I’m grateful to Fr. Jake for pointing out that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent letter went out to the primates some time ago, so that its release to the public after the release of the ABCs Christmas message was accidental. But I still think, with Fr. Mark Harris, that the two messages are in conflict with one another, and that the conflict is unfortunate. I don’t see any Machiavellian purpose in the disconnect, but I’m thinking of something else Father Jake says: “[The Archbishop] does not consider it appropriate to state his personal convictions. He has set them aside, in an attempt to ‘articulate the mind of the Communion.'” And I’m thinking, OK, Maybe so. Fr. Jake also says that “Dr. Williams has polled the Communion, and has now come out in support of what he considers the majority view.”

I’m grateful as well to The Episcopal Majority for putting me in mind of Fr. William R. Coats’ reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Fr. Coats reads the letter far more positively than I do from a perspective much like my own, except that I think Fr. Coats may be better informed about the Communion than I am. My differences with Fr. Coats start with this passage:

What [The Archbishop] hopes for is what I call round two – the Covenant. This business to which we must all sign on to [sic] may in fact be the way we all do come together, so long as it doesn’t specifically turn on us. . . . Even Williams summation of Anglicanism at the beginning would be something I suspect we could sign on to – even the Biblical orthodoxy part (so long as no specifics are mentioned).

I’m not at all sanguine about the prospect of a covenant, any covenant; but that’s an argument for another day. Fr. Coats’ essay has garnered commentary to this effect:

The ABC is not taking sides. But he is defining the debate as much as anyone else. Extremists on both sides criticize him for not taking their side.

I thank him for staking out the middle. The place where unity trumps posturing.

I agree that the Archbishop has attempted to frame the debate. I do not agree that he has staked out the middle. If I understand Fr. Jake’s argument–and I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood–I agree in thinking that the Archbishop has attempted to identify himself with what he believes to be the stronger side politically. The politics of the Anglican communion have gone against TEC and against claims to social justice for gays and lesbians at least since 1998, with the adoption of the communion’s now infamous resolution on human sexuality. Now a reactionary trend has begun to affect internal TEC politics with the passage of resolution B033 at the 2006 General Convention and its “reconfirmation” by the House of Bishops in September 2007.

Actually, I don’t think there is a middle to stake out, though I realize that some within TEC are trying to find one. Nor is it a case of Fr. Jake’s way vs. the Archbishop’s way or the way of moderation. Not wishing to cast aspersions upon any person, clergy or lay, I merly point out that a political position that subordinates a legitimate claim to social justice to the exigencies of ecclesiastical polity is not moderate but pusillanimous. Those who argue against the legitimacy of the claim to social justice at least have a position for which, presumably, they are willing to take responsibility. But it’s also interesting, to say the least, that the blogger at Rather Not, prefers to remain anonymous.