Anglican Divorce

An excellent and brief summary of TEC's divisions from the New York Times:

LAURIE GOODSTEIN

A Divide, and Maybe a Divorce

[Extract]

In many American churches, the divide on homosexuality is neither generational nor geographic, unlike the North/South split over slavery. Homosexuality is not the cause of the divide, just “the last straw,” said John L. Kater, a lecturer in Anglican Studies, at the Church

Divinity School of the Pacific, in Berkeley, Calif., a liberal-leaning seminary. The underlying differences are over the basic understanding of tradition and Scripture. The conservatives say they are something sacred and fixed, while the liberals say they can be open to interpretation and responsive to new information.

That approach has shaped their responses. The liberals insist that what defines Anglicanism is theological diversity, and the conservatives claim Anglicanism requires a commitment to doctrine. The liberals are saying, “Can’t we all just get along,” while the conservatives are saying, “Can’t we all just get in line?”

Hardly a Christian spectacle, the rivalry has been more like a log-rolling contest where the conservatives and the liberals are battling to push each other off a spinning log, while trying to make it look as if their adversaries voluntarily jumped. Now, with the ultimatum, the liberals may need a lot of deft footwork to stay on the log.

The branches break

We have come, I think, to the parting of Anglican ways.

The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) have declared: enough is enough. They refuse to allow unaccountable Primates to dictate terms; they refuse to countenance any longer the intrusion of other Bishops into their jurisdictions; they refuse the deal offered (or demanded) at Dar es Salaam; and they refuse to embed in TEC structures discrimination against people on the grounds of sexuality. [Thinking Anglicans, amongst others, has followed the story in detail.] It has to be said that the Bishop's statement still needs ratification in the American synodical process but it seems unlikely that this will not happen.

The first reaction is, I think, to give thanks to God. Conservatives and liberals are generally welcoming the end of prevarication, if for different reasons. LGCM has issued an exultant press release (can't see it on their site yet).

But it will take a while to see how things pan out in the global game of poker that our Primates are playing - using as chips the members of the Anglican Communion. (You can see this in the way the numbers of adherents are attributed to each Primate or group of Primates as though they all agree with their leader and the group with the biggest pile of members at the end of the game is the winner.)

It may be that TEC's stand - especially if supported vocally by other Provinces and Dioceses - will force the conservatives to retreat. Can the Anglican Communion claim unity if TEC is asked to leave? Can the international 'Instruments of Unity' survive without TEC's money? Will Canada, Scotland, Wales and others join them in saying 'if TEC is pushed out we go too'? If so, it is unlikely that the rest of the players will want to force everyone to show their hands.

Or, perhaps, it will work the other way. Perhaps the conservatives now scent victory. After all, TEC was given an ultimatum and they blinked first. From the conservative point of view TEC has now made explicit that it stands on the side of 'culture' and against biblical truth. They have revealed their hand and they held no high cards. Will the conservatives therefore force their exclusion from effective participation in the Anglican Communion? Will the conservatives in the US formalise their division from TEC, pending only law suits and financial settlements?

Either way the statement of the House of Bishops is likely to shift the politics significantly and, in my judgement, the chances of a formal split are now higher than before. For this I do not thank God: divisions in church structures and conflicts between Christians (and history is full of them) are inherently derogations from the unity that God seeks for us all.

I guess the CofE will try to stay friends with everyone - and may not be able to. Perhaps it will be time to choose which team it belongs to. On the other hand, knowing the CofE's infinite capacity for playing cards all through the night on the grounds that tomorrow is another day and you never know what that might bring, I think I'd be surprised.

TEC's stand may result in new options within the CofE. There is a growing prospect that conservative congregations might seek pastoral oversight from conservative bishops outside the CofE (as even the most reactionary flying bishop may be seen as tainted by association with the House of Bishops' stance on Civil Partnerships) . Perhaps TEC will offer a parallel possibility for liberal congregations. But I think this is improbable short of complete melt-down: congregations will find it hard to let go of parish churches and clergy will not relish eviction from their vicarages.

Nonetheless the ecclesiastical landscape has changed unexpectedly and the future is even less predictable than it was.

one heart and mind

I regularly use the phrase 'let us pray with one heart and mind' (it's in the prayer book I use).

And it's been worrying me.

As an aspiration I have no problem with it. It seems to me right, even a spiritual duty, that we should struggle towards personal integrity of life (body, mind and soul), and towards integrity of our life with the will and Spirit of God (always recognising that this is an unattainable goal, at least in this world).

But there is an edge of spiritual blackmail about the phrase when it comes to praying together. Does it mean, perhaps: 'I want all of you praying with me to agree with me.'?

Or does it mean: if we are not in agreement then our relationships with God, and hence these prayers, are all diminished?

I suspect the idea stems from the common-sense syllogism that:

1. We are all Christian believers;
2. God is one and undivided; therefore
3. All Christian believers should be united. (Disunity is prima facie evidence of a wrong relationship with God.)
   

But this is nonsense. From the New Testament on there has never been a time when Christians have not disagreed amongst themselves - we have never all sung from the same hymnsheet. As each person is unique, so too is their relationship with God and the words they use to articulate faith. Nor can God be contained in any box that human beings can specify. In Marilyn Adams' words (though I don't see this exact quote): God is so very, very big, and we are so very, very small.

In fact the desire for unity is a powerful force for division. The more that conservatives insist that ECUSA and the Anglican Communion must embody their agenda the more they destroy the faith they have inherited from the saints. Anglicans Online (always full of common sense) has this reflection on the notion that 'our church has been taken away from us'.

The desire for purity denies the generosity of God. The campaign for a narrow unity divides one Christian from another. The search for certainty becomes idolatry: we set up formulae to articulate an understanding of faith and end up making the words more important than openness to God.

Let us pray in the common cause of worship and service of God, bringing all our gifts, our conflicts, our uncertainties to our sharing together.

After all, just because we're Christian it doesn't mean we have to like one another.