Matt Kennedy: Will words and actions ever meet? Canterbury’s letter to Bishop Howe

From Matt Kennedy at Stand Firm [boldface mine]:

. . . The most confusing and irresponsible decisions at this point have come from the office of the Archbishop. The issuing of Lambeth invitations to bishops who permit same sex blessings and took part in the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was the single most divisive act since November 2003. If the Archbishop is disconcerted by the alternative bodies that have formed since then, he has only himself to blame.

It is important to note what he does say and what he does not say. He does say that all those bishops and dioceses who comply with the Windsor Report remain “clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion.”

He does not say anything at all, positive or negative, about those bishops and dioceses, like Bishop Bruno and the Diocese of California for example, that currently permit same sex blessings or dioceses like Newark that continue to embrace the possibility of electing, giving consent, and consecrating non-celibate homosexual bishops. He does not at all forestall the distinct possibility, if not probability, that Bishop Bruno, in keeping with the JSC report, will be deemed “Windsor Compliant” and therefore, “clearly in communion with Canterbury” if not the “mainstream” of the communion.

The Archbishop, then, simply assures Bishop Howe and his clergy that Windsor Compliant bishops will be in Communion with Canterbury and if that is your primary concern then I suppose this assurance will provide comfort.

But to those who hold the task of defending the Apostolic faith as primary and protecting and providing for congregations swimming against the slew of false teaching and officially sanctioned heresy within the Episcopal Church (regardless of dioceses) as vital, the Archbishop’s words provide cold comfort indeed. . .

. . . If rectors, vestries and parishes make the decision to leave the Episcopal Church primarily in order to maintain communion with Canterbury, then they are clearly making the wrong decision. Communion with Canterbury, at this point, is best maintained within the Episcopal Church. I do hope that no rector or vestry is, at this point, suggesting to the congregation in their charge that the only way to maintain communion with Canterbury is to leave the Episcopal Church. That line of argument was a possible one earlier in this controversy but it was closed when the Archbishop issued his Lambeth invitations.

What the Archbishop does not seem to understand is that “those who are rushing to separatist solutions” do not think that maintaining communion with his See is vital when compared to the theological concerns I have articulated above. Nor does he seem to recognize that if he makes the decision not to withdraw Lambeth invitations from bishops who currently permit same sex blessings or who have and/or would give consent to non-celibate homosexual bishops-elect, setting himself, in other words, firmly in the path of agreeing with the conclusions of the Joint Standing Committee Report, that many will consider maintaining communion with Canterbury to be of similar importance to maintaining good relations with the local Elks Club or the Rotary.

And so when the Archbishop says,

“Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor.”

I think it important to note in response that those “rushing to separatist solutions” are not so much treating the “provincial structure” of any entity as if it were the most important thing as they are treating the souls and bodies of the people under their charge as the most important thing. And this is good and right and honorable. . .

. . . There is only one body to “blame” for the present “lack of consolidation” and that body is not the Church of Nigeria or Uganda or Kenya. The Episcopal Church has embraced false teaching. The Episcopal Church is to blame. Likewise, there is only one person “responsible” for the current organizational breakdown in the Communion and that is the Archbishop of Canterbury who could have, from the very beginning, taken action to forestall it. He has, throughout the crisis, played the part of Eli and, as a result, Israel has crumbled.

But that is the past. There is one way, at present, the Archbishop might demonstrate his “concern” for ordinary faithful Anglicans and stem the tide of those “taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions” and that is to withdraw Lambeth invitations from every bishop primate who permits same sex blessings to occur and/or who has given consent to the election of non-celibate homosexual bishops.

Short of that, the Communion will break apart, as it should. And the responsibility for its loss will fall, as it should, squarely on the Archbishop’s shoulders.

Excellent commentary, so read it all.