Conservative Anglicans in the United States and Canada said Friday that they intended to proceed immediately with plans to create their own branch of the Anglican Communion, separate from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, despite warnings from the archbishop of Canterbury that winning official recognition could take years.
“This is not being put on hold while we wait for a committee in England to tell us which form to fill out,” said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for Bishop Robert Duncan, who led a majority of churches in the Diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church this year and is to become the archbishop and primate of the new province.
Theological conservatives representing a collection of breakaway dioceses, parishes and church networks announced Wednesday in Wheaton, Ill., the creation of a new province called the Anglican Church in North America. Despite serious differences among them, they are united in their condemnation of what they call the Episcopal Church’s drift to the left, most significantly its decision five years ago to consecrate an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.
Read it all. Please note: be very careful with this story and its coverage this week. The New York Times article incorrectly states “on Thursday, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, warned the conservatives to slow down.” He did no such thing. As in many recent situations, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said nothing (indeed his silence has been deafening on numerous recent North American developments including this one). I defy you to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website and find anything he has said on this matter.
Ah, but there’s more. Where did the New York Times get the impression that the Archbishop of Canterbury had said anything? From the Episcopal News Service, most probably. And why?
On Friday, ENS ran a story which claimed that “A statement from Lambeth Palace” had been issued. What are we to make of this? Well, said statement is not on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website nor (that I can find) on the Anglican Communion Service website. Hmm. Is it actually a statement from Lambeth Palace. Well, actually, er, no.
Why do I say this? First, because the Church Times blog, which certainly knows the Church of England situation in some depth, in response to the ENS story says (read this very carefully please): It would be good to hear directly from Lambeth Palace before reading too much into this. Got that? There is more. What is the real original source of this idea? Why, another ENS story (and why, one has to ask, are all these stories about the Church of England running on ENS but not English sources?). And if you read it carefully, what does this story say? Well, in spite of its misleading headline, actually it is a statement from “a spokesperson for Archbishop of Canterbury” Got that? It is a person at Lambeth Palace, and, wonder of wonders, we do not even know his or her name (I wonder why).
If you find all this a bit confusing, welcome to the world of English bureacracy, where what is said and who says it and how it is interpreted are all in play to send various signals, and where all these signals are sought to be played by many various parties involved. If I were preparing someone to understand this world, multiple episodes of “Yes Minister” would be required viewing–KSH.