Canterbury's continuing chaos: does anyone know what is going on?

(Update: Ken Kearon is interviewed here, but it does not, I think, make the overall situation clearer.)

The fallout for the Anglican Communion following the consecration of Mary Glasspool is, for many of us, becoming more confusing by the day.

Prior to the issuing of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost Letter, the situation was, if distressing, nevertheless seemingly straightforward for the man or woman on the local equivalent of the Clapham omnibus.

Following on from the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003, the Communion was experiencing three ‘pressure points’, subsequently addressed in the Windsor Report. These were:

Officially sanctioned blessings of same-sex relationships.

Consecrations of bishops in active same-sex relationships.

Cross-border interventions by bishops in other dioceses or provinces.

The Windsor Report called for ‘moratoria’ in all three areas — a term which clearly meant to ‘cease and desist’.

However — and this is an important point — these three issues were not threatened actions, but actions which had already taken place. In the context, therefore, it would seem that the call for a ‘moratorium’ could only therefore have one of two possible practical meanings:

either A. that no further actions of this nature be undertaken.

or B. that such actions that had been taken be rescinded.

It is very difficult, however, to see how ‘B’ could have been intended since it would have meant not only going back on the cross-border interventions but unseating a bishop in The Episcopal Church. Given that Gene Robinson was clearly being allowed to stay in place, the practical intention of the call for moratoria would have been presumed by most people to be ‘A’, that no further actions — blessings, consecrations and interventions — would take place.

Furthermore, subsequent events in the Communion would seem to reinforce this interpretation. As late as 2009, the Primates of the Communion issued a pastoral letter titled ‘Deeper Communion: Gracious Restraint’ which contained the following:

There are continuing deep differences especially over the issues of the election of bishops in same-gender unions, Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, and on crossborder interventions. The moratoria, requested by the Windsor Report and reaffirmed by the majority of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, were much discussed. If a way forward is to be found and mutual trust to be re-established, it is imperative that further aggravation and acts which cause offence, misunderstanding or hostility cease. (Emphasis added)

The important phrase for the omnibus passenger is “further aggravation”. The natural understanding of this would be that former aggravation, whilst regrettable, has to be accepted as a ‘fact of life’. What must be avoided is anything which might add to the offence.

And what would this be? Given that the working concept of a ‘moratorium’ in the present situation is clearly not a rescinding of past acts, it would most obviously mean — in the mind of the omnibus passenger — further, additional, extra, actions of the proscribed kind. Thus if there were further cross-border interventions, additional approvals of same-sex blessings or extra consecrations of bishops in same-sex relationships, these would be breaches of the moratorium as it was understood to be functioning in the Communion.

Indeed, the events leading up to the consecration of Mary Glasspool would seem to reinforce this ‘common sense’ understanding. The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed his misgivings as the day drew near. Others hoped that there would be a continued ‘gracious restraint’. Metaphorically, it was as if the near bank of the Rubicon had been crossed, but the invaders had only gone halfway across the bridge. The question was whether any of them would actually step across to the other side.

This, as I say, is how the situation appeared to most of us. Yes, we were in a ‘cease-fire’, not at peace. But, to coin Churchill’s phrase, our ‘jaw jaw’ was better than our ‘war war’. What has happened following the consecration of Mary Glasspool, however, is a descent into chaos.

The fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury chose this moment to issue his ‘Pentecost Letter’ would seem to suggest that the ‘common sense’ view was correct — that the moratorium had been broken by The Episcopal Church, and it alone. The content of the letter, however, only makes sense if it is understood that other bodies within the communion have also broken the moratorium.

Yet the Primates’ letter of 2009 indicated that the ‘cease fire’ positions of the offending bodies were accepted and that ‘gracious restraint’ was being exercised provided no one proceeded beyond their existing ‘stop lines’.

In other words, regarding what is meant by a moratorium, the Primates seem to have been operating with version A above, whilst the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be applying version B, though he was apparently prompted by a version A understanding.

If this is confusing enough, further confusion is now being introduced by the involvement of Canon Kenneth Kearon who has written his own letter to the ‘offending’ bodies.

The Archbishop’s letter referred to a ‘proposal’ that the offenders be removed from bodies participating in ecumenical dialogue. Furthermore, he went on to add,

I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.

Many (including myself) had taken this to mean that it would therefore be the Primates who would consider the proposal and decide on any actions to follow. Canon Kearon, however, says,

I have ... written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body.

So much for the Primates. Canon Kearon goes on to add,

I have written to the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to ask whether its General Synod or House of Bishops has formally adopted policies that breach the second moratorium in the Windsor Report, authorising public rites of same-sex blessing.

At the same time I have written to the Primate of the Southern Cone, whose interventions in other provinces are referred to in the Windsor Continuation Group Report asking him for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces.

Are we to presume that, depending on the answers he receives, Canon Kearon may also withdraw the membership of these bodies form IASCUFO? That would seem to run counter to what the Archbishop said in his letter:

I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. (Emphasis added)

Whilst the reference is to bodies in addition to IASCUFO, we may note that Canon Kearon is a member of the secretariat to the ACC. Whose decision, we may then ask, was it to write as Canon Kearon has done? Was it made by Archbishop Williams? If so, then his ‘proposal’ was not a suggestion for discussion, but a personal decision. Was it made by Canon Kearon? If so, he would seem to be acting alone. Of course, it may have been a joint decision between the two of them — but since when did this become the way to handle such matters.

Meanwhile, however, it is clear from his letter that Canon Kearon is operating with understanding ‘A’ above, when it comes to the nature of the current moratoria. He writes,

It was hoped to have held the gracious restraint requested on many occasions by the Instruments of Communion until the Covenant had been considered in-depth by all of the provinces. [...] However, the recent Episcopal election in Los Angeles has created a situation where the Archbishop has been forced to act ... (Emphasis added)

That being the case, however, why has he written to the other Primates — unless it is to establish that they have taken no further actions to imperil their position.

It is indeed confusing. Who is running the shop? What do we mean by ‘moratorium’? Why have the actions of TEC threatened the status of other members of the Communion? And will the Windsor Process finally deliver a Covenant which saves us from all this?

Sorry, the last comment is not meant to be taken seriously.

John Richardson
8 June 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Fulcrum: their challenge to Canterbury and the challenge they must face

Those of us who have watched (and experienced) the opposition of the open evangelical group Fulcrum to many of the conservative attempts to address the problems within the Anglican Communion over the past several years must greet with charity and relief the announcement from the Fulcrum leadership published yesterday in the Church of England Newspaper.

We may feel it has taken them a long time to wake up to what some of us regarded as the obvious. However, their statement not only finally recognizes the intractable problems within TEC but forcefully challenges the Archbishop of Canterbury in a manner entirely similar to conservative pronouncements from which they have distanced themselves in the past.

In response to the consent of the bishops and Standing Committees of TEC to the election of Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the diocese of Los Angeles, the statement is clear that any claims of an adherence to the ‘letter’ of past agreements is now impossible:

We are now indisputably in a radically new situation. TEC as a body has determinedly, perhaps irrevocably, chosen autonomy over “communion with autonomy and accountability”.

There are three other important recognitions. The first is that

... this is not simply a matter of disagreement about biblical interpretation and sexual ethics although these are central and important. It is now very clearly also a fundamental matter of truth-telling and trust.

Their understanding, in other words, is that TEC’s version of truth-telling is not the same as that understood in the rest of the communion, and that therefore TEC as a body cannot be trusted. This is a major and significant conclusion.

Secondly, they recognize a problem within TEC with “their understanding of how the Spirit leads them.” This has been evident for a long time to those with ‘ears to hear’. But acknowledging the problem must demand from Fulcrum a clear identification as to where authority does lie. We have here a ‘clash of spiritualities’, and yet the open evangelical movement as a whole is undoubtedly vulnerable to just the approach that TEC has adopted. How the Spirit leads the Church is, and always has been, a critical question for Christians, and it is one on which Fulcrum could now usefully speak with clarity to its own constituency.

The third recognition is that members of TEC must now act against the overall polity of TEC and be supported in this by Anglicanism worldwide:

The only hope now is for TEC dioceses to reject TEC’s path by committing to the covenant and for such commitment to be recognised by the Communion.

But this raises the question of recognizing ACNA — something which Fulcrum and it’s associates have seemingly been hitherto reluctant to do. (Canon Simon Butler, who has posted articles and comments on the Fulcrum website, vigorously opposed the original motion in General Synod to support ACNA, although he voted for the final motion.) Will Fulcrum, then, follow the logic of its own conclusion and now respond more positively to those who have already stepped away from TEC? If, as the statement asserts, the Communion “must now proceed in its common life without TEC”, will it be encouraged to do so with ACNA?

Most importantly, however, the statement calls for action from the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not assumed that TEC will take itself into the wilderness. Instead,

The nature of the Communion’s structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

And the statement is absolutely clear about the implications of any failure to act:

 Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC’s conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC’s inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion.

Understandably, the statement is at pains to recognize Rowan Williams’s past efforts. Yet it is remarkably frank in the call it now makes upon him:

Many ... both within the Church of England and the wider Communion (particularly in the Global South which meets next month) have been patient and sought to work with him by supporting the Windsor and covenant processes. They need now to make clear that unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us.

When news of consents to the election of Mary Glasspool first broke, Fulcrum issued the briefest of responses which ended with the words, “Actions have consequences.”

That same phrase is used in their new statement, one of the consequences they identify being that “TEC as a body has revealed it is incapable of signing the Anglican covenant.” We must be truly grateful that the strong smell of coffee has finally wafted its way to the nostrils of the Fulcrum Leadership Team. We must now ask whether — and indeed how — they will reposition themselves in relation to the leadership of GAFCON, FCA, etc, who have for years been saying the same things, for entirely similar reasons, if not always in a manner of which Fulcrum would approve.

We must also observe that inaction has consequences. If what the Fulcrum Leadership Team has demanded now fails to materialize, will they take things further, and if so, how?

John P Richardson
26 March 2010

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.