Saturday, April 28, 2007

The (First) Communiqué from the Primates

The (First) Communiqué

Reluctantly, I identify with my fellow confused and frustrated kindred in Christ as regards the Communiqué and our Presiding Bishop's response. At its best, Church life is the life of God and the liveliness of the Gospel. How far have we departed from these if we now find ourselves engaging less a relationship with the world around us and more a contest with those who purportedly are kindred in Christ?

None of this contest reflects the witness of those exemplars of human frailty and faith who stood up in the Hebrew context of the early Church and identified the Gentiles as "us." The Apostle Peter conferred with no one but his conscience and God before he welcomed formally, ceremonially, ritually into the life of Christ the Roman soldier and his family. The Apostle Paul conferred with no one but his conscience and God before he declared Christ risen not just for some, but for all. The evangelist Philip met with no one but God the Holy Spirit before he welcomed into fullness of Life the Ethiopian eunuch. One can only wonder what questions would have been raised, what recommendations to delay, to ponder, to meditate, to consult, to meet again later, would have been imposed had Philip acted more from prudence than from principle. James the brother of Jesus showed no hesitation, no lack of clarity, no inclination to appease those who disagreed, before he led the Church to identify officially the formerly sub-human Gentiles as fully fellow people of God. And now in our own day, I cannot help but notice that, since the release of the Communiqué, even among well-intenioned inclusivists our fellow Christians and fellow human beings who are gay are being referred to almost exclusively (!) in the third person. Perhaps deriving from its hostile context of origin, the language of the Communiqué is already putting distance between kindred joined in baptism.


It seems that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion are encouraging one another to tend now more to self-preservation than to mission, ministry, or anything else that might resemble our nobler call to bless this world by witness and Word. The attention we are continually being compelled to pay to matters of internal procedural maintenance and governance of the institution is badly distracting us from the work and prayer of that which truly is Church. Narcissus is replacing Jesus.

In the guise of Proposals, demands from the Global Primates that the Episcopal Church turn over its affairs to foreign Church leaders are unprecedented. The combination of those most rigid primates with those most meek has apparently overcome those prophetic and pastoral few. And if this is true among the primates, we can be sure that it is true among the people of the Church, the folks who actually are out there trying to live the gospel in the real world. People with a sense of what makes up a healthy organization can only regard the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with passing amusement. Visionary leaders have more sense than to enmesh themselves in an organization that simply cannot or will not define itself by anything more than 'we all just want to get along with each other.' Peace is being re-defined as a lack of discord, a silencing of disagreement, more so of defiance. The charism of the Peace of Christ is being replaced with the oppression of the Peace of Rome.

Notice the utter absence of the involvement of the laity and clergy in the proposals and demands of the Communiqué. Notice also that the Communiqué has even redefined a proposed compromise that arose originally from within the Episcopal Church in November of last year. Originally, the Presiding Bishop was to appoint a Primatial Vicar as liturgical and pastoral liaison with those disturbed by her election. As proposed originally, “The Primatial Vicar would be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and would report to an Advisory Panel that would consist of the designee of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop’s designee, a bishop of The Episcopal Church selected by the petitioning dioceses, and the President of the House of Deputies (or designee).”

However, should the House of Bishops accede to the demands of the Communiqué, the Primatial Vicar would be 'nominated' by the very dissidents who are seeking an alternative jurisdiction in the Episcopal Church. Further, the Primatial Vicar would be accountable not the Presiding Bishop, but to “The Pastoral Council,” which “shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.” Does anyone suppose that the Primatial Vicar would not very soon be invited to the Primates' Meetings with voice and vote? In short order, the Duncanites and Akinolites will have gotten their way just be being the noisiest children in the classroom. They will have their own Anglican province in North America, their own PB, and their official Anglican recognition. They will have succeeded in changing Anglican polity for the entire Communion, and the Episcopal Church will have pulled the trigger on that disaster.

Present reality, I suggest, imposes a decision upon us Episcopalians.

The prophets, leaders, and evangelists of her history bear witness to the eternity of the Church. That she will survive and thrive into the future there surely is no doubt. Whether, in the end, the Episcopal Church is recognized by Christians and by Christ as a part of that fellowship is entirely another question. Unintentionally or not, the Communiqué makes clear that it is time now for us Episcopalians to choose whose agenda we support, whose reign we welcome.

Jim Stockton +

No comments:

Post a Comment