Fort Worth Reflections on the Alexandria Communiqué

My first reading of the Communiqué left me rather disappointed. I wanted to ask, “Is that all there is?” After hearing some of the comments made about the Alexandria meeting by GAFCON Primates, I have come to the conclusion that reading the Communiqué is not sufficient for understanding what actually transpired during the course of the meeting itself. Evidently the document released by the Primates does not tell the whole story. If Archbishops Greg Venables and Henry Orombi are encouraged and hopeful about what will come of all this, then so am I. Time will tell.

My second and third readings of the Communiqué reinforced my initial impression that we had heard all of this before and that there was not much new in what was being proposed. The idea of mediated conversations has been tried before, but I suppose there is no harm in trying again. Yes, we know there are “difficulties” and “concerns” about the possibility of parallel jurisdictions, but new challenges call for new solutions, and it can be done. There are precedents. So let the “professionally mediated conversation” begin at the earliest opportunity. But let there also be a halt to the litigation and law suits against all parties at the same time. How can we expect to resolve the impasse we are in when TEC still seeks to use the civil courts to eliminate all opposition?

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Anglican Primates, Episcopal Church (TEC), Primates Meeting Alexandria Egypt, February 2009, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Conflicts: Fort Worth

5 comments on “Fort Worth Reflections on the Alexandria Communiqué

  1. Chris Taylor says:

    A very thoughtful and reasoned response from Bishop Iker, but I would not have expected any less. Perhaps one of the starting points for the requested mediation is an undertaking by all parties to suspend litigation against all other parties to the mediation. I fear TEC is too committed to litigation at this point to suspend those actions, but it will be yet another opportunity they have to demonstrate how much they value the Communion and its wishes.

  2. texanglican says:

    Bishop Iker as spoken with his typical concision and clarity. I rejoice to hear that ACNA is still very much on track to be formed this summer.

  3. Ross says:

    Here’s a thought that just occurred to me:

    Say hypothetically that these “mediated conversations” take place. And suppose that at some point TEC said, “Here’s our offer: we’ll recognize you as a full-fledged province in the Anglican Communion — albeit one in a state of impaired communion with TEC — and strongly urge the rest of the Primates to also recognize you and the ACC to fast-track your petition. We’ll acknowledge that we fully recognize the orders of your clergy, again with the proviso of impaired communion between us. In return, you hand over all the property that’s in dispute and acknowledge that, at least for legal purposes, your dioceses are new constructs distinct from the Episcopal Church dioceses of which you used to be the diocesans. The lawsuits will then be dropped immediately.”

    How would you, as reasserters, respond to such an offer?

  4. Katherine says:

    #3, sounds like “Hand over the stuff and I’ll take the gun away from your head.” If the exiting parishes and dioceses are indeed such a small portion of TEC, why all this fuss about small troubles? Conservative Anglicans all over the country are starting from scratch, with no buildings, rectories, even communion supplies. In Ft. Worth, for example, liberals who don’t want to stay in the diocese are being offered, and granted, all their stuff — buildings, etc. I suspect that, as in Pittsburgh, there would be a willingness to allow some shared use of diocesan conference and camp facilities while the liberals get themselves on their feet.

    I don’t speak for anyone but myself, Ross, but your “solution” sounds asymmetrical and unjust.

  5. optimus prime says:

    #3 TEC doesn’t have the authority to grant the new province Communion status; Communion status must be decided by the whole Church … and as both the WCG report and the Primates made clear, there is no consensus on whether the new province could be recognized as a member of the Communion. Furthermore, the primates and bishops have expressed great worry that in fact granting parallel jurisdiction to an entity that has declared itself distinct due to theological differences will only create further fracturing pushing the Communion closer to Federal polity than it has already moved.

    There is a desire to fight for Communion polity amongst even the very conservative bishops. This does not mean acquiescing to liberal demands. It means being patient, courageous, wise, charitable and persevering by trusting in God’s providential work in history through the structures of our Church and not in the work of our own hands … and so acting not autonomously (as both liberals and conservatives have done), but waiting on the slow, but faithful movement of the whole Church as it seeks to make explicit and so strengthen its bonds of relationship for the purpose of engaging in common life and mission.

    If we continue to pull at the threads of our Communion by following TEC down the path of making autonomous decisions about how we will engage with the Communion (note: the new province has not been granted membership and so technically doesn’t have the ability to do this anyway), we will become a federation of independent bodies much like the hundreds or perhaps even thousands of other federated denominations; another similar choice in the market place of Churches.

    We really need to decide, as the ABC has said, whether we want to be a Communion or whether people want to go their own ways and be a federation. A Communion of Churches cannot be sustained if people are going to continue to make autonomous choices. Has the Communion been broken? Yes it most certainly has as a result of the actions of TEC and the ACoC. Let us not continue to tear it apart by forming new entities. One cannot escape God’s judgment of the Church by moving to a new province; this is not the story Scripture tells. Christ stayed in communion with those who betrayed and abandoned him, who mocked and killed him; he did not stray from this call and he faced the same judgment as the rest of the world. It is by living in this way that we have life. Were we not called to do the same? Why should we think it more truthful to walk away from those we believe to be sinners; this is not the way of Christ. Furthermore, who is a sinner? Aren’t we all? And is that not for God to judge?

    So what then is the point of creating a new province? While it might make us feel more righteous, in fact, we might think it to be doing God’s will. But God’s will is not discerned by individuals (a point that people are repeatedly attempting to get across to liberals); rather it is discerned across time by the whole Church subject to the limitations of common teaching, actions and decision-making. We cannot walk apart from common council and remain a Communion because a Communion is defined by its ‘common’ discernment of Scripture across time.

    Has TEC and the ACoC strayed from this and created great disarray? Of course they have. But we have a choice in how we address the issue. Our salvation is not dependent upon getting our theology right (thank goodness!). We are not somehow contaminated, though we may stumble … but that is the walk of faith. So these are not the issues. The issue is one of mission. The constant mission of seeking God’s will through common discernment of Scripture across time and proclaiming it to an ever changing world.

    We have before us, in the Covenant, a way to move forward in discerning Scripture and proclaiming it to the world with ‘one mind.’ The Covenant makes explicit the relationships that have sustained the Communion in a conciliar polity of common counsel for much of the Communion’s existence. The Covenant defines what it means to be in relationship, what the purposes of those relationship are, and the common life required for carrying those purposes out. It is not a document of propositional faith statements that fails to transpose the meaning of Scripture to a world constantly in flux, nor does it create a centralized legislative authority that often fails to heed God’s gift of quickening and so reform. There are plenty of Church options out there if people feel those models of polity are preferable.

    It will most certainly require trust in God, courage and perseverance to stand in an ailing Church (but what Church isn’t ailing) while awaiting God’s work in reforming it to his purposes. But this is what we are called to; it is the Christiform life. The Communion has a particular gift to bring to the wider Christian Church; one of setting ourselves in a patient and humble posture of receipt by which we heed God’s call to repentance and reform. A posture through which God can break through and make visible his will to all nations. Let us not turn our backs on this calling.