If you have not read it already, Frank M. Turner's essay at the Daily Episcopalian is quite good. Today, I gave a copy of it to Bishop Michael Smith of the Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota, when I attended part of his session for the School for Ministry at Christ Church Cathedral in New Orleans.
At its most banal, the Communion exists to justify bishops traveling about the world on funds contributed by the baptized. At its worst, it has come to represent an imagined community several of whose Episcopal spokespeople now seek to persecute and degrade or relegate into a second track churches who have opened themselves, their process of ordination, and their episcopate to gay and lesbian people. In this respect, it this ecclesiastical imagined community replicates in its drive to exclusion the persecution that ethnic minorities have experienced at the hands of dominant nationalist groups from the early nineteenth century to the present day.
In his recent garrulous meditation on the General Convention of the Episcopal Church the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote of the Anglican Communion being important to “our identity.” He did not identify the antecedent to “our.” Certainly throughout the world the people who most identify with the so-called Anglican Communion are bishops. If one looks to the website of the Anglican Communion (the Internet being the equivalent of the print media within which early nineteenth-century nationalism emerged), what are described as the “Instruments of Communion” overwhelming relate to the various episcopates. The laity play little role and would seem to be intended to play little role. In this respect, the modern so-called Anglican Communion is an invention and ecclesiastical innovation of the clerical imagination. Indeed the term “Anglican” itself achieved modest common currency only in the l830s with the phrase “Anglican Communion” being first used in l847 by the American missionary bishop, Horatio Southgate.
The essay is an excellent account of the history of the voyage of the Anglican Communion which counters the notion that it was the barque which always sailed smoothly.
With respect to the statement about the laity, Turner seems to be right, as witness this quote from a reflection by the Archbishop of Canterbury from 2006:
There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn't correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition - a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other.
What about the ministry of the laity? Not even a mention.
I suspect the ABC, like many bishops throughout the world, expects the laity to cough up the dough and do as they're told. The Baptized of TEC don't play that game no more. Thank Godde!
ReplyDeleteMimi, what a fine thing to do to take the essay to bishop Smith. TEC has come a long way in honoring the ministry of all the baptized, but lay people still suffer from clericalism in many churches, some of that is self-imposed wanting "Father" to do it all and some is the fault of clergy. Ever since our break the the CoE after the Revolution, lay persons (originally men) have had a role in governance and that, I'm sure has helped make us into the church we are. The CoE did not spread our model around the world. I read somewhere recently that our emphasis on renewing our baptismal covenant on a frequent basis is not the norm around the world.
ReplyDeleteSo.... How did the visit with Bishop Smith go? Hmmmm?
ReplyDeleteMike
Mike, the visit with the bishop went well. I'll write about it, but I want to take my time, and write with care, and get it right, because I know that Bishop Smith will read the post.
ReplyDeleteAmelia, Rowan rather consistently disregards the laity, IMHO. I believe that he still does not understand the polity of TEC, or that he just plain doesn't like it. If it's the latter, tant pis for him.
ReplyDeleteI was struck by the messy history of the entity which we call the Anglican Communion. It seems to me that the Covenant, rather than continuing tradition, takes us in an entirely new direction. In other words, it is radical.