Anglican Mainstream

Lisa Severine Nolland  19 March 2008

There have been two significant responses elicited by recent developments within the Anglican Communion. I would like to analyse what has been said – and left unsaid – and where it’s all heading. The first response is that of the Statement by the Province of SE Asia. I begin, though, with the second, the Reflections of Bishop Mouneer Anis on the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) where he shared with the world his bleak perspective on the future of the Anglican Communion (AC). Given the present trajectory of the ‘progressive’ TEC (and of other Anglican spheres, as well), there is little to give hope to the conservatives within the AC. He knows it and now publicly acknowledges it. The Communion’s future is at stake. Though the good bishop does not indicate whether or not he is au fait with the literature related to psychological manipulation and social engineering, he has actually revealed in this commentary something of ‘how it is done’ by the professionals. And though we are speaking about progressives within the AC, these ‘tips-for-takeovers’ are useful across the board, regardless of the organizational entity, denomination or group.

First, there are the elements of time and will-power. Time is on the side of the ‘progressives’ (Ps) who unremittingly chip away at the ‘establishment’ (whose members I will call Es) by wearing them down and wearing them out. Es may well feel strongly about the issue but not nearly as strongly as Ps, whose self-evident truth is non-negotiable. And it is irrelevant how often Es re-state core convictions or re-affirm essentials. Bishop Anis and the Province of SE Asia Statement gave only a partial history of the attempts to ‘call a halt’ – see below – but none of them have caused Ps to modify their behaviour (with the possible exception of slowing the rate) or change the ultimate terminus, have they? Ps know better! They know that, at the end of the day, they care far more than Es about ‘their issue’. It cuts to the quick – it is what they are about - and that will be the determining factor for the outcome. So the future is theirs, if not the present. In the meanwhile, simply getting a place ‘at the table’ with the rest is the goal. And they have reached it now.

There is also the element of presence. Notice how inhibitory the Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefforts-Schori’s,(Katie’s) sitting there in the midst of the group was – and did she not half know it! She was playing both the Listening and the Gender Cards. In relation to the former, she was saying in effect, ‘I represent Anglican GLBTs, historically victimized and oppressed by an uncaring church – and I hope you feel really guilty about that past – you ought to!’ In relation to the latter, she was insinuating, ‘As a woman I represent another class of historically victimized people and thus I ought to be treated with greater leniency by you than if I were a man’. These chaps are from the old school, after all; they grew up in the days when ‘good’ men respected and honoured women. And they got the message. Given the above, as well as the subtle but powerful rules of The Club – Children, be nice to each other now! – Katie was home free. She knew how effective simply her presence would be in muzzling the potential opposition, and it paid off, as Bishop Anis noted.

Similarly, Changing Attitude, Integrity and others are thrilled by the warm welcome they have been given by the organizers of Lambeth, and continue to encourage, cajole, insist etc. that all come. Why? Well, our LGBT folk know the psychological power of physical presence which engages warmly, confidently and non-confrontationally. They are just ‘ordinary’ people, for pity’s sake! And they present their ‘stuff’ in such a whitewashed way that issues of same-sex sex – which is what we are discussing, after all – gets completely lost from sight. So all the best to Bishop Anis in his commitment to be ‘firm’ in his stand. He will need every ounce of moral courage he possesses. In fact, he will have far less chance at Lambeth than he had with the JSC – and he thought that that was challenging.

Indeed, the many voices I hear, including those of the SE Asia Province, which encourage faithful bishops to attend Lambeth seem to miss this point. If they are to go and retain their spiritual and moral integrity by not capitulating, they will have to be on their guard 24/7, and be willing to be uncharacteristically impolite. They will have to engage in ‘this-feels-really-bad’ behaviour like walking out, being unpopular, confronting and ‘offending’ – all the things a lifetime in the church has trained them not to do. It is so negative and ‘unloving’, after all, and God is love! And what about the debt – going back centuries, really – of ‘listening’ others insist be paid?

Even Bishop Anis rather gives the game away in his description of the present state of play: ‘Moreover, the very people who cause the current crisis are invited to Lambeth Conference and this contradicts with TWR as will as Dar es Salaam recommendations. This widens the gap and distrust between the two sides within the Communion (emphasis mine). This makes me ask, “Are we ready to take decisions as Anglican Councils”? I do appreciate the “via media” in worship but not when we are dealing with a crisis. When will we become decisive?’

Poor man. The decisions have already been made and finalized – it is too late now. According to even his own account, the one side has flagrantly broken agreed-upon rules with impunity over the years, and nothing is done by ‘the group’. When ‘the group’ then opens its arms to those who have violated its codes and refuses to aid those attacked by the rule-breakers, this says that the group is in the process of ‘take-over’ by the group’s rule-breakers. A sea-change is happening before our eyes. There is deep wisdom in the old adage here about how ‘actions speak louder than words’. And all Bishop Anis can manage to admit is that the gap is widened and the distrust grows. Hmmm. However, at least he is trying to be honest! The SE Asia Statement describes in quite muted form some of these concerns, but words feel very cheap to those who have lost everything at the hands of those then welcomed by one’s supposed friends and allies.

Finally, there is the element of changing goalposts and increasing ambiguity in the linguistic terms, what words actually mean, which Bishop Anis rightly notes with concern. The bottom line is that now words are used to describe many things to many people and different things to different people. And though this seems to have caught him by surprise, anyone who is familiar with ‘TECUSA-Speak’ realises that this has long been the case. TEC speakers do their magic on the written word and solid, concrete matters to hand dissolve or evolve before one’s very eye.

Moreover, Bishop Anis wonders where people have been since 2004. One catches a hint of exasperation, perhaps even anger here. Well, some of us have been more than a little exasperated about where people have been rather longer than that. The timeline reaches back at least to the Kuala Lumpur Statement (1997) and then Lambeth (1998), after which the Diocese of New Westminster – denominational pioneers, those Canadians! – voted to bless SS unions for the first time. In 2001 the Primates met in North Carolina and ‘held the line’ on homosexuality in their pastoral letter, after which the Diocese of New Westminster voted to bless SS unions for the third time. In 2002 the Anglican Consultative Council warned against unilateral moves (i.e. in relation to homosexuality). In June 2003 over 60 global Anglican leaders discouraged ECUSA from ordaining actively-gay Gene Robinson as bishop and just months later, in October, the Primates again issued warnings not to proceed. Gene became +Gene the following month. The Windsor Report of October 2004 has been largely ignored, as has the protest from the February 2005 Dromantine meeting of the Primates and the Third Anglican South-to-South Encounter (October 2005). Kigali’s ‘Road to Lambeth’, published in September 2006 for the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) has challenged the encroaching gay agenda in the strongest terms: ‘We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.’ Finally, February 2007, Tanzania, saw the most recent (and impotent) endeavour to hold the orthodox line.

I locate almost a dozen different attempts – and there may be more – but it has made negligible difference. Indeed, it could be double that number and the end result would be the same: domination by one side, capitulation by the other, all nicely worded, of course, with a strong ‘feel good’, ‘win-win’ factor. Note what the ABC himself does – not says. His intent could not be plainer. The only real question here is when will the ‘take-over’ be publicly seen and acknowledged?

My gratitude to Dr Mark Thompson, ‘The Anglican Debacle’: and Archbishop Peter Akinola, ‘A Most Agonizing Journey towards Lambeth 2008’. 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.