The Anglican Communion Institute has argued consistently for solutions to our present conflicts that preserve the integrity of The Episcopal Church (TEC), the Anglican Communion (AC), and the full membership of TEC in that Communion. The overwhelmingly negative response of the House of Bishops to the proposals from Dar es Salaam made by the Meeting of Primates (MP) leaves little doubt in our minds that the Bishops and Dioceses of TEC will soon have to decide two crucial questions that touch the very center of these concerns. (1) How they individually and collectively are going to continue relations with the AC through its instruments of communion (the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the MP, and the Anglican Consultative Council); and (2) how the Bishops and Dioceses of TEC are going to continue relations one with another through their own instruments of governance (the General Convention, the Executive Council, and the House of Bishops)? In like manner, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the MP are going to have to determine how they will continue or not continue in relation both to the various Dioceses of TEC and its instruments of governance.
It is simply the case that the recent actions of the House of Bishops bring to the surface differences between large sections of TEC and the AC that may well prove irreconcilable. They also reveal divisions within TEC that may well prove equally intractable. If the questions presented above are not addressed in a thoughtful and charitable manner by all parties involved we foresee divisions of a possibly irreparable character coming to pass within TEC and the Communion as a whole
These questions present themselves to all parties in the present dispute, but our immediate focus is upon those Bishops and Dioceses that are Windsor compliant and supportive of the Camp Allen Principles. The possibly dire consequences our divisions portend tempt everyone to denial--especially those for whom Christian unity is of fundamental importance. Nevertheless, avoidance will most certainly bring the very outcome we fear most. It is therefore imperative that the following considerations be faced head on.
1. It is now clear that a large number (perhaps a majority) of our Bishops will not turn back from the course set at their last meeting.
2. It is difficult to imagine the Primates turning away from the communiqué adopted at Dar es Salaam and so also the Camp Allen Principles.
3. The Archbishop of Canterbury has agreed to meet with our Bishops, but it is highly unlikely that he would return to the Primates with a message that sides with the dominant voice in the House of Bishops.
4. There are two reason such a turn on his part is unlikely, indeed, almost unimaginable. One is political and the other semi-constitutional. The political reason is obvious. The Primates will not accept such a turn on his part. The semi-constitutional one is less obvious but no less forceful. Despite claims to the contrary, the MP is not behaving as a centralizing power. They acted in accord with the dictates of the Lambeth Conference that gave them warrant and assigned them an "enhanced responsibility" in situations such as the one precipitated by TEC's consent to and consecration of Gene Robinson. Further, as Bishop James Stanton and the Rev. Ephraim Radner have shown, they have not acted in ways that are ab initio contrary to the constitution and canons of TEC. Indeed, had they done so, they would have acted in ways contrary to the dictates of the Lambeth Conference that insisted the enhanced responsibility to which they gave warrant be exercised within the limits of the constitution and canons of the province in question. In short, the Primates acted as the Communion has charged them while TEC has not acted in the way all the instruments of communion requested. It is for this semi-constitutional reason that the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot draw back without repudiating the entire process that has been developed within the Communion since (at least) the 1980's.
5. On the basis of these factors it is difficult not to conclude that the MP will judge that those Bishops within TEC who do not abide by the requests of the Windsor Report and who do not accept the Camp Allen Principles have "walked apart" from the rest of the Communion.
6. It is further likely that the MP will insist that those Bishops along with our Presiding Bishop be placed in an asymmetrical position in relation to the rest of the Communion. It is likely that this asymmetry will take the form of a reduced or non-existent status at meetings of the instruments of communion.
7. It is this last point that raises the questions mentioned above in an urgent manner for those Bishops who are Windsor compliant and who support the Camp Allen Principles. In respect to the instruments of communion, how are these Bishops to continue in relation with them? In respect to the governing instruments of TEC, what sort of relation is to be maintained?
Questions such as these, as we have said, often lead to denial and avoidance. They are so painful that one simply does not want to face the possible future they suggest. However, the stakes for our entire church are high. For Bishops, avoidance in circumstances such as these amounts to a dereliction of duty.
Thus, in respect to the instruments of communion, it is of vital importance that Windsor compliant Bishops become active participants in a discussion with the Primates of the best way ahead in the likely eventuality that a majority of our Bishops take actions the Primates see as "walking apart." If these "Windsor Bishops" do not take an active part in such discussions, the Primates will be forced to act without firm links to a way forward their supporters within TEC believe both workable and productive of greater unity within TEC rather than greater (and perhaps final) division.
In respect to relations with TEC's mechanisms of governance, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an entente cordiale between Windsor and Non-Windsor Bishops and Dioceses is at best wishful thinking. The matter of Mark Laurence, increasing litigation, and other actions by the governing mechanisms of TEC indicate that within TEC one can expect increasing pressures for conformity to be brought against Windsor Bishops and their Dioceses. Further, even if in the unlikely circumstances that an entente cordiale is struck, it will prove necessary to inquire about the terms of such an agreement. Thus, no matter how events transpire, a frank discussion of how to address "the powers that be" within TEC from a minority position is of utmost importance. We are about to enter a church struggle of fearful proportions, and to assume that business will go on as usual is quite unrealistic.
Our remarks have been directed primarily to those Bishops and Dioceses that are Windsor Compliant and supportive of the Camp Allen Principles. It is our belief, however, that those who are not in agreement with the way the instruments of communion of the AC have suggested we move forward ask the same questions of themselves we are asking of ourselves. Failure to do so can only make matters worse. An attempt to answer these questions might, however, open a way toward greater unity rather than further division.
Brothers and sisters, pray for the Church!
Christopher Seitz
Philip Turner
Ephraim Radner
The Anglican Communion Institute
