Room at the Table

It was announced recently that spouses of bishops were invited to attend the 2020 Lambeth Conference, except for the spouses who happened to be of the same sex as the bishop. Reportedly, the disinvitation was handled personally, in a communication from the Archbishop of Canterbury to each of the disinvited.

This disinvitation comes about as an effort to ensure that at least some of those bishops who might be offended by the presence of such spouses will feel able to attend. Of course, it may lead some bishops — offended by the disinvitation itself — to choose not to attend.

Part of this can be put down to the English anxiety about protocol and etiquette that agonizes about seating plans at banquets and who can be reliably seated next to whom, or even more perilously, who simply cannot be invited because Someone Else would be offended at their presence. This concern is a real one, but while it may have a place in a social setting, or at the diplomatic table, it seems far less appropriate for a church. Even in a social setting, as Dear Abby pointed out to the lady who didn't want to have “that sort” in her home even though she had been invited to theirs, “Perhaps you are living in the wrong sort of neighborhood." But neighborhoods are one thing, and the church quite another.

This is, of course, one of the great ironies of the Anglican Malaise of the last few decades: which centers on the paradox of the high and valued goal of seeking unity in Christ, while at the same time being willing to excise or exclude some members of the body whom others find offensive. The goal, quite simply, is not unity, but majority. It marks a wholesale by-in to an ideal Girardian “scapegoat” ethic in which the supposed well-being of the bulk of the body is maintained by judging and excluding a subset of its members. For the church, it is a form of self-mutilation.

The exclusionary advice of Paul of Tarsus notwithstanding (as he seems on his bad days not to have been averse to shunning and exclusion, in particular shunning and excluding those who sought to shun and exclude — and you can see how that works in the end) the Founder appears to me to have rejected such strategies, preferring to let good and bad in this fallen world of ours mingle, unjudged and unsorted, until he has Time to do that work at the last.

His method, it seems, is to do good, treating all the same, and let the chips fall where they may. The church could, and probably will, do worse.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

O, Canada!

In case you haven't heard the news, the Anglican Church of Canada has adopted a resolution towards the amendment of their canon on marriage, making marriage equality in the church a canonical reality if the change is ratified at the next session of the General Synod in 2019. The motion passed by the large required two-thirds majority in each order (bishops, clergy and lay) though not after some confusion due to a single affirmative clergy vote having been miscounted in the wrong order, and three other affirmative clergy votes not counted at all. In the end the super-majority prevailed by a comfortable margin.

It should also be noted that the ACoC Chancellor had already opined that even the current canon does not actually forbid marriages for same-sex couples; but some minds may rest easier given the adoption of the first reading of the amendment. Several Canadian bishops have indicated they plan to move forward on these bases, so as a practical matter marriage equality has arrived.

Other minds are not so easy, and the comment threads on the related stories at the Anglican Journal, in addition to expressions of joy and hope, are replete with the complaints of those so unhappy with this turn of events that they are abandoning the church, or mobilizing for a militant effort to defeat the canon change in at its second reading in 2019. Further afield, the trumpet from the Global South has not tooted yet, or at least not loudly or clearly enough to be heard here in the North; nor has there been a comment from Canterbury — though the Church of England has also just emerged from its own General Synod, in which the Shared Conversations formed a major part. That and the turmoil with the recent Brexit vote and the change in parliamentary leadership is no doubt occupying archepiscopal focus at the moment.

We continue to live in interesting times.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Denature of Communion

My chum from New Zealand, Bosco Peters, has posted a very helpful essay on the nature of the Anglican Communion, focusing on the extent to which communion is an applicable term, given what it usually means — mutual recognition of ministers, and their ability to function within each other’s churches (mutatis mutandis).

The problem did not begin with the recent collapses and severances of recognition (and function) at primatial gatherings; nor in the disagreements in the wake of Gene Robinson’s election and consecration. Nor did the breaches start with the “impaired communion” (a term which has always reminded me of “partial virginity”) declared (or described) by Archbishop Runcie after Barbara Harris’ consecration (and concerning every woman bishop since, given the fact that a woman bishop can still not function as even a presbyter in some parts of the “communion.”)

For one could go back all the way to the 26th year of George III (1786), and the Act of Parliament that first permitted the ABC and ABYork (with others) to ordain and consecrate the Americans White and Provoost without the royal warrant, and absent the oaths normally required. Among other things, the Act stated:

...be it hereby declared, that no person or persons consecrated to the office of a bishop in the manner aforesaid, nor any person or persons deriving their consecration from or under any bishop so consecrated, nor any person or persons admitted to the order of deacon or priest by any bishop or bishops so consecrated, or by the successor or successors of any bishop or bishops so consecrated, shall be thereby enabled to exercise his or their respective office or offices within his Majesty's dominions.

So from the outset the Anglican “Communion” has been one in a (partially) shared spirit, a variable historical deposit, but lacking the uniform application of the standard mark of “communion” as it is used in ordinary ecumenical relations.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Fixing Easter

There is a move afoot in some ecumenical circles to find a common date for the observance of Easter. I won't go into the calendrical problems here — you can read about it on Wikipedia — but some churches follow the archaic Julian calendar, while others accept the Gregorian revision that brings the astronomical year into better sync. This leads to Easter being celebrated on different days by different Christian traditions. (There are also some splinter groups who don’t like either of these solutions, which further complicates things.)

Beyond that, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has suggested that not just a common date, but a fixed date, would be even better; which is to say, for instance, that Easter might always fall on the second Sunday in April. He has argued that this would be ever so much more rational and helpful for the business world and for the schools. He may be singing the lost number from My Fair Lady, “Why can't Easter be more like Michaelmas?” — but he also seems to me to be upending a longstanding tradition primarily so as to make the merchants more comfortable in the Temple precincts. Such a move might be more rational for the schools and banks, but, to paraphrase Jane Austen, "it would not be near so much like Easter."

While I certainly support the effort to settle on the calendar, Julian or Gregorian, to find a common date for the observance for Easter, I think in fixing a date we would miss something literally cosmic about the traditional dance of the sun and moon and earth that governs the commemoration.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Schroedinger's Communion

Archbishop Justin is poking his crozier into the body ecclesial by calling for another Primate’s Meeting. He doesn’t seem to appreciate that it is the efforts at tighter bondage that have produced the most tension in the Anglican Communion over the last decades. In a way, the Anglican Communion worked best when little or no attention was paid to its formal (though minimal) “governing” structures — such as they are. Continued attempts to shore up greater unity have only caused more division. There is an old saying that if you keep picking at a wound it will never heal. In this context, continuing to open the lid to check on its status is only killing Schrödinger’s Communion with the death of a thousand cats.

— Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Foundations of Violence

Further thoughts on the Archbishop's Interview...

The reason anyone would attack anyone else over homosexuality is homophobia. So the answer to lessening violence lies in disabling its foundations: to combat homophobia. This means homophobia even in its genteel forms, which give aid and support to its more violent forms.

For instance, the notion that homosexuality is contagious — giving rise to fears that it will spread and infect heterosexuals and make them do things they do not want to do —stems from the notion that it is a disease to be cured, a pathology to be repaired. The homophobic basis of "reparative therapy" is not an innocent bystander, nor is the refuge, "But it is in Scripture" sufficient to warrant a claim of innocence. In case no one noticed, racism is in Scripture, deeply so, and it remains in place, systematized and supported even by the church, in spite of the Gospel and the Apostolic urgings against it, even to this day. It is in within living memory that the Dutch Reformed Church apologized for apartheid.

But back to homophobia: The idea that "if everyone were homosexual it would be the end of humanity" is indeed a frightening thought, so frightening I wonder why otherwise calm folks will make such an observation. They too should be reminded that the same is true of celibacy. Yet "moderates" will still make this or related observations about homosexuality and its alleged threat to society (often in the milder form of parroting the unproven thesis that it is best for a child to be raised by a mixed-sex couple). This is nothing more than a perverse application of a Kantian categorical imperative, and even if true would really say nothing than that it is an ideal that is often unrealized.

Moral: African violence against homosexual persons is empowered and encouraged even by those for whom the violence it engenders is repugnant.

I rather think, QED.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Connecting the Dots for Canterbury

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has garnered a good deal of well-deserved flack for his radio interview that ungraciously "links gay marriage with African killings" as the Church Times puts it.

I think the secondary problem I have with Archbishop Welby's off-the-cuff and off-the-rails comments (the primary being the implicit emotional blackmail and ethical obtuseness) is that while citing forms of violence allegedly caused by reaction to American actions, as well as mentioning homophobic assaults and indignities, he does not appear to see that it is fear of homosexuality — homophobia — that is at the root of both. The purported violence against the African Christians for being co-religionists with gay-friendly Americans or Canadians is just an expansion of the violence against Africans who are gay or lesbian, and stems from the same fears as the homophobia and violence that occurs in England and America, too. And he does not appear to be aware of the extent to which the African antipathy towards gay and lesbian persons has been nourished by American preachers — a tragic new form of neo-colonialism, an export industry whose primary product is hatred, fear, and loathing.

But rather than connecting the dots, Welby simply places two things side by side, saying there is a need to "listen carefully" while apparently not hearing the painfully obvious connection in his own words. He seems to describe these as two separate problems instead of one; he is like a doctor who lists two symptoms without realizing there is an underlying disease at work — and the answer or treatment (which he doesn't find himself able to approve) is the continued movement towards normalizing same-sex relationships, including marriage. Only the deconstruction of fear can root out the causes of violence.

King's Letter from Birmingham Jail has been cited in all of this. Sometimes the only way to end violence is to pass through it. We do not turn back from Calvary, but go forward, bearing the suffering, and in the knowledge that others are suffering too, in solidarity with us.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

UPDATE: I'm reminded by a friend, Jay Johnson, of the link between homophobia and the male fear of feminization. Gender issues are very much tied up with homophobic feelings. Ire directed towards a man "acting like a woman" or -- heaven forbid -- of a man being treated like a woman go all the way back to Leviticus 18! Heaven forbid indeed, as the male fear of the female gets projected onto God.

TSH

additional thoughts here.

Finally

In the better late than never department, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have finally issued a short but pointed statement addressing homophobia, in particular the turn it has taken in Uganda and Nigeria. Citing a 2005 Communiqué of the Primates, the Archbishops reminded all that "the victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us."

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us - See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org//articles.php/5237/archbishops-recall-commitment-to-pastoral-care-and-friendship-for-all-regardless-of-sexual-orientati#sthash.5zLMMYkW.dpuf

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us - See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org//articles.php/5237/archbishops-recall-commitment-to-pastoral-care-and-friendship-for-all-regardless-of-sexual-orientati#sthash.5zLMMYkW.dpuf

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us - See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org//articles.php/5237/archbishops-recall-commitment-to-pastoral-care-and-friendship-for-all-regardless-of-sexual-orientati#sthash.5zLMMYkW.dpuf

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. - See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org//articles.php/5237/archbishops-recall-commitment-to-pastoral-care-and-friendship-for-all-regardless-of-sexual-orientati#sthash.5zLMMYkW.dpuf

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. - See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org//articles.php/5237/archbishops-recall-commitment-to-pastoral-care-and-friendship-for-all-regardless-of-sexual-orientati#sthash.5zLMMYkW.dpuf

The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us. - See more at: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org//articles.php/5237/archbishops-recall-commitment-to-pastoral-care-and-friendship-for-all-regardless-of-sexual-orientati#sthash.5zLMMYkW.dpuf

Recent examples of this diminishment were reported from the Primate of Nigeria, Nicholas Okoh, who is quoted as saying that any support for same-sex relationships represents an effort similar to that made in the Garden of Eden, to "dethrone God" and will "lead to extinction.... It is a dead end and it is not in the interest of humanity." He declared that it is "refusal to accept the scripture for what it is, authority for life and practice following God." Okoh also commended the President of Nigeria for pushing the anti-gay law, which goes far beyond criminalizing same-sex conduct, to prohibit support and association.

We have not seen the end of this. Meanwhile, it is distressing that an Archbishop can take such a narrow and ill-informed reading of Scripture as the primary basis for his thinking. To call it a "literal" reading is an insult to literalism.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Speaking Up

As you can see, blogging has been light for a bit. However, the lack of reaction from certain church leaders to the dangerous legislation in Nigeria, and actual support from some others, calls for comment. Please consider signing the petition urging the Archbishop of Canterbury to follow up on his earlier protestations against "homophobia." If anything fits the bill, the Nigerian legislation does.

I urge signing this petition fully cognizant of the fact that both England and the US are themselves only recently emerged from a time in which same-sexuality was criminalized. But I don't think either state criminalized mere advocacy for gay rights, as the Nigerian legislation does. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of free speech and association. Even those opposed to normalization of same-sex relations should see the prohibition of advocacy as a human rights issue. And the Archbishop should feel quite comfortable saying so, and speaking out against both the legislation and the bishops who have supported it.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

UPDATE: Pleased to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury has found his voice.

To this Temple...

William Temple was Bishop of Manchester, Archbishop of York, and briefly of Canterbury, before his untimely death in 1944, in the midst of the war. His was a brilliant and penetrating mind, but not one stuck in the attic of an ivory tower, academic or ecclesiastical. Perhaps one of his most famous quips says it best:

The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members.

It is also telling to note that, in spite of the claims that no one really knew what was going on in Europe with regard to the wholesale elimination of European Jewry, Temple addressed the House of Lords in 1943 (March 23) with this:

My chief protest is against procrastination of any kind. ... The Jews are being slaughtered at the rate of tens of thousands a day on many days. ... It is always true that the obligations of decent men are decided for them by contingencies which they did not themselves create and very largely by the action of wicked men. The priest and the Levite in the parable were not in the least responsible for the traveller's wounds as he lay there by the roadside and no doubt they had many other pressing things to attend to, but they stand as the picture of those who are condemned for neglecting the opportunity of showing mercy. We at this moment have upon us a tremendous responsibility. We stand at the bar of history, of humanity and of God.

God bless this good and faithful speaker of the truth.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
icon written 11/4/2013

The Anglican State: On the Edge, or Wandering?

Thinking Anglicans reports on reactions to a sermon by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Mexico. In it, he pictured the state of the Anglican Communion as,

...a narrow path we walk as Anglicans at present. On one side is the steep fall into an absence of any core beliefs, a chasm where we lose touch with God, and thus we rely only on ourselves and our own message. On the other side there is a vast fall into a ravine of intolerance and cruel exclusion. It is for those who claim all truth, and exclude any who question. When we fall into this place, we lose touch with human beings and create a small church, or rather many small churches – divided, ineffective in serving the poor, the hungry and the suffering, incapable of living with each other, and incomprehensible to those outside the church…

For what it’s worth, my concern is not that there is a narrow ridge with obvious precipices to either side, but that the Communion offers a fairly wide path that slopes to each side so gently that one can stray to the extreme without realizing it. That is where I sense the real danger, not in the catastrophic bang, but the subtle whimper; the danger we might just “drift apart” if we lose sight of Jesus; who will, I trust, as the true Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, still seek out those who have wandered afar, whichever way we stray.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Cantuar Opines, World Moves On

The Archbishop of Canterbury has addressed his fellow Lords in opposition to the Marriage Bill now before them. He critiques the Bill for creating inequalities in marriage between same- and mixed-sex couples. Yes, you heard that right, inequalities. Of course, the faults in the legislation along this line — and faults they are — result from the unwillingness on the part of some to take the time to visit the questions of what "consummation" and "adultery" mean for same-sex couples. This is where the "inequalities" arise; and they could have been dealt with, in the same way laws have addressed many other "definitions" by ambiguous phrasing, or leaving matters to one side — leaving it to the courts to come up with the precise implications post facto. As it remains, we are dealing with differences without distinction, unless one holds to the radical and tautological position that same-sex couples cannot engage in "sex" — hence no consummation or adultery — because "sex" requires a mixed-sex couple.

Still, that is no reason to oppose this Bill — it isn't even "reason" at all — at least on the grounds that it is "redefining" anything.

I am not surprised, but disappointed that the Archbishop felt it necessary to speak on an issue on which the Church need have no position, as the civil marriages will not have any effect within the Church of England. There is a long history of discord between Canon and Civil Law in England in the marriage arena — from 1857 to 2002 divorced persons with living ex-spouses could be married under civil law but not in church; for the larger part of that time any church members who availed themselves of the civil provision (even the "innocent spouse") might find themselves excommunicated, and even now the clergy can refuse to marry couples in this situation. So there is absolutely nothing new in the legal provision for marriages — not just weddings! — of which the Church of England might disapprove, or choose not to recognize.

The truly sad thing is that in staking out a rear-guard position on a failing and irrational notion, the Archbishop does neither himself nor the church any good at all, and may in fact be causing further harm to the Church of England, the nation, and its people.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

More Walking Apart

It seems that the usual suspect Primates are threatening a boycott of at least part of the festivities surrounding the enthronization of the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

If Archbishop Justin is wise, he will say to them what any wise pastor would to a recalcitrant parishioner: I'm very sorry you feel that way, and hope you will find a parish that meets your spiritual needs. The one great thing to get over is the fear of "losing" people. Those who "choose to walk apart" are not lost, they're just heading in a different direction. Who know but that the paths may again converge somewhere down the line...?

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Identity as Response to Social Pressure

The Archbishop of Canterbury made some interesting observations concerning what is commonly called identity politics, which leads me to a thought that has been brewing for a few weeks, since I gave a talk at the Church Club on the history and development of the marriage canons.

I have often observed that people are most concerned about other people's identities. So society insists it know if one is male or female: note the anxiety comically portrayed in SNL's "Pat" sketches. This is where identity actually becomes political -- when the polis demands that one retreat from the Christ-like mode of New Adam into the "male" or "female" or "French" or "Welsh" for that matter.

After the talk at the Church Club, one gentleman in the audience was adamant that "marriage" ought not be used for same-sex couples, not on the grounds that it is an innovation or an inaccuracy, but on the grounds that henceforth when someone tells him he or she is married, he will have to ask if they are married to a person of the same or different sex. It is this man's need to know and annoyance at not knowing that makes the identity of the other significant. And of course, why he needs to know is based on his need to treat different people differently.


This reminds me of a feature of the Japanese language and culture, in which it is very important to know the identity of the person to whom you speak, because your societal relationship determines the form of language used, unless one is to be considered boorish for treating social superiors informally or impolitely! This is an example of identity very much determined by society, based on a need to classify and categorize rather than to deal with each and every individual as a unique entity, even without getting into the theological arena that holds each person to be a precious gift of God.

So long as people push their own "need to know" on others -- or are pushed by their society to feel such a need -- a degree of "identity politics" will remain in place. If all people were simply treated as people -- images of God each and every one, male and female, Japanese and Welsh -- much of this would disappear.

I'm not holding my breath.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

On Rowan's Ministry, Briefly

Many are penning or blogging “post-mortems” on the ministry of Archbishop Rowan Williams, and the dance of the aspirants round the greasy pole is well under way. But I think it fair to allow him an occasional, Monty-Pythonesque “I'm not dead yet!” before the hammer blow of retirement actually descends.

I do want to offer one perspective, however, on his way of working, and its result. As a true exponent of inclusion, the Archbishop was unwilling to risk losing “conservatives” in order to provide more visible roles in church leadership to “progressives” or those who incarnated such things as troubled the “conservative” side. He was confident that the “liberals” would bear with the unhappy situation, as they had for so long, and that the “reactionary” would bolt, as they so often threatened to do. I think he also held to the “progressive” view that things will eventually come out on that side (one need not be a scholar of history to see that trend), and he was, and is, playing the long game.

I think he read the situation rightly, but in placing more value on the continued presence of the “intolerant,” fulfilled his own prophecy that this will be a long game. Only a retrospective of a generation or so will tell us if his modus operandi had a virtue that is not particularly evident this close to events.

Meanwhile, I do wish him well in his remaining time as Archbishop and Primate and Instrument — there is still an ACC meeting coming up — and in his retirement as Master of the college.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

England and Canterbury: A Point to Note

Regardless of the Archbishop of Canterbury's feelings regarding the possible failure of the Proposed Anglican Covenant in the Church of England, under article 4.2.8 of the document, should the Church of England not adopt it, the Archbishop will not be eligible to participate in decision-making of the [Joint] Standing Committee [of the Primates and the ACC] when it comes to Covenant implementation matters under section 4.2.

That might be all to the good, as it will allow him to preserve the neutrality becoming of an Instrument of Communion.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Alternatives to the Covenant

It is sometimes asked — with somewhat increasing desperation --- "If not the Proposed Anglican Covenant, what?" For me the difference between the proposal and what I would rather have seen is that between mutual accountability and mutual love. Accountability operates from a negative pole, a pole of critique and fault, and seeks — for all the talk of mutuality — the submission of one criticized to the one making the critique. Love, on the other hand, puts up with the other no matter what, bears all things, hopes all things, does not find fault — or if it finds a fault, accepts it as part of who the other beloved is. We see both strands in the Pauline Corpus, but it seems to me that the "better way" is that described in 1 Cor 13, to which I hope all will recognize I've alluded.

There has to be more to the Communion than "dispute resolution" and "fault-finding" — towards which, in Section 4, the present Covenant is explicitly geared and reaches its climax. Many of us who do not accept the proposal — and many in the "broad consultation" to which the Archbishop of Canterbury referred in his lecture, but whose input was more-or-less ignored on this essential problem — would be perfectly happy with, or at least could tolerate, the Covenant sans Section 4 or at least the most problematical "bits" of it, to use the Archbishop's language.

The real issue is that the consultation was not complete prior to sending this draft out for a vote. It's rejection by a wide margin — terribly telling in something meant to be a basic constitutional "way forward" — is the reality of the people of God saying this is not the way in which they wish to go.

+ + +

Meanwhile, some Covenant supporters continue to downplay the language of Section 4 and remind us it is only about recommendations and things that "may" be done.  I must remind us all that Lambeth 1.10 was also a set of recommendations, and it is largely the reason we are in the mess we are in, when some provinces chose, after careful study, not to accept the recommendations, and others began asserting the theses of Lambeth as if they were writ on tablets of stone.

The problem with the word "may" is that while it seems tentative, it is actually a word of discretionary empowerment. When that power is used, and when the "mere recommendation" is followed by "consequences" for failing to assent through deferral of ones actions, and those consequences include possible removal from the only formal mechanisms the Anglican Communion possesses — in short, when the "may" becomes "is" — the recommendation "simply" has all the formal content of a demand.

I was reminded yesterday afternoon of the parable of the pig and the hen considering their respective contributions to the farmer's breakfast. What is merely a "recommendation" from Canterbury's perspective is seen as a "demand" from those on the receiving end. How different things would be if in the wake of +Gene's election if the other provinces had simply minded their own business, and Canterbury recommended they do so? Instead, Lambeth 1.10 was brandished as the "mind of the communion" — taking little or no account of those who voted against it, or of those who only voted for it because they saw it as a compromise.

The Proposed Anglican Covenant is not the way forward for the Anglican Communion, either as a Communion, or for the sake of its members, or for our ecumenical relationships.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Canterbury Pitches; Anyone Catching?

The Archbishop of Canterbury is continuing his advocacy of the Proposed Anglican Covenant in a YouTube video uploaded today. I commend it to your viewing.

It seems to me this video capsulizes well the dilemma about the Covenant, and the mixed message it sends: it is, in Canterbury's view and by his account, somehow very important to our future way of life together, but it only consists of a set of agreed principles and recommendations concerning disagreement about acts that might create tension over those principles. It has no specific requirements or authority.

Of course, the very reason we have tensions in the communion derives from the fact that not everyone is prepared to accept recommendations when they feel the recommendations are misinformed or misguided, or harmful to the local work of their own church. This is precisely why the recommendations contained in Lambeth 1.10 have led to such a great tension in the Communion — and the notion that further recommendations being in place might have prevented those tensions, or might prevent other tensions in the future, is by no means evidently true. It is, I think, plainly false.

The Archbishop asserts that failure to adopt the PAC will somehow lead to our "impoverishment" as a communion; that it might lead some of the weaker provinces to feel abandoned; that it might add levels of further confusion to our ecumenical relations. He offers no real evidence that such a reaction to the PAC will produce these effects, and I for one see no evidence that this is the case; or that the adoption of the PAC will enrich our common lives, support the weaker provinces, or clarify our ecumenical relationships. It is, after all, only a set of recommendations, or so the Archbishop says.

In short, this seems to be one more effort to skew the voting in the Church of England's diocesan synods. I earnestly entreat the voting members to listen to what the Archbishop says, but also to do something he fails to mention: read the text of the Proposed Anglican Covenant, in particular section 4.2, and see how well you think it matches his rosy portrayal.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Read carefully

The Archbishop of Canterbury has made an important but typically dense speech to the World Council of Churches. In it he rightfully calls for the legal protection of sexual minorities. He then, however, gets off track with his reflections on law as a means to culture change. This is most evident in his passing reference to same-sex marriage. (I have to contest the Daily Mail's headlining this as if it were the primary point of his essay!)

The real problem in paragraph 14 is that he speaks of categories of marginalization or stigma, which is far from the reason some are advocating for marriage equality. The issue is that marriage is a fundamental human right. It has nothing to do with GLBT persons wanting "acceptance" but their wanting free access to rights and responsibilities to which they are entitled by virtue of their being human. Same-sex couples are seeking marriage equality — not the removal of some stigma.

By bringing these issues together — along with the even more remotely connected issue of assisted suicide — the Archbishop loses focus and ultimately mars what could have been a very helpful reflection on human rights and the laws meant to protect them. Simply to assert that law often steps out ahead of culture is mind-numblingly obvious. This is precisely why declarations of human rights have to be made from time to time: because the culture hasn't yet reached that level of understanding and tolerance. Rights have to be declared because some in the culture — sometimes the majority — are denying them.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Shedding some light

Further to the previous post...

In what seems a very disingenuous statement, I just noticed (thanks to Rod Gillis for pointing it out in the comments to the report at Thinking Anglicans) the irony in another portion of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent musings:

In spite of many assurances, some Anglicans evidently still think that the Covenant changes the structure of our Communion or that it gives some sort of absolute power of ‘excommunication’ to some undemocratic or unrepresentative body.  With all respect to those who have raised these concerns, I must repeat that I do not see the Covenant in this light at all. (¶ 7)

Beg pardon, but it is the Archbishop who introduced language of two tracks or two "tiers" for the future of the Communion. Moreover, the invitation not to participate in, or be suspended from, one or more of "the Instruments" is spelled out in the Covenant at 4.2.5. And further unspecified "relational consequences" concerning the actual status of communion between members churches, is also threatened (4.2.7).

If these are not "change to the structure of the Communion" then what are they? It seems to me they are fundamental changes to the only structure we have. Evidently, the Archbishop thinks otherwise, which leads me to wonder what he means by "structure."

But perhaps the light in which he sees the Covenant is the gloomy light of the doomsayers who are convinced that the Covenant is the last best hope for Anglican humanity. My hope is that the Archbishop might come to see the Covenant in a different light. I suggest daylight, at the very least, if not the illumination of the Spirit.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG