The “Crisis” Has Been Blown Out of Proportion

A Submission to the Lambeth Commission on Communion – August 2004

By Pamela W. Darling

The Lambeth Commission has a thankless task. Asked to point a way forward in the midst of what some characterize as a defining moment in the life of the Anglican Communion, the Commission's recommendations are sure to alienate one group or another, no matter what you recommended. May God bless your efforts on behalf of our church, and reward your faithfulness and courage.

I write as an individual, a layperson representing no one but myself, and wish to address several aspects of our current situation. Though not directly responsive to the questions you laid out last year, I hope to provide some helpful context.

From my perspective, the current “crisis” has been blown out of proportion .  Following his presentation to your Commission, Bishop Robert Duncan [a conservative church leader] reported to American Anglican Council (AAC) members:

The Commission clearly understands that the actions of the Episcopal Church have created chaos within ECUSA as well as the Anglican Communion. [AAC “Encompass” newsletter, July 2004, p.3, emphasis added]

If there is “chaos within ECUSA,” it is confined to those relatively small areas influenced by “orthodox” leaders such as Bishop Duncan. The vast majority of Episcopalians are living with the decisions made by the 2003 General Convention, whether they agree with those decisions or not. 

Many lay people have forgotten what the fuss was about. They resent and/or ignore the distraction from the mission of the church created by the uncanonical actions of Bishop Duncan, his organizations, and the allies they have recruited from around the globe.

That said, a few comments on the six proposals Bishop Duncan is reported to have recommended to the Lambeth Commission, in his capacity as “Moderator” of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), as quoted in the July 2004 issue of Encompass , the newsletter of the American Anglican Council:

• acknowledge that the schism ACN describes has occurred;

There is no doubt that some members of the Episcopal Church, USA (ECUSA), opposed to the actions of the 2003 General Convention, have chosen to separate themselves from the rest of ECUSA, in a variety of ways.

Some withhold money from the corporate missions of the church, at diocesan or national levels; some refuse to acknowledge the authority of their diocesan bishops; some bishops refuse to worship or meet with other bishops who accept the actions of Convention (whether they voted for them or not); some have formally departed and joined non-ECUSA bodies; some believe they don't have to leave because the Lambeth Commission, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or some newly created authority will declare that they are the only true members of ECUSA, to whom the rest of us should hand over keys and checkbooks.

It is said of marriage, that it takes two parties to make it work, but only one to destroy it. From that perspective one can argue that those opposed to ECUSA's completely lawful actions have created a schism in the Anglican Communion, and only they can restore unity.

It is said of marriage, that it takes two parties to make it work, but only one to destroy it. From that perspective one can argue that those opposed to ECUSA's completely lawful actions have created a schism in the Anglican Communion, and only they can restore unity.

• observe that the minority in North America is at one with the majority of the Communion and with the undivided voice of evangelical and catholic Christianity

How would one determine the views of the “majority of the Communion”? Neither Primates nor bishops speak for all the souls in their care, and until recently conscientious dissent was considered an acceptable, faithful activity within our church. Even today the majority of ECUSA is perfectly willing to break bread with those who conscientiously dissent from our Convention actions. This includes the majority of dissenters, who have not joined the ACN and continue to participate fully in the life of the Episcopal Church.

To claim unity with “the undivided voice of evangelical and catholic Christianity” is a very sweeping assertion, and ill-founded given that in the history of Christendom that “voice” has almost never been “undivided”. It is also an offense to thousands upon thousands of evangelical and catholic Christians who support ECUSA and/or the Diocese of New Westminster (Canada).

• implore that the minority not be forced to submit to aggressive and uncompromising innovators who insist, under plans like delegated pastoral oversight, that the endpoint is “reconciliation” [i.e., “submission”]

“Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is . . . Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” (Ephesians :17, 20-21)

I had supposed that reconciliation is the goal of all Christian life. As our Catechism puts it: “The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ” ( Book of Common Prayer , 855), It is difficult to attempt or sustain a conversation in search of unity in Christ with those who do not seek reconciliation.

• ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to give immediate protection and provide structural relief to that minority;

This supposes that the Archbishop of Canterbury possesses juridical authority over ECUSA, and other provinces. No such authority exists, nor is it likely that ECUSA would ever approve giving some outside “authority” power to pre-empt its autonomy. Surely Bishop Duncan and ACN are perfectly aware of this fact, so perhaps their recommendation is meant to endorse the strategy of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), under which a schismatic church has been set up, outside the canonical structures of ECUSA, through the actions of bishops from other provinces and a few retired ECUSA bishops. Thus far, recognition has been withheld from the AMiA, I presume for the same reasons the ACN should not be recognized as a parallel jurisdiction. 

• recommend some form of discipline of ECUSA sufficient to return it to recognizable Anglicanism;

Who decides what is “recognizable Anglicanism”?

The call to “discipline” ECUSA is in the same category as the call for our Primate and others to “repent.” I know Bishop Duncan and colleagues conscientiously believe that the loving relationships of same-sex couples are an abomination, and must be condemned for the sake of the souls of those involved; and further, that all who do not agree with this position have offended or even departed from the community of faith and must “repent” in order to be restored to table fellowship.

This position has some logic and consistency if one begins with the notion that particular norms of sexual behavior are foundational to Christian community and to our ecclesial institutional life, and that such norms can never change. However, the history of the Church is full of changing sexual norms, and it would be a shame to divide the church over this one. In fact, what ever happened to the doctrine of Reception?

• propose some core covenant or inter-Anglican code of canon law establishing broad limits to innovations against received Faith and Order, for consideration and adoption by any province desiring full membership in the Communion.

Variations on this proposal have been floating around for some time, as the pastoral notion of bishops as “instruments of unity” has morphed into a legalistic approach to authority. I don't think ECUSA would sign on to any such code, so this proposal would have no practical effect here.  

What interests me most about proposals dealing with authority and discipline, especially the wish for a new centralized authority for the Anglican Communion, is how they confirm observations about power and authority in social and political – and ecclesial – institutions.

When there is general agreement about what is to be done by whom (whether in formal law or informal consensus), authority structures are seldom invoked and power need only rarely be exercised to compel someone to behave in a particular way. 

Conversely, when there is little agreement, there is a tendency to turn to legal remedies and force.

[A]s those who, traditionally, have exercised authority realize that more and more “others” are claiming a share (former colonists, people of color, women, gay men and lesbians), those with power tend to clutch it more firmly, and seek to develop additional formal structures in order to secure their position.

Furthermore, as those who, traditionally, have exercised authority realize that more and more “others” are claiming a share (former colonists, people of color, women, gay men and lesbians), those with power tend to clutch it more firmly, and seek to develop additional formal structures in order to secure their position.

Such a move to consolidate institutional power in the face of instability is common outside the church as well as inside. Liberation movements of all sorts have long recognized that power does not give itself away; but perhaps this could be different for followers of Jesus Christ. I invite the Commission to consider this factor in determining how we are to strengthen our “bonds of affection” without strangling one another.

What is the Commission to do, then? I suggest:

• acknowledge that many in the Communion have been upset about actions in the US and Canada, but that this does not constitute schism
• determine that attempting to create new structures of authority in the midst of a major conflict is unwise, and probably unfeasible
• reiterate the place of “reception” in the life of the Communion, by which developments in and challenges to our common understanding of baptism and ministry (central to conflicts about both ordaining women and the status of gay men and lesbians) are allowed to stand the test of time
• call on everyone to comply with the canons of their own province, and refrain from actions disrupting other provinces – reiterate yet again that bishops must not function in a jurisdiction not their own without express permission of the local bishop – and this is not, of course, a new concept:

Let not a bishop go to a strange city, which is not subject to himself, nor into a district which does not belong to him, either to ordain anyone, or to appoint presbyters or deacons to places within the jurisdiction of another bishop, unless with the consent of the proper bishop of the place. And if anyone shall presume to do any such thing, the ordination shall be void, and he himself shall be punished by the synod. (Council of Antioch, Canon 22, 341)

Dr. Pamela W. Darling is a lay leader in the Episcopal Church, a writer and church historian who lives in northeast Philadelphia, Penn. From 1991-2000 she was Special Assistant to the President of the House of Deputies in the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and served as consultant and editor for the Committee on the Status of Women from 1986-1995. Author of New Wine: the Story of Women Transforming Leadership and Power in the Episcopal Church (Cowley, 1994), she has written or edited numerous publications.  She may be reached by email at pam.darling@att.net .