[Ed. Note: The Archbishop's letter is posted in entirety at the end of this analysis. Cheryl M. Wetzel]
http://stillonpatrol.typepad.com/still_on_patrol/2007/10/another-batch-o.html
October 21, 2007
Although some have tried to hail his statements as a great thing, a recent letter from Archbishop Rowan Williams to Bishop John Howe of Central Florida strikes me as further muddy-ing the waters regarding the future of orthodox Anglicans in the global Communion.
Abp. Williams has stated to Bp. Howe that: "...any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor." He later said that the orthodox "need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the 'national church'."
So, now we are to understand that each individual American Diocese is considered to have separate membership in the Anglican Communion? If this is the case, why is there an 815 and a TCGC with a General Convention? Why is there a Provincial Primate, i.e., TCGC's Presiding Bishop, and why does she wield such power? Why are there national Constitution and Cannons to which 815 demand each parish pay fealty? Why does TCGC purport to set theology and policy for the entire American Church? Why is there a national Chancellor who is directing litigation in several individual Dioceses which is being funded by the national Church? And why are all pledges and donations to individual parishes in part being transmitted to TCGC by way of so-called "fair-share" giving?
If the Archbishop is right, let's sell 815, fire Schori and the entire staff in New York, and each Diocese do its own thing. Of course, this solution still abandons the thousands of orthodox Anglicans who are trapped in Diocese with liberal Bishops. It still offers the orthodox who are not in Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth, Quincy, San Joaquin, or Western Louisiana little or no alternative than to either leave TCGC individually for another denomination, or leave as separate parishes and enter litigation with TCGC.
++Williams' criticism of "separatist solutions" and this statement: "Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision" are also quite misplaced and grievously in error to whatever extent he wants to maintain Anglican unity. The orthodox have had no choice but to "take refuge in foreign jurisdictions" because NO ONE, including ++Williams, have offered the American orthodox any refuge, any protection, any pastoral care or oversight, nor any assistance in our struggles against TCGC.
It was only once courageous Primates such as ++Akinola, ++Orombi, and others were willing to step outside their own jurisdictions that the orthodox in America began to feel some hope and some voice in the affairs of the Communion. Much as the French were invaluable in aiding the Colonists in the American Revolution, these Primates have been instrumental in showing a way out from under the ruthless oppression of TCGC of any conservative opposition. That anyone is "embittered" was caused first and foremost by the Anglican Communion failing to take any action to enforce its own theological pronouncements, and by TEC, in its alleged quest for "inclusion", abjectly excluding anyone who disagrees with its "innovations."
I find no encouragement in ++Williams' letter to +Howe. Instead, I find only more prevarication in trying to re-cast the alignment and relationships between various hierarchical levels of TCGC. Provide some real, clear, direct answers to my questions above if what you say is true. This looks to me like an effort to grasp and hold onto departing Dioceses and parishes to be able to subject them to more of the wearing-down of the "listening process" as opposed to losing them outright. It is the old bait-and-switch game - "stay in TCGC and you can have autonomy at the Diocesan level." Sorry, Archbishop, but no sale, at least not until you take some concrete steps to discipline TCGC and give the orthodox some realistic relief. Until then, its just another batch of fudge.
14 October 2007
Dear John
I've just received your message, which weighs very heavily on my heart, as it must - though far more so - on yours. At this stage, I can say only two things. The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church's status, and I can't easily short-circuit that procedure. The second is that your Rectors need to recognize that this process is currently in train and that a separatist decision from them at this point would be irresponsible and potentially confusing. However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I've said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned. Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.
Do feel free to pass on these observations to your priests. I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the 'national church'. I think that if more thought in these terms there might be more understanding of why priests in a diocese such as yours ought to maintain their loyalty to their sacramental communion with you as Bishop. But at the emotional level I can understand something of the frustration they doubtless experience, just as you must.
With continuing prayers and love,
+Rowan
