The Amazing Hubris of the Three Amigos

They were all at the Primates Meeting in Dar Es Salaam, although none of them were numbered among the Primates. The Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), Bishop Duncan, the President of the American Anglican Council (AAC) Canon David Anderson, and the Nigerian bishop for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) Bishop Martyn Minns, were all present in various capacities.

Bishop Minns had press credentials, Bishop Duncan was invited to give testimony, Canon Anderson seemed not to have particular official status. Whatever the "official" basis for attending, they were minding business. That business was the strategizing going on in the famous Hotel next door, dubbed by some the "real headquarters" of the meeting, and taking place elsewhere in private dining rooms and other venues.

Unlike the other two bishops invited to give testimony, Bishops MacPherson and Epting, Bishop Duncan stuck around. I am sure there was much to talk about.

In the follow-up assessments of that meeting each of the realignment three have had interesting things to say. I have commented already on Bishop Minns amazing read of the event. In particular I found these remarks rather odd:

"We are not intruders. Our place has been recognised and explained in a better way than before. What we are doing is recognised as a valid Anglican Communion ministry. This encourages us to continue our ministry and flourish. We are really about showing the love of God for people.

The Anglican Communion is recognising the serious break in the TEC. It recognises that CANA does the work of the gospel. We want to be a gospel centred church."

The Moderator also found hopeful recognition in the Primates Meeting. With all his misgivings about the future of the project, he does close his message to the Diocese of Pittsburgh with this note of praise: "All we can do is be ourselves at our best. That is certainly, by God's grace and your intercession, what two of us, on behalf of all of you, were within the Primates' Meeting. Even though it is Lent, let Te Deum be said and sung."

It is Canon David Anderson, of the AAC, however, who pulls out all stops. He, with Bishop Minns seems to read the Communiqué through rose colored glasses. He says,

"The AAC was especially pleased with portions of the communiqué which gave special recognition to the unique positions of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) and the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA); under the primates' recommendations, these groups, led by American-based bishops, will be allowed to continue operating separately from TEC, and are recognized as legitimate parts of the Anglican Communion. In addition, the AAC applauded the communiqué's demand for a stop to all litigation within TEC, and urged TEC both nationally and at the diocesan level to take this admonition seriously."

As pointed out in my previous note on the AMiA read on the matter, AMiA and CANA get only passing mention as groups whose relationship to the Primatial Vicar, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion would have to be addressed another day. There was NO statement that these were "legitimate parts of the Anglican Communion." But that did not dampen the enthusiasm of either Bishop Minns or Canon Anderson.

The reason, of course, is that the Three Amigos are thinking of the recognition they got in the strategy sessions with simpatico Primates. The Primates as a whole said nothing much about them specifically, save to report out their testimony, without specific attribution.

All three have put great stock in the Primates desire to have all litigation activities cease. There is, on the one hand, every hope that Christians might not sue one another in court. This particular hope is brought forward with scriptural reference at the drop of a hat. But it is not Christians per se that are being sued, but rather heads of corporations on behalf of those corporations and ruling bodies of local church communities on behalf of their claims to rightful use and ownership of property. Incorporation, as opposed to incarnation, is a matter of civil law.

This is not about members of the body of Christ suing one another, but about incorporated entities suing one another. It would perhaps behoove us to remember that legally incorporated entities are subject to the rule of law quite independent of the religious status of the members of the boards of those corporations. Or, to put it another way, the Three Amigos applaud the Primates call to end litigation because it gives them the legal grounds, having to do with actual use and possession, for contending that no timely protest is lodged and therefore no case exists. The call for an end of litigation is therefore a stalling mechanism that serves in future court arguments.

So the Three Amigos raise a rousing cheer for the call to end litigation. Of course they would, it serves their litigation needs just fine.

The AAC also took on a task requiring great hubris. It "announced this week its formation of a Communiqué Compliance Office, which will monitor TEC's acts of compliance and non-compliance with respect to the primates' requirements throughout the period leading up to the Sept. 30 deadline."

With some glee Canon Anderson is quoted as saying, "As a non-ecclesial body, the AAC is in a unique position to function as a watchdog on TEC's compliance with the demands of the Dar es Salaam communiqué," Canon Anderson explained. "Over the coming months, the newly created office will continuously gather information from around the United States and provide monthly accountings to the primates so that there is no doubt where TEC stands when the clock runs out."

What hubris! Have fun.

And to top it off, Canon Anderson also wrote the following, posted over on Susan Russell's blog, taken from an AAC release made available on Anglican Mainstream. Thinking Anglicans posted it, but did not have it from the AAC site either. I am reposting it here on the off chance that the AAC thought better of it. It may also be bogus, but AAC has not denied this post as real, so for the moment I will assume it is.

Here it is:

Press Release: AAC Lifts Inhibitions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 23, 2007

The American Anglican Council (AAC) announced today that the 21 recent Virginia inhibitions are null and void and declared them lifted. When the clergy from two of the three Episcopal dioceses in the state of Virginia were declared inhibited in January by the current bishop of middle and northern Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee, the clergy he acted against had already transferred to other Anglican jurisdictions.

Subsequently, Bishop Lee has defaulted on his agreed Protocol that he and other Diocese of Virginia representatives worked out with representatives of the churches investigating departure. With the filing of litigation against 11 churches by the bishop and Diocese of Virginia, the Protocol seems to have been unilaterally dishonored and abrogated, raising many questions about all agreements between the congregations and the diocese. In addition, Bishop Lee's failure to discontinue the litigation following the Anglican primates' specific request to do so in their recent Dar Es Salaam communiqué demonstrates even further a lack of respect for not only Anglicans within his own state but also for the Anglican Communion and its leaders world-wide.

AAC President Canon David C. Anderson announced today that, after a careful examination of the facts, the inhibitions imposed on the 21 Virginia clergy associated with the departing congregations were baseless and without jurisdiction, and therefore have been lifted.

Asked by what authority the AAC could lift the inhibitions, Canon Anderson replied: "By what authority did Bishop Lee attempt to impose the inhibitions on clergy belonging to Uganda and Nigeria? Those faithful clergy are now declared Uninhibited for Christ!"

It is, of course, either bogus as a press release, or bogus in its content. It is wonderfully triumphant and befits the Amigo of magnificent excess, Canon Anderson.

The Three Amigos play out the various elements in the elaborate game being foisted on the Communion. Claim legitimacy as part of the Anglican Communion, disparage the Episcopal Church, encourage the Episcopal Church to act like knee-jerk liberals not wanting to be accused of nasty legal fights, ridicule the inhibitions on clergy who have abandoned the Episcopal Church and ministry in it, and pretend to have the power to lift them, and appoint the AAC as a watchdog group.

With luck the Three Amigos will ride off into the sunset and we can move on to deal with the realities of life in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Here, inhibitions are real, recourse to legal rights are necessary, CANA and AMiA are totally secondary to the concerns of the Primates, and the Moderator went home having given testimony and otherwise offered advice. Here too the plotting and planning of the Global South group and their British and American advisors is a reality, as is the possibility of harassment from the AAC compliance corps.

The Presiding Bishop has done as asked, and has brought the Primates request back to the Episcopal Church. It is indeed a container for conversation, almost none of which will involved the posturing of the three Amigos. In the pages of the Communique the Moderator and the ACN are mentioned in a footnote and CANA (and AMiA) is mentioned once in the text, by initials only. The requests made of our bishops do not include any reference to any of these three.

AAC, ACN, and CANA are no doubt important groups in the unfolding issues before us. The triumphalism, overreaching pride and almost comical excesses of some of these statements does not add to their stature.

Adios, Amigos.

Who opened the gate and let Bishop Minns in?

Over on Anglican Mainstream there are comments from Bishop Minns re his place and the place of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). AM said he was attending the Primates Meeting with press credentials. So far I have seen nothing resembling an articleor other writing from him. Perhaps I simply have not found it yet. You would think that if he had written something Anglican Mainstream or Stand Firm would have published it. The "press credentials" gave him a way to be there as assistant to his superior, the Archbishop of Nigeria. And, he could conveniently hang out at the press conference and take questions afterwards. How nice.

Here are some choice remarks from Bishop Minns:

"We are not intruders. Our place has been recognised and explained in a better way than before. What we are doing is recognised as a valid Anglican Communion ministry. This encourages us to continue our ministry and flourish. We are really about showing the love of God for people.

The Anglican Communion is recognising the serious break in the TEC. It recognises that CANA does the work of the gospel. We want to be a gospel centred church."

Actually, what the Communique said about CANA was this:

"Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with goodwill this may be possible."

The Primates must have been exhausted when they said that.

More generally about boundry crossings and intrusions, the Communique said this:

"The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well intentioned, have exacerbated this situation." (26)

"Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above." (From the Pastoral Scheme.)

Bishop Minns seems to think that what the Primates said is an affirmation that "CANA does the work of the gospel." How does he get that reading?

About the matter of property, Bishop Minns said,

"I do not want to see thousands of Christians evicted from their homes and churches. We want a process of mediation. We never started this. This is their initiative."

and later,

"In Virginia there are legal actions. They primates are saying that all legal actions should stop. I hope so. The Presiding Bishop initiated the legal actions and she has signed on to a document that says that she will stop them."

Well, to start with "thousands of Christians have not been evicted from their homes..." What in heavens name is he talking about? "We never started this." Well, actually, determining to leave the Episcopal Church and then claiming the property, by actually sitting on it, seems a bit preemptive.

And, just so he understands, for surely he does, the Presiding Bishop in "signing off" on this Communique is in no way saying that the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia or the Episcopal Church must cease its legal actions but only that that is what the Primates decided to ask the Episcopal Church to do. Here is the wording from the Communique:

"The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations."

That's what the Primates urge.

"Signing off" on the Communique is not the same as consensus. This is something that gets twisted over and over again. The Communique states where the Primates came out as a group. I believe any one of the Primates could sign the Communique as a true statement of the results of discussions without agreeing to its conclusions. But even on a more narrow reading, what the Communique states is "urge" not "She will stop them."

And then Bishop Minns states the reasons why the Primates refused to take communion with the Presiding Bishop (not his, I realize, but perhaps he might have referred to her as Presiding Bishop Katharine (or Jefferts Schori)). He said, "The primates who refused to take communion with Katharine Jefferts Schori take the Eucharist very seriously. They refused to take communion because their churches are in broken communion.. They are broken right now."

Good for them, taking the Eucharist seriously. The Presiding Bishop I am sure takes the Eucharest vary seriously. I am sure Bishop Minns does. I know I do. The brokenness that exists is there. OK.

That means, of course, that there is no reason at all why Bishop Minns should feel his job is in danger. He is not here to heal: he is here to start a new work, having decided that the Episcopal Church is no longer a real church. After all, we are in "broken communion" a state remarkably similar to being out of communion.

Bishop Minns is, in other words, an Intruder. He volunteered the information that he is not. It does not appear that anyone asked him if CANA was. It reminds me of someone who in the recent past said, "I am not a crook," and another who said "I never had sex with that woman." Volunteered information of that sort tells us something.

It tells us there are problems here.

Now my question is, "Who opened the gate and let Bishop Minns in?"

A small point of clarification re CANA

From "A Statement from the Board of the Anglican District of Virginia" published over at BabyBlue Online:

Referring to the lawsuit of by the Diocese of Virginia against 11 Churches..."These are the same Virginia churches that voted overwhelmingly to sever ties with The Episcopal Church (TEC) and affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a fully recognized branch of the Anglican Communion under the Anglican Church of Nigeria."

This statement is otherwise quite informative, but in two respects it falls short.

(i) The name of the church in Nigeria related to the Anglican Communion is, by its own Constitution, Canons, and related material "The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)." This may indeed make very little difference, except of course that "The Anglican Church of Nigeria" is not the legal name of anything.

(ii) The other matter, that "the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA)" is "a fully recognized branch of the Anglican Communion under the Anglican Church of Nigeria," is wrong on two counts: It is no more a "branch" than the missionary district of Micronesia or the Diocese of Delaware. The items to be numbered in the collection called the Anglican Communion are the 38 churches of the communion. The Anglican District of Virginia and the Convocation of Anglican Churches in America of which it is a part are a mission effort of a a member of the Anglican Communion. Furthermore, the bishop, Bishop Martyn Minns, is precisely a bishop in teh Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) whose jurisdiction here is very much in question, at least by some.

None of this matters, except that letting it go without comment that it is misstated feeds the mis- or dis- information bin.

Thanks to BabyBlue for publishing this and another post on the District.

The Archbishop of Nigeria Digs a Hole for Christmas.

It was an odd sort of Christmas Present: an interview in the New York Times titled, At Axis of Episcopal Split, an Anti-Gay Nigerian, by LYDIA POLGREEN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN. It was posted from Abuja, Nigeria, with the interview date of December 20, 2006. It was published on Christmas Day. It is worth reading in its entirety HERE.

Fr. Jake has as always an interesting take on the whole thing. I hope you will read what he has said HERE.

Several additional remarks:

The article opines, that “Archbishop Akinola has created an offshoot of his Nigerian church in North America for the discontented Americans. In doing so, he has made himself the kingpin of a remarkable alliance between theological conservatives in North America and the developing world that could tip the power to conservatives in the Anglican Communion, a 77-million member confederation of national churches that trace their roots to the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

The NYT speaks of a the Anglican Communion as a “confederation of national churches,” a description I think is basically sound. “Confederation” is certainly more apt than either “federation” or “world-wide church.”

The article then quotes Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., who says, “He sees himself as the spokesperson for a new Anglicanism, and thus is a direct challenge to the historic authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.” Professor Douglas, who is a careful observer of such matters and not given to immoderate charges, confirms what has been widely understood: that Archbishop Akinola is directly challenging the “old Anglicanism" and the Archbishop of Canterbury. This, of course, has been a challenge in preparation for some time: the changes in the Church of Nigeria’s Constitution, the emergence of the Global South as a force working for a realignment of Anglican churches, the Archbishop’s leadership in several regional and worldwide religious organizations, all serve the ends of his challenge to Canterbury.

The article then states, “Archbishop Akinola’s views on homosexuality — that it is an abomination akin to bestiality and pedophilia — are fairly mainstream here. Nigeria is a deeply religious country, evenly divided between Christians and Muslims, and attitudes toward homosexuality, women’s rights and marriage are dictated largely by scripture and enforced by deep social taboos.”

The writers got the right items in this commentary, but the wrong order. My sense is that Nigerian attitudes toward homosexuality, women’s rights and marriage are dictated largely by deep social taboos and enforced by scripture, not as the article suggests first by scripture and then enforced by taboo. The claim that homosexuality is contrary to “African values” lies first in the taboos of the culture and then in the overlay of scripture.

The writers report that, “Archbishop Akinola spoke forcefully about his unswerving convictions against homosexuality, the ordination of women and the rise of what he called “the liberal agenda,” which he said had “infiltrated our seminaries” in the Anglican Communion.” If this part of the reporting is accurate, Archbishop Akinola weighs in finally in opposition to the ordination of women.

There is a quite revealing supposedly supportive statement from Martyn Minns: “Bishop Martyn Minns, the rector of Truro Church in Fairfax, Va., who was consecrated by Archbishop Akinola this year to serve as his missionary bishop in North America, said Archbishop Akinola was motivated by a conviction that the Anglican Communion must change its colonial-era leadership structure and mentality.

“He doesn’t want to be the man; he just no longer wants to be the boy,” Bishop Minns said. “He wants to be treated as an equal leader, with equal respect.”

Well, the NYT got it mostly right. Bishop Minns, since his consecration, has been priest in charge of Truro Church. That ends in just six days. Bishop Minns may be motivated by the notion that ails the Anglican Communion is “its colonial-era leadership structure and mentality,” but I must presume his motivation includes wanting to do something about it, namely to assist in the Archbishop’s challenge to Canterbury.

Bishop Minns “boy” and “man” observation has so many layers to it that it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps it is enough to say that it has been a long time since any one I can think of would ever think of the Archbishop as anybody’s “boy.” As to his being treated as an “equal leader, with equal respect,” I would certainly hope that was the case.

Over the past months there has been considerable concern for the Archbishop’s support of Nigerian legislation criminalizing homosexuality and any expression of support for gay and lesbian rights.

The NYT article quotes the Archbishop as saying, “No bishop in this church will go out and say, ‘This man is gay, put him in jail.’ ”

The writers reported that the Archbishop “added, Nigeria has the right to pass such a law if it reflects the country’s values. “Does Nigeria tell America what laws to make?” he said. “Does Nigeria tell England what laws to make? This arrogance, this imperial tendency, should stop for God’s sake.”

Archbishop Akinola equates criticism of this law with imperial tendencies. In an earlier letter to the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which is a Church of Nigeria “mission” in the United States with Bishop Minns as its bishop, the Archbishop roundly criticized those who believe him wrong for NOT speaking out on matters of religious rights and social concerns.

There he said, http://www.canaconvocation.org/news/ “I am troubled, however, by the silence of outside commentators concerning the rights of the clergy, Christians, and particularly converts to our Church whose lives are threatened and too often destroyed because of mob violence. I see no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue.”

The Archbishop wants the voice of ‘outside commentators’ on these matters, but considers such voices an “imperial tendency” when they are directed against him. He also doesn’t know what he is talking about: the imposition of unjust religious laws has come under considerable scrutiny by churches and a wide range of religious commentators in the US and elsewhere in the West.

The last few sentences of the New York Times report reveals more than we may ever want to know about the Archbishop:

“Self-seeking, self-glory, that is not me,” he said. “No. Many people say I embarrass them with my humility.”

Anyone who criticizes him as power-seeking is simply trying to undermine his message, he said. “The more they demonize, the stronger the works of God,” he said.”

The reporters, Lydia Polgreen and Laurie Goodstein have given us a remarkable and devastating view of the Archbishop.

This article was indeed a strange gift, but finally an important contribution to understanding both the Archbishop and his US missionary bishop, Bishop Minns. The Archbishop is digging a hole out of which he will not be able to climb, and Bishop Minns is offering the sort of help that will only make the hole deeper.

No matter that the members of the parishes who voted to leave the Episcopal Church for better climes were told otherwise, they are entering into a relationship with an Archbishop that sees criticism as demonizing, supports either passively or actively proposed Nigerian legislation that will severely restrict freedom of speech, is against the ordination of women, the “liberal agenda.” They have opted for leadership from someone who is also contending for leadership of the Anglican Communion, is not committed to the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and is working for communion wide “realignment” away from a confederation to a more metropolitical structure.

Well the hole gets deeper all the time, and one wonders how long it will be before things begin to unravel.

What in the world is going on here? The Archbishop writes a Letter.

The Daily Episcopalian has just published this letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Primate of Australia and presumably to the other Primates of the Anglican Communion. It is undated and without closing typewritten name, but it has been confirmed by the Daily Episcopalian to be legitimate. You may read it in its entirety HERE. The letter makes it clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury should not write his own letters, or should fire the person who writes them if he does not.

At the very least the letter leaves too much to the imagination of too many pundits, and the most it dissembles and obscures matters about which some clarity might have been useful. It is a very mixed Christmas present indeed.

Here are sections of the letter with a few comments:

“As Christmas approaches, preparations continue to be made for the Primates’ Meeting in February in Tanzania…

This meeting will be, of course, an important and difficult and important encounter, with several moments of discernment and decision to be faced, and a good deal of work to be done on our hopes for the Lambeth Conference, and on the nature and shape of the Covenant that we hope will assist us in strengthening our unity as a Communion.”

A proofreader might have helped: “important and difficult and important” is a slip. But the list of matters to be taken up is more interesting: hopes for the Lambeth Conference, and the Covenant. Those, however, are seemingly not the “moments of discernment and decision to be faced.” They grow from the next paragraphs of the letter.

“There are two points I wish to touch on briefly. The first is a reminder of what our current position actually is in relation to the Episcopal Church. This Province has agreed to withdraw its representation from certain bodies in the Communion until Lambeth 08; and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations. In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.

This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting. I believe it is important that she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss face to face the problems we are confronting together. We are far too prone to talk about these matters from a distance, without ever having to face the human reality of those from whom we differ. However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.

The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it. I am sure that other Primates, like myself, will welcome the clear declarations by several bishops and diocesan conventions (including those dioceses represented at the Camp Allen meeting earlier this year) of their unequivocal support for the process and recommendations of the Windsor Report. There is much to build upon here. There are many in TEC who are deeply concerned as to how they should secure their relationships with the rest of the Communion; I hope we can listen patiently to these anxieties.

So: Not surprisingly the topics to be considered that involve “several moments of discernment and decision to be faced” deal with (i) the relation of the Province of the Episcopal Church and other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, (ii) the seating of the Presiding Bishop at this meeting, (iii) the presence of several “contributors” from the Episcopal Church who would attend a session before the “rest of our formal business” and (iv) some sort of ‘read into the record’ of bishops and dioceses in the Episcopal Church that are “Windsor Compliant.”

My worse read of this is that the letter proposes that this meeting will begin with input from the “contributors” from the Episcopal Church, an acknowledgement of a wider “Windsor compliant” group, the Presiding Bishop so that “she be given a chance both to hear and to speak and to discuss” and finally an addressing of the matter of the place of the Province of the Episcopal Church at the table, and therefore the presence of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Then, and only then would the “the rest of our formal business.”

My second point is to underline the importance of planning constructively for Lambeth 08. … The question of invitations to Lambeth has been raised several times, in relation to the status of TEC, and indeed other Provinces. I shall seek the advice of the meeting on this. … at the moment, we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way.

During my visit to the Pope in November, it was very clear that our ecumenical partners are looking to us not only to strengthen our bonds of ecclesial community and the coherence of our Christian witness, but also to show a hopeful and Christian spirit in resolving our current problems….

It would appear that the Archbishop continues to seek advice on who will be invited to Lambeth. This gives the Primates a considerably stronger role in the matter than is warranted. Inclusion in the Anglican Communion is, for most purposes, determined by the list of member churches kept and agreed on by the Anglican Consultative Council. It is sometimes argued that they indeed have become the agent for admission of Provinces, and one might assume, the agent for removal from the list. In the case of the Lambeth Conference, some (including myself) have argued that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the sole determining agent, since he is the one doing the inviting. Still, I suppose, he can consult with others on the matter.

The problem in this whole thing is that the Primates are being given much too much power – to determine agendas, who attends, who is included in and who is expelled. At some point in the future the Primates will determine their chair, and therefore the “titular” head of the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury might find himself no longer the holder of the position as “focus of unity” in the Communion.

But more pressing and to the point: It is distressing to have the ABC write, “I have decided not to withhold an invitation.” The assumption is that he was considering doing so at some point.

It is distressing to have him write that he is proposing to invite “contributors” – that is people from the Network – to attend at least part of the Primates Meeting. This plays into the hands of the Moderator whose long term strategy is to make sure that he is invited to every meeting where the Presiding Bishop is invited, as part of a larger strategy to lay claim on being the head of the “real” and the “constituent” Anglican body in America. The object is to take over or supplant the Episcopal Church.

This of course is my worse read. In my better moments I think the Archbishop is genuinely interested in finding a way forward in which the Episcopal Church remains the Province. He believes that having “contributors” at a meeting of the Primates would be useful, and I am sure that might be, particularly given the shameful way the Network folk poked about at the last meeting. And perhaps a face to face discussion with all the players in the room would be of some value.

The trouble with all this is that the Primates are heads of churches, and the meetings they have are a meeting of equals. The Moderator of the Network is no equal to the Primates, nor are member bishops of the Network. The Presiding Bishop is our Primate, and everyone else from these shores is either part of the Church of which she is Primate, or are part of some other Province, and have another person as Primate. But in either case, they are not themselves Primates and do not have equal footing with the Primates at such meetings.

What that means is that those of us who believe that the Episcopal Church is indeed about the work of the Church, and that the Presiding Bishop is indeed the Primate of this Church, need to be absolutely clear that our Primate is accorded every honor and respect due her office. Period.

What is going on here? I want to believe it is the Archbishop doing his best and to a good end. But it doesn’t look so good. We will see.

Dissembling Words: The CANA two step.

In the seeming flush of victory Bishop Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) and the Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) that ordained Bishop Minns, Archbishop Peter Akinola, have felt it necessary to dance through the fires of criticisms concerning the support by the Church of Nigeria for legislation that would clap people in jail for associating with one another in support of gay people. So on December 22^nd two letters were published, one from the Bishop and the other from the Archbishop, supposedly in thanksgiving for the votes taken by several parishes in Virginia to leave the Episcopal Church. Much of these letters was taken up with the criticism of the support of this bill.

Bishop Minns had this to say:

“I want to address one recurring untrue accusation concerning our attitude towards homosexual persons. Our vote was not an “anti-gay” vote. We affirm that as Christians we believe that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, is made in the image of God, and deserving of the utmost respect. As the Dromantine Communiqué (issued by the Primates when they met in Ireland last year) states, “. . . we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support of homosexual people” and oppose “the victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex.” And we have and must continue to witness to these convictions by our words and actions. I have attached a recent letter from Archbishop Peter Akinola that addresses this same issue from his perspective. Please notice the difference between what he actually says and believes and the dismissive tag lines that are often attributed to him.”

Archbishop Akinola wrote:

“Sadly, I have also heard that some are suggesting that you are now affiliated with a Church that seeks to punish homosexual persons. That is a distortion of our true position. We are a Church that teaches the truth of the Holy Scriptures and understands that every person, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation, is made in the image of God, loved by God, and deserving of the utmost respect. That is the conviction that informs our passion for evangelism and drives our determination to establish new dioceses and congregations. We have no desire to place anyone outside the reach of God’s saving love and that is why we have supported well reasoned statements such as Resolution 1.10 from the Lambeth Conference in 1998 and also the section of the Dromantine Communiqué, which condemns the “victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex.”

As I am sure you have heard, there is a bill currently being debated by the Nigerian Legislature that addresses the topic of same-sex marriages and homosexual activism. The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria, in its desire to see the strengthening of marriage and family life in our society, has commended the legislators for tackling this difficult issue. We have no desire to see our nation follow the path of license and immorality that we have witnessed in other parts of the world. And we also oppose the severe sanctions of Islamic law.

We recognize that there are genuine concerns about individual human rights that must be addressed both in the framing of the law and its implementation. I am glad to inform you that while the Honorable Speaker of the House, a Moslem, wanted the immediate and outright passage of the bill, the Deputy Speaker, an Anglican, persuaded his colleagues to allow full public debate on it.

I am troubled, however, by the silence of outside commentators concerning the rights of the clergy, Christians, and particularly converts to our Church whose lives are threatened and too often destroyed because of mob violence. I see no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue.

We are concerned about eternal destiny and the need of every person to know the saving love of God. We preach a Gospel for all people that not only offers welcome but also the promise of transformation. We are delighted that you share these convictions with us and look forward to mission and ministry together with you in the coming years.”

Well, we need to keep our eyes on the ball: Both Bishop Minns and Archbishop Akinola affirm that homosexual persons are to be respected as persons loved by God. But respect is not the issue. One can have respect, say, for a murder, and still work to have laws that will make life imprisonment mandatory for those who commit murder. Archbishop Akinola and the Church of Nigeria believe that sexual activity between persons of the same sex, advocacy of such activity, conversation about the possibility of such activity, and indeed changing civil law so that such activity might be legal are all crimes for which persons we respect as persons may be jailed.

Nothing of what Bishop Minns or Archbishop Akinola have written counters the claim that the Church of Nigeria supports the criminalization, or the continued criminalization of homosexual sex, advocacy of homosexuals and free expression of any desire to change the laws of the society. The proposed law in Nigeria will make any ‘out’ homosexual activity is considered criminal and any access to freedom of speech to object to such criminalization is considered itself a crime.

So, contrary to the fine words the support of criminalization continues.

There are two comments that would lead us away from a focus on the clear support of the Church of Nigeria for repressive laws:

The one is that what is being proposed is not as bad as the severe sanctions of Islamic law. So while it is repressive, it is not as bad as it could get. This is not compelling as a reason to support the proposed law.

The other is the accusation raised by Archbishop Akinola at the close of his letter: “I am troubled, however, by the silence of outside commentators concerning the rights of the clergy, Christians, and particularly converts to our Church whose lives are threatened and too often destroyed because of mob violence. I see no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue.”

There is no doubt that we need to be present and concerned for the lives of fellow believers in those places in the world where lives and property are destroyed by mob violence. In Nigeria that violence seems most often to be religious based. The challenge of this criticism is that we do not understand that any support of gay rights would bring about more violence against the Church. Archbishop Akinola is stating that what we are asking him to do in withdrawing support for the legislation is to invite greater violence against the church.

Further, of course, the Archbishop suggest that there is “no evidence of compassion for those whose rights are trampled on because of the imposition of unjust religious laws in many parts of the world. There seems to be a strange lack of interest in this issue.” To the contrary there is considerable concern about the imposition of Islamic law, the restrictions on freedom of worship in many places and the legal support of religious intolerance in even various sectors of the United States.

Throwing us off focus involves these two ploys: (i) this is not as bad a law as might be otherwise in place, (ii) we don’t here you complaining about other repressive laws. Neither of these, of course, are what is being raised as a criticism. The criticism, once again, is straightforward: The Church of Nigeria supports legislation that criminalizes freedom of speech and assembly as it pertains to gay and lesbian persons. That’s it. There is an easy way to counter this charge. Simply say, “The Church of Nigeria does not support the legislation in question.”

They have not said this.

Thinking about The Falls Church and Truro Church and their decisions.

The press release from The Falls church and Truro Church has been published HERE and HERE.

Some comments on the whole and its parts:

I had earlier supposed the vote would be as much as eighty percent. I was short by a considerable amount.


Because the Episcopal Church is not a congregational church I am not sure what it means for a congregation to vote not to belong to the Episcopal Church. For members to decide to leave, and even to leave as a group, is of course totally in order. But the congregation, as a parish of the Episcopal Church remains.

That, at least in principle, is what the fights to come will be about.

Now, for several notes on particulars:

From the Press Release:

“Of the 1,348 eligible voting members casting ballots at The Falls Church this past week, 1,228, or 90 percent, voted in favor of the first question, or “resolution,” on the ballot about whether to sever ties. On the second and final resolution, 1,279 of 1,350 eligible members, or 94 percent, voted in favor of retaining the church’s real and personal property.Of the 1,095 eligible voting members casting ballots at Truro Church, 1,010, or 92 percent voted in favor of severing ties. On the second resolution, 1,034 of 1,095 eligible members, or 94 percent, voted in favor of retaining Truro’s real and personal property. Both churches used essentially identical ballots.”

Note that these numbers are large, but these are “eligible voting members casting ballots” not the total membership. It would be interesting, but not in any way very important, to know what percentage of the total possible vote the vote represented.

“Each of these churches conducted their votes as part of a congregational meeting. They followed steps recommended by a “protocol” for departing congregations unanimously recommended by a Special Committee of the Diocese of Virginia and supported by Bishop Peter Lee.”

The notion that that “protocol” was “supported by Bishop Peter Lee” is not the same as it being officially adopted by the Diocese. That seems to be in contention.

“That protocol … also states that if the vote to disaffiliate passes by the 70% majority, a second vote, also requiring a 70% majority, is needed for the “departing congregations” to be able to leave with their “real and personal property” at a price to be negotiated later.”

There is the rub. I cannot believe that the bishop or the special committee has the authority to undo the requirements of National or Diocesan Canon. Nor, it appears does Bishop Lee, who has published a response to the votes taken, with particular attention to the property issues.

“Our churches conducted our congregational votes by following the straight-forward procedures established by the Virginia legislature,” said Jim Oakes, Senior Warden of Truro Church. “Our churches have also held congregational votes in line with the protocol established by Bishop Lee’s Special Committee. We fully expect to amicably resolve all questions regarding the status of our clergy and our property.”

What are “the procedures established by the Virginia legislature?” Perhaps this is a reference to a bill taken off the floor of the Virginia legislature about which the Daily Episcopalian has had considerable to say.

“CANA is missionary initiative of the Church of Nigeria and the Anglican District of Virginia. It will provide oversight and a U.S.-based structure for these northern Virginia churches leaving the Diocese of Virginia.”

This makes it sound as if CANA is an initiative of two entities, the Church of Nigeria and the Anglican District of Virginia. It is not, CANA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) and Bishop Minns, Truro and Falls Church will soon begin to understand just how much that is true.

Two closing thoughts:

1. I believe the people of the various congregations in Virginia that wish to vote on belonging or not belonging to the Episcopal Church have every business doing so, and that their vote, as a group, may also mean that a new congregation is being formed from membership of the old. I regret, and I suppose many of us do, that they wish to leave, but that is their wish. But the remnant, even if it is five or ten percent (in this case, say 200 people), still constitute the parish as a congregation in the Episcopal Church. Since the priest in charge of Truro Church and the Rector of The Falls Church have apparently cast their lot with the departing group, it seems to me the Diocese of Virginia will appoint interim clergy for the remaining Episcopalians and continue the work of those ministries within the Episcopal Church, the fight over the property not withstanding.


2. The clergy of each of these parishes need to be asked if it is their intention to continue as clergy in the Episcopal Parish or to vacate that ministry and face lose of license and deposition.

We need to pray for those who voted to leave, and wish them God’s grace in their new undertaking. They have done a brave thing even if they, as I believe, have done a wrongheaded and wronghearted one. Democratic processes in the church serve no master and no program. At the same time we need to be clear that the Episcopal Church has a mission to fulfill in its continuing and expanding vision of a church that is, if not radically, at least progressively working at being inclusive.

I need also to direct you to Fr. Jake Shakes the World. Fr. Jake (peace be upon him) is a prophetic voice in a blogsphere of noise.

Clarifying CANA's agenda and plans: the Cat is out of the Bag.

There have been quite a few comments regarding a statement of clarification regarding CANA (The Convocation of Anglicans in North America) made by Canon Kenneth Kearon and a formal response from CANA. In particular see Thinking Anglicans on this.

The statement from Canon Kearon was in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury. CANA’s response is unsigned.

The whole exchange has established three things:

• The claim by Mary Springmann to the Truro folk that CANA is “an authentic part of the Anglican Communion and acknowledged by the Primates and by Archbishop of Canterbury,” is not true. The Primates and the ABC have made no statement of acknowledgement. The inference from “authentic part of the Anglican Communion” from “a mission of the Church of Nigeria” is a leap and Truro was called on that. See the Daily Episcopalian for a comment on this.
  

• As far as CANA is concerned things are unfolding in accordance with the agreements made between the American bishops and the Global South Steering Committee made in November, that there will be a united request for a new province structure, and


• There is the not too subtle threat that if things do not go well at the Primates Meeting, in CANA’s eyes or perhaps in the eyes of the Global South Steering Committee, all bets are off. The GS folk are playing their one card early, a year and several months before the next Lambeth Conference is scheduled. They have to, for if they intend to form an alternative conference they will need lead time. If they don’t feel that will be necessary they will begin the push for agenda control of Lambeth beginning in February.

Things are messy and will get more so. As the stakes get higher it will be harder to remember that we are called to be followers of Jesus Christ and live in the faith that the peace of God, which surely passes our understanding in these days, will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

But we can, and we must. Being an Episcopalian is a vocation that for the moment seems near the edge. It is just our turn, and a long time coming at that. We must do what we believe is right and let it unfold. Yet in all this we must be alert. There are those who will steal the sheep and run off with the silver, all the time claiming they are the holy ones and we are debased. They are with guile and while honored as brothers and sisters for whom Christ died, they are not to be given license to steal.

Truro's Vestry has gone round the bend.

Mary Springmann, Vestry Registrar, Truro Church, has written a reflection on why Truro’s vestry has recommended to its congregation that “Truro Church sever its denominational ties with The Episcopal Church (TEC) and seek affiliation with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), subject to the establishment within CANA of the Anglican District of Virginia.”

The 40 days of discernment, the context in which the people of Truro made their decision, began with the proposition that the Episcopal Church has gone astray. Given that they eventually got to the question of where then should they go. In working for a solution, Ms. Springman says, they asked a variety of questions,

“such items as:

• Does it believe in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ?
• Does it endorse Bible centered teaching?
• Does it have a mission minded focus on evangelism?
• Does it have liturgical worship?
• What are the criteria for ordination, especially for women and divorced clergy?
• Is it completely separate from TEC?
• Is it a “Common Cause” partner?
• What is the nature of the relationship with the Archbishop of Canterbury?
• Does it have an American structure with American Bishops?
• Can the parish own the property?
• Is there financial independence that would allow transition to a permanent American Anglican structure in the future?”

They found themselves with three options:

• Anglican Communion Network (ACN),
• Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), and the
• Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA).

ACN was rejected because dioceses within it are “currently under considerable pressure and legal threats from TEC to conform to the latest innovations.” In other words, ACN dioceses are a bit dicy.

AMiA was rejected for an interesting reason: “The relationship is primarily through the Primate of Rwanda rather than through an ecclesiastical structure. There is an ongoing financial connection between Rwanda and AMiA. The current Primate of South East Asia has withdrawn his support.” So, AMiA is known by fellow travelers as (i) not really a subset of the Province of Rwanda, but a sinecure of the Archbishop, and (ii) not supported any longer by the Primate of South East Asia, one of the two founding Provinces. So much for AMiA.

So it chose CANA , “a newly formed Anglican structure in the United States sponsored by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to support orthodox Anglicans. It is legally and canonically established and is designed as a transitional entity with built-in flexibility to move to a permanent orthodox American structure. It allows for an ‘Anglican District of Virginia.’” No surpise here. Bishop Minns, their priest in charge, is the Bishop of CANA.

I don’t know where they got the idea that CANA was a “transitional entity”…the Province of Nigeria considers it a missionary district as far as I can tell.

The reflection then continues, “CANA is an authentic part of the Anglican Communion and acknowledged by the Primates and by Archbishop of Canterbury. Many churches are leaning toward CANA. The Falls Church vestry has voted to recommend CANA to its congregation as well.”

Where, oh where, is “CANA acknowledged by the Primates and by the Archbishop of Canterbury”?

Truro is either being misled by Bishop Minns, who by the way is indeed a bishop in the Anglican Communion, but without license of any sort as bishop in the territories of the Episcopal Church, or is being misguided by its vestry’s own grasping at myths.

CANA is neither a “transitional entity” nor “acknowledged by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

Then again, maybe I am wrong.

Show me.