Graham Kings writing in Fulcrum’s newsletter (an English Evangelical organization) has posted an essay which tries to tease out the political positions of the various parties in the Episcopal Church. It’s a longish post and it reads to me as a pretty accurate description of where the leadership (at least) of the Episcopal Church at the moment is arrayed. (NB: The article doesn’t describe the relative numerical sizes with respect to each other of the five or so positions it describes.)
“In general terms, it seems to me that there are not two groups of ‘Anglicans’ in the USA (ie liberals and conservatives on the issue of sexuality), nor three (as some have suggested), but at least five – and it may be better to use the more fluid word ‘streams’ than groups.
Firstly, there are people who are liberal on issues of sexuality, who still see Gene Robinson’s consecration both as a pioneering, unilateral cause of ‘justice’ and also as ‘right’ in terms of autonomous, ecclesial doctrine. They disagree with the Windsor Report’s central recommendations, which assume the ‘given-ness’ of Lambeth 1.10 and which stress the importance of ‘interdependence’ over autonomy. They would not be unhappy for the Communion to shrink to a ‘federation’, and sometimes already prefer to use that term, nor, alternatively and ultimately, for The Episcopal Church to set up its own rival structure, trying to draw in other provinces. Ecclesiastical capitalism, perhaps?
Secondly, there are those who, while liberal on sexual issues and who may have supported Gene Robinson’s consecration at the time, now see its effect as deleterious on the Communion. Some admit to being surprised by this, even though they were clearly warned by the Primates’ Meetings in May and October 2003. So, they are liberal on sexual issues but conservative on ‘Communion’.
Streams one and two, it seems to me, may be represented by Christopher Epting, who, himself, may be more in stream two than one.
Thirdly, there are those who are conservative on sexual issues and fully compliant with the Windsor Report eg the group of ‘Windsor’ bishops who have met twice at Camp Allen, and who were specifically mentioned in the letter of invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Primates. These bishops relate closely to the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion Institute in the USA, as seen in the writings of Ephraim Radner, who is on the Covenant Design Group of the Anglican Communion, and to the Bishops of Durham and Winchester, who have spoken at Camp Allen. This stream, which may well prove to be the most crucial and cohesively central, will be represented, it seems to me, by Bruce MacPherson.
Fourthly, there are those who are conservative on sexual issues and who are still, but only just, awaiting a ‘Communion sponsored solution’ to the issues in the USA, eg the Anglican Communion Network (ACN). They are ‘Windsor compliant’ in terms of the assumed ‘given-ness’ of Lambeth 1.10 and ‘interdependence’, though there are also some ‘Network’ parishes which have individually left The Episcopal Church, and are now under various provinces in Africa and the Southern Cone on an ad hoc basis.
Fifthly, there are those who are conservative on sexual issues and who have already opted out of The Episcopal Church as groups, in a unilateralist manner eg Anglican Mission in America (under the Province of Ruanda since 2000) and the Convocation for Anglicans in North America (under the Province of Nigeria, since 2006). These agree with Lambeth 1.10 and parts of the Windsor Report, but not the sections which warn against ‘trans-communion interventions’. So, perhaps, these may be seen as partially ‘Windsor Compliant’.
Streams four and five, it seems to me, may be represented by Bob Duncan, who himself is clearly more in stream four than five (but, as a committed ‘Windsor bishop’ he is also to some extent in stream three).”
As I said – it’s a pretty decent description and I find relatively little to quibble with. (Well, maybe that the positions overlap a degree more than the author allows – but I think he describes the various lumps in the political spectrum pretty well.)
There’s been a great deal of discussion lately about whether there is a real “center” or “centrist” party to the Episcopal Church. I for one am comfortable with saying that there isn’t – there’s just a largish diverse center as Frank Griswold has reminded us again and again. I think the language of “centrists” grew out of frustration with the way the process worked at General Convention where the decisions are made on a yes or no basis with winner take all. Those of us who are trying to find an alternate way through started calling ourselves “centrists” but it really only means that we’re seeking a third way that doesn’t require one group or the other to formally separate from the body.
“*Christopher” has written a rather extensive critique of the whole enterprise both here in the comments on this blog and in a couple of very thoughtful posts on his blog “Bending the Rule“. I commend them to you. I think most of the concerns he raises are valid. My own issue in this struggle as a parish priest is finding a way forward that brings all along. It may not possible, but I’m not willing to give up yet. In the long run it is as *Christopher says – we ultimately can only be Church in as much as we commit to praying together and those who will not pray with others cast their own lot.
Read the rest of the Fulcrum article here: Fulcrum: Fulcrum Newsletter 13 – February 2007
Nick, how do you feel about the part where Kings–who strikes me as knowing almost nothing at all about our church that doesn’t fit his political agenda–proposes that some of our dioceses be governed by a “College of Windsor Bishops.”
Jim – I was mostly focused on his description of the spectrum of belief in TEC. But, since you raise the point, I think his suggestion is unlikely to happen.
I say that mostly because of the Bishops in TEC that I know. I can’t imagine any coalition being able to hold itself together long enough to actually “govern” one and other.
Kings does not acknowledge those who are perhaps not to keen on gays but believe that The Episcopal Church should not be governed by foreign primates.
Well from here, it seems center often means another political agenda of its own and has little to do with the Center, Christ Jesus, within whose circumferance can be held quite a lot of diversity. Centrism is not apolitical but is a “side” or many “sides”.
And if “centrism” were recast with Jesus as the Center and the Circumference, there should be a broad lot of room and a whole lot less window shopping on others’ souls.
So rather than centrist, though my own sense is rather High and Catholic theologically and liturgically, I’m a broad churchman in the end that is rather comfortable with Huntington’s minimalist catholicism in terms of dogma.
It’s our praying together at common prayer that most matters and within that framework of our being taken up into God’s Liturgy Sunday by Sunday there should be a roominess for ample difference in practice and encouragement to lgbt folk and support in care and rite of our lives (even if that means saying I cannot myself do this, but I’ll point you to those who can help you do so) and conservatives to practice as they will as well and upbuilding of one another in what we share in comming: Christ. In fact, that reads as Anglican and Pauline: multitudinous, diverse, particular, peculiar, conflicted, and yet centered in One other than ourselves or even our institutions.
The problem is on a regular basis I feel quite torn down by the Body, and I’m surely not alone in feeling that way as a gay Christian. On a regular basis, I find myself near despair and wondering despite faith in Christ if it’s not time to take leave of the Body as expressed in Anglicanism. I feel like I’m battered about by the right and left and sold down the river by the center when I too want to be able to go up to the house of the Lord and give thanks for what Jesus is doing in my life. Again, I don’t think I’m alone in this, and so I think straight Anglicans need take a good hard look at their rhetoric about us often wrapped up in talking about our institutions and concerns to remain at the center rather than open up to a plurality within the once Center/Cicumference: Christ.