In the adult forum on February 18, I said that we still did not know the outcome of the Primates’ Meeting. Today, the dust still has not settled. There is plenty of spin to go around, lots of people making statements, but from what I can tell, very little has actually changed. There are, however, some ominous signs.

Of the things we do know, the sub-group given the task of assessing the response of the Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report gave a largely favorable report. The sub-group stated that the Episcopal Church had taken Windsor seriously and had responded positively to Windsor’s recommendations to express regrets for its actions at General Convention 2003 and to refrain from consenting to the election of bishops in same-sex relationships. The one area in which the sub-group expressed concern was in the blessing of same-sex relationships. You can read the full report here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/acns4249.cfm

We also know that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts-Schori was “in the room.” There was considerable discussion before the meeting that conservative Primates would refuse to meet with her. That did not happen. Instead, she participated fully in the meetings and in the end was elected to the Standing Committee of the Primates. Some of the Primates did refuse to take communion with the rest of the group.

On the last day of their meeting, after lengthy delays, the Primates produced a Communique which can be read here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

It makes fascinating reading because it is clear from the document that the Primates agreed on very little with regard to the Episcopal Church. At the end of that document appears a schedule of recommendations. The one that has received the most attention is the recommendation that the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church agree to refuse to authorize same-sex blessings by September 30, 2007.

Finally, there was the publication of a draft Covenant for the Anglican Communion. You can read it here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4252.cfm

What does it all mean? Who knows? It is quite clear by now that few people are happy with the results. Conservatives did not get everything they wanted; liberals are distressed by the Presiding Bishop’s willingness to sign off on the communiqué. By and large, we are where we were before the Primates Meeting: a fractured communion, a fractured church. There are deep divisions in our church over sexuality, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there are also deep divisions over theology and over polity—how we structure the church. It is that question that most troubles me. The Primates and many other Anglican provinces, and indeed, many Episcopalians seem not to understand how the Episcopal Church is organized. We are not ruled by a Primate; we are governed by General Convention. Only the national church, representatives of laity, clergy, and bishops, meeting together, can decide matters of doctrine, worship, and discipline. A promise made by our House of Bishops does not have the force of law. It is roughly equivalent to a non-binding resolution passed by the U.S. Senate.

The structure of our church is not simply historical accident, although it was shaped by the same people who were involved in the framing of the U.S. Constitution. It reflects a deep theological commitment to the ministry of all the baptized. We are all members of the church, whether we are bishops, priests or deacons, or laypeople. We all bear responsibility for its vitality, its faithfulness, and its future. To place all responsibility for the life of the church in its bishops, or its Primates, is to infantilize, indeed, to dehumanize all of those baptized members who are created in the image of God. Democracy may be a messy way to run a nation or a church but the alternative, as we have seen in the past, leads inevitably to despotism and tyranny.

Fr. Jonathan