Faithful Locally, Prayerful Globally

Faithful Locally, Prayerful Globally

by Benjamin B Twinamaani

(originally published on The Living Church, republished with permission)

Introduction

I write in order to comment on the new challenges facing Anglican mission in the Global South, when a new and realized global disorder burns its way through the Anglican Communion. I attempt to provide a wider framework for better understanding of whatever continues to unfold in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) on the one hand and the Episcopal Church (TEC) on the other. I attempt to make sense of, and to map out, the future of ministry for me personally, as one who has been in active parish ministry since my ordination to the diaconate in 1990 at All Saints Cathedral, Kampala, Uganda. My thought stream might contain paradoxes or apparent contradictions as I express my joys, pride, chagrin, anxieties and hopes about Anglicanism.

My thesis is simple. The new Anglican disorder is, from start to finish, a creation of the combined American Anglican family, both TEC and ACNA, and no one else. I see the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Global South primates and bishops as part of this disorder only by way of “triangulation” dynamics exercised by American Anglicans. The place of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is more peripheral, in spite of the key role some of their members played in organizing the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). The Anglican Communion has been asked to pay a steep price, that of breaking up global Anglican order, in an attempt to save or restore Anglican faith in the two member provinces of North America. This attempt has been primed by and through TEC, which has a capacity to establish an enduring triangulation dynamic throughout the Communion. It is ironic that this same province does not really need Anglican order in the first place, and can do without it rather comfortably, while the rest of the Anglican family needs an even more coherent Anglican order in the face of globalization. This is to my chagrin.

There are, moreover, no guarantees that Anglican faith will be saved or restored in the North American provinces at a reasonable rate of return for the high asking price of broken order. This is already clear from the continued advance of post-Christian culture in the West — marginalizing Christian faith and values from the mainstream culture and relegating them to the private life of the believer, increasingly through legislative means. See Bellah’s Habits of the Heart, Tickle’s The Great Emergence, and Mann’s Atonement for a “Sinless” Society for ample documentation of the sociological underpinnings, thence mission landscape, of the middle class that constitutes the core membership of American Anglicanism. The extent and deep entrenchment of autonomous humanism in the culture makes this a challenging mission field indeed. My hope, prayers, and pride look to the very special and unique gift of Anglicanism as one that will continue to deliver the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ alone to a new world in new ways in spite of what we have lost in Anglican order.

Local Anglican Disorder

In June 2009, the province of the Anglican Church in North America was constituted in Bedford, Texas. This province claims to be an alternative province to the Episcopal Church, a province that will be true to the identity of a traditional Anglicanism that has been compromised by the liberal leadership of TEC over the years. The ACNA’s Constitution and Canons provide for parish and diocesan jurisdictions that are not based on geographical boundaries, but rather on various categories of “affinity.” Recognition of this province as the true and faithful member of the Anglican family in North America quickly came from at least five other provinces of the Communion, but has slowed more recently, and notably did not take place in the formal way that ACNA leaders had hoped for at the South to South Encounter in Singapore in April 2010.

A disquieting sense of the new Anglican disorder at the local level came to me during a conversation with a Ugandan bishop who was attending a conference in Vero Beach, Fla., at the end of 2007, as the guest of a parish that just that summer had been in the conservative Diocese of Central Florida. This parish left behind a brand new $15 million physical plant to join the Missionary Convocation of Uganda under the oversight of the Diocese of Soroti.

I serve at Grace Church, a Windsor-affirming TEC parish in Tampa Bay. Seven miles to my south is a congregation in the jurisdiction of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA), under the Province of Rwanda, that broke from a TEC parish in 2002. Congregations of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) and the Anglican Province of America (APA) are on the other side of town. Other Christian congregations in the area include Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, with their respective intra-denominational divisions.

Such is the new disorder in North America. Potentially, in any city in North America, there will be multiple Anglican churches bearing the name Holy Trinity: Holy Trinity Anglo-Catholic Church (FiFNA), Holy Trinity Reformed Church (REC), Holy Trinity Anglican Church (AMiA), Holy Trinity Anglican Church (CANA), Holy Trinity Anglican Church (formerly of the Missionary Convocation of Uganda), Holy Trinity Anglican Church (formerly of the Missionary Convocation of Kenya), Holy Trinity Anglican Church (formerly of the Missionary Convocation of the Southern Cone), and so on. Then, of course, you will have a Holy Trinity Episcopal Church which, depending on the clergy and diocesan leadership, could have a variegated membership, along a spectrum from liberal to conservative leanings; and there may be some commitment to Communion Partner membership as well.

Making Canterbury Redundant?

The ACNA is at its core made up of semi-independent constituencies and jurisdictions that have chosen to retain their varying DNA, and this bears implications for continuing Anglican disorder. On the one hand are constituencies and parishes that have left their sponsoring provinces, like those of the Missionary Convocation of Uganda, to affirm the ACNA province, including canonical obedience to ACNA’s archbishop. In the words of one sponsoring primate, some have been ecclesiastical refugees in the Global South provinces, and the time has come for them to return home, and ACNA is that home.

On the other hand, ACNA members like the AMiA and CANA have opted to maintain what they call a “dual citizenship” in the new American province, joining ACNA but also remaining under the full canonical authority of their sponsoring provinces.

Dual citizenship is a telling notion regarding what some claim is a new focus in North American Anglicanism. The new focus emphasizes mission rather than structure; structure is a servant of mission. This idea of dual citizenship may indicate a continuing strategic agenda for a reformation of North American Anglicanism. The formation of the ACNA seems to be just the beginning.

The stage has only been set for more drama. The ultimate objective would seem to be the complete dismantling of any form of Anglican order centered on the See of Canterbury if TEC remains a member in good standing of that order. A triangulation effect is to be left in place in the life of the Anglican Communion by some ACNA constituencies for the foreseeable future — the objective presumably being a “structure” of global Anglicanism in which either Canterbury is made redundant or Canterbury cuts ties with TEC, an expectation that the recent past has shown to be unrealistic. For as long as there is still a wider Anglican Communion more or less centered on the See of Canterbury, that structure will remain a priority for Anglican mission globally. As long as TEC remains a member of such an order, ACNA constituencies will see it as not only compromised but untenable, and hope that other provinces of the Communion will come round to seeing it the same way.

After all, some may reason, Canterbury has failed to resolve the crisis within the American Anglican families, so what use is any Anglican order that is still built around Canterbury? And since it is Canterbury that can, and does, keep TEC within the Anglican family, making Canterbury redundant just might realize the objective by other means. I have critiqued this strategy in two essays for the Anglican Communion Institute: “How American Anglicans Think and Act: A Primer for the Global South” and “Preparing for Lambeth 2008: Praying, Hoping and Working for Anglican Faith and Order.”

I can envision an African bishop or primate, wishing to consult with Rowan Williams or Katharine Jefferts Schori on a matter of mutual interest, having to first clear the call or the content with local ACNA-affiliated constituencies. I can envision a primate even being forbidden to make such a call. Similarly, I can envision various TEC-affiliated personnel discouraging an African bishop or primate from consulting with the Archbishop of ACNA or the Church of England’s evangelical leadership on a matter of mutual interest. Previous relationships of communion and ministry, established over the years, will be compromised by such a triangulation dynamic that the American Anglican families seem unable or unwilling to set aside.

This is the direct danger of the dual citizenship option of some ACNA constituencies. It seems that some of our American Anglican brothers and sisters will engage the rest of the Anglican Communion only through the divisions among themselves.

Triangulation Then and Now

We find in Genesis 27 a triangulation dynamic in the dysfunctional family of Isaac, Rebekah, and their sons Esau and Jacob. Maybe Isaac loved Esau more than he loved Jacob; maybe Rebekah loved Jacob more than she loved Esau. Recall the story: Isaac, knowing he was old and about to die, asked Esau, his firstborn son, to cook him a special meal of venison. Isaac intended to give Esau a special blessing, as the firstborn. Rebekah overheard Isaac sending Esau out to hunt for game to make this special meal, and she quickly triangulated Jacob into the equation, cooked the meal Isaac loved, dressed Jacob in fur with Esau’s scent, and sent him to Isaac for the blessing. Isaac, with the scent of the meal he loved filling his nostrils, blessed Jacob in spite of doubts. By the time Esau showed up for his blessing, it was too late.

This story provides some insight into the triangulation dynamics of the Anglican Communion.

Let us see Isaac as representing the Anglican Instruments of Unity, particularly the primates, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, in all their various guises since the present crisis in the Communion began at Lambeth 1998. The special meal Isaac so loved could represent many things; for some primates and bishops, it is the noble idea of saving Anglican faith in American Anglicanism, preserving “the faith that once and for all was delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3) and fighting homosexuality in the Communion. To others it could be the idea of giving refugee hospitality to congregations under stress from liberal persecution in TEC. And to others, it could be various categories of resources for mission and ministry support.

I see Rebekah, Esau, and Jacob as representing all the various constituencies within the American Anglican family, both within TEC and now the ACNA, since Lambeth 1998. All the players within the American Anglican family have taken on all three roles at different times in different episodes over the years.

Esau takes his heritage lightly as firstborn, giving it all up for a single meal. This is comparable to the ideologically liberal constituencies in TEC that, with both naivety and hubris, take lightly the core of biblical authority in the Anglican tradition, and give it up for the moving target of cultural “relevance.” Hence the church is centered on autonomous humanism and civil rights activism rather than ministry by the gospel of salvation through justification and sanctification in Jesus Christ. Similarly, I see some conservative constituencies in TEC and ACNA taking lightly the heritage of global Anglican order and willing to break it up, or compromise it through triangulation, not caring what that precious order means for the rest of the global Anglican family.

I see Jacob as a willing, yet sometimes seemingly passive, player in the triangulation, in the middle of the other players, able to see and exploit opportunities.

That is as far as I will take the illustration, but some may choose to take it further. The “blessing” sought from Isaac in this analogy includes the legitimizing of all kinds of positions and initiatives. These may include, for conservatives who have left TEC, the authentic apostolic succession of a new lineage of bishops in the ACNA, making a new province possible; and, for TEC liberals, a “stay of execution” by the Anglican Instruments of Unity, allowing TEC to remain a full, albeit outlaw, member of the Communion. In the analogy, the members of the American Anglican family, both TEC and the ACNA, are able to carry out and sustain the triangulation effect throughout the Communion, more so than any other family. Not even the liberals or conservatives in the Church of England could achieve this.

A Moratorium on Triangulation

This is what we need in the Anglican Communion today: a moratorium on Global South participation in the triangulation dynamics of American Anglican disorder. Such a moratorium would mean that if any Global South bishop or primate wished to engage in a mission initiative with a TEC bishop or ministry, while following the principle of walking in the light and keeping all informed as appropriate, he should feel free to pick up the phone without having to clear the call with his network in ACNA. Likewise, if a Global South bishop wishes to do the same with an ACNA ministry, he should feel free to pick up the phone without having to clear the call with his network in TEC. In this way, we might, at least for a specified time, transform rather than mediate the schism within the American Anglican family, notwithstanding the challenges still facing the Communion as a whole.

Global South leaders can enact such a moratorium on our own, unlike the other moratoria called for in the Windsor process. I pray that those in a position to play the role of Isaac will consider this possibility. This moratorium would be our own initiative, and would resist the unraveling of our Communion. It would moreover be a great gift from us to the American Anglican families, relieving them of the cognitive burden of always regarding the rest of the Communion only in terms of American identities and separations.

Postscript: Anglican Stewardship amid Globalization

We in the Global South are obsessed with the influence of American Anglicans in the Communion because the American church holds great sway over the Communion’s stewardship structures. Some (not all) American Anglicans, both in TEC and ACNA, show that they have no need for an order built around Canterbury. This does not, however, mean that we should follow their example. Rather, our mission priorities should direct us to the order that we need, quite apart from the problems of others.

As far as I can tell, Anglican faith in the Global South is not in question. Orthodoxy is alive and well in our churches, or at least there is little confusion about what is orthodox and what is heretical. There is plenty of syncretism to go around, and plenty of shallow discipleship, by comparison to the standard of New Testament epistles. But then again, there is little doubt about what should be done when faith is compromised.

Anglican order should be left alone as well, and not compromised over the continued crises primed by the American churches. At the very least, we should be able to see beyond the tenure of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whatever issues some us may have regarding his role in resolving the issues in the American church. And this would also be a humble but generous gift to the Church of England — the church that formed all of us, whose DNA we still carry in the form of Anglican faith and order, but which is now reeling in its own identity crisis, as an established church on the one hand committed to the authority of Scripture on the other.

Two gifts (among many) of the global Anglican order are especially at risk for the Global South.

First, the loss of a communion centered on Canterbury would bear both psychological and sociological consequences. Without a central focus of common unity in mission, our various and historic ethnic tensions — some created by the colonial experience, no doubt, and others that may be atavistic — will likely rise to the surface and invite otherwise unintended histories.

Speaking from my own experience, I am aware of some of the rumblings, on and off, of splitting the province of Uganda into two, or even three, autonomous provinces, North, Central and South. These rumblings are based less on the sense of realized growth of the province that requires such creations (like Nigeria) and more on recent historical feelings of either economic or political marginalization felt by some Anglicans in the northern dioceses that have experienced wars for decades, or issues around federalism and land tenure voiced by some in the central dioceses.

I also recall other rumblings just over a decade ago from the central dioceses that felt disenfranchised in not having the archbishop elected from among their bishops, with rumors that the state had sponsored some foul play to lock out the bishops from the central diocese. An independent province of these central dioceses would take care of that perceived injustice, allowing them to determine their destiny. This sense of ethnicity — bad old tribalism — has always been our Achilles’ heel, and many are yet to transcend its effect in our common mission.

These and related sentiments may be submerged for now, but could very quickly come to the surface. In addition, I am not sure that we would be able to handle such developments on our own without some other large and legitimate central focus outside of ourselves, to provide a place to negotiate and hold conversation, if and when such histories threaten to open up. Consider the role Idi Amin played in resolving the impasse during the creation of the Kampala Diocese as the See of the Archbishop of Uganda when our ethnic conflicts and other issues could not be resolved within the Ugandan Anglican family. It took a Muslim president to get the Anglicans together at the same table to come up with a workable solution for an ethnic-rooted problem. A more recent example of these histories, just under the surface, is the experience of the Anglican family in Kenya over post-election troubles in early 2008. Analogously, the suffering of the church in Eastern Congo remains with us today since the blood-letting began in 1998, with a yet to be told story of how many church leaders have died.

Other Global South churches have similar ethnic histories that have been held in check by a sense of common mission and order centered on the historic See of Canterbury, a center that holds a unique and historical legitimacy. We still need connection to such a center, outside of our local contexts, a center that can call us to the same table to talk, mediate, and agree to mission priorities. Our local church disorder in the Global South would look very different, and lead to strange and even tragic consequences, were such a mediating center taken away.

The second risk facing the Global South is the likelihood of a new vulnerability to the political and economic powers that rule in our mission contexts, if we lose the “soft power” inherent in our connection to a global Communion as ordered around Canterbury. That Communion currently provides a mitigating infrastructure, hence a unique sense of not being alone — of not being seen as easy pickings. Having a common, organized network within which to channel information, requests and needs to a larger global family is a great gift. I know of instances wherein some African bishops, after sharing situations of vulnerability with their brother bishops in the North Atlantic, formed new initiatives that produced alternative histories for faithful Anglicans. Others, by leveraging our global Anglican networks in the United Nations or in legislative houses of various Western governments, have seen a cessation of hostilities and restoration of community life in places where conflict had raged for years. For faithful Anglicans caught and trapped in such situations, the difference was like light and darkness, even life and death.

These connections and relationships are not to be taken lightly, like Esau took his birthright. We should remain connected through an ordered freedom of structure, with instruments of unity, that can mobilize global support for mission needs and global response to mission threats. Do we really have to lose this gift because of American Anglicans’ willful choices?

---

The Rev. Canon Benjamin B. Twinamaani is rector of Grace Church, Tampa, Fla.