The Moderator is losing it...

While the "Pastoral Letter from the Network Moderator" has been around on the internet for the last four days, I chose not to comment on it until it was posted by the Network itself. That happened Monday.

The letter is a collection of observations by the Moderator on matters arising from the Primate's Meeting in Tanzania. He claims "generosity and graciousness" in his patient response. But in reality the Moderator heaps doom and gloom on the prospects of a successful "last attempt at reconciliation in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church." The Moderator is losing it.

The Moderator's letter makes creative use of several words and concepts:

Insulation: ""a sufficiently strong plan must be found for the congregations and dioceses of the Anglican Communion Network (plus any others from the wider Windsor coalition that may desire similar insulation)." The desire to be insulated from The Episcopal Church is clear. But I suppose the Moderator might want to think about the fact that insulation works both ways.

Responsibility for developing a system: The Moderator puts great stock on the "wider coalition of Windsor Bishops." The Moderator says, "The responsibility for developing such a system has been given to the wider coalition of Windsor Bishops who signed on to the " Camp Allen principles" – a group that includes the Network Bishops – to shape such a system, a system to be led by a Primatial Vicar.(3)" Unfortunately the footnote simply references the Key Recommendations section of the Primates Communiqué. Had he tried to give specific quotes he would have been hard pressed to make his case that the "Windsor Bishops" are responsible for developing a "system." First the scheme involves several activities of a Pastoral Council that engage the Windsor Bishops (among others): (i) The Pastoral Council, none of whom are chosen or recommended by the Windsor Bishops, will "work in cooperation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops participating in the scheme proposed below (that would be the Windsor Bishops). The Pastoral Council, the Presiding Bishop, and leadership of the WB's, will do a variety of things. (ii) The Presiding Bishop will appoint a Primatial Vicar. (iii) In consultation with the Pastoral Council, and with the consent of the PB, the WB's will nominate a Primatial Vicar, who is responsible to The Pastoral Council. The Presiding Bishop, in consultation with the Pastoral Council will delegate specific powers and duties to the Primatial Vicar.

Now the Moderator is clearly not reading the same document that was published by the Anglican Communion Office. The only place in that document for work specifically assigned the Windsor Bishops (called "bishops expressing a commitment to 'the Camp Allen principles'") is in the work of nominating a person to be Primatial Vicar and the Council will "work in cooperation with The Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop and the leadership of the bishops…(The WB's)." The Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop "invite the bishops..." and gives opportunity to them to "participate in the pastoral scheme." So there is all sorts of cooperation and participation, but it is absolutely false that "the responsibility for developing such a system has been given to the wider coalition of Windsor Bishops, etc."

The Moderator has once again overstepped his dreams.

Within and Under: The Moderator then moves to the truly strange – a long discourse on the difference between being "within" the Episcopal Church or "under it." He begins by observing, "There is much question as to the degree to which the vision for an international Pastoral Council and a domestic Primatial Vicar would leave the Network "within" the Episcopal Church."

The Moderator observes, "One can be "within" something and not "under" it." Well, whatever that means it is at least logically correct that the "within" is different than "under." But then he says, "The Network has been proving that for the last three years." Proving, I suppose that he and the Network are within the Episcopal Church but not subject to its Constitution and Canons, not in communion with its leadership or its General Convention. To put it another way, proving that he and other network ordained persons are in violation of their oaths at ordination.

After a wonderfully contrived comparison to separation in marriage, he then opines, "Any sense that the Pastoral Council and Primatial Vicar are "under" majority TEC is absent from the documents themselves, would surely doom the vision to failure, and could hardly prove "a sufficiently strong scheme."

It will come as a very great disappointment to the Moderator to know that the Key Recommendations clearly state that "with the consent of the Presiding Bishop, those bishops who are part of the scheme {that is those invited by the Pastoral Council and the Presiding Bishop} will nominate a Primatial Vicar." And I am sure he will be disappointed that "The Presiding Bishop…will delegate specific powers to the Primatial Vicar."

All of this will disappoint the Moderator, but perhaps his readers, unless they read the Communique will not notice that "under" and "consent of and delegation by" the Presiding Bishop are indeed part of the scheme.

The Moderator then, in a meanness of spirit that cannot be over stated makes long suffering explanations as to why he must attend at least part of the House of Bishops Meeting.

"I will do everything I can to bring the hopes of the Primates Meeting to fruition. Necessarily, I will attend the meeting of the House of Bishops about to convene. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked for "generosity and graciousness" in response to what the Primates have done. I will go in that spirit. Attendance at the meeting of the House of Bishops, however, should not be construed as anything more than doing what the situation requires. It remains that "the theological differences" with the Presiding Bishop and with those Diocesan Bishops who have taught and acted contrary to received Faith and Order (as upheld in the Windsor Report, and the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam Communiques) are of such magnitude that discussion of the issues before us is the limit of our participation in the life of the House of Bishops at the present time." If this is "generosity and graciousness" then we are all in trouble. The Bishop of Pittsburgh will continue to absent himself from the fellowship of that House except to make his claim on its future. I am sure this will be a great comfort to the House of Bishops.

He states, "The Windsor Bishops (which includes the Network Bishops) – all those who adopted the Camp Allen principles(4) – will meet shortly after Easter to shape our part of what the Primates' Meeting has envisioned. Obvious agenda items include discussion about a Primatial Vicar, about a "sufficiently strong" plan for the Network and Windsor minority, and about imagining whether any form of ministry could be designed that would be acceptable to those who have gone out."

It would be interesting to know just who is calling that meeting and why it is meeting at all, given that the scheme in which they are invited to participate is supposedly a matter of cooperation and consultation.

There is the assumption that the WB's will work it all out on their own, not consulting with the Pastoral Council, but bringing to whatever meeting takes place their conclusions. The Moderator's agenda seem to suppose the WB's will dictate the powers of the Primatial Vicar. The Moderator is wrong.

Ultimatums: Having warmed up by extending the power of the WB's and the Network, he now goes for a few ultimatums.

"The House of Bishops will have to respond to us and to the recommendations of the Primates' Meeting in a vastly different manner than has characterized the majority's behavior toward us in recent experience."

"…we owe it to our beloved Communion to follow the Primates' wisdom as to how to take a last step in that discernment. The Primates have established a deadline of September 30th for the Episcopal Church's entire House of Bishops to make an "unequivocal" response.(7) For all that is ahead, the Anglican Communion Network will continue to work with those "within" and with those who have "gone out" for a biblical, missionary and united future for North American Anglicanism."

What the Moderator means is, most of the Network thinks the matter is finished, but we'll give you one last chance.

This Pastoral Letter is neither pastoral nor a letter of encouragement. It is huff and puff, and an attempt to blow the house down. The Moderator misstates the Recommendations of the Communique giving the Windsor Bishops and the Network more authority than they have, continues to refuse the possibility that he is under orders, not just within them, and makes ultimatums.

The whole thing is addressed to "majority TEC," which means, I suppose the constitutionally elected and appointed leadership of The Episcopal Church, along with its General Convention, working within and under its Constitution and Canons, in other words The Episcopal Church.