Anglican inaction = action
Just what is happening with the worldwide Anglican communion at the moment? Is something happening? Or is nothing happening? Or is the nothing actually something?
These are the perplexing questions observers have been asking following the recent response of the American Anglicans (officially known as The Episcopal Church) to the demands of the rest of the Anglican world that they turn back from ordaining gay bishops and blessing same-sex unions. Their carefully crafted response, released in late September, has been read by some as at least a slight concession, and by others as yet another exercise in episcopal weasel words.
Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen's analysis of the situation is well worth a read. His point is that whether or not the New Orleans statement is deemed to have sufficiently met the requirements put forward by the rest of the Anglican Communion barely matters. The decisive actions have already been taken:
The key defining moment on the liberal side was the consecration of Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire [in 2003]. At first it was hoped that this was a mere aberration, that it could be dealt with by returning to where we were. In fact it was a permanent action with permanent consequences. It truly expressed the heart-felt views of the greater part of the leadership of the American Episcopal Church. The only way in which steps can be retraced is by repudiating the action itself, a development impossible to contemplate. That was the year of decision for the American church, and the decision was made in the clear light of day. They knew what they were doing.
The American House of Bishops has now responded to the Primates. Many have seen in their pronouncements sufficient conformity to the request of the Primates to enable the Communion to continue on its way. I do not read their statement like that. I think that they have failed to meet the hopes of the Primates. But the significance of the document at this level hardly matters. The document taken as a whole makes the real issue abundantly clear. Sexual rights are gospel.
Peter's perfectly valid point is that there are really two gospels in operation, and this has been the case for some time. This can be neither denied nor easily remedied. Thus, the worldwide Anglican Communion is already no longer a ‘communion’ in the Christian or gospel sense. We need to stop thinking that the situation is otherwise, or that there is any real prospect of this changing.
Peter's brother Phillip has made a similar point in his regular ‘From the Dean’ column:
To repent is to act. To be unrepentant is a state. Repentance is something that we do. ‘Unrepentance’ is not doing something. It is what does not happen—it is what you are when you do not repent.
Such is the state of international Anglicanism. The challenge for biblical, orthodox Anglicans is not to work out whether the Communion can be ‘saved’. That time has passed. The challenge now is to work out practical, workable ways to encourage, resource and support each other as we proclaim the gospel to a needy world.