The Bishops Push Back

The contemporary dynamic in the Anglican Communion was recentIy underscored by Presiding Bishop Schori. Commenting on the Anglican Primates' meeting in Dar es SaIaam, she said, "The Archbishop of Canterbury will respect whatever the Primates desire, whether or not it reflects the polity of the Anglican Communion." (Ex. Counc. Staff briefing, Feb. 23, 2007)

It is easy to see the contention between the EpiscopaI Church and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as a power struggle. Questions of principIe and right teaching are involved, of course, but authority seems increasingly important -- Who's in charge? rather than What's right?

Some of the Primates lead churches which have only recently become independent of colonial supervision. Their proclamations sugggest that they inherited a tradition of leadership in which the bishop is the ruler of the diocese. Such "monarchical" bishops are not accustomed to being challenged. Our bishops, by contrast, lead within a complex democratic system bewildering to those not accustomed to it. While autocratic bishops certainly exist among us, our polity in fact subverts "monarchical episcopacy".

A group of the African Primates, in particular, exhibit a powerful drive to run, even to rule the Anglican Communion -- and to reorganize the Communion so that it can be ruled by a few. These prelates have made it clear that the Church of England is almost as suspect on sexual issues as Canada and the U.S. and that it may soon receive a like condemnation. Statements from meetings of the Global South Primates have even implied that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself might be swept aside in their new regime. They have on the shelf a provisional plan for an alternative Anglican Communion, "The Anglican Global Initiative" (apparentIy approved in Nairobi, January 2005), with Archbishops Peter Akinola and Drexel Gomez designated to pull the trigger.

The influence of the Global South Primates is not surprising. They represent the rapidly growing part of the Communion, while the older churches are mostly static or dwindling, and they are newly arrived at the table as equal partners. Furthermore, their opposition is fierce to recent actions about sexuality, and what they perceive as a secularized culture, in North American Anglicanism. Their threat to boycott Lambeth Conference unless they approve the invitation list, has hung over all recent meetings. Such a boycott could invalidate the Lambeth Conference entirely.

During his visit to Canada this April, the Archbishop said that he had considered postponing the Conference, but that it would go ahead on schedule. He also made it clear that any statement about invitations for U. S. Bishops would depend on the outcome of his meeting with them at Camp Allen in September. (interview in The Anglican Journal, April 17, 2007)

The House of Bishops' meeting in September with the Archbishop and the Standing Committee of the Primates is focused by the Dar es Salaam Communiqué (Febuary 19, 2007). The document makes three demands of the Episcopal Church. Two were predictable: that the Bishops promise to refuse to approve the consecration of anyone living in a same sex relationship; and that they promise not to "authorize" rites for same sex blessings in their dioceses. The General Convention in 2006 passed measures intended to meet the Primates' demands on these issues, and a committee, charged with evaluating Covention's actions, recommended to the