Rev. Dr. Philip Turner

This is a hard time in the life of our church. It's easy to spend most of our time obsessing about all that has gone wrong. However, the subject I have been asked to address, "Called to Serve", points in a different direction. It points away from our discontent and toward a vision of a reformed and renewed church"”a church identified by a commitment to service. "Called to Serve" has branding potential for a renewed and reformed church, but the potential will not be realized unless two words are added to the proposed brand name. Let's not talk about "called to serve".

The Meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion just concluded in Dublin might well mark the breakdown and consequent breakup of what has been the Anglican Communion. Up to a dozen Primates who come from the most populous areas of the Anglican Communion refused to attend. They did so because the Archbishop of Canterbury, ignoring his pledge that there would be "consequences" resulting from the actions of The Episcopal Church (TEC), insisted nonetheless on inviting its Presiding Bishop.

Paul Bagshaw has published an essay entitled "End Game" that requires a response. Citing a report by George Conger, he agrees that we are at the "end of the Communion we once thought we knew;" and he has provided a very credible sketch of what Anglicanism will look like going forward. What he has not done is point out what a disaster this ending and this future are. Indeed, there is something almost surreal about his failure to make clear the true import of the likely course of events he presents.

This is the third in a series of essays on the proposed Anglican Covenant." The first, entitled "Communion, Order and Dissent," attempted to present what might be called the inner logic of the covenant--a logic that rests upon a commitment by all the provinces to "mutual subjection within the body of Christ." The second had the subtitle "On How To Dissent within a Communion of Churches." Its purpose was to show that communion, as understood by Anglicans, must have as a part of its ideation an understanding of how to dissent from common belief and practice.

The purpose of this essay is to address a question to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, The Anglican Communion Office (ACO) and to the upcoming Meeting of the Primates. How are they, and indeed how is the Anglican Communion as a whole, to address the question of dissent? The issue has become important for Anglicans because of the crisis that has been brought on by the recent innovations in sexual ethics in both The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC).

The meeting of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council (hereafter the Standing Committee) has just finished its deliberations. It was reported in The Standing Committee Daily Bulletin that Dato' Stanley Isaacs had proposed, "The Episcopal Church (hereafter TEC) be separated from the Communion."  This proposal was rejected because it was believed, "Separation would inhibit dialogue on this and other issues among Communion Provinces." This brief notice is yet another signal that the Anglican Communion stands in unparalleled danger.

In recent days, Fr. Mark Harris has published a comment on Bishop Stanton's address to the Convention of the Diocese of Dallas (link) entitled "Bishop Stanton barks up the wrong tree so that we won't notice the bite." (link)  The comment demands response because it shows so clearly the dubious nature of both the substance and manner of argumentation within our church. Fr. Harris takes issue with almost everything Bishop Stanton has to say save for one important point. With the Bishop he holds that individual dioceses have a right to sign onto the proposed Anglican Covenant!