AnglicansUnited.com

[Ed. Note: This is a long article and an excellent read. It caps the last decade of tyranny and tears in the Anglican Communion, the attempts at self-governance and the diabolical methods taken to keep the Communion "receptive" to anything TEC wants to do. An excellent bibliography at the end of the piece makes it even more valuable. I have always appreciated Dr. Noll's ability to explain and comment. This piece is no exception. Cheryl M. Wetzel]

tip of the Hat to: VirtueOnline.org

Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Posted by David Virtue on 2010/8/2 18:00:00

Communion Governance: The Role and Future of the Historic Episcopate and the Anglican Communion Covenant

By the Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll,
August 2, 2010

If an Anglican space traveler making periodic stops on earth were to check on the affairs of the Anglican Communion, he might find himself surprised and confused. On his last visit to earth in 1998, he noted that the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops had passed by an overwhelming majority a Resolution on Human Sexuality, stating that:

[This Conference] in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; reject[s] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture; [and] cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions. (1)

Summoned on business in other parts of the solar system with no internet access, the space traveler returns in 2009 and finds to his amazement the following headlines in his inbox:
“Gay Bishop Elected in New Hampshire USA”
“Global South Churches Break Ties with North America”
“Episcopal Church Elects Radical Candidate as Presiding Bishop”
“260 Anglican Bishops Boycott Lambeth, Attend Conference in Jerusalem”
“Episcopal Bishops and Priests Defrocked for ‘Abandoning Communion’”
“Episcopal Congregations Forced Out of Beloved Parish Buildings”
“Dissident Anglicans Form New Church in North America”
“Pope Provides Safe Haven for Dispirited Anglicans”
“Lesbian Elected Bishop in Los Angeles, USA”
Our space traveler, being a rather traditional sort of Anglican, is dumbfounded. “How could this be? I thought the Anglican Church had made up its mind on this matter. What happened in the twelve years I was away?”

***

The well-publicized crisis in the Anglican Communion has various dimensions. Above all, it is a crisis of truth, the truth of the gospel – that is, of open denial of that truth. The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) declared that there are three “undeniable facts” underlying this crisis: (2)
• The first fact is the acceptance and promotion within the provinces of the Anglican Communion of a different ‘gospel’ (cf. Galatians 1:6-8) which is contrary to the apostolic gospel.
The second and third facts derive from the first. It is the duty of the church and its bishops to guard the faith against those who would deny it (2 Timothy 1:14).
• The second fact is the declaration by provincial bodies in the Global South that they are out of communion with bishops and churches that promote this false gospel.

Anglican bishops and churches have exercised this sad duty one by one, or in larger groupings like GAFCON, but the Communion as a whole has failed to follow through with effective discipline.

• The third fact is the manifest failure of the Communion Instruments to exercise discipline in the face of overt heterodoxy.
The method of the present essay is to review the failure of Communion governance, especially since 1998, and to ask whether the problem has to do with the persons in leadership or with the constitutional order itself. I shall argue that bishops-in-council – the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting – who are the guardians of Communion doctrine and discipline, have exercised uneven authority to date but are the proper instrument to restore order to the Communion. Finally, I ask whether the Anglican Communion Covenant can be an effective part of a reformation of Communion governance.

I describe the performance of the Global South bishops and Primates in Communion governance as a tide which has ebbed and flowed over recent years. In particular, they have risen to the occasion in crises at Lambeth 1998 and again in 2003 with the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson but then have seen their influence subside after the immediate crisis has passed. I argue that their diminished status may become permanent, with the most recent top-down reordering of Communion structures, unless they stand firm for a conciliar role under an effective Covenant.

Setting the Scene: The Instruments of Communion

In order to understand the course of recent Anglican events, it is necessary to identify the key players or entities involved. Here is the description of the “Instruments of Communion” found in the latest version of the Covenant (§3.1.4): (3)

I. We accord the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the bishop of the See of Canterbury with which Anglicans have historically been in communion, a primacy of honour and respect among the college of bishops in the Anglican Communion as first among equals (primus inter pares). As a focus and means of unity, the Archbishop gathers and works with the Lambeth Conference and Primates’ Meeting, and presides in the Anglican Consultative Council.

II. The Lambeth Conference expresses episcopal collegiality worldwide, and brings together the bishops for common worship, counsel, consultation and encouragement in their ministry of guarding the faith and unity of the Communion and equipping the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4.12) and mission.

III. The Anglican Consultative Council is comprised of lay, clerical and episcopal representatives from our Churches. It facilitates the co-operative work of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, co-ordinates aspects of international Anglican ecumenical and mission work, calls the Churches into mutual responsibility and interdependence, and advises on developing provincial structures.

IV. The Primates’ Meeting is convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury for mutual support, prayer and counsel. The authority that primates bring to the meeting arises from their own positions as the senior bishops of their Provinces, and the fact that they are in conversation with their own Houses of Bishops and located within their own synodical structures. In the Primates’ Meeting, the Primates and Moderators are called to work as representatives of their Provinces in collaboration with one another in mission and in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

It is the responsibility of each Instrument to consult with, respond to, and support each other Instrument and the Churches of the Communion. Each Instrument may initiate and commend a process of discernment and a direction for the Communion and its Churches.

The “four Instruments of Communion” gained quasi-canonical status with the “Virginia Report” of 1996, which was received by the Lambeth Conference in 1998.(4) The Report itself raised questions about the functioning and inter-relationship of these entities, a view repeated in the 2004 Windsor Report. It is my contention that not only are the lines of authority between Instruments unclear but that they are indeed “instruments” in an ongoing power struggle – one which reflects the division theologically between liberals and traditionalists and regionally between England and North America over against the Global South. The outcome of this struggle will affect the future shape of the Communion.

A Decade in Retrospect: A Tale of Two Lambeths

This section of the essay takes the form of a narrative of just over a decade. The bookends of this decade are the Lambeth Conferences of 1998 and 2008, the main councils of bishops of the Communion. A casual observer of Anglican history might be inclined to see the succession of Lambeth Conferences from 1867 to 2008 as a remarkable sign of continuity: the same ten-year intervals; same place, Canterbury; the same host, the Archbishop; the same players, all bishops of the various Provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion. This view, however, obscures what are in fact striking contrasts between the two most recent assemblies.

• The plans of the Communion bureaucracy to accommodate the innovators in the Episcopal Church were overturned at Lambeth 1998, leading to a result – Resolution I.10 – that left the planners speechless.(5) The plans for a non-confrontational Lambeth 2008, on the other hand, were executed with only token opposition – if one discounts the silence of two hundred absent bishops!(6)
• The Global South bishops asserted their will successfully for the first time in Lambeth history in 1998.(7) In 2008, many Global South bishops were absent and the influence of those who were present did not make a mark.(8)
• Lambeth 1998 will be forever known for Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality; Lambeth 2008 will be known for “indaba.”(9) Resolution I.10, while balancing doctrinal clarity and pastoral sensitivity, was seen by all as “a surprisingly trenchant verdict.”(10) In 2008, Abp. Williams opened the conference by renouncing the issuing of resolutions on grounds that “you’ll find that many of them, on really important subjects, have never been acted upon.”(11) Instead, Lambeth 2008 produced a 41-page collation of various views from the small groups and listeners.(12)
• Lambeth 1998 made a number of strong appeals to biblical authority, defined marriage “in view of the teaching of Scripture,” and rejected homosexual practice as “incompatible with Scripture.”(13) In 2008, the Lambeth Indaba balanced references to the “reliability of God’s Word” with the “context” and “culture” in which the Word is heard, and admitted only that homosexuality “conflicts with the long tradition of Christian moral teaching,” with no mention of Scripture itself.
• At Lambeth 1998, the driving force behind Resolution I.10 came from bishops and Primates, with Abp. George Carey speaking up for it at a critical moment. Lambeth 2008 was dominated by the Abp. Rowan Williams, who led the three-day pre-conference retreat and gave three presidential speeches before, during and after the Conference.
• Lambeth 1998 endorsed earlier Lambeth Resolutions about the “enhanced role of the Primates.”(14) Lambeth 2008 expressed “much discomfort” with the role of the Primates, suggesting they should stick to their own provincial business and serve only in supporting the Archbishop of Canterbury.(15)

In order to explain the striking differences between Lambeth 1998 and Lambeth 2008, one has to know what transpired between these two plenary meetings, especially in meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, which are the bodies that normally carried forward the decisions and business of the Communion between Lambeth Conferences.

Discipline Falls to the Primates, and Fails

Passage of Resolution I.10 was a hard-fought battle, contested up to the last day by the liberal bishops and Conference organizers but finally commended by Abp. George Carey himself. In the end, it passed with 528 bishops voting Aye. It was probably the first time in the history of the Lambeth Conference that bishops had divided over a major matter of moral doctrine, major in the sense of referring to homosexual practice as “incompatible with Scripture.”(16) For this reason, passage of the Resolution raised the critical question: would the 70 bishops who voted No on the Resolution accept the judgment of the Conference and urge their people to conform to this judgement, or would they invoke regional autonomy and continue on their stated path? The answer came quickly, as many North American bishops returned home and immediately denounced the Resolution and stated that they would not be bound by it.(17)

The need for follow-up, for discipline of dissenting churches, was inherent in the language of the Resolution. If the Church called a certain behaviour contrary to God’s will and some of its leaders openly taught and acted to the contrary, the credibility of the church was put on the line. At this point, Abp. Carey disappointed the expectations of many who appreciated his role at Lambeth by asking for further dialogue rather than for conformity from those who dissented from Resolution I.10. So the burden of discipline shifted to the Primates, most of whom came from the Global South.

By 1998, the role of the Primates as overseers of Communion doctrine and discipline was already in place. Indeed, as noted above, Resolution III.6 of Lambeth 1998 repeated the call of earlier Conferences for the Primates to exercise enhanced responsibility in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters and further asks that the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, include amongst its responsibilities positive encouragement to mission, intervention in cases of exceptional emergency, which are incapable of internal resolution within Provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity, in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies… (Resolution III.6)

In light of Resolution I.10, the reference in this Resolution to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture was a pointed one, as the Global South churches objected to the practice of homosexuality primarily on grounds that it was “incompatible with Scripture.” It seemed to many that the Primates were poised to discipline their dissenting North American brothers, when they convened in Oporto, Portugal, in March 2000. These expectations, however, were blunted by an external event: the irregular consecration by two Global South Primates of John Rodgers and Charles Murphy just two months previous. The new bishops were to serve a separate Anglican body in the USA, thus challenging the territorial authority of the Episcopal Church. Abp. Carey reacted strongly against this action, but even had it not happened, he was inclined to seek peace at Oporto, which led to watering down any specific disciplinary measures.

A proposal for alternative episcopal oversight of traditionalist churches in the USA went nowhere, as Presiding Bishop Griswold would not agree to it.
The desire for consensus decisions was to become the pattern of subsequent meetings, and it led to an equivocal Communiqué, posing a moral equivalence between those who understood Lambeth I.10 in terms of a biblical norm and those who wish to “listen” to the experience of homosexuals, and between those who were breaching the moral limits in North America and those who had breached territorial limits in consecrating alternative bishops.(18)

In the end, the Primates argued that while the acceptance of homosexuality could cause “severely impaired communion” between Provinces, it could not lead to a final expulsion from the Communion.

We believe that the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate: Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion.

The claim that only formal repudiation of “core doctrine” could lead to Communion discipline is reminiscent of the rationale of the Episcopal Church for acquitting of Bishop Walter Righter in 1996 for ordaining an openly gay man to the priesthood (three of the judges had committed the same offense).(19)Rowan Williams, a drafter of the Oporto Communiqué and soon to be Archbishop of Canterbury, in an article titled “Our Differences Need Not Destroy Us,” concludes his reflection on the Primates’ Meeting thus:
In the last analysis, Anglicanism has always been wary of a central executive power. It has worked on the assumption that a common ecclesial language and theological method take you a long way, and its authority has been a mixture of authoritative texts and a process of rather untidy corporate interpretation of them. The primates’ meeting showed no signs of wanting to become a ruling synod. Its one plea was for more frequent meeting, and this is likely to happen: the present strains on the communion are severe enough for personal contact and consultation to be imperative, so that actions are not taken without awareness of the wider context.(20)

The Primates did begin to meet more frequently, with another meeting held in Kanuga, North Carolina, one year later, in 2001. This time two Primates, Maurice Sinclair and Drexel Gomez, came armed with a specific proposal for inner-communion discipline titled “To Mend the Net.”(21) The proposal included a specific role for the Primates to “exercise a form of political authority at an international level.” Abp. Sinclair stated that it was his hope that the Primates would take up the enhanced responsibility granted them at Lambeth 1998 and ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a working group to see that their proposal was put into effect.

“To Mend the Net” would have been congenial to a majority of the Primates under favorable circumstances, but circumstances were not favorable. First of all, Abp. Carey, entering his final year in office, was in no mood for hard decisions. Secondly, the Lambeth bureaucracy made sure any such decisions would be avoided. By accepting the invitation to come to America, the Primates gave home court advantage to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. The meeting was closed to the press and all others, and the agenda was fixed and busy. So the hard work of Abps. Gomez and Sinclair in addressing the ongoing crisis in the Communion came down to this note in the “Primates’ Diary”:

Saturday, 3 March – Theme for the Day Discipleship, Forgiveness and Mission

20:00-21:15 Gathering in the Fireplace lounge. Noting that “our tradition has learned how to handle conflict,” Dr. Carey asked the Archbishop of the West Indies and the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone [Abps. Gomez and Sinclair] to speak to the primates about their book, To Mend the Net, and invited comments from the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and other Primates. Dr. Carey reiterated his intention to refer the matter to the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission.

“To Mend the Net” was ignored by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission and was never again considered by the Primates. (22) Meanwhile the final “Pastoral Letter and Call to Prayer” from Kanuga was tame even compared to the Oporto Communiqué. At the next annual meeting in Canterbury in 2002, the sexuality issue disappeared from the agenda altogether.

The Primates met again in May 2003 in Gramado, Brazil, and although they mentioned the “duty laid upon us by the Lambeth Conference 1998 to monitor ongoing discussion of [human sexuality],” there was little sense of urgency to address the matter further.

The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.(23)

It is one thing “not to support” same-sex activity; it is another to exercise concrete discipline. In the five intervening years since Lambeth 1998, the overwhelming consensus on the issue had not led to any concrete action because that would require unanimity of the Primates, and that unanimity was impossible because the violators were members in good standing.

The Storm Surge over Gene

The soothing zephyr from Gramado was transformed into a roaring hurricane in August 2003 with the election of V. Gene Robinson, an openly practicing homosexual, as bishop of New Hampshire, USA, coupled with the performance of an authorized same-sex rite in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, in May 2003. News of Robinson’s election, along with photos of him and his partner, spread across the globe within hours, and the Primates of the Global South demanded an emergency meeting. This time the meeting, held in London in October 2003, was not stage-managed by the Communion office; indeed the Secretary General was pointedly not invited. This time the outraged Primates demanded action.

In the 16 October Statement, the Primates refer to their “enhanced responsibility” in upholding the centrality of Scripture and the unity of the Communion, and they go on to assert that the actions in Canada and USA “do not represent the mind of the Communion as a whole, and these decisions jeopardize our sacramental fellowship with each other.”(24) The concrete action taken by the Primates was to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a commission to report within twelve months “on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed.” Abp. Williams apparently convinced the Primates that he and they had no legal authority to discipline the Episcopal Church and Diocese of New Westminster, but many returned home with the conviction that he had promised them swift and decisive action.

The Report of the Lambeth Commission (“The Windsor Report”) was delivered on time one year later. (25)It was circulated to the Primates and simultaneously received by the Primates’ Standing Committee, one of the few times that Committee has actually met. (26)This Committee then appointed, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury, a “Reception Reference Group,” headed by the Primate of Hong Kong, to solicit responses from the wider Communion to be assessed and presented at their upcoming meeting in February 2005. Hence the “Windsor process” at its inception was under the direct authority of the Primates, something that would change over the next five years.

The next regular Primates’ Meeting was held at the Dromantine Conference Centre in Northern Ireland in February 2005. Unlike former meetings, this one focused on the crisis caused by the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada. In the Dromantine Communiqué the Primates assume their authority in certain areas:

• they receive the Windsor Report but do not thereby submit to its recommendations;
• they endorse the Report’s idea of “autonomy-in-communion”;
• they welcome the idea of a Covenant and call for further study, but argue that the Lambeth Quadrilateral “has already been effectively operating as a form of covenant”;
• they endorse the “universal nature of the ministry of a bishop within Anglican polity”; and
• they express reservations about Report’s idea of a “Council of Advice” under the Archbishop of Canterbury noting that:

While we welcome the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury as that of one who can speak to us as primus inter pares about the realities we face as a Communion, we are cautious of any development which would seem to imply the creation of an international jurisdiction which could override our proper provincial autonomy.(27)

In the most striking resolution (§14), the Primates “request that the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference.” They follow this up by encouraging the Anglican Consultative Council to invite representatives of the North American churches to present the theological rationale for their actions at the upcoming ACC-13 meeting in June 2005. One might ask, should these churches not have made this presentation to the Primates themselves? The likely answer is that they wanted a rapid response and did not anticipate another Primates’ Meeting for a year (actually it was two years before they met again). It is also possible that they were anticipating a major reform of the Instruments to emerge from ACC-13 (see below). In any case, the Anglican Consultative Council endorsed the decisions at Dromantine, including the request that the North Americans absent themselves from the ACC and its committees (Resolution 10). The Primates’ tide was cresting.

Dar Es Salaam and After: The Tide Turns Again

If Lambeth I.10 was the high-water mark of doctrinal clarity on the issue of human sexuality, then the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam on 19 February 2007 was the high-water mark for attempted Communion discipline of the North Americans. (28) As at Dromantine, the Primates overturned the prepared agenda in order to give full time and attention to the crisis threatening the Communion. They rejected an initial report of the Joint Standing Committee through Abp. Williams claiming that the Episcopal Church had satisfied the minimum requirements of the Windsor Report and Dromantine Communiqué.

At the heart of the Dar Communiqué is a clear statement that “the Episcopal Church has departed from the standard of teaching on human sexuality accepted by the Communion in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10.” In other words, the Primates are claiming the moral authority to exercise discipline. They follow this statement with a series of concrete demands, a deadline for response (30 September 2007), and a threat, albeit veiled, of excommunication if the demands are not met. Of particular interest is the way this statement is addressed from bishops of the Communion to bishops of the Episcopal Church. The Primates are holding the bishops of a member church accountable for its departure from the faith.

At Dar the unanimity rule worked against a milquetoast statement, as several of the Global South Primates insisted on specific language that would lead to disciplinary consequences. This approach was not the outcome Rowan Williams desired and had planned for, and his subsequent actions undid the Dar es Salaam resolutions and undermined the authority of the Primates Meeting itself:

1. he exercised his “gathering authority” to issue invitations to Lambeth 2008 to all Episcopal bishops (except Gene Robinson) in May 2007, before the House of Bishops had responded to the Primates;
2. he denied by word and deed that September 30 was a real deadline;
3. he attended the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans in September 2007 on his own authority and summoned the Joint Standing Committee to issue a statement absolving the Episcopal Church; and
4. most significantly, he refused to reconvene the Primates’ Meeting to assess the Episcopal Church response, as was anticipated in the Communiqué, and instead issued an Advent Letter that gave the Episcopal Church a weak pass.(29)

The message from Canterbury to his fellow Primates was clear: “Your power has been enhanced too much. No more Dars!” This unilateral usurpation of power had immediate consequences: the announcement of the Global Anglican Future Conference in December 2007 and the absence of 260 bishops from Lambeth in August 2008.

Abp. Williams did call a Primates’ Meeting in February 2009 (back to the two-year cycle, it seems), but it is clear from the Communiqué that it was a chastened gathering:
Successive Lambeth Conferences have urged the primates to assume an enhanced responsibility for the life of the Communion, but we are aware that the role of the Primates’ Meeting has occasioned some debate. The role of primate arises from the position he or she holds as the senior bishop in each Province. As such we believe that when the Archbishop of Canterbury calls us together “for leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation”, it is intended that we act as “the channels through which the voice of member churches [are] heard and real interchange of heart [can] take place. (§6)

Together we share responsibility with the other Instruments of Communion for discerning what is best for the well-being of the Communion. We are conscious that the attitudes and deliberations of the primates have sometimes inadvertently given rise to disappointment and even disillusion. We acknowledge that we still struggle to get the balance right in our deliberations…. (§7)(30)

Clearly these words were directed not at the Primates of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. It was a rebuke to Primates like Peter Akinola of Nigeria for having over-stepped their authority at the previous meeting. (31) The other “channels,” a.k.a. the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council, were back in control, even of the Primates’ Meeting. When a lesbian was elected bishop in Los Angeles in December 2009, no special Primates’ Meeting was called (the next being scheduled for 2011); instead, the Standing Committee issued an appeal “strongly supporting” Resolution 14.39 of ACC-14 (not the Primates) calling for “gracious restraint” with regard to the moratoria on homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessings, while knowing full well that the appeal would be spurned. The tempest stirred up by Gene Robinson had been politely restored to the teapot.(32)

The Communion Today: Sick Head and Faint Heart

Power struggles are nothing new to humankind or to the Church. Even in the most orderly society, human beings vie to control the structures and processes of government. In the case of the Anglican Communion, however, the ebb and flow of power documented above was at least in part constitutional.

The Communion, less than 150 years old, has been characterized by formal autonomy of its member Provinces and informal deference to its historic See and chief Primate in Canterbury. It has also been characterized by an informal toleration of theological diversity alongside formal acknowledgement of orthodox formularies: the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, and the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Under this arrangement, the Communion has muddled through tensions between Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, and traditionalists and modernists.

One may question whether this version of the via media is in accordance with God’s high calling for the church, but it may seem preferable to the monolithic model of Rome or the fissiparous model of Evangelical-Pentecostal sectarianism.
The old model has broken down. The “Model A” has become a clunker, and the issue of homosexuality is the spanner in the engine. Homosexuality is not the main issue in itself, although the notoriety of choosing a gay and lesbian bishop in a global culture where homosexuality is taboo for many sparked the fire.

The acceptance and promotion of homosexuality reveals a radical turn of theological liberalism that has cut loose from biblical and traditional orthodoxy in a way that simply cannot be papered over. When Resolution I.10 stated that the church, “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage,” it was stating the obvious for most Christians throughout history and throughout the world today.(33)

The theological radicals in North America have not only breached the farthest bounds of Christian orthodoxy, they have also introduced a neo-Marxist philosophy of power into church politics. Rowan Williams seems to hold out hope for some ideological convergence in the church culture wars. More likely, Richard Neuhaus’ law will apply: “where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.” That law is already far advanced in North America, where in many dioceses it is politically incorrect and professionally suicidal to hold the doctrine of Lambeth I.10.

It may be said of the Anglican Communion today: “The whole head is sick, the whole heart is faint” (Isaiah 1:5). As a result, many commentators on Anglican affairs, including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, have warned of the possible demise of the Communion as a functioning entity. (34) In my opinion, there is no solution to this state of affairs other than a reclaiming of Anglican essentials, starting with the truth of the Gospel and the authority of Scripture. And it remains the case that where the true Gospel is preached, God will add to the numbers of the Church, while the enemies of the gospel will eventually stumble and fall. However, Anglicans cannot be complacent in assuming that the Communion will survive, and the current crisis serves not only to chasten but perhaps reform how we live together. If we need a renewal of the heart, we also need a reform of the head.

Models of Governance

In classical political theory, there are only so many models of governance: rule by one, rule by the few, and rule by the many. Aristotle commended a mixed polity as the most feasible of regimes, but a mixed regime is not the same as a mixed-up regime; it must have a coherent rationale, as one finds, for instance, in the U.S. Constitution, as expounded in the Federalist Papers. Similarly, the Bible showcases various political orders, from loose confederation (Judges) to monarchy (Samuel and Kings), from communalism (Acts) to delegated authority (Pastoral Epistles). The church throughout history has also lived and prospered with various ecclesiastical polities and has intersected with various secular regimes as well.

Furthermore, most models of governance are confined to people living in a confined territory, and classical theorists were doubtful about how far genuine political rule could extend beyond the city or nation. The Church, however, is by its mission charter a worldwide institution, stretching to the ends of the earth. The Anglican Communion as a fruit of British imperial expansion reflects that global character better than many other church bodies.

I maintain that there are three basic options for Communion governance: a loose association of purely autonomous Provinces, an executive bureaucracy, and a conciliar communion of churches. In each of these models, bishops and archbishops play a leading role, but they do so in various ways.

First Model: Pure Autonomy

I shall not dwell long on the first model, though it should not be dismissed out of hand, as it is the default model if the others fail. The rationale for autonomous Anglican provinces is already well-established and enshrined in their constitutions. According to the principle of subsidiarity, much of the everyday life of the member churches of the Anglican Communion is governed locally, not even by the Primate or diocesan bishop but rather by parish clergy and lay leaders. It is not too hard to imagine that some Provinces might find it easier to “vote present” in Communion affairs and get on with life, especially if the Communion continues to be contentious and dysfunctional.

There may be a particular temptation to Provinces of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) to sit loosely to “Anglicanism,” as it is often described in western handbooks. Let me make a few observations from East Africa. (35) The first missionaries to East Africa were not even Anglicans (e.g., the Moravian Krapf in Kenya, and the Presbyterian Mackay in Uganda). The name for the Anglican church is “the Church of Uganda” and in the vernacular Protestant or Evangelical, and the Church is usually perceived as the counterpart and competitor with the Roman Catholic Church, not some sort of bridge church between Protestants and Catholics. The East African Revival reflected the ecumenical Protestant character of its roots in England, especially the emphasis on being “born again,” although the Anglicans in Africa were more successful than their British and American counterparts in channeling the energy of the movement within the Anglican churches.

More recently, Anglicans have been challenged by Pentecostals and have responded by adopting elements of free worship. In the decade of controversy over homosexuality, the position of the Anglican has been similar to that of the other “born again” churches.(36)

This is not to say that East African Anglicans do not value their missionary heritage from England through the Church Missionary Society; however, the CMS has never been seen as coterminous with the Church of England or the Communion bureaucracy. The stature of bishops in the Church and the formal and “established” character of the Anglican Church (especially in Uganda) have been seen as a distinctive over against the Pentecostals. The new connections with conservative churches in the USA and UK have also strengthened the global vision of the church.

At the same time, most of the FCA Provinces, except Nigeria, have meager administrative and financial resources to operate a secretariat with an international arm. It seems therefore possible that these churches may withdraw from many official Communion functions and focus on local or regional associations like CAPA (the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa) or identify with Evangelical initiatives like the Lausanne movement.(37)

Many might count the Episcopal Church USA among the philosophical autonomists in view of its apologists’ insistent boasting about its independent polity. (38)

The years since Lambeth 1998 have certainly shown that the North Americans have no intention to abide by the will of the larger Communion beyond minimal lip service: expressions of “regret” and porous “moratoria” which expire whenever the next bishop or diocese decides to take “prophetic” action. One might wonder therefore why these churches seem so eager to remain in the Anglican Communion at all. In my view, the reason is this: they do not really think that it is all right for each church and culture to “do its own thing,” but rather they believe their postmodern theology and pan-sexual agenda are matters of universal justice and will ultimately prevail in Church and society. (39)

They have shown great tenacity in their quest for control of the Episcopal Church and have seen success, and they think they can do the same in the Communion as a whole. For the time being, they are playing the autonomy card, while they consolidate their gains in North America. Before long they will become more aggressive in seeking to win over portions of the rest of the Communion, not only among Western churches but in the Global South as well.

They will not voluntarily withdraw from Communion bodies because they realize they already have a leg up in a couple of them. The Archbishop of Canterbury is sympathetic to their views, if not their tactics, and the ACC has proved malleable in response to their political maneuverings. If the Standing Committee becomes the power center of Communion governance, they stand a good chance of gaining a large measure of control of the executive bureaucracy. (40) If the Communion bodies were somehow to resist this pressure and exercise discipline in such a way that the Episcopal Church had to choose between conforming to its standards and “walking apart,” it would separate and take many of its allies with it. The groundwork for an “Episcopal Communion” is already in place, with adequate finances and organization to form an alternative jurisdiction. However, such a division is a last resort, and they see little reason from the past decade to make them think they will have to move to it.

Second Model: The Lambeth Bureaucracy

This brings us to the second model, the executive bureaucracy, which is the most common secular regime today, from totalitarian versions in the former Soviet Union and China to soft-power versions in Europe and North America. In an executive bureaucracy, it is often difficult to discern who exercises the greater power, the chief executive or the bureaucrats, as any viewer of Yes, Prime Minister knows. In fact, when running well, the executive and the bureaucracy operate seamlessly.

In the case of the Anglican Communion, the components of the bureaucracy can be specifically named: the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury in conjunction with the “Anglican Communion Office” (ACO) and its Secretary General, who is appointed with his consent. (41) The Archbishop is ex officio member of the other three Instruments and of every commission, committee and task force of the Communion machinery. (42) He “gathers” the Lambeth Conference, “gathers” or “convenes” the Primates’ Meeting, is president of the Anglican Consultative Council and of the Standing Committee as well.

The Archbishop, in collaboration with the Communion Office, holds the main power of appointment over other bodies. He can determine the composition of any official committee and commission and task force, from the Lambeth Commission (Windsor Report) to the Covenant Drafting Group (Ridley Cambridge Draft and when that group’s Report was not to his liking, the Covenant Working Group) to the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order mentioned below. Canterbury’s appointments are not neutral. As a general rule, he puts liberals in positions of influence and pliable moderates as official heads, with a sprinkling of conservatives but never enough to actually sway the final output of these bodies.

The Secretary General holds his position through one Instrument, the Anglican Consultative Council, but he also serves the Primates’ Meeting and Lambeth Conference, since they have no separate secretariats. (43) As Sir Humphrey Appleby would gamely admit, “serving” and “controlling” are not diametrically opposed. (44)

The ACO wields immense influence as the main instrument of finance, administration and communication within the Communion.(45) The Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meetings are financed out of the ACC budget. The ACO staff helps shape the agendas beforehand and draft the Communiqués and send the follow-up communications afterward, and some of the bishops and Primates go home thinking they decided one thing only to find out that this is not what was reported.

One striking feature of the ACO is the lily-white complexion of its staff. This fact is not, in my opinion, a matter of overt racism but rather reflects the old-boy network that requires purebred bureaucrats to come from the Anglo-American stable. The preparation of agenda, the writing of reports, the control of media all require careful oversight by “professionals,” who happen also to be committed to the bureaucratic status quo.

Anyone who has dealt with the Anglican media machine knows that information will be consistently spun to blunt the serious issues facing the church and to marginalize upstarts like Abp. Peter Akinola, who take on the bureaucracy head to head. (46) Take an event like GAFCON 2008. Surely the boycotting of the Lambeth Conference by over 200 bishops from Africa and elsewhere was a topic worthy of reporting and analysis. One will find next to nothing said about this event in any of the official Anglican Communion statements or news reports and only fleeting comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself.

One recent example of how the Lambeth bureaucracy works is the formation of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), a consultative body meant to advise on the very matters of church order and identity that lie at the heart of the current Communion crisis. Indeed, this Commission has been tasked to advise the Standing Committee on how to define legitimate “churches” in the Communion. So how was IASCUFO constituted and appointed? In its pioneer meeting, it was claimed that IASCUFO was “established by the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.”(47)

In fact, this is not true. It was established by the then Joint Standing Committee in November 2008, and its membership was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the Primates suggesting names. (48) The membership of this Commission is diverse theologically, and its Chairman is a moderate Global South Primate. It is highly unlikely that it will deal with the current crisis in a way that will rock the boat.(49)

In addition to structures, many contemporary bureaucracies employ methods of manipulation to maintain power and achieve their ends. In the case of the Lambeth bureaucracy, the official method is called “indaba.” Despite its African etymology with an aura of communal wisdom, indaba is in fact another word for the “Delphi method.” The Delphi method was developed as a means to manipulate opinion in the full sense of the word. Several aspects of the Delphi method are easily spotted in the actions of the Lambeth bureaucracy: sequestering participants from any outside contact, circulating surveys in which English-speakers will predominate; enlisting facilitators to “listen” to different views and then summarize them; using “diverse” table groups to keep coalitions from forming; writing up inconclusive composite consensus statements such as the “Lambeth Indaba 1998.”(50)

Indaba, if anything, moves the Lambeth Conference closer to being a three-week tea party. It also allows “official” committees of the bureaucracy to present the party line without any real opportunity to overturn it, thus avoiding the catastrophe of Lambeth 1998 (anyone who was there can confirm that Resolution I.10 was not on the official agenda). Compare, for instance, the outcomes of GAFCON and Lambeth 2008. What did each of them say? Which one bore clear testimony to the truth of the Gospel? Politicians know that mish-mash is the handmaid of top-down control.

The Role of the ACC in the Lambeth Bureaucracy

It might appear that the existence of four Instruments of Communion would result in the separation of powers and checks and balances. That is not the case. In particular, one needs to look at the role of the Anglican Consultative Council in Communion governance. It has been frequently commented that the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting have overlapping roles and that their terms of reference need to be clarified. In terms of power structures, they are quite different. In fact, the ACC works hand in glove with the Lambeth bureaucracy, and its Constitution and By-Laws (now called Memorandum and Articles of Association) give it a secular legal existence and hence a veneer of officialdom that the Primates lack.

It might seem that the ACC, with its greater portion of seats given to large Provinces and its openness to lower clergy and laity, would be a brake on the hierarchy of the Communion. But it is not. Why should this be so? The reason may be found in part in the founding of the ACC in 1968. It involved the merging of an advisory council (actually two) with an “Executive Officer of the Communion” who became the Secretary General of the new Council. The prime movers and funders behind the ACC being North Americans, they set it up as a constitutional body, although its constitutional authority was based on a Lambeth Conference Resolution. Soon thereafter, the ACC became a legal charity and could collect funds and pay staff. Thus, although to some the ACC and its Secretary General may appear to be advantaged over the other Instruments, ecclesiologically they are derivative.

The crisis that followed Gene Robinson’s consecration also caused a crisis in Communion governance. The Primates, it seems, were taking “enhanced authority” for the discipline of the Communion, but to do that was to call into question the entrenched power of the Lambeth bureaucracy. The battle was fought out at the ACC-13 meeting in Nottingham in 2005. Colin Podmore describes the situation this way:

Both bodies [ACC and Primates' Meeting] have important roles to play in the life of the Communion, but the lack of structural connection between them has been seen as problematic. At its 2005 meeting the ACC therefore proposed [taking up a recommendation of the 1998 Lambeth Conference] that the two bodies should be integrated, with the members of the Primates’ Meeting becoming ex officio members of the ACC (bishops being excluded from election or appointment to the other places). It also suggested that the Council might vote ‘by orders’ in some circumstances. Whether these proposals will be adopted remains to be seen.(51)

It might be more accurate to say that certain Primates at ACC-13 sought to gain more control by adding all the Primates to the ACC. There was even a proposal that the ACC be renamed “The Anglican Communion Council.” Such a bicameral council would have reflected at a Communion level similar synodical structures in England and other Anglican Provinces.

It is instructive to see how the ecclesiastical politicians flipped this proposed reform. They felt obliged, on the one hand, to propose amending the ACC Constitution to add all the Primates to the Council (Resolution 4e), but they also proposed balancing the additional Primates with increased representation from lay and clerical orders, which would have increased the membership of ACC from 68 to more than 100. They went on to set four conditions for final approval of Resolution 4e, the most striking of which was that the Standing Committee was given veto power over final amendment, even if approved by 2/3 of the Provinces. So what happened to Resolution 4e? Canon Kearon noted to the Joint Standing Committee in November 2008 that “the issue of the Primates becoming members of the ACC was not meeting with a favourable response,” though he gave no hard data and it seems unlikely that the official Provincial bodies had actually voted against including their Primates on the ACC. More likely, the idea died due to back-channel inertia.(52)

While dooming the idea of a bicameral Communion Council, the ACC politicians proposed amending the Constitution to add five members of the Primates Standing Committee to the ACC plenary and Standing Committee (Resolution 4b and 4d). Since the ACC Standing Committee had nine members, they retained the balance of power while at the same time making this new body the executive committee of the Communion, now called “The Standing Committee of the Communion,” which is now set to emerge as arbiter of the Covenant. We see here the executive bureaucracy in full battle gear. They take a proposal that was meant to increase the influence of the Primates in Communion governance and to rationalize the operation of the two Instruments, and they turn it on its head. Instead of the Primates as a body governing, or even governing alongside the ACC, an elect few are admitted to the inner circle through the new Standing Committee. If this move were purely a matter of political virtuosity, one might simply tip the hat, but I shall argue it has serious theological implications for the integrity of the Communion.

The Subversion of Truth and Order in Jamaica

Within the past year, two events have displayed the secretive and borderline unethical ways in which the ACC, the Standing Committee and the Lambeth bureaucracy work together to thwart the will of the Primates and the wider Communion.

To any fair observer, the ACC-14 meeting in Jamaica was a debacle. The climax came at the final session, in which a minority of politicians obstructed the clear will of the majority in the Communion to approve the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Covenant by means of parliamentary tricks and verbal obfuscations and aided by a key intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This session was caught live on TV, which proved a temporary embarrassment.(53)

It all began with a small bureaucratic matter: the credentialing of a delegate from the Church of Uganda. For various reasons, two of the three regular delegates from Uganda did not attend the meeting. Realizing the problem late in the day, the Archbishop of Uganda asked the Rev. Philip Ashey, a priest of the Church of Uganda who was already present in Jamaica as a press representative, to serve as delegate. The Archbishop’s appointment was turned down by the Joint Standing Committee at its meeting just prior to the larger ACC meeting on this ground:

The Secretary General was asked to contact the Primate concerned [Abp. Orombi] to clarify the issue. The person concerned [Rev. Ashey] withdrew his request for press accreditation. However, it became clear that his status in Uganda was as a result of a cross provincial intervention, and such interventions were contrary to the Windsor Report and to repeated requests from successive Primates’ Meetings. The Joint Standing Committee decided that this made him ineligible to represent that Province at the ACC, and this was communicated to the Primate of Uganda.(54)

Let’s unpack the logic of this little piece of bureaucratic pecksniffery. Here we have the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, a member in good standing of the Standing Committee, who has consistently rejected the will of the Lambeth Conference on sexuality and brazenly continued lawsuits and depositions against clergy and congregations of her own church, sitting in judgment on a nominee of one of the sovereign Provinces of the Communion. As a result, the second largest church in the Communion was represented by only one lay woman in a debate and vote on an important issue of Communion order, the Covenant. She voted with the vast majority of Global South delegates to approve the full Ridley Cambridge Text, but the motion failed by three votes.
Another equally revealing minute from the Joint Standing Committee involves the appointment of the “Resolutions Committee” of the upcoming meeting:

Canon Kearon [the Secretary General] reported that Dr. Tony Fitchett had been asked to serve as Chair, and Mr. John Stuart, Mrs. Philippa Aimable and Revd Ashish Amos had been proposed to serve on the Committee; and this was accepted. In the absence of Mr. Amos, the Revd Professor Ian Douglas’s name was proposed and accepted. Bishop Cameron would staff the committee.

So the key Committee that would vet the Resolutions concerning the Covenant included an Anglo (New Zealand) layman as chairman and an openly pro-gay scholar from the Episcopal Church, who was later elected to the Standing Committee itself!(55)

The final Resolution that emerged from the long, bloody Covenant debate is equally revealing in terms of where the center of power is meant to reside. According to Resolution 14.11, the Anglican Consultative Council:
…
c. asks the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Secretary General, to appoint a small working group to consider and consult with the Provinces on Section 4 and its possible revision, and to report to the next meeting of the Standing Committee;…
d. asks the Standing Committee, at that meeting, to approve a final form of Section 4;
e. asks the Secretary General to send the Ridley Cambridge Draft, at that time, only to the member Churches of the Anglican Consultative Council for consideration and decision on acceptance or adoption by them as The Anglican Consultative Council Covenant;
f. asks those member Churches to report to ACC-15 on the progress made in the process of response to, and acceptance or adoption of the Covenant.(56)
Where do the Primates figure in this matter? It is clear that the approval of the Communion’s future constitution did not really require their input, much less authorization, except as they were represented in the Standing Committee.

The Secret Constitution and the New Standing Committee

It began to come to light in late 2009 that the Anglican Consultative Council had a new Constitution, or rather “Memorandum and Articles of Association.”(57) This change, it seems, was necessitated by UK law under which the ACC was registered as a “company limited by guarantee.” Curiously, this fact was never announced officially, and the old Constitution remains on the website as of this writing.(58) The important question is what changes might have been made to the document in the process of transfer. The answer to that is as follows:(59)

1. There is a new purpose given to ACC “to establish, authorize, sponsor, or otherwise endorse (as the case may require) such Commissions, Networks or similar bodies as shall advance the Council’s Object” (Memorandum §4.5). This purpose gives the bureaucracy the authority to appoint all the committees of the Communion. The Primates, on the other hand, have neither the authority nor the machinery to shape the advisory bodies of the Communion.

2. The most important change in the new Articles of Association is the establishment of “The Standing Committee of the Council.” (60) This Committee is also given standing in UK law as the “Trustee-Members” of the ACC and is legally accountable for the Council’s governance and administration of its secretariat.

The main point to be made here is that a major change in the constitutional documents of the Communion was effected without any official notification of the fact.(61) This secrecy is characteristic of most top-level Anglican bodies. They often meet in closed session and do not make available their reports and minutes, apart from cursory resolutions. For example, when the Standing Committee approved the “final” Covenant Draft in December 2009, there is no record of any of its deliberations, nor is there any record of whether they made any amendments to the draft from the Covenant Working Group.(62)

Primacy and Communion

The preceding narrative may suggest that the rise of the Lambeth bureaucracy is a matter of cloak-and-dagger politics. This is not the case. There is also a theologico-political argument in favor of centralization in terms of the primacy of the See of Canterbury and its occupant.
Colin Podmore has given a helpful history of primacy in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. (63) Primacy is related to the establishment of metropolitan sees in the early church. The Church of Rome established sees in both Canterbury and York, with Canterbury being given priority over “all England.” As Primates, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York exercise the role of president in their respective convocations, with Canterbury presiding over the General Synod. As metropolitans, they have the prerogative to conduct visitation within a diocese with or without the bishop’s permission.

Until the mid-19th century, the Archbishop of Canterbury exercised a similar role toward the colonial churches, except for the churches in USA and Scotland. However in the 20th century, most of these churches became independent “Provinces,” which were at the same time national and regional churches. These churches were headed by Archbishops, Presiding Bishops or Moderators, who came to be designated Primates alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In a parallel development, the role of the See of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Canterbury was clarified to be a “primacy of honor,” not a “primacy of jurisdiction” among the Provinces and Primates of the Communion.(64) It is in these terms – of honor, not jurisdiction – that membership in the Anglican Communion is defined as “being in communion with the See of Canterbury,” that the Archbishop “convenes” and “presides” in various Communion bodies, and that he is seen as the “focus of unity” and primus inter pares (first among equals) among the bishops and Primates. He is fundamentally a bishop among bishops at the Lambeth Conference, a metropolitan bishop among other metropolitans in the Primates’ Meeting.

There have been several suggestions recently arguing for an enhanced authority for the See of Canterbury and its occupant. I shall call this idea “primusy,” i.e., that there is a substantial difference between the Archbishop vis a vis the other bishops and metropolitans of the Communion and that being “primus” gives him the political authority to act in a way different from his equals, his “pares.”

The Lambeth Commission, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made what may be considered the most comprehensive case for “primusy.” It is therefore worth quoting the relevant section of the Windsor Report in extenso:

108. The role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to each of the other Instruments of Unity is pivotal. The Archbishop convenes both the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting, and is ex officio the President of the Anglican Consultative Council. This places the Archbishop at the centre of each of the Instruments, and as the one factor common to all. If the Archbishop is to be enabled to play a critical role at the heart of the Communion, there are obvious implications for those who establish priorities in terms of the international ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He must be free to exercise his role fully in each of the Instruments of Unity.

109. The Commission believes therefore that the historic position of the Archbishopric of Canterbury must not be regarded as a figurehead, but as the central focus of both unity and mission within the Communion. This office has a very significant teaching role. As the significant focus of unity, mission and teaching, the Communion looks to the office of the Archbishop to articulate the mind of the Communion especially in areas of controversy. The Communion should be able to look to the holder of this office to speak directly to any provincial situation on behalf of the Communion where this is deemed advisable. Such action should not be viewed as outside interference in the exercise of autonomy by any province. It is, in the view of the Commission, important to accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury is acting within the historic significance of his position when he speaks as a brother to the members of all member churches of the Anglican Communion, and as one who participates fully in their life and witness.

110. Furthermore, it has been noted that the Archbishop of Canterbury convenes the Lambeth Conference and the Primates’ Meeting, and they are both dependent for their existence on his behest. We recommend that this dependence on the See of Canterbury remain, and indeed, that it be enhanced. At present, there is some lack of clarity about the level of discretion that the Archbishop has with respect to invitations to the Lambeth Conference and to the Primates’ Meeting. This Commission is of the opinion that the Archbishop has the right to call or not to call to these gatherings whomsoever he believes is appropriate, in order to safeguard, and take counsel for, the well-being of the Anglican Communion.

The Commission believes that in the exercise of this right the Archbishop of Canterbury should invite participants to the Lambeth Conference on restricted terms at his sole discretion if circumstances exist where full voting membership of the Conference is perceived to be an undesirable status, or would militate against the greater unity of the Communion.

The proposal for enhancing the role of Canterbury in the context of the crisis surrounding the Gene Robinson consecration is ironic, in my view, because it was the very lack of leadership by the Archbishop of Canterbury among the Primates following Lambeth 1998 that brought the crisis to a head. To its credit, the Windsor Report at least tries to make a political case for the Archbishop of Canterbury exercising a distinct role among the churches and bishops of the Communion. The proposal, however, raised immediate alarm concerning “the danger of creeping centralisation.” (65) This concern was taken up by the Primates at Dromantine who stated in their Communiqué (§10):

While we welcome the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury as that of one who can speak to us as primus inter pares about the realities we face as a Communion, we are cautious of any development which would seem to imply the creation of an international jurisdiction which could override our proper provincial autonomy.

In 2008, Rowan Williams himself sought to make a case for this new model in an essay called “Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury: Mother Churches?”(66) In his typically oblique way, he constructs a dialectic between the autocephalous churches of Orthodoxy and the centralized model of Rome. Williams claims that “the pendulum has swung too far” against centralization and calls for a rethinking of the notion of a “mother church” or a “primatial church,” and as the title of the essay makes clear, he is not thinking of all metropolitan sees as primatial in this sense. He concludes that Rome, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are all deficient in their ways of thinking about primacy:
Roman Catholics are still labouring to discover how to disentangle the missionary apostolic charism of the See of Peter from juridical anomalies and bureaucratic distortion. Orthodox have often “frozen” the concept of primacy in an antiquarian defence of the “pentarchy” as the structure of the church, thus allowing non-theological power struggles rooted in nationalism and ethnocentrism to flourish with damaging effect. Anglicans have failed to think through primacy with any theological seriousness and so have become habituated to a not very coherent or effective international structure that lacks canonical seriousness and produces insupportable pluralism in more than one area of the church’s practice. All need to rethink primacy in relation to mission and in relation to what episcopal fellowship really means.

Whatever the merits of this analysis, one can see that Abp. Williams concludes that the existing model of Anglican governance is “not very coherent.” Given this judgment, one can understand the justification for his unilateral actions in overturning the Primates’ decisions at Dar es Salaam and his dominance of the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

The centralization of Communion governance is often justified in terms of the “gathering power” of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The historical basis of this power is questionable: Abp. Longley first invited the bishops as host, which made particular sense as all but a few bishops were under his jurisdiction. Later, the Archbishop’s role of hosting the Conference became formalized (1897), but hosting, in my view, is an act related to honour not power. Nevertheless, Rowan Williams’s actions vis a vis the Primates far exceed the role of a host.

In 2007, he overturned the decision of Dromantine meeting by inviting Presiding Bishop Schori to Dar es Salaam, and following Dar he overturned the Primates’ resolutions by inviting all the bishops in North America to Lambeth 2008 (except for Gene Robinson).

Granting Canterbury unlimited authority in convening the Primates’ Meeting is equally problematic, yet this is exactly what happened in 2007 when the Primates required a response from the Episcopal Church to them and the Archbishop chose to receive the response himself. (67) Again, in 2009, he chose to bring the Covenant Draft to ACC-14 and then the Standing Committee without reference to the Primates, and when the draft was approved, the Provinces were directed to send their approvals to ACC-15 rather than to the Primates. It is hard to miss the signal: the Primates are better heard through their Standing Committee representatives than in plenary session.

The Windsor Continuation Group in its post-Lambeth reflection captures the new model of “personal primacy” (a.k.a. “primusy”):

The fact that resolution crafting was not part of the processes of the Lambeth Conference 2008 put massive weight upon the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares to articulate what was happening within the Communion, as marked by his three presidential addresses. His ministry to the Communion through these words have highlighted the extent to which there is scope for the ministry of a personal primacy at the level of the worldwide Communion. (§62)(68)

No doubt there was a massive weight on the Archbishop at Lambeth 2008, but it was self-imposed, at the expense of the many bishops who did not attend and even of those who did! The Windsor Continuation Group wants to have it both ways with a “personal” and a “collegial and communal” primacy, but its concrete recommendations tilt in one direction only:

Exploration should be given to the idea of refocusing the position of the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion as the executive officer of the communion, who works alongside the Archbishop in carrying through the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion efficiently and rapidly; and to the formation of a small Executive Committee which could work with the Archbishop in responding to emerging situations. (cf. §63-65)

This description of the role of “refocusing” the Communion bureaucracy is exactly what has happened in the last few years, as has been documented in previous sections.
The Global Anglican Future Conference came into being in part as a reaction to the actions of Canterbury in the previous year. The primary concern of the Conference participants was doctrinal, and they wanted to refocus not on personal primacy but confessional loyalty:

We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

There is an irony here. The Archbishop of Canterbury is a learned man, and the See of Canterbury is a “bully pulpit” for him to teach and defend the faith. It is the failure of Canterbury to address squarely the false gospel and the practices contrary to Scripture which has led to the mistaken conclusion that the Communion needs a centralized control. (69) Is there any question that if George Carey or Rowan Williams had “opposed the Episcopal Church to its face” as Paul opposed Peter (Galatians 2:11), the Communion would be in a different place, broken ecclesiastically perhaps but with its spiritual integrity intact.

The burden of this section has been to suggest that there is emerging in the Communion a new paradigm of centralization under Canterbury and his executive circle. This new paradigm corresponds with and gives rationale to certain changes in the structures of the Communion by giving an enhanced role to the Archbishop and to the ACC Secretariat and its Standing Committee, both of which are now designated “of the Anglican Communion.” This paradigm necessarily involves demotion of conciliar bodies like the Primates.

***

Can executive bureaucracy be an authentic form of Communion governance? Certainly: the Pope and Roman Catholic curia have functioned successfully for half a millennium. But the Vatican, unlike Lambeth, makes no pretense that its worldwide churches are autonomous or that there is no central authority in its ecclesiastical governance. Equally important, the Roman bureaucracy has resisted letting the forces of aggiornamento spin out of control. The current Lambeth bureaucracy, by contrast, has been protecting its liberal constituencies over the past decade and has done so at a high cost: alienation of a huge bloc of churches and, more importantly, undermining of its very identity as a Christian body. Finally, for all the mystery of insider Vatican politics, Rome has found a way to elect pontiffs who are non-Italian and represent genuinely global concerns, whereas the Lambeth bureaucracy is still legally politically and ideologically tied to the 21st century United Kingdom.(70) I strongly suspect that Rome and the Orthodox would be much more favorable to dealing ecumenically with a Communion whose doctrine, discipline and governance are clear to all rather than the present muddle.

Third Model: The Conciliar Authority of Bishops

The third model, the model of ecclesiastical governance which I think best reflects the role of the historic episcopate in Anglicanism, is rule by bishops in council. “Conciliarity” or “conciliarism” can mean a variety of things. Conciliarity does not mean absolute authority of bishops either independently or collegially. Bishops are responsible to the whole church through their diocesan synods of clergy and laity, and Primates are responsible to their provincial synods. (71) Nevertheless, the tradition of the church has always granted bishops a special role in matters of doctrine and discipline. In terms of ecclesiology, the idea of the church being guided in matters of doctrine and discipline by bishops begins with the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and proceeds to the ecumenical councils of the undivided church. The ecumenical councils, convened to clarify the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology, naturally also addressed matters of church discipline. Abp. Peter L’Huillier describes the work of the Nicene Council thus:

The fathers of Nicea took advantage of their meeting to discuss a number of points concerning church discipline. Their intention was not to introduce a new law but to recall rules sometimes neglected, indeed contested, to resolve problems arising out of concrete situations. They also confirmed rather than created a form of coordination in the organization of the Church by sanctioning the metropolitan system.(72)

The Great Schism in 1054 and the rise of papalism in the late Middle Ages introduced an alternative form of church order among Roman Catholics, although recollections of conciliar governance surfaced briefly at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). (73) The Reformers, including Thomas Cranmer, held out some hope for a (Protestant) general council, but dominance of the state church model seems to have prevented its implementation.

The advent of the Anglican Communion in the mid-19th century necessitated a rethinking of authority in Anglicanism. Several promoters of the first Lambeth Conference hoped to convene a council of bishops that would deal with specific concerns for doctrine and discipline raised by Bishop Colenso’s attack on biblical authority. While Archbishop Longley certainly accepted that bishops were the proper invitees, he steered the meeting clear of being considered a council by declaring it a “conference” only, with no authority over the autonomous churches, especially the Church of England. Hence as Paul Valliere notes, “the Lambeth Conference is a living monument to Anglican ambivalence about conciliarism. The gatherings at Lambeth look like episcopal councils, yet they are not. In fact, they were purposely designed not to be councils.”(74)

Lambeth 1930 and Anglican Identity

There were periodic attempts by Anglicans to identify the Anglican Communion as conciliar in character, the most important of these being the Resolutions and Report on Anglican identity at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. (75) Lambeth 1930 is best known for its adoption of the definition of the Communion as “a fellowship, within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces or Regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury” (Resolution 49). The Resolution goes on, significantly, to define the marks of Anglican churches in this way:

(a) they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorized in their several Churches;
(b) they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and
(c) they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the Bishops in conference.
Resolution 49 was accompanied by a Committee Report on “The Anglican Communion,” and in Resolution 48 the Conference “commends to the faithful those sections of the Report…which deal with the ideal and future of the Anglican Communion.” The Report lays out a paradigm of Communion governance, summarized in Resolution 49c above, which is worth quoting at some length.

1. The Anglican Communion has frequently been discussed at meetings of the Lambeth Conference, but we believe that to-day it has become a subject of quite paramount importance, and raises far-reaching questions of principle which demand consideration. This is partly due to its expansion. Our Communion has come to occupy a large place in the thought of the Christian world, and provokes questionings as a world-wide institution. But the development has not only been in numbers. Flourishing young Churches are now in existence, conscious of themselves, and conscious of the world outside them, where half a century ago there were but struggling Missions or possibly no Christian work at all.

2. For their sake, then, as for our own, the time has come for us to make some explicit statement of the ideal before us and of the future to which we look forward.
Our ideal is nothing less than the Catholic Church in its entirety. Viewed in its widest relations, the Anglican Communion is seen as in some sense an incident in the history of the Church Universal. It has arisen out of the situation caused by the divisions of Christendom. It has indeed been clearly blessed of God, as we thankfully acknowledge; but in its present character we believe that it is transitional, and we forecast the day when the racial and historical connections which at present characterize it will be transcended, and the life of our Communion will be merged in a larger fellowship of the Catholic Church.

3. That principle is clear to us. There are two prevailing types of ecclesiastical organization: that of centralized government, and that of regional autonomy within one fellowship. Of the former, the Church of Rome is the great historical example. The latter type, which we share with the Orthodox Churches of the East and others, was that upon which the Church of the first centuries was developing until the claims of the Roman Church and other tendencies confused the issue. The Provinces and Patriarchates of the first four centuries were bound together by no administrative bond: the real nexus was a common life resting upon a common faith, common Sacraments, and a common allegiance to the Unseen Head.

4. The Anglican Communion is constituted on this principle. It is a fellowship of Churches historically associated with the British Isles. While these Churches preserve apostolic doctrine and order they are independent in their self-government, and are growing up freely on their own soil and in their own environment as integral parts of the Church Universal. It is after this fashion that the characteristic endowment of each family of the human race may be consecrated, and so make its special contribution to the Kingdom of God.

5. The bond which holds us together is spiritual. We desire emphatically to point out that the term “Anglican” is no longer used in the sense it originally bore. The phrase “Ecclesia Anglicana” in Magna Carta has a purely local connotation. Now its sense is ecclesiastical and doctrinal, and the Anglican Communion includes not merely those who are racially connected with England, but many others whose faith has been grounded in the doctrines and ideals for which the Church of England has always stood.

6. What are its doctrines? We hold the Catholic faith in its entirety: that is to say, the truth of Christ, contained in the Holy Scripture; stated in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds; expressed in the Sacraments of the Gospel and the rites of the Primitive Church as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer with its various local adaptations; and safeguarded by the historic threefold Order of the Ministry.

And what are these ideals? They are the ideals of the Church of Christ. Prominent among them are an open Bible, a pastoral Priesthood, a common worship, and a fearless love of truth. Without comparing ourselves with others, we acknowledge thankfully as the fruits of these ideals within our Communion, the sanctity of mystics, the learning of scholars, the courage of missionaries, the uprightness of civil administrators, and the devotion of many servants of God in Church and State.

7. While, however, we hold the Catholic Faith, we hold it in freedom. Every Church in our Communion is free to build up its life upon the provisions of its own constitution. Local Churches (to quote the words of Bishop Creighton) “have no power to change the Creeds of the Universal Church or its early organization. But they have the right to determine the best methods of setting forth to their people the contents of the Christian faith. They may regulate rites, ceremonies, usages, observances and discipline for that purpose, according to their own wisdom and experience and the needs of the people.” (Creighton, Church and Nation, p. 212. See also Article XXXIV.)

This attempt to describe the essence of the Anglican Communion governance makes the following important points.

• The Anglican Communion sees itself as part of the wider catholic, apostolic and missionary church, which has arisen out of the historical accidents of the divisions within Christendom but which is ecumenical in its hope of final reunion.
• The Communion’s identity as “Anglican” is an accident of its derivation from the British Isles, but the flourishing young churches of the Communion have now become autonomous. This statement, in my view, demystifies the idea of churches being “in communion with the See of Canterbury.” It is the historical connection, the “jurisdiction of honor,” that binds the churches of the Communion together with Canterbury.
• Of the two available paradigms – Rome and Orthodoxy – the Communion is likened to the latter, which is seen to be the more ancient, as “the first four centuries were bound together by no administrative bond.”
• Conciliarity, in the sense of this paradigm, is not inconsistent with regional autonomy in matters of governance, because the churches are bound together spiritually by a common faith and practice.
This all sounds good in the ideal, but what about the realities of the history of the church “by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed”? The Report does not sidestep this awful possibility. It goes on to say:

8. This freedom naturally and necessarily carries with it the risk of divergence to the point even of disruption. In case any such risk should actually arise, it is clear that the Lambeth Conference as such could not take any disciplinary action. Formal action would belong to the several Churches of the Anglican Communion individually; but the advice of the Lambeth Conference, sought before action is taken by the constituent Churches, would carry very great moral weight. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. We trust in His power working in every part of His Church to hold us together.

Here we come to a conundrum. In hard cases, how does the Communion exercise discipline of autonomous members? The Report’s answer is, “Province by Province,” with the advice and counsel of the Lambeth Conference. Roger Beckwith observes that this is exactly what many churches of the Communion have done with regard to the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada.(76) In the light of the moral guidance of the Lambeth Conference in 1998 and the continued rejection of that guidance in North America, other churches have announced a state of broken or impaired communion, and some bishops and archbishops have refused to share in the Lord’s Supper with bishops from North America. Read more…

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/06/25/when-diversity-trumps-truth-the-church-has-nothing-to-offer-the-poor/

June 25th, 2010

By Chris Sugden, Evangelicals Now, July 2010

Anglicans on both sides of the homosexuality debate have concluded that the crisis is now behind us. The key decisions have been made both by TEC and orthodox Anglicans in the Global Communion. TEC has clearly walked apart. The leader of the LGCM in the UK said that a schism should be now recognised.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent a Pentecost letter to the churches addressing the situation. His minimalist response is little more than wordplay.

He uses the term diversity to describe a range of views on a number of matters, as though they were all examples of a positive diversity to be embraced: diversity of tongues and languages in which the gospel is proclaimed, diversity of gifting and service, human diversity, societies are diverse, diverse peoples of the world, diversity of views on infant baptism, a coherent Anglican identity does not mean one with no diversity, which of course includes a diversity of views and practice on sexuality.

The Archbishop frames the current disputes as diversity, which become divisions because of misunderstandings and failures of communication. He thus reinterprets clear disobedience by TEC to the will of God as set forth in Scripture and recognised by the Church and reduces it to mis-communicated diversity.

The problem as he diagnoses it, is that some provinces, not only TEC, have formally adopted policies that breach the moratoria on same-sex consecrations and on crossing provincial boundaries to address this. All such provinces therefore will have their representatives on ecumenical dialogues reduced to consultant status. To go by what happened at the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham in 2005 when TEC representatives were present only as observers, this will mean no difference whatsoever: another play on words.

What is needed is better communication through “encounters that take place in a completely different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion’s representative bodies” – in other words in backrooms where there is no correct procedure to appeal to but all decisions are left solely in the hands of the powerful.

The Archbishop acknowledges limits to diversity, “ when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognise and that point in a significantly different direction ”. This is too strong for Presiding Bishop Schori’s understanding of diversity. In her reply, she characterises Archbishop Rowan’s response as colonial imposition of a singular understanding.

But diversity, indeed sharp division over doctrine and practice does not really matter for Archbishop Williams when people act together for the care of God’s poor and vulnerable.

The Archbishop has been poorly advised here. His view suggests that poor people do not care about truth or about relating to God in trust and prayer. When a slum community of Muslims was forcibly removed and literally dumped on the doorstep of a church in India, the first thing they asked for was for a place of worship.

TEC sees that care as promoting the Millennium Development Goals. If so, why compete with Oxfam?

Fundamental to poverty is how people see themselves. Outcastes in India are taught that they deservedly suffer poverty because of their or their forbears’ sin. This removes motivation to change their poverty which is willed by God. People need to see themselves as created and loved by God, entrusted by him with resources and accountable to him for their use; offered in Christ a status as his sons and daughters, forgiven for their sin and empowered by his Spirit to fulfil God’s purposes for them.

The World Bank’s survey of 40,000 poor people found that the organisation that poor people trust most after their own community groups is the church. Why? Not because of the money or help the church gives, but because through the church they come into contact with the love and power of God in Christ.

Many development projects seek to engage “ the community”. These are usually groups recruited specifically for the development project which disperse once the funding finishes. The churches remain.

The church’s doctrine of the love and power of God, its discipline in sanctifying marriage and family has a powerful effect in poor communities. When the church hides or denies the truth with which it has been entrusted, its development programmes are soon taken over by secularists and others.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6522ET20100603?type=domesticNews

PARIS (Reuters) – The top Episcopal bishop in the United States, under pressure from the Anglican Communion for allowing homosexual bishops, has said plans to discipline it in the worldwide denomination violated Anglican traditions.

U.S.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said the proposal by the Communion’s spiritual head, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, was “a troubling push toward centralized authority” in a body born in opposition to Vatican control.

Her reaction, issued in a pastoral letter on Wednesday, amounted to a polite rejection of the idea Williams floated last week in his latest bid to avert a schism in the loose group of churches that make up the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion.

Anglicanism has been torn for years by disputes about authority over Church teaching, especially on gay rights. Williams has tried to counter this by defining Anglican positions more clearly and strengthening his central role.

Jefferts Schori said his Pentecost letter suggesting sanctions for churches that disagree — both those approving gay clergy and same-sex unions as well as conservatives vehemently opposed to them — smacked of discredited colonial practices.

“We are distressed at the apparent imposition of sanctions on some parts of the Communion,” she said in the letter.

The Episcopal Church was not trying to impose its views on other Anglicans, she said, but it believed its reforms were based on genuine divine inspiration.

“The Spirit may be speaking to all of us in ways that do not at present seem to cohere or agree,” she said. “In all humility, we recognize that we may be wrong, yet we have proceeded in the belief that the Spirit permeates our decisions.”

COLONIAL ATTITUDES?

Orthodox Anglicans, especially in Africa, vehemently reject pro-homosexual reforms as sinful and unbiblical. Several African churches have ordained orthodox U.S. bishops to lead a dissident network of conservative Anglican churches there.   Read more…

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6512PI20100602

LONDON (Reuters) – The Archbishop of Canterbury’s latest proposal to mediate a gay rights dispute splitting the worldwide Anglican Communion seems to be falling on deaf ears in the opposing camps he is trying to discipline.

World

Archbishop Rowan Williams, spiritual head of the world’s 80 million Anglicans, suggested last week that member churches approving gay bishops and same-sex unions and those actively opposing them be sidelined from official doctrinal committees.

The initiative was sparked by the consecration of an openly lesbian bishop in California last month. Williams also said conservative churches — mostly in Africa — that appoint bishops to serve in other countries would also be sidelined.

The proposal, if accepted in the Communion, would be the first time such sanctions would be imposed on dissident national churches. Unlike Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism is a federation of churches whose head has no direct power over all members.

A group campaigning for homosexual rights in the Communion said the threatened discipline caused it little worry because the committees the dissenters could not work on were “trivial.”

“These are delaying tactics, sops to the conservatives, which in reality gives them nothing,” Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, UK, told Reuters.

The Episcopal bishop of California accused Williams of “creating a different kind of Anglicanism, more like the centralized, doctrinalised polity of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“When an empire and its exponents can no longer exercise control by might, an option is to feint, double-talk and manipulate,” Bishop Marc Andrus wrote on his blog.

CONSERVATIVES NOT IMPRESSED

Equally dismissive comments came from Bishop David Anderson, who heads the conservative American Anglican Council launched to oppose liberal trends in the Episcopal Church, the official U.S. member church in the Anglican Communion.

“In an hour when the Anglican Church globally needs sound, clear and orthodox leadership at the top, the captain of the Anglican Communion seems to be below decks preoccupied with lesser things,” he wrote.

The Anglican Church in Nigeria, one of the most active orthodox churches in opposing gay bishops and appointing conservative bishops to work in the U.S., has not yet issued an official reaction to the proposal Williams made.   Read more…

[Ed. Note:  This is an essential read for liberals and the Biblically orthodox in TEC.  Much is at stake here and our leadership does seem to be in terminal denial of how fast this Church is shrinking.  I believe that the assumption that new people will find TEC and join us is yet another point of denial.  Cheryl M. Wetzel]

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/1/8/royally-in-denial

By Neal Michell, Canon to the Ordinary, Dallas

This opinion piece was written for The Living Church, January 18 issue.

Posted on: January 8, 2010

Theologian Walter Brueggemann tells the story of Toots Shor, the famous New York saloonkeeper who died of cancer, who said just days before he died, “I don’t want to know what I have.” That’s the impression I sometimes have of our church: We don’t want to hear that we are in danger of terminal decline.

In The Prophetic Imagination, Brueggemann writes of a “royal consciousness” as he describes the conflict between the prophets and the government of Israel that had solidified royal power in Solomon. He uses Jeremiah as an example of a faithful prophet and talks extensively about the Solomonic regime, naming it the dominant or royal consciousness.

The prophets were continually calling Israel back to faithfulness. Their job was to remind the people of their death and the end of an age. They grieved the end of the age, the death of their people, and that what was so transparent to them was not so clear to anyone else.

Brueggemann describes the royal consciousness as “numbness,” “denial,” and “self-deception.” The task of the prophet is “to cut through the numbness, to penetrate the self-deception, so that the God of endings is confessed as Lord.”

The Need for Urgency

Contrast the royal consciousness with John Kotter’s counsel regarding how to transform an organization. Kotter is a professor in the Harvard Business School and widely regarded as the world’s foremost authority on leadership and change. In a seminal article he wrote for Harvard Business Review, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” Kotter presents an eight-step process for leading successful change in an organization.

The first and necessary step, without which any attempt to transform the organization will fail, is to establish a sense of urgency. A high level of complacency and a low sense of urgency, Kotter asserts, constitute the two most significant impediments to change.

Kotter gives several sources of complacency. Some of them are the absence of a major and visible crisis; too many visible resources; low overall performance standards; a lack of sufficient performance feedback from external sources; and a kill-the-messenger, low-candor, low-confrontation culture.

So, where is our sense of urgency in the Episcopal Church? Consider this: in 2007-08 our average Sunday attendance declined by 60,000 people. Ponder that reality: 60,000 people who were worshiping in Episcopal churches in 2006 were no longer there two years later. That represents losing the combined dioceses of Atlanta, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Upper South Carolina.

Or, to place those losses in the Western part of the United States, those losses represent the combined attendance of the dioceses of Alaska, Arizona, California, Eastern Oregon, El Camino Real, Hawaii, Idaho, Navajoland Area Mission, Nevada, Olympia, Oregon, and Spokane.

Gone. Buildings might remain, but no real churches. Imagine all those people, the equivalent of eleven whole dioceses, walking out of church one day and not returning. That is what has happened in the Episcopal Church in the space of two years.

Several of our dioceses face questions concerning their future viability as independent, self-sustaining dioceses. Of course, we know that the dioceses of Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin need financial support as a result of departures from the Episcopal Church of the majority of their churches and leadership. In addition, the dioceses of Eau Claire and Fond du Lac have discussed merging; the Diocese of North Dakota is lending its bishop to the Diocese of Louisiana as an assisting bishop for one week per month to help pay his salary; and the Bishop of Western Kansas has resigned and returned to parish ministry partly because of the financial strain that a full-time bishop’s salary places on that diocese. These dioceses represent a warning to us that more consolidations and mergers are on the way.

Killing the Messenger

During the previous triennium the State of the Church Committee told the truth about the condition of our church. It did an excellent job of reporting the difficulties of an aging, financially challenged denomination. It acknowledged further losses due to conflict in our churches, particularly over sexuality issues that have exacerbated the decline in attendance and membership. The committee made recommendations for addressing these challenges.

Were their recommendations heeded? No. Our General Convention had no real strategy in its decisions. The cuts in the triennial budget were hailed as “fair” and “across the board.” But they weren’t strategic. Seemingly strategic staff positions of three years ago and even one year ago were eliminated with little dissent. The convention passed all evangelism-related resolutions while at the same time eliminating the church’s evangelism officer.    Read more…