Related articles and links |  1 of 4

In 12 days, the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire will install as its bishop Gene Robinson, who is openly engaged in a homosexual relationship. Robinson says his promotion to bishop is "coming from God," and that opposition to it is because it's a "threat to the way things have been done, when white men have pretty much been in charge of everything." Though the Anglican primates (the top leaders of Anglican provinces worldwide) unanimously expressed "deep regret" over the action, the primate of the U.S., Episcopal Church presiding bishop Frank Griswold, said he plans to attend the ceremony.

Once that happens, the primates said, "We recognize that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy."

But what will really happen? And what did the primates mean in their statement? Were Robinson and Griswold explicitly criticized? Were they disciplined? Did conservative primates from Africa, whom some expected to declare the Episcopal Church USA a non-Anglican body, back down? Was this a win for conservatives, a loss, or a stalemate?

The issues at stake are not just of concern to American Episcopalians and Anglicans overseas. Christians of all stripes are waiting to see how deeply Robinson's consecration will divide Anglicanism, the world's third largest Christian body (with 68 million adherents, after Roman Catholicism's 943 million and the 211 million of combined Eastern Orthodox churches). Primates' actions will have lasting implications for the Christian leadership in the Global South (Africa, Asia, and Latin America), in ecumenical and interfaith efforts, in notions of church discipline, and in other areas.

It is therefore not surprising that the primates' statement is being parsed, analyzed, and spun by religion commentators around the world and around the church. And while both liberal and conservative church leaders are eager to tell their parishioners that their views were affirmed, many in the pews aren't convinced.

Liberals' loopholes
Emerging from the primates' meeting, Griswold told reporters, "I stand fully behind the careful process used by the diocese of New Hampshire to discern who it wished to have as its next bishop, and I also fully respect the decision of the General Convention and the House of Bishops." Asked if that meant Robinson's consecration would go through, he joked, "Anything could happen. The Second Coming could occur, which would certainly cancel an ordination."

That Griswold could support both the primates' statement and Robinson's consecration surprised many conservatives, who see the two as mutually exclusive. But other liberals say the document is worded broadly enough to allow such a move.

The statement, for example says, "As a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster [which authorized a rite for blessing same-sex unions] and the Episcopal Church." That's as a body of Anglican primates, not each individual primate, Griswold said, noting that he is among "those of us who are not part of that deep regret."

Others are finding similar loopholes.

"I specifically looked for the word rebuke, and I didn't see it in there, I didn't see the word disassociate even," said Michael Hopkins, who heads Integrity, a group promoting gay clergy in the Episcopal Church USA. "They didn't attempt to intervene in the American Church at all."

Robert Duncan, the conservative Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, countered, "The word rebuke is not in the wording, but it is a clear rebuke."

next page... |  1 of 4

October (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47