Inside and Outside:
The Future of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes
Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20040220061538/http://anglicancommunioninstitute.org:80/insideoutside.htm
The Revd Professor Christopher Seitz,
President, The Anglican Communion Institute
I recently opened our Common Room edition of "The Tablet" (24 January 2004) to discover an account of recent affairs in the Episcopal Church of the United States, including a brief representation of the conference held by The Anglican Communion Institute in Charleston, SC (8-9 January). The title of the account “Canterbury Under Siege” was followed by the provocative statement, "Traditionalists and evangelicals in America and Britain are plotting to undermine Rowan Williams." It was one of those annoying reminders that flash and misrepresentation are readier to hand than facts when one is trying to catch the eye of the reader. As the President of the Institute, it was yet one more occasion when it would be necessary to weigh whether a response was called for or not. All this can be time-consuming and a virtual side-vocation. Because I spend time on both sides of the Atlantic, I am often in for a real feast of exaggeration and misrepresentation, as different cultural perspectives provide different lenses on a reality out there to be spun. The Charleston conference was precisely an effort to support the Archbishop and the Communion, and we trust he can see through the spin.
From the opposite geographical direction, I had a similar reaction to an account of affairs in the American Church, this time from one of the leaders of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). In an effort to assess the recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (ACDP), which the ACI was instrumental in bringing about, it was curious indeed to hear that a ready contrast could capture the essential difference between the Network and the Mission. The former was pursuing an "inside strategy," we were told, whilst the Mission was deploying an "outside strategy." And in the spirit of consumeristic challenge, the "inside strategy" would likely not win the race nor measure up against the faster "outside strategy" horse, so it was surmised.
Not only is this an effort on the part of AMiA to claim a kind of easy comparability with the major orthodox network in the United States, which is itself dubious for a host of reasons; it is also the opinion of one of the leaders of the AMiA that the "inside strategy" is not up to the job, and will fail. The "outside strategy" of the AMiA is the way forward and will prevail. It is troubling to hear this kind of statement in other parts of the Communion, where the disarray in the United States seems already out of control and where it is difficult to keep track of divergent accounts.
Just what do these terms actually mean upon closer inspection?
It is far simpler to characterise what the AMiA is about, using the terms put forward by Chuck Murphy in this characterisation of contrasting "strategies". AMiA is a movement initiated by Chuck and others off the strength of a late 90's alliance called "First Promise" (an effort "inside" the ECUSA). This alliance sought a further alliance with a sizeable group of Primates at Kampala (an "outside" link) after the Lambeth Conference delivered a convincing display of the mind of the Communion in 1998. Tragically, the alliance with a sizeable block of Primates did not come off, and that because of a decision by Chuck and several of his friends to work with any Primate who was prepared to go forward on AMiA's schedule, and not the entire group, or indeed even a larger group of Primates, as this is now becoming a political reality in the Communion after much hard work.
What was at stake here was the construction of a major support alliance, "outside," in the form of the Primates Meeting. This was, however, sacrificed so that AMiA-and the two Primates wishing to get behind this-might have its way and Chuck and John Rodgers were put forward as the leaders. Much of the background for this "inside" the US is irregular at best, and the fruit of that is being seen in the present predicament facing the Diocese of South Carolina. "Inside" the US, Murphy continued to live in the rectory of an "inside" church, and continued to involve himself "inside" the day to day deliberations of All Saints, Pawley's Island, deliberations which in time would include suing the Diocese which it, All Saints, claimed deserved it. These are simply the facts of the matter and no evaluation of them is here being offered. It should be obvious, however, that "inside" and "outside" are confused as genuine categories when one tracks the history of the AMiA.
This confusion manifested itself in the years to follow as it was not clear: was AMiA an emergency missionary movement designed to plant churches and offer help in "unorthodox" dioceses "inside" the US? Or, was it an "inside" Church, operating "outside" and "against" the ECUSA but "inside" the US? Were its leaders seated as bishops in the jurisdictions ("outside") which gave them rise? Or were they the bishops--with a primate and an executive counsel and a constitution--of a church "inside" the US? The answer is, as they say, "Yes."
So, AMiA has pursued an "outside" strategy in the sense that it sought and got support from two individual Primates, and eventually, over the course of time, from two Provinces.
Now in what sense is the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes pursuing an "inside" strategy, to be distinguished from an "outside" one being deployed by AMiA? One needs to attend to history here, and to the various efforts, going back to Lambeth 1998, which lie behind what has evolved as ACDP. These include the efforts of SEAD, Ekklesia, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, the AAC, and more recently the ACI, as well as kindred efforts from Forward in Faith and several of the so-called continuing churches.
It has maintained regular contact, including advice and counsel, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, from its inception;
It has operated with theological documents drawn up with support of the widest possible coalition of Primates, including especially Archbishops Gomez, Venables, and Akinola;
It has maintained the widest and most sustained communication with as many Primates as possible, helped in no small measure by the work of The Revd Canon Bill Atwood of Ekklesia;
It has challenged the imbalance amongst the "Instruments of Unity" of the Anglican Communion, and sought to support a redress of this;
It was present, through its representatives, at Nairobi last summer, and produced the "Steps of Discipline," in conjunction with the CAPA and Global South Primates, as an entire body: indeed a body representing the largest block of "outside" support possible, going in to the Emergency Meeting of the Primates in October 2003;
It has sought to underscore its historical link to the Communion at large, by remaining faithful to the Preamble of the Constitution and Canons of the ECUSA, which state that it, the Episcopal Church Network, is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, in communion with the See of Canterbury - an "outside" strategy with the widest range of allegiance and potential, which has been an "inside" statement of Episcopal identity from its origins;
Its Theological Charter was drawn up in connection with Bishops from Canada, and in conjunction with advice and counsel from various Primates and Bishops "outside" the ECUSA;
Most recently, Episcopal representatives of the ACDP were invited to the Installation of the new Primate of Uganda, in place of the ECUSA.
Now, the list could go on indefinitely and in greater detail.
So, if one is looking for an "outside" strategy, ACDP has one that is comprehensive, long-range, entrenched, and it would seem, hopeful for endorsement for the long haul within the Communion. It is not an "inside" strategy movement.
It is difficult to know what will become of AMiA and I believe people can register their different concerns and hopes about this, especially at this critical juncture in our Communion life.
One thing that is not helpful, however, is the introduction of false dichotomies, such as has been proposed by the AMiA, with talk of "outside" and "inside" -- not least because it confuses both those in the ECUSA and those in the wider Communion who are looking in and seeing sufficient confusion already. It introduces a distinction which is factually inaccurate. ACDP has a very clear "outside strategy" and it has been about the business of solidifying that and consolidating its gains for some years now. By any standard of measurement its "outside" linkages are more comprehensive by quite a considerable margin than anything operating for the AMiA. But this is not a horserace or a contest of "strategies" and it would best if that kind of consumeristic pronouncement were laid to rest.
It is clear that the ACDP is arguing that it has remained in compliance with the constitutions and canons of the ECUSA (see the documents atAnglicanCommunionInstitute.org and AnglicanCommunionDioceses.org) and is therefore not in forfeit of these. It further argues that those who are acting unilaterally in ignoring the mind of the Primates and Lambeth 1.10 are placing into question how they are constituent members of the Communion and in communion with the See of Canterbury and continue to uphold the historic faith and order of the church (see, e.g., the author's address at the ACI web-site). This may be an "inside strategy" in the manner implied by AMiA, but it is also at once a "Communion strategy" (to stay with the terminology) and so equally an "outside strategy."
What would be helpful to know is just what AMiA means by its own "outside strategy" for it could simply mean, "outside" any structure or order whatsoever, save the one viewed as most expedient for those involved. How does that square with its stated remit to be an emergency and inherently provisional affair? The Rees Statement of October 2003 and the former Archbishop of Canterbury, have raised this issue in clear and precise form, and the lack of wide primatial support for AMiA is logically consistent with this. What we have is a jurisdictional question, as AMiA's own (spatial) language implies. To be fully consistent with an "outside strategy" would mean that the Bishops consecrated in Singapore, and by extension in Denver, have jurisdiction in the regions which spawned them, that is, "outside" the United States. That is, they would need to reside in and exercise their ministries in these "outside" regions.
How then might they hope to operate, regularly, "inside" the United States? Only, it would seem, by extraordinary means: either by invitation from within the United States' provincial jurisdiction; or by application to various Instruments of Unity; and therefore, from both. So we are back to the inextricably related character of "inside" and "outside." It is simply not the case that one can pull these apart and declare oneself an "outside" strategist, and someone else an "inside" one.
The Diocese of South Carolina, it is arguable, tried as an "insider" to offer an invitation of sorts to one of the men consecrated. But on every account the fallout has been enormous, giving, as it were, sad and eloquent testimony to the price to be paid for seeking to pull "inside" and "outside" part. South Carolina's was a courtesy extended to one AMiA individual, and so was "irregular" on the terms envisioned by the history of the Communion and the Rees Statement's summary of this.
One can also indulge at length in talk about non-geographical systems, but these are not put in place by fiat, along the lines of the usual revisionist strategy: do it, and then get approval later. They would have to find some orderly gestation and conception within the limits of Communion life (as historically they have done). Otherwise they would indeed be fully and self-consciously "outside" strategies -- outside, that is, all Communion order as such. This was what was at stake from the very beginning, and the issue has not gone away. It explains in part why AMiA continues to seek to gather greater primatial support. If such were unnecessary, then it would simply continue to claim that "outside" was a done deal and needed no further augmentation.
That is, however, not a fact on the ground: AMiA is a contested reality, and its outside strategy needs to be brought more fully into the life of the Communion. ACDP does not face this particular set of hurdles (it has others) and so is wrongly depicted by AMiA as simply an "insider" movement. To the mind of this author, AMiA does a distinct disservice by continuing to depict itself as some sort of distinct and preferable species of orthodoxy, especially over against the emerging ACDP. How could this be helpful to the cause of Communion orthodoxy or life? The Network is the mature outcome of hard work, especially at the level of gathering a high degree of Communion support and ongoing nurture: for its well-being and for the well-being of the Communion as an instrument of Christ's mission for the world.
How AMiA might regularise itself is also further complicated by the painful history it has unfolded "inside," in the context of the US: especially in Colorado, South Carolina, SW Florida, and elsewhere.
Perhaps these complications are not insuperable. But that is something which belongs to the Providence of God and the Cross of His forgiveness. The messy state of affairs in the years 318-325, and after, are testimony to the fact that wounds can take a very long time to heal. General Councils can reach decisions and make judgements, as did Nicea, but the fallout and cleanup effort can take a long time. Even potential theological "allies" (one thinks of Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius) at Nicea had to overcome a history of painful disagreements and the fallout from unilateral judgements hurtful to the common life of the Body. This required repentance and change of mind and action. It was not delivered in a moment, nor without great cost.
One thing seems to be clear. The struggle for orthodoxy and compliance to the sacred promises which constitute Communion life for this branch of the Anglican Communion in America, requires a broad Communion-wide assent and support. It is always an "outside" as well as an "inside" work: of prayer and fasting and theological grounding and articulation. There are no shorts cuts when the Communion's identity and long-term furtherance are at stake.
Both SEAD and The Anglican Communion Institute have worked to insure that the new Network reflects both the sacred promises of our own jurisdiction, articulated in the documents and history and formularies of the ECUSA. But is has consistently realised and sought to underscore that an "inside" effort is always a Communion effort, and must be in the nature of the thing. Indeed, it insists that the only truly "inside" strategy on the ground is the one being adopted by those revising the historic faith and order of the church: that is, those who promote "opinion and innovation" (the technical term is heresy) over against the catholic teaching, the plain sense of scripture, and the mind of the Communion. This "inside strategy" threatens to become, and indeed is, a wrecking ball against order and forbearance and common life for the worldwide Anglican Communion. This is what ECUSA General Convention has set in motion and, after Lambeth October, has refused to turn back from, in spite of promises given in that context of Communion life.
The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes is a new and still emerging reality. But its roots go deep in time and space, manifested in patient and hard work with the Primates, deliberations with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and deep reflection on the history of this Communion as part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I hope we will all be earnest in prayer for its life and well-being, as a true Communion movement -- and therefore not a humanly devised inside or outside "strategy," but a visible expression of the Body of Christ until He comes again.
Press spin will continue and thus it ever was. The breakdown of theology and order in the ECUSA has meant that sincere efforts to deal with the problem have emerged, but also that these have been attacked and set at cross purpose. What will ultimately happen with the AMiA is not for any individual—nor for ACDP or ACI—to say, but for the Instruments of Unity--for the Communion at large-to assess and judge. The Communion has rendered a clear judgement already, and that is precisely because an "outside strategy" has brought AMiA into conjunction with, and adjudication under, the wider Communion's instruments of unity. Part of the difficulty facing the ACDP is precisely that it is seeking to retain a Communion order and theology, and so is always at the same time an inside and an outside effort. One can but pray that as the Communion evolves at this critical time of its life, the ACDP will find its place within that life and mission.
