Comment on Global South letter

THE Global South primates have turned the screws of the rack on which they have stretched the Archbishop of Canterbury a little tighter. But they do not want schism.
So says a well-informed source from the conservative evangelical groupings that are driving the “orthodox” anti-gay agenda of the primates of the developing world.
In fact so far are they from seeking schism, they are already planning their tactics for the crucial 2008 Lambeth Conference. The latest developments can be read on the Cartoon Blog, on its Crazy Anglicans thread, and on the authoritative Thinking Anglicans site.

The letter has prompted fury among liberals, particularly in the US. Some had seen Nigeria's deletion of Canterbury from its constitution as an indication that the divorce was happening at last. Nigeria's covenant with the Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province of America, neither of which are in communion with Canterbury, added to these, dare I call them, 'hopes'. However, Nigeria has no intention of leaving the communion. As its mandate for the covenant, the Nigerians take a recent statement by Rowan Williams which they understood to mean that he would like to see some of the departed traditionalist groupings brought back into the fold. In any case this is already happening in an informal way elsewhere. Clergy from the Church of England in South Africa are licensed and working in England, including one in Southwark. 
Instead of schism, the letter represents an opening salvo in the next battle for the soul of the Church that will be fought on the field of Lambeth 2008. There, the issue of Biblical authority which lies behind the present crisis will dominate the agenda.
That is the fault-line over which the Anglican Church is rupturing at present, as it did back in the 19th century when a debate over Bishop Colenso’s liberal interpretation of scripture created its own crisis. It was that crisis that resulted in the first Lambeth Conference and structure of the Anglican Communion as it is today.
It was at Lambeth 1998 that the crucial resolution 1.10 was passed affirming a strictly traditionalist line on homosexuality. To the fury of conservatives, who had thought they won the battle, the US went ahead anyway and elected a gay bishop and New Westminster in Canada went ahead and authorised same-sex blessings. No-one really expects Ecusa to change direction at its General Convention next year.
The conservatives are now determined to make them pay. They want them excluded from the next Lambeth Conference, where they intend to raise the stakes even higher. The two sides are irreconcilable. The question will come down to whether they can remain together in some form of impaired communion. In truth, there is no ecclesiological reason why not. If the Church of England can survive with its two integrities over women priests enshrined in the Act of Synod, and move towards the structural solution hinted at by Dr Williams in his synod presidential address over women bishops, then surely the Anglican Communion can find some way of living with two integrities over the gay issue. Both, after all, come back to biblical authority and the interpretation of scripture.
So it is no surprise to find the key line in the primates’ letter to Dr Williams is: “It should come as no surprise to you that we consider the crisis facing the whole communion to be a crisis of Biblical authority.”
The invitations to the next Lambeth conference are due to go out next year. The conservatives are determined first that Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, along with other leading liberal players should not be on the list. Even if he is invited, they will not boycott it and give the liberals a chance to overturn 1.10.
And just to show they are serious, more provinces will follow Nigeria’s lead in removing Canterbury from their constitutions. They will make covenantal pacts with break-away traditionalist churches. They already have in place  in effect a structure to allow two integrities to exist side by side, with Dr Williams probably favouring the conservative side at the end of the day.
But even in the unlikely event that Dr Williams goes to the left, they will not leave the Anglican Church, because they could not bear for the liberal agenda to prevail.                                                          The one development that could undermind the conservatives is disunity within their own ranks. Already some are dissenting from the letter. Akinola has today issued a robust response. 'We find it pitiable that the media spin is drawing attention away from the deep Biblical discussions contained in our response,' he says. (Oh dear. Someone had better warn Akinola of the dangers of starting to blame the media. There is a proverb which goes, 'Nothing excites the lion so much as the mewling lamb.')
In 1689, schism appeared in the Church of England when eight bishops, including Archbishop William Sancroft, more than 400 clergymen, some laymen in England, nearly all the Scottish Episcopalian clergy and one Irish bishop refused to take oaths of allegiance and supremacy to William and Mary. They believed James II was their rightful king. They were suspended from their benefices and then defrocked.
The Non-Jurors continued as a successful schismatic sect for some years, but eventually nature ensured they just died out.
In the present dispute, many of the key players are close to retirement. The US primate, Frank Griswold, steps down next summer and a new primate will be elected at the General Convention in Ohio.
If the Archbishop of Canterbury can just hang on his personal cross for a few years longer, nature will solve his problem as it solved the problem of the non-jurors. The only question remains over which side will go to glory first.

Comments

[Mike Homfray]

But, I don't think there is very much chance that the CofE will agree to the full demands of the so-called 'global south', which would include removal of all of its non-celibate gay and lesbian parishioners and those who fully affirm them.

It appears to me that the so-called Global South simply won't accept dual integrity.

[Phil Smith]

Ruth, thanks for your concise summary of the whole issue. Do you really think that over time the issue will die down? As a young adult the issues seems to be something that will always be raised as the church interacts with the world, especially the world of young adults which is generally tolerant of people irrespective of their sexuality.
Instead I think the church should positively say that it is big enough to hold together churches who carry different opinions on this issue. There is much disagreement about the resurrection and the virgin birth, why can we agree to disagree on these issues but not on the issue of sexuality?

[Neale Adams]

A most interesting report by our intrepid Times reporter - thank you. It appears that Archbishop Williams has no intention of throwing anyone out of the Anglican Communion (if I read his sermon in Egypt correctly), and unlike the liberal and somewhat softhearted American and Canadian churches - who voluntarily sat out the last session of the Anglican Consultative Council - the conservatives have no intention of absenting themselves from Lambeth or any other decision making body. The fact remains that the Anglican Communion consists of provinces (dioceses actually) in communion with the See of Canterbury, and only Canterbury can cut that tie. It's just that a lot of Anglicans in Communion with Canterbury won't be in Communion with each other. Sounds like a typical feuding family.