<\/p>\n
Like most Christians, I don’t pay attention to missives from Unless you’ve been sleeping in a cave, you are probably Despite that fact that the Episcopalians are bumpily And this leads us to the Pentecost pastoral letters.<\/p>\n While (somewhat ironically) attending a conference in In response, Katharine Jefferts Schori essentially, but in a This is not a conservative\/liberal argument (both Rowan Rowan Williams’ letter articulates “top-down Anglicanism,” a Katharine Jefferts Schori’s letter speaks for “bottom-up As history unfolded, different cultures have picked up on At its best, Anglicanism manages the polarities between these But once every few hundred years, the tensions explode. <\/span>This is one of those times. <\/span><\/p>\n The argument isn’t really about gay and lesbian people nor Set in this frame, this isn’t just an Anglican For what it is worth, the river of history does not seem to Despite their smack down, I think that Rowan Williams and As for me, I kinda like this American Episcopal river Like most Christians, I don’t pay attention to missives from church leaders. This week, however, dueling pastoral letters issued for Pentecost from Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, and Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, caught my attention–because one so rarely witnesses a first-class theological smack down between tea-drinking Anglican…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,3,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-christianity","category-history-and-theology","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nchurch leaders. <\/span>This week,
\nhowever, dueling pastoral letters issued for Pentecost from Rowan Williams<\/a>, the Anglican Archbishop
\nof Canterbury, and Katharine Jefferts Schori<\/a>, the Presiding Bishop of the
\nEpiscopal Church, caught my attention–because one so rarely witnesses a first-class
\ntheological smack down between tea-drinking Anglican primates. <\/span><\/p>\n
\naware that the Episcopal Church (of which I am a member) has been arguing about
\nthe role of LGBT persons in the church.
\n<\/span>Along with the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church has opened
\nitself toward full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians. <\/span>Here in North America, this has caused
\nsome defections (fewer than at first predicted), some legal suits (most have
\nbeen settled in favor of the Episcopal Church), monetary fallout (hard to
\nseparate from general economic downturn), and bad feelings (which, sadly
\nenough, remain). <\/span>But what is most
\nsurprising–and I regularly hear this from bishops, clergy, and congregational
\nlay leaders–is that things are much less tense in the Episcopal Church now than
\nthey have been in recent years. <\/span>Folks
\nare moving ahead in their local parishes doing the sorts of things that Episcopalians
\nare pretty good at doing–creating beautiful worship, praying together, and
\nfeeding hungry people.<\/p>\n
\njourneying into a renewed future, some other Anglicans–mostly in Africa–are
\npretty mad that we’ve included our gay and lesbian friends and relatives in our
\nchurches. <\/span>Large communities of Anglicans in places like Uganda (the same Uganda that recently tried to pass a death-penalty
\nlaw for gay people) and Malawi (the same Malawi that recently sentenced a gay
\ncouple who wanted to marry to 14-years hard labor) are
\nseriously unhappy with American Episcopalians and Canadian Anglicans.<\/p>\n
\nWashington, DC entitled “Building Bridges,” Rowan Williams sent out his
\nPentecost letter to Anglicans worldwide which, after saying a lot of nice
\nthings about missions and diversity, pulls rank and proclaims that he’s going
\nto kick people off important committees whose national churches have violated a
\ncontroversial document called the Anglican Covenant. <\/span>This includes the Canadians (who let gay Christians get
\nmarried) and the Americans (who recently ordained a lesbian bishop in Los
\nAngeles) and some Africans (who ordained some Americans who were splitting
\nchurches in places like Virginia and Pennsylvania). <\/span><\/p>\n
\nnice sort of Anglican way, accused Williams of being a theological dictator–or,
\nas she says in understated fashion, “Unitary control does not characterize
\nAnglicanism.” <\/span>For non-Anglicans,
\ntrust me, those are fightin’ words. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nWilliams and Katharine Jefferts Schori are theologically liberal). This is a
\nfight between rival versions of Anglicanism–a quarrel extending to the
\nbeginning of Anglicanism that has replayed itself periodically through the
\ncenturies down to our own time.<\/p>\n
\nversion of the faith that is hierarchical, bishop-centered, concerned with
\norganizational control, and authoritarian. <\/span>It is an old vision that vests the identity of the church in
\na chain of authority in the hands of ecclesiastical guardians who agree on “a coherent
\nAnglican identity” and then enforce the boundaries of that identity through legal
\nmeans. <\/span>This version of Anglicanism
\nstretches back through the Middle Ages and relates to similar forms of
\nChristianity as found in Roman Catholicism and some forms of Eastern Orthodoxy.<\/p>\n
\nAnglicanism,” a version of the faith that is democratic, parish-based, mission-oriented,
\nand (even) revolutionary. <\/span>It is
\nalso an old vision, one that vests the identity of the church in local
\ncommunities of Anglicans at prayer, who adapt their way of life and liturgy
\naccording to the needs of Christian mission. <\/span>This version of Anglicanism is rooted in both the ancient
\nCeltic traditions of English Christianity and the missionary work of St.
\nAugustine of Canterbury circa 600. <\/span><\/p>\n
\none or the other of these two streams–for example, the British church remains
\nprimarily hierarchical (even referring to their bishops as “My Lord Bishop”);
\nwhile the American church is primarily democratic (“God alone is the Lord”). <\/span>The Ugandan church is authoritarian;
\nwhile the South African church is revolutionary. <\/span>The Anglicans in Sydney, Australia are boundary-oriented and
\ncommunally closed; while most other Anglicans in Australia are
\nliturgically-oriented and open (the Anglicans in Darwin, Australia are so open
\nthat their cathedral doesn’t even have walls).<\/p>\n
\ntensions–often creating locally innovative expressions of a church that is both <\/i>hierarchical and democratic, bishop
\nand parish centered, bounded and liturgically open at the same time. <\/span>Over the centuries, this has been
\ncalled the Anglican art of comprehension, or the via media <\/i>(the “middle way”).<\/p>\n
\nis it about, as some people claim, the Bible or orthodoxy. <\/span>Rather, the argument reprises the
\noldest conflict within Anglicanism–What kind of Anglicans are we to be? <\/span>How do we relate to the world and
\nculture around us? <\/span>And very
\nspecifically now: <\/span>What kind of
\nAnglicans are we to be in the 21st<\/sup> century? <\/span>And how to we relate to the plurality
\nof cultures in which we find ourselves?<\/p>\n
\nargument. <\/span>Roman Catholics,
\nOrthodox Christians, Protestants of all sorts, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are
\nhaving the same arguments within their varying traditions and cultures. <\/span>What kind of religious faith are we to
\npractice in the 21st<\/sup> century?
\n<\/span>And how do we relate to the plurality of cultures in which we each find
\nourselves?<\/p>\n
\nbe on the side of hierarchical church control; rather, history seems to be
\nmoving in a the direction of what Thomas Friedman might call “flat
\nchurch.” <\/span>The tides are pulling
\nmost ecclesiastical boats toward bottom-up versions of faith. <\/span>Hierarchical church control is, as Harvey
\nCox argues in his book The Future of
\nFaith<\/i>, a “rearguard attempt to stem a more sweeping tidal change” toward a
\nnew experiential, inclusive, and liberationist view of God and faith.<\/p>\n
\nKatharine Jefferts Schori might actually agree on the fundamental questions of
\nidentity, mission, and 21st<\/sup> century change. <\/span>I also suspect that Rowan Williams
\nwould secretly find the “sweeping tidal change” more spiritually interesting
\nthan trying to keep the Anglican institutional ship afloat in the waters. <\/span>But he thinks that he’s in
\ncharge–and he’ll be captain of his Titanic until the last. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nraft. <\/span>Better for navigating strong
\ncurrents.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"