I appreciate people's basic endorsement of my observations from history that there was no original intention to create an Anglican Communion, and that the Communion didn't begin to take shape until Lambeth 1 in the early 19th century. I do note that people sometimes do not address the fact that the contemporary manifestation of the Anglican Communion is extremely new, dating to the establishment of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1968.
The faults I can find in some people's remarks include their assertion that my position is that ECUSA now TEC has "never sought to sustain a relationship with the Church of England." I agree with them that if this has been my assertion, then I would indeed be wrong. The fact is, however, I do not make this assertion. My point is that a drive to submit this Church, its autonomous and autocephelous polity, to England or to a formalized covenant has never been a characteristic of what it is to be Episcopalian or Anglican.
History demonstrates that the driving concern for this Church was to sustain the apostolic succession of its orders, and thus its ministry. Some infer from my observation of this fact that I am contending that ECUSA has somehow nursed an animosity to the Church of England, which they then seek to disprove. Again, this is not my position. The relationship between TEC and the CoC is well esteemed among many in the States, especially among the anglophiles of the Church. My point in observing the facts of our history is that this relationship has never been the definition of our identity. My contention is that shouldn't become so now.
Some imply also that I somehow insist that "covenantal thinking" has not been a part of Episcopalian and Church oft England practice. I note again that my point is to observe the fact of history that neither the Church of England, nor the Episcopal Church, nor any other autonomous autocephelous member Church of the Anglican Communion has ever had a 'covenant' beyond the Creeds of the Church catholic. Indeed, I would further here suggest that adopting a covenant beyond the creeds ends the legitimacy of the claim of any of the Communion's Churches to be truly catholic.
I'm aware that some struggle with the confusion of terms around what it means to be a diocese, an Episcopalian, and an Anglican. I sympathize with this. But surely the difficulties of of any of these situations are not resolved through the loose juxtaposition of important terms. "Covenantal thinking," a term that does not occur in any of my original remarks, is one thing. An "Anglican Covenant" is something completely and massively different. To gloss over these distinctions has consequences that are dramatic, ones to which we should pay especially close attention.
Finally, please know that I have not, as some have implied, asserted "that a high view of bishops and primates can be seen only as making the former 'dictatorial headmasters of an infantilized laity.'" I don't address 'a high view of bishops' at all. I do most certainly make this claim for the proposed Anglican Covenant. I further suggest here that the proposed covenant has nothing at all in common with a traditionally Anglican 'high view of bishops and primates.' Rather, I suggest that the proposed covenant establishes an authority and power for primates and bishops that sharply reduces the determinative participation by laity and clergy in the polity of the Churches of the Communion.
I encourage people simply to read the thing, and let it speak for itself. Then, I suggest, they might ask themselves, When has a "high view of bishops and primates" ever included trans-geograhpic jurisdiction? My point is that Anglicanism has never favored such a thing in the past, and my contention is that this proposed covenant would so dramatically alter the polity of what is it is to be constituent of the Communion that it would end the unique gift that Anglicanism alone can yet offer to the wider fellowship of Christians and to the world. In addition, it would end the autonomy and autocephaly of any Church that chooses to remain 'constituent.' And, again, it would end for any such Church its legitimacy in claiming to be catholic.
I note that many a commentary on the affection of some in the American Church for the Church of England does not attempt to refute any of this. In fact, I have found nothing there that contradicts the substance of my observations. Historically TEC has never chosen fealty to England over its own autonomy in perpetuating its apostolic continuity and ministry. For this, I'm grateful. I share with all an interest in the health and integrity of our Church.
Jim +
The Rev. James V. Stockton
Priest, Diocese of Texas
The Episcopal Church of the Resurrection
Austin, Texas 78757
jstockton@sbcglobal.net
No comments:
Post a Comment