2 of 4

Other suggestions include strengthening the responsibilities and authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (though to much less a degree than earlier reports suggested; there won't be an "Anglican papacy") and approving the Episcopal Church's plan for "alternative oversight" of dissenting parishes.

Alternative oversight? Isn't that what conservatives want? And a demand for an apology sounds strong, doesn't it? But in any document of this type, it's the actual wording that's important. The Episcopal Church was not told to repent for violating the teachings of Scripture, church tradition, and current church law. Instead, it was asked to express "regret" for "breaking the bonds of affection" and for hurting people's feelings. Throughout the document, feelings and sensitivities take precedence over doctrine, holiness, and fidelity.

"The Commission has been made aware of the hurt and alienation felt by individual Anglicans, parishes, and dioceses" as a result of the Robinson consecration and New Westminster ceremonies. The recommendations are made "mindful of the hurt and offense that have resulted from recent events." But orthodox Anglicans have repeatedly insisted that "hurt and alienation" have nothing to do with this. The question is whether the Episcopal Church is apostate, not whether it's unkind.

And as for the call for resignations, it's important to read the fine print. "Those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson" are invited only to consider withdrawing themselves. There's not actually a call for them to resign. If they consider it and decide that they should stay in their posts, the language gets stronger: "We urge all members of the Communion to accord appropriate respect to such conscientious decisions."

In fact, all through the document, there's a marked contrast between the language used against liberal revisionists and that used against orthodox leaders trying to bring the church back to the Bible.

The commission sides with the Episcopal Church USA's plan for alternative oversight, which allows conservative parishes to report to someone other than its bishop if it feels that bishop is violating biblical mandates. But under ECUSA's plan, guess who gets to pick the alternate? Yes, the same bishop. Conservatives aren't too pleased by that plan. (The report also emphasizes that such oversight should be "a last resort … conditional and temporary," and only used "where there has been an extreme breach of trust." When your bishop has violated your trust, who better to trust to find a replacement!)

Several churches have felt the need to seek alternative oversight by seeking leadership from Anglican leaders not appointed by their bishop. Those leaders who agreed to oversee these parishes are treated as harshly (in some cases, perhaps more harshly) as those who consecrated Gene Robinson. In a remarkable demonstration of moral equivalency, the report lumps together these conservative leaders with the revisionists who consecrated Robinson as both acting "in ways incompatible with the Communion principle of interdependence."

But the harshest language in the entire report is reserved for those orthodox church leaders, especially in Africa and elsewhere in the Global South, who said that the Episcopal Church's actions last year in effect separated them from the rest of the Anglican Communion. The report has nine references to "regret," including those requests for liberal revisionists to "express regret" for the consequences of their actions. Only once does the report use the phrase "deeply regret" (and in squeamish, political reports like these, the difference between regret and deep regret is huge):

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

October (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48