THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S PENTECOST LETTER

Mark Harris at Preludium posted the entire text of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams' Pentecost letter.

What to make of the Pentecost letter? The missive is not Good News for one member of the Episcopal Church, namely moi.

The ABC recently hosted an annual seminar The Building Bridges Seminar, at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. The seminar "is a unique annual series which brings together a range of internationally recognized Christian and Muslim scholars for intensive study."

The Archbishop seems to put forth a good deal more effort to build bridges with Christians of other denominations and with Muslims than he does with the Episcopal Church in the US, a member church of the Anglican Communion of which he is primus inter pares. Did he speak one word to or even lay eyes on an Episcopalian while he was in the US?

Back to the letter.

When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity.

The Archbishop wants diversity, but not too much diversity, at least with respect to to Holy Orders and our GLTB brothers and sisters having access to all orders of ministry, should they be in faithful, partnered relationships and out of the closet.

And if the Church is a community where we serve each other in the name of Christ, it is a community where we can and should call each other to repentance in the name of Christ and his Spirit – not to make the other feel inferior (because we all need to be called to repentance) but to remind them of the glory of Christ’s gift and the promise that we lose sight of when we fail in our common life as a Church.

I'll say it plainly. I call the ABC to repentance for straining the bonds of affection by what I can only call his contemptuous attitude towards the Episcopal Church. Any of you who have read the entire letter, feel free to call me to account for my use of the word "contemptuous". I emphasize that I don't mean to make the archbishop feel inferior.

In several places, not only in North America, Anglicans have not hesitated to involve the law courts in settling disputes, often at great expense and at the cost of the Church’s good name.

The English tell me that the property laws are clearer for Church of England property than for the property of the Episcopal Church in the US, but I believe the laws are pretty clear here, despite the fact that certain people choose to test them. However, what if a breakaway group from the Church of England occupied a church and would not leave? Would the authorities in the Church of England simply turn the property over to the group if negotiations failed to get them to leave, or would they call the police to evict the group? I suppose the expense would be all on the part of the police, but nevertheless, there's the good name of the church to consider.

It is significant that there are still very many in The Episcopal Church, bishops, clergy and faithful, who want to be aligned with the Communion’s general commitments and directions, such as those who identify as ‘Communion Partners’, who disagree strongly with recent decisions, yet want to remain in visible fellowship within TEC so far as they can.

It is significant that ABC gives the Communion Partner bishops a nice pat on the back - the very bishops whom I see standing with one foot in and one foot out of TEC, the very bishops who would not surprise me if they decided to bolt from TEC.

A time of transition, by definition, does not allow quick solutions to such questions, and it is a time when, ideally, we need more than ever to stay in conversation. As I have said many times before, whatever happens to our structures, we still need to preserve both working relationships and places for exchange and discussion. New vehicles for conversations across these boundaries are being developed with much energy.

So. We must remain in conversation, despite our differences.

And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole.

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury see himself as representing the Communion as a whole? He has no basis for making such a claim. His views on certain matters do not represent my views. The thought that one province or one person can represent or misrepresent the Communion as a whole is absurd.

I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice

Wait! The ABC said previously that we should stay in conversation, despite our disagreements. But then he says not this ecumenical conversation, because we don't represent the mind of the Communion. Which he does?

At this point, I'm ready to bang my head against the keyboard. I didn't finish parsing all the parts of the letter that I'd have wished to, because I became tired and stopped.

For more brilliant and learned commentary see Mark Harris, Fr. Jake, Andrew Gerns at The Lead, and last, but not least, Caminante.