Article (John Richardson): The Schedule - a battle to fight, a mountain to climb

Last night I went to bed (late!) wondering if the Primates’ Communique released (equally late) that evening really had teeth.

Forget the Covenant proposals which came out earlier. Indeed, forget most of the Communique itself, which consists of the usual niceties these occasions produce (does anyone remember a fraction of the Dromantine version?). The reader, wading through the first thirty-four paragraphs may well find themselves screaming ‘get to the point’.

And there it is, two paragraphs from the end: “Our discussions have drawn us into a much more detailed response than we would have thought necessary at the beginning of our meeting. But such is the imperative laid on us to seek reconciliation in the Church of Christ, that we have been emboldened to offer a number of recommendations. We have set these out in a Schedule to this statement.”

The point, then, is in the Schedule. And, even after a night sleeping on it, the Schedule indeed has teeth.

Basically, the Episcopal church is put under ‘special measures’. First, it is instructed by the Primates to allow the setting up of a Pastoral Council, part-nominated by the Primates, to provide care for disaffected parishes within TEC. Secondly, it allows a group of disaffected TEC bishops (the “Camp Allen” group) to nominate a ‘Primatial Vicar’, with the Presiding Bishop’s consent, to supplement her oversight. However, this person will be responsible to the aforementioned Council, most of whose members are not appointed by the Presiding Bishop.

Thirdly, it requires that the House of Bishops of TEC “make an unequivocal common covenant” not to authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions and not to give consent to any candidate for episcopal orders who is living in a same-sex union, unless or until a new consensus emerges throughout the Anglican Communion.

Fourthly, interventions by other Provinces into the United States will only cease when this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be “fully operational”. After that, congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the new structures.

In case this is unclear, imagine the opposite situation arising in England. The Archbishop of Canterbury is told by the overseas bishops that he must allow the setting up of a five-person panel to monitor what goes on in the Church of England, of which he can nominate only two and the Presiding Bishop of TEC will nominate one. Imagine him being told that a group of rebel Liberal bishops, allied to TEC, can nominate a ‘flying Archbishop’ (with his approval), who will answer to that panel. And then imagine him being told that the current moratorium on same-sex blessings and appointments such as that of Jeffrey John must cease and desist. Meanwhile, all those renegade parishes who have become part of American and Canadian ‘provinces’ in this country are allowed to go on as at present. Imagine, finally, this left one of our best-loved bishops excluded both as to his manner of life and his teaching.

Somehow, I don’t think Katherine Jefferts Schori is quite as comfortable with this as her initial public reaction tried to suggest.

Most telling of all is the ‘silence of the blogs’ — a place where the term ‘chattering classes’ really comes into its own. One blogger has found ‘wiggle room’ in the fact that the Schedule only prohibits the ‘authorizing’ of same-sex blessings, not their actual doing — a typical ‘Charlie Brown’ response, it must be said. Yet that is really no more than takes place in England at present, and we know how unsatisfactory it is to groups like Changing Attitude or Inclusive Church. The otherwise general lack of comment suggests the Liberals are as stunned as many Conservatives probably are.

The reality, as Stephen Bates has pointed out in the Guardian, is that the Schedule is unprecedented in the sanctions it places on TEC. And this is why the Covenant is an irrelevance. The line in the sand is, for once, clearly drawn, and it is drawn here, not in some putative future document. If TEC steps across, no Covenant on earth is going to rescue the Anglican Communion if sanctions do not follow. That battle, however, has yet to be fought, as TEC has until September to respond.

We therefore must move to a new, and urgent, task, which is actually to develop and justify the Anglican Communion’s response to those who experience, and in many cases wish to express, same-sex attraction. Compliance by TEC with the Dar-es-Salaam Schedule will not make them go away — nor should they.

Assuming all that the Schedule demands comes into effect — which is a very big assumption — the Anglican Communion will indeed have plugged a hole that was threatening to sink the ship. But it will be very far from seaworthy! If it has rejected one version of the ‘full inclusion’ of people with same-sex attractions, it has yet to develop a fully-rounded version of its own. And that presents us with another mountain to climb.

Revd John P Richardson