Anglicans in Tanzania - A Second Opinion

I posted last about my pessimistic appraisal of the Communique coming out of the meeting of Anglicans in Tanzania. It seems more informed persons than I would offer a different view.

One lengthy article was penned by David Virtue, who as always has a significant amount of information on his news site. He opened with this:

A new day has dawned," said Rwanda Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini to VOL over breakfast at the White Sands Hotel as he reflected on a newly minted communiqué. "You see, it will come out all right," he said with a huge irrepressible smile. "

But is there discipline in the document," I argued back. "It's there, you have to look for it, but it is there," he said, smiling broadly."

We came very close to separation," said Southern Cone Archbishop Gregory Venables of this weekend's meeting of global Anglican leaders, "but Biblical doctrine and behavior have been affirmed as the norms in the Anglican Church," he told First Things magazine.



To hear that the conservative bishops from the Global South are smiling is indeed good news. There was apparently agreement to press silence, which was for the most part upheld during the conference. The Bishops are speaking now, and they are optimiistic. Virtue outlined a number of key points that resulted from the conference, among them:

* The Episcopal Church had created tensions so deep that it had torn the fabric of the communion, irreparably. In other words, the fault lay with the revisionism of the Episcopal church, not with the conservatives who chose not to go along.

* The Windsor Report did NOT see a "moral equivalence" between the TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada's challenge to the standard of teaching on human sexuality articulated in the 1998 Lambeth resolution 1:10 and cross-boundary intervention. This affirms that the offering of alternate oversight to consevative congregations and diocese by Global South Bishops was acceptable under the circumstances of doctrinal error. It is undesirable for bishops to cross jurisdictional lines, but in this case was permissible.

* The episcopal ministry of a person living in a same-sex relationship is not acceptable to the majority of the Communion. A strong statement, but could be even stronger, in my view.

* The Archbishop of Canterbury said there was no theological consensus about same sex unions...."therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorization of such rites." Again, I fear that "consensus" is a word that could be wiggled around in this case, but still a strong statement.

* Recognition that a number of Episcopal dioceses and bishops could not accept the primacy of Dr. Schori and requested alternative primatial oversight from the ABC.

* The Episcopal Church had to make the first move to "healing and reconciliation".

There were other positive responses. More than one source published an Inteview with Conservative American Bishop Robert Duncan.

There was also a quite positive assessment by Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi, who noted:

1. The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention
2. The House of Bishops of TEC needs to make a statement that all its members will definitely NOT consent to the consecration of any person as a Bishop who is living in a same-sex union

A behind the scenes blow by blow was published in VirtueOnline by Canon Gary L'Hommedieu. It recounted the confusion and concern when it was seen that "There was to be no formal discipline of TEC for precipitating the catastrophe of 2003 in approving the election of V. Gene Robinson."

But noting what else was in the document, there were positives that only became apparent with further study, hidden treasures, such as: "the American dissidents in the AMiA, CANA, the Anglican Communion Network, along with their overseas allies and sponsors, were vindicated. The purported notion of a parity between sexual sin and canonical irregularity was blasted by the Primates directly."

Regarding where the teeth are: "The teeth are in the closing section, 'On Clarifying the Response to Windsor', which puts the American Presiding Bishop in an excruciating position. It falls to her to convene the American House of Bishops and draft an "unequivocal common covenant" indicating conformity to the recommendations of the Primates Communiqué. As far as Windsor goes, it falls to Schori to draw from her bishops a credible pledge that a) no rites of blessing of same sex union will be approved; and b) any gay candidate nominated for the episcopate will be refused confirmation. The Communiqué voices its understanding that such pledges will be made credible only by consistent action which will be subject to close and constant scrutiny.

In short, these conservative sources believe that if the TEC fails to live up to the demands of Biblical teaching on sexuality and hide behind creative hermeneutics, they will be quietly relegated to the back porch at best and booted at worst. Many feel that the TEC will not comply and will form their own liberal organization.

I think of Thomas Oden's book, "Turning Around the Mainline" as I look at this situation. An attempt has been made to bring discipline without fragmenting the entire denomination. Instead of the conservatives leaving and forming a new body, the conservatives stayed and battled for both truth and unity. It appears to many that they may be on the verge of success.

I hope so. I still have concerns. I still wish Gene Robinson had been asked to step down. I wish the disciplinary actions had already come to pass. I wish no conservative Anglican had to have any association whatever with heretical bishops for even one more day. But, as one Anglican Priest told me, it took nearly a century to defeat the Arian heresy and many times the battle looked lost. Perhaps there is something for staying in for the long haul. Time will tell.