How the Secretary-General "civilized" the Dar es Salaam requests

Consider how the Secretary-General redefined the Primates' request to the Episcopal Church:

The primates had requested clarification on the status of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention, and whether this did in fact reflect the request of the Windsor Report for a moratorium on the election and consecration of candidates for the episcopate who were living in a sexual relationship outside of Christian marriage.

Secondly, the primates had asked that the Bishops, as the chief liturgical officers in their dioceses, should mutually undertake not to offer public liturgies for the blessing of same-sex unions. (ACNS4323)

Compare the above with what the Windsor Report recommended, and elaborated by the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communique:

. . . the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges. (TWR, 135)

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church

1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and 2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134). (Dar es Salaam Communique)

Why such misrepresentation? The Secretary General acted strangely in concert with the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops to evade the issue of same-sex union. To replace the specific phrase "living with same-sex union" in the Dar es Salaam Communique with the general reference "living in a sexual relationship outside of Christian marriage" is an insult to and betrayal of trust of the Communion, especially to most in the Communion whose first language is not English.

In the second place, the Primates at Dar es Salaam recognized the wide gap between the formal stance and actual practice within the Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

We believe that there remains a lack of clarity about the stance of The Episcopal Church, especially its position on the authorisation of Rites of Blessing for persons living in same-sex unions. There appears to us to be an inconsistency between the position of General Convention and local pastoral provision. We recognise that the General Convention made no explicit resolution about such Rites and in fact declined to pursue resolutions which, if passed, could have led to the development and authorisation of them. However, we understand that local pastoral provision is made in some places for such blessings. It is the ambiguous stance of The Episcopal Church which causes concern among us (Dar es Salaam Communique, 21).

This prompted the Primates to request the American House of Bishops to "make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any (italics mine) Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention . . . unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion."

The Secretary-General again reinterpreted the Primates' request. To him, the bishops are "chief liturgical officers"; this was why the Primates asked them not to authorize public rites of blessing! The term "liturgical officer" can be interpreted very differently. I cannot recall an instance in Anglican documents that such self-understanding is attached to the bishop's office in matters of faith and morals. Absent here is the understanding of the bishop as the sign of sacramental unity and guardian of the faith that was once delivered to the saints. It is remarkable how the Secretary-General has such freedom to impose his private opinion on the Communion. He moreover failed to note the force of the Dar es Salaam request. What was demanded was the promise not merely to authorize public rites, but any rite, "unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion".

To reclaim what is the Lord's

Turning to the American House of Bishops' Statement, many colleagues have rightly judged it to be evasive and inadequate. (See for example, Canon Terry Wong's editorial comment in the Global South Anglican website.)

What next? Two central questions face the Communion, especially the Archbishop of Canterbury:

1. A confession that the Anglican Church as a worldwide Communion needs to be radical restructured for the sake its continuing usefulness for the Kingdom of God. To be honest, the instruments of unity as we know them were improvised in the last fifty years. Provincial and diocesan boundaries in most parts of the world were drawn out in many instances arbitrarily by the American Church, British missionary societies and the Church of England, aided and dictated in some instances by imperialist might. The scramble for Africa was a case in point. The strange inclusion of Taiwan (some would see that as part of China) as a diocese in the American Church belonged to the history of American occupation of the island republic at the end of the Second World War. It is strange for the American bishops to appeal to Ecumenical Councils' decisions on matters of diocesan boundaries, which is an organizational matter, when they dismiss the faith and moral standards of the Ecumenical Church. The American Church has only itself to blame for the present anarchy it faces.

The issue at stake is not to rescue the status quo at all cost. Canterbury fulfils his historic role insofar if he is able to serve the greater good: to bring about news ways of relating and collaborating within the Communion. This may call for a conversion (not only in the West but in the East): to repent of a patronizing attitude the dark-skinned are uncivilized and parochial; and the white are the embodiment of progress and international stature.

2. A confession that the Communion requires a common covenant and a common catechesis. The problem does not lie in power realignment and structural changes. Such considerations have been the main preoccupation of the Communion since the 1960s. All the while, questions on what the Church should teach and how it could teach well have not receive the same kind of attention. The celebrated comprehensiveness in Anglicanism has come to mean each individual can choose what to believe and how to live. This has led to the present crisis. The problem now is not whether the Communion is able to give more time for listening and discerning. We do not have a common platform for such to take place. The Communion urgently needs to reaffirm what it believes in and provide the faithful the necessary guidance to work it out in their daily life. This alone can save the Communion from breaking up. The alternative is clear. The Communion is at the mercy of the Americans, whose promises carry expiry dates (until the next General Convention), but whose practice remains unrepentant.

The present crisis exposes the foundation of straw in the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury would be a wise and faithful steward if he is able to discern of heart of darkness in the Anglican project so far, and reorder the Communion after the heart of God. Of course, there is an alternative. Luring are the powers of economic and institutional might. The Communion will die a slow death funded by the riches of the rich Provinces. The present calls for a parting of ways.

END