Adapted by ACI with permission from the Newletter of Grace Episcopal Church, Tampa, Florida
The issues of the national church and Anglican Communion are again upon us, and since they have directly impacted our parish in the past (about 23 families, one-third of the parish membership, left Grace Church over the actions of General Convention of 2003), and many of our members place high priority on them, I think it is prudent for us to know a bit more about the underlying issues as a background against which to interpret the underlying motives that underpin some of the events, actions and reports that will come up in the coming months. Here are some of my own personal thoughts on the many issues in four main points.
I. The Lambeth Conference of 2008
So far, it looks like there will be a Lambeth Conference next year, when all the bishops of the Anglican Communion (over 800 of them) meet once every ten years to talk about the identity and mission of our Anglican family in the world. This means that for The Episcopal Church (TEC, formerly referred to as ECUSA), of which we are a member parish through our diocese and bishops, certain deadlines will come due and our collective commitment to the Windsor Process will be re-evaluated with consequences that are unclear at this point.
The "Windsor Process" comes from the Windsor Report of 2004 that inter alia called upon the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada to observe, until further a consensus is reached, a moratorium on,
a) the ordination and consecration of bishops in same-sex relationships,
b) the authorization and practice of rites of blessing of same-sex relationships, as well as,
c) the crossing of provincial and diocesan boundaries by bishops (usually from the Global South) for purposes of extending pastoral function and oversight over/in parishes without the consent of the hosting diocesan bishop (usually in North America).
The Windsor Report also called the Anglican Communion to explore new ways of being in communion together through an Anglican Covenant. This Covenant, it was hoped, would express and provide a new consensus regarding the following items, among others, in the Anglican church of the 21st Century: 1) what is a bishop 2) what is local diocesan authority and practice, and 3) the authority and interpretation of Scripture.
II. The Deadlines from the Windsor Process for The Episcopal Church
For TEC, the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and our commitment to the Windsor Process could have consequences that touch upon state corporate law (for example, Florida's Title 36, Chapter 617) combined with TEC's canon law (specifically the Preamble to TEC's constitution and all TEC diocesan constitutions, canons, and by-laws) that require each diocese to be in communion with the archbishop of Canterbury through its bishop. Remember that in Anglicanism, the key is the bishop, and the bishop is the key! A diocesan bishop is the central figure in Anglican Order that preserves and defends Anglican Faith (Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer). This is why all kinds of Anglican groups in America, in the pursuit of preserving Anglican Faith, have consecrated bishops in all kind of ways and by various means, and these strategies have serious implications for current and future Anglican Order. The reading of TEC's constitution holds legal force in terms of local state corporate law by which every diocese and parish is incorporated. This is unique to the American Anglican family, and an item that members of other Anglican provinces might not apprehend let alone appreciate.
Here is an example of the language of TEC's constitution, and how that translates into state corporation law for the individual dioceses, and then to local parish church. TEC's constitution Preamble reads:
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution, adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.
Through the corporate laws of the individual state, by which each diocese is governed, this same Preamble has been subsumed into their own diocesan articles of incorporation in some form or other, thereby giving this requirement for communion with the See of Canterbury legal force (i.e. it may be enforceable in a court of law). For example, the Diocese of Southwest Florida constitution preamble reads:
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church, within the area hereafter described [that is, the diocesan boundaries in the sate of Florida] does hereby adopt this Constitution as and for its Articles of Incorporation of a corporation not for profit under the laws of the State of Florida. The corporation shall be known as a "Diocese" in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
Article I reads: Of Acceding to the General Convention: The Diocese acknowledges its allegiance to be due to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and recognizing the body known as The Episcopal Church in the United States of America to be a true branch of said Church, having a rightful spiritual jurisdiction in this country, hereby declares its adhesion to the same and accedes to its Constitutions and Canons.
For the Diocese of New York, their constitution reads in Article I:-ACCESSION TO CONSTITUTION AND CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH: The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York is subject to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
The point I am trying to make here may appear redundant to some, but it is an important key as to why the American Anglicans think Anglican Order is something they can easily tinker with and even break up in the noble and necessary pursuit of saving Anglican Faith. This light regard of Anglican Order is steeped in their very historical DNA of individualism, independence and above all, the very corporate structure of their individual parish, diocesan and national church constitutions and canons, which are in themselves defined by the different laws of corporations in each individual state. In short, American Anglicans may feel it is an easy and pragmatic option to break up Anglican Order in order to save Anglican Faith, yet have no appreciation whatsoever of what Anglican Order means for other Anglican provinces (once broken, its restoration will not be guaranteed, and the resulting fragmentation will stay in-built into the Anglican system).
If we look at a contrasting legal structure, that of the Church of England, we see why TEC's polity is indeed unique in the Anglican Communion, but one of the major driving dynamics in our current crises. The Church of England is legally organized by an Act of Parliament. Each diocese is tied to the national church, not by an individual local state/municipal/county corporate law but by a national one. It is inconceivable for a parish in England to leave the Church of England, and file a claim in court to keep its property. There is just no legal base for such a move. This legal base is the mirror image found in some form within all the other Anglican provinces in the world. Except in America Anglicana. This is why TEC has no archbishop. They have a "Presiding Bishop" whose function is to chair the House of Bishops and convene such related gatherings like the General Convention. It is just not legally a supported role, given the independence of dioceses and by natural progression, the independence of the individual parish.
In simple terms, potentially (emphasis on potentially!) a TEC bishop that is not invited to the Lambeth conference could be regarded as being out of communion with the archbishop of Canterbury, and this status could open his/her diocese to legal and canonical challenges in the secular courts, via basic state corporate law, as not having the right to its properties and assets, as well as bring into question that bishop's right to be a bishop in TEC. (Hence a TEC bishop not invited to Lambeth might still need to attend with "observer" status, if only to keep off such potential legal challenge even symbolically, while a non-TEC bishop not invited to Lambeth would not be in similar position). A litigious situation is already playing itself out all over TEC dioceses with some congregations that have left TEC and affiliated with other Anglican provinces/bishops abroad (mostly under bishops in Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone) that still want to retain the TEC parish properties and assets. All these cases continue to set case law precedents for future litigation in which the courts will settle disputes over church assets.
A situation in which any TEC bishops, and by inference their dioceses, that were officially declared as NOT being in communion with Canterbury, could provide sufficient grounds to prime such legal challenges to the legitimacy of those bishops/dioceses/churches/groups. It is conceivable that legal teams on all sides are already in place and the necessary legal motions already drawn up and ready to file. And the value of the potential assets is high enough (all the dioceses that have refused to comply with the Windsor Process) to seduce many (most conservatives hoping to be legitimized as the official Anglican family in America) into fantasizing about how to acquire and control such assets (the total prize could be in excess of $10billion). One parish alone, the Falls Church that has left TEC Diocese of Virginia for CANA under Martyn Minns, claims a total value of about $30 million. This is why the diocese of Virginia cannot let them leave TEC without a legal fight, and that is why those leaving for CANA cannot just leave that entire resource base without a legal fight. (This is called due fiduciary stewardship by some, and lawsuits have already been filed against, e.g. the Bishop of Pittsburgh around the concept of failing to fulfill such fiduciary responsibilities.)
For the sake of illustration (I am just speculating here), suppose a TEC diocese is challenged in court as to its legitimacy on account of being out of communion with Canterbury, and in that challenge the court issued an injunction to freeze all the diocesan assets until the matter were resolved. Suppose that for some dioceses, their endowment portfolios, key parish properties, parish accounts and such assets, were encumbered or even frozen for up to a year. All mission and worship would have to change overnight! This scenario is still only potential, but this exactly what every TEC bishop, chancellors and advisors are thinking bout, and planning for, dreading, and hoping never happens, for there are no sure guarantees as to how the courts would decide case by case. Such potential litigation within the TEC family could go on for years, with only the legal teams on either side being the winners. Such litigation would have an impact on TEC bishops/dioceses only, as the requirement for being in communion with Canterbury has no similar legal force in other Anglican provinces of the world, for their national secular legal bases are vague and their corporate laws are not as readily enforceable as in the USA. In short, TEC is now trapped by the local property statutes in as far as they impinge on TEC's assets, and that is the real crisis! There are speculations on possible ways to remove this legal foundation by changing the TEC constitution. It takes two consecutive TEC General Conventions to amend the TEC constitution, which would make it six years away in 2012, but the rules could be suspended if there were enough will and consensus for such a move. This would break up the Anglican Communion for sure, bringing us full circle to the time when the Episcopal Church at her inception became the first Anglican province outside the Church of England. To date, there is little sign that TEC will commit to the Windsor Process. Yet the Windsor Process is one of the simplest and most generous avenues for TEC to resolve this crisis for everybody.
III. The Disruptions in Anglican Faith and Order and Their Potential Consequences
The foregoing is the main reason why some key Anglican groups in America have been intensely lobbying the Archbishop of Canterbury since the year 2000 to make a formal declaration regarding what bishops/dioceses/churches/groups constitute the officially recognized Anglican Church family in USA (currently held by TEC). Keep in mind that there are already over 30 (yes, thirty!) Anglican groups in America alone (see this list at www.anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html); all having broken away from TEC over the years for different reasons and causes (liberalism, heresy, apostasy, revision of scripture, etc.), but TEC is still the only group officially in communion with Canterbury. This lobbying is focused on declaring as the official Anglican family in America a new blended consortium province, comprising the Windsor bishops/dioceses in TEC (i.e. those that are committed to the Windsor Process), and all the groups that have left TEC in the recent past (sometimes referred to as "Common Cause Partners" and/or "Continuing Churches") notably the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) homegrown in America over past theological and ethical differences; Forward in Faith America (FINA) rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition that opposes the ordination of women; the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) sponsored by the Province of Rwanda and (originally) the Diocese of Singapore; the Convocation of Anglican in North America (CANA) sponsored by the province of Nigeria; as well as the TEC dioceses/parishes affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network (ACN) and the American Anglican Council (AAC) both homegrown from the conservative traditions. (Whether Common Cause will move forward without the Windsor Bishops and other Network-related groups is unknown, although signs are pointing in that direction.)
All these groups have their own separate support and donor constituencies, run their own separate structures, and publish their own separate newsletters, websites, and blogs, that propagate their various separate viewpoints and spins on all issues to keep their separate donor bases happy. More significant, all these groups hold some key fundamental differences amongst each other that have potential for future divisions and controversy (Disrupting Anglican Order), even if the current crisis issues of Anglican Faith (revision of Scripture) were resolved today. These groups have scheduled a meeting of their Council of Bishops at the end of September 2006 convened by the bishop of the TEC diocese of Pittsburg and head of ACN, Robert Duncan (www.acn-us.org/archive/ 2007/05/common-cause-council-of-bishops-set-for-sept-25-28.html). Anticipating the failure of TEC House of Bishops to accept the Windsor Process by the September 30 deadline, their proposed agenda includes items that read:
* to share understandings of the purpose and role of bishops such that some common guidelines for the making of bishops relative to numbers of communicants and congregations might be developed; * to consider whether a permanent Common Cause College of Bishops might be created, in order that ever greater levels of communication, cooperation and collaboration can be built; and * to initiate discussion of the creation of an "Anglican Union" among the partners, moving forward the vision of the Primates of the Global South for a new "ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA."
The overriding focus seems to be on that last phrase, a new "ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA." For this essay, this agenda highlights the implications for historic Anglican Order mentioned below in the face of the overall zeal to restore historic Anglican Faith.
IV. Lambeth 2008 and Anglican Order: North and South
So far, invitations to the Lambeth Conference of 2008 have been sent out, but withheld from some bishops (Gene Robinson of New Hampshire because of his same-gender relationship on one hand, and on the other, Martyn Minns of CANA and Charles Murphy and his colleagues of the AMiA for the crossing of TEC provincial/diocesan boundaries by their sponsoring archbishops of Nigeria and Rwanda respectively. Also not invited for other unrelated reasons are Robinson Cavalcanti from South America and Nolbert Kunonga from Zimbabwe). That is how central the archbishop of Canterbury, one of our "Instruments of Communion", has become to Anglican identity in our current crisis. Of particular interest and significance, the bishops of the AMiA and CANA claim they are already in direct communion with the archbishop of Canterbury through their sponsoring provinces of Rwanda and Nigeria respectively, and an invitation to the Lambeth conference would cement their legitimacy as bishops in America, directly in communion with Canterbury, instead of their current "backdoor" link through their sponsors (hence some refer to these bishops as "bishops irregular" as opposed to bishops suffragan or assistant or missionary, on account of their "backdoor" election and consecration). The legitimacy so eagerly sought is deemed to be so crucial to these bishops' mission goals that if they are not invited to Lambeth 2008, there seems to be a determined willingness from their quarters to compel the bishops of their sponsoring provinces to boycott the Lambeth conference altogether, yet organize another conference of these same boycotting bishops somewhere else around the same time, in hope that next year's Lambeth conference might become/appear irrelevant to Anglican identity and mission, or might even be postponed altogether, thereby indirectly embarrassing (punishing?) the archbishop of Canterbury for not "officially" recognizing (legitimizing) their mission in Anglican America (a kind of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face). Yes, Lambeth 2008 has become that important a deadline for the Anglican family in America.
The implications for historic Anglican Order resulting from any such legitimation are just too staggering for some of us to sponsor or support at this time, for in their zeal to restore their vision of what Anglican Faith should be, these dear brothers and sisters are ready to break down Anglican Order. Instead, one would rather fully join the other reformed church traditions like the Baptists that hold to Anglican Faith but not to Anglican Order. One cannot have one and not the other and still be legitimately Anglican. It is true that Anglican Faith is broken in TEC (and really only in the North Atlantic Provinces), but that does not justify TEC breaking up Anglican Order and for the rest of the Anglican Communion to pay the price. In my opinion, this vision (saving TEC from herself and for herself) is not worth the price asked for (taking down the entire Anglican family). The juice would not be worth the squeeze.
Unfortunately for the Global South, it is the dioceses and churches in the Global South that critically need to be present at the Lambeth conference, as for some of them, this is the only time and opportunity that their leaders get just that once every ten years to inform the world of what is really happening in their ministries, especially where persecution and oppression exists in their home countries! Many a Global South political dictator is afraid of the bishops from his country attending the Lambeth conference, for they get to tell on an international stage the real stories of their experience of oppression and hardships under the home regime, and possibly gather sufficient international support that usually makes the difference between life and death for their Christians or programs back home (a good example is how Uganda's Idi Amin directly sponsored some cleric into his secret police so he could attend Lambeth '78, just to spy on Ugandan bishops following the martyrdom of Uganda archbishop Janani Luwum the previous year!). In short, Anglican Faith is comparable to a train, while Anglican Order is comparable to the rail(s) the train runs on. It is not wise to have the best train, even a bullet train (restored Anglican Faith within the American Anglican family) with a disjointed rail system to run it on (broken Anglican Order worldwide).
V. The Future Role The Episcopal Church in the Life of the Anglican Communion
Ironically, it is the American Church, living in total freedom of worship, having unparalleled freedom of expression, and endowed with a unique and bountiful economic prosperity, that can well afford to do without the Lambeth conference or the Anglican communion altogether. Yet it is she who now finds herself trapped by her legal and canonical structures, in a crisis of her own willful making, and by inference, a crisis only the American church, and no one else, can solve within herself, simply because it is the American church in our current controversies that is so endowed of enough freedom of choice, freedom of decision and a unique order, as to be in position to take off the table anything and all things, for the sake of the rest of the global churches. At the same time, the American church is fettered by all manner of structures, resources and conditions, with no need to be compelled to do any bidding by anyone or any process outside of herself, by whatever name, Windsor or Lambeth conference or other. This is the central teaching of St. Paul in that generous text of 1 Corinthians 8, in which the liberal wing of TEC, in terms of the issues driving our crises, could be regarded as (claim the status of) the member with the "stronger conscience" and the conservative wing of TEC and their proxies in rest of the global church as the member with the "weaker conscience":
"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall" (1 Corinthians 8 -NIV Translation)
I only appeal to this text for purposes of a new cognition and insight for my liberal brothers and sisters in TEC, so as to help them catch a new vision of where they stand in our current contentions, and to offer them a way of acting in the freedom they so much hold dear, for the good of the entire Anglican family, especially toward their conservative brothers and sisters in TEC. In truth, my personal view of the crisis of sexuality is rooted in the biblical theology of a previous chapter of 1 Corinthians 6:15-20:
Do you not know that your bodies are members [bodily parts] of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Cor. 6:15-20).
The foundation of Christian sexuality in the New Testament stems from the view articulated here, that once one is in Christ, once one has been baptized, then one's body no longer belongs to him/her, but to Christ, subject to the ethical praxis laid down by Christ. That is the foundation of sexual ethics for the Christian today, and its implication for a culture that is steeped in the individual's rights to private hedonistic consumerism is too radical for many to live by, particularly in the post-modern, post-Christian West. I take time to mention this because the debate tends to focus on overt sexual behavior (purity, virginity, monogamy, adultery, same-sex unions, divorce, polygamy, e.t.c.) rather than a common foundational ethic.
In my personal view, the central core of the ongoing crisis in the Anglican Communion is rooted in, and driven by, the conflicts, very much similar to any civil war in intensity, intransigence, personal investment of the personalities involved, and strategic execution, amongst the different constituencies within the larger American Anglican family, that have conflagrated into the rest of the Communion. They have thereby tasked our collective resources of time, money, emotion, focus and energy, with no end in sight, at a crucial time in world history when both the church and the world need the Anglican religious identity and mission the most. This new global need for a credible, robust and vibrant Anglican identity is based on new developments worldwide that indicate religious movements in the world today, even eastern religions like Buddhism, have developed a common dynamic in reaction to the acceleration of change in society driven by globalization; world religions have been taken over by a core focus on fundamentalist fervor and the apocalyptic, and there is a need for a place and inviting space where reasonable and reasoned faith can be experienced for some of their members, who then usually manage to restore some sense of balance in their own movements.
This place and space of reason has always been provided by the Anglican churches/institutions in every locale, a notable example being the diocese of Jerusalem, an Anglican miracle of space and place for balanced Christianity in a perpetually hot-zone of religious fervor and conflict. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill's words to the British House of Commons on August 20, 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain; "Never was jeopardized so much for so many by so few for so little."
In the spirit of St Paul's message to the Corinthians above, my prayer, hope and what I am working for, is that our dear brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church family in America would put off the table, not by any compulsion or deadline, but voluntarily by the freedom so generously bestowed on that church by its history, polity, and resource base, the two items that are driving the Anglican Communion crisis, and will continue to do so as long as the American Anglicans, on their own, don't change the status quo.
Conclusion: The Simplest Solution Ever
On one had, the liberal wing of this Anglican family in America, by their own voluntary bidding just amongst themselves, and without any reference to any other side of the issues, should take off the table the items of contention regarding our precious and unique Anglican Faith praxis that are mentioned in the Windsor Report. Not because they have to, but because they can, and are fully free to do so. Each bishop and the diocesan Standing Committee could make this choice today, to adopt the Windsor Process for each diocese and for each bishop, in just a single meeting lasting no more than an hour. The claim that only General Convention (or even diocesan convention) can make such a decision is just a cop-out, a simple and pathetic excuse and a place to hide from responsibility, a way to let the system take care of knotty problems like this one. On the other hand the conservative wing of this same family, by their own voluntary bidding just amongst themselves, and without any reference to any other side of the issues, should take off the table the items of contention regarding our precious and unique Anglican Order so equally mentioned in the Windsor report. Not because they have to, but because they can, and are fully free to do so. This Anglican family in America may chose to pick up this fight amongst themselves at a later date if they may so choose in the future, being a free people in a free church in a free nation as they are. But for the sake of the rest of us that need the Anglican Communion, a ceasefire is due now. Not in September, not in July, but now. This is the gift that would make the popular American saying true: "Christmas came early this year for the Anglican Family worldwide." Then, and only then, would a famous Anglican's words reecho throughout our Anglican Family in this veritable civil war of attrition: "Never was owed so much by so many to so few for so great an historical opportunity to open up a whole new history of Christian mission to a world so dazed, bedazzled and even bamboozled by globalization."
This simple and humble appeal is made from a perspective of one that was discipled during the late 1970s in Uganda under dictator Idi Amin. We watched helplessly as our Anglican archbishop Janani Luwum was martyred, yet had to still stand and be counted as a Christian in those dark days and the years following, simply because Anglican Faith and Order still held the tide, even if it was just in the form of a simple hope, both for those of us that stayed in Uganda, and for those that had to run into exile and ended up nurtured and strengthened by the Anglican Communion family, mostly by the Episcopal Church in America, till the time came for their return to Uganda. Notable among such was the late Bishop Festo Kivengere of Kigezi Diocese whose moving and inspiring testimony is captured in a little book titled I Love Idi Amin: the Story of Triumph Under Fire in the Midst of Suffering and Persecution in Uganda (published by Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1977. ISBN: 0551055774.) For a fair comparison with other church leaders that experienced those times but were outside the auspices of Anglican Order, see another book titled A Distant Grief : The Real Story Behind the Martyrdom of Christians in Uganda by F. Kefa Sempangi (published by GL Regal Books, 1979, ISBN-13: 978-1597528627). Anglican Order easily facilitated the testimony and witness of the Anglican Faith lived out by such Anglicans as Bishop Festo as they carried this faith to the world in those dark times, and paved the way for their return to strengthen the Anglican Church in Uganda after Idi Amin was gone. For me personally, like many others that stayed in Uganda, the choice one fateful day came down to whether I should die by bayonet, or by bullet, a choice so dispassionately discussed in my presence by my would-be executioners that had picked me up from my bed at 3:00am one morning in February 1979.
That is how important Anglican Faith and Order was in helping many of us survive the exigencies of the Cold War era and life under the brutal dictatorships spawned by those times. And that is how important Anglican Faith and Order are to some of us today in the face of the opportunities, seductions and dangers of globalization: Anglican Faith and Order are not just words for debate or in the Book of Common Prayer: Anglican Faith and Order are matters of life and death for many in the Anglican Communion in a new era.
To summarize, my own reading of the current situation tells me that the Archbishop of Canterbury is committed to seeing the Windsor Process through (see www.lambethconference.org). We can now more fully appreciate the many and divergent constituencies the archbishop of Canterbury has to satisfy in the next two years, a seemingly impossible job, and we must keep him in our prayers, as he has now become more central than ever in the preservation of Anglican Faith and Order. And I hope I have taken the time to provide a wider frame of reference against which we can interpret the various reports, blogs and actions of our brothers and sisters between now and October. I therefore remind you to take comfort that Grace Church is Windsor Parish, and our diocese of Southwest Florida is Windsor Diocese as well. The rest will unfold as we go along. In the meantime, we carry on with our parish mission:
Proclaim the News, Live the Life, Share the Spirit!
Yours in Christ's service,
Benjamin+
Canon Benjamin Twinamaani and his family joined the Grace Church Family as the First Rector on May 1, 2005.
"I see myself as parishioner first and priest second at Grace, a vessel through which God can use my spiritual gifts, experience, skills, education and personality to contribute to the overall capacity of this community in fulfilling the Great Commandment of Luke 10:27 (Loving God and Neighbor) and the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 (Making Disciples of all People). I find this fits in nicely with Grace Church's mission- Proclaim the News! Live the Life! Share the Spirit!"
Benjamin is from Uganda, East Africa, Diocese of Kampala, where he was ordained deacon on December 16, 1990 at All Saints Cathedral, Kampala by the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most. Rev. Yona Okoth (RIP) and priested at St. Matthew's Cathedral, Dallas on March 23, 1995 by the Rt. Rev. James Stanton. The Anglican Province of Uganda, with a membership of about 9.6 million, has a unique heritage of Christian witness in the Anglican Communion that includes the Martyrs of Uganda, Bishop Hannington and Companions, Archbishop Janan Luwum and the Great East African Revival. This is the ethos in which Benjamin, an Anglican Evangelical, was formed and nurtured as he grew up in picturesque rural Kigezi district, where he was born in 1961. His favorite Bible verse is John 12:8; -
"Then Jesus spoke out again, "I am the light of the world. The one who follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (NET Bible).
His ministry Bible verse is 1 John 1:1 and Colossians 1:28-29: -
"This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the Word of Life- We proclaim Him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature in Christ. Toward this goal I also labor, struggling according to His power that powerfully works in me." (NET Bible).
Benjamin holds degrees from Bishop Tucker Theological College (BDiv. 1990, now part of Uganda Christian University) and Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM 2000). He is currently studying for his PhD in Higher Education Administration at the University of South Florida in the College of Education. In his 17 years of ordained ministry, he has served as parish clergy under three archbishops, six bishops, in four dioceses (Kampala, Dallas, Delaware, Southwest Florida). His interests and hobbies include translating Scripture and doing Biblical Theology for the African church, writing fiction for African teens, raising interest in the life and witness of the Church of Uganda as well as eco-tourism and encouraging American business investing in Uganda attending spirituality/renewal and family conferences, going to good movies on opening night, playing at golf and chess, playing and listening to music (African traditional, choral, pipe organ, violin concertos, jazz), attending home parties for the Super Bowl and World Cup Soccer. He is married to Lady Camilla, a CPA; they have two children. The Twinamaani family plans to return to Uganda after their ministry at Grace Church.
The issues of the national church and Anglican Communion are again upon us, and since they have directly impacted our parish in the past (about 23 families, one-third of the parish membership, left Grace Church over the actions of General Convention of 2003), and many of our members place high priority on them, I think it is prudent for us to know a bit more about the underlying issues as a background against which to interpret the underlying motives that underpin some of the events, actions and reports that will come up in the coming months. Here are some of my own personal thoughts on the many issues in four main points.
I. The Lambeth Conference of 2008
So far, it looks like there will be a Lambeth Conference next year, when all the bishops of the Anglican Communion (over 800 of them) meet once every ten years to talk about the identity and mission of our Anglican family in the world. This means that for The Episcopal Church (TEC, formerly referred to as ECUSA), of which we are a member parish through our diocese and bishops, certain deadlines will come due and our collective commitment to the Windsor Process will be re-evaluated with consequences that are unclear at this point.
The "Windsor Process" comes from the Windsor Report of 2004 that inter alia called upon the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada to observe, until further a consensus is reached, a moratorium on,
a) the ordination and consecration of bishops in same-sex relationships,
b) the authorization and practice of rites of blessing of same-sex relationships, as well as,
c) the crossing of provincial and diocesan boundaries by bishops (usually from the Global South) for purposes of extending pastoral function and oversight over/in parishes without the consent of the hosting diocesan bishop (usually in North America).
The Windsor Report also called the Anglican Communion to explore new ways of being in communion together through an Anglican Covenant. This Covenant, it was hoped, would express and provide a new consensus regarding the following items, among others, in the Anglican church of the 21st Century: 1) what is a bishop 2) what is local diocesan authority and practice, and 3) the authority and interpretation of Scripture.
II. The Deadlines from the Windsor Process for The Episcopal Church
For TEC, the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and our commitment to the Windsor Process could have consequences that touch upon state corporate law (for example, Florida's Title 36, Chapter 617) combined with TEC's canon law (specifically the Preamble to TEC's constitution and all TEC diocesan constitutions, canons, and by-laws) that require each diocese to be in communion with the archbishop of Canterbury through its bishop. Remember that in Anglicanism, the key is the bishop, and the bishop is the key! A diocesan bishop is the central figure in Anglican Order that preserves and defends Anglican Faith (Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer). This is why all kinds of Anglican groups in America, in the pursuit of preserving Anglican Faith, have consecrated bishops in all kind of ways and by various means, and these strategies have serious implications for current and future Anglican Order. The reading of TEC's constitution holds legal force in terms of local state corporate law by which every diocese and parish is incorporated. This is unique to the American Anglican family, and an item that members of other Anglican provinces might not apprehend let alone appreciate.
Here is an example of the language of TEC's constitution, and how that translates into state corporation law for the individual dioceses, and then to local parish church. TEC's constitution Preamble reads:
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution, adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.
Through the corporate laws of the individual state, by which each diocese is governed, this same Preamble has been subsumed into their own diocesan articles of incorporation in some form or other, thereby giving this requirement for communion with the See of Canterbury legal force (i.e. it may be enforceable in a court of law). For example, the Diocese of Southwest Florida constitution preamble reads:
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church, within the area hereafter described [that is, the diocesan boundaries in the sate of Florida] does hereby adopt this Constitution as and for its Articles of Incorporation of a corporation not for profit under the laws of the State of Florida. The corporation shall be known as a "Diocese" in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
Article I reads: Of Acceding to the General Convention: The Diocese acknowledges its allegiance to be due to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and recognizing the body known as The Episcopal Church in the United States of America to be a true branch of said Church, having a rightful spiritual jurisdiction in this country, hereby declares its adhesion to the same and accedes to its Constitutions and Canons.
For the Diocese of New York, their constitution reads in Article I:-ACCESSION TO CONSTITUTION AND CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH: The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of New York is subject to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
The point I am trying to make here may appear redundant to some, but it is an important key as to why the American Anglicans think Anglican Order is something they can easily tinker with and even break up in the noble and necessary pursuit of saving Anglican Faith. This light regard of Anglican Order is steeped in their very historical DNA of individualism, independence and above all, the very corporate structure of their individual parish, diocesan and national church constitutions and canons, which are in themselves defined by the different laws of corporations in each individual state. In short, American Anglicans may feel it is an easy and pragmatic option to break up Anglican Order in order to save Anglican Faith, yet have no appreciation whatsoever of what Anglican Order means for other Anglican provinces (once broken, its restoration will not be guaranteed, and the resulting fragmentation will stay in-built into the Anglican system).
If we look at a contrasting legal structure, that of the Church of England, we see why TEC's polity is indeed unique in the Anglican Communion, but one of the major driving dynamics in our current crises. The Church of England is legally organized by an Act of Parliament. Each diocese is tied to the national church, not by an individual local state/municipal/county corporate law but by a national one. It is inconceivable for a parish in England to leave the Church of England, and file a claim in court to keep its property. There is just no legal base for such a move. This legal base is the mirror image found in some form within all the other Anglican provinces in the world. Except in America Anglicana. This is why TEC has no archbishop. They have a "Presiding Bishop" whose function is to chair the House of Bishops and convene such related gatherings like the General Convention. It is just not legally a supported role, given the independence of dioceses and by natural progression, the independence of the individual parish.
In simple terms, potentially (emphasis on potentially!) a TEC bishop that is not invited to the Lambeth conference could be regarded as being out of communion with the archbishop of Canterbury, and this status could open his/her diocese to legal and canonical challenges in the secular courts, via basic state corporate law, as not having the right to its properties and assets, as well as bring into question that bishop's right to be a bishop in TEC. (Hence a TEC bishop not invited to Lambeth might still need to attend with "observer" status, if only to keep off such potential legal challenge even symbolically, while a non-TEC bishop not invited to Lambeth would not be in similar position). A litigious situation is already playing itself out all over TEC dioceses with some congregations that have left TEC and affiliated with other Anglican provinces/bishops abroad (mostly under bishops in Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone) that still want to retain the TEC parish properties and assets. All these cases continue to set case law precedents for future litigation in which the courts will settle disputes over church assets.
A situation in which any TEC bishops, and by inference their dioceses, that were officially declared as NOT being in communion with Canterbury, could provide sufficient grounds to prime such legal challenges to the legitimacy of those bishops/dioceses/churches/groups. It is conceivable that legal teams on all sides are already in place and the necessary legal motions already drawn up and ready to file. And the value of the potential assets is high enough (all the dioceses that have refused to comply with the Windsor Process) to seduce many (most conservatives hoping to be legitimized as the official Anglican family in America) into fantasizing about how to acquire and control such assets (the total prize could be in excess of $10billion). One parish alone, the Falls Church that has left TEC Diocese of Virginia for CANA under Martyn Minns, claims a total value of about $30 million. This is why the diocese of Virginia cannot let them leave TEC without a legal fight, and that is why those leaving for CANA cannot just leave that entire resource base without a legal fight. (This is called due fiduciary stewardship by some, and lawsuits have already been filed against, e.g. the Bishop of Pittsburgh around the concept of failing to fulfill such fiduciary responsibilities.)
For the sake of illustration (I am just speculating here), suppose a TEC diocese is challenged in court as to its legitimacy on account of being out of communion with Canterbury, and in that challenge the court issued an injunction to freeze all the diocesan assets until the matter were resolved. Suppose that for some dioceses, their endowment portfolios, key parish properties, parish accounts and such assets, were encumbered or even frozen for up to a year. All mission and worship would have to change overnight! This scenario is still only potential, but this exactly what every TEC bishop, chancellors and advisors are thinking bout, and planning for, dreading, and hoping never happens, for there are no sure guarantees as to how the courts would decide case by case. Such potential litigation within the TEC family could go on for years, with only the legal teams on either side being the winners. Such litigation would have an impact on TEC bishops/dioceses only, as the requirement for being in communion with Canterbury has no similar legal force in other Anglican provinces of the world, for their national secular legal bases are vague and their corporate laws are not as readily enforceable as in the USA. In short, TEC is now trapped by the local property statutes in as far as they impinge on TEC's assets, and that is the real crisis! There are speculations on possible ways to remove this legal foundation by changing the TEC constitution. It takes two consecutive TEC General Conventions to amend the TEC constitution, which would make it six years away in 2012, but the rules could be suspended if there were enough will and consensus for such a move. This would break up the Anglican Communion for sure, bringing us full circle to the time when the Episcopal Church at her inception became the first Anglican province outside the Church of England. To date, there is little sign that TEC will commit to the Windsor Process. Yet the Windsor Process is one of the simplest and most generous avenues for TEC to resolve this crisis for everybody.
III. The Disruptions in Anglican Faith and Order and Their Potential Consequences
The foregoing is the main reason why some key Anglican groups in America have been intensely lobbying the Archbishop of Canterbury since the year 2000 to make a formal declaration regarding what bishops/dioceses/churches/groups constitute the officially recognized Anglican Church family in USA (currently held by TEC). Keep in mind that there are already over 30 (yes, thirty!) Anglican groups in America alone (see this list at www.anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html); all having broken away from TEC over the years for different reasons and causes (liberalism, heresy, apostasy, revision of scripture, etc.), but TEC is still the only group officially in communion with Canterbury. This lobbying is focused on declaring as the official Anglican family in America a new blended consortium province, comprising the Windsor bishops/dioceses in TEC (i.e. those that are committed to the Windsor Process), and all the groups that have left TEC in the recent past (sometimes referred to as "Common Cause Partners" and/or "Continuing Churches") notably the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) homegrown in America over past theological and ethical differences; Forward in Faith America (FINA) rooted in the Anglo-Catholic tradition that opposes the ordination of women; the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) sponsored by the Province of Rwanda and (originally) the Diocese of Singapore; the Convocation of Anglican in North America (CANA) sponsored by the province of Nigeria; as well as the TEC dioceses/parishes affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network (ACN) and the American Anglican Council (AAC) both homegrown from the conservative traditions. (Whether Common Cause will move forward without the Windsor Bishops and other Network-related groups is unknown, although signs are pointing in that direction.)
All these groups have their own separate support and donor constituencies, run their own separate structures, and publish their own separate newsletters, websites, and blogs, that propagate their various separate viewpoints and spins on all issues to keep their separate donor bases happy. More significant, all these groups hold some key fundamental differences amongst each other that have potential for future divisions and controversy (Disrupting Anglican Order), even if the current crisis issues of Anglican Faith (revision of Scripture) were resolved today. These groups have scheduled a meeting of their Council of Bishops at the end of September 2006 convened by the bishop of the TEC diocese of Pittsburg and head of ACN, Robert Duncan (www.acn-us.org/archive/ 2007/05/common-cause-council-of-bishops-set-for-sept-25-28.html). Anticipating the failure of TEC House of Bishops to accept the Windsor Process by the September 30 deadline, their proposed agenda includes items that read:
* to share understandings of the purpose and role of bishops such that some common guidelines for the making of bishops relative to numbers of communicants and congregations might be developed; * to consider whether a permanent Common Cause College of Bishops might be created, in order that ever greater levels of communication, cooperation and collaboration can be built; and * to initiate discussion of the creation of an "Anglican Union" among the partners, moving forward the vision of the Primates of the Global South for a new "ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA."
The overriding focus seems to be on that last phrase, a new "ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA." For this essay, this agenda highlights the implications for historic Anglican Order mentioned below in the face of the overall zeal to restore historic Anglican Faith.
IV. Lambeth 2008 and Anglican Order: North and South
So far, invitations to the Lambeth Conference of 2008 have been sent out, but withheld from some bishops (Gene Robinson of New Hampshire because of his same-gender relationship on one hand, and on the other, Martyn Minns of CANA and Charles Murphy and his colleagues of the AMiA for the crossing of TEC provincial/diocesan boundaries by their sponsoring archbishops of Nigeria and Rwanda respectively. Also not invited for other unrelated reasons are Robinson Cavalcanti from South America and Nolbert Kunonga from Zimbabwe). That is how central the archbishop of Canterbury, one of our "Instruments of Communion", has become to Anglican identity in our current crisis. Of particular interest and significance, the bishops of the AMiA and CANA claim they are already in direct communion with the archbishop of Canterbury through their sponsoring provinces of Rwanda and Nigeria respectively, and an invitation to the Lambeth conference would cement their legitimacy as bishops in America, directly in communion with Canterbury, instead of their current "backdoor" link through their sponsors (hence some refer to these bishops as "bishops irregular" as opposed to bishops suffragan or assistant or missionary, on account of their "backdoor" election and consecration). The legitimacy so eagerly sought is deemed to be so crucial to these bishops' mission goals that if they are not invited to Lambeth 2008, there seems to be a determined willingness from their quarters to compel the bishops of their sponsoring provinces to boycott the Lambeth conference altogether, yet organize another conference of these same boycotting bishops somewhere else around the same time, in hope that next year's Lambeth conference might become/appear irrelevant to Anglican identity and mission, or might even be postponed altogether, thereby indirectly embarrassing (punishing?) the archbishop of Canterbury for not "officially" recognizing (legitimizing) their mission in Anglican America (a kind of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face). Yes, Lambeth 2008 has become that important a deadline for the Anglican family in America.
The implications for historic Anglican Order resulting from any such legitimation are just too staggering for some of us to sponsor or support at this time, for in their zeal to restore their vision of what Anglican Faith should be, these dear brothers and sisters are ready to break down Anglican Order. Instead, one would rather fully join the other reformed church traditions like the Baptists that hold to Anglican Faith but not to Anglican Order. One cannot have one and not the other and still be legitimately Anglican. It is true that Anglican Faith is broken in TEC (and really only in the North Atlantic Provinces), but that does not justify TEC breaking up Anglican Order and for the rest of the Anglican Communion to pay the price. In my opinion, this vision (saving TEC from herself and for herself) is not worth the price asked for (taking down the entire Anglican family). The juice would not be worth the squeeze.
Unfortunately for the Global South, it is the dioceses and churches in the Global South that critically need to be present at the Lambeth conference, as for some of them, this is the only time and opportunity that their leaders get just that once every ten years to inform the world of what is really happening in their ministries, especially where persecution and oppression exists in their home countries! Many a Global South political dictator is afraid of the bishops from his country attending the Lambeth conference, for they get to tell on an international stage the real stories of their experience of oppression and hardships under the home regime, and possibly gather sufficient international support that usually makes the difference between life and death for their Christians or programs back home (a good example is how Uganda's Idi Amin directly sponsored some cleric into his secret police so he could attend Lambeth '78, just to spy on Ugandan bishops following the martyrdom of Uganda archbishop Janani Luwum the previous year!). In short, Anglican Faith is comparable to a train, while Anglican Order is comparable to the rail(s) the train runs on. It is not wise to have the best train, even a bullet train (restored Anglican Faith within the American Anglican family) with a disjointed rail system to run it on (broken Anglican Order worldwide).
V. The Future Role The Episcopal Church in the Life of the Anglican Communion
Ironically, it is the American Church, living in total freedom of worship, having unparalleled freedom of expression, and endowed with a unique and bountiful economic prosperity, that can well afford to do without the Lambeth conference or the Anglican communion altogether. Yet it is she who now finds herself trapped by her legal and canonical structures, in a crisis of her own willful making, and by inference, a crisis only the American church, and no one else, can solve within herself, simply because it is the American church in our current controversies that is so endowed of enough freedom of choice, freedom of decision and a unique order, as to be in position to take off the table anything and all things, for the sake of the rest of the global churches. At the same time, the American church is fettered by all manner of structures, resources and conditions, with no need to be compelled to do any bidding by anyone or any process outside of herself, by whatever name, Windsor or Lambeth conference or other. This is the central teaching of St. Paul in that generous text of 1 Corinthians 8, in which the liberal wing of TEC, in terms of the issues driving our crises, could be regarded as (claim the status of) the member with the "stronger conscience" and the conservative wing of TEC and their proxies in rest of the global church as the member with the "weaker conscience":
"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall" (1 Corinthians 8 -NIV Translation)
I only appeal to this text for purposes of a new cognition and insight for my liberal brothers and sisters in TEC, so as to help them catch a new vision of where they stand in our current contentions, and to offer them a way of acting in the freedom they so much hold dear, for the good of the entire Anglican family, especially toward their conservative brothers and sisters in TEC. In truth, my personal view of the crisis of sexuality is rooted in the biblical theology of a previous chapter of 1 Corinthians 6:15-20:
Do you not know that your bodies are members [bodily parts] of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Cor. 6:15-20).
The foundation of Christian sexuality in the New Testament stems from the view articulated here, that once one is in Christ, once one has been baptized, then one's body no longer belongs to him/her, but to Christ, subject to the ethical praxis laid down by Christ. That is the foundation of sexual ethics for the Christian today, and its implication for a culture that is steeped in the individual's rights to private hedonistic consumerism is too radical for many to live by, particularly in the post-modern, post-Christian West. I take time to mention this because the debate tends to focus on overt sexual behavior (purity, virginity, monogamy, adultery, same-sex unions, divorce, polygamy, e.t.c.) rather than a common foundational ethic.
In my personal view, the central core of the ongoing crisis in the Anglican Communion is rooted in, and driven by, the conflicts, very much similar to any civil war in intensity, intransigence, personal investment of the personalities involved, and strategic execution, amongst the different constituencies within the larger American Anglican family, that have conflagrated into the rest of the Communion. They have thereby tasked our collective resources of time, money, emotion, focus and energy, with no end in sight, at a crucial time in world history when both the church and the world need the Anglican religious identity and mission the most. This new global need for a credible, robust and vibrant Anglican identity is based on new developments worldwide that indicate religious movements in the world today, even eastern religions like Buddhism, have developed a common dynamic in reaction to the acceleration of change in society driven by globalization; world religions have been taken over by a core focus on fundamentalist fervor and the apocalyptic, and there is a need for a place and inviting space where reasonable and reasoned faith can be experienced for some of their members, who then usually manage to restore some sense of balance in their own movements.
This place and space of reason has always been provided by the Anglican churches/institutions in every locale, a notable example being the diocese of Jerusalem, an Anglican miracle of space and place for balanced Christianity in a perpetually hot-zone of religious fervor and conflict. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill's words to the British House of Commons on August 20, 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain; "Never was jeopardized so much for so many by so few for so little."
In the spirit of St Paul's message to the Corinthians above, my prayer, hope and what I am working for, is that our dear brothers and sisters in the Anglican Church family in America would put off the table, not by any compulsion or deadline, but voluntarily by the freedom so generously bestowed on that church by its history, polity, and resource base, the two items that are driving the Anglican Communion crisis, and will continue to do so as long as the American Anglicans, on their own, don't change the status quo.
Conclusion: The Simplest Solution Ever
On one had, the liberal wing of this Anglican family in America, by their own voluntary bidding just amongst themselves, and without any reference to any other side of the issues, should take off the table the items of contention regarding our precious and unique Anglican Faith praxis that are mentioned in the Windsor Report. Not because they have to, but because they can, and are fully free to do so. Each bishop and the diocesan Standing Committee could make this choice today, to adopt the Windsor Process for each diocese and for each bishop, in just a single meeting lasting no more than an hour. The claim that only General Convention (or even diocesan convention) can make such a decision is just a cop-out, a simple and pathetic excuse and a place to hide from responsibility, a way to let the system take care of knotty problems like this one. On the other hand the conservative wing of this same family, by their own voluntary bidding just amongst themselves, and without any reference to any other side of the issues, should take off the table the items of contention regarding our precious and unique Anglican Order so equally mentioned in the Windsor report. Not because they have to, but because they can, and are fully free to do so. This Anglican family in America may chose to pick up this fight amongst themselves at a later date if they may so choose in the future, being a free people in a free church in a free nation as they are. But for the sake of the rest of us that need the Anglican Communion, a ceasefire is due now. Not in September, not in July, but now. This is the gift that would make the popular American saying true: "Christmas came early this year for the Anglican Family worldwide." Then, and only then, would a famous Anglican's words reecho throughout our Anglican Family in this veritable civil war of attrition: "Never was owed so much by so many to so few for so great an historical opportunity to open up a whole new history of Christian mission to a world so dazed, bedazzled and even bamboozled by globalization."
This simple and humble appeal is made from a perspective of one that was discipled during the late 1970s in Uganda under dictator Idi Amin. We watched helplessly as our Anglican archbishop Janani Luwum was martyred, yet had to still stand and be counted as a Christian in those dark days and the years following, simply because Anglican Faith and Order still held the tide, even if it was just in the form of a simple hope, both for those of us that stayed in Uganda, and for those that had to run into exile and ended up nurtured and strengthened by the Anglican Communion family, mostly by the Episcopal Church in America, till the time came for their return to Uganda. Notable among such was the late Bishop Festo Kivengere of Kigezi Diocese whose moving and inspiring testimony is captured in a little book titled I Love Idi Amin: the Story of Triumph Under Fire in the Midst of Suffering and Persecution in Uganda (published by Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1977. ISBN: 0551055774.) For a fair comparison with other church leaders that experienced those times but were outside the auspices of Anglican Order, see another book titled A Distant Grief : The Real Story Behind the Martyrdom of Christians in Uganda by F. Kefa Sempangi (published by GL Regal Books, 1979, ISBN-13: 978-1597528627). Anglican Order easily facilitated the testimony and witness of the Anglican Faith lived out by such Anglicans as Bishop Festo as they carried this faith to the world in those dark times, and paved the way for their return to strengthen the Anglican Church in Uganda after Idi Amin was gone. For me personally, like many others that stayed in Uganda, the choice one fateful day came down to whether I should die by bayonet, or by bullet, a choice so dispassionately discussed in my presence by my would-be executioners that had picked me up from my bed at 3:00am one morning in February 1979.
That is how important Anglican Faith and Order was in helping many of us survive the exigencies of the Cold War era and life under the brutal dictatorships spawned by those times. And that is how important Anglican Faith and Order are to some of us today in the face of the opportunities, seductions and dangers of globalization: Anglican Faith and Order are not just words for debate or in the Book of Common Prayer: Anglican Faith and Order are matters of life and death for many in the Anglican Communion in a new era.
To summarize, my own reading of the current situation tells me that the Archbishop of Canterbury is committed to seeing the Windsor Process through (see www.lambethconference.org). We can now more fully appreciate the many and divergent constituencies the archbishop of Canterbury has to satisfy in the next two years, a seemingly impossible job, and we must keep him in our prayers, as he has now become more central than ever in the preservation of Anglican Faith and Order. And I hope I have taken the time to provide a wider frame of reference against which we can interpret the various reports, blogs and actions of our brothers and sisters between now and October. I therefore remind you to take comfort that Grace Church is Windsor Parish, and our diocese of Southwest Florida is Windsor Diocese as well. The rest will unfold as we go along. In the meantime, we carry on with our parish mission:
Proclaim the News, Live the Life, Share the Spirit!
Yours in Christ's service,
Benjamin+
Canon Benjamin Twinamaani and his family joined the Grace Church Family as the First Rector on May 1, 2005.
"I see myself as parishioner first and priest second at Grace, a vessel through which God can use my spiritual gifts, experience, skills, education and personality to contribute to the overall capacity of this community in fulfilling the Great Commandment of Luke 10:27 (Loving God and Neighbor) and the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 (Making Disciples of all People). I find this fits in nicely with Grace Church's mission- Proclaim the News! Live the Life! Share the Spirit!"
Benjamin is from Uganda, East Africa, Diocese of Kampala, where he was ordained deacon on December 16, 1990 at All Saints Cathedral, Kampala by the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most. Rev. Yona Okoth (RIP) and priested at St. Matthew's Cathedral, Dallas on March 23, 1995 by the Rt. Rev. James Stanton. The Anglican Province of Uganda, with a membership of about 9.6 million, has a unique heritage of Christian witness in the Anglican Communion that includes the Martyrs of Uganda, Bishop Hannington and Companions, Archbishop Janan Luwum and the Great East African Revival. This is the ethos in which Benjamin, an Anglican Evangelical, was formed and nurtured as he grew up in picturesque rural Kigezi district, where he was born in 1961. His favorite Bible verse is John 12:8; -
"Then Jesus spoke out again, "I am the light of the world. The one who follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (NET Bible).
His ministry Bible verse is 1 John 1:1 and Colossians 1:28-29: -
"This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the Word of Life- We proclaim Him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature in Christ. Toward this goal I also labor, struggling according to His power that powerfully works in me." (NET Bible).
Benjamin holds degrees from Bishop Tucker Theological College (BDiv. 1990, now part of Uganda Christian University) and Dallas Theological Seminary (ThM 2000). He is currently studying for his PhD in Higher Education Administration at the University of South Florida in the College of Education. In his 17 years of ordained ministry, he has served as parish clergy under three archbishops, six bishops, in four dioceses (Kampala, Dallas, Delaware, Southwest Florida). His interests and hobbies include translating Scripture and doing Biblical Theology for the African church, writing fiction for African teens, raising interest in the life and witness of the Church of Uganda as well as eco-tourism and encouraging American business investing in Uganda attending spirituality/renewal and family conferences, going to good movies on opening night, playing at golf and chess, playing and listening to music (African traditional, choral, pipe organ, violin concertos, jazz), attending home parties for the Super Bowl and World Cup Soccer. He is married to Lady Camilla, a CPA; they have two children. The Twinamaani family plans to return to Uganda after their ministry at Grace Church.
