by William R. Coats
(The following originally appeared in the Fall 2005 edition of "Nevertheless: Texas Church Review." To subscribe, email "Nevertheless" publisher, the Rev. John Worrell.)
The contretemps between the Episcopal Church and most of the rest of the Anglican Church is not likely to go away. Indeed it seems most likely that within the next 3 to 5 years we will no longer be a part of the larger body. For some, such a rupture will be a cause of great sadness, for others, it will hardly register. For myself, I welcome it. It is time for us to go.
On the surface the controversy stems from the 2003 consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man with a partner. In fact his consecration was merely the precipitating event in a larger struggle to reshape Anglicanism. Indeed any number of "outrages" would have galvanized those forces within Anglicanism -- evangelical, traditional, conservative -- not only to attack those actions of our church they considered liberal, secular or unbiblical, but to move for a wholesale restructuring of Anglicanism.
Those who disagreed with the consecration of Gene Robinson had the choice at the time whether or not to act like brothers and sisters, friends in Christ. Instead they chose to attack the American church with unprecedented vitriol, becoming a howling mob. Why this level hatred and nastiness?
It is the desire of the Rt. Rev. Peter Akinola, Archbishop of Nigeria, along with many of his African cohorts, some American dissidents, gleeful anti-American English conservatives and third world zealots not merely to attack and expel us but, in order to do so, to re-frame what the Anglican Communion is. Only by reshaping Anglicanism can they hope to prevent any further irruptions of liberalism or secularism, of unbiblical thought or behavior. Thus the present struggle is about the exercise of power, raw ecclesiastical power to reshape Anglicanism.
Heretofore Anglicanism had been a series of national churches tied together by both by a common origination (England), a general doctrinal orthodoxy (embedded in the Prayer Book) and a moral (not legal) commitment to be together. National church histories were honored, latitude in certain practices were either accepted or
tolerated. Such wide scope has become anathema to our adversaries. They want uniformity and a structure to enable it. What Gene Robinson’s consecration meant was an opportunity to reshape Anglicanism into a hierarchical entity with clear top-down authority, doctrine and ethics (the new "Covenant" envisioned in the Windsor Report) and the authority to enforce unity. In short they have proposed the Romanization of Anglicanism. That this is so widely accepted is rather astonishing. That the concentration of power is seen as salvation and not as problematic is a tribute to the innocence and blindness of its proponents. These of course include a wide range of otherwise disparate groups, old Anglo Catholics, broad church conservatives (especially in England) and African and American Evangelicals. And all of this with the smooth, passive acceptance of the present Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
The American church knows something about power. We grew from and in the American experience which had seen as the central political issue that of power. The Anglican James Madison had taught all of us, politicos and ecclesiastics, that much. Power must not be concentrated. It must be dispersed, checked, balanced. For any look at Scripture one can easily see that the Mammon described by Jesus in the Gospels is not merely money but the concentration and execution of power. It was after all power -- legitimate power, if you recall -- that killed our Lord. Of course none of this has any effect on the conservative forces bent on using power to punish and expel.
Archbishop Akinola and his cohorts have a very clever strategy, one laced with his characteristic capacity to intimidate and manipulate. It goes like this. Ride the current conservative climate of homophobia and anti-Americanism and prod the various Anglican church instruments (especially the Archbishops) to either shun or expel us. So, the American church is asked by the Anglican Archbishops not to attend the Anglican Consultative Council, the only international body of Anglican representatives. Of course the archbishops have no legal right to demand this, the old Anglicanism being what it was. But the rage is so great, what does legality have to do with it? Like good sports the Americans comply and attend as observers. Once there, or not there, a vote is taken to ask the Americans to stay away -- with the Americans not voting. It passed. This was done without a whimper from Canterbury, whose behavior throughout this whole sorry episode has been craven.
The gambit of exclusion has worked. Next comes the Lambeth Conference in 2008 -- to which the Archbishop, who has heretofore refused to meet with him, will presumably not invite Gene Robinson. This means the American Bishops will have to decide what to do. I believe they will side with Robinson, at which point a de facto separation will have occurred. Efforts will then be made to have the "Rump Parliament" of Anglican Bishops at Lambeth invite our American dissidents to be the true church in America. It is a cunning strategy, perfidious and malodorous, but when has power been otherwise?
Soon thereafter the new structure of Anglicanism will come into place following outlines provided by the woeful Windsor Report. There are to be clear lines of authority out of Canterbury in and through our new College of Cardinals, the Primates, with a variety of international committees firmly and subsidiarily in place. Where is the laity? Well, we will squeeze them in somewhere. To top it all off there will be a new covenant: a clear statement of mandated belief, and this time with teeth. Of course there remains one last irony. The Archbishop is still ultimately appointed by none other than the Queen (or, soon, King Charles). Ah, Rule Britannia!
This circus is what has become of Anglicanism. And it is time to get away. Our Presiding Bishop and our bishops have from the beginning played nice. What else could they do? One turns the other cheek, doesn’t one? Well yes if, as in the Biblical world, such a turning grounded in a culture of shame will have real effect. But against the proto-fascists abroad in our church it is useless. Early on Canterbury and others could have stood up to Akinola and his yes-men, but they were timorous or afraid of being branded colonialist.
So come 2008 a newer Anglican Church world will be upon us. I will be proud to have stood firm on the Gene Robinson matter and on the question of the access to the sacraments of the church to homosexual persons. It is worth a split over. And it is still worth maintaining the old Anglican idea. For what did the centralization of power do for Rome? What will it do for Williams and Akinola. They can have it and the eventual corruption and loss of dignity we see whenever power is centralized and unchecked. And God help the women and homosexuals in the New Anglicanism. Indeed God help those divorced. And don’t forget feeding tubes, and don’t forget birth control, either. These were at one time, before my Anglicanism went to work on them, part of the cherished "faith once delivered to the saints"
As for me, hey good luck, God bless, but take me off the list.
Bill Coats is a retired priest who lives in Hohokus, NJ
A member of my congregation stepped into my office this week to ask if I had heard about the new show that makes a mockery of the Episcopal Church. She could not recall the name of the show, but I must assume that she was referring to 
