[Rowan Williams]… has been warning some of his colleagues, he said, that “the underlying issue is not going to go away.” Acts and decisions by one province have an impact — and sometimes a cost — elsewhere, and it is “an illusion” to imagine otherwise. “If we’re going to be in any sense a global communion and not just the loosest possible federation of local churches, then not only do we have to ask about primacy, we have to ask about structures of responsibility.” And he detects “a very strong groundswell of opinion in many quarters” toward that conclusion.
Maybe, but the Episcopal church in the United States took no such global view when it ordained Gene Robinson to the episcopate. Indeed, the presiding bishop at the time, Frank Griswold, announced that “we thought it was a local matter.” For the American Anglicans, what they have done in ordaining Robinson, according to the procedures laid down in their church’s constitution, is a legitimate prophetic action in the cause of justice and human rights. They have always regarded themselves as the cutting edge of the communion, and since the foundation of their church in the wake of the American Revolution, have understood their General Convention to be juridically independent.
Williams, as always, sees both sides of the question. “I do accept that there are moments when people say, truth before unity. I understand why the Reformation happened, why in the 1930s the German church divided so violently, where the only unity that could have survived the acceptance of Hitler’s racial laws was a unity which absolutely undermined the integrity of the church.” He commented: “Clearly some people in the United States have seen this as that sort of moment. I don’t.”
It appears that a subscription is required to read the full article. The ability to see both sides may serve an academic, but it leads to failure for a leader. It is likely too late but Rowan must get off the fence. I also think his reference to the German Church in the 30’s was a poor choice. Then again, maybe it was deliberate?
I’ll read this when our print copy of the NCR arrives next week, but I just want to say that “schism” is the correct term. To what degree and to what extent remains to be seen.
RE # 1
In fairness, one should probably read the sentence immediately following: “Clearly some people in the United States have seen this as that sort of moment. I don’t.â€
Agreed, Bob – ECUSA’s actions have been schismatic.
Franz, do you think that “some people” is referring to reasserters or reappraisers-maybe some of both?
Two very powerful words – “I don’t”
+Rowan says: “If we’re going to be in any sense a global communion and not just the loosest possible federation of local churches . . . .” But the latter is precisely how many of us view the AC.
In which case, #7, there would be absolutely no reason that there could not be two Anglican provinces in the US.
#7, indeed, reappraisers believe and act like congregationalists. Why, then, continue the sham of pretending to want to be part of a worldwide Communion? Go your own way.
In reading Rowan Williams’ comments I am reminded of what Churchill said to Chamberlain after the Munich accords: “You had the choice between dishonor and war. You chose dishonor and now you shall have war.”
#9, I think you have it backwards. It is the reasserting clergy and their congregations that act like congregationalists when they vote to leave and try to take the property with them.
Rolling Eyes [#9] writes: “Why, then, continue the sham of pretending to want to be part of a worldwide Communion?”
The different factions seem to lack a shared understanding of what it means to be “in communion.”
Communion strikes me as a cousin-like relationship. My cousins’ families are always welcome in my home, and vice versa. But I doubt my cousins would refuse to attend a family reunion at which my family was present, just because they didn’t like it that my daughter wears her skirts above the knee, and my wife and I didn’t “make” her stop.
#4, The bishops and GC of TEC have made it very clear that the Church wishes to remain part of the Anglican Communion. It would be proper to call TEC schmatic if it rejected its place in the AC, but it has not. It is those who have split off from TEC who are behaving like schmatics. But, as usual, those in the schmatic minority claim that they are the true Church, the true Anglicans, holding “the faith once delivered,” even as they split and leave.
13 is right, ECUSA isn’t schismatic, just heterodox.