Against it then, against it now

The whole idea of using exclusion from various meetings in the Anglican Communion as a "time out" is a bad one. I was against it when The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada representatives to the Anglican Consultative Council were asked to withdraw from participation for a time. I'm against it now. Exclusion is no way to engage. Better to have poeple we disagree with there and engage them in open conversation.

I found it disturbing when Ruth Gledhill reported that there were conversations about possibly excluding the Province of the Southern Cone from participation in the next ACC meeting.

I found myself relieved to hear from an interview with the Presiding Bishop that no such plans had been discussed at the Joint Standing Committee of Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. (photo from ENS)

Had it been proposed I would have voices strong opposition. Here exclusion is no way to engage either. If there are those (as I do) who feel that the incursions by the Province of the Southern Cone are outrageous, better they should be there to both hear that and be heard in response.

The exclusion of Bishop Gene Robinson from Lambeth, as if a "time out" was going to make Lambeth and thereby the Anglican Communion, any more clean or righteous, was a really, really bad idea. He was there anyway and those who didn't want to talk to him didn't and those who wanted to did.

Similarly, I believe that if the Diocese of Sydney continues on the path to regularizing lay presidency at the Eucharist I do not believe the people or bishop should be excluded from whatever "instruments" of the Communion in which they might take part. If they act in ways that their province cannot condone, that is a problem for the Province. But if with Provincial approval they do proceed with lay presidency, it seems to me it would be better if they should show up and have to face into the questions and concerns.


The notion of allowing unbaptized or unconfirmed people to receive communion needs to be aired in our Province at the highest level. What we decided ought to be consistant across the church. But if we decide that it is permissible then we need to recognize it is our decision and we can be called on to explain our decision to the wider Communion and perhaps be isolated in that decision. The use of invitation as a missionary strategy will not fly in all churches of the Communion, and perhaps not fly here as well. But the discussion needs to happen.

Maybe there is a principle here: To the extent that the "instruments of communion" are that - ways by which we talk to one another across the many boundaries that exist - perhaps we all to come to some common understanding that the point of it all in that we bring our issues to the table.

When Bishop Robinson was ordained the Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear that Bishop Robinson could not act as bishop in England. Women ordained on one province are denied the opportunity to minister in another where women are not ordained. One supposes that most provinces will not admit a lay person licensed to celebrate the Eucharist in Sydney to do so in their provinces.

Now what is similar about these three is that some provinces allow what others would disallow. Since mostly people exercise their ministries in the province in which they were ordained or licensed there is not much of a problem, except in the abstract. It becomes concrete when someone wants to move about, or when Anglican churches mind each others business too much.

Suppose we thought of such "innovations" as a particular calling of a province, a calling / vocation to test some new idea, the notion, say,that women, or gay people, or lay people could be given license to particular ministries within the church, or that the church might find new forms of ministry. Instead of condemning the churches making such innovations, what might it look like if we instead engaged those considering such actions. I don't mean "listening," I mean engaging - in political, personal, theological and justice conversations.

After such engagement, if the diocese or province were to decide to act, instead of rejecting or breaking communion with those acting, supposed the reaction were to say, "We give thanks for your call to this new ministry. We do not agree with you that it is right to do so, but believe you believe you are called to do so. Therefore we remain in communion with you but will not give license to those licensed through this innovation to exercise ministry in our province. Because we are in communion we will continue to explore with you what this action on your part has meant for your church and for our relationship."

What would that do in the context of the "troubles"? Well, it has worked on some levels. Most of the Provinces work in this way across the issues of the ordination of women, some are dealing with the ordination of gay and lesbian persons, some very few will do so regarding lay presidency. But it will not work of course when one Province (or several) believe that the actions of another are in no way a sresponses that come from God's call to them. Condemnation will follow, and with that a break profound enough to count as the end of communion.

I am against the condemnation of churches in the Communion who feel called to live out new possibilities in the life of faith. I was against in regarding having to stand in the corner at the ACC; I am against using exclusion from ACC or communion as a "punishment." I am glad it is apparently not likely at the next ACC meeting. I am against condemning the innovation of lay presidency by excluding all or part of the Province of Australia from any of the agencies of the Communion.

Then again, I really want the Province of the Southern Cone to explain to the rest of the representatives of the Communion why their innovation of including ministries in the jurisdictions of other churches of the Communion is a good idea. As it stands, that innovation is alone among in being deliberately inter-provincial. At the same time it takes place without negotiations or engagement. Unlike innovations that are not pressed on other provinces, incursion is. Unlike actions within an autonomous province, these are actions that are invasive, deliberately provocative and condemning. I am against those - have been and am now.


That's my sense of the matter and I'm sticking to it.