ESPRIT: Was this trip really necessary?
+JMS: Yes, it was necessary for the health of the communion and building relationships. In terms of work product, no, it wasn’t necessary; in fact, the conference leaders designed Lambeth so there would be no explicit work product.
+PEL: Being the new kid on the block, I had no expectations. My paradigm-shift wasn’t difficult because I’m a relational person anyway. This was an interesting experience to see how people sorted out and shifted gear into relational stuff.
ESPRIT: What did you learn about the 21st century Anglican Communion?
+JMS: As a whole, I would say that the Anglican Communion remains very strong, focused on Jesus Christ and his mission, orthodox and apostolic in its faith, and — despite the tensions and problems we have in the West — most of the communion is very vibrant and, in fact, is quite a source of life and witness around the world.
+PEL: One of the things that struck me is how catholic the Anglican Communion is in terms of its ecclesiology. If I heard it one time, I heard it a thousand times from my brothers and sisters around the world — how important it is for us to be in communion, and that’s a very catholic concept. I also think Anglicanism in the 21st century is realistic. Nobody, from the Global South particularly, had any illusions about the difficulties we face. One of the great learning experiences, particularly for those in the West, is to listen to those from the Global South be quite frank about how our actions have hurt them and their churches. But they’re coming from a position of love, not judgment.
ESPRIT: Were you able to witness for the faith and the diocese?
+JMS: Oh, yes, I think so. In terms of both our Bible study groups, our indaba groups, and our general relationships with people. It was renewing many friendships from the past and creating new friendships, new relationships.
+PEL: Whenever you sat down to eat, people would engage you in conversation about where you are, where you come from, and eventually go into where you are theologically, and I think they were pretty well assured about us.
ESPRIT: What about those indabas — those group sessions of bishops based on the African model of community discussion to work out problems? How did they function?
+JMS: Indaba, in African terms, presupposes natural community, and of course, the Lambeth Conference is not a natural community. We have to build community. So I’m not sure the indaba process was the best way to do that, but it was a good process for getting people to talk with each other. Many of those who are intimidated by speaking in large legislative bodies don’t have any problem speaking in small groups. So it really got more people talking with each other on an equal footing than having large plenary sessions would have done. And I think, from that perspective, it was a good process.
+PEL: I would agree with you. I think if it didn’t work, it’s because, as
Bishop Stanton said, it presumes community. The first three or four days, we spent a lot of time developing that community before we could really get into discussing some of the major issues. And it gave voice to some of the folks that would never say anything. When we did have the plenary sessions, the Americans hogged the microphones, and the rest of the community did not fail to notice that. The message got back to our house: you Americans are so arrogant; you think people want to listen to you. And all of a sudden, you see this backing off from Americans.
ESPRIT: Talk a little about the Archbishop of Canterbury. How would you appraise his performance?
+PEL: It was clear to me that he went in to Lambeth with his own subliminal agenda. He said that Lambeth 1.10 (the 1998 resolution affirming heterosexual monogamy) was still the standard for understanding marriage and sexuality in the Anglican Communion. At one local occasion, he was very engaging. I got my picture taken with him as the newest bishop in the Anglican Communion. I was also able to talk to him about the covenant process. I told him I really hoped he would encourage dioceses and/or provinces to sign off on it, so we could be in communion with him. He said, “That’s what I want, too.”
+JMS: His presidential address — all the things he said — he did masterfully. He is a theologian. He was cogent. He was forceful. And so I think he did a lot of good there. I was a bit surprised that he was not more available. It didn’t seem to me that he was out and about. That may be entirely subjective. Otherwise, I think he gave great guidance to the process.
ESPRIT: Lowest moment?
+JMS: It wasn’t as if there were some sad events, but I tell you, the lowest moment was when my indaba met for the first time, and we all realized there were no Africans due to the boycott of Lambeth by about 250 bishops, most from the Global South. Ten years ago, Africans were present in large numbers. We built many relationships, and many of my closest friends were not present this year.
+PEL: The second Sunday we were there, I was just tired, worn out. I wanted to be able to get with my wife, go some place, and just be alone. I’m a people person, but there’s only so much a people person can take! I wanted to disengage.
ESPRIT: Highest moment?
+PEL: The procession the first Sunday we were there in our rochets and chimeres at the opening Mass. Words can’t express how I felt ascending those 150 steps going up into the choir and then back to the high altar. To me, that was the high point. It was just overwhelming.
+JMS: The same thing. It hit me again after 10 years that this was undoubtedly the high point, because we were at our best when we were at worship. We have the tradition. It’ more than just theory; it’s reality. We were together as a community, in communion. Historically and spiritually, that was very rich.
+PEL: Another high point for me had to be the Bible study sessions we had. We developed a real community very quickly, and I didn’t want to miss it.
ESPRIT: So where from here?
+JMS: It depends much on the will of the Communion. Bishops acting unilaterally do not help this. The future of the Communion depends on those who are willing to forgo what they perceive to be their rights and their prerogatives and agree to live with and for others. We’ve been deaf to that call. It just depends on the will of those who are in leadership and who say, you know, the time has come to work together in unity. As far as I’m concerned as diocesan bishop, we have strong ties and relationships with the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Global South. The Global South bishops invited both Bishop Paul and me to a meeting with them. We cherish those relationships, and we will continue to witness and carry out our part in the Anglican Communion.
+PEL: I don’t know how I can expand upon that. We need to be faithful to the Scriptures and our Lord’s command to go forth into the world, but one of the things I’m trying to live into is what it means to be faithful to the vows I took when I was consecrated. There are some significant vows there. I think the House of Bishops and all bishops would do well to read those every day.
+JMS: It’s hard to know exactly what happened there until — it’s one of those odd things. It’s hard to know what happened at the meeting until you get well beyond it.
+PEL: It’s not unlike Jacob wrestling with God at Peniel (Gen. 32:30). He didn’t know it was God until after the fact. And that’s what sometimes happens during crises. You live into that crisis and do the wrestling — and we did some. I mean, it wasn’t all fun and games. Some hard things were said in those indaba groups.
+JMS: I like that. And I can think of Moses’ supporters saying to Moses after he had gone up on Sinai, “What happened?” We’ll see. It’s sort of the nature of God. God says to Moses, “I will be with you. That’s my name.” That’s all we can do — live in faith that God will be faithful.