Analyzing the Snowball

This last week we witnessed the following communications.

1. The Anglican Bishops in Tanzania announced on December 11 that they remained in "impaired" communion with the Episcopal Church, but remained in communion with a long list of right-wing American Episcopalians who they say are "are faithful to Biblical Christianity and authority of Scripture." They declared that henceforth they will no longer seek material aid from those in the American church who condone homosexual acts, and said the American church had failed to repent of its actions in the case of the consecration of Gene Robinson Church, and would boycott meetings at which our new Presiding Bishop, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, was in attendance

2. The Archbishop of Uganda on December 14 announced, among other things, that his church will no longer seek or accept money from the Episcopal Church, believes our Presiding Bishop has denied Scripture (and will thus not meet in assemblies where she is present, asking instead that another bishop be sent), reaffirmed the break in Communion with the American Church, recognizes all the American secessionist bodies (especially those who now have ties with the church in Uganda), suggested the bishops in Uganda may not participate in a Lambeth conference, and warned his bishops "to guard the Church of Uganda from falling sick with the sickness that is coming from America" . . . that is, those matters consequential to the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson.

3. The right-wing English group Forum on December 14 presented its proposal for a Covenant for the Church of England in which it spoke of a "faithful biblical orthodoxy,"called for disassociation from those who in the eyes of the report act "contrary to the clear teaching of Scriptures" (here gender sex and marriage are mentioned), and called for alternative Episcopal oversight. The report spoke of "two churches: the one submitting to God’s revelation, Gospel-focused, Christ-centered, cross-shaped and Spirit-empowered; the other holding a progressive view of revelation, giving priority to human reason over Scripture, shaped primarily by western secular culture..."

4. Canon David Anderson of the American Anglican Council in a letter of December 12, replete with military language and images of "battle," "war," "enemy," "conflict," "skirmish," and "soldiers," reiterates the right-wing mantra that the Episcopal Church has "distorted views of the Christian faith." He asserts that his organization had successfully proved the Episcopal Church "guilty" and again stated the objective of forming a parallel jurisdiction in America which will inherit the mantle of the true Anglican church in the United States.

What are we to say to this barrage of ill-formed, hostile, preposterous and yet by now tiresome attacks on our church -- not to mention the cunning and sly organizing effort to disrupt and harm our church?

What are we to make of this incessant monomania .in which "biblical authority" is routinely trotted out with neither a definition nor a designated arbiter, and in which, in the name of Christ, vitriol is spewed and a single-minded agenda of condemnation and exclusion is upheld?

What goes on here?

For one thing, the older Anglican tradition of respect has gone. In its place is accusation, leading to denunciation on the basis of absolutist claims which themselves are never examined. Never mind that our church has consistently shown our allegiance to Scripture and the historical creeds. Never mind -- because in this panic over homosexuality, all reason is adjured and high and volatile passion emplaced.

There is another thread as well. It is the contempt for a church which in its own makeup mirrors something of the plurality of the nation, in which dialogue - even within difference - is honored, in which some (but not all) secular modes are treated with respect. It is no accident that many of our adversaries use a rhetoric dotted with anti-Western slogans or with flagrant attacks on secularism. The bishop-elect of South Carolina himself criticized the "ethos of democracy" in the church.

What we do see lurking behind these infamous attacks is a wholesale rejection of modernity, its messiness, its permissiveness (against which our adversaries are guaranteed the right to say no), its unwillingness to sign on one truth, its tolerance of differences. Many of us have learned to live in this climate and without selling out remain faithful to the gospel. But for our adversaries this unstable climate has brought out a different response. They naturally gravitate to older forms - those dealing with one faith, one church, one rule, with order and hierarchy. And to get this they are not hesitant to use every lever of power they can come across. Hence the manifest impatience in their recent statements in which seek to pre-empt the process set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury - the creation of an Anglican Covenant - to try to adjudicate our present difficulties. They prefer by bluster or intimidation some shortcut, in which they will control the Anglican Communion - along lines we shudder to contemplate.

Who are these people who will not talk with us, who attack us incessantly and who envision a pure church of order and discipline (where according to Canon Anderson the guilty are punished)? Who then are these people? We have a descriptive phrase, harsh indeed, but by now it fits. These are ecclesiastical fascists.