What the Primates asked

The Primates, the leaders of the 38 provinces of the world-wide Anglican Communion, in their February 19 communique made several "requests" of TEC, measures needing to be taken to assure its continuation in the Communion. (See "The Primates' Demands and The Episcopal Church's Response" distributed on March 4.) The most prominent of these was an assurance that it had indeed placed a moratorium on the consecration of homosexual bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions, as asked of it by the Windsor Report in 2004. (TEC's 2003 General Convention had approved of these actions, and the Primates considered the 2006 General Convention's response to Windsor to be unclear. They specified a response from the House of Bishops by September 30.)

But the Primates called also for a Pastoral Council. This would take over the congregations in liberal dioceses unable to accept the actions of the 2003 General Convention and thus in theological disagreement with their bishops. Thereby it would afford a safe place for these "orthodox" congregations. The Council was to consist of members nominated by the Primates themselves, by the Presiding Bishop, and by the Archbishop of Canterbury and thus to be within TEC but not under TEC. No deadline was set for its formation, but the Archbishop of Canterbury called for nominations to it by March 16.

The Primates' request came out of a history rather than the blue. Some orthodox congregations had found themselves not only in disagreement with their bishops but also subject to repression by them, including inhibition of their clergy and confiscation of their property. The House of Bishops itself at its March 2004 meeting adopted a scheme known as DEPO (Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight) to deal with conflict situations. But DEPO left final authority in the hands of the very diocesan bishops from whom the congregations were seeking protection. And the TEC leadership raised no voice against liberal bishops' repressions, however outrageous (see "The Connecticut Six," distributed August 2005). Recognizing DEPO's inadequacy, the Primates at their February 2005 meeting called for the establishment of a Panel of Reference under the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom oppressed congregations could appeal. But the Panel proved highly dilatory and indecisive as well. Hence the Primates' substitution of a Pastoral Council.

How the House of Bishops answered

At its spring meeting concluded on March 20 the House of Bishops adopted three "mind of the house" resolutions, all concerned with the Pastoral Council (www.episcopalchurch.org/3577). The first is the essential one; the others may be considered outgrowths of it.

This first resolution begins by affirming TEC's desire to "remain a part of the councils of the Anglican Communion." But it goes on to say that the meaning of the Preamble of TEC's Constitution [which specifies membership in the Communion] "is determined solely by the General Convention," as if nobody else could tell us what membership requires of us. Finally, it declares that the Pastoral Council as set forth by the Primates would be "injurious" to TEC and "urges' TEC's Executive Council not to participate in it. To be sure, it speaks also of finding ways to meet the Primates' pastoral concerns compatible with "our own polity and canons." But in view of the history of DEPO and the like, the credibility of that undertaking may be doubted.

This resolution may strike one as claiming the privileges of membership in the Communion while disowning the obligations. As if to counter this notion, the House of Bishops adopted also another resolution, in the form of "A Communication to the Episcopal Church." This amounts to an apologia (not apology) for not only its rejection of the Pastoral Council but also its actions along the way deemed to have "torn the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level." The Communication is too long to comment on exhaustively. But I will attempt a summary.

It begins by elaborating on TEC's desire, indeed "the deep longing of our hearts," for continued membership in the Anglican Communion. It calls the Church of England "a common mother" and speaks of the Communion as a family, the members of which are dear to TEC. It speaks also of TEC's extensive involvements with these members, though by way of "alleviating human suffering" not of proclaiming the gospel. It continues with TEC's efforts to meet the objections aroused by the actions of its 2003 General Convention: participation in the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor Report, acceptance of being disinvited to the 2005 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, the adoption of DEPO already in 2004. And these efforts were widely appreciated, it claims. Only the Primates, it suggests, were unimpressed by them, a cause of deep sorrow to TEC.

The Communication goes on to detail the reasons for rejection of the Pastoral Council. It would "call for a delegation of primatial authority not permissible under our Canons and a compromise of our autonomy as a Church not permissible under our Constitution. " It would violate the "founding principles" of TEC following from its liberation from colonialism and the Church of England. It departs from "our English Reformation heritage."

And "for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century" it replaces local governance of the Church with "a distant and unaccountable group of prelates." Most of all, it would encourage the Western tendency to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work to repair them. As for the orthodox dissidents whom the Pastoral Council is designed to protect, "we pledge ourselves to continue to work with them toward a workable arrangement. In truth, the number of those who seek to divide our Church is small." Finally, "we solemnly declare that 'we do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.'"

These protestations may seem plausible. Nevertheless questions arise with regard to them. Are the bishops who are now subscribing to biblical authority not those who at the 2003 General Convention rejected a resolution affirming biblical authority and at the 2006 General Convention refused even to consider one declaring Jesus to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Is the pledge to work with orthodox dissidents credible in view not only of past performance as with DEPO but also of in the same breath characterizing them as few in number and as seeking to divide the Church?

As for breaking relationships rather than working to repair them, cannot TEC itself by its 2003 actions be considered through its impatience to have broken them? Is it right to suggest that except for the Primates (who are in fact accountable to the large majority of the Anglican Communion's members) all would be well? Is the American Revolution the appropriate conflict to hark back to or is it our Civil War, with TEC now seceding from the Anglican Communion as the South did from the Union, leaving Fort Sumter briefly in Union hands? And should law and the Canons, made by human hands, really be the arbiter of the fellowship of the church? Should canon law trump the gospel?

These questions may be answered variously. Nevertheless the House of Bishops does seem to have failed to take account of certain fundamentals. One is that the Millennium Development Goals, important as they are, are not the main business of the church. The resources required for the alleviation of global poverty, other than moral, vastly exceed those to which TEC might aspire. To pretend otherwise is chutzpah. It is the gospel, moreover, which ultimately counts, the Word of God without which physical life is not worth sustaining. And only the church has the commission to proclaim it, whereby it is the church. Another fundamental missed by the bishops is that the unbridled autonomy which TEC claims for itself is simply not compatible with membership in the Communion, that they cannot have it both ways.

The Windsor Report discusses at length the necessity of containing autonomy within communion (paras. 71 to 95). To be sure, the bishops in their resolutions do not openly defy the Primates. They lean perhaps towards the passive-aggressive, towards portraying themselves as innocent victims. (Washington Bishop John Chane's pastoral letter of March 21 is more robust, if not more auspicious for the Anglican Communion: "[The House of Bishops'] resolutions make clear that... a solid majority of the House viewed the recommendations of the Primates' communique from Tanzania as offensive to our Church...)

But TEC's rejection of so basic a requirement as the Pastoral Council seems to preclude its acceptance of any of the others that the Primates have placed upon it. And this being so, effectively only two possibilities remain: the exclusion of TEC from the Anglican Communion or the loss of integrity by the Communion itself. Thus the House of Bishops by their present action may indeed have fired on Fort Sumter, even if a bit wimpishly.

But the end of the story is not quite yet. There was a third "mind of the house" resolution adopted by the bishops. This was to invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to meet with them to discuss both their rejection of the Pastoral Council and their "passionate desire" to remain in the Anglican Communion. What the outcome of this discussion would be, or even whether the Archbishop will accept the invitation, is not known at this writing. Humanly speaking the prospects seem to be no more than dubious, and the consequences for All Saints' almost certainly profound. But the Lord is still sovereign over our affairs.

---Fr. Ted Lewis is Resident Theologian at All Saints' Chevy Chase MD, in the Diocese of Washington. theodorell@aol.com