That We All May Be One

Last Thursday, the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church called for the deposition of The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan from the ordained ministry. It was a sad, but necessary decision, in my opinion because of the following facts.

In Dec. 2007 the Title IV Review Committee of our church certified that Bishop Duncan had “abandoned the communion of this church.” The Canon Law of The Episcopal Church define abandonment as “an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this Church.” In this case, what Bishop Duncan had renounced was the church’s discipline.

He has actively worked to remove the Diocese of Pittsburgh from the authority of The Episcopal Church in clear violation of Canon Law. He sought affiliation with the Province of the Southern Cone also in violation of his ordination vow to “conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.” He used assets of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh to accomplish these goals.

Contrary to what many may believe, and have stated, this was not about Bishop Duncan’s theological positions. Many loyal bishops, clergy and lay people of The Episcopal Church hold similar views and yet remain faithful members of our church. This was about our church’s polity and the consequences of violating that polity by one who has sworn to uphold it.

At first glance, it’s hard to see how this action serves the goal “that we all may be one.” However, accountability is critical to preserving community life. We have seen the consequences of a lack of accountability on the “left” as well as on the “right” in this church for many years. Perhaps we are finally achieving the kind of maturity which will allow us to hold one another accountable…for the sake of the community…and for the sake of the common witness to the Gospel we hope to make in The Episcopal Church.

The Lambeth Conference ended, from my perspective, in a somewhat mixed way. The overall spirit was good and a vast improvement over 1998. The non-legislative format helped, as did perhaps the absence of some 200 “GAFCON bishops” who would certainly have been less satisfied with the format than the over 600 of us who were there.

Deep listening did indeed take place on all “sides” and a greater appreciation for one another’s ministry contexts and faithfulness was evident. Again, the Bible study and “indaba” conversation groups contributed hugely to this spirit.

Yet, in the closing plenary the Archbishop of Canterbury not only gave the floor to Metropolitan Kallistos, an English Orthodox ecumenical observer, who seemed to want us to reaffirm the 1998 Lambeth resolution I.10 on homosexuality, which Rowan Williams had already publicly stated we did not need to, nor would we, do. It remains what it is – a resolution of the last Lambeth Conference which undoubtedly reflects the position of the vast majority of Anglicans (or at least Anglican bishops) around the world.

And Dr. Williams himself once again singled us out – at least indirectly – as the source of the Anglican Communion’s difficulties with scarce reference to Provinces invading US dioceses, a process which began well before the election of the present Bishop of New Hampshire. The closing Eucharist and sermon at Canterbury Cathedral left a good deal to be desired, save a wonderful moment when the names of seven martyrs of the Melanesian Brotherhood were enshrined in the Cathedral’s “chapel of saints and martyrs of our own day” complete with a solemn procession and chanting of the Litany of the Saints by Melanesian monastics of several traditions. Deeply moving.

So, in some ways, we end as we began. The Episcopal Church is still in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and a full member of the Anglican Communion. We will continue to work with the “Windsor Continuation Process,” the development of some kind of Anglican Covenant,  and live for a time with moratoria on authorized rites for the blessing of same sex unions and consents to the election of non-celibate homosexual persons to the episcopate. We shall see if rogue bishops will live up to their part of the bargain by honoring the third moratorium on the crossing of diocesan borders illegally.

My prayer is that the bigger issues of evangelism and mission, poverty and the environment, ecumenical and inter-religious relations are given half as much attention by this Communion as our endless squabbling over homosexuality and the development of an “Anglican Covenant.” These things, at least, would bring joy to our Lord’s heart!         

In addition to the daily Bible studies, the daily Eucharist at 7:15 a.m. is a highlight of the Lambeth Conference for me. It is well attended and contains a brief “reflection” or homily on the Gospel we will be studying later in the Bible study groups.

There is a common outline of the Eucharist, following, I believe, the contemporary Church of England Common Praise and using rather familiar settings for the Kyrie, Sanctus, etc. But each day is different in that the Presider and other leaders are from the various Provinces of the Anglican Communion. And so we have Scripture read and prayers offered in the languages of Provinces from Canada to Brazil, from Japan to the Indian Ocean from Myanmar to Sudan. We say the Lord’s Prayer each day in the “pentecostal tongues” of our own languages, and it is beautiful. 

I think the attempt is to convey that, though we are no longer bound together by one Book of Common Prayer (if we ever were!),  there is a distinctive “Shape of the Liturgy” for Anglicans which is recognizable and comfortable even when “incarnated” in various culture and languages. For me, at least, this has worked pretty well. I still note a lack of women in worship leadership (so far, only one woman bishop — from Cuba — has “concelebrated” with her male diocesan) and only once has a deacon appeared at the Table. Surely we can do better than that!

It is encouraging to see how far renewal has spread in our worship around the globe. I serve as Bishop Visitor to the Community of Celebration (the old “Fisherfolk”) in Aliquippa, PA and I think they would be proud to see how the kind of blended and liturgically-sensitive mix of contemporary and traditional hymnody, guitars and drums and keyboard and flute and a small team of lead voices are so easily done these days.

Back in the 1960’s, at the Church of the Redeemer in Houston, I doubt that Graham and Betty Pulkingham and the others would ever have believed that this kind of praise could be “normative” worship at a Lambeth Conference of Bishops!

Praise the Lord!

As we begin the last week, as always, the Lambeth Conference is a mixed bag. The daily Bible studies and Eucharists are splendid, the “indaba” discussion groups less than successful. They are a “westernized version” of the African conversation model with way too much “process,” smaller group work and even newsprint! Some groups have rebelled a bit, but more of us are making the best of it with some minor alterations.

The “reflections” process will produce some kind of paper at the end of the Conference, but with the wide variety of topics and approaches, it’s hard to see how it will be anything but pretty bland and generic. Or, alternatively, sharp and hurtful to some. Not a good alternative.

The “Windsor Continuation Group” is the most problematic from my perspective. I could probably sign off on “the Covenant” (though we will not be asked to here) pretty much as is, with some simplification of the “process” steps in the Appendix, but the Windsor Continuation Group is tasked with managing things until the Covenant process is complete in several years time.

I have no real problem with the Communion-wide “Faith and Order Commission.” It is not intended (as the press had said) to be like the Vatican “Holy Office” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) with all kinds of powers to censure and discipline. It is simply the rolling together of the current International Anglican Doctrinal Commission and the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations (upon which I serve). 

I don’t think merging them is a great idea — there is more than enought theological and ecumenical work for both Commissions — but this has been a done deal for some time, partly because of the cost of both Commissions. We need some kind of clearing house to which to refer matters of doctrine and discipline for discussion. The fact that we have not had such a thing in the past is why The Episcopal Church did not do more “consultation” in matters theological dealing with issues of human sexuality years ago.

The suggested “Pastoral Forum” is more problematic. It’s to be chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and serve as an advisory group to the various Provinces when there are internal disputes and difficulties which affect the whole Communion. Such schemes have been tried (or at least floated) in recent years and have always failed. I’m not sure why this one will have any greater chance of success.

I believe we should ask everyone to do the best they can to honor the spirit of the Windsor Report while the Covenant process continues and ‘cut each other some slack’ until that time. All of us are working hard to maintain Communion while responding faithfully and fairly to our local contexts. That’s what Anglicanism is supposed to do and be, it seems to me.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision to have this a “non-legislative” Conference was a very wise one. If we were “voting” on such matters this week, we would leave here as divided and wounded as we were in 1998. As it is, we will discuss all the ‘hard issues,’ give our input, and leave the matter for cooler heads to digest and deal with through the “Covenant Design Group” and the “Windsor Continuation Group.”

As always, any final decision will have to come through our separate Provincial structures (in our case, General Convention) for a vote by all the people of God, not just bishops and Primates! Thank God for a Communion which is “episcopally-led” but finally “synodically-governed!”

A very interesting development in the dust-up with the Sudanese Archbishop calling for Gene Robinson’s resignation a couple of days ago. Rather than overreacting and making some public statement in response, many of us have engaged our Sudanese colleagues in Bible Study or indaba groups in conversation, and those of us who have companion diocese relations have sought out opposite numbers for deeper reflection.

Much misunderstanding has been cleared up, much deeper appreciation of one another’s contexts and perspectives. Do we now all agree? Nope. Is there a greater chance that we can learn to “give space” to one another and stay at the table for the sake of common mission and the common good? I think so. There’s still a week to go and lots can happen, but — at the halfway point — my sense is that the Lambeth Conference is unfolding just as planned. 

Those who want us to move along and address “the big issues” are surely deluded if they think our days this week talking about evangelism, social justice, and the environment were not really already addressing “the big issues” this church needs to be dealing with. 

The hundreds of signs we carried through the streets of London on Thursday dealing with poverty compared to the two signs I saw decrying homosexuality pretty accurately reflect the importance of the two issues…in God’s sight and ours.