The AAC and perceptions of slandor

Each month, the American Anglican Council (AAC*) puts out a publication called Encompass. It is a newsletter that essentially keeps the self-proclaimed ‘orthodox’ Anglicans in the loop over the current developments in their struggle for control of the ideology of the worldwide Anglican Communion. There are routine updates, a story or two, and an address from the president, David C. Anderson. August was no exception.

In it, there were two things that were particularly noteworthy. The first was a story of an AAC initiative in mission work in Peru, where they have worked with the South American Missionary Society to develop seminaries in the region. This initiative, seemingly innocuous is actually a blatant attempt to manipulate the country’s denominational theological training and reinforcing their fringe ideology. What worries me the most is the institutional nature of this work, which has already begun bearing fruit, but has a long-range plan of undermining the current forefront of religious scholarship in favor or a dark ages approach involving theological criticism**. Without a full-bodied and well-rounded seminary experience, these seminaries will only likely produce religious zealots; this has to be part of the appeal to the AAC.

The second noteworthy point is more of a strange turn-of-phrase. In the “Message from the President”, Anderson responds to both the statement of rejection from TEC of the suggestion that we allow “alternative pastoral oversight” (read: sheep stealing) for those disgruntled Anglicans shackled and restrained by the evil, despicable Episcopal Church; this, of course, is poppycock, but the dissidents are addicted to playing the reluctant hero/victim. There have also been a smattering of conservative provinces that have decided that they won’t be attending Lambeth (the big conference of bishops that only happens every ten years). Non-attendance means nothing to the secular world (I don’t want to go to Billy’s house, Mommy!), but it is the nuclear bomb in churchland. It is the introduction of fascism to democracy: it is entirely incompatible and very, very dangerous.

So these bishops have decided to drop the bomb. OK, so what does this mean? To answer this, let me give you a taste of how they see the mainstream response:

Already push back is coming in from various revisionist quarters. Trinity Church Wall Street announced they will convene a meeting of American and African bishops to discuss ways of doing mission and ministry together, which is a tactic to try and divide the African voice. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has just warned the Global South leaders that not attending Lambeth is to effectively vote themselves out of the Anglican Communion.

Irony of our being called ‘revisionist’ aside, there is actually nothing here that is actually objectionable. If you look at what is being discussed behind the rhetoric, you should see the clear issue. In the first part, Trinity Wall Street’s interest in convening a meeting between Americans and Africans is always a noble prospect, especially in the church, where community is our goal. Further, to suggest that they are utilizing “a tactic to try and divide the African voice” presupposes a ridiculous assumption (that they have been pushing for a couple of years) that there is a unified African voice. Is there a unified American voice? Has there ever been? This is faith grown from the Church of England. A cursory glance at church history will show that there never was a unified voice in England. Why would one assume that there is a unified voice in Africa? Because that is part of the dissident illusion: the monolithic Global South and the threat of schism. Bull.

The second supposition most certainly relates to the nature of our communion, which is a collective of national bodies that only exists when we get together. Similar in nature to our Congress: Congress only exists when it is in Session and when they recess, nothing happens. Our church is the same way and has always been that way. We are church when we gather together. St. David’s Episcopal Church is only St. David’s when it gathers on Sunday morning or Wednesday night for worship or at a meeting of the vestry. The rest of the time, there is a building that stands to represent the faithful to the wider community. Dioceses can only act at their annual conventions and our national church only acts at its triennial national convention. It stands to reason, therefore, that non-attendance at the gathering of bishops clearly implies that you are not in community with the wider community. Even though it is cheeky, the conservatives know this, which is why they have continuously pushed for TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) to be excluded from meetings and gatherings. Their attempts to excommunicate TEC aren’t merely because they don’t like our ideology or worry about our infecting the rest of the communion, but because that would simply remove us from the communion. The AAC likes this prospect because they want to be seen as the authoritative representation of Anglicanism for North America. Good thing that it doesn’t actually work that way.

Clearly the Global South bishops have struck a nerve with their refusal to elevate property and polity over Biblical truth.

Anderson ends the offending paragraph with this suggestion, which is actually quite telling of their clear intentions. This is an attempt to slam TEC for its response to dissidents, claiming the rights and authority to take their congregations, their property, their church buildings, and even their ordination with them, despite vowing “to solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church” (BCP, p. 526). In the aftermath of the 2003 ordination of the bishop V. Gene Robinson, Conservatives have used several tactics to try and cripple the church nationally and internationally under the guise of the national church’s supposed heresy. At the same time, they have attempted to maintain themselves outside the purview of the national church, which is not possible. As the property, monies, and authority (through ordination of the priest and sanction of the bishop to gather as an Episcopal church) are the property of the diocese, and in turn, the property of the national church. As many dissident churches have not yet vacated their old premises, it has forced a legal battle over the property.

In this light, the snarky retort that “their refusal to elevate property and polity over Biblical truth” is particularly disgusting. Their actions, which are devious and despicable (though defended under the auspices of Total War) are not Spirit-filled and do not represent a traditional or orthodox view of Christian behavior. At the same time, it belies their true intentions: their doublespeak exposes their own ‘elevation’ of property and polity. Their struggle to maintain the property and polity (through overseas bishops flying in for ordinations) are AAC’s main priorities. If they weren’t, and their true belief was in the gospel, they would relinquish the money and the church and take it on the road: this is clearly the most Biblically justifiable position. Even worse, they are using ‘Biblical truth’ as a weapon and means of separation within the church. To me, that is clearly a denegration of the Bible and a lowering of its status, not elevation.

All of this is clearly visible to those involved. For the AAC, what they try to pass for subtlety is actually blatant obfuscation. The AAC is a proponent of both schism and obstruction of the working order of traditional church functioning. They have clearly learned from the presidency of George W. Bush that you can wade into the ordinarily illegal territory, but if there aren’t any laws that specifically prevent you, then the actions must be solid and legal. In truth, their tendancy to describe themselves heroically is not only meant to recruit you to their way of thinking, but to blur the lines so that you can’t see what their actions really are.

* The AAC is a conservative group of self-proclaimed ‘orthodox’ Anglicans in the U.S. who describe themselves as “a network of individuals (laity, deacons, priests and bishops), parishes and specialized ministries who affirm biblical authority and Christian orthodoxy within the Anglican Communion.” They further suggest that they “are uniting in order to fulfill our apostolic mission and ministry, working to build a faithful Anglican witness in the Americas.” In reality, they are supportive of and complicite in attempts to bring schism or wanton destruction to The Episcopal Church (TEC). Arguments about biblical inerency and interpretation are a smokescreen for their true intention: driving TEC to the right-wing fringe.

**The conservative movement in the church, which predates the current schismatic rumblings have been lodging an attack on traditional biblical study. Biblical scholars use many factors, including history, form, and textual elements that focus on what the writers of the Bible were trying to communicate to their people, which would, in turn, give us not only perspective, but an opportunity to see what effect that has on us. Conservatives embrace only a theological criticism which focuses on what the words say to us today—erasing the historical component and even the linguistic component. This development has manifested hostility in many seminary communities between the biblical studies departments and systematic theologians; this is due less to a difference of opinion, but more over a perceived affront.