Episcopal Church and The Empire Strikes Back

Two weeks ago today, in Herndon VA, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a conservative breakaway group of Anglicans consisting of about 100 clergy, 60 congregations and 9,000 congregants, had its "first annual" meeting. The movement has been in the offing since 2003, when out-of-the-closet NH priest Gene Robinson was elected and installed as Anglican Bishop of NH, but its roots go much deeper and longer than that. In fact the Episcopalians are getting into this issue so late primarily because it has been liturgy, rather than doctrine, which was the glue of the denomination for years. But now doctrine is front and center.

Stirring things up has been the Nigerian Bishop, Peter Akinola, who believes that the official Anglican Communion in the United States has become insensitive to truth and that, by ordaining a practicing homosexual to such a visible position in the church, has decided to flaunt its embrace of error. As any new movement discovers, there is at first a surge of excitement and anticipation as growth appears to be quicker than anticipated, help comes from unexpected sources and more money than at first anticipated comes in. This new movement also has problems to face, such as whether to ordain women clergy (women always have caused "problems" for authoritarian religions..), but for now it is luxuriating in its newfound "voice." As quoted in the December 25, 2007 edition of the Christian Century, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in chiding the breakaways, said:

"There is one thing a bishop should say to another bishop: that I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior."

What this essay argues is that this statement by Williams demonstrates that he misunderstands the nature of the new movement. The rest of the essay shows why this is true. My only question is whether Williams is deliberately missing the boat or whether he knows what he is doing...

Reflecting on the Nature of Truth...and a Conversation

Ever since I began this website, writing about religion and other things, I have received mail from people from all over the world. Most communications have been from respectful people, who wanted to ask questions, argue for a different perspective or thank me for my work. One conversation, however, was chillingly memorable. It was from a Calvinist man, my age, from one of the Caribbean Islands. At first he was delighted that I was sympathetic to Calvin and the tradition, but then he perceived that my sense of humor, irony and criticism of the Scripture and the Reformed faith might not fit in with his uncompromising view of truth. At first he urged me to "return to God." When I "chided" him for his views, too, he ultimately became hostile, threatening me with death, hell, perdition and lots of worse things (like he might not write to me anymore). But what was striking to me about this conversation is a somewhat unguarded, and revelatory statement he made about his faith, a faith that is, in fact, not too different from that of Bishop Akinola and the breakaway Anglicans. He told me two important things:

1. The legacy of his country was, like Nigeria, of English colonialism. Even though the people were long independent, they were irreversibly "British" in significant ways. This both defines him and, to a certain degree, angers him. It is as if you can't avoid imitating a parent you can't stand.

2. The faith he accepted from the British missionaries was Calvinist, and he felt that this faith was the only thing that allowed him to keep his sanity as depredations, humiliations or oppressions of his people continued long after independence. That is, the things I considered to be the rigidities of Calvinism were, in fact, a sort of lifeline for him, a sign that there really was a God in heaven who would again kick butt in the world--preferably the colonial master's butt. Thus, if he "liberalized," if he tried to become "Western" in a more tolerant religious way, he would be giving up on the one source that would eventually help him get the upper hand which everyone really wants in life. Thus, my speaking in genial and critical terms of faith indicated that I was in position of privilege, one that didn't understand, and probably still wanted to oppress, people like him in the Caribbean Islands. We would drop our tourist dollars there, but never really try to understand.

Returning to the Anglicans--late 2007

I mulled my conversation with this man as I thought about Archibishop William's statement chiding the conservatives. He was obviously trying to put a "come let us reason together" spin on the controversy by appealing to humanity's common need of a Savior. What this statement fully overlooks, however, is that those who are angry, who have been long oppressed, and who now have some of the tools to express it (through education, mostly provided by the oppressors), are like my friend from the Caribbean. They must hold on to the truth once-and-for-all delivered to the saints because it is the only way they can forge an identity to stand up against the monied and serried religious regiments of the West. They must have an avenue to express the resentment that has built up for well over a century against the West. The Western political powers can continue to tamp down this resentment by military force and sending enough economic aid into a region to "buy off" some more moderate voices, but the Church has no such skills at its disposal. It only has the Christ who is actually a pretty attractive symbol for those who have been dispossessed. So, in the fight between those who hold for the truth once and for all delivered, and those who are interested in the "open" nature of truth (which many of us in the United States are), those who fight for the traditional truth are going to keep fighting and, they hope, winning.

So, a split is happening right before our eyes. In order to minimize it, some dioceses are going to court to try to keep the property from the seceding churches. But why do this? Why not send them away with their property and a blessing? That might be the more charitable thing to do. But the overall message of this essay should not be missed: THE EMPIRE IS STRIKING BACK. It has taken too long to do so...

3180