Cross posted at Shreds and Patches

For my sins and iniquities I read the “evidence” placed before the General Synod of the Church of England as it debated a private motion which sought to recognize ACNA’s desire to be in communion with the English Church. ACNA, “The Anglican Church in North America,” sent one of its bishops and others to watch the debate from the gallery. The proponent of the motion told the tale of ACNA from its point of view. TEC, “The Episcopal Church,” countered by providing position papers putting forth its version of what has happened to cause the rift.

Although the motion was part of General Synod business, it reminded me of the sort of goings-on one hears of in divorce courts. By the time the matter has reached the court, each side in the divorce has retreated into its own world, sure of its own position, with not a shred of sympathy for the partner with whom they may have spent many intimate years. The deciding factor in granting the divorce will be an interpretation of law, plain and simple. Into that law is squeezed and shaped a story of two lives, two loves, two moments of joy, and often the lives of children and an extended family. The law does its job calmly and coldly.

The two partners to the divorce have failed to reconcile, and failed to agree on what is now termed a “no-fault divorce.” In the firm knowledge of their righteousness, each partner defends its position and in the process discounts and ignores all promises made, all experiences shared and every moment of happiness experienced. There is a sort of madness about the exercise, a madness of selfness and introspection ruthlessly applied. This does not mean that there may be grounds for the divorce, sometimes frightful grounds. It may well be that the two need to be apart and their relationship legally severed.

So in London, last week, the two sides aired their differences rather oddly before a group of people, most of whom have the vaguest knowledge of the American context. In typical English fashion, the motion was amended to a “take note” and “report back” status, the usual way Brits delay matters and avoid adopting harsh resolutions.

Yet the venue and the passions expressed in the position papers offered to the English bishops, other clergy and laity have some significance. In a way, the Americans went home to “mother,” and by extension, to the wider family of the Communion. The tale told was hardly edifying, often immature and devoid of sympathy for their former partner.

Because of this, those responsible for a final decision on the status of ACNA are not only confronted with the dilemma of two entities in one place each claiming to be Anglican, but of the probable effect on the general public in North America if the Gospel is to be presented by two “individuals” sure of their righteousness and equally convinced of the perfidy of the other. “See how these Christians love one another.”

The question of who is right or who is wrong, of evaluating the “he said, she said” evidence, becomes secondary to a basic Christian concept. Could not provision have been made, a settlement agreed upon, an untidy preservation of a unity while perhaps living apart for a while? The answer usually given is that attempts were made but one side or the other couldn’t be trusted. But had there been trust, there would have been no need for negotiation. In such circumstances a neutral mediator may often help to overcome mistrust enough to reach a settlement which would be best for the well-being of each side. It is because trust evaporated that we have reached this point of schism, the technical word for a frightful ecclesiastical divorce, a split not primarily of entities and property, but of people, real people, who have lived and loved together and who now invoke amnesia about the past in order to justify the harshness of their demands.

Yet in this Lenten season it is not too late for TEC and ACNA to take up the offer made a few years back by the Communion to provide neutral mediators to assist a settlement more honoring to God and better for the two entities than the probable outcome of this unholy struggle.

Where is Jesus in all this? He is dying on the Cross.
View the original post

The question of who is right or who is wrong, of evaluating the “he said, she said” evidence, becomes secondary to a basic Christian concept. Could not provision have been made, a settlement agreed upon, an untidy preservation of a unity while perhaps living apart for a while? The answer usually given is that attempts were made but one side or the other couldn’t be trusted. But had there been trust, there would have been no need for negotiation. In such circumstances a neutral mediator may often help to overcome mistrust enough to reach a settlement which would be best for the well-being of each side.

Unfortunately, the distrust has now reached such a level that I doubt that the two sides would be able to agree on a neutral mediator or even agree that any mediator is in fact, neutral. A mediator who doesn’t take “our” side (whichever side that may be), must be doing so because s/he’s on “their” side. The possibility that the mediator is on a third side, or no side, doesn’t seem to occur to anyone.

Tony,

  When all of this got started years ago I urged people to watch again the Kathleen Turner Michael Douglas, Danny DeVito movie “The War of the Roses.”  It is a useful reflection on these matters.  People went to war without counting the cost and now it becomes a matter of enduring until the one side of the other surrenders.
  But what a thoughtful person in the General Synod might be wise to take to heart is this; this is your own future and the parties are already aligning to repeat on English soil what has been done on TEC soil.  And since England is already permitting same sex blessings, even of clergy, they should count themselves lucky that so far everyone has winked and nodded at this. But their own day is coming.
  And in the end the courts, as you say,  will coldly and calmly divide the parties.

I think that trust is a big issue, but not the only one.  I grew up in British Columbia, Canada and the one thing that could be counted on besides death and taxes were public employee union strikes.  These frequently were resolved with the utilization of mediators.  However, there were times when the parties were so far apart from each other that the mediator would book out and say that until the parties redefined their goals in the dispute, there would be no resolution.

Sometimes the parties’ goals are too far apart for negotiations to work.  In that case, the parties decide to pursue their paths on their own, come what may.  Trust becomes the big issue when the two sides do not correctly perceive the other side’s goals, and believe instead that the other side is not really willing to come to an acceptable agreement.  Then a mediator can build trust so that each party realizes that the other party’s demands are more reasonable than they had been prepared to think.

But I am not convinced that simply lack of trust is the primary issue in North American Anglicanism’s troubles.  It seems to me that in the domestic Anglican/Episcopal civil war, TEC and ACNA are simply too far apart in their goals for a mediator to even have a chance, even if the trust issue could be overcome.  I think that the reason for this is quite simply that TEC refuses (for strategic reasons) to negotiate at all.  This is because in order for there to be a negotiated settlement, the status of the ACNA would need to be - in some sense - legitimized, and this the PB and her allies will not agree to.  This has been made very clear by the PB herself (see her deposition in the Virginia trial).  I don’t think that TEC is prepared at this point to budge on this issue.  I say this because I think that TEC fears a regularized and legitimized ACNA.  Why?  First, I think that the PB and her allies realize that if the ACNA is legitimized and regularized, this would make transferring to the ACNA that much easier from within TEC, and TEC would lose a significant number of clergy and parishes more then it would otherwise.  Second, I think that the PB and her allies realize that if the ACNA is legitimized within the Anglican Communion, that it would greatly accelerate TEC’s non-recognition within the Communion.  Third, I think that if the ACNA is legitimized it would require the PB and her allies to admit that a division has occurred within TEC that required an extraordinary solution, and this would fatally compromise the liberal ideological goal of claiming that a “mainstream” denomination adopted the liberal sexuality position en masse (as opposed to there being a division, with the liberal side sustaining heavy losses).  Additionally, the PB and her allies seem to have the belief that a final victory in the property dispute litigation will lead to the demise of the ACNA.  The PB and her allies are so committed to their course of action that they are willing to sustain significant collateral damage to TEC in order to stay the course (e.g. millions in litigation costs, significant losses of membership, and being saddled with lots of empty and expensive to maintain buildings, all in the context of a denomination already financially strapped and struggling).

On the flip side, the ACNA has now drawn its own line in the sand - that it is its own independent province that will never again come under the aegis of TEC again - it has chosen to go its own way, come what may.  Quite frankly, I think that this hardening of position has come in response to TEC’s refusal to negotiate anything as, domestically, the ACNA is born out of powerlessness, while TEC holds all the levers of power.  The ACNA can’t really choose to negotiate with TEC right now (i.e. the powerless side can’t choose to negotiate if the powerful side refuses any negotiation).  The ACNA’s only choice would have been to either pursue what it has done (i.e. independent provincial status) or worked towards being some sort of temporary holding pattern overseen by either the ABC or a group of Primates.

This inability to negotiate hasn’t always been the case.  A successful negotiation took place between Christ Church, Overland Park and the Diocese of Kansas.  Also, the situation in Virginia was headed towards a mutually agreed upon negotiated settlement until the PB intervened and ordered the negotiations to end.

Domestically, I fear that there will be no end in sight to the current dispute until one side “loses.”  My guess is that this will not occur for awhile but in the end, TEC will have collapsed sufficiently for it to lose its financial domininance of the Communion structures which will then lead it to lose its place in the Communion.  However, while this occurs, I think that a divided Communion and a continuing civil war will be facts of life and something that we will just have to deal with.  North American Anglicans will need to live in the context we are in and seek to do postive things where we are - whether we remain in TEC or in the ACNA.

James Wirrel - 18 February 2010 09:59 PM

On the flip side, the ACNA has now drawn its own line in the sand - that it is its own independent province that will never again come under the aegis of TEC again - it has chosen to go its own way, come what may.  Quite frankly, I think that this hardening of position has come in response to TEC’s refusal to negotiate anything as, domestically, the ACNA is born out of powerlessness, while TEC holds all the levers of power.

I’m not sure how you are defining the “levers of power,” or what you think the two sides are competing for. The ACNA is far more in tune with the general religious sensibilities of American Christians than the Episcopal Church, and at least where I live it exploits that particular kind of “power.” The local ACNA congregation is much more successful in attracting students from the evangelical college where I teach than my own parish is, for instance. In the landscape of American religion, the institution that cuts itself loose from historic structures and makes a bold appeal to American populism actually enjoys a good deal of power. Similarly, the ACNA has a good deal of leverage within the Communion, especially in the “Global South” and in the powerful evangelical wing of the C of E.

Both sides are disingenuous when they try to position themselves as victims. Both sides have power, of different kinds.

Edwin

Edwin:  I am referring specifically to the issues of properties and the allowance of alternative episcopal oversight.  Had TEC been willing to negotiate these issues earlier, then a different course of events would probably have occurred.  My point is that had TEC agreed to negotiate a “safe haven” within the Communion for the predecessor groups which later became the ACNA, then perhaps we wouldn’t be in the position we are in now.  But when TEC refused to negotiate from the outset on any of the critical issues, this led to the ACNA reacting by drawing its own lines in the sand, namely to decide to declare itself its own Province and lobby the Communion for eventual recognition of it and nonrecognition of TEC.  TEC made the rules (by not negotiating) and the ACNA is simply beating TEC at the game which TEC chose to play.

Yes, the ACNA has some powerful allies in the Global South and CofE Evangelical wing, but I think it would be a stretch to describe either group as being Communion “insiders.”  The fact remains that in order for there to be a negotiated settlement to the TEC/ACNA dispute, it is TEC which still holds all the cards for now.  That may change over time in the Communion (which I think is the hope of the Covenant) as TEC continues its trajectory out of the Communion.

I would agree with you that it would be wrong to think of the ACNA as being a “victim” and I do not suggest that it should be seen as such.  In the long run, the ACNA is probably better situated to grow and become stronger.  It is most certainly no victim!  My concluding point was that rather then wasting our hopes and energy in pursuing something which will not happen anytime soon (i.e. a negotiated resolution), we should instead work where we find ourselves - be it in TEC or in the ACNA - to build up the Anglican Church in North America and globally.  There is no reason why we cannot act with integrity and a communion commitment in either organization.  I have come to accept that the institution that we know as TEC must die, and that the death throes will not be pleasant.  Similarly, I have come to accept that the future of North American Anglicanism has its hopes in some future combination of the ACNA and TEC remnants, but getting there will be neither clear nor pretty.  And I have come to accept that things won’t be so cut-and-dried in the Anglican Communion for awhile.  We will be going through a period of confusion and tough times.  That’s what our lot is, and we might as well just make the best of it.

James, I think that you are spot on, as they say these days.  Resorting to litigation is part of the death spiral for pecusa.  It will likely be a slow death; dioceses without large cities will die first, dioceses with big cities and large endowments will be here to stay for a long time.  The decline that has already begun is not a pretty site.  On the other side, the ACNA doesn’t have much political power in the halls of power in the Anglican Communion, but ACNA will grow as we plant churches and evangelize.  We already have recognition from many primates, but we know that pecusa is a dominant player in greater recognition.  It could be a long road to offical recognition, but ACNA is set on a gospel path that is not dependent on the ABC or the ACC.  I know that those who put church order above gospel truth do not like the path of the ACNA, but the ACNA is more realistic than the CP crowd about the realities of pecusa and the gospel.

And Fr. Clavier, please don’t preempt Lent.  Jesus is in the desert withstanding the temptations of the devil.