The Archbishop of Uganda and Bishop Cox Mucking About

The Living Church on line reported that Bishop Cox, retired of Oklahoma ordained two priests and a deacon and presided at confirmation at a Church in Overland Park, Kansas, this past month. Well, no great news, since this church is no longer part of the Diocese of Kansas or the Episcopal Church. But Bishop Cox is, and now that I think about it he and the Primate of Uganda are both bishops in the Anglican Communion. So it is news... that's why the Living Church reported it.

So let me get this straight: Bishop Cox does these acts on behalf of Archbishop Orombi of Uganda. They are done in a church now under the jurisdiction of Uganda at the request of the Primate of Uganda. On the one hand, no problem. After all, as Bishop Cox suggests, bishops are often asked to act for other bishops.

On the other hand, both Bishop Cox and the Archbishop have bent the spirit of such ecclesiastical niceties as territorial jurisdictions of bishops. For this to work out the Archbishop and the Bishop have had to decide that (i) whatever rules, admonitions, hopes and agreements having to do with not acting in the jurisdiction of other Anglican bishops without their consent do not apply, since the Episcopal Church is not a "real:" Province of the Anglican Communion, and (ii) anything is possible in dioceses with whom Provinces are not in communion because no breach of collegiality has been caused - it was already a given, and that (iii) it wasn't in the Diocese of Kansas anyway, just in Kansas..

From the Living Church article: “We in the Church of Uganda have pledged ourselves to continue to respond to such cries for help until a branch of the Anglican Communion with whom we are in communion is established in North America,” wrote the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Primate of Uganda, in a June 22 letter asking Bishop Cox to perform the ordinations and confirmations on behalf of the Church of Uganda. “This is completely consonant with the 2005 primates’ communique in which we pledged to neither ‘encourage nor initiate’ such relationships.”

Got it! What he is saying is he can call on Bishop Cox, or any other ecclesiastical official to act in this way until such time as there is a new "branch of the Anglican Communion with whom we are in communion."

I believe the Archbishop is mistaken in thinking that he is not acting contrary to the spirit of the Windsor Report. But he can do so if he wishes. That's the way it is in a Communion where Provinces set much of their own pace. But I thought there was an agreement not to do this.

But my question concerns Bishop Cox: Are not retired Bishops of this church under some constraints in jurisdictions of this Church, even including acting in episcopal functions within the jurisdiction but in other churches? And more so in this particular situation where the church in which he was ministering is itself a church in the Anglican Communion? I have a strong sense we are limited in what we can require of the Archbishop, but don't we have some questions to raise here?

Bishop Cox is quoted in the Living Church article as saying,: "The Archbishop of Uganda asked me to do this on his behalf. I did not know the Episcopal Church had become so narrow.” Perhaps there is a matter of "narrow" interpretation here, but I think it is a matter of clarity. Bishops of the Episcopal Church are accountable to the rules governing actions within jurisdictions of the Episcopal Church, and that being so, I think that means we have a right to ask why Bishop Cox thinks this was appropriate.

The Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas is a dangerous overreach

It's useful to read the press releases that come from the Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes. At times there one can see the wheels within the wheels.... Their most recent press release was picked up by the Church of England Newspaper and sent on to the lists by several sources.

The NACDP release said this on on July 25th:

"Following a conference July 6-8 in Nassau that gathered dozens of leaders from across North and South America and the Caribbean, plans for a new body committed to the historic Anglican faith and formularies have been announced. Inspired by the effective witness of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), Archbishops Drexel Gomez and Gregory Venables announced plans for the formation of the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and Caribbean (CAPAC)"

Well, CAPAC is no CAPA. The Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa has a long history and consists of genuine Provinces (all of them) in Africa. CAPAC consists of two provinces, and two would be provinces , namely the Networks in the US and Canada. It does not include The Anglican Provinces inCanada, the US, Mexico, Central America, nor any of the dioceses in the northern part of South America part of the Episcopal Church, or the Episocpal Church of Brazil. "Provinces" in the case of the title taken here in CAPAC has not to do with Anglican Communion Provinces (fairly well laid out by the listing of the Church of England canons which provides as a definitive list) but rather with "orthodox" provinces and groups as defined in the charter itself. The title is misleading, and the reach far exceeds the grasp.

Several people have noted already that the meeting in Nassau of July 8-9 reported in the Living Church was a swarming of parties interested in making a western hemisphere anchor for a push to take on the current leadership of the Anglican Communion. (see my posting at http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2005_07_11_anglicanfuture_archive.html ) and more importantly, Fr. Jake's essay Closer Look at the Attempted Coup

Now in this official press release, and given matters in Connecticut, we need to take seriously the following from the same press release:

"Cognizant that it may be necessary to establish interim, provisional measures for mission and ministry, we fully intend to pursue cooperation with the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion in compliance with the Windsor Report and the direction of the Lambeth Conference of 1998".

The "intent to pursue cooperation with the Instruments of Unity" would appear to be dependent on the orthodoxy of the various instruments (meaning primarily the Archbishop of Canterbury.) As the contention over actions by the Bishop of Connecticut draw various folk into play, I will have considerable interest in how actions by US and other bishops are more or less "cooperative with the Instruments of Unity." The end of this matter will be messy, and unbecoming church people who otherwise might be engaged.

For an important commentary on the CAPAC press release I recommend again Fr. Jake, http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/

Matters get curiouser and curiouser.

Alternative Oversight, Alternative Authority, Alternative Straw: Keep the eye on the ball!

When Thinking Anglicans notices something stirring in the Episcopal Church it is usually a dust up worthy of our attention. When Father Jake takes the same matter on, the storm clouds have a certain heightened importance. The two together beat out The Weather Channel for predicting the storms to come.

The whole matter of Fr. Mark Hansen, a heretofore more or less unknown rector in Connecticut, has become a cell in the storm front pushing across the Communion. Both TA and Fr. Jake recognized this. It has reached the point where Hansen is considered a martyr (something of a slight to those who die for the faith) and letters from bishops pop up in support of Fr. Hansen and against Bishop Smith’s actions. Fr. Jake rightly says of all this mess, “Inhibit, but please, leave the locksmith behind next time.”

Canon Ellis Brust Chief Operating Officer of the ACC, husband of Cynthia Brust, who writes for the AAC, wrote about one piece of the unfolding tempest. (Interesting to see that the AAC is a cottage industry.)

He made some observations of a July 17^th meeting at St. John’s Church, Bristol, Connecticut.

He said: I was in Bristol, Connecticut, last weekend to support an American Anglican Council (AAC) parish as its theological dispute with Bishop Andrew Smith escalated.

I wonder: Deciding that this is a theological dispute, rather than a disciplinary dispute is precisely the beginning spin the AAC wants to put on this. If it were a disciplinary dispute, then one would have to take seriously a variety of matters completely ignored by Fr. Hansen’s supporters. If it were disciplinary then Fr. Jake is on the mark. But this report wants the matter to be a theological dispute.

He said: On Sunday I was invited by the senior warden and members of the vestry to attend a hastily called meeting between Bishop Andrew Smith and the congregation of St. John’s.

I wonder: Granted, that under the best of circumstances a meeting called by the Bishop with the Congregation might be open for outsiders, but this was not the best of circumstances. Who called this meeting? If it was Bishop Smith then he issued the invitation as to who was to attend. The Senior Warden and members (some I presume) invited Brust to come in what is clearly an advocacy role and as an accusatory witness (for that is what a witness “against” is about).

Brust came already convinced of the occasion as a witness against Bishop Smith. He stated that: “Just days before, on July 13, Bishop Smith--joined by a squad of diocesan staff, locksmiths, computer hackers, and security guards--seized control of the building despite protests of the parish secretary and senior warden. Bishop Smith locked out members of the congregation, issued an inhibition of Fr. Mark Hansen, and forced a revisionist priest-in-charge on the orthodox congregation.”

Canon Brust wasn’t there for that occasion, I take it, nor was Fr. Hansen, but the core of the matter is that Fr. Hansen was removed from office and another priest placed in charge. All the other drama – the “squad” the locksmiths, hackers, security guards, etc, sound like the actions of a corporate body in the 21^st Century taken against an employee suspected of possible disruption following firing; not pleasant, surely, but not surprising. The whole thing might be ugly and unenlightened, but so are the times.

So AAC representatives were there, uninvited by the Bishop who initiated the meeting, at what was supposedly a meeting between Bishop and Parish in an advocacy role. Burst reported that when the Bishop asked to leave, “The congregation erupted in protest stating that we were their representatives at the meeting. The bishop acquiesced.” So according to Burst, he and Dean Murdoch, also of the AAC, were not only advocates and adversarial witnesses but also representatives of the congregation at that meeting.

The actual “voice of the vestry” was Dr. William Witt. There is no indication that Canon Brust spoke at the meeting or had any part in defending the Rector, Senior Warden or Vestry. Nor is there indication that he was active in the meeting itself as an advocate, witness against the Bishop, or as a representative of the parish. Perhaps Canon Brust is too modest here, but his report, while full of editorial comments, never refers to his being an actor in this drama. Witt’s statement, written shortly after the takeover of the Parish was posted on the AAC blog, and clearly owed some of its thinking to wider AAC concerns. Canon Brust and Dean Murdock may well have been advocates, accusers and representatives to that preparation.

What then are we to make of this meeting? On the one hand, nothing new seems to have come from it. It sounds like a disaster in which all are to be pitied.

At the same time Canon Brust reports it out as a clear sign that Bishop Smith is incompetent, incoherent and disingenuous. He turns the staff of the diocese into a “squad,” the priest in charge into a “revisionist,” who fought back tears, the Bishop as cavalier, angry and ineffectual.

In other words, Canon Brust produced a rather well done piece of propaganda. The core of this effort was to not allow the possibility that this indeed was a matter of canonical discipline, but a matter of theology.

Good luck. Fr. Jake is on the case here. He understands precisely that it is indeed a matter of canon, for at issue is not what you think about the Bishop’s views, voting pattern, ideas, beliefs, etc. What is at issue is whether or not you are attempting to disengage as a parish and as a priest from your canonical relation to the Diocese and to the Ordinary of that Diocese. What the parish is seeking is not alternative oversight for some limited period of time, but alternative Episcopal authority. What this priest seems to be seeking is discharge from his vows concerning authority, replacing them with vows to obedience provided there is theological agreement between himself and the bishop as his conscience dictates.

The AAC wants to speak of oversight, but what is at state is authority. Bishops carry the vocation to oversight as part of their title, but they carry their authority within the canonical bounds of a Diocese. The propaganda effort is to plea for alternative oversight but work for alternative authority.

This, by the way, is what is seriously wrong with Bishop Lipscomb’s comment in his letter to his Diocese of July 11, as reported in the Living Church online, “Those who choose to remain must fully embrace the radical claims of interdependence within a global community. Such individuals, congregations, and dioceses have a rightful and constitutional claim to be the Episcopal Church in the United States.” Bishop Lipscomb is arguing for an alternative authority to that of General Convention and the House of Bishops, one that can make the claim to be the “true” Episcopal Church.

The little commentary by Canon Brust is one more effort to slide in acquiescence to alternative authority under the guise of alternative oversight. The Fr. Hansen affair is a messy situation and terribly sad, but for all that it is none the less a small field in which larger players are working their wills.

Keep the eye on the ball. This thing is about a minority within the Episcopal Church walking away with the authority to be the Episcopal Church while no one is looking. Don’t think oversight. We give oversight to one another all the time, particularly as one or the other of us actually does good theology, practical and otherwise. Think authority, which is the context in which we get to exercise our oversight of congregations, dioceses, seminaries, etc.

On the Virtue of Silence:

“Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge-to the great amazement of the governor.” Matt 27:14 NIV

“But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.” Mark 15:5 NIV

In the current difficult time in the Anglican Communion, the actions of the General Convention of ECUSA have been soundly criticized, and those who voted affirmatively on the consent to the election of Bishop Robinson have been accused of everything from immoral action to doing the work of the devil.

The response of the ECUSA team at the ACC Meeting and the document entitled “To Set Our Hope on Christ” were responsible and important efforts to engage the issues with honesty. The Archbishop of Canterbury has acknowledged the value of these presentations. But these efforts also met with an extraordinary hostile reception by others.

At some point we must decide that we have made our reply – that the words of those presenting at ACC were enough, or if not them, some wider set of responses – but at some point, enough.

At that point we might take our lead from Our Lord Jesus and stop speaking. His yes had been yes, and his no, no, and that is sufficient for the day. Jesus embarked on a silent vigil, not long lived, in which events and actions play out to their end. The spiritual said it best, “He never said a mumblin’ word.”

I was reminded of the power of such a vigil by a letter received this morning from a friend, Patricia Kerby Gibler, who leads a Silent Vigil here in Lewes, Delaware, where every Sunday from 1 to 1:45 PM we hold signs with names, pictures, and numbers of Americans who have died or were wounded in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians who have been killed. This vigil has been going on for ten months now and will continue while events and actions play out to their end both in Iraq and here in the U.S. There is another group, not silent but noisy and hostile, across the street. They make the silence difficult.

Here in part is what Patricia said in her note:

“Dear Friends from the Silent Vigil,

Last weekend, I had a conversation with a man about the guys across the street. It went something like: how can we have world peace if we aren't able to dialogue with the guys across the street. This could be a good purpose for some. It's not the purpose of the silent vigil, however. Our purpose is to stand, silent, for 45 minutes with our distractions, as much as possible, in a place that brings us to a bigger awareness, out of which can come all sorts of movements toward peace.

I suggest we look at the distractions from across the street and elsewhere as ways of increasing this awareness for the dead. The guys across the street stand in presence for the dead also, with an awareness which is kind of like a banked pool shot that hits the edge of the table and turns, perhaps, to drop into this place of compassion. As has been true for some of you, I try to let them be a tool for deeper silence. One woman said, every sound is a prayer.

So the distractions...the police and where they are and who they're talking to, our issues of freedom of speech and assembly and where we stand, the guys shouting across the street, and the honks for democracy, can be mirrors reflecting back an energy that can work to move us toward the end of the counting of the dead. This energy is very illusive and fragile but also reliable and trustworthy. It's a peace that does not come in a way that rips kids from the streets, and wastes their life.”

In the effort to be open to the work of the Holy Spirit in the Episcopal Church’s decisions so hotly contested these days, I wonder if our spiritual welfare might require that at some point that we know that we have said enough and, as regards the matter of defense, let the defense rest. From that point we might verbalize our concerns for the sufferings of the world, but keep silent vigil on the defense of ourselves against our fellow Anglicans.

At some point the constant hostility and criticism we face in the Anglican Communion controversies becomes, like the protests from across the street, a distraction from the realities of God’s suffering world. May we take those distractions and turn them to further spiritual grit, food for peace in our souls.

Further Remarks on the Gathering Swarm

Yesterday I posted on my blog an article titled, “The Gathering Swarm: The effort to capture the queen, or move the hive to warmer climes.” Last night I read an informative article on the Living Church online, http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1139 titled, “Nassau Meeting Concludes,” that essentially confirmed my sense that the effort is now underway to draw together a group from the Americas and from Africa in order to develop an alternative Communion.

Additionally, several persons on this list have drawn our attention to an upcoming conference in Pittsburgh, called “Hope and a Future” http://www.anglicanhope.org/index.php?section=1 This conference is sponsored by many of the organizations who were present at the Nassau conference. The conference web page carries this byline from the Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, “"Mobilizing and empowering everyone - especially the laity - is essential to the rebirth of a Biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America. This is the vocation of the Anglican Communion Network and this is what the "Hope and a Future Conference is all about. As we move toward the challenges of 2006, I believe this conference will also be a key witness to the strength of our movement." This conference looks very much like an effort to solidify the North American effort so that with the "Global South" representation of the Province of the West Indies and the Southern Cone a legitimate anchor for the sort of plan alluded to in the Living Church article and the papers earlier "discovered" might be built. It is significant that the Moderator is a prime mover in this.

The Living Church for July 24, 2005, also carries an article “Kenyans Request Removal of Episcopalians from Lambeth 2008, which confirms my belief that part of the plan by those advocating realignment for the overall “resolution” of the disagreements in the Anglican Communion includes pushing the Archbishop of Canterbury to invite only ECUSA bishops who will conform to Lambeth Resolution 1.10 which is increasingly being called, “the Church’s normative teaching on Human Sexuality.” This article refers to Lambeth 1.10 as the normative teaching, and notes that it is the fourth of the four instruments of unity to do so. (My belief is that Lambeth 1.10 is no such thing. See http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2005/07/lambeth-resolution-110-1998-is-no.html )

The hope has been expressed by the planners of the 2008 Lambeth Conference that no one issue will monopolize the Conference. I don’t see how that will be possible at this juncture, since it appears increasingly the case that either a sizable number of ECUSA bishops will not be invited or a sizable number of bishops from other Provinces will withdraw. The issue that will monopolize the Conference will be that of its charter – will it remain an invitational gathering with no authority to make normative decisions (its current status) or will it become a chartered gathering with some legislative authority (under a covenant)? The only way not to have the next Lambeth Conference by overwhelmed by the realignment agenda would be for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise absolute authority as the host to invite who he wills and to set the agenda in such a way that it is clearly and decisively a conference of equals gathered for mutual sharing of concerns and NOT an occasion for power plays. Those who don't like the guest list could simply stay away. Those not invited could get over it and be thankful they did not have the expense of travel to England.

He might also simply determine that the Lambeth Conference will not now serve as an instrument of unity, and decide not to have the conference at all. After all, if the guests are in a sint, why host a dinner after all?