Coats on the Archbishop's Letter

The Rev. William R. Coats was one of the founders and surely one of the most vocal, inspirational members of The Episcopal Majority. He sent this note to a few people in response to the Advent message from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we are pleased to reprint it.

While many voices have been raised, from left and right, decrying the Archbishop's letter, it seems to us that Bill Coats offers a most reasonable interpretation. The Archbishop continues trying to give "space" to the Episcopal Church to work out our particular and unique vocation within the Anglican Communion. We are grateful for Bill's insights.

From: the Rev. William R. Coats

Williams' latest Advent message concerning the "state of the Church" will, I am sure, send up howls from many of our friends. I can't blame them. But I don't think we should assume all is lost. So here is my take - in the interest of some calm and hopefulness

It is an interesting missive. It conforms with Williams' long standing strategy - keep talking!! In the meantime, as always there are the usual potshots at the US. These are not new and after all half the Communion hates us, so he is only stating the obvious. For him to glibly suggests that the church is not homophobic is of course nonsense - and he probably knows it. But he does what leaders always do in a crisis, they fudge.

What is most interesting is that he acknowledges wide support for us. Simply stating this is, of course, a thorn in the side of our adversaries. Moreover, he does not like all the raiding going on. To say that some provision should be made for those who hate us and that the present option of boundary crossing is not good is to suggest that - after more talking!! - some other arrangements must be made which are less destructive. Now of course he knows it is too late for this, that the forming of alternative structures are already advanced and have been planned for years in advance and have come at his expense. He however will continue to overlook this and plan for something else. What would this something else be - and again after more talking!! Well whatever it is it will be less hostile and in some sense a critique of the Akinola- Duncan strategy. For such a "new" arrangement will now have to take into account all those folks who have supported us (for remember this is the first time such support has been rendered and been noted!!)

He expresses concern that our bishops' moratorium on lbgt etc was only until GC 2009 since as one house they could at GC veto anything the other house came up with short of a moratorium. He is no fool and knows our bishops simply can't say they rule even if they technically have a veto. And of course alluding to the special teaching charism of the office of bishop is romantic nonsense (which he may as an academic and an old Anglo-catholic really believe). He knows full well that politically our Bishops - charism or not - cannot simply rule. So I suspect this pot shot while maybe heartfelt was said to please the hostiles - and at a point where they are miffed. It of course means nothing at all.

What is interesting is his almost bland pass over of the question of same-sex blessings which he knows darn well has exercised the hostile more than anything else

His advertence to Lambeth is important. That is the only place Anglicans are Anglicans and he refuses to back down on his list of invitees. This puts pressure on Akinola and his gang, which Williams is well aware of.

And Lambeth beside all this meeting and praying will not solve this mess- as he well knows. What he hopes for is what I call round two - the Covenant. This business to which we must all sign on to may in fact be the way we all do come together, so long as it doesn't specifically turn on us. Thus when he mentions how 2/5 of the communion is ready to give us a pass and in Williams' words want to put this behind them the hint here is this group may not stand for a Covenant dominated by the hostiles whose main purpose is to exclude and humiliate us? Even Williams summation of Anglicanism at the beginning would be something I suspect we could sign on to - even the Biblical orthodoxy part (so long as no specifics are mentioned). I don't think this group will allow a Covenant dripping with hostility and aimed at us - nor do I think Williams thinks so either.

This was a rather well-presented document. Much of it is simply blather aimed at giving comfort to most and irritating some (especially the US and Canada). But we have been irritated for a long time so nothing has changed. Words don't mean much (as Machiavelli and Neibhur would have been happy to tell us). So I wouldn't worry much about this. In fact I think we got a hit, though we didn't score any runs. Yet.

Bill