My dear Brother Stephen,
I had finished a draft of this letter before the recent meeting at which Bishop Duncan expressed his view that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference are "lost" in so far as they can serve as instruments of communion. He has expressed to me in private views similar to these on several occasions; but now that they have been expressed in such a public manner I feel a response to your open letter is even more urgent than when I first sat down to write. In your Open Letter to Network Bishops and Common Cause Partners you advise these Bishops that the time has come for a "full and final separation between those in The Episcopal Church (TEC) who hold a false gospel and those who hold fast the truth revealed in Holy Scripture and the evangelical and catholic faith of the Church." You write as a baptized and confirmed member of the TEC of 40 years standing and as a priest of some 35 years standing. You write also as one who for the past seven years has viewed TEC with the eyes of the church in Africa.
I respond as one baptized some 72 years ago by a priest of TEC, and as one confirmed by a Bishop of that Church some 60 years ago and ordained by the same Bishops some 46 years ago. I write also as one who had the privilege of viewing TEC for some ten years as one of its missionaries serving in The Church of Uganda. I write also as one who worked closely with both Archbishops Janani Luwum and Erica Sabiti during a good part of that period.
The biography we share has given each of us knowledge of TEC and the Church of Uganda, though I doubt, as you suggest, anything as inclusive as "the church in Africa." However, neither our age nor our experience serves to guarantee that we see things aright. The question is not our length of service or the particular vantage point that is ours. The question is whether the advice you have offered accords with God's will for our troubled Church and our troubled Communion. I do not believe it does, and I write in order to place in the public realm a number of considerations that lead me both to make such a statement and counsel another way forward. My advice like yours must be assessed by the Church. That cannot happen until everything is, as it were, on the table; and to put things on the table is the reason I write.
Before responding to the particular points you make, it is appropriate I believe to identify the state of spirit in which the issues you raise are being addressed. From other things you have written, I am aware that you read the blogs. The degree of frustration and anger that accompanies the myriad calls for condemnation and separation that appear in this virtual world cannot have escaped your notice. I must confess that I am no stranger to anger, frustration, and condemnation; but I have come to the conclusion that this sort of spiritual state does not produce either a clear vision or the sort of charity Christians are called upon to manifest when there is conflict within Christ's body.
The first and most baleful effect of anger is sweeping and indiscriminate condemnation-an attempt to brand one's opponent with a damning epithet. "Apostate" is one of the most common used by people who share our common concern for the theological and moral errors now common within TEC. "Heretic" is another!
You have used the phrase "hold a false gospel" to refer to our common opponents, and I believe this is a better way to put the matter. Apostates are people who have made a public renunciation of Christian faith. Heretics are those whose teaching has been judged false by the councils of the Church. Few of our opponents have renounced Christ, so apostate is not the right word to use. Sadly, our Church (and perhaps our Communion) is in such disarray that it cannot, as a Church, pronounce in any credible way on the issues that divide us. As a result, even though the Windsor Report has stated in paragraph 28 that the recent actions of TEC are "departures from genuine, apostolic, Christian faith" we have no mechanism either within the Communion or TEC that can in any generally acceptable way adjudicate the issues before us. We, therefore, are (sadly) left with private judgments. My private judgment, like yours, is that we are faced with a significant number of people, both lay and ordained, who, as you say, "hold a false gospel." What is more, these people now control the levers of power within TEC, and are prepared to use those levers to propagate and on occasion enforce their convictions.
It is understandable that circumstances such as these breed both anger, frustration, and condemnation, but not necessarily clarity of vision and thought. Anger and frustration have brought significant numbers of people to conclusions similar to yours. Their conclusion is (1) the people who present the public face of TEC are apostates and heretics; (2) I do not wish to be identified with an institution whose leaders advocate both a false gospel and bad morals; (3) there is no way I can change the present state of affairs; (4) TEC cannot be reformed; and (5) the best thing to do is find another way of being Anglican-one that does not make me a part of TEC.
You have stated clearly that you hold to points 2, 4, and 5, and you have suggested you agree with 1 and 3 as well. Having named the interior state of many of our readers, and hoping that recognition of such a state might serve as a caution against hasty reaction, I now feel free to comment on the substance of your suggestions.
1. You call for a "full and final separation" from those who hold a false gospel. Your stated reason for such a drastic move is that any hope for renewal or reform within the present structure of TEC is delusional. There may be other reasons behind your call for separation, but you do not state them. I shall respond, therefore, to your stated reason. This response is in the form of a question, namely, is the degree of hope one may hold for renewal and reform an adequate reason to separate from a part of Christ's body. The prophets of Israel did not undertake their mission on the basis of calculations of success or failure. It is certain that Christ did not weigh and balance his chances in calling God's people to repentance. For the prophets and for Christ the reform and renewal of Israel lay in the hands of God. Their job was to call for repentance and place their lives in the service of God's way for his people. Their job was not to start another Israel. It was to suffer for and at the hands of Israel in hope that God would vindicate their faithfulness.
2. Another way of putting what I have just written is to say that your call for a "full and final separation" is not rooted in a theological account of how Christians are called to address those among their number who hold a false gospel or who live corrupt lives. I would put it to you that the witness of holy scripture suggests faithful witness, suffering, and patient endurance generated by faith, hope, and love rather than separation on the part of a self-declared "faithful remnant" are the proper means of addressing error and conflict within the Church.
3. The basic point of division between us is theological, but there is a practical matter that needs mentioning as well. It appears to me that the end result of a position like the one you advocate is a Church in a continual state of division. Does it not with great regularity appear that the "current structure" of the Church lies beyond the possibility of reform and renewal? Does not the question, "can these bones live?" appear within the history of God's people with frightening regularity? It seems to me that it does.
4. There is another practical matter closely connected to the question I have just posed. Though I share with you what I believe to be a degree of Christian realism about the current structure of TEC, I find myself a good less certain about the future of that structure than you seem to be. It is to my mind most likely that come September 30 TEC will not respond to the admonitions and requests of our Primates in an acceptable way. What I am less certain about is how the Communion through its Primates will respond to what (beneath a good bit of spin) can only be called arrogance and defiance. If TEC refuses the admonitions of the Primates, and if the standing of TEC bishops within the Communion remains unchanged it will mean little to say that TEC has "walked apart." What we have thought of as The Anglican Communion will have morphed into another creature altogether. There will be nothing to walk apart from! Your argument simply assumes a result such as this. However, if as I believe it will, the Communion through its Primates alters the status of TEC within the Communion, the effects upon the current structure will be profound. My guess is (and it is only a guess) that the application of sanctions upon TEC (in the form of presence, or better non presence, at meetings of the Instruments of Communion) will produce heightened intensity in the church struggle that already characterizes the common life of our Church. The issue in that struggle will be posed in a way that cannot be avoided. Does TEC wish to be part of a Communion of Churches or does it wish to become yet another denomination within the ever expanding fan of American denominationalism? Exactly how this struggle will work itself out lies beyond the line of my sight. However, I do not believe a hazy horizon is sufficient reason to found a rival Anglican presence within North America prior to reaching that horizon.
5. In the same vein, it troubles me that you call for "full and final separation" before we know the outcome of the September deadline our Primates have given TEC. A move like this one reminds me of a constant theme in the history to date of Common Cause and some (not all) members of The Network. That is, a declaration of defeat is made at the outset of a struggle and then plans are laid for what to do in the face of the putative defeat already declared. Need I say that a strategy such as this carries all the marks of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
6. It strikes me that your remarks about the future of dioceses and parishes within TEC and the Mark Lawrence affair provide an example of just such a prophecy. The fact is, however, we do not know the outcome of that affair. Further, we will not know what the future of what are often called "orthodox parishes and dioceses" will be if the Primates back their admonition with sanctions. I confess I agree that if nothing is done to inhibit TEC's outrageous claims to autonomy our parishes and dioceses will be picked off one by one. I also believe that we will find ourselves in a state of anarchy within our Communion. The point, however, is that we do not know as yet this particular part of our future under God, and it seems to me rash to think that we do.
7. It is in the light of this remark that I wish to comment on your call to the Network Bishops not to wait for "Windsor Bishops" but to unite under the leadership of Bob Duncan in fellowship with one another and with Common Cause Partners. It is a source of constant sadness to me that the Bishops within our Church who do not support the direction taken by its current structure have often been either too cautious to speak and act or too quick both to declare defeat and to begin constructing what appears to be an escape pod. However, once again you anticipate the future in ways that seem to me uncalled for. Your primary reason for despair is the sad history of attempts to organize among our Bishops a credible opposition to the progressive juggernaut that controls the structures of TEC. This is a sad history indeed, however, its baleful quality has more to do with problems of relationship among these Bishops (many of whom are in the Network) than it does the machinations of the progressive clerisy that governs us. That being said, it remains the case that the Windsor Bishops will meet again in August, all Network Bishops have been invited, and (most of all) these Bishops will face a clear choice. Are they willing to stand and be counted, as neither the Windsor Bishops nor the Network Bishops nor those involved in Common Cause were when last the House of Bishops met? This question means concretely are they now willing to give public support to the proposals made by the Primates; and are they willing themselves to seek ways to address the pastoral crisis of our Church that has provoked the multiplication within our midst of other jurisdictions. In short, the question is whether or not the Windsor Bishops (whose number includes the Network Bishops) are willing in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury to show that there is within TEC an alternative presence to its current structure. I am unwilling prematurely to declare all hope for such eventualities to be no more than a chimera.
8. I must also comment on your remarks about the Bishops of the Global South. From the beginning I have thought that the best hope for TEC lay in the larger Anglican Communion saying no to its arrogance. I have not changed that view. However, your word from the Global South can be read to imply that the Global South expects support for the "faithful remnant" composed of Network Bishops and Common Cause Partners. If this is not your meaning, I am relieved. I would have thought that what the Bishops of the Global South want and expect is a positive response to their admonitions and support for the pastoral scheme they worked so hard to construct and for which they received unanimous support. It is far from clear to me that the Global South Bishops expect support for something that looks to all the world to be an incipient alternative Anglican Province within North America. Some may indeed expect this, but certainly not all (not even most) do. Indeed, those Primates willing simply to go along with this new structure apart from the support of their colleagues will seem simply to have dismissed their colleagues' counsel and concerns altogether. And, I must ask, where will that leave the Meeting of Primates and its credibility?
9. My final comment concerns your call for Network Bishops and dioceses to take a risk and break communion with "false and lukewarm colleagues" in TEC. This call might simply be a repeat of your earlier one for "full and final separation" from TEC. However, you now ask for a break in communion with "false and lukewarm colleagues." Does this number include Windsor Bishops who do not see separation as the way to address the present crisis? Just who is false and who is lukewarm? Does this number include provinces that disagree with the strategy being followed by Common Cause Partners? Certainly, it would appear that you mean breaking communion with people like me-and this is a logic I do not understand and, if pursued, would certainly resist as but a proof of the concerns I am raising. You owe your readers some explanation of what you mean. Too much is at issue to be vague about those with whom the "faithful remnant" should remain in communion.
I am more than aware that reasons are given for the course of action you recommend that are not touched upon in your open letter. Chief among these are biblical passages that address the treatment of false or immoral brethren. This question is a theological one and it deserves the most careful theological consideration. I am reminded of the fact that the men who finally decided to assassinate Adolph Hitler debated among themselves for two years about the theological and ethical propriety of such an action. They did this before they did anything. I am struck by the fact that those of us who oppose the false gospel now regnant in the Episcopal Church have resorted to political tactics first of all, and in doing so we simply mirror the priority given to politics by the "progressive" forces we so oppose. In failing to do the hard theological work our circumstances demand we have become the mirror image of those whom we believe to be in error. My prayer is that those of us whose hearts are near to breaking because of the sickness of our Church will realize that these questions deserve serious attention rather than hasty action.
Having made this point let me comment on a closely related matter of very practical importance. It is one thing to feel it necessary to separate from TEC's structures and engage in a provisional relationship with other parts of the Communion until such time as the Communion as a whole can help sort this out. This has happened! I can understand and accept many of the motives for it. Nevertheless, it is quite another thing to declare the end of provisionality (as you appear to do) before the Communion has been able to do its difficult work. This course of action has the effect of calling dead the structures of our common life in terms that reach far beyond the borders of TEC.
Finally, we both need to consider the horizon beyond which neither of us can see. The weeks and months after September 30 constitute our present horizon. My prayer is that when we can see more clearly than now we do all of us who have been involved in this struggle will sit down to pray and consider together the right course of action. For some that course already involves an alternative province. There are, however, other courses of action open to us; and some of these may well show greater insight into the ways in which God would have us address the present sickness of TEC. My plea is that we remain open to the voices of those who struggle with us for the reform and renewal of Anglicanism within North America, that we avoid dismissive statements about those who see things differently than we do, that we do not rush to judgment, and that we seek together a Godly response to the challenges with which we will most certainly be presented.
Yours in Christ,
Philip Turner
(Editor's Note: Dr. Turner is the retired Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale University.)
