Cordial But Pointed (Update)
Michael Paulson, writing in today’s Boston Globe, reports on the crucial talks being held in New Orleans between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the bishops of the Episcopal Church.
Archbishop of
Canterbury Rowan Williams, in a last-ditch effort to avoid a schism in
the global Anglican Communion, spent seven hours yesterday holed up in
a posh New Orleans hotel with most of the nation’s Episcopal bishops,
many of whom tried to persuade him that it is a mistake to define the
American church solely by its decision four years ago to approve an
openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire.
The unusual conversation took place just days
before a Sept. 30 deadline, set by leaders of Anglican provinces around
the world, for the American church to back away from its support for
gay rights or face some unspecified form of punishment. US bishops
spent yesterday morning telling the archbishop how they see the church
in the United States, and the archbishop spent the afternoon asking
them questions.
The meetings, which resume today, were closed to
reporters, but participants described them as cordial but pointed.
Williams was scheduled to meet with the bishops again this morning and
then to depart for Armenia; next week, the bishops were expected to
decide whether they are willing to explicitly promise not to approve
any more gay bishops or a blessing rite for same-sex couples, the
actions requested by the foreign Anglican leaders.
Williams leaves today, and the House of Bishops will meet until Tuesday; presumably to fashion a response to the Primates’ request. The continuing developments will be closely watched, both here and abroad.
The rest of the story is here.
Update: “In the business of compromise:”
Michael Paulson reports on Friday’s press conference of Archbishop Rowan Williams:
Williams, with the sleeves of his black clerical shirt rolled up,
spoke to the media after a day and a half of talks with 159 Episcopal
bishops who have gathered here for their semiannual meeting. After the
news conference, and lunch, Williams departed for Armenia; he said that
next week, after the bishops wrap up their meeting, he would review the
results before deciding how to proceed. But he said requests made at a
meeting of primates, as Anglican leaders are called, in Dar es Salaam
in February – that the bishops pledge not to consecrate any more gay
bishops and not to authorize a rite of blessing for same-sex unions -
were not set in stone.
“It’s been presented, sadly as a matter of
a set of demands, and, indeed, intrusions and impositions,” he said.
“We are, inevitably, in the business of compromise. What is brought up
before us will be something that’ll have to be scrutinized, thought
about, reflected on, digested, and it will take a bit of time.”
Although
he said there is no ultimatum, Williams made it clear he will be
watching closely how the bishops respond to remarks he and other
visiting Anglican leaders made Thursday and yesterday in New Orleans.
The rest is here.
I guess the question, Bob, is why stay together? If one group thinks the other group is endorsing an abomination, and that second group thinks the first group is mired in prejudice and superstition, why stay together?
The common response is that the body of Christ ought to be unified–but is there unity in a group whose members seem to have such contempt for one another?
Another answer is that outside of the church there is no salvation –that splitting off from the body of Christ impinges upon one’s capacity to receive God’s grace. But I’m not sure that anyone involved in this debate believes that in the strong sense necessary to keep the denomination together despite serious moral disagreements–or say, to keep Catholics in the RC church despite serious disagreements (to the left and right).
A third answer is that of witness ad extra–a unified Christian witness is more powerful than a splintered one. But is the splintering, and bickering within the Church–within Christianity and within its particular communions — a particularly effective witness?
Cathy,
As always, thoughtful and pointed questions.
I (and I’m sure others) are pondering them now.
As you know, I’m a member of the Anglican-Catholic dialogue
in the U.S.; and the implications are enormous.
I wonder if Rowan regrets having left Wales.
He certainly would welcome our prayer.
Today’s Times provides further detail and background:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/us/22episcopal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I would think that Williams’ statement “We are, inevitably, in the business of compromise” is not as regretful as it reads. I understand that many Anglicans/ Episcopalians think of the struggle to arrive at consensus to be a spiritual practice.
John Wilkins, former editor of The Tablet, wrote a recent cover story for NCR: “Anglican schism? Archbishop Rowan Williams strives to preserve the communion.” It’s at http://www.ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007c/091407/091407a.php
Here’s an excerpt:
The toll his leadership has taken on him has been described by some as a crucifixion. But he discounts the comparison. “Of course it’s eroding and exhausting,” he admits. But then suddenly the conversation takes wing. He gives thanks for the Christian milieu of Lambeth Palace , his London residence. “It helps enormously to have not only the discipline of the daily Offices, the daily Eucharist here, but actually a praying community. Prayers are offered quite early. Every morning, therefore, I have an opportunity to remind myself that what matters is not the Church of England or the Anglican Communion but the act of God in Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. When I am inclined to think that the whole thing is falling apart and that I am making a more than usually bad job of it, the transforming thing has got to be, and in my experience always is, renewing a sense of gratitude. Whether the Church of England survives or not, whether the archbishop of Canterbury survives or not, Christ still died on the cross and rose again, and that’s enough to keep you going for quite a few lifetimes.”
I know that Anglicanism is messy and currently fraught with disagreement. However, sometimes I look at them and wistfully wish that we Catholics had the patience that they do. The Roman practice of secret investigations, threats, authoritarianism, clericalism and silencings has led to way too many years of fear, uniformity, conformity, and the illusion of unity.
The episcopacy has had to learn how to dialog, compromise and work together. By definition they really have to have the longer view in mind as they gather in conference and convocation. And the laity has a strong voice in much of what happens, not the least of which is an equal say in the decision as to whom their bishop will be.
The idea of an outside absolute power that can lower the boom pretty much at will has lead to Roman opportunism that results in changing one’s public utterances and statements of beliefs as a matter of going along to get along.
Jimmy said: And the laity has a strong voice in much of what happens, not the least of which is an equal say in the decision as to whom their bishop will be.
Jean replies: I hope this means you have had better experiences with Anglicanism than I have.
I find the laity very apathetic about the hierarchy. They are far more involved in maintaining the niceness of their parish church buildings which their ancestors helped endow, and the decorum of their worship, whether high, broad or low.
When the hierarchy, often more liberal than the laity, do something the lay people don’t like, they don’t hesitate to decline their contribution to the diocese. Vestries tend to operate as if they were Congregationalists.
All that said, one of the things I miss about Anglicanism is its ability (up until now) to focus on the essentials of faith. Rather than a single teaching about the Eucharist, Anglicans accept a range of belief about the “real presence.”
In my view, the dogmatism some of the conservative, largely African, bishops are attempting to foist on the church regarding homosexuality is about as un-Anglican as anything I’ve ever seen.
Fr. Imbelli: Does Rowan Williams wish he’d never left Wales? Every Welshman wishes that. I wish him pob hwyl, because if anybody can move the church out of the quagmire, he can.
Jean,
Ever since I read of Hopkins’ delight with Wales, I’ve had a secret desire to visit, especially if I could have the company of someone who knew and loved the language and the land.
I concur in your praise and hope for Rowan Williams. The quote that Gene Palumbo helpfully supplied is an indication of the man’s faith and humility. He is, in addition, a fine theologian from whom I learn much.
The drift to “congregationalism” is one quite American in nature. As Chesterton once remarked: “In America, even the Catholics are Protestants.” The failure of some in the hierarchy has only exacerbated that drift in contemporary American Catholicism.
One of the insights I have received in my years on the Anglican-Catholic Dialogue was a remark made by one of my Anglican friends.
The person said: “for us (Episcopalians) the that of communion is more important than the what of communion.”
I don’t want to say that this represents the view of all Anglicans. But it illuminated, for me at least, Newman’s final decision and the importance for him of what he called “the dogmatic principle.”
Father Imbelli: Would you agree that Archbishop Williams, as a Welshman, probably understands the American Episcopal tendency toward congregationalism pretty well, since it was invented, in large part, in Wales?
In addition, ABC Williams also has that resiliency and tenacity that the rest of the world often mistakes for Welsh “stubbornness.”
And, yes, you should go to Wales! If I am correct in assuming you are Italian, you will feel strangely at home in Swansea. They’re Brythonic (not Celtic) people–who share a common North African ancestry with the Mediterranean people.
But I digress.
Oh, P.S., (sorry to hog) Jimmy called Anglicanism “messy,” which is exactly the word Archbishop Desmond Tutu once used to describe it!
It can get that way, certainly, and that messiness can lead to wrangles that end up sucking the energy out of the church.
I’m reaching into the dear dim past here, but to some extent the “messiness” of liberal Anglicanism inspired Newman’s “dogmatic principle,” which included the necessity of a church hierarchy with teaching authority.
But it always seemed to me that Newman was more willing to tolerate than embrace that hierarchy (interesting, given his high position in that hierarchy). If I recall correctly, Newman had to wrestle a lot with the notion of papal infallibility before he got on board with it.
But I am somtimes guilty of reading too much of my own divided feelings about Anglicanism/Catholicism into Newman.
I have no doubt that the procedures the US Episcopalians have for electing their bishops are not perfect. However the few of their laity that I know have either had experience themselves or know of others who have been involved in the House of Laity (or whatever it is called) when it comes to deciding on who to elect from the slate of candidates for bishop. Can it become a “beauty contest?” I suppose it can and sometimes does. But you can’t convince me that we don’t have the Roman version of a beauty contest, albeit more doctrinal than the Episcopals.
That said, think of the incentive for the laity to become more interested and active in these matters if they know that they have least have a 33% say in who becomes their bishops. The other thing I like is that these positions have term limits. There is always a chance for new blood to come to the diocese and bring a fresh perspective. Minorities, women and men from outside the diocese all have a chance to exert their influence not only on the diocese but also in the The Episcopal Church.
I find that a much more equitable approach to church governance than the Roman practice.
Just think how grand it would be if Fabian Bruskewitz were subject to term limits!
Jimmy, are you thinking of the lay/clergy House of Deputies? (Not to be confused with the House of Chanel, Hull House, or the International House of Pancakes.)
Jean: I guess that is what it is called. I’ve never been CofE or ECUSA, so I am not familiar with the nomenclature.
I still think that their structure has a lot to offer, particularly to badly undervalued RCC laity. If one were assured that members of the local diocesan laity would have a 33% say as to who would be the new bishop, what an incentive that would be to take a more active interest in the process and the end result.
It also would help facilitate the election of minorities, women and folks from other ecclesiological viewpoints (although I doubt the latter would hold much sway in any given diocese) into the local episcopacy. The best part, as I said before, would be the interjection of greater local control into a give diocese. Subsidiarity, anyone?
Jimmy, you assume a diversity among Episcopalians that doesn’t really exist–minorities, people from a variety of social strata, other ecclesial view points, etc.
Episcopal parishes mostly promote those with the most wealth and status to the vestry and other positions of power. A local farmer (and they’re rare in my former parish, even though I live in a dairy farming area) is not going to get elected to the vestry when the congregation has several physicians, lawyers, bank presidents, college professors, etc. to select from.
Of course many of these people do a fine job representing the laity. And there is a certain logic about electing your big guns and egos to the vestry–the ones who wouldn’t blink at telling the bishop that the parish is withholding its diocesan contribution this year because it doesn’t agree with this or that policy. The rub is that the vestry often decides that it objects to something because it’s bad for business or smacks of too much liberalism. Like women’s ordination, or the ordination of gay people.
Of course, it’s possible that the Episcopal model for lay involvement might actually work better in the RC Church where there is more diversity. I’m certainly not opposed to bringing in more lay voices. But I am more cynical than you, I guess, about the extent to which it would really improve things.