Forum Thread
Americans Consecrated in African Provinces for America

Today, Thursday 30 August 2007, two American priests, Bill Atwood

http://www.acn-us.org/icon/bishops/atwood.html

and Bill Murdoch,

http://www.acn-us.org/icon/bishops/murdoch.html

will be consecrated bishops in the Anglican Church of Kenya to serve in the USA. On Sunday, 2 September, another American priest, John Guernsey,

http://www.acn-us.org/icon/bishops/guernsey.html

will be consecrated in the Church of Uganda to serve in the USA and he will be assisted by Bishop Andy Fairfield (who was voted into the House of  Bishops of the Church of Uganda on 21 June 2007).

http://www.acn-us.org/archive/2007/06/church-of-uganda-welcomes-the-rt-rev-andy-fairfield-to-its-house-of-bishops.html 

On Saturday 1 September 2007, Rowan Williams returns from his study leave and family holiday. On 20-22 September he will be with the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in New Orleans and that House has until 30 September 2007 to respond to the Primates' Communique from Dar es Salaam.

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

These consecrations in Nairobi and Kampala, as well as the earlier consecration of Martyn Minns in the Church of Nigeria, seem to me to be examples of 'trans-communion interventions' that are warned against in The Windsor Report and in the Primates' Communique from Dar es Salaam.

Paragraph 26 of that Communique states: 

The interventions by some of our number and by bishops of some Provinces, against the explicit recommendations of the Windsor Report, however well-intentioned, have exacerbated this situation. Furthermore, those Primates who have undertaken interventions do not feel that it is right to end those interventions until it becomes clear that sufficient provision has been made for the life of those persons.

Just when the central weight of the Anglican Communion is backing The Windsor Report and the Covenant process as the way forward, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has clearly underlined these as part of his letter of invitation to the Lambeth Conference, why are these consecrations considered to be helpful and wise?

Andrew Carey has written a perceptive article in the Church of England Newspaper this week entitled 'Chaos Reigning?' and uses the phrase 'adventurism on American soil'.  Here are some quotations and I hope there will be a web link to the whole article soon:

I'm not convinced about either the need for more mitres, or about the timing of these consecrations. I'm not greatly sympathetic, however, to the official Anglican Communion response that the consecrations creates 'increased confusion'. The confusion came with the consecration of Gene Robinson, and the subsequent inability of The Episcopal Church's leadership to respond adequately to the clear voice of the Anglican Communion, and also to find a way to accomodate parishes and clergy who could no longer identify with their own diocesan bishops...

I still don't see how separate Rwandan, Ugandan, Kenyan and Nigerian adventurism on American soil really helps create any kind of solidarity around central theological convictions.

These consecrations seem to me to follow a 'Federal Conservative' model of the Anglican Communion rather than a 'Communion Conservative' model.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=114

The supreme irony of this is that they put a higher priority on 'independence' over 'interdependence' just at the crucial time that the model of 'interdependence' is being pressed on The Episcopal Church and its House of Bishops. 

As we approach the month of decision of September 2007, let us continue to pray for wisdom for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Graham, thanks for referring to my column in your post. The full article can be read at:

http://andrewcarey.classicalanglican.net/

Andrew Carey

Graham,

I my view the irony is not so much the one you point out, but that those in the centre who speak of a 'central weight of the Anglican Communion' put a high priority on interdependence long after this has been scrapped so clearly and boldly by the American and Canadian churches.

I'm all for interdepedence too, but I don't see much hope for it at the global level, even if/when some new Global South coalition, with HQ in Kampala or Nairobi or wherever, gets put together.  As I commented on the Global south site, in response to someone who is worried about the Global south highjacking the Communion:

The fundamental territorial boundary crossing is that of 'progressives' because revision of apostolic doctrine in one member church is effectively revision for all, based on the principle that the local church is not only PART of the universal church, it IS the universal church.  Hence the 'liturgical space' of an orthodox presbyter in Manila has been invaded by the sheer existence of rites for same-sex blessings in Vancouver or Seattle or wherever.

The only way I can see beyond the territorial disputes is to note that once Humpty Dumpty is in pieces the answer is not to consolidate power in some 'centre', whether that's London or Nairobi or Kampala.  Grand, to-down, schemes are only going to be opposed by other ones, so that in our cyber age we'll be drawn, sadly, to whichever abstract center has the coolest website.

In all the confusion about the proper foundations of Anglican doctrine, if the Anglican way is to survive I imagine it will have to be in grass-roots and unsensational ways, as 5 or 6 here and there dust off their Prayer Books and re-discover the truth that the church, fundamentally, is the local gathering in Jesus' name.  If Episcopal polity is going to be useful (as I think it should) it will have to emerge once again 'from below', locally, where (as J.H. Yoder put it) disunity hits hardest.  Who knows, we may even have to build bridges with Mennonites, Quakers, Baptists, and all those 'congregationalists' too for the sake of the Gospel in the real and concrete territories that we inhabit. And it may only make it into the local news.

Steve Griffin on brideg-building and Quakers etc== you already have Quakers among you.

As for the poor orthodox love in Manila being 'invaded' by the reality of queer life and queer christian life around the world. sounds like summary execution of all lgbt folk is the only way forward based on thy logic. That would require breaking certain Mitvoth and imperatives too --- to my way of thinking (or rather Jesus' )   ........

Quakers? Good liberal Quakers (in the UK anyway)? They are very much inclusive, liek their cousins the Unitarians.

Yes, I'm all in favour of a spiritual Communion, a decentralised one of mutual recognitions and derecognitions. The Archbishop's great mistake was to start a Covenant process. It won't work. You cannot force together something already spinning apart, and to do so only makes the split more violent. At the moment Chris Sugden is clearly laying out that there will be another Communion, his words being that the Communion will "remain", but these actions are that it will be another one. These folks are walking (not at a dumbed down Lambeth Conference) and intend to be aggressive in the myth that theirs will be the one that "remains".

Thinking Anglicans links to a 40 min interview: Uganda: Archbishop Orombi talks to press http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002600.html The negative comments make me wonder if Anglican unity is still possible.

David

Anglican unity is possible - but at an ethical price too high to pay.