The Archbishop Reflects on General Convention

     I am an unashamed fan of the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. His words in Ray of Darkness opened to me the generosity with which I can accept differing points of view and paradox; Rowan’s book Ponder These Things gave me a new appreciation of iconography; it was his book Where God Happens that led me through the desert of a friend of mine being in an Emergency Ward at the local hospital and the subsequent surgery. This is just a partial list of the impact this good man has had on my own theology through his writings. I once joked that if Rowan Williams were a rock star, I would be one of the groupies throwing my collar up on stage.

     On Monday, the Archbishop responded to The Episcopal Church’s latest actions at General Convention in Anaheim, California. Although mentioning other important business accomplished there, the focus was clearly on two resolutions: D025 entitled “Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion” and C056 entitled “Liturgies for Blessings”. The letter is divided into twenty-six convenient bite-sized sections.

     At the beginning, he recognizes the Episcopal Church’s honest desire to remain a part of the Anglican Communion.

No-one could be in any doubt about the eagerness of the Bishops and Deputies of the Episcopal Church at the General Convention to affirm their concern about the wider Anglican Communion.

     He then goes on to state the honest reality that these resolutions will, in all likelihood still increase anxiety. Letters had been written by our Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies, (Re. D025 and re. C056) reassuring the Archbishop that despite the resolutions, there were no major changes forthcoming – we were simply following our own canons and studying same-sex blessings. In addition, a paper now known as the “Anaheim Statement” was put forward by the Bishop of West Texas in which some bishops, including Nevada’s, stated they would honor the moratoria and would engage in the ongoing Covenant process. The Archbishop, with perhaps a clearer sense of the mood of the Convention, disposed of both overtures in two concise sentences in section 2:

The repeated request for moratoria on the election of partnered gay clergy as bishops and on liturgical recognition of same-sex partnerships has clearly not found universal favour, although a significant minority of bishops has just as clearly expressed its intention to remain with the consensus of the Communion. The statement that the Resolutions are essentially 'descriptive' is helpful, but unlikely to allay anxieties.

     It is in Sections 5 and 6, the Archbishop states the issue has absolutely nothing to do with civil rights or human dignity or how valued gays are in the church. He even steps aside to apologize for times when the church has been an instrument of prejudice. Rowan then claims the only issue is the question of blessing same-sex unions and its implications should one become a priest or a bishop.

     To say this has nothing to do with “respecting the dignity of every human being” expressed in our Baptismal Covenant is at the very least naïve. This is a very real and personal issue that addresses who we are, whom we love, how we answer God’s call to service, and whether the church values all members. The Archbishop finely-tuned legalistic reasoning allows him to somehow split the value of human beings away from how he talks about them, their relationships, and their vocations. Real human beings do not separate quite so gracefully into neatly compartmentalized segments like some kind of Florida grapefruit.

     The Archbishop goes on to say that changes in how we have traditionally understood Christianity need to have biblical exegesis and broad consensus among churches. I guess the only questions are how much exegesis and how broad a consensus? As a first-rate theologian, Rowan must be aware of the many fine exegetical efforts that have already been accomplished, but if he were not, certainly he is aware of his own conclusions:

"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had the about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness." - The Telegraph, Aug. 6, 2008

     Three times, the Archbishop refers to being gay as a “lifestyle” choice, as though lifetime committed partnerships were of no more gravity than whether one chooses to decorate the living room in Art Deco versus Classic Americana. It must be inferred from this that Rowan is also able to ignore the vast majority of scientific findings that sexual orientation is innate.

     So how broad does the consensus have to be? Rowan states, “What affects the communion of all should be decided by all.” Oddly, after finding serious fault with the Archbishop’s reflections on human dignity and gay partnerships, I am chagrined to find I agree with him to a degree. It’s doubtful anyone thinks allowing “local” entities to make arbitrary decisions about the fundamental nature of Christianity is a good idea; this is the reason for the Episcopal church’s very Episcopate and representative General Convention. There needs to be leadership and consensus. What the Archbishop refers to as “local churches,” however, is not some place like my dad’s hometown of Parkdale, Oregon deciding to go off down a rabbit trail, but the collective wisdom of entire national churches: the United States, Canada, Scotland, and New Zealand among them. So, he waits for even broader consensus to somehow magically appear, before he can follow his own beliefs and become a leader. He fails to see that broader consensus often comes from leadership.

     Sadly, the letter ends resigned to the possibility of a two-tier church of those who sign on to a future covenant with its exclusionary language, and those who won’t. The Archbishop tries to put the best face on it, by saying it might be a great opportunity, but from bitter experience, we know what it really means when all the kids on the bus who look alike and agree on everything move to the front and those who are different are left in the back. Whatever he intended, this doesn’t sound like the Gospel to me.

     I believe the Archbishop to be a deeply good and honest man. I also believe that in his attempt to preserve unity, he is only preserving a vanishing status quo. It is hard to be disappointed by one’s heroes. Guess I’ll have to hold onto his concert tickets a bit longer and keep my collar on.

     You can read the Archbishop of Canterbury’s entire letter entitled “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” at his website: The Archbishop of Canterbury