daily episcopalian: The NY Times nails it, and other news
"By Friday, conservative Anglicans said they were starting to despair that the meeting here would produce neither of their goals: a condemnation and marginalizing of the Episcopal Church, or a new church structure for American conservatives who want to leave the Episcopal Church but remain within the Anglican Communion.
'Conservatives are very disappointed,' said Timothy Shah, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in Washington. 'They have the feeling that the policy of the archbishop of Canterbury and the leadership of the Episcopal Church is one of indefinite delay in the hopes that aging conservative primates will retire and eventually be replaced by people who are more open to a negotiated settlement.'
Liberal Episcopalians, on the other hand, were encouraged that the number of primates — the term for the leaders of Anglican provinces — who refused to take Communion at this meeting was only seven, about half the number who refused two years ago." – NYT: Anglican Primates Snub Head of US Church over Gay Issues
Several Episcoblogs yesterday noted that not only did the 7 (only 7, and at least half of those are remorae) snub our good Presiding Bishop ++Katherine, they snubbed the ++Archbishop of Canterbury and all the other archbishops too. They certainly didn't get what they dreamed of: ++Katherine and the Archibishop of York, ++John Sentamu, getting kicked out on their asses with their pointy hats and all. ++Sentamu is seen as a moderating influence on the other African primates, as he is a British subject who immigrated from Africa, and is acting as ABC ++Rowan's right-hand man. At one point, ++Rowan was hoping ++Sentamu might run the meetings so that ++Rowan could do the real work in the aisles and corridors.
Boy, that's a lot of plus-marks and pointy hats. Have another look at Dave Walker's cartoon synopsis for a break.
So: the well-oiled publicity machine that's been endlessly cranking out story after story about the "widening rift" in the Episcopal Church is revealed as not so ruthlessly efficient as the ultra-conservative wing would like everyone in the Anglican world to believe. Considering how well financed the ultracon movement is (by people with names like Scaife and Mellon; see the article Following the Money if interested), it's surprising how the conservatives in the Primates' Meeting aren't running the show quite as much to their liking in Dar es Salaam.
It seems everyone is most interested in making up a really big batch of Anglican fudge, putting off any real pronouncements until Lambeth (a conference that takes place infrequently) in 2008, and probably for some time to come after that.
As my fellow blogger ***Dave notes in response to a Mean Jean Torkelson article that mentions his parish:
Regardless, it’s actually … not a bad article. It’s somewhat informative, though in a somewhat shallow way, depending as much on tugging on the heartstrings, and spinning the current conflict in certain directions as on informing someone of what’s going on. To the casual reader outside the Episcopal Church, what does it say? It sounds like We’re In A Lot Of Trouble, whereas, in point of fact, most Episcopalians are really tired of this particular debate, which seems to stir the blood of muckrakers, demogogues, and theologians more than the average guy-in-the-pew, who’s more interested in, oh, I don’t know, how we do what Jesus talked about us doing — feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving comfort, spreading the Good News, all that unsexy jazz. – Dave Does the Blog: Why Yes, That Is My Church
See, it's all that unsexy jazz that's what gets the juices flowing for progressive, or moderate, or even conservative Episcopalians. I even think it's possible to be conservative, or tradtional in view, without going all biblical-inerrancy ultramontane about it. The press keeps talking about the widening rift this, and the impending schism that, but they never mention just what a small minority the secessionist faction is. Or that the great majority of Episcopal dioceses and parishes are doing just fine, thank you very much.
Like others, I also think that a lot of this current unpleasantness is clergy-driven; it takes advantage of the well-known tendency of many "nice" Episcopalians to avoid things like unpleasantness and conflict.
Here's how to take over a parish: make it unpleasant, and all the nice people will leave, leaving all the diehards with a grudge over old issues like the "new" Prayer Book, the "new" Hymnal, and the ordination of women. Add homophobia, turn up heat, and stir. Congratulations! your Anglican Pot-Boiler Schism Stew is nearly done!
All humor aside, that's probably how it's worked. If your rector is too conservative, you leave and go somewhere else, leaving a clot of like-minded hard-nosed conservatives behind you. If your rector is too liberal, you agitate to try and have him or her removed, cause a lot of grief and conflict, and if in the minority, leave in high dudgeon, loudly vowing to attend church where the rector is more to your liking. If in the majority, wait until all the moderates and liberals all leave, and Bob Duncan's your uncle.
The press loves a hot, exciting, controversial story. No matter their political leaning or agenda, a story that reads, “People got together, shook hands, worked in solidarity, and went home as friends” will never get the editorial attention of “Bishops come to blows in the aisles — primate calls another primate a ‘doo-doo-head.'”
Which is a real shame since, of course, the former would be a much more *important* story.