The Anglican Church: Secession and blurred lines of authority
An entire diocese has voted to secede from the Episcopal Church, unhappy with the liberal policies being pursued by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Schori has offered to appoint special bishops for these diocese, a form of quarantine, but that offer was rejected. Significant though, is that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Cantebury, has called these demands by the diocese for "alternative primatial oversight", that is, secession, an "interesting" idea.
Now we wait to see how Schori and the Episcopal heirarchy will respond to what could be seen as meddling by a British authority in an internal American church matter.
In an escalation of the pressure being applied by conservatives in the Episcopal Church, an entire diocese has voted to secede from the Episcopal Church:
An Episcopal diocese in California overwhelmingly passed a series of resolutions yesterday that position it to secede from the Episcopal Church and affiliate with conservatives in the global Anglican Communion.
If the Diocese of San Joaquin affirms the move in a second vote next year, the small diocese, with 48 parishes and 7,000 members, would be the first to try to break from the Episcopal Church, which has been torn by conflict since the consecration of a gay bishop in 2003. Until now, only individual parishes have severed ties.
"This is the separation," said Craig Petz, a lay delegate to the diocese's convention in Fresno, Calif., where the vote took place. "It's done. There's no equivocating."
The language is escalating along with the actions:
"There is a schism, and it's a sin," said the Rev. Rick Matters, a co-founder of Remain Episcopal, the caucus favoring unity. "To secede, we are like one of the Southern states that led to the Civil War."
Legal questions concerning ownership and control of diocese property have not been settled, and are likely to move this theological battle into the secular courts.
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, offered a "compromise" for those diocese that wish to have "alternate oversight":
Last week, before the vote, the church offered a compromise for "alternative primatial oversight" to the seven disaffected dioceses. After lengthy talks, a committee of bishops proposed that these dioceses could answer to a "primatial vicar," and not the presiding bishop, but that vicar would be appointed by and answerable to the presiding bishop.
These diocese want to be removed from the Episcopal Church, not to be quarantined within the Episcopal Church. Though Schori is not offering a way out, the Archbishop of Cantebury, Rowan Williams, has not ruled out the idea of alternative primatial oversight:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that he is "glad to see" that an Episcopal meeting in New York to consider the questions raised by requests for 'alternative primatial oversight' had produced imaginative proposals which represent, potentially, a very significant development.
Speaking on 1 December, the spiritual head of the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion, said: "I am glad to see these positive suggestions and shall be giving them careful consideration. I hope that they will mark a step forward in the long and difficult process of working out future relationships within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in a manner faithful to the gospel requirements of forbearance and generosity."
What is especially significant is that Williams remarks came only one day after Schori offered to appoint special bishops for these dissenting Episcoal diocese. The diocese asks to pull out of the Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church says, "No". The next day, the Archbishop of Cantebury says, "We'll see."
Are battle lines being drawn for a fight over the relationship between Lambeth Palace and the American Episcopal Church? Can a diocese refuse to acknowledge the authority of the Presiding Bishop? Can the Archbishop of Cantebury exercise that authority? Can Schori protest, and if she does, who wins that fight?
The Catholic Church is a heirarchy -- a fight like this can be moved up a level in authority for resolution. But the Anglican Communion is a collection of co-equal churches. It's hard to imagine any Anglican Church accepting meddling in its internal affairs by another church.
Especially the American Church accepting meddling by a British authority.
But then serious theological questions are at stake. The Anglican Church is going to have to face deciding between respect for church autonomy and maintaining theological integrity, even at the risk of a fight.
I'm not sure whether the Anglican Church will choose to fight over a question of faith.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Anglican Church Episcopal Church Rowan Williams Archbishop of Cantebury Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop Diocese of San Joaquin
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
The undoing of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church will be around exactly such an issue as this. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church is in a crisis of authority, ironically, the very thing which brought the Anglican/Episcopalian Church into existence because of Henry VIII's refusal to accept the Pope's authority.
As the old Presbyterian clergyman in the film "Chariots of Fire" pointed out--obviously not a point taken to heart by latter-day Protestant Churches--"the Kingdom of God is not a democracy."
The more the Anglican/Episcopalian Church sees itself as a democracy, having to placate its many different constituents, having to be "open" and "tolerant" to its constituents' many "diverse" lifestyles, the more fractured and unworkable it becomes.
As long as Anglicans/Episcopalians see themselves as religious consumers--some looking for "equality rights," others for the gay agenda, still others, for "Green Liturgies"--and not as servants of God, these schisms are going to continue.
The future of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church is not looking good: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Posted by: 'been around the block at December 3, 2006 02:42 PM
It's not only the Anglican churches bending to accommodate "alternates". Those "alternates" are not really into religion at all, just looking for notoriety to take on established religions in their attempts to gain acceptance and legitimacy in the mainstream society. It's part of their mission, the sickening fools!
It runs the gammit from taking rock music into the churches to performing same-sex marriages and blessing sodomy, going against the tenets of Christianity.
At present the pews are emptying, soon they will be totally empty.
The hierarchy of the churches are desperately trying to do the impossible by letting in these rogues they will only succeed in alienating the true believers further.
It's making a mockery of Christendom.
Posted by: Liz J at December 3, 2006 06:42 PM
In business terms the Anglican church has lost its brand. What makes an Anglican an Anglican? Who can say? This is sad but the fact that the "church" fathers (and mothers!) have trashed this identity themselves also makes present and former adherents mad at the vandals.
Posted by: carrscanary at December 3, 2006 07:10 PM
"Round the block", I believe you are exactly right.
No Church, or other organization that has fundamental precepts to protect, can operate as a democracy without subjecting them to the political vacillations of current opinion.
In recent years, competing opinions held with "religious" conviction (pun intended) are tearing the Anglican/Episcopalian Church apart for the sole reason that the Leadership has knowingly abandoned the doctrinal tenets on which their authority is founded, and given their people the impression, at least, that they can vote in what they want, and vote out what they don't.
If they had the courage of their convictions, they would understand that the people's democratic freedom to choose their favourite doctrines ends on the way in the front door.
Posted by: Scott Merrithew at December 3, 2006 10:30 PM
I was raised, baptised and confirmed in the Anglican Church and spent many happy years under its wing, with strong loving mentors, satisfying rituals and much friendship. As I entered young adulthood, my personal and professional development led me away from the Church and, when it came time to return, I found it didn't exist any more. For me, then, the journey became much longer, all the way back to Rome. It has been the same for many other ex-Anglicans of my generation.
Posted by: felis corpulentis at December 4, 2006 01:41 PM
A couple thoughts ... First regarding:
"Legal questions concerning ownership and control of diocese property have not been settled, and are likely to move this theological battle into the secular courts."
This is what rubs me about this story (and those like it). I applaud those willing to separate from a corrupt organization, but the secular courts should not be used as a tool ensure the separation happens the way they desire. I think Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians is especially relevant: "The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?" (1 Cor 6:7 NIV)
It seems rather than allowing themselves to be wronged for their just action, the modern philosophy of entitlements may take president.
Second, Liz (in the comments) equivocated the use of rock music with blessing sodomy. Here I do have to stand up for my church and those like it - I'd argue the use of a given medium and/or genre within the weekly worship service is not linked to the orthodoxy of said churches beliefs. In other words, the use of guitars or drums does not mean a church is pedalling some sort of seeker-sensitive, gospel-lite, or easy-grace message (or any other flavour of heresy for that matter).
Posted by: Denis at December 4, 2006 02:00 PM
Amazing how many important sounding words and concepts that can be generated by a bunch of myth-making bullshit artists who act like they're the ones who invented and hold the patent rights to the concept of good will between all humans...in exchange for 10% of all your action, of course....
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at December 6, 2006 09:43 AM
 
|
|
