerous, but let me start with my primary objections to many conservatives' use of the term "orthodox" to define themselves. My American Heritage College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2002) gives the following definitions for orthodox:

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, esp. in religion. 2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds. 3. Orthodox a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church. b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism. 4. Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional.

Obviously, these folks are not Jewish. Nor do they belong to any of the Eastern Rite churches. Their use of orthodox clearly refers to what is "accepted or traditional" and "adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian creeds."

Let me dispense with the second definition first. While there are people who believe the creeds ought to be thrown out, for the vast majority of liberals in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion the creeds form the core of our beliefs. We may argue about language, cultural context, and even that the concept of the Trinity is not biblically based; but then the Church Fathers argued over these same things. In fact, Christians have been arguing about the creeds and their meaning for centuries. Having different ideas about the content and meaning of the creeds does not make anyone more or less orthodox. It can, however make one more or less Orthodox, since disagreements over the creeds were one of the issues that played a part in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches.

In terms of "accepted or traditional" Anglicanism, there have always been conservatives and liberals in the church. For the most part, Anglicans have lived with these differences without coming to blows. Occasionally, things escalated to the point of violence--the English Civil War comes to mind. Furthermore, what is "accepted or traditional" is constantly in a state of flux. Think of the Anglo-Catholic reforms, the Book of Common Prayer (even the 1662 "standard" has changed over the years), and which translation of the Bible is used and what passages are read in our services. In fact "traditional" Anglicanism has always meant living with change and the tension that comes with it.

I also want to take a quick look at "reasserter" and "reappraiser." My dictionary shows no definition for reasserter, but it does say this about assert:

1. To state or express positively; affirm. 2. To defend or maintain. n. asserter.

Likewise, there is no definition for reappraiser, but to reappraise means:

To make a fresh appraisal or evaluation of.

Quite frankly, and as has been pointed out by others in the time since Kendall made these commonly used terms, both liberals and conservatives can be reasserters or reappraisers at different times.

People may identify themselves in any way they wish. However, that does not mean they are necessarily correct, nor are we obligated to use their term of choice when speaking or writing about them. This is especially true when dealing with those conservatives who are currently claiming to be the sole orthodox Anglicans and/or identifying themselves as reasserters.

Many conservatives are unhappy with the changes in the Episcopal Church and, once they took their unhappiness to conservative bishops in other provinces, the Anglican Communion. As if the church has been unchanged from its birth at Pentecost. People have been leaving churches over changes and disagreements for centuries--the split between the Eastern and Western churches, the Reformation, the English Separatists... In this recent tempest in the Anglican teapot, many conservatives have left--some to the Roman Catholic Church, some to other more theologically conservative denominations, but many to other Anglican jurisdictions. It is this last movement that is relatively new, and they are not simply going as individuals, but as whole congregations, associations, and even dioceses.

At first these conservatives thought this would be a temporary situation, until the Anglican Communion either brought the Episcopal Church into line or replaced it with a more conservative province. They could remain Anglicans without having to deal with what they see as the apostate Episcopal Church. Over time, however, it has become clear to them that the Anglican Communion as a whole may not be the savior they expected. The conservative primates to whom these people turned have also become increasingly frustrated with their inability to bring the Archbishop of Canterbury and the entire Anglican Communion to their way of thinking. Out of this frustration GAFCON was born.

Publicly, the purpose of GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future CONferernce) seems to be evolving. I will not go into all the details here, since you can read about on their own site and on several blogs, but it becomes clearer and clearer that the organizers hope that GAFCON will realign the Anglican Communion. Ultimately, if one reads what is implied--and sometimes stated overtly--this realignment could lead to the separation of those self-proclaimed orthodox conservatives from what they view as the apostate liberal provinces. Essentially there will be two Anglican Communions, one looking toward the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other toward another figurehead, or, more likely, an Archbishop with real power in their version of a Communion. Separation. Schism.

These groups are no longer looking to change the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion. They have all but given up attempting to "purify" them. They are now setting in motion the mechanics to create a separate Communion. So let us identify them by their actions and call them what they are: Schismatics.

Peace,
Jeffri

The Scotian Communion?

This afternoon my boss and I were working on an outline for a new project. I was editing her latest draft, and I found that about 80% of the time she referred to Province IX she typed "Province XI." As I made the corrections, I commented to her, "On the other hand, if things keep going the way they are, we might just have more provinces. Province X, Africa. Province XI, Asia."

A month and a half ago I wrote some thoughts about the potential partition of the Anglican Communion. If the Communion fractures along ideological lines, it is quite possible that the Episcopal Church could end up with congregations in Africa and Asia, just as Nigeria, Rwanda, and the Southern Cone now have congregations here in the United States and Brazil (in the case of Southern Cone). In that scenario, a tenth and eleventh province in the Episcopal Church are a definite possibility.

Another potential realignment of the Communion might result in two (or more) separate "communions." How would we self-identify? More than likely there would be a fight over who was truly entitled to the name "Anglican Communion." If it comes to that, perhaps those provinces that decide to remain in communion with the Episcopal Church should simply let the so-called "Global South" be the Anglican Communion and choose a new name for ourselves. Since the Communion's roots are in the separation of the American Colonies from the British Empire, and since the Episcopal Church's first bishop was consecrated by the Scots non-juror bishops, maybe we could call it the "Scotian Communion."

Or maybe we will end up like the Orthodox Churches: Anglican Communion-Nigerian Rite, Anglican Communion-American Rite, Anglican Communion-Rwandan Rite, Anglican Communion-Argentine Rite, etc.

If a fracture happens, no matter what form it takes, then we will all the poorer for it.

Just some thoughts on a rainy Tuesday night.

Peace,
Jeffri

GAFCON? What Were They Thinking?

Michael Poon, a priest in the Diocese of Singapore has raised some thoughtful questions and concerns about the planning and intentions of GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference). Both of the documents appear on the Global South Anglican site.

The Rev. Poon's first set of questions appeared on December 29th in response to the December 25th announcement of GAFCON and is generally addressed to the Primates involved in the planning of the conference. The questions are direct and appropriate no matter which side of the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot you find yourself. Being a Titanic buff, I could not help but be amused by the following comment on the post:

Do people think we really need these life boats lowered?* How do we know that the people lowering them actually know what they are doing?* Does the Captain know and approve of the lifeboats being lowered?* Who will be in command of each boat when the boats are actually in the water?*

*Questions asked by a concerned passenger immediately after the Titanic struck an iceberg. Said passenger not known to have survived.

His second is an open letter addressed directly to Archbishop Jensen in response to his December 27th Statement on the proposed Global Anglican Future Conference, appearing both on the GAFCON web pages and the site run by Anglican Media Sydney (the media and communications arm of the Diocese of Sydney). His first question goes right to the heart of the "crisis" by asking Archbishop Jensen just what the issue is:

What is the particular nature of the crisis before the Communion today? You mentioned several times in your Statement that the issue is over “biblical standards”, especially “in the biblical view of sexual ethics”. I wonder if that depiction adequately reflects the crux of the matter. After all, some other churches and congregations from different traditions have also departed from the "biblical views”. I wonder if the issue before the Anglican Communion is rather this: How do we see ourselves keeping the faith and witnessing together as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” across the ages and across the oceans? Perhaps at the heart is an ecclesiological issue. So the contention has never been simply on biblical view of sex, but on the particular issues of episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and on the rites of blessing for same-sex unions. The process of discerning the Word and on keeping faith to what is revealed as a community go hand in hand. I suggest this interpretation may perhaps be fundamental, and determines how we respond and map the way forward.

Basically, he is asking "is this about how we do things, or is it about sex?" In other words, are we dealing with the Gay Fear Condition here?

I was also particularly struck by two thoughts toward the end of the letter. First:

The “new” in the Communion is that for the first time we live as a worldwide Communion of autonomous churches, defined by geographical boundaries, and called to work together across the geopolitical and socioeconomic realities. We are no longer a church defined by party lines. We seek not the victory of a party.

and second:

It would be a sad day if Anglican churches across the Communion are presented with the choice: between a particular understanding of biblical faithfulness, and allegiance to Canterbury. It is easy to be rebels with causes. It is a different matter, you would agree, to bring about a new world order.

The Rev. Poon has offered the entire Anglican Communion much to think about with these questions and comments.

UPDATE

If David Virtue is to be believed, the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Middle East, was not consulted about the location, or anything else for that matter, of GAFCON. Mr. Virtue quotes correspondence between President Bishop Anis and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria in this article.

Also posted on VirtueOnline are the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon's response to the initial announcement of GAFCON and his response to Archbishop Jensen's statement (you have to look closely in a paragraph in the middle of the posting to find where Dr. Toon's comments begin). His response to Bishop Jensen is particularly critical of the so-called "orthodox" bishops of the Global South crossing provincial borders:

It seems that those Primates and assistants who planned this June 2008 Conference in Israel have lost the virtue of godly patience-after all it is one month from June to July! Tragically also they have exhibited a lack of both godly patience and a sense of unity in the Gospel in their own ranks in the way in which they have entered into the geographical space of the North American Provinces of the global Anglican Communion.

And this action Dr Jensen does not mention. Perhaps he supports it as being fine. Before the crisis brought on by the Robinson affair in 2002, there was working in the U.S.A. that which was known as "the Anglican Mission in America" [AMIA]which was promoted by the Province of Rwanda. In 2004 and the years following, the African Primates in Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda knew well that this Mission was not approved by any of "the instruments of unity" of the Anglican Communion, because it involved the crossing of boundaries by invading missionaries without permission from the home Church/province.

Nevertheless, they decided (a) to send their own missionaries (to function wholly separately from the AMIA) and in general to work separately from each other; and (b) to pay no attention to TEC locally or the "Instruments of Unity" globally.

There are now effectively several separate Anglican denominations in the U.S.A. & Canada sponsored by Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda, together with the Southern Cone of South America. By any reckoning this state of affairs-when one puts alongside them the many other Anglican denominations and groups-is a major denial of the doctrine of the Church held within the Anglican Way from its inception. It is nearly a free for all and this despite organizations like Common Cause.

And there is a very real question as to whether this situation can ever be put right, for once in existence denominations in the U.S.A, as history shows, tend to solidify and spin off groups to add to the mix.

Looking back, one can see how much wiser it would have been for the Primates involved in the invasions to have stayed off shore, offered succor and aid, and counseled patience until the matters could be thrashed out at Lambeth 08. At least, if they wanted to invade from 2004 they could have worked in and through the AMIA to keep the differences and missions in their own ranks to the very minimum.

The impending facture [sic] of the global Communion is caused not only by the wicked innovations of the North Americans, and the lack of courage and conviction by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the lack of patience and precipitate action of some of the Provinces of the Global South!

Dr. Toon has summed up very neatly why the self-named "orthodox" bishops have no grounds to hold the Windsor Report as legislative or even authoritative. He also notes the very real possibility of further fractures taking place after separation. Have these particular bishops and their (primarily) North American cohorts overplayed their hand? Perhaps. And even if they have, the damage they have already done to the Anglican Communion will be with us for a very long time.

The Daily Episcopalian section of the Episcopal Cafe posted the Rev. Greg Jones' commentary on the...ummmmm...conversation taking place on some of the conservative blogs in the wake of the GAFCON announcement and the Rev. Poon's questions. In "Conservative Anglicanism Splitting" the Rev. Jones correctly points out:

What I wish more liberal Episcopalians would acknowledge is that many theologically conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are taking a great deal of heat for standing up for unity, reconciliation and a comprehensive vision of Anglicanism -- and they are not getting much credit for standing against the extremist Separatist powers busily at work attempting to render the Communion. The good news, to my mind, is that there are many Communion minded people who seek comprehensiveness and unity for true -- and they are not all on the same theological page, as regards the inclusion of women, gays or on other questions challenging the wider body at present. They are not of one mind, but they are of one desire to remain in communion by virtue of baptism and a common identity as Anglicans.

Among those named as "conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are taking a great deal of heat" the Rev. Jones names "the Covenant blog collective." You can see what the writers on the Covenant blog have to say in this post, this one, and the comments on both. While I often disagree with the Covenant folks say, I have a great deal of respect for their writing. In particular I have an immense respect for Doug LeBlanc who has long been one of the most objective reporters of things Anglican--when I edited my Integrity chapter's newsletter I often included articles he had written covering various events. I have also been privileged to share a meal with Doug.

Among those the Rev. Jones names as "extremist Separatist Powers" is StandFirm. If you want to see what these folks have to say, you can look at this post, this one, and the comments on both. Except for a couple of writers on the StandFirm blog, I have little to no respect for most of the folks who post there. In my opinion they are as mean spirited and as nasty as they often accuse their "worthy opponents" of being. If you decide to read further on their blog, you have been warned.

Peace,
Jeffri

GAFCON 3...2...1...

People really need to be more careful about their use of acronyms. Take, for example, the latest initiative coming from a recent meeting in Nairobi of conservative (for lack of a better term) bishops, many of whom are active in the "Global South Anglican" movement: The Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON. GAFCON? The first thing I though of when I saw the acronym was how similar it is to the U.S. military's DEFCON (Defense Readiness Condition). GAFCON? Mark Harris' closing thought in his post on the conference is, "The gaffe in GAFCON is a growth industry."

Then I ltook a look at the conference's web site. Featured on the opening page is a two paragraph excerpt from Sydney (Australia) Archbishop Peter Jensen's article written for sydneyanglicans.net:

A Global Anglican Future Conference is planned for June 2008. The aim of the Conference is to discuss the future of mission and relationships within the churches of Anglican Communion. Those who wish to retain biblical standards especially in the area of sexual ethics have spent much time and effort in negotiations on these issues in the last five years. They want to move on together with the gospel of Christ’s Lordship, a gospel which challenges us and changes lives. Israel is planned as a venue because it symbolises the biblical roots of our faith as Anglicans. I want those in the fellowship of our Diocese to know what this is about and why I am involved.

In 1998, the Lambeth Conference made it clear that the leaders of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans world-wide maintained the biblical view of sexual ethics – that sexual relationships are reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Five years later, however, actions were taken in Anglican Churches both in Canada and the United States of America which officially transgressed these boundaries in defiance of the Bible’s authority.

There it is in black and white. All of their cries to the contrary, it really is all about power with sex as the presenting issue.

GAFCON? Looks like "Gay Fear Condition" to me, and the fearful "biblical" bishops have just upped their "Fear" status.

Peace,
Jeffri

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