SC Episcopalians provides news, encouragement, and support to traditional
churchmen and women who no longer feel they have a diocesan home. Comments, suggestions, and corrections are welcome at scepiscopalians@aol.com
Commentary
Anglican Smack-Down
by Diana Butler Bass
Like most Christians, I don't pay attention to missives from church leaders. This week, however, dueling pastoral letters issued for Pentecost from Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, caught my attention--because one so rarely witnesses a first-class theological smack down between tea-drinking Anglican primates.
Unless you've been sleeping in a cave, you are probably aware that the Episcopal Church (of which I am a member) has been arguing about the role of LGBT persons in the church. Along with the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church has opened itself toward full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians. Here in North America, this has caused some defections (fewer than at first predicted), some legal suits (most have been settled in favor of the Episcopal Church), monetary fallout (hard to separate from general economic downturn), and bad feelings (which, sadly enough, remain). But what is most surprising--and I regularly hear this from bishops, clergy, and congregational lay leaders--is that things are much less tense in the Episcopal Church now than they have been in recent years. Folks are moving ahead in their local parishes doing the sorts of things that Episcopalians are pretty good at doing--creating beautiful worship, praying together, and feeding hungry people.
Despite that fact that the Episcopalians are bumpily journeying into a renewed future, some other Anglicans--mostly in Africa--are pretty mad that we've included our gay and lesbian friends and relatives in our churches. Large communities of Anglicans in places like Uganda (the same Uganda that recently tried to pass a death-penalty law for gay people) and Malawi (the same Malawi that recently sentenced a gay couple who wanted to marry to 14-years hard labor) are seriously unhappy with American Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans.
And this leads us to the Pentecost pastoral letters.
While (somewhat ironically) attending a conference in Washington, DC entitled "Building Bridges," Rowan Williams sent out his Pentecost letter to Anglicans worldwide which, after saying a lot of nice things about missions and diversity, pulls rank and proclaims that he's going to kick people off important committees whose national churches have violated a controversial document called the Anglican Covenant. This includes the Canadians (who let gay Christians get married) and the Americans (who recently ordained a lesbian bishop in Los Angeles) and some Africans (who ordained some Americans who were splitting churches in places like Virginia and Pennsylvania).
In response, Katharine Jefferts Schori essentially, but in a nice sort of Anglican way, accused Williams of being a theological dictator--or, as she says in understated fashion, "Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism." For non-Anglicans, trust me, those are fightin' words.
This is not a conservative/liberal argument (both Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori are theologically liberal). This is a fight between rival versions of Anglicanism--a quarrel extending to the beginning of Anglicanism that has replayed itself periodically through the centuries down to our own time.
Rowan Williams' letter articulates "top-down Anglicanism," a version of the faith that is hierarchical, bishop-centered, concerned with organizational control, and authoritarian. It is an old vision that vests the identity of the church in a chain of authority in the hands of ecclesiastical guardians who agree on "a coherent Anglican identity" and then enforce the boundaries of that identity through legal means. This version of Anglicanism stretches back through the Middle Ages and relates to similar forms of Christianity as found in Roman Catholicism and some forms of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Katharine Jefferts Schori's letter speaks for "bottom-up Anglicanism," a version of the faith that is democratic, parish-based, mission-oriented, and (even) revolutionary. It is also an old vision, one that vests the identity of the church in local communities of Anglicans at prayer, who adapt their way of life and liturgy according to the needs of Christian mission. This version of Anglicanism is rooted in both the ancient Celtic traditions of English Christianity and the missionary work of St. Augustine of Canterbury circa 600.
As history unfolded, different cultures have picked up on one or the other of these two streams--for example, the British church remains primarily hierarchical (even referring to their bishops as "My Lord Bishop"); while the American church is primarily democratic ("God alone is the Lord"). The Ugandan church is authoritarian; while the South African church is revolutionary. The Anglicans in Sydney, Australia are boundary-oriented and communally closed; while most other Anglicans in Australia are liturgically-oriented and open (the Anglicans in Darwin, Australia are so open that their cathedral doesn't even have walls).
At its best, Anglicanism manages the polarities between these tensions--often creating locally innovative expressions of a church that is both hierarchical and democratic, bishop and parish centered, bounded and liturgically open at the same time. Over the centuries, this has been called the Anglican art of comprehension, or the via media (the "middle way").
by Diana Butler Bass
Like most Christians, I don't pay attention to missives from church leaders. This week, however, dueling pastoral letters issued for Pentecost from Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, caught my attention--because one so rarely witnesses a first-class theological smack down between tea-drinking Anglican primates.
Unless you've been sleeping in a cave, you are probably aware that the Episcopal Church (of which I am a member) has been arguing about the role of LGBT persons in the church. Along with the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church has opened itself toward full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians. Here in North America, this has caused some defections (fewer than at first predicted), some legal suits (most have been settled in favor of the Episcopal Church), monetary fallout (hard to separate from general economic downturn), and bad feelings (which, sadly enough, remain). But what is most surprising--and I regularly hear this from bishops, clergy, and congregational lay leaders--is that things are much less tense in the Episcopal Church now than they have been in recent years. Folks are moving ahead in their local parishes doing the sorts of things that Episcopalians are pretty good at doing--creating beautiful worship, praying together, and feeding hungry people.
Despite that fact that the Episcopalians are bumpily journeying into a renewed future, some other Anglicans--mostly in Africa--are pretty mad that we've included our gay and lesbian friends and relatives in our churches. Large communities of Anglicans in places like Uganda (the same Uganda that recently tried to pass a death-penalty law for gay people) and Malawi (the same Malawi that recently sentenced a gay couple who wanted to marry to 14-years hard labor) are seriously unhappy with American Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans.
And this leads us to the Pentecost pastoral letters.
While (somewhat ironically) attending a conference in Washington, DC entitled "Building Bridges," Rowan Williams sent out his Pentecost letter to Anglicans worldwide which, after saying a lot of nice things about missions and diversity, pulls rank and proclaims that he's going to kick people off important committees whose national churches have violated a controversial document called the Anglican Covenant. This includes the Canadians (who let gay Christians get married) and the Americans (who recently ordained a lesbian bishop in Los Angeles) and some Africans (who ordained some Americans who were splitting churches in places like Virginia and Pennsylvania).
In response, Katharine Jefferts Schori essentially, but in a nice sort of Anglican way, accused Williams of being a theological dictator--or, as she says in understated fashion, "Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism." For non-Anglicans, trust me, those are fightin' words.
This is not a conservative/liberal argument (both Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori are theologically liberal). This is a fight between rival versions of Anglicanism--a quarrel extending to the beginning of Anglicanism that has replayed itself periodically through the centuries down to our own time.
Rowan Williams' letter articulates "top-down Anglicanism," a version of the faith that is hierarchical, bishop-centered, concerned with organizational control, and authoritarian. It is an old vision that vests the identity of the church in a chain of authority in the hands of ecclesiastical guardians who agree on "a coherent Anglican identity" and then enforce the boundaries of that identity through legal means. This version of Anglicanism stretches back through the Middle Ages and relates to similar forms of Christianity as found in Roman Catholicism and some forms of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Katharine Jefferts Schori's letter speaks for "bottom-up Anglicanism," a version of the faith that is democratic, parish-based, mission-oriented, and (even) revolutionary. It is also an old vision, one that vests the identity of the church in local communities of Anglicans at prayer, who adapt their way of life and liturgy according to the needs of Christian mission. This version of Anglicanism is rooted in both the ancient Celtic traditions of English Christianity and the missionary work of St. Augustine of Canterbury circa 600.
As history unfolded, different cultures have picked up on one or the other of these two streams--for example, the British church remains primarily hierarchical (even referring to their bishops as "My Lord Bishop"); while the American church is primarily democratic ("God alone is the Lord"). The Ugandan church is authoritarian; while the South African church is revolutionary. The Anglicans in Sydney, Australia are boundary-oriented and communally closed; while most other Anglicans in Australia are liturgically-oriented and open (the Anglicans in Darwin, Australia are so open that their cathedral doesn't even have walls).
At its best, Anglicanism manages the polarities between these tensions--often creating locally innovative expressions of a church that is both hierarchical and democratic, bishop and parish centered, bounded and liturgically open at the same time. Over the centuries, this has been called the Anglican art of comprehension, or the via media (the "middle way").
But once every few hundred years, the tensions explode. This is one of those times.
The argument isn't really about gay and lesbian people nor is it about, as some people claim, the Bible or orthodoxy. Rather, the argument reprises the oldest conflict within Anglicanism--What kind of Anglicans are we to be? How do we relate to the world and culture around us? And very specifically now: What kind of Anglicans are we to be in the 21st century? And how to we relate to the plurality of cultures in which we find ourselves?
Set in this frame, this isn't just an Anglican argument. Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants of all sorts, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are having the same arguments within their varying traditions and cultures. What kind of religious faith are we to practice in the 21st century? And how do we relate to the plurality of cultures in which we each find ourselves?
For what it is worth, the river of history does not seem to be on the side of hierarchical church control; rather, history seems to be moving in a the direction of what Thomas Friedman might call "flat church." The tides are pulling most ecclesiastical boats toward bottom-up versions of faith. Hierarchical church control is, as Harvey Cox argues in his book The Future of Faith, a "rearguard attempt to stem a more sweeping tidal change" toward a new experiential, inclusive, and liberationist view of God and faith.
Despite their smack down, I think that Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori might actually agree on the fundamental questions of identity, mission, and 21st century change. I also suspect that Rowan Williams would secretly find the "sweeping tidal change" more spiritually interesting than trying to keep the Anglican institutional ship afloat in the waters. But he thinks that he's in charge--and he'll be captain of his Titanic until the lass for me, I kinda like this American Episcopal river raft. Better for navigating strong currents.
South Carolina Episcopalians
Bearing Witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ through the Episcopal Church
News and Commentary from ...
The Anglican Communion
News
March 10, 2012
Anglican Covenant in Trouble in the Church of England as Opposition Grows Read more
A New "Covenant" aimed at imposing a stricter governing hierarchy on provinces of the Anglican Communion may be crumbling, as 17 of the Church of England's 44 dioceses have given it a thumbs-down. Ten dioceses have approved it. Opponents of the scheme say they are confident of picking up another five negative votes, which would kill the proposal fo rthe present.
The Covenant was contrived over the past several years by conservative Primates in the Communion seeking to give themselves more power over more moderate and progressive provinces, like the Episcopal Church. Most provinces of the Communion are likely to approve the measure, but they most likely will not include the Episcopal Church, and the Anglican provinces in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. If today's trend continues, the Church of England won't be a part of it either.
December 6, 2011
AMiA Bishops, Anglican Province of Rwanda Split
The Anglican Mission in America, one of the original dissident groups to separate from the Episcopal Church over a decade ago, has in effect severed its ties to the Anglican Province of Rwanda following the resignations of most of its American bishops.
Last week Rwandan Primate Archbishop Onesphore Rwaj gave an ultimatum to AMiA leader, Bishop Chuck Murphy, to either resign or recant for statements and actions the Province's House of Bishops perceived to be offensive.
Murphy and almost all of the other American missionary bishops consecrated by the Rwandans effectively resigned their positions today by failing to renew their commitment to the Province. Murphy was the rector of All Saints', Pawleys Island when the parish initially attempted to leave the Episcopal Church with its property. AMiA is still headquartered in Pawleys Island. read more
An official of the Episcopal Church informed Bishop Mark Lawrence this month that recent changes made to the Constitution of the Diocese of South Carolina are “null and void” in the eyes of the Episcopal Church.
Last February delegates to the 2011 Diocesan Convention gave final approval to amendments to the Diocese’s governing document eliminating “accession” to the Episcopal Church's Constitution.
Accession means that a Diocese agrees that the national Church’s Constitution supersedes that of the Diocese when they are in conflict. The actions of the Convention, approved and supported by the Bishop and Standing Committee, would have reversed that relationship.
According to the Secretary of the Church’s Executive Council, members of its Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration determined over the summer that the actions of the Diocesan Convention are sufficiently similar to those taken by rebellious Dioceses of Quincy, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth in previous years as to be covered by the same 2007 Executive Council Resolution (NAC023) that declared them meaningless.
The Resolution specifically states that “any diocesan amendment that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are null and void, as if such amendments had not been passed.”
It goes further to say that this determination is applicable, not just to those four dioceses, but any other dioceses that take “steps or have adopted amendments that purport in any way to limit or lessen unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church”.
In short, once a diocese commits to join the Episcopal Church, it has no authority to leave. Individual clergy and lay people can leave, but a diocese as a corporate entity can’t.
Bishop Lawrence, who claims the Diocese of South Carolina is “sovereign”, has argued that the Diocese wasn’t “intending” to leave the Church, even though he and the Standing Committee were fully aware that accession to the Church’s Constitution is essential to membership.
The underlying issue here is the ownership of Episcopal Church property in the Diocese, specifically the property of parishes that might want to leave the Episcopal Church. The Bishop and the Standing Committee of the Diocese argue that they alone have the authority to decide what happens to it.
(These controversial amendments are probably also meaningless since the Diocese appears to have violated its own Constitution and Canons to re-convene the 2010 Diocesan Convention to adopt them. Read more)
September 19, 2011
ABC likely to Announce Early Retirement Next Year
Right-wing Anglicans want new ABC to replace the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion; Early money is on the Archbishop of York and maybe the Bishop of London
Numerous news sources in London confirm that Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is ready to call it quits next year. Williams is widely considered scholarly, brilliant, and hugely inept in the face of right-wing attempts to split the worldwide Anglican Communion apart.
The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, is considered the likely choice to succeed Williams, who is reported to be considering a teaching position at Cambridge.
Sentamu is a native of Uganda, considered slightly more conservative than Williams, and proven particularly adept at navigating the tricky politics of the Anglican Communion. The drawback to Sentamu is that he is older than Rowan Williams.
Click here to learn more about Archbishop Sentamu.
However, Sentamu is not universally popular, leading some to speculate that a dark horse candidate, like Richard Chartes, Bishop of London since 1995, might get the nod. Chartes is a close friend of Prince Charles. (He also has white hair and a beard, so he may already looks the part.)
Right-wing Primates and their American allies are hoping that the appointment of a new, more conservative ABC would result in the expulsion of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion.
When Williams retires, the Prime Minister will propose two names to the Queen, and she will select one. The British Monarch is actually the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In selecting ABCs in the past Queen Elizabeth generally has veered more toward the choice favored by the Prime Minister.
November 3, 2011
Friction Emerges among Breakaway Groups; ACNA at Odds with Race-based Nigerian Mission in America
The Church of England newspaper has broken a story about growing rifts among breakaway "Anglican" groups in the United States. The news is somewhat surprising as these groups have been very effective in keeping their numerous rivalries and outsized egos out of the public eye. Read the full story here
February 13, 2011
Church of England Refuses Recognition to Anti-Church Rebels in North America
Despite heavy lobbying from right-wingers, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada continue to be the only recognized members of the Anglican Communion in North America
The Church of England's central governing body Saturday refused to recognize the rebellious Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), making it clear that the Episcopal Church remains the sole representative of the Anglican Communion in the United States.
The move is a blow to the right-wing splinter group, headed by former Episcopal Bishop Robert Duncan and those in the Diocese of South Carolina holding out hope that the Diocese could shift its alliance to the rebel group without leaving the Communion.
Anti-TEC bloggers still claimed victory, although even a cursory reading of the action taken by the Synod makes it clear that, given the opportunity to extend formal recognition to the group, it had no intention of doing so. ACNA wants to see the Episcopal Church torn down, and itself recognized as the only Anglican presence in the United States. They wouldn't mind seeing the Anglican Church of Canada get the boot as well.
Here's what the Synod said:
“This Synod does (a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family; (b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and (c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011."
Here's what it means (or does not mean):
1. The resolution does not "affirm" the ACNA.
2. The resolution does not "affirm" that the ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.
3. The resolution merely "affirms" a "desire" .
4. The resolution does not refer to the ACNA as a whole but to the desire of "those who formed" it.
5. The resolution does not affirm the desire of "those who formed the ACNA" to remain in "the Anglican Communion", but rather, it affirms their desire to remain a part of the Anglican "family".
