The Primates' Communique

The Primates Final Communique and its attached schedule came out yesterday afternoon. The communique itself is descriptive, simply describing the views of all those at the meeting. The schedule is where the rubber hits the road - the actual recommendations of the meeting. The most positive part of the entire document is that NO WHERE does it consider the idea of setting up an "alternative Anglican province" within the USA. My guess is, the primates were all concerned with the implications for their provinces if that precedent were set. It is clear that Katherine Jefferts Schori is a full member of the Primates' Meeting (More than that - on the standing committee) and that the communion will not attempt to set up an alternative primate with juridical authority in her place.

That being said, the way forward is difficult. The first provision in the schedule is for "A Pastoral Council" to be made up of two members elected by the primates, two members appointed by Katherine Jefferts Schori, and one chair appointed by Rowan Williams. This pastoral council would implement the "Primatial Vicar" scheme as developed by +KJS and others as well as try to deal with "breakaway" congregations. Several people, such as Father Jake see this as handing over power outside the Episcopal Church. I don't see it in that light - the council would have moral, as opposed to juridical (legal) power. Any recommendations by that council would have to be adopted and implemented by the governance of the Episcopal Church.

The more difficult part is "On Clarifying the Response to Windsor." The primates accept our intentions from General Convention 2006, but they wish more clarity. They set a deadline of September 30th for the House of Bishops to make two unequivocal responses. Before I get to those responses, I have to voice once again the frustration I have with the Anglican Communion having no concept of how our polity works. No matter how many times we say, "but we have TWO houses in our government, and the bishops can't make decisions for all of us," they continue to ignore any part of our governance beyond them. Why not ask our Executive Council? It represents both houses! Oh well - back to the meat and potatoes.

The second request is probably the easier:

2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.

This was my understanding of what B033 did, although my guess is that this is a temporary moratorium, to be revisited at the next General Convention after the Lambeth Conference. My guess is the bishops will most likely be able to do this.

The first request is a bit stickier:

1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144)

Of course, it depends on what you think they are asking for here. The exact wording is "authorize any Rite of Blessing," that is, for bishops to not tell their priests they are authorized to perform such rites or to give them liturgies for it. Jim Naughton points out that this does not ask bishops to "ban" blessings, simply not to authorize them, which has been the status quo in many dioceses for years.

Of course, there's a double standard going on here, as one poster at Preludium points out:

So the primates want Lambeth 1.10 to be the standard??

"This Conference: commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality; in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in LIFELONG union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;"

In order to be fair - the Church must stop blessing second marriages and get rid of bishops and priests who are divorced and remarried.

Until they do THAT, this is just bigotry against baptized gay and lesbians. Period.

A very valid point.

But for me, there's a wider question. The "Listening Process" mandated by the same Lambeth resolution appears to be actually moving somewhere, and there is expected to be some activity on this front at Lambeth 2008. I know the American GLBT community is chomping at the bit for same-sex blessings and the ability for people in them to become bishops, but we need to look around the world. In many places (most notably Nigeria) GLBT people are being actively persecuted, not simply passively discriminated against. Our presence in the communion gives hope to those people. As long as we are in conversation, there is hope that things might change for them. If we abandon the communion (or allow it to abandon us) then the Akinolas win a huge victory and the GLBT voices in the rest of the communion will be swallowed up and silenced. I can only countenance us holding the moratoria until the next General Convention, when we can once again evaluate whether it is worth the price or not. We should have clearer answers by that time.

The question is, "Can we hold off for a couple of years in order to have an important conversation take place that might have real, physical impact on GLBT persons undergoing active persecution around the world?" I personally think it is worth it, but then I'm not in the persecuted minority. I realize how precarious and paternalistic that position can be.

If I were the House of Bishops (Cue for readers to run screaming...), I would create a resolution stating:

1. We thank the primates for their work, for their recogniation of the hard work of General Convention, and for their recognition of +KJS as our duly elected primate.
2. We receive gratefully the Communique
3. Something once again explaining our polity and that the House of Bishops alone cannot make long-standing decisions for the entire church.
4. Accepting the pastoral council scheme, making it clear that the council only has the authority to reccommend, and that any primatial authority exercised by the primatial vicar is deputized from her. She retains all juridical authority (What little she actually has, that is). Anything else would be unconsitutional. Maybe the HOB should send this part to the Executive Council for consideration?
5. Stating that there will be no further authorization of rites of same sex blessing, but preserving a conscience clause for those already doing so. It needs to be noted that there would be no way for a bishop to be disciplined for authorizing them, as the resolution from GC2003 stated such rites are within our praxis. Since GC2003 stated this, it would be impossible to bring a bishop up on charges. There is simply no way to make a bishop stop authorizing same-sex blessings under our current resolutions, so the Anglican Communion needs to understand that no matter what the House of Bishops says, there will still be some bishops doing so. This moratorium would need to be stated to extend until GC2009, when we can evaluate the work of Lambeth 2008.
6. Stating that they believe that B033 does mean that consents will not be given to bishops-elect in same-sex relationships. That's always been my reading. Once again, I think this will be revisited at GC2009.
7. Emphasize how important we believe the listening process under Lambeth 1.10 is, and articulate some reccomendations of our own as to how Lambeth 2008 might address it.

Despite my misgivings about what is being asked, I think that at this time, forbearance and patience is still required of us.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, episcopal, Primates' Meeting, religion, Windsor Report

Comments

[Matthew Cadwell+]

David,

I agree with you to a certain extent about the issue of responding to the Windsor Report. The ban on gay bishops is simply a restatement of B033. I am actually not particularly worried about the gay bishop issue. Like you, I think that the same-sex blessing issue is tougher. None of us want to be too "Clinton-esque" in parsing the meaning of "is", but I suppose a lot depends on the interpretation of "authorize." The communique says nothing about disciplining those priests who actually perform unauthorized blessings, so there may be some latitude there, even if the whole system is unjust.

I am far more concerned about the idea of the Primatial Vicar and the Pastoral Council and even more so by the force of Lambeth 1.10.

First, the Primatial Vicar and the Council. This in effect sets up a church within a church which isn't necessary. The communique refers to Windsor bishops. If the House of Bishops pass the above "suggestions" of the primates, then won't all bishops in fact be Windsor bishops? Where then is the need for the Vicar? Unless these dioceses and parishes have the ability to read the hearts of the Presiding Bishop and liberal diocesans, how can they know what they truly believe is right? One is reminded of Queen Elizabeth's famous statement: "I will not create windows into men's souls." This seems to be a central tenant of Anglicanism. If however their concern is that the duly elected primate is a woman, they should say so explicitly, so their sexism can be exposed. Second, the council represents an extraordinary and unprecedented intrusion into the life of this Church. Given the above assurances, it is unnecessary.

In some ways, all of this goes back to the issue of Lambeth 1.10. Until yesterday, Lambeth Conference resolutions were simply reflections of the minds of the bishops present and not binding on the churches. Yet yesterday Archbishop Williams stated that Lambeth 1.10 reflects the view of the Anglican Church with regard to sexuality. First, I would argue in response that there is no such thing as "the Anglican Church;" rather, there are Anglican churches which have different perspectives. If he wants an "Anglican Church" (similar to the Roman Catholic, presumably) then he should go about establishing one, but that's not what we have and it is certainly not the rubric that we have been operating under. Second, this view of sexuality has never had the force of law in ANY of our churches, and as you have noted there is a serious double standard in how it is applied to GLBT people as compared with heterosexuals.

But much more serious is the implication that Lambeth resolutions in general are suddenly binding. We know that Akinola has recently consecrated a large number of new missionary bishops. Presumably these will be invited to Lambeth and can influence the votes there. What if they, along with others, suddenly decide that women's ordination is incompatiable with scripture, which is not out of the realm of possibility? Would we then be forced to abandon this practice? By agreeing to this with regard to scripture and sexuality, we will have set a precedent that is wholly unacceptable.

It seems to me that our dioceses need to engage in a serious process of listening. Our bishops need to hear from the people and clergy whether or not the Anglican Communion is worth these concessions of autonomy. They will vote how they vote. But let's face it, they are the only ones invited to Lambeth and may well care about the whole enterprize far more than the average Episcopalian. I would hope that other provinces, such as Canada, Scotland, Brazil, Australia, etc. engage in a similar process as they consider adoption of an Anglican Covenant.

Be careful what you wish for friends. You just may get it.

[Marshall Montgomery]

Your conclusion, that "forbearance and patience is still required of us" is right on the money. The thing that worries me most about both sides of this conflict is that they seem to be inching ever closer to giving up on each other. That sort of hardness of heart is the most dangerous temptation. I wrote about this phenomenon at:

http://communioninconflict.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-reactions-to-communique.html

I'd be interested to know what you think.

Cheers,

Monty