Well, it's happened--the Episcopal Church once again acted upon its Communion-dismantling trajectory and did not hinder Mary Glasspool from being consecrated. Not that anyone expected it not to happen. And the whole thing went by with little attention, as noted in a less-than-charitable entry from Matt Kennedy. I've been combing to see if there are any official statements in reaction so far, and the only one I have thus encountered is from Anglican Mainstream. And while there may and should be consequences, I doubt they will look much like the three we see here. Let's address them in turn...and add my own prognostications.
Regarding recommended consequence #1, it will be a mixed bag. Rowan will likely say something. He may indicate that American bishops might be disinvited from Lambeth if he feels like being a hard-ass that day. But that's quite a few years away, and he will not do anything that violates the jurisdictional integrity of American Province, which is TEC. The Primates Meeting will have the strongest reaction and will be sure to unseat Katherine from their counsels. They will issue a strong statement and use whatever weight they have to have America publicly reprimanded, and most the Anglican Communion will officially cut ties with TEC (if they haven't already). The ACC will wobble. The American delegation will show up, the Global South delegations will move to have them excluded, but like last time (when section 4 of the Covenant was sliced off from the 2nd Draft) some political maneuvering will occur, causing the Global South to walk out--leaving the ACC, as an official instrument of the Anglican Communion, still "in Communion" with TEC. In short, it will be a mess, and likely halt the Covenant process.
Regarding consequence #2, the Primates meeting will probably give a nod to Communion Partners, not as though that will accomplish much. Many like me are sympathetic to the aims of Communion Partners, but they're not exactly batting down the doors to join. Unless it is seen as the clear Communion response for maintaining ties with the rest of the Communion, it will be seen as ineffectual, political, or some combination of the two. Rowan might push to create some new structure with Communion Partners as its base. But without the support of the ACC (as essentially a TEC "colony" within the Anglican Communion) and the antagonism the Primates' Meeting is likely to cause, it will be a long slog to come up with something functional. Again, look for no help from afar.
Regarding consequence #3, the Primates will heartily endorse the ACNA as the "new Province" in North America. Rowan will reject this and uphold TEC as the official American Province, as will the ACC. And no one from TEC or ACNA will be invited to Lambeth, punishing us both as the errant children we are.
Of course, miracles do happen...Maranatha!
4/23/2010
The Irony of Valuing Unity
Just recently, a meeting of Global South Anglicans produced a document in which they uphold ACNA and Communion Partners as the two official ways they recommend maintaining ties of intercommunion with Anglicans in North America. It's kind of funny. ACNA was formed as a means of maintaining a "pure" expression of faith (sounds like every other church split since the Reformation, heck since 1054 when Rome and Byzantium split). Yet they are not formally recognized by the Anglican Communion. At the same time, TEC maintains official recognition in the Anglican Communion, yet most in power have espoused and actively endorsed actions that are clearly against the mind of the Communion and at significant variance with traditional Christian faith and practice.
The Global South represents the statistical majority of active Anglican adherents and have come into their own within the last 25 years as faithful, dynamic leaders of the Church. But it is with broad brushstrokes and curious blindness that the document they released paints a vision of unity and faithfulness that are willing to embrace.
I suppose the appeal to the Communion Partners was supposed to be a way of endorsing recognition for those in TEC who remain faithful to traditional Christian orthodoxy. Yet, that is a somewhat faulty proposition. First, they aren't really an organization or "party" as much as they are a loose affiliation of bishops (and rectors now?) who have signed onto certain documents affirming a more interdependent life within the Anglican Communion, but with little real effect. Second, supporting Communion Partners is either superfluous (especially in places like the diocese of Central Florida) or something that requires too much political capital for the faithful to muster (in places like Los Angeles, or even Pittsburgh, which is still healing from the re-alignment).
To me, unity is a first order priority. Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and the Father are one. Unfortunately, (and with all due deference to my Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends) there is no church has never split. So I see TEC's formal ties to the Anglican Communion in a positive light. So it is distressing to me when, on the one hand, some Christians leave and form their own church, and on the other hand, other Christians renege on promises they made to their fellow brothers and sisters (and it doubly hurts when those Christians seem to be the ones "in charge").
I think the Global South is justified in decrying TEC's continued impertinence, because those actions show a tendency towards schismatic thinking. But they are also shortsighted in rewarding ACNA (who are, frankly, equally as schismatic--they formed their own new church!). They are also shortsighted in looking to Communion Partners, as currently constituted, as a viable entity through which to relate to Episcopalians who are faithful in heartfelt belief and practice to the shared doctrine, prayer, ethics, and mission of the wider Communion. It's almost like saying, "Your continued faithfulness isn't enough, you have to do something more than the rest of us Anglicans elsewhere do to prove you are truly Anglican." It's a double-standard.
That's why I like the Anglican Covenant--we all have to sign it, and it has enough teeth to pinch the hands of those who sign it with the their fingers crossed. I only wish there was some provision--and protection--for dioceses, parishes, and individuals who sign on to it yet remain in bodies (Provinces, dioceses, parishes) which may not endorse it, in order that the fullest possible unity might be maintained. I guess there's no place for those who place a high value on unity in any church anymore.
The Global South represents the statistical majority of active Anglican adherents and have come into their own within the last 25 years as faithful, dynamic leaders of the Church. But it is with broad brushstrokes and curious blindness that the document they released paints a vision of unity and faithfulness that are willing to embrace.
I suppose the appeal to the Communion Partners was supposed to be a way of endorsing recognition for those in TEC who remain faithful to traditional Christian orthodoxy. Yet, that is a somewhat faulty proposition. First, they aren't really an organization or "party" as much as they are a loose affiliation of bishops (and rectors now?) who have signed onto certain documents affirming a more interdependent life within the Anglican Communion, but with little real effect. Second, supporting Communion Partners is either superfluous (especially in places like the diocese of Central Florida) or something that requires too much political capital for the faithful to muster (in places like Los Angeles, or even Pittsburgh, which is still healing from the re-alignment).
To me, unity is a first order priority. Jesus prayed that we would be one as he and the Father are one. Unfortunately, (and with all due deference to my Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends) there is no church has never split. So I see TEC's formal ties to the Anglican Communion in a positive light. So it is distressing to me when, on the one hand, some Christians leave and form their own church, and on the other hand, other Christians renege on promises they made to their fellow brothers and sisters (and it doubly hurts when those Christians seem to be the ones "in charge").
I think the Global South is justified in decrying TEC's continued impertinence, because those actions show a tendency towards schismatic thinking. But they are also shortsighted in rewarding ACNA (who are, frankly, equally as schismatic--they formed their own new church!). They are also shortsighted in looking to Communion Partners, as currently constituted, as a viable entity through which to relate to Episcopalians who are faithful in heartfelt belief and practice to the shared doctrine, prayer, ethics, and mission of the wider Communion. It's almost like saying, "Your continued faithfulness isn't enough, you have to do something more than the rest of us Anglicans elsewhere do to prove you are truly Anglican." It's a double-standard.
That's why I like the Anglican Covenant--we all have to sign it, and it has enough teeth to pinch the hands of those who sign it with the their fingers crossed. I only wish there was some provision--and protection--for dioceses, parishes, and individuals who sign on to it yet remain in bodies (Provinces, dioceses, parishes) which may not endorse it, in order that the fullest possible unity might be maintained. I guess there's no place for those who place a high value on unity in any church anymore.
3/18/2010
Meandering Thoughts on the Event of the Glasspool Consents
The Rev. Mary Glasspool, a partnered non-celibate lesbian priest, was elected by the Diocese of Los Angeles back in December to be their Suffragan Bishop. The Episcopal News Service, has announced that she has received the necessary number of consents from bishops and standing committees to move ahead with her consecration on May 5. This has severe ramifications in terms of further strain on our relationships within the Anglican Communion and, to a lesser extent, our ecumenical partners. There are both enough soap boxes condemning and toasts celebrating this event. But in reality, I do not think it will change things too much.
Why not?
1) She's not going to be a bishop with jurisdiction. She won't be at the Queen's Tea at Lambeth. She won't be making the hot and heavy decisions at House of Bishops meetings.
2) We already broke the mold with Gene Robinson. All told, this election was pretty much under the radar. No one is really surprised; there's no shock value, just grins on the left and head-shaking on the right.
3) It is a symptom of the larger problem of disunity that has largely existed since the inception of the Episcopal Church. This is a fact of history. After the Revolution, the Church of England was not really interested in keeping any formal connection with the colonial churches she birthed. It was only through the tireless efforts of people Samuel Seabury and Anglicans in Scotland that made it possible for us not to be Presbyterians, Congregationalists, or Methodists by default. Americans don't like being an equal (and never less important) partner. After the revolution, we ran our Church and kept our nose out of other national Churches' business as long as they left us alone. As the revivals of the 19th Century and new impetus for world missions was gaining momentum, we were in the front lines, heading up the charge--especially in Latin America and Asia. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, when ecumenical fever swept our hearts, we were leading the movement. Again, as the Church became more socially charged in its spirituality after the 1960s, we considered ourselves leaders, pioneers in justice. And that is what informs our actions--independence.
But the world is changing. Global Christianity's vibrant center is now in Africa and Southeast Asia, not the West. And we really aren't world leaders anymore, as developing nations have come into their own. So when ideas like the Covenant come along--an idea we aren't leading in or originating--we fold our arms and harrumph like the kid who normally gets picked first being passed over for the new neighborhood superstar. We want to take our ball and bat and go home. So passive-aggressive nose-thumbing is the order of the day until we grow up and learn what unity in the Body of Christ is all about now that almost 250 years have passed.
Why not?
1) She's not going to be a bishop with jurisdiction. She won't be at the Queen's Tea at Lambeth. She won't be making the hot and heavy decisions at House of Bishops meetings.
2) We already broke the mold with Gene Robinson. All told, this election was pretty much under the radar. No one is really surprised; there's no shock value, just grins on the left and head-shaking on the right.
3) It is a symptom of the larger problem of disunity that has largely existed since the inception of the Episcopal Church. This is a fact of history. After the Revolution, the Church of England was not really interested in keeping any formal connection with the colonial churches she birthed. It was only through the tireless efforts of people Samuel Seabury and Anglicans in Scotland that made it possible for us not to be Presbyterians, Congregationalists, or Methodists by default. Americans don't like being an equal (and never less important) partner. After the revolution, we ran our Church and kept our nose out of other national Churches' business as long as they left us alone. As the revivals of the 19th Century and new impetus for world missions was gaining momentum, we were in the front lines, heading up the charge--especially in Latin America and Asia. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, when ecumenical fever swept our hearts, we were leading the movement. Again, as the Church became more socially charged in its spirituality after the 1960s, we considered ourselves leaders, pioneers in justice. And that is what informs our actions--independence.
But the world is changing. Global Christianity's vibrant center is now in Africa and Southeast Asia, not the West. And we really aren't world leaders anymore, as developing nations have come into their own. So when ideas like the Covenant come along--an idea we aren't leading in or originating--we fold our arms and harrumph like the kid who normally gets picked first being passed over for the new neighborhood superstar. We want to take our ball and bat and go home. So passive-aggressive nose-thumbing is the order of the day until we grow up and learn what unity in the Body of Christ is all about now that almost 250 years have passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)