Category Archives: Anglican

The Work of the Church

Posted on by
Reply

The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion continue to be in the news and in the blogsphere. Last week, Mark Lawrence did not receive the number of consents required from Diocesan Standing Committees for his consecration as Bishop of South Carolina (“the lower diocese”) to go forward. He needed 57, apparently he fell short by one. This week, the bishops are meeting at Camp Allen in Texas, where they will be discussing their response to the Primates’ communique. Our bishop has made a preliminary statement about that meeting which can be seen here. Meanwhile, there was an article in today’s New York Times about the financial importance of the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Communion. We bankroll approximately 30% of the Anglican Communion’s budget, and of course contribute mightily to relief and development efforts all over the world, including in many places where bishops and primates claim not to be in communion with us. Only one of those provinces refuses to take money from Episcopal Relief and Development. The article is here but you need to register to read it. The authors of the article make clear that in spite of the conflicts within the Anglican Communion, there has been no effort on the part of the Episcopal Church to hold back funding either for Anglican Communion offices or from the very important relief and development work that is taking place.

So the work of the church goes on. There have been scattered reports of African dioceses severing ties with individual dioceses in the American Church, sometimes with devastating results for the programs that have been receiving financial and other support. But it seems to be the case that whatever the politics, the money keeps flowing. The theological consistency and political wisdom of this may yet come under scrutiny.

Last night at St. James, we had a presentation from an employee of “Homes of Hope,” an organization in Greenville that rehabs mobile homes and houses, and builds houses for low-income people. The work is done by men who are slowly putting their lives back together. Most of them are recovering addicts or alcoholics who are receiving vocational training as well as a support system as they turn their lives around. It’s an amazing story and program and I hope that St. James can find a way to participate. For more information, you may speak with our parishioner Gale Garner, who is employed there or access their website here.

As the dust begins to settle …

Posted on by
Reply

In the adult forum on February 18, I said that we still did not know the outcome of the Primates’ Meeting. Today, the dust still has not settled. There is plenty of spin to go around, lots of people making statements, but from what I can tell, very little has actually changed. There are, however, some ominous signs.

Of the things we do know, the sub-group given the task of assessing the response of the Episcopal Church to the Windsor Report gave a largely favorable report. The sub-group stated that the Episcopal Church had taken Windsor seriously and had responded positively to Windsor’s recommendations to express regrets for its actions at General Convention 2003 and to refrain from consenting to the election of bishops in same-sex relationships. The one area in which the sub-group expressed concern was in the blessing of same-sex relationships. You can read the full report here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/25/acns4249.cfm

We also know that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts-Schori was “in the room.” There was considerable discussion before the meeting that conservative Primates would refuse to meet with her. That did not happen. Instead, she participated fully in the meetings and in the end was elected to the Standing Committee of the Primates. Some of the Primates did refuse to take communion with the rest of the group.

On the last day of their meeting, after lengthy delays, the Primates produced a Communique which can be read here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4253.cfm

It makes fascinating reading because it is clear from the document that the Primates agreed on very little with regard to the Episcopal Church. At the end of that document appears a schedule of recommendations. The one that has received the most attention is the recommendation that the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church agree to refuse to authorize same-sex blessings by September 30, 2007.

Finally, there was the publication of a draft Covenant for the Anglican Communion. You can read it here:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/42/50/acns4252.cfm

What does it all mean? Who knows? It is quite clear by now that few people are happy with the results. Conservatives did not get everything they wanted; liberals are distressed by the Presiding Bishop’s willingness to sign off on the communiqué. By and large, we are where we were before the Primates Meeting: a fractured communion, a fractured church. There are deep divisions in our church over sexuality, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there are also deep divisions over theology and over polity—how we structure the church. It is that question that most troubles me. The Primates and many other Anglican provinces, and indeed, many Episcopalians seem not to understand how the Episcopal Church is organized. We are not ruled by a Primate; we are governed by General Convention. Only the national church, representatives of laity, clergy, and bishops, meeting together, can decide matters of doctrine, worship, and discipline. A promise made by our House of Bishops does not have the force of law. It is roughly equivalent to a non-binding resolution passed by the U.S. Senate.

The structure of our church is not simply historical accident, although it was shaped by the same people who were involved in the framing of the U.S. Constitution. It reflects a deep theological commitment to the ministry of all the baptized. We are all members of the church, whether we are bishops, priests or deacons, or laypeople. We all bear responsibility for its vitality, its faithfulness, and its future. To place all responsibility for the life of the church in its bishops, or its Primates, is to infantilize, indeed, to dehumanize all of those baptized members who are created in the image of God. Democracy may be a messy way to run a nation or a church but the alternative, as we have seen in the past, leads inevitably to despotism and tyranny.

Fr. Jonathan

Reflections on Eucharistic Sharing

Posted on by
2

Reflections on Eucharistic Sharing

One of the biggest stories to come out of the Primates’ Meeting in Tanzania last week was the news that a number of the primates refused to receive communion at the Eucharist in the presence of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefforts-Schori. In a statement signed by seven archbishops, they defended their refusal to share with two arguments: first, that the New Testament teaches that before sitting at table with one another, we must be reconciled (referring to Matthew 5: 23-26 and I Corinthians 11: 27-29); and second, by quoting the Book of Common Prayer’s Exhortation to Communion which includes the statement “Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith.”

There had been much speculation about this in the weeks leading up to the Primates’ Meeting, in part because it became known after their last meeting in 2005 that almost a third of the Primates refused to participate in joint Eucharists. We do not know yet how many withdrew from this expression of unity in Dar es Salaam, but it seems to be the case that the number this year is far fewer. Their actions are a reminder that Christian unity is a fragile thing and that it founders, not only on grave matters of doctrine and practice, but also on much more human faults—pride and self-righteousness.

My understanding of the Eucharist has taken shape over the years, beginning with my experience growing up in the Mennonite Church, where, when I was a boy, communion was used as a tool of discipline. One of my earliest memories as a baptized member of the church was the members’ meeting held several days before our semi-annual celebration of communion. I remember vividly how the clergy cited the roll of those who would be excluded from communion, excluded from membership because of their sins. Several years later, I remember as well how one elderly man would demonstratively leave the church service before the beginning of communion to make clear his conviction that our church was no longer the pure bride of Christ it needed to be.

Those members’ meetings lost their force over the years of my membership in that church, but they continued to hold power over my imagination and over the imaginations of much older members. I recall going through minutes of members’ meetings from early in the twentieth century with my aunts. We were amused by the infractions which led to excommunication—attendance at the County Fair was among the most grievous sins. But we were most surprised to see, in the report from one meeting in the 1910’s mention that my grandfather had been reinstated into full communion, though his infraction was not specified.

One of the reasons I became an Episcopalian was because I found in the celebration of the Eucharist, in the reception of Christ’s Body and Blood, a symbol of God’s gracious acceptance of me, a sinner. The words of the Confession, the Priest’s absolution, and our approach to the altar, is potent evidence of the power of God’s grace to overcome our sins, and to overcome our broken-ness as a community.

A few weeks ago, a Catholic visitor to St. James asked whether he needed to make his confession before participating in the Eucharistic celebration. I responded to him with a resounding “Maybe”—maybe, if his personal spiritual journey required that step. But I also said to him that the Eucharistic table was not our table, it is our Lord’s, and just as Jesus ate with sinners in his own lifetime, we come to the table, all of us, as sinners, all of us needing God’s grace. To deny access to the grace of the Eucharist for any reason, is to deny the power of repentance and to deny the power of God’s grace to make of each of us, each day, a new creation.

Fr. Jonathan