Anne Rice's recent denunciation of the Church has brought to the fore, once again, Western culture's disaffection with organized religion. Any quick Google search on the effects of organized religion will produce a plethora of negative, even vindictive sites to wade through. And I will be the first to lament the tragic associations of religion with all sorts of vile evils throughout history.
Yet, there is an odd hubris in Rice's actions, and many others' like hers. In the quest for a pure spirituality, "organized religion" is cast away, as though the problem is an impersonal structural impediment. Yet the difficulty is not that religions have structure, teaching, norms of practice, rules, and so on. All collective human endeavors have those marks.
The real difficulty is that, even the most saintly of us, struggles with a broken human nature addicted to the tendency to sin. Ms. Rice's attack on the perceived injustices within the Church of her recent rejection ends up becoming an attack upon her own self. Is she so pure that she is immune to the inclination to think, feel, and do things contrary to God's will? This is not a criticism but a concern--for there is not a human being on this planet who can make such a claim.
The best spiritual practices always have a communal/corporate dimension to them. We need each other. And as a followers of Jesus, who placed top priority on loving God and neighbor, Rice cannot easily dodge the importance of having companions on any pilgrimage. Alas, that is where the proposition to discard "organized religion" breaks down. Because when we get together to share, worship, pray, serve, think, create, and mark milestones we do so after an inherited or improvised order. We develop structures, basic agreed upon teachings and wise practices, appoint leaders who are responsible for various aspects of the spiritual community's life. Thus, our sins become amplified through these necessary communal structures--yet, so does the good that results.
I could make all sorts of other arguments to defend the necessity of organized religion, but at its most simple is the proposition that "no man (or woman) is an island" (Donne). And while it can be the case that "hell is other people" (Sartre), Jesus does not give us the option to love only God. We need to love other people, too. And it is impossible to love without a community in which that love can be put into practice.
8/10/2010
5/17/2010
Glasspool Happened, and No Apocalypse Yet
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)