ROOM: Toward a Synthesis of Communion-Minded & Federalist-Oriented Ecclesiologies
I have adopted Graham Kings' terminology in the title of this post from his article Reading and Reshaping the Anglican Communion, in which he divides the prevailing ecclesiological orientations in the Anglican Communion into four quadrants: Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives on the right, and Communion Liberals and Federal Liberals on the left. Graham's article puts forth some stimulating proposals on how to synthesize these quadrants across the quadrants. I would like to offer a few reflections applied to The Episcopal Church's polity.
The question I have been mulling over is: What works best about the federalist position? I am personally committed to the communion-minded position, so I have spent a lot of time in compare/contrast with the view to proving the superiority of my own position, of course. But now I'm beginning to think that the federalists are onto something. The place where they go wrong, I believe, is when they cross the line from healthy self-differentiation through federalist entities into formal institutional schismatic sects and splinter groups. From within those groups, however, much is healthy and dynamic--the problem is that their health does not fully benefit them or the Church Catholic because they have become divorced from the catholic whole. The trick is in carving out safe spaces within which particluar schools of doctrine and discipline may be rigorously maintained, and then to coordinate them with the other schools in such a way as to allow for a real and dynamic communion, even in the midst of conflict. Family Systems theory has influenced my view of this situation.
These sects and groups, by the way, include both liberal and conservative configurations. In a future series of posts, I hope to get into the specifics of how all of the advantages of the federalist approach may be maintained within a communion-minded framework. The result, as I've sketched out in part in my ROOMinations, will be messy, but not chaotic, as opposed to both chaotic and messy, as things stand now.
Posts
4 comments:
From within those groups, however, much is healthy and dynamic--the problem is that their health does not fully benefit them or the Church Catholic because they have become divorced from the catholic whole.
AMiA, CANA, Ugandan, Kenyan, Southern Cone churches would certainly disagree. In fact, they would say that you are connected to the Anglican Communion via a sickly branch with the most meager sap flow that is destined to be cut off and be thrown into the flames. There connection to the main vine is healthy and life giving.
Should be "their connection". It's 2:30 in the morning here in China. Should go back to bed.
Hi Robroy,
Hope things are well with you in China.
On reflection, my words about AMiA & Co. apply equally well to TEC. Whatever health TEC does enjoy doesn't benefit the catholic whole, either. That's the problem with schism--a sickness I am increasingly seeing that we all suffer from.
Indeed, I am reminded of that old phrase from the confession (cut from the 1979 US BCP), "...and there is no health in us."
Too true, too true.
Unfortunately, federalists now dominate both of the belligerent factions, and they are both behaving in ways that cannot be reconciled with a communion-based ecclesiology. More important, they are both creating structures based on their federal ecclesiologies, which will make it impossible for a principled communion-oriented Anglican to remain in either in the long run. Meanwhile, too many of the communion-oriented folks in the Mother Country are plotting their exit to Rome.
The federalists have already won, and they know it. Now the two federalist factions are just trying to out-maneuver each other to grab the spoils of the communion's disintegration.
Post a Comment