The Archbishop's Lament (Stockton)

The Reverend James V. Stockton is Rector of The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection (pictured here) in Austin (Diocese of Texas).

In this essay, he provides a context for a reaffirmation of traditional Anglican values in which "the Communion will find the beginnings of its liberation from this overly complicated, overly politicized discord, and its return to mutual mission and ministry."


Anglicanism's Answers to the Archbishop's Lament
(by the Rev. James V. Stockton)

Recent press coverage of the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Canada brings to light some important considerations for the meeting of our House of Bishops with the Archbishop now forecast for September. On April 16, Canada's The Anglican Journal reported:

At the Toronto news conference, Archbishop Williams said he intends to go to the September conference with several members of the standing committee of the Anglican Consultative Council, an internationally representative group. He said he also hoped to understand, from the meeting, the problems the primates' request is causing for the American church, under its constitution. "I'm still waiting to see what the Episcopal Church will come up with as an alternative. The reaction was a very strongly worded protest against what they see as interference, but if not that, then what? I've spoken privately to people in the United States and am waiting to see," he said.

It would seem, then, that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not view "interference" as "interference." But then, again, he does see it as precisely such when he asks, "...if not that (i.e., interference), then what?" Of course it's interference – a.k.a. control, power. The alternative the Archbishop of Canterbury seems not to perceive is that fine old Anglican tradition of provincial autonomy. Why is it that he seems to need the Episcopal Church to reiterate this cornerstone of Anglicanism's global polity? It may be that he finds it personally advantageous for the U.S. to do so, in order to allow him to forestall for as long as possible the inevitable political consequences of actually taking a principled position. But why, in heaven's name, is he speaking again "privately to people in the United States"? And to whom? One wonders if this attempt to divide and conquer will never end.

If the problem were actually as the article describes it – namely, that "Anglican churches in other areas of the world, particularly in the southern hemisphere, are vehemently against liberalizing attitudes toward homosexuality, believing it contrary to Scripture" – then the titular leader of the Anglican Communion would need only remind one and all that the policies of the U.S. and Canadian churches do not, cannot, and need not affect the policies of any other province of the Communion. In fact, a strength and virtue of the Anglican form of Christian faith is that we have regional autonomy for the sake of both fidelity to the Gospel and effective local communication thereof.

And again from the same article:

"It's not," he [the Archbishop of Canterbury] said, "just about nice people who want to include gay and lesbian Christians and nasty people who don't. It is a question on which there is real principled disagreement. What are the forms of behaviour the church has the freedom to bless, and be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason? That is the question that is tearing us apart at the moment because there are real differences of conviction."

With all due respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that is not the question. In Anglicanism "the church" is not a singular entity whose "freedom to bless" is determined by a hierarchically superior Church agency. In Anglicanism, as yet anyway, "the church" is comprised of Churches whose freedom is owned locally. Thus, no such question as the Archbishop of Canterbury describes can, in fact, come before "the church" as though the church were politically and organizationally a single entity – and yet this question has already come before the Churches.

To put it another way, one might wonder to which church does the Archbishop of Canterbury refer? The Episcopal Church? The Church of England? The Anglican Church in Nigeria? The fact is, each Church of the Communion already has in place polity and policies by which it may, if it so chooses, address this question or any other. There is no such question that is or should be before the Churches of the Communion in any determinative or juridical manner, unless the Communion decides to redefine itself as a new Roman-style Church. However, the more vigorously people lobby for such a change, the more such efforts expose the real issue: power. For why attempt to recreate Roman Catholicism rather than simply convert to it, except that the latter involves the loss of power? This brings up a deceptively small but significant point: the Anglican triumvirate is not Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, but Scripture, Reason, and Tradition – with Tradition a relatively distant third in Richard Hooker's purposefully hierarchical order. It seems to me a reasonable suspicion that the institutional instinct for stasis is helping to elevate Tradition beyond its original position in the foundation of Anglicanism and thus promoting its un-Anglican over-emphasis in the rhetoric of the Communion's recent debates.

The fact remains that any question around "forms of behaviour" (a curious phrase) that are or are not appropriate for the Church to bless is a question posed by each province to itself. Beyond the province, there is, in terms of polity, no "the Church" to address "the question." The Archbishop of Canterbury would benefit all the Communion if he would state this polity plainly and repeat it ad nauseam. This polity is the single reason that it never has occurred to the Episcopal Church, and never would, to set about trying to impose its policies on any other province, or to attempt to determine policy or polity of any other province. To do so would be to contradict the autonomy of a member Church of the Communion. Sadly, the same cannot be said of the recent demands of the primates, nor of the Archbishop of Canterbury's participation in seeking to pressure the Episcopal Church to accede to them. Finally, it is worth noting that the Archbishop of Canterbury's perception of "the question" suggests that he, himself, needs reminding that the blessing of same-sex unions is no more about blessing "behaviors" than is the blessing of unions of heterosexuals. It's about the blessing of mutual love, affection, sacrifice, and commitment. To focus upon behaviors is plainly crass. Surely the conversation has progressed beyond that level.

One suspects that the Archbishop of Canterbury will do well for his own sake to prepare for a profound education come September. One suspects also that our House of Bishops (and our Executive Council) will be prepared and committed to providing it. If both these prove true, the Communion will find the beginnings of its liberation from this overly complicated, overly politicized discord, and its return to mutual mission and ministry.