I wish I knew whether the leaders of the Episcopal Church have done any strategic thinking about how we would respond to the various ways in which the Anglican Communion might fragment or dissolve.
To the extent that I am in touch with these folks, I think they hope, and even believe, that somehow the Communion and our Church will weather the upcoming meeting in Tanzania, after which the relevant parties will get down to work on the draft of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s covenant that will be presented at the Primates Meeting, and that when all is said and done, we will be able to affix our name to the document with a not too clouded conscience.
(And as you might guess, that makes me anxious. Click on the continue reading tab for the full 1,300 words.)
On feeling unprepared
I wish I knew whether the leaders of the Episcopal Church have done any strategic thinking about how we would respond to the various ways in which the Anglican Communion might fragment or dissolve.
To the extent that I am in touch with these folks, I think they hope, and even believe, that somehow the Communion and our Church will weather the upcoming meeting in Tanzania, after which the relevant parties will get down to work on the draft of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s covenant that will be presented at the Primates Meeting, and that when all is said and done, we will be able to affix our name to the document with a not too clouded conscience.
A scenario this optimistic seems almost laughable in the blogosphere. (Out here the End is imminent just about every day. It reminds me of the economics reporter whom colleagues said had predicted 10 or the last three recessions.) But I want to give it is due.
So:
1. Many of the people who hold this view sit closer to the seats of power than I do. They are, a few of them, members of Executive Council, or So and So’s council of advice, or they work at one remove from people in a position to know something. These folks believe Rowan Williams when he says that he wants the maximum degree of communion possible in light of our differences. And they may simply have better information than those who think otherwise.
2. This view is buttressed by the fact that the Archbishop has actually said that he wants the maximum degree of communion possible in light of our differences, and while I don’t care for the way he is pursuing this goal (The need to continually embarrass and unsettle the Episcopal Church in order to placate the Akinolists is both boorish, and so rote as to be unconvincing.) I don’t doubt his commitment to it.
3. I believe that temperamentally and theologically the ABC would prefer to have people opt out of the Communion rather than be tossed out of the Communion. Hence I think he is deeply invested in getting the covenant before the full Communion as currently constituted.
4. While the covenant is being drafted by a committee stacked with conservatives, and while its principle aim seems to be to shackle the Holy Spirit, it must nonetheless appeal to a substantial majority of the Communion, so it may be moderate enough for us to sign.
I could take issue with a number of these points, but that’s not my intention here. Rather I am hoping that our leaders will recognize that while their hopes may be realized, they may not, that there are powerful forces working against us, and that we need to be prepared to respond to various kinds of challenges and opportunities.
To this point, I have assumed that if the Episcopal Church is forced out of the Anglican Communion, we’d go our way and it would go its way, and that the Network diocese would fade into obscurity because so few of them are large enough to command any real attention once the conflict is over. Yes, there would be other bishops claiming our properties, and other Anglicanisms in our mission field, but I think we’d do just fine institutionally—assuming we can do something about our growth issues, which will be with us whether we are in the Communion or not. .
In other words, I have been relatively optimistic about our ability to flourish outside the Communion..
But reading the recent offerings form the odious trio of N. T. Wright, Graham Kings and Michael Scott-Joynt, I’ve hatched a new set of concerns. These folks don’t just want to disassociate from us; they want to destroy us. They want to impose some sort of extra-constitutional temporary government over a significant number of provinces, and while this is clearly unconstitutional in our system, provoking a constitutional crisis seems more or less what they have in mind.
So, while we’ve been thinking that it would be sad to lose the 10-12 percent of the Church that might place themselves under another primate, jolly old tom Wright (Yes, let’s invite him over to sell a few of his books) and his allies have been scheming ways to put 20 to 30 percent of the Church under interim leadership with an eye towards appending it to some other ecclesial body.
Now, as it happens, I think this scheme is fanciful. I don’t detect anything like the dissatisfaction in the House of Bishops, or in middle of the road diocese that would be necessary for Wright’s “College of Windsor Bishops” to make a credible challenge to General Convention. Indeed, the scheme may indicate certain desperation on Wright’s part. He may realize that the covenant isn’t going to be the instrument for the advancement of homophobic bigotry that he hoped it would be, and this is his latch ditch effort to push matters rightward. But I am speculating there. My point is that our Church has numerous opponents, and some of them don’t regard us as friends from whom they must regrettably estrange themselves, but as enemies who, in the words of one pugnacious right winger must be “taken down.”
In this context, to behave as though all will be well if we just keep our mouths shut and embrace the dream of a moderate covenant is simply poor stewardship. We need to be discussing our response to the various scenarios that might unfold in and after Tanzania. We need to be talking with the people in our pews about the choices that may lie before us. We need to be cultivating allies whom we can work with whether we are in the Communion or outside it.
But if any of these conversations are happening, it is news to me. Indeed, I think it is more likely that they are being suppressed.
At our recent diocesan convention, one lonely priest who sometimes comments on this blog introduced legislation that expressed displeasure with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision to invite Bishop Robert Duncan, leader of the Network, to speak at the upcoming Primates Meeting, and called upon Bishop Jefferts Schori to form a committee to examine the nature of our relationship with the Anglican Communion.
He was opposed by various pillars of the liberal establishment. Not a single soul spoke in favor of his resolution, and it was postponed indefinitely, largely I think to spare everyone the embarrassment of an utterly lopsided vote.
But what sensible person can argue against the need to examine the nature of our relationship with a Communion that may radically alter its relationship with us? We are behaving like the wizards in the Harry Potter series who won’t speak Valdemort’s name for fear he might appear. Our leaders may think that in refusing to discuss the possibility that we have to learn to live outside the Communion that they can keep it from happening. But any Harry Potter fan can tell them that they are wrong.
So who has the moxie and the credibility to begin the conversations that need to occur? Bloggers don’t have the juice. We speak primarily to an audience of intensely interested people—and such people constitute a minority in any organization. And despite everything I’ve just said, I don’t think it is the role of the Presiding Bishop. She should remain above the fray for as long as possible. But the Episcopal Church is a large and politically decentralized organization with a great many members who seem to delight in participating in its governance. (And a few who remind you every time you meet them that they participate on a truly exalted level.)
I am hoping that a few of these folks might be willing to introduce the Church to the elephant in its narthex.