For the first time in recent memory, Anglican conservatives have something to cheer about. Ever since the Episcopal Church’s general convention in June, things have been moving rapidly in the Anglican world, and this past week was no exception. There were not one but two events sure to shape the future of Anglican polity and doctrine, following fast on the heels of a major statement by Rowan Williams , Archbishop of Canterbury. But instead of the almost obligatory gloominess of conservatives in response to, well, any significant action of their church, there is today a powerful sense of hope among many of the Anglican faithful, thanks to the long-awaited convergence of Canterbury, the Global South, and a substantial number of orthodox American bishops.
When Paul Zahl, dean of the evangelical Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry , says that the past week has been "jumping-up-and-down terrific," one knows that things may at last be looking up. Of course, a certain amount of unpleasantness and uncertainty remains, seeing as it has become more necessary, not less, for liberals and conservatives in the Episcopal Church to effect some degree of ecclesial separation. There is no guarantee that this process will be amicable, but should it be carried off in a manner befitting Christians (that is, in a spirit of peace and mutual respect), a strong case can be made that we Anglicans, finally, have reason to hope for the future of our church.
The case for hope starts with Abp. Williams’ pastoral letter of September 15 , addressed to the global primates. Just as in his previous letter to the primates , Williams affirmed the orthodox theological position on sexual ethics, recognizing it to be the mind of the Communion. Likewise, Williams duly noted that the actions of the Episcopal Church in convention could at best be called a "mixed response" to the requests of the Communion, thus posing some "very challenging questions" for the upcoming primates’ meeting in February. At the same time, the archbishop cautioned conservatives against impatient and hasty actions that could lead to further schism. There is, he warned, no "rapid short-term solution" to the current crisis capable of bypassing the need for Communion-wide discernment. The long-term solution, however, he made quite clear by his appointment of Archbishop Drexel Gomez, a conservative primate from the West Indies, to chair the forthcoming Anglican Covenant design group. It bodes very well indeed for Anglican identity that the Covenant, which will ultimately become a condition of full Communion membership, is to be overseen by a primate committed both to theological orthodoxy and Communion unity. And, not least, it bodes well that the Archbishop of Canterbury firmly wishes that it should be so.
Viewed as a whole, Archbishop Williams’ actions and words can only be seen as positive from the perspective of those who hope to see the catholic substance of Anglicanism preserved. The Church of England is quite clearly not willing to give up either her children or her heritage, and while many conservatives have been understandably impatient at the seemingly glacial progress of Canterbury, it must not be forgotten that Williams is unable to jump ahead of decisions that can ultimately be made only by the entire Communion. Canterbury moves slowly by its very nature, but the irrevocable logic of the Covenant process guarantees its forward motion. So long as the majority of the Communion is dedicated to the preservation of Anglican catholicity and identity¯and it is¯the time will come, and soon, when the Covenant’s promise of mutual ecclesial subjectivity will entrust orthodoxy to that upon which it has always depended¯the Spirit-guided sensus fidei of the whole body of believers, living prayerfully under the authority of Scripture.
The next, and perhaps the best, reason for hope is the recently adjourned meeting of the Global South primates in Kigali, Rwanda. The Kigali statement has been cheered by many American conservatives for its forthright clarity, as well as for its Communion orientation. Many observers, taking notice of the often brash and seemingly impatient statements of the Nigerian primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, have feared that the Global South was irrevocably and incorrigibly determined to cut itself off from the "cancerous lump" of the entire Anglo-Saxon world and set up its own Canterbury in Abuja. But these fears, however reasonable, have not been borne out by reality. The Global South is not a monolith, and any action it takes must be able to triangulate between stridently conservative Nigeria on the one hand and liberal-leaning South Africa on the other. The Kigali communiqué bears the marks of this moderation, which has produced a document that does not advocate separatism but instead a firm commitment to theological orthodoxy and the fullest possible level of Communion unity. The Global South primates have responded favorably to Canterbury’s appointment of Archbishop Gomez to chair the Covenant design group, clearly signaling that they do not intend to leave the table but rather intend to work within the Communion to preserve the Anglican identity that truly has become their own.
From the perspective of the Episcopal Church, the most significant part of the statement is its forthright recognition that Katharine Jefferts Schori , ECUSA’s presiding bishop¯elect, will simply not be seen as representative of the American church by many primates, and for many others will be seen as only imperfectly so. The Global South primates are quite blunt: Because Bishop Schori cannot represent the American dioceses and parishes that have decided to remain fully with the Communion, it will likely become necessary for another bishop to represent the Windsor dioceses and parishes of the Episcopal Church. Furthermore, the primates state that this reality will in some form necessitate the formation of a separate ecclesial grouping that ultimately will be recognized as the Lambeth Conference (that is, first-tier Anglican) church in the United States. Significantly, the primates did not say what this ecclesial grouping will look like: While they could have requested a separate province, they did not do so. Instead, the door remains open for the recognition of a separately recognized group within the existing Episcopal Church. Of course, any such grouping would have to be meaningful in order to work, providing a genuinely safe space and recognizable body for those dioceses and parishes that intend to remain in full communion with the wider Anglican world. The Global South primates are clear-eyed in their recognition that a large portion of the Episcopal Church has not and will not comply with Communion teaching, which for them would mean reversing doctrinal positions they see to be fundamental. To the Global South it is absolutely plain, as indeed it should be, that if they are to recognize some portion of the American church as Windsor-compliant, there must be something in place to recognize.
It is precisely this that the Episcopal bishops who met last week in Camp Allen, Texas, are beginning to represent. While some conservatives have been rather less than enthusiastic about the meeting’s outcome, most have seen it as hopeful. Perhaps most significant was the meeting’s size¯the Camp Allen statement was signed by twenty-one diocesan bishops, which is a number that many expect to grow in the coming months to eventually comprise more than a quarter of ECUSA dioceses. The bishops quite clearly stated their firm intention to remain in full communion with Canterbury, while at the same time remaining a "faithful and dynamic witness within the Episcopal Church." Alongside both Canterbury and the Global South in stating what by now has become the obvious, they recognized that a large part of ECUSA has not and will not decide to remain with the Communion by affirming Windsor and the Covenant process.
The Camp Allen bishops, simply put, represent the sizeable portion of the Episcopal Church that does not want to walk away from Canterbury and the rest of the Anglican world. For that, they again state the obvious in saying that these dioceses and parishes "need a safe space within which to live out the integrity of their faith in compliance with the Windsor Report." The bishops plan to meet again before the global primates’ meeting in February, and there is little doubt that this meeting will include a decision concerning episcopal representation of the Windsor dioceses among the primates.
Of course, there are problems that still loom in the horizon. The forthcoming separation of the Episcopal Church will no doubt step on some toes, as it will require everyone involved (not just liberals) to make difficult compromises. If liberal bishops will have to give up a certain amount of episcopal control of Windsor parishes in their dioceses, then conservative bishops will have to do the same for non-Windsor parishes currently in their own care. If liberal bishops will have to live with a presiding bishop who no longer holds the status of primate in the global Communion, then conservatives will have to live with a presiding bishop who does not represent them. Conservatives will not be happy about certain resolutions made by General Convention, and liberals will not be happy that conservatives will view the convention as subservient to Communion teaching.
There will have to be compromises all round, but it is undoubtedly time for people of goodwill on all sides to recognize that they must be made. The alternative is schism, endless legal battles, acrimonious fights over property and pensions, and distraction from the work of the church. Surely, both liberals and conservatives should regard this as anathema: Neither side would be able to carry on the true ministry of the gospel, which liberals and conservatives alike agree is "to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ." If Anglicans cannot work for unity within their own body, how can they witness to it in the world? The point has finally arrived for separation, precisely for the sake of unity in faithfulness to the Gospel.
The Episcopal Church cannot cast aside a full quarter of its dioceses without tearing itself irreparably asunder, and Windsor-affirming dioceses cannot do without a safe space in which to live out the integrity of their faith. Windsor bishops do not want a war, nor are they asking for a divorce: They simply want a separation, and a truce. Added together, the convergence of Canterbury, the Global South, and the Camp Allen bishops make a powerful case for hope among the Anglican faithful, but that hope has still not yet passed over into assurance. Christians of goodwill look now to the bishops of the Episcopal Church in hope and prayer that they will demonstrate to the world the fruits of the Spirit: love, peace, patience, gentleness, faith, meekness, and self-control. In this, there is still hope that Anglicans will serve as witnesses to the coming day when all members of Christ’s body will truly, as our Lord prayed, be one.
