The New (problematic) Ecclesiology of the Episcopal Church
I have remained rather quiet of late concerning the conflict in the Episcopal Church. Nevertheless, I will break my silence in light of the turmoil that seems to be building recently with the secession of a number of churches in Virginia and one in California, as well as the canonical moves in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Several of these situations touch me personally as friends and acquaintances are involved.
My purpose here is to remark on one aspect of what appears to be the emerging line from both the Presiding Bishop and diocesan bishops as well. In essence their point is that while individuals are free to leave congregations, congregations cannot. The tenor of these remarks hints at a new ecclesiology emerging in TEC, as the language points to more of a theological affirmation than merely a statement of legal ownership of property. The most recent example is to be found in the letter by Bishop Lamb, soon to be retired Diocesan of Northern California, as quoted by Brad Drell. Bishop Lamb writes concerning a departing parish in his diocese:
My problems with this line of thinking are several.
First, this has huge historical problems, with the potential of undermining the legitimacy of the Anglican Reformation. While I hope this does not sound flippant, are we saying that while one cannot take a congregation out of the existing ecclesiastical structure, it is alright to take entire realms out? How many times have I while in England or Wales have I worshipped in church buildings that were Catholic parishes? Should they be returned to Rome?
Frankly the congregations in Virginia and California have a better claim on leaving their current structures than did Henry VIII. These congregations made their decisions through popular consent, and what they have chosen was less to secede than to remain tied to a larger communion, thus reflecting a greater catholicity than their existing structures.
This is not to say that I believe that these decisions are not without involving ecclesiastical problems of their own. (For instance, are we free to choose our jurisdiction at will? Would this not be a form of congregationalism belying episcopal polity?) Nevertheless, the sentiments of Presiding Bishop Schori and, in this instance, Bishop Lamb are on shaky historical ground as normative Anglican ecclesiology.
My other difficulties are more significant and theological. It would seem that the understanding of the term “congregation” is coterminous with the parish as a legal entity. This would overthrow the biblical understanding of congregation as ekklesia, a spiritual union of the baptized. It belies our experience of our congregations as actual bodies defined by their worship, fellowship, and mission, rather than by who holds the deed to the building. There is a reductionism in the thought of Bishop Lamb and others employing this sort of argument.
But, it may be argued, the diocese, not the parish, is the basic unit of the church. Certainly that is what we learned in seminary. And I would tend to agree. However, we might also respond that, except for a few rare exceptions, we do not experience our ecclesial existence as diocesan, but rather as congregational. This does indicate that some aspects of catholic ecclesiology does not easily comport with facts on the ground.
When we place Katharine Jefferts Schori’s response to the move toward provincial realignment in the Diocese of San Joaquin into the context of the comments above on individuals and congregations, it would suggest that the basic unit of the church is actually the individual, rather than either the congregation or the diocese, while the most concrete expression of the church catholic is not the global Communion but the national church. Both diocese and parish exist as legal fictions within the concrete ecclesial realities of individual and provincial imperium. And if I am correct in this, TEC represents a fully modernist organization that is ill suited to survive into this new century.
It also means perhaps that we are the heirs of Henry VIII, in as much as we have actually become as sort of neo-Erastian entity, declaring independence from the larger integuments of communio and convening new Star Chambers to discipline recusants.
Ultimately, ecclesiology in the Episcopal Church has entered into a significant moment of crisis. The new ecclesiastical maneuverings required to justify legal actions against congregations and parishes have the unintended consequence of rendering our ecclesiology either incoherent or as the metastasis of a modernist power play. Neither option seems particularly pleasant.
My purpose here is to remark on one aspect of what appears to be the emerging line from both the Presiding Bishop and diocesan bishops as well. In essence their point is that while individuals are free to leave congregations, congregations cannot. The tenor of these remarks hints at a new ecclesiology emerging in TEC, as the language points to more of a theological affirmation than merely a statement of legal ownership of property. The most recent example is to be found in the letter by Bishop Lamb, soon to be retired Diocesan of Northern California, as quoted by Brad Drell. Bishop Lamb writes concerning a departing parish in his diocese:
Inasmuch as I, too, left a church home in 1971, I know the angst of this moment
for David Miller and others in the congregation. I believe individuals have a
right to make such changes as they feel necessary for their spiritual life. I
don’t believe it is appropriate for anyone to try to take a congregation with
them when they make such a change.
My problems with this line of thinking are several.
First, this has huge historical problems, with the potential of undermining the legitimacy of the Anglican Reformation. While I hope this does not sound flippant, are we saying that while one cannot take a congregation out of the existing ecclesiastical structure, it is alright to take entire realms out? How many times have I while in England or Wales have I worshipped in church buildings that were Catholic parishes? Should they be returned to Rome?
Frankly the congregations in Virginia and California have a better claim on leaving their current structures than did Henry VIII. These congregations made their decisions through popular consent, and what they have chosen was less to secede than to remain tied to a larger communion, thus reflecting a greater catholicity than their existing structures.
This is not to say that I believe that these decisions are not without involving ecclesiastical problems of their own. (For instance, are we free to choose our jurisdiction at will? Would this not be a form of congregationalism belying episcopal polity?) Nevertheless, the sentiments of Presiding Bishop Schori and, in this instance, Bishop Lamb are on shaky historical ground as normative Anglican ecclesiology.
My other difficulties are more significant and theological. It would seem that the understanding of the term “congregation” is coterminous with the parish as a legal entity. This would overthrow the biblical understanding of congregation as ekklesia, a spiritual union of the baptized. It belies our experience of our congregations as actual bodies defined by their worship, fellowship, and mission, rather than by who holds the deed to the building. There is a reductionism in the thought of Bishop Lamb and others employing this sort of argument.
But, it may be argued, the diocese, not the parish, is the basic unit of the church. Certainly that is what we learned in seminary. And I would tend to agree. However, we might also respond that, except for a few rare exceptions, we do not experience our ecclesial existence as diocesan, but rather as congregational. This does indicate that some aspects of catholic ecclesiology does not easily comport with facts on the ground.
When we place Katharine Jefferts Schori’s response to the move toward provincial realignment in the Diocese of San Joaquin into the context of the comments above on individuals and congregations, it would suggest that the basic unit of the church is actually the individual, rather than either the congregation or the diocese, while the most concrete expression of the church catholic is not the global Communion but the national church. Both diocese and parish exist as legal fictions within the concrete ecclesial realities of individual and provincial imperium. And if I am correct in this, TEC represents a fully modernist organization that is ill suited to survive into this new century.
It also means perhaps that we are the heirs of Henry VIII, in as much as we have actually become as sort of neo-Erastian entity, declaring independence from the larger integuments of communio and convening new Star Chambers to discipline recusants.
Ultimately, ecclesiology in the Episcopal Church has entered into a significant moment of crisis. The new ecclesiastical maneuverings required to justify legal actions against congregations and parishes have the unintended consequence of rendering our ecclesiology either incoherent or as the metastasis of a modernist power play. Neither option seems particularly pleasant.
posted by peregrinator at 1:25 PM
2 comments
