Why so little discussion of Lambeth?

[Tim Mathis]

A friend on Anglican, whether you like it or not on Facebook recently posted a question about the relevance of Lambeth, and the way it's being discussed internationally. It's been a curiosity for me why there's almost no discussion of Lambeth on this particular Anglimergent.ning network. I'm inclined to think that either a) it isn't seen as particularly relevant to those of a missional persuasion or b) we're trying to get along, so no one wants to broach the topic (how very Anglican). Thoughts?

[Tim Mathis]

I've often wondered if Anglicanism (or Christianity) could continue as a viable religious system sans 'institutional structure'. There's a strong anti-gov't bent in my own protestant, revolutionary American culture that I think contributes to that question, but the discussion of institutional cost vs. benefit seems to come up quite often at this time of Church decline where resources are limited and culture seems to be shifting towards post-christian, even in America. It's been a common thread on this site, anyway.

At a very basic level, I've come to the conclusion that there's something spiritually valuable (essential?) about institutional Anglicanism, which is why I think we should care about Lambeth. The ecumenist and catholic side of me keeps coming back to the idea that the institution is the skeleton of the body--a sort of physical attempt to work out the spiritual reality of unity through use of iconic figures, conferences, etc. At some level I can even buy in to the authority structure, with leaders (ideally) representing the voice of the community and individuals having to figure out how to live within that community. (Though honestly the Episcopal authority structure is thoroughly un-21st century American, and we really don't know how to cope with the shifts that are happening here. There's a strong, palpable uneasiness in the relationship between laity and clergy, and it really isn't working for either group. Laity simultaneously and inherently love and distrust their leaders at a parish and diocesan level, and leaders seem to have a really difficult time determining how their authority works in the context of their expected accountability to the community. I've experienced all of those things personally as both a leader and a ministry-discerner.)

That, of course, isn't the point though. It's the life-crushing scale of things and the seeming misallocation of resources that keeps bringing this issue up. In some ways it's analogous to the building issue--while few people would dispute that it's helpful for a parish to have a gathering space, there's a point at which you need to recognize that the resource has become a hindrance and begin to reevaluate things. This is just one more difficult reality that we have to face if we want to 1) remain as a viable organization and 2) live out the principles that we say we espouse.