View From The Pew
by Gerry Hunter
(Posted Feb. 18th, 2000).
In a time of some turmoil in the Anglican Communion, centered on its Western constituents, there is a good deal of angst among many Anglicans. It is to be hoped that the leaders in the Communion, in responding to this most unpleasant situation, would see their way clear the provide reassuring leadership, through thoughtful, cogent, and factual statements.>[? Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster has made a statement on the recent Singapore ordinations. In it, he makes, it seems, two main points. The first is to once again give us the “chicken dinner” argument that came out of Lambeth when the liberal, Western bishops there found they could not get their way. It is rather amazing that this item has resurfaced, given that it has long ago been shown to be without substance. Not only have, in general, believing African bishops and primates put at risk the funding they get from the ECUSA by their actions, but even at Singapore, one of the attending Bishops put a lot on the line. Bishop John Rucyahana of Shiria heads a diocese twinned with a US diocese, from which he gets support. Now Bishop Duncan of that diocese has indicated that he intends to continue the relationship, but he did so in a manner that makes it clear that the Bishop of Shiria didn’t first make sure this would be the case, before he went to Singapore. This is a very strange action for someone who, according to Bishop Ingham, has been bought and paid for.
However, Bishop Ingham doesn’t stop there. No, he names the conspirator’s leader as Bishop Stanton of Dallas. The National Post reports:
Bishop Ingham says Anglican leaders in Africa and Asia, troubled by pressing local problems of war and poverty, have little real interest in crusading against homosexuals. They are being paid and lobbied to do so, he says, by American Anglicans (called Episcopalians) recruiting Third World church leaders to force change within the U.S. Last month, a group of senior international Anglican leaders, including several from Asia and Africa, met in Uganda to put pressure on Episcopalians to stop what the conservatives call the church's "moral drift." James Stanton, the bishop of Dallas, was there. …
Bishop Ingham believes Bishop Stanton used funds from conservative Episcopalians to finance the meeting. "My analysis is that this whole group is financed and politically managed by American conservative bishops who've lost the debate in their own church," Bishop Ingham says. "What the American conservatives have managed to do is to export their anxiety about gays and lesbians."
I would have hoped for a more thoughtful analysis of the situation. At the meeting in Kampala, Uganda, Bishop Stanton was not one of the people pushing for rapid, unilateral change. The Church of England Newspaper, 26th November 1999, reported Bishop Stanton’s position:
The Bishop of Dallas, James Stanton, was one of a number of representatives of the Episcopal Church in the USA who were concerned about the drift of their Church. But he asked the Primates not to take precipitate action. Bishop Stanton heads the American Anglican Council which represents most of the evangelical and catholic bishops in the American Church.
The AAC's aim is to call for reform within the Church in contrast with groups like First Promise, formed mainly with clergy and lay people, which is calling for immediate intervention in the affairs of the American Church. They would like to have their own bishops consecrated and believe that Third World primates will recognise their parishes and bishops rather than the official Episcopal Church.
The question arises: Why would Bishop Stanton finance what he does not want? The same article continues, contrasting the AAC and Bishop Stanton’s position at Kampala with that of First Promise in the USA:
"First Promise were eager to get on with alternative jurisdiction," confirmed Bishop Stanton. "Our position has been that while we believe there are great difficulties in ECUSA, particularly with some liberal bishops running roughshod over their people, we felt that whatever actions taken had to be in unison. What Lambeth called for was action by the Primates as a whole."
He said all plans were based on goodwill, and argued that the American bishops were keen to support their Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold who was working to ensure a time of jubilee in the American Church.
"The radical left is always acting in the belief that the rest of the Church will catch up with them. Whether the Presiding Bishop will pull it off is going to be a real test. He has problems to contend with - there are some very impatient people who don't much care for conversation. For them the issue is decided, they are going to move forward."
That brings us to the next question: On what basis does Bishop Ingham cast aspersions at Bishop Stanton? Certainly not based on Bishop Stanton’s publicly stated position, or on that of the American Anglican Council. The AAC is often criticized for not being aggressive enough in seeking solutions to the ECUSA situation. We seem to be left to conclude that Bishop Ingham, rather than providing a thoughtful, reasoned statement on the situation, has opted for an unoriginal (“chicken dinners” is an old argument) and fanciful (not at all consistent with known, published positions) scenario that even an avid postmodern deconstructionist would disavow.
The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada suggests that Bishops are not intercontinental missiles. On the showing of Bishop Ingham’s utterances, should his Primate prove to be wrong, bishops will be found to be ballistic missiles, rather than the precision, guided variety. In any event, Anglican’s deserve a far more cogent and reasoned response to this extraordinary situation than what the Bishop of New Westminster has chosen to provide. And what was provided helps nothing.
Analysis by Gerry Hunter
The Episcopal Church News Service has just published an article which, were it in Canada’s Anglican Journal, would doubtless cheer the heart of Bishop Michael Ingham. Its title reads: “Commission on Liturgy and Music says sexuality decisions belong on diocesan level.“ Bishop Ingham of New Westminster came back from a meeting of the House of Bishops smarting from their rejection of just this idea, which he had advocated. The report suggests, "each diocese, under the spiritual direction of its bishop, shall determine the resolution of issues related to same-sex relationships, including the blessing of such relationships, and the ordination of homosexual Christians." Unless Bishop Ingham has undergone a radical transformation, this seems to be precisely what he was seeking for his own diocese, but is unable to get - at least, so far.
The report calls for steps strikingly similar to those Ingham has imposed on his own diocese, and with the same rather suspect justification: “to facilitate genuine and respectful encounter between heterosexual and homosexual parishioners, recognizing that they live different lifestyles, hold different opinions but share one Lord, one faith, one baptism." In fact the parallels are very striking indeed between what this ECUSA organ offers in the way of rationale, and what Bishop Ingham has called for. The ECUSA calls for consideration of Scripture, Tradition, Experience, a review of understandings of homosexuality, Ecclesiology, Blessing and Catechesis and same-sex blessings, as discussed in attached essays. Now Bishop Ingham is also preparing reams of paper, covering Gay and Lesbian Voices, (experience and understandings of homosexuality), Faith and Doctrine (catechesis, scripture and tradition), Canonical and Legal issues (ecclesiology), and a Rite Of Blessing (blessing). Now isn’t it striking that this Canadian bishop is covering the same bases as an ECUSA organ, which began work after a 1997 vote to bless same sex unions, which failed by one vote?
The article suggests that the ECUSA commission sees the whole thing as a big misunderstanding, and an area that can’t be understood anyway. To quote the commission, "To admit that we are not ready, theologically or scientifically, to say a defining word about the life of homosexuals in the church betokens the much broader disagreement, in practice, among very faithful people regarding sexual mores in general." The situation, it appears, is such a mess that there is no hope of sorting it out. Both the ECUSA and Bishop Ingham would have everyone accept, without question, the latter’s assertion that, “The blessing of same-sex unions is a complex issue, and it is a disputed issue. It is something on which Christians can in good conscience disagree.”
Bishop Ingham expects everyone to be reasonable, see things his way, and go along with whatever this process may lead to. He has distaste for schism, and, given his position, it is an understandable one. He has articulated that distaste on a number of occasions, including it, for example, in his talk at the end of his Essentials “Day of Dialogue,” where he ignored all that had been said before he spoke, and told us how things were. Likewise, the ECUSA commission, in advocating diocesan option, warns, "The principal alternative seems to be schism, which many an ancient Christian believed to be a state far worse than heresy or ignorance." Now if this were football, baseball, or hockey, and the issue was whether or not the owners of the teams could agree on the rules, this might be a valid warning. From the pens of these men, though, it seems more a threat to help them to get their way, even though there are rules not of man, which they choose to ignore, to take into consideration.
Can it be pure coincidence that these seemingly separate entities have moved in so similar a direction? Could it be that a shared denial of the Lordship and Divinity of Jesus Christ, a shared preference for malleable social science, as distinct from the physical sciences, and an apparent conviction that it is better to unite in a lie than to divide over the truth, have accounted for this remarkable parallelism?
At the moment, the parallels are very chilling. The ECUSA is on the verge of either internal fission, or fracture from the wider Anglican Communion. The Diocese of New Westminster is anything but united, and its leadership seeks to lead the rest of the Anglican Church of Canada on the path it sees as indicated. At the end of the day, does anyone who believes “one holy catholic and apostolic church” see “local option” as viable? Or is that more properly the purview of those who proclaim the love of God and the lordship of each self over its own life, and thereby forsake Christianity?