Or else what?
Updated: the Anglican Scotist considers some similar issues.
The Primates of the Anglican Communion have set a September 30 deadline for the Episcopal Church to accept a set of unpalatable recommendations or face unspecified consequences. As we think through our response, we need to arrive at a realistic sense of what those consequences might be. Thoughts?
I think the timing of the deadline indicates that if we don't give the Primates what they want, the majority of our bishops will not be invited to the Lambeth Conference, and that various other provinces will declare the 15 countries within our Church an open mission field. In practical terms, I wonder whether either of those developments would create significant problems for us. I would very much like to hear from people who think that they would. (And the rest of you, too, of course.)
In analyzing the potential consequences if we say "no" to the Primates, I think it is also helpful to consider what is likely to happen if we say "yes." Will the parishes that have left the Episcopal Church return? Will internal opposition cease? Will Peter Akinola tell Martyn Minns that the United States is no longer mission territory and designate him bishop-without-portfolio? I think all of these outcomes are unlikely. Read this reflection on the meeting in Tanzania and I think you will, too.
A more realistic hope is that if we do what the Primates are asking, and the Akinolytes continue on their present course, the moral weight of the Communion's disapproval will fall upon them, and not on us. What would be the practical benefits of such a shift? If the reports that Archbishop Akinola had a plan to split the Communion in his briefcase in Tanzania are correct, one imagines that's he's held on to a copy, and might produce it at any time. So it seems to me that the Communion is going to split whenever Archbishop Akinola and his advisors decide that it is in their interests to split it.
If we say no to the Primates, I think we will be faced with reduced membership in the Communion, though perhaps not outright expulsion. (I am unclear on whether the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Anglican Consultative Council makes the final determination on this issue, and I ask you to refrain from argument by assertion if you weight in on this point.) However, we would have sent a clear message about our commitment to the full inclusion of all Christians in the ministries of the Church; we'd have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice for our beliefs, and we'd have turned aside an attempt to change the way our Church discerns the will of God (a concept done no justice by the legalistic term "polity.")
On the other hand, if we say yes, we may, through skillful diplomacy, be able to remain in the Communion long enough for the Primates to become tired to the Akinolytes' antics, and to accept that if the Nigerian faction cannot dominate the Communion, it will split it. We would do this at some cost to our gay and lesbian members, to our consciences and to our convictions about how God reveals himself to the Church. We'd face the challenge of changing the mind of the Communion (with or without the Akinolytes) on the issue of gay relationships, and we'd still have to figure out whether we could live with a Communion Covenant that may well concentrate power in the hands of the Primates, but we'd retain our membership in body that has been historically and theologically important to us, and in which we find the majority of our partners in world mission. (My sense is that we will have plenty of partners in mission no matter what we do, so maybe that last point isn't crucial.)
If we say yes to the Primates, and remain in the Communion, we will probably minimize domestic fallout in the "Camp Allen" dioceses (which includes Texas, our second-largest) and some others (including, perhaps, Virginia, our largest.) But we would probably trigger fallout in many other dioceses, including those encompassing some of our larger metropolitan areas. It isn't clear to me which response would minimize dislocation.
I am aware that one can respond to the questions I am asking by saying that the Episcopal Church should do the moral thing and let the chips fall where they may. I recognize that that response is appealing to those on both sides (myself included) who think they know what the moral thing is. But just for the sake of argument, let's consider what would be best for the health of the Episcopal Church, and the viability of its future, because that, in some measure, must inform our response.
What are the consequences of our yes? Of our no?
I have a forthcoming article where I argue that saying "no" will not stop conversation with anyone who really wants to talk.
We ought not to make moral decisions purely by weighing consequences. Consequences have at best a prima facie claim, other things being equal.
On both moral and pastoral grounds, saying "yes" would be disastrous. It would mean complicity in spiritual, emotional, and physical violence against LGBT persons. It would mean capitulating to a direct assault on the baptismal ecclesiology and relatively democratic polity of the Episcopal Church. It would also damage the mission of the Episcopal Church with LGBT people and their families and friends. I have parishioners who came to the Episcopal Church from other denominations because of Gene Robinson and the remarkably positive publicity his consecration gave us.
We have two choices: (1) stay on the fence and continue to be consumed by destructive conflict or (2) do what the Baptismal Covenant and the Gospel demands and provide an unequivocal welcome to ALL people.
Only the latter course leads to productive mission and a future for the Episcopal Church. It's past time to say "no" to meddling primates. Only in an abusive relationship is one required to be something other than who one is in order to be a valued partner.
Posted by Bill Carroll | March 15, 2007 3:40 PM
Amen, and amen, Fr. Carroll, and thank you for speaking (writing) so frankly.
My experience with fence sitting is that it's corrosive. The issue doesn't go away, it just goes underground and eats away at those on both sides of it. When it's dealt with honestly, both sides can get on with life. The split, if there is one, is less painful than living in the kind of tension that bears poisonous fruit.
Posted by EHCulver | March 15, 2007 5:25 PM
The Akinolyts want a split and they are going to have it; nothing will change that. Saying yes does nothing except hurt TEC and the members both straight and gay. That is a price that is too high.
Posted by polysloguy | March 15, 2007 6:26 PM
It's also good to be aware of the possibility that the Archbishop of Canterbury and many others are simply saying what they need to say for the moment - think last-minute, late-night Primates' Communique - to keep Nigeria and company from leaving the Communion immediately. As they try to broker a good-faith resolution, they already know TEC is committed to the Communion, at least as long as demands for artificial uniformity are not really enforced in new and unAnglican ways. (That, of course, is no excuse for taking advantage of our goodwill in their rather public dealings with us.) But the peacemakers among us in the Communion are apparently as yet unsure just how far Archbishop Akinola and others are really willing to go to get their way - and how much is just bluster.
One clue: Remember all those who said they absolutely would not take part in the Primates' Meeting with our Presiding Bishop? That basically got worked out, notwithstanding the unwillingness of some to celebrate the Eucharist with their fellow Primates.
It would be foolish to abandon our principles of Gospel inclusion to appease those insisting on having things their own way - only to discover that it wasn't necessary to sacrifice the well-being of many to pacify a few, that it was all so much bluster. Those who can't stand not getting their way will leave - or not - when the rest of us stop enabling their dysfunctional, coercive behavior.
Posted by christopherDC | March 15, 2007 6:42 PM
It would, by the way, also be foolish to abandon our principles of Gospel inclusion, only to discover that the demands from Nigeria and others had really only just begun - which seems an entirely likely outcome of engaging in (and further enabling) this dysfunction.
Posted by christopherDC | March 15, 2007 6:59 PM
You know, I don't think we really want to be aligned with guys like this, do we?
Maybe we should pray for the good people of Harare and hope their bad +Bishop Kunonga loses his position some day. I've been watching the news reports pile up from Zimbabwe for days, and it's starting to be clear that we can't ignore Kunonga's part in the political troubles there.
Posted by ginny | March 15, 2007 9:05 PM
Fr. Carroll is spot on.
If we as Episcopalians take our Baptismal Covenant seriously, especially the last two questions, Q "Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons and love your neighbor as yourself?" A "I will with God's help." Q "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?" A "I will with God's help." BCP p. 305. it's sort of a no-brainer isn't it?
Posted by Richard III | March 15, 2007 9:44 PM
I admire the PB for trying to keep lines of communication open for the benefit of LGBT individuals throughout the Communion. Nonetheless, I agree with those who say that appeasement of the Nigerian types will get us nowhere and that we may be able to do a better job of helping minorities in the GS by not giving in to bullying.
My primary concern, however, is the assumption that lies behind the Primates' demands. The Primates (including ++Cantuar) are acting as if they are speaking as those who hold power in an existing ecclesial entity, conceived along the lines of the Roman Cnurch. "Bonds of affection" have somehow morphed into lines of authority.
We need to have a much clearer idea of what the Church is and, perhaps, that it isn't what the Primates want it to be (at least not yet, not until all the members of the Communion explicitly agree to their ideas). Whether we say yes or no to their demands, we should make it clear that we don't agree with their underlying ideas of what the Church is.
Posted by Nicholas not the Wonderworker | March 15, 2007 9:58 PM
I think the Anglican Church of Canada raises some excellent points along these lines. See my post and Jim's post below.
The meat of the Canadian response, as I see it:
"With regard to the Lambeth Conference, we refer to the preface to the Lambeth Conference report of 1978 which describes the authority of Lambeth resolutions: ‘The resolutions have no legislative authority unless or until they have been accepted by the Synods or other governing bodies of the member Churches of the Anglican Communion, and then only in those member Churches’. (p. 5)"
The problem with Windsor from day one is that the more benevolent members of the Lambeth Commission (Eames, Morgan, etc.) saw it as part of a conversation, whereas other members of the Commission saw it as a tool for realignment. Tanzania proves that the latter view won out. It was possible (though mistaken) for people of good will to talk about the Windsor process as something that might lead to good. Now, I it's pretty clear that it can't. So why keep appeasing? Better to have not appeased the first time and made a clear, honest, and open statement of what you could and couldn't do.
Posted by Bill Carroll | March 15, 2007 10:50 PM
As we consider the communique, we should remember how some members of the Communion responded to B033. We passed that measure at great pain only to have our efforts rejected out of hand. I am reminded of a quote attributed to Bill Cosby, that the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
There are many in the Communion with whom fruitful dialog is possible; there are others for whom the game is already over. We need above all to distinguish between the two. I am concerned about "Windsor dioceses" which may be on the fence. I am concerned for our GLBT people. There is nothing we can do to satisfy Akinola, Duncan and company, and we need to accept that.
Posted by Paul Martin | March 15, 2007 11:00 PM
For Richard Lyon:
The issue can be framed as a marketing question. In most of the present day US the supply of religious services considerably exceeds the demand. As an organization TEC needs to segment the market and select its targets. The culture wars make it increasingly difficult to attempt to be all things to all people. You can see that in the steady shrinkage of the of traditional "moderate" denominations.
Obviously the markets for religious services are considerably different in urban areas such as NYC and San Francisco than they are in Waco and Montgomery. There seem to be some important demographic considerations for the future. The conservative end of the market seems to be aging and shrinking, while there is modest growth in the liberal segment. There is considerable question as to how long the liberal segment can be put on hold while TEC attempts to placate the conservatives. They have the option of going to other churches that are practicing policies of inclusiveness or of going for a walk in the park on Sunday morning.
Posted by Jim Naughton | March 15, 2007 11:34 PM
What do you think would happen if the Episcopal Church were to temporarily give in to the Primates' demands under extreme protest? We could institute temporary moratoriums on consecrating gays or lesbians to the Episcopacy who are in active relationships and on blessings of same sex unions. However, at the same time we could (and should) make it absolutely clear that the teaching of the Episcopal Church is for full inclusion of all GLBT people. We could develop and approve rites for the blessings of same sex unions to be authorized as soon as possible. Would this be enough to keep the dialog going? Or, would Akinola, Duncan and company simply increase their demands?
Posted by Maria B | March 16, 2007 12:37 PM
Imagine the issue were interracial marriage and that the same proposal were made. We would reject it (probably would have been hotly debated in some dioceses 40 years ago), no matter whom we offended. I don't see any relevant moral difference.
Posted by Bill Carroll | March 16, 2007 2:13 PM
Jim - You speak in terms of markets and supply exceeding demand. Keeping within this frame, liberals actually have very few places to go where scripture is seriously engaged along with religious tradition and reason. TEC is unique in this regard. The conservatives have loads churches to chose from. God has provided for them abundantly (though they relish seeing themselves as a minority). Putting liberals on hold is tantamount to leaving without a church. The same can not be said for the fate of the conservatives, if they are not enjoined.
Posted by C.B. | March 16, 2007 5:26 PM
Let me play the devil's advocate. There is a difference between fencesitting (and its companion, fudging), and a season of fasting. Call me a consequentialist if you want, but there is such a thing as unintended consequences. The communique has not asked us to state a belief as to what is morally right. It has asked us to proscribe our actions. Proscribing those actions will mean denying for now justice for some in our church, but will keep us at the table and - our PB suggests - that will enable us to speed justice for homosexuals throughout the communion. Perhaps it is TEC's mission to stay in an abusive relationship for the sake of others.
Bill in his 3rd paragraph lists many negative _consequences_ from saying "yes" to the Primates. You may think of more. You may think of other benefits to saying yes. The point is the consequences should be thought through and weighed while staying faithful to our mroal principles.
I concur with the views expressed above about the corrosiveness of fencesitting/fudging. There is an alternative. If we choose to stay at the table let us be sure to state why in our response to the Communique.
Posted by John B. Chilton | March 17, 2007 8:15 AM
"We" can't not say yes because it isn't "we" who have to respond by the deadline. The Primates have asked somethings from the House of Bishops. General Convention, the place where "we" actually have a say met last year and won't meet again until 2009.
In 2006, we expressed our desire to remain in the Communion in no uncertain terms. The bishops *must* respect this resolution of GC and do what is necessary to keep us in until "we" get an opportunity to change our mind. It would be a huge violation of our polity and a betrayal of trust if the HoB takes responsibility for this decision.
Posted by ruidh | March 18, 2007 8:43 PM