'We are Anglican and We are Many'

[Karen Ward]

A forum to explore the diversity of Anglicanism developing in North America (and other places with similar diversification) and how might we: - Develop an 'anabaptist/peace church ethos' re: other Anglicans (non-violent ways to meet and hold conversations around differences) - Learn from this diversity. - Love our own Anglican bodies without needing to trash 'other' Anglicans next door who uphold different practices than our own,- and Take baby steps in figuring out how to work together on the things we can (like the Five Marks of Mission of the Anglican Consultative Council).

[Karen Ward]

Okay, as i started this thread, so let me be the first to say something. - This topic is a rather rotund elephant in our North American Anglican room. This elephant is fat and sassy because we keep feeding it. I want to put it on a SlimFast diet, as it can't be chased out in short order, but it might be able to be 'de-tusked.'

I come to the Anglican realm after having grown up in the Lutheran communion and dis-communion, meaning I grew up in the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) and was ordained in the ELCA. If any one knows anything about Lutherans in North America, it involves a Payton Place history of separate ethnic groups, mergers, mergers of mergers splits of splits and an unending Lutheran alphabet soup... (ALC, AELC, LCA, LCMS, WELS, ELCA...) and now there is the 'Word Alone' network within the ELCA.

It seems now that Anglicans are beginning to rival their Lutheran cousins in the alphabet soup category in North America. This is unfortunate to say the least, as it is an acknowledgment that the 'one Anglican church per nation concept is no longer the reality in North America at present, and perhaps 'for ill and for good,' giving us a new paradox to wrestle with.

In my Lutheran days past, part of me was relieved that there were a 'diversity' of North American Lutheran tribes to relate to. - The tribe I grew up in raised me well in the faith, and schooled me well in parochial schools, but later when I felt a calling to ordained ministry this same tribe could not ordain me as a female. And because this calling was so strong in me, I ended up being adopted into the ELCA branch of the Lutheran family as they could welcome me to pursue such a calling. I recall at my ordination that a few folk from my home LCMS parish did manager to sneak into my ceremony, and I was glad to see them in the back pew... In all of this I learned to embrace my future without having to put down my past. I said to my former home church folks that I was grateful for LCMS giving me my roots and grateful for ELCA giving me my wings. I suppose this is why I'm not in any way afraid to live side by side with the new Anglican church down the road, as I've learned this from my Lutheran experince how to co-exist with LCMS... I still lament that division, but at it least is no longer bloody. It remains an elephant, but without tusks.

[Mark Dixon]

In his book "Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire," published in 1967, Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh coined the term 'engaged Buddhism' to indicate a practice of Buddhism more engaged with the world. Engaged Buddhists seek to respond tangibly to the suffering, injustice and need they see around them, in ways that are distinctively Buddhist.

In the same way, I imagine emerging Anglicans/Episcopalians becoming engaged Anglicans. An engaged Anglicanism informed by the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount and other of Jesus' teachings would likewise seek to respond to injustice, suffering and need in the world, in tangible and distinctively Anglican/Episcopalian ways.

I bring this up in this particular forum because such an 'engaged Anglicanism' could become a patch of common ground around which we can all gather, something important we agree upon despite our differences and diversity. We might not agree on everything, we may not even agree on much, but if we agree on a desire to become 'engaged Anglicans', that would be a starting point for building bridges.

[Stefani Schatz]

Karen, let me check if you are saying that the one church per continent is a "good" or "bad" thing or just the new reality?

In my mind, it's a good thing - I like the transnational alliances. Maybe the use of the word good is too simplistic granted; but we are all both part (ie the alphabet soups) of things as well as of many wholes - but I'm not sure I want them to be physically grounded and planted as much as the "higherups" in TEC want. Am I being too political here?

Making this more emergent, let me say I want to, (like you I think) reach out beyond the categories and boundaries and link up where those links can be found. And not deny others from doing it how / where they can as well.

[Karen Ward]

Hi Stefani, I meant to say that this 'Anglican alphabet soup' is a 'reality' currently in North America. Just today I looked at the 'Anglicans Online' website and saw dozens of Anglican groups in the 'continuing' mold, meaning they are Anglican in terms of their Bishop's succession being 'valid,' but they are not part of the Anglican communion (meaning they are not in communion with the see of Canterbury) and for a variety of reasons. Each of those 'continuing' bodies may be small, but they also are many. So I'm, wanting to view the present day Anglican wars in North America within this context.

A few things that are different in the USA currently, are that some of the brand new USA Anglican groups unlike the previous 'continuing' folk are direct splits from TEC' over the issues of interpretation of scripture re: the validity of ordaining Gay/Lesbian bishops and clergy, and in some cases the ordination of women. Then the second difference is that these new churches TEC departing groups are affiliating with 'global south' diocese.

I do not think it is good to have such Anglican dis-unity. I'm just saying it is real currently, so how do we work together in all this and develop relationships and have dialog that may lead to an 'reunion' someday. This structural reunion is not something to hold our collective breath over to be sure, but as God in Christ has made us 'all ministers of reconciliation,' we ought to keep trying to live into the reality of reconciliation that comes to us as a gift from God.

[Stefani Schatz]

Hi Karen, thanks for writing back.
Can you say more about not being "good" for Anglicans to have such dis-unity? Joe (my partner, the theologian and studying to be ecclesiologist) talk about this a lot : unity and dis-unity ... together and apart. I've come to think that what we may have is "different-unity".

I agree that holding our breath for a "reunion" is futile. We've got what we're given in the current situation. I also do not want a forced-together unity that a covenant would bring.

But I'm wondering what could it be like to be VERY loosely Anglicans. It makes sense to me in connection with all your "teaching" on going local/down to the zip code. Are these "splits" not going local? I would definitely not agree with their teachings but ask myself if I can honor them : is that the reconciliation of which you write?

I've not got this worked out but I'm not sure about reconciliation meaning re-union or can't mean a messy dis-unity that still holds some commonalities?

I'm very much in early stages of my thinking - and not entirely sure you and I are on the same "plane" (ie we're talking structures, right ? Ecclesiologies?) I'm thinking that how to get out of the political polarizations is very very tricky and difficult - and needs our talking about it. However I don't want to "take" your time if it's too "ops-related" for you. But I really appreciate what you have to say ...

peace to you, it's blustery cold in Manc today!

[Karen Ward]

Disunity is not good in any form, but it is much worse when it is violent and destructive... The existence of different Anglican church bodies is disunity with a smaller d, within one nation, but they disunity I am speaking of is more disunity with a capital D, meaning those in the different Anglican church bodies view and treat one another as in-valid. That is what i see happening in the communion, a need to affirm your Anglican identity by being against the identity of other Anglicans with different practices.

Unity in fullness, comes from God as a gift to us, as God is one, so we must keep seeking capital U unity through unifying actions towards one another, even if the unity will not mean organic re-union, but unity in love for one another as brothers and sisters that does not put stumbling block before those who would become Christian in our world. 'See how the Christians love one another... this is how people will know we are disciples.... What does the world know about Anglicans via these wars? I don't think the world will know we are disciples by our behavior. Both 'sides' think, the world will know we (and not those 'other' Anglicans) are 'orthodox' and 'righteous' and 'continuing' because we are (pro or con Gay and Lesbian Bishops or women priests...). - This is blindness of the highest order. What the world sees is that we are not showing love to one another in our behavior, which is an anti-witness to Christ. We will not be judged by God, finally for being doctrinally 'unorthodox', (as the parable of sheep and goats does not deal with our 'correct doctrine' our but Jesus imitating practice, without which doctrine is meaningless (just ask the Pharisees), but if we have not love for one another, we have nothing.

I'm trying to love other Anglicans, and get to know them on this list and in person, even if I do not share some of their doctrinal stances or practices. If they pray from the pattern of the BCP, then I can pray with them and work with them in areas of common cause.

On the other hand, there will always be those who elevate doctrinal correctness (their view ofcourse, being correct) above the shema and the greatest commandment of Jesus, and because of this will not pray with me (not very Anglican) or love and work with me (not very Christian). This to me is a denial of baptism and the God given dignity of all the baptized that our doctrine and practice (even if incorrect) can't take away.

[Steve Hollinghurst]

Karen
in a sense this problem is not surprising, the world out there in post-modernity tends to forms of tribalism, not surptising when this enters the church. but the rpoblem is we don't know how to handle it any more than the rest of thr world does.

there is a good side to this, diversity is i think positive, especially with regards to cross cultural mission. also it stops the tyranny of the majority tendancy

BUT as you righlty point out if diversity equals conflict it is not good. clealry the Coinrthian church ahd a simalr problem, hence Paul talking abotu the body of christ and hands not trying to disown feet. we need i think a renewed catholicism that takes Paul seriously so we we learn to live with difference in one body, not try and stamp out difference in that body. if we could do this it would not just be good for the chruch but for the whole of society.

[Fr. Greg]

Karen:

I very much agree with this post. One thing that made me pause, though, is the suggestion that the major disagreements currently ongoing within the provinces in communion with Canterbury is over practise, rathan that belief. I would be curious to know some of your thoughts further about this.

Like you, I do not have an issue with working with other Anglicans...including other Christians...that we are not officially in communion with. I believe the building of relationships, and working together to relieve the pain of those who are suffering, among others, are things that I am able to do without question. Yet, there is a deeper aspect of sacramental relationship which we are not able to share, and that does bring us profound sadness.

Fr. Greg
UECNA

[Fr. Greg]

Karen:

What you say here is an important insight. Those of us in the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions departed the TEC in the 1970's primarily over the issue of WO and the BCP. Of course, there were already major signs of disagreement over the authority of Scripture and Tradition that were becoming apparent, primarily from the days of Bishop Pike onwards. Since the 1970's there has been continued major disagreement between TEC and the Continuing Anglican jurisdictions over a number of issues. These problems have now spilled over into major disagreement and impaired communion between TEC and a number of other provinces in communion with Canterbury.

Within Continuing Anglicanism there has been further splintering. This splintering was not over doctrinal issues, but often had to do with personality issues. So, in separating ourselves from the sin of revisionism, we committed sin by allowing continue division amongst ourselves over non-essentials (adiaphora). May God have mercy upon us!

I agree that the emergence of this Anglican alphabet in North America is not a good thing. It brings me great sadness, though I understand the primary reasons why this exists. Thanks be to God that there is now intercommunion between the three primary Continuing Anglican jurisdictions (ACC, ACPK, UECNA). Our jurisdictions are once again working together, getting to know each other, bulidng relationships and bridges, and even discussing the possibility of eventually merging into one jurisdiction again. May God grant us the courage, strength, patience, and mercy to this end.

Fr. Greg
UECNA

[Tim Mathis]

Thanks for picking this discussion back up Greg. I think it's an important one, and timely post-Lambeth (and in the middle of the International Olympic Games).

I tend to view the splintering of denominations as an inevitable phenomenon--particularly in the US, where protest, revolution and individualism are part and parcel to our cultural heritage. (Since the Revolution, we've seen splitting off from community/pioneering our own path as a viable option in almost every case, and we do it with enthusiasm. Not that it doesn't happen elsewhere, as we all know.) I don't view this splintering as a positive thing, but I do think it's a human phenomenon that we're not going to be able to avoid entirely.

The divine phenomenon is community and communion, and I see a bit of that happening in conversation here. We might not be able to overcome our institutional divisions--and maybe we don't need to? Maybe community and cooperation are possible across divides? Maybe there are connections between people that are fundamental, and that outweigh our divisions? I don't think we need to downplay the seriousness of our divisions, or give up on trying to work them out. I just think we need to start from a different place, in recognition of our essential connections regardless of what divides us. Our hearts and intentions are, in my experience, always much more similar than we assume.

For a little bit of narrative evidence, I just got back from a youth mission trip where my middle of the road Episcopal congregation got together with Evangelical Baptists and Lutherans and traditionally Liberal Presbyterians to serve the community in San Francisco. When we were serving together, there was no talk of denominational or theological disagreement, beyond an expression of appreciation that those weren't the primary issues 'on the ground'. And none of my youth even mentioned Lambeth, which was happening concurrently with our trip.

Peace,
Tim

[Karen Ward]

It looks like 're-alignment' is starting to happen in th ACC (Anglican Church in Canada) with the largest parish seeking to depart the ACC.

These re-alignments are real. I posted on this on Our of UR blog a few weeks ago. What I want to see is a new missional, renewal in my own TEC and the ACC, rather than trying to hold on to parishes that feel compelled to embrace a different, more 'conservative' way of being Anglican than is the practice in the ACC.

[Karen Ward]

Hi Friends, blessed Good Friday. I am following with interest the formation of the new Province in North America... These are interesting time for Anglicans here. I am wondering why no one in TEC is talking about this here?

I am one who wants to discern gifts for us in all of this. There is much pain to be sure but even so there are also gifts. Disunity (if it divides us at Christ's table) is a huge problem in my view. I'm wondering about how the new Province will relate to us in TEC?. I'm hoping that if I show up in an ACNA parish to visit that I will be welcomed.

I recently took our confirmation class to St. Brendan the Navigator in Bellingham WA. A parish that I believe is becoming part of the new Province. Our class was welcomed. We stood with them at the table, and I'm hopeful such continues. We then went to St. Paul's Bellingham (Episcopal). We were also welcomed here and very warmly and we had a great conversation about outreach to younger generations with members of the parish who were very interested and heartened by all the young people at COTA wanting to become part of TEC via confirmation.

Our confirmands also were left wondering ... as they did not see that much difference between the parishes. They even sang some of the same hymns and used the same BCP.

Anyway, I want to learn from ACNA and I hope visa versa is the case. I am already receiving a gift, in that my commitment to evangelical outreach in TEC is only deepening and I see the need for this be a much higher priority. I also can see clearly that the progressive stance of TEC in some areas are something that I also hold dear and want us to give an account for, not based on political liberalism but on scripture, theology and our experience of the transformational love of Christ in this... I think TEC has a huge capacity for 'Generous Orthodoxy' (and Brian McLaren agrees). We need to really dig into this more in these days, and also learn from what is happening in ACNA.

Cheers

Anyone want to comment?