The Anglican Communion's 'Via Dolorosa'

Asked to do an essay for BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme, I wrote this:

"As we approach Lent and the season of penitence, the Anglican Communion is walking its own Via Dolorosa. The next station of the cross it has to bear comes this week in Dar es Salaam. Anglican leaders will be discussing how The Episcopal Church in the US has complied with the Windsor Report. This is the Anglican road map for peace drawn up to deal with the nuclear fallout that followed the consecration of the openly gay Bishop, Gene Robinson in the US. The aim is to forge a new coming together under a document called the Anglican Covenant which they’ll see on  Friday.

(pic from jeanclaudeart)

I have a little son of five called Arthur. He’s just started school. A Church of England primary as it happens. Sometimes he comes home upset because one particular boy or girl won't sit at the same table as him. Or won't let him play football. I dry his tears and tell him that this is how little children behave and it will all be better when he’s grown-up.

But will it? This week, for the first time ever, a woman will be at the table of the Primates, the 39 Archbishops who lead the Anglican communion. In any other organisation, this would be a cause for celebration, you'ld have thought.

But not so with Katharine Jefferts Schori, the bishop who broke through the Anglican stained glass ceiling when she was chosen last summer to lead The US Episcopal Church.

Only a few days ago one senior Church of England bishop rounded on her, although not because she’s a woman. He said she was “increasingly departing from basic Christian belief in the Lordship and Uniqueness of Christ.”

If she’s at the meeting as an equal, there’s a strong chance there’ll be a walk-out. In an attempt avoid this, the meeting’s only set-piece eucharist is voluntary. The Primates will not be forced to share communion with her or with each other. All they'll have to do in is to say mattins. And even they might manage to do that together without a fight.

Leading the march this week against Bishop Schori and any other champions of pro-gay liberalism will be Peter Akinola, the Nigerian Primate. His is an orthodox, Biblical view on homosexuality.

And over these squabbles will preside headteacher Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Having pledged his heart to the Gospel mandate of one church, one Lord, he's the one carrying the cross on this Via Dolorosa.  Expect a crucifixion if it all goes wrong.

What makes it all so insoluble is that each faction has got right on its side. The Episcopalians have justice, the Global South leaders have tradition and Biblical orthodoxy.

Sometimes I just wish the Anglican hierarchy could step back and consider for a minute how all this looks to the outside world.

To friends of mine in journalism and at the school gates, it looks no better than the politics of the playground. They laugh about it, or shake their heads with incomprehension. Yet these are not children but Anglican bishops and archbishops we are talking about. Is it any wonder that secularism is on the march in Britain today?"

More recent news on the Primates from Stand Firm, Anglican Mainstream, Fulcrum, Thinking Anglicans and TitusOneNine. Maggi Dawn has some interesting comments on this post.

Comments

[jimmy]

The world today is the same as the world yesterday and also the world tomorrow.
Has your child ever come home and said "Mother today I felt like the world was on my back"

(rg writes: no he hasn't, but this morning on the way to school he was grumbling quietly to himself, and then he turned to me and said: 'Mummy what is this world coming to?' I laughed, at which point he got terribly upset and told me to stop laughing because it wasn't funny...)

[Hal Williams]

Ruth Gledhill in the London Times February 11, 2007
“Sometimes I just wish the Anglican hierarchy could step back and consider for a minute how all this looks to the outside world.
To friends of mine in journalism and at the school gates, it looks no better than the politics of the playground. They laugh about it, or shake their heads with incomprehension. Yet these are not children but Anglican bishops and archbishops we are talking about. Is it any wonder

I have been an Episcopalian for 60 years and for 40 of those I trusted and stepped back because of the way the outer world would look at us. All that bought me was more of the outer world and less of the inner world of Christianity.
I trusted that the church leaders were Christians and could be trusted. They said “all we want to do is dialogue” and talk we did until they had secured the positions of power and could act with impunity.

We have switched from the unfettered gospel to a world-view of the gospel and THAT is why “…secularism is on the march in Britain today?" It can only be done with the support of the Ruth Gledhills of a “liberated” society.

Hal Williams
New Smryna Beach, Florida

[George]

To Frank: Hear hear!

To Ruth: an excellent job as (almost) always. And the almost is always very, very tiny.

[Chris Gillibrand]

There are no less than fourteen stations of the Cross along the Via Dolorosa. The Church of England is sadly near the start. However, in contrast to the necessity of Our Lord's suffering- his absolute predestination - all of the Anglican suffering was avoidable.

[Frank Schnittger]

"The crisis in the Anglican Communion is a major battle between two branches of Christianity - the liberal/progressive wing and the evangelical wing." - Maduka

At least it is a crisis IN Anglicanism, and a bird never flew on one wing. No one is suggesting that the "liberal/progressive wing" is suited to all circumstances or that it is wrong for some Provinces to take a predominantly Evangelical approach.

Equally, however, why should TEC takes it's instructions from Nigeria? By all means if some Parishes/individuals/Dioceses within TEC want a more Evangelical approach, let them do so. They should not be forced to leave. But neither should TEC be forced to leave the Anglican Communion as a whole.

At the end of the day the Communion is a Voluntary Association. No one can be forced to stay, but neither should they be forced to leave. If Akinola want’s to take his Church elsewhere, let him do so. However he does not own TEC, and he does not own the Communion as a whole.

The Communion, is, by definition, the property of all its constituent parts. Let those provinces who want to remain part of it do so, and let those who want to leave, leave

[Craig Goodrich]

This is an extremely thought-provoking exchange (above):

Tim Huffman: I wonder what you mean by the Episcopalians have justice on their side. It cannot be the cardinal virtue of justice and civil justice has no role in this discussion.

Ruth Gledhill: In terms of the secular justice argument based on equal rights, I think they have that on their side. ... in the context of the US, many episcopalians clearly believe it is appropriate.

Ruth, Tim has put his theological finger on the underlying problem with the US church: After more than a generation of fluffy or nonexistent Christian teaching, many in the pews and most in the leadership are simply no longer capable of thinking in theological terms at all, so all morality and value judgments now are taken within the conceptual framework of liberal democratic politics.

For example, at the famous 2003 General Convention, one frequently-heard observation defending acceptance of homosexual behavior was, "well, it doesn't hurt anyone." Now, in a civil society which values personal liberty, that is an excellent argument for avoiding the legal prohibition of some activity; in fact, it's one of the fundamental considerations of traditional English Common Law. But it is wholly inappropriate when applied to the Christian concept of sin -- the greed of an entrepreneur may, for example, provide hundreds of jobs, but it is no less sinful because of that. My secret lust for some actress may affect no one else, but it is no less sinful because of that.

What has been lost in the American church is not simply some antiquated legalistic understanding of the Bible, it is in fact the entire conceptual and moral frame of reference within which the Christian universe exists.

[Maduka]

The crisis in the Anglican Communion is a major battle between two branches of Christianity - the liberal/progressive wing and the evangelical wing.

African Churchmen are no fools. They are educated enough to understand both the liberal and evangelical views of Christian theology. In Nigeria we evaluated liberal and evangelical christianity. We learnt that evangelical christianity is sturdy enough to deal with poverty, disease, war, islamic fundamentalism, challenges from animism and tribalism. On the other hand, liberal christianity is totally unsuited to our environment and statistical evidence shows that it not particularly suited to the West either.

It is also wrong to suggest that Bishop Schori is being shunned because she is a woman. Female priests were ordained as far back as 1983 in Uganda and Kenya (before England). As of 1997, the Anglican provinces of Burundi, Kenya, Uganda and West Africa accepted women as priests. In Nigeria, women are accepted as deacons, and it is only a matter of time before women are ordained as priests.

Let me also add that women play a very important role in Christianity in Africa. Women are much more visible as leaders in Church in Africa than in Europe. I find it difficult to name a single prominent European female church leader, but I can name several prominent female African church leaders.

[Frank Schnittger]

I find it interesting that I agree with many of the points made by Martha, Tom Jackson and Tim Huffman even though they appear to be on the opposite side of the debate.

Where we differ is in the centrality of Katherine Schori's theological orthodoxy to this whole debate. She may or may not be theologically orthodox, a good or indifferent Pastor: I am not qualified to judge.

The theological trends in TEC predate her election and will no doubt continue after her departure from high office. They are based on the witness of Christians in the US and may or may not be of relevance to the rest of the Communion. No one is forcing Primates in Africa or elsewhere to ordain or consecrate women or gay Priests or Bishops.

Each province has its own autonomy in the context of the particular circumstances of their Witness. Whether Global South or North will ultimately take the prime leadership role is neither here nor there, the Anglican Communion has never been based on complete uniformity across the Globe.

Current Church structures may indeed be based on old Imperial/Colonial contexts and attitudes, but neither that historical legacy, nor a guilt or angst ridden response to it is a reason for breaking a Unity that has stood the test of time.

The least reason of all for a break-up of the Communion is a personal concern with one Primate at one particular point in time. Anglican history is filled with dodgy Bishops of various unorthodox "bents". To raise this issue at this point in time is to look for excuses. The playground blame games have started: She started it! No he did.

The question is: who is going to stop it? Enter the ABC, stage left, or else he will have no stage left.

[David A Krooks]

Dear Ms Gledhill,

While I certainly agree in general with the stance you articulate here, I think you distort the picture when you write "The Episcopalians have justice, the Global South leaders have... Biblical orthodoxy."

Biblical literalists have managed to co-opt the term "orthodox" in the current debate on sexuality in the Anglican Communion. The real question for the Communion is whether or not the literalists have the strength to try to compel agreement with their view of Holy Writ...To use your playground analogy again, these folks are bullies.

One hopes that Canterbury will have the nerve to stand up to them, but one fears the worse.

[joe]

As it happens, I also have a young child - a six year old daughter.

We have had several conversations on the walk home from school (also CofE, as if that makes any difference at all) about different people that won't let her play games with them.

It is a different situation when there is nobody who will let you play, but on most occasions the best approach is to walk away and find someone else to play with. That is just life - nobody is going to get on all the time and we just have to find ways to deal with it which do not involve physical violence.

There are battles which are worth fighting and battles that are not. As adults we expect some level of maturity to know the difference.

In other news, the Bishop of Egypt Dr. Mouneer Anis is to become the President Bishop of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East, and presumably therefore a Primate. Dr. Mouneer Anis is an Egyptian and is generally considered to be a good guy. I don't know how he might/might not change the dynamics of Primates meetings.

Anyway, I thought others might like to know that something else is happening in the Anglican world.

Joe

[Neale Adams]

I am surprised that the Bishop of Winchester accuses Bishop Jefferts Schori (without citing evidence) of departing from the belief in the Lordship and Uniqueness of Christ. It seems to me she is quite orthodox in belief. Certainly it can't be because she believes in the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church. Jesus was silent on this issue, wasn't he?

[Edward Lewis]

Ms Gledhill, as a former Episcopalian, now a Catholic theologian, I wonder what you mean by the Episcopalians have justice on their side. It cannot be the cardinal virtue of justice and civil justice has no role in this discussion. This is the great problem of the Anglican communion; confusing what society requires of a faith community with what the Lord requires.

(rg writes: in terms of the secular justice argument based on equal rights, I think they have that on their side. Whether it is appropriate for a Christian church to embrace that agenda is another debate altogether, but in the context of the US, many episcopalians clearly believe it is appropriate.)

[Tim Huffman]

Ms. Gledhill writes an amusing and belitting piece, but misses the larger issues. This kind of ocnfrontation was certain to happen at some point, and it is somewhat incidental that it is the ordination of openly homosexual persons as bishop that is the tipping point.

The arrogance and condescension of the Northern branches of the Anglican Communion toward the very much larger and more vital branches of the Global South, looking very much like neo-colonialism, precipitated this crisis.

This is an unmistakable and public sign that the future of Christianity will not be determined in New York or Canterbury or Geneva. The question is whether the north will acceed gracefully to the new reality, and serve their appropriately subordinate role, as exemplified in the voting of the last Lambeth conference, or whether the north will go its own way, increasingly on the margin of church history.

Ms. Shori, with next to no experience, has cheerily said and done all the things best calculated to alarm and offend the majority of the Anglican comunnion. At the same time she has unleashed the lawyers on rectors and parishes not enlightened enough to go along with her now well-publicized view of the Christian faith. That she should be treated gently or even politely is a counsel that must seem remarkable to many Christians in the global south, and even in the US.

[Tom Jackson]

"To friends of mine in journalism and at the school gates, it looks no better than the politics of the playground."

Well, that's it then! We can't have all these mothers and journalistic friends thinking that us "religious" people go around getting upset at the slightest thing and not wanting to play with the other children.

I mean, it's difficult enough to understand why Jesus didn't simply tell Herod that He wasn't really the King of the Jews when confronted by the Roman governor. Then all this business about crucifixion, ascending into heaven and Christianity spreading throughout the world could have been avoided!

All we have to do is to align our beliefs and views with those secular people, the journalists, the mothers at the school and the rest, and us Christians will blend very nicely into the background, keep in step with everyone else and don't cause any waves.

Is that what being a Christian is? Is that what Christ intended us to be? If we study scripture, pray and continually examine our beliefs against the teaching of Christ and discover that "Hello!!"; we don't agree with the changes that people such as Katharine Schori are introducing, the direction she is taking, should we just subdue our opposition, our beliefs founded in Christian teaching and fundamental beliefs?

Personally, I think many in the secular society would have more respect for the Christian leadership if they showed more guts and determination in expressing and strengthening that teaching upon which our beliefs are founded.

[ash]

It greives me to say, but if the Primates are unable to share Communion together, then the Church is dead. My prayer would be that Rowan Williams can perform a ressurrection miracle, but I, like most Anglicans, have my doubts.

[Martha]

Ruth, I'm neither Episcopalian nor Anglican, but this whole mess goes deeper than merely 'pro-gay liberalism.' Bishop Jefferts Schori has consistently danced around the topic of who or what exactly she considers Jesus Christ to be. To the question "But you, who do you say that I am?" she has answered "An event, a process, way, a truth".

On the other hand, she has never been backward about coming forward regarding the U.N.'s Millenium Development Goals. Every chance she gets, she sings their praises. She has gone so far as to state that the purpose of the Episcopal Church is to bring about the reign of God on earth by fulfilling the Millenium Development Goals.

All that she has said about poverty and justice is perfectly fine, perfectly true, perfectly nice. But there's really nothing there to distinguish her as a minister of religion in charge of a national church as apart from the C.E.O. of a charity or an N.G.O.

And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter. To work for the aims Bishop Jefferts Schori holds close to her heart, you don't need to be a Christian, or a believer. An atheist of good will could happily align him or herself with the Presiding Bishop. In what sense, then, should she be treated as an equal of those who take their vocations seriously and believe they will be called to account for the spiritual wellbeing and the state of the souls of their people?

[Frank Schnittger]

I think you have hit on the key issue: how this looks from the outside, and from the standpoint of those the Church should be proselytising. Why join a bunch of losers who can't even agree amongst themselves?

Thanks to the SORs "debate" Christianity in Britain is now synonymous with homophobia. Never mind how unfair this is: It is the popular and political reality. This may appeal to those sectarians who feel like they want to be part of a select elite few. It is anathema to the inclusiveness Christ promoted with his every breath.

The other issue which needs to be recognised is the cultural diversity of different parts of the Anglican Communion. To the majority cultures in Europe and America it is inconceivable that Christians should want to discriminate against women or gays. To the majority culture in much of Africa, it is inconceivable that women and gays should be granted any sort of equality.

There may be some universal truths in all this, but for the moment they are obscured by the cultural diversity we see around us. There is no point in Judging America by the standards of Africa, or vice versa. Either we learn to live together, acknowledging our differences, or we let things fall apart.

And if the latter course of action is chosen, let there be no doubt that any meaningful world-wide Anglican Communion will be gone. People can retreat into the comfort zone of their own national Churches and build some alliances with other like minded churches, but any sense of a Universal, World-wide, and distinctive tradition will be gone.

Rome and a variety of more aggressive evangelical Churches will mop up some of the pieces – those pieces that have not decided to abandon institutionalised religion entirely. The choice is between maintaining a fragile unity in diversity and giving up the Ghost to secularism and a variety of splinters.

Though most will want to maintain the fiction that the fact the Schori is a women is not a problem, it is in fact THE problem. It doesn’t matter how theologically orthodox or unorthodox she is, her very being at the Primates meeting challenges the “Biblical” beliefs of some of the African conservatives, and makes it impossible for them to accept her.

Either the ABC wields his authority, and forces an equality of respect for her, or he himself will have no further function as head of a Communion which no longer exists.

[Capt Windsor]

Is not Anglican (according to Coronation Oath,Sovereign and Bill of Rights,England,the 39 Articles expound) Protestant? Of course this is in the theological sense not anthropoligical.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Dear Ruth

So glad to hear that you were on the Sunday Programme. I do hope we can link to it here.

As for Arthur, having met him once, I found him incredibly impressive for his age, with a brilliant mind and a great capacity for love.

I wonder if he remembers the floating home in South London which you visited with him that day nearly six months ago in order to take the trouble to see me off properly.

Do say 'Hi' from me.

Maybe you could tell him about the rat trouble I am having. Might make him laugh.

[Charlotte]

Well, Ruth Gledhill, thanks for the sudden flash of insight. Better late than never, I suppose. I have maintained that this whole matter could have been amicably settled five minutes after +Gene Robinson's election, but for the playground politics, the posturing and grandstanding and self-aggrandising conduct of our prelates, which approaches the frankly delusional at times.

FYI the Anglican wars elicit the same reaction on this side of the pond. Most, at this point, are simply bored by it all. "Really stupid," was my sister's comment. Did I mention she is a baptized Episcopalian who no longer attends church?

We in the US have an additional factor to consider. US Evangelicals -- who are the people behind most of the breakaway movements in the Episcopal Church -- have heavily invested in and identified with the right wing of the Republican party. George W. Bush is their man, and the Iraq War their cause. No one (as they loudly proclaim) can be a Christian and oppose either one.

The result, as we are just beginning to see, is that younger people in the US are rapidly secularizing. The next generation will be composed largely of atheists and agnostics, and that's a pity. The more so because Evangelicals have devoted so much of their energy to destroying the alternatives to their right-wing fundamentalism.

[Francisco de Assis da Silva]

Thanks for your aproppriate comment.
The fundamental question behind the scenes in this conflict is the question of the power. It would be better the Primates take in hands an agenda for discuss about christian witness on war and poverty that is devastating the world. Discuss if a woman is legitimate to be a Primate or not is not relevant. Or discuss if gays are legitimate bishops or not is the same.For me, some of the conservatives Primates are acting as selfish children disputing places or power.
Best regards,
Revd. Canon Francisco de Assis da Silva (Provincial Secretary of Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil)

[Peter Elliott]

How true Ruth Gledhill's article is; it horrifies me th think as to how the outside world sees the Church's attitude of 'if you won't play according to our rules we'll take our toys home'.

[Emanuel Appel]

a letter from America

Dear Ruth,

There's God, there's Religion, and there's Church organization.

I sympathize for the innocent, those people like you in "leafy Kew" and the other copies of "leafy Kew" that your nation has set up around the world. They just want to get through life without being bothered, annnoyed, and stirred up by those with political ambitions.

I understand the political, historical background behind the Anglican Communion. The question is now whether it can go on or should it change to a more Congregational model?