What is to be Done? -- by the Rev. Wm R. Coats

What is to be Done?
(The Rev. William R. Coats)

The Church is now at a strategic crossroads in the struggle to defend itself against the combined forces of Africa/ Global South/ American radical evangelicals/the Conservative wing of the English Church (now completely in league with the Archbishop of Canterbury).

After the radical and vitriolic reaction to the consecration of Gene Robinson, the American Church, through its Presiding Bishop, its House of Bishops, its Executive Council and its General Convention pursued a strategy of conciliation. Each “instrument” in its way expressed regret the consecration had upset others in the Anglican Communion, pledged a limited moratorium on such future consecrations, received positively the Windsor Report, and voluntarily withdrew from official participation in the Anglican Consultative Congress. The strategy of conciliation reached its high water mark when General Convention - under great pressure from English bishops - passed a conciliatory resolution that in general fashion extended the moratorium on further gay and lesbian consecrations. This latter action was greeted positively by a number of moderates within the church who saw it as a means of reconciliation with our adversaries. They maintained that "the center had held," meaning the door was open for some future accommodation

All of this has proved illusory. Indeed, every earlier conciliatory gesture had been dismissed as inadequate when offered. Yet, in the face of this altogether obvious reality, the strange hope arose that General Convention’s concession would somehow be fruitful. Of course matters proved otherwise. The final gesture - General Convention’s resolution on the last day of its meeting - was within six days denounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury as inadequate. Other adversaries overseas and at home quickly joined the chorus of denunciation. Meanwhile our own right-wing radicals, as if following a script, immediately carried out the next stage in their plan: seven dioceses called for “alternative primatial oversight”; one diocese demanded that the Archbishop of Canterbury assume direct charge of its ecclesiastical life. A smaller group of conservative bishops claiming to be "Windsor bishops" gathered in Texas and, with the aid of two conservative English Bishops, proceeded to echo the complaint that the church had not gone far enough.

The strategy of concession seemed to many, particularly our moderates, to make sense. It accorded with long-standing habits of humility, accommodation and cooperation. It also assumed that conciliation would help in the usual Anglican process of open discussion and exchange of views and of allowing latitude to different views on ethical subjects. After all, this had been the traditional Anglican way of resolving disputes in the past. For three years the American Church assumed that those opposed to the consecration of Gene Robinson were civil, generous and tolerant.

All these presumptions were incorrect. The most obvious one was our belief that there were actual forces at home and abroad who wished to engage in conversation or accommodation. That 22 of the 38 primates had broken off all relations with the American church since the consecration of Gene Robinson was simply ignored. This was accompanied by naivete, namely the denial that there were forces intent upon bringing harm to this Church. In reality there were forces that had never been interested in compromise or concession; from first to last they wanted repentance and capitulation - they wanted the consecration of Gene Robinson reversed. And they would harm this church to gain their ends.

The strategy employed by our radicals at home has been clear for some time. It is to establish a parallel church-within-a-church. Their hope is to gain acceptance and legitimacy from the Archbishop of Canterbury thus enabling them to claim to be the "true" Anglican Church in America. Indeed, such recognition will be part of their ongoing campaign to seize the assets of the parishes and dioceses in which they reside. They will then wait for the time when the Episcopal Church is no longer officially recognized by the rest of the Anglican Communion and they can be invited to be the official Church in America. The Archbishop of Canterbury had, of course, encouraged this group from the beginning and there seems little doubt he will in some fashion cater to their wishes. Canterbury has long since ceased to be a neutral arbiter but under the cover provided by the Windsor Report has become an antagonist.

The strategy of the right-wing radicals at home dovetails with the strategy of our adversaries abroad. The key here is the new Anglican Covenant. This document will restructure Anglicanism and outline a set of beliefs and behaviors to which all national Churches will be asked to agree. Those writing the document have so far been and clearly will continue to be the same extreme conservative elements which forged the Windsor Report. The outcome, at least as now envisioned by our adversaries, will curb the autonomy of the American Church and force on us a roll back on the matter of gay and lesbian consecrations (and by implication, ordinations). A somewhat modified evangelical formula will also assume a quasi-legal creedal status. To this we will be asked to agree - or get out. In other words what the domestic and overseas radicals could not get from us at General Convention they will try to obtain through the Anglican Covenant.

Given the powerful array of forces lined up against the American Church, and the almost preternatural fury of their opposition, the Church is now in a struggle for its very life. Without a vigorous defense on our part, in a few years we may, by one means or another, no longer be a full member of the Anglican Communion.

These powerful forces already suggest a huge shift in Anglicanism. Culturally conservative, biblically fundamentalist or evangelical they have come to despise a Church with a structure which allows such a wide range of theological and ethical positions. They have come to despise a Church which seeks to be inclusive of otherwise excluded elements. They have come to despise a Church which seeks in a conversation with modernity to adopt certain elements of political, social or ethical practice. And they have come to despise a Church which does not have a strict order and a formal and strict theology. In this sense, Anglicanism as we have known it has already died.

We are now in a difficult position. The strategy of concession has failed, but there is as yet no clear alternative strategic way forward for the American Church.

There are two aspects to our difficulties. First, our Church does not possess the means for a concerted national effort to establish policy and strategy. The structural emphasis of the Church has always been the diocese. Our collective instruments are inherently weak. General Convention meets only every three years. The Executive Council meets periodically as does the House of Bishops. Our Presiding Bishop is little more than a figure head. It is hard even to use the word strategy in such a weak institutional arrangement. Given this structural weakness an unofficial nationwide organization designed to defend the Church becomes a necessary instrument in this ongoing struggle

Secondly, our bishops and General Convention have committed themselves to the Windsor process. Given our initial strategy of conciliation this was a natural move - thus, Bishop Frank Griswold early supported the creation of the Eames Commission which eventually gave us the Windsor Report. However, our efforts at being conciliatory blinded us from seeing the menace involved in the Windsor Report. The report itself was manifestly hostile to the US (and the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster) and insisted upon, as a condition of acceptance within Anglicanism, our capitulation in the matter of Gene Robinson. When we did not capitulate fully at General Convention, it became clear our adversaries were out to bring us to heel or simply eliminate us. This accounts for the continual use by our adversaries of Windsor as an instrument by which to attack us. The attack continues now under the guise of the making of an Anglican Covenant. Tragically we are now stuck with supporting a process whose main aim is to cripple the American Church.

Nonetheless, a few opportunities present themselves. Strategically there is a need to define our Church in a more assertive and positive way. It will no longer do to apologize for what we have done; we must speak positively of who and what we are. Some of the opportunities are as follows:

1) A more assertive theological defense of the consecration of Gene Robinson and a more rigorous biblical and theological case for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians.
At the same time we must attack those forces which stand in opposition. This entails, as well, a firm denial that our actions constitute a fall from orthodoxy. The right-wing case rests on the preposterous notion that certain so called "liberal" actions symbolize a complete fall into heresy and apostasy. This conservative mantra is to be attacked at all times.

2) A full defense of our Church’s use of "experience" in doing theology; and the assertion that this is fully compatible with traditional Anglican orthodoxy

3) A full defense of the claim that there is a distinction between core doctrine and certain ethical matters

4) Our firm belief that even those who disagree with our views on the matter of Gene Robinson are still entitled to their views and their full participation in the Church. We still tolerate dissent. But we treat dissent within the context of respectful conversation. We stand for traditional Anglicanism.

5) We support the view of Anglicanism as a big tent. We do not believe that narrowing the Church to strict right-wing evangelicalism is theologically or ecclesiastically correct. Moreover it narrows the Church’s "market" to that small portion of the population which is "evangelically oriented."

6) We must create a very active web-site so as to be able to gather material stating our case.


DOMESTIC STRATEGY

A) To mount a challenge against any and all moves by our right-wing radicals as they attack us and to oppose the notion that an elaborate right-wing evangelicalism is a viable alternative Anglicanism

B) To resist all efforts by the right-wing radicals to withdraw assets from the Church

C) To be open to tactics that either support legal moves to constrict the illegal activities of the right-wing radicals or ask them to leave the church entirely

D) To organize forces for the next General Convention that uphold our theological views

OVERSEAS STRATEGY

A) To challenge the Archbishop of Canterbury

B) To answer rigorously all attacks from forces such as Archbishop Peter Akinola

C) To challenge the Anglican Covenant (the best that can be hoped for is that the document will be watered down and benign).

D) To encourage our Executive Council and our Presiding Bishop to become more aggressive in their defense of the Church - which would mean:
1) a more critical view of the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant.
2) a demand that we be seated at the Anglican Consultative Council

E) To establish relations with friendly forces overseas. Efforts should begin immediately to explore the possibility of a separate set of concordats with friendly national Churches