Commentary
By Canon Gary L'Hommedieu
www.virtueonline.org
6/7/09
"Master, it is good that we are here. Shall we build three booths?"
Thus began the keynote address by The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman at the Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, Virginia, sometime in the early 90s. The title of the conference was something like "Catholic, Charismatic, Evangelical: Three Streams, One Faith." I don't recall the details of the conference other than a splendid time was had by all. What I remember vividly is Bishop Ackerman delivering this line in his typically warm, lighthearted manner and bringing the house down.
The conference was organized partly as a celebration of the "genius of Anglicanism", a now classic phrase to denote the most celebrated characteristic of the Churches of the Anglican Communion. In a nutshell, Anglicanism has historically combined in a magnificent chemistry the three dominant streams of all Christendom: the evangelical, the catholic, and the pentecostal or charismatic.
The conference also functioned as a rallying point for the streams of conservatism within the Episcopal Church, now rent asunder by a revisionist party that, while not yet a clear majority, was certainly not going away any time soon. The "three streams" were a political coalition in formation against a common adversary.
There was another problem that was not going away any time soon, but it could be put off as long as the present battle united the members of the new coalition.
The conference in Fairfax touched indirectly on this future problem, which did not yet have a name. On the (hugely) positive side we had the "genius" of Anglicanism with its historic streams. On the flipside of that coin is what I call the "problem of Anglicanism": while we are (at least) three things, what one thing are we? Are we any one thing--that is, are we anything? And to what extent is the present lack of clarity really a problem?
I have made jokes about wearing all the hats available to a cleric in the Episcopal Church, so that when I cross a room I have to glance in the mirror to see which one I'm wearing at the moment. What crypt have I crawled out of: the crypto-Roman or the crypto-Orthodox? Am I a born-again evangelical with non-denominational leanings, or a radical social critic, exposing whichever status quo I'm personally distancing myself from at the moment? (Excuse me while I lay hands on this sick person over here and pray in a funny language.) Am I perhaps just the classic low-churchman I was as a boy, before I discovered the magic wardrobe full of ecclesiastical hats in a post-modern seminary?
Don't say "You're just an American Christian." While I know that's true, and I sense the power of the generic truth, the fact remains that every American Christian has an ecclesiastical address. If he doesn't, he's like a hand with no body. That is, he's really nobody.
Today's Episcopalian is a chameleon. He draws his "color" from his immediate surroundings. As those surroundings change, so do the markings that identify him. He can be a tongue talker one day and say the Rosary the next (if not later the same day, or in between prayers). He can switch between the protestant celebration of the Lord's Supper, the solemn chant of the mass with genuflections and invocations of the saints, and a folk music setting of the Rite III Eucharist on the beach.
He can insist that his branch of the church includes all three. Contrariwise, he can choose to be a partisan and shoot at someone across the aisle over one of the classic Reformation issues like transubstantiation or baptismal grace.
The 1979 Prayer Book is designed for Epischameleons. It is not a rule--a "canon"--so much as a broad set of parameters. It presupposes the Universal Church to be something like an audio-visual closet with resources for creating religious happenings. If someone buys what you're selling, you're in business.
In case it sounds like I'm stacking up criticisms, think again. This is exactly what I like about the Episcopal Church.
28 years ago when I noticed that the opening of the Eucharist was a takeoff on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I went out and ordered three sets of Greek Orthodox vestments. It was early in my Anglo-Catholic days, and I was playing one of the classic Anglo-Catholic games--more high-church than thou. Even in a diocese that described itself historically as Anglo-Catholic, I won hands down. A year or so later I discovered the born-again movement, and it was time to play some different games.
Not every Episcopal cleric plays games like I did. At the time I didn't know it was a game, and I did not mean to play games with other people's lives as, regrettably, I often did. The fact is I found myself playing church for a living, and I was shocked.
I remember driving down Third Street in Rensselaer, New York, thinking about starting my own church in an attractive funeral home property that was presently for sale. It had the one thing my parish didn't have--a parking lot. I remember asking myself what I would call the new church that I would launch on this spacious property. Let's see, how about the Catholic Evangelical Orthodox Church?
Then it hit me, and I heard myself say out loud: "That's another name for Anglican."
Since then I have tried to leave the Episcopal Church three times--twice to Orthodoxy, and once to Rome. If I had stayed in Pennsylvania seven years ago I would very likely have moved to the Reformed Episcopal Church, because the bishop there was interested in me, whereas my own bishop was waiting for me to go away.
I have said in recent years that it is unlikely that I will retire as an Episcopalian, but that is not based on my criticism either of Episcopal revisionism or Epischameleonism. It's projecting forward seven to fourteen years and wondering whether there will be any place left to "play church" my way in TEC, given the present stated strategy of mopping up conservatives.
I am not interested in joining one of the new experiments under the name Anglican. ACNA is a crucial development in the advanced evolution of the Elizabethan Settlement and of the present American culture wars. But I will have to form a personal judgment on the merits of the Reformation before I jump into those waters, infested as some of them are with their own species of barracuda.
Here I come back to the problem of Anglicanism: I am not sure, after all is said and done, that it is anything. I don't say that with distaste or criticism. And while I mean Bishop Wantland no disrespect, I don't think that the recent draft Constitution of ACNA can stand a catholic reading regarding the "real presence", as he has optimistically suggested. More to the point, I don't believe the Articles of Religion can be read that way.
The Articles have been read that way in the past, but is this a careful or even an honest reading, or is it well intentioned wishful thinking? Is it not just old school comprehensiveness--compromising on essentials to avoid a fight? Is there something deeper that unites Anglicans, deeper than the old divide between catholic and evangelical-protestant? And if there is, does it have a name? I mean a real name--not something made up as an answer to a trick question, so we can avoid grappling with the question and maybe enjoy the rest of our meeting.
The question arises out of the history of the Anglican movement. With the ACNA Provincial Assembly in process and officially opening on June 22, it is a question whose time is coming fast.
History has recently revealed that there is in fact not a deeper substratum uniting liberal and conservative. There is only a temporary, or pretended, peace.
My chameleon metaphor has its limitations. Most Episcopalians do not switch their identities to avoid predators. They typically enjoy the sport of swapping hats, like I did. Many of the games associated with the traditional rivalries of high versus low, etc. are just good fun.
But it's still playing church. It is marketing a religious product. Games have their legitimate purpose and value, but the problem is the product is never exactly what it appears to be. Too many clergy have had the bitter experience of dealing with irate customers who found out years after the fact that they didn't know what they were buying, and now years later they thoroughly reject it. The unwritten truth about this is that none of us--buyers and sellers alike--want to be too clear about our product. Clarity can jeopardize potential sales. All this talk about "diversity" is just part of the promotion.
TEC has been and now is a chameleon church, not because of Gene Robinson but because of Elizabeth I. Revisionism, which touched off the Anglican revolution in North America, found a natural place in the long history of the Elizabethan Settlement. That history will undoubtedly repeat itself in other places and in other movements. It is a theology of compromise, even on essentials, and its natural limits have been exposed in our lifetime.
It could be that Anglicanism as some one thing has not yet been born but is being born before our eyes. "Anglican" might be the wrong name for it, though it will certainly be kept for convenience. This time it won't just be born while people passively look on. An historical consciousness has come into being, for better and for worse, and it is possible now to influence the future development of the worldwide Anglican movement.
The point is, give it a name. Not the organization, but the ground underneath it. Don't fudge on the Articles or anything else. What is the principle that unites the various parts? This is not a time for politics--fudging on principle for the sake of something else. ACNA is not forming a party that will need to compete with some other party, where it's time to build a workable coalition of former adversaries. It's not Stalin and Churchill anymore, who have to put aside their own antagonisms in order to focus on a common enemy.
It's daytime, show time, peace time. American Anglicans have survived the war. Can they survive the peace?
---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.
No comments:
Post a Comment