Make a New Normal

Wishing It Doesn’t Make It So

English: Flag of the Anglican Communion, with ...

Whether or not you follow the politics of the Anglican Communion is probably related to whether or not you have a mental illness.  Nevertheless, my people have been engaged in a struggle that represents the very understanding of authority in the postmodern age.  Which is actually pretty cool, in that geeky sort-of-way.

Here’s my basic overview:

Since the 1960s or maybe even earlier, certain groups began planning to leave the Episcopal Church.  Some leave sporadically over the ensuing years, primarily over difference in theology and authority.  Then, in 2003, it all starts to happen.  Several bishops, dioceses, congregations, clergy, and individuals start making a claim of independence from the Episcopal Church taking several forms, eventually coallescing around two primary entities: ACNA (Anglican Church in North America) and AMiA (Anglican Mission in the Americas).  These two groups are sanctioned by overseas bishops.  The Episcopal Church and our northern neighbors, the Anglican Church of Canada, the dissident groups, and the overseas bishops are all scolded for their behavior.  Then, under continued pressure to further sanction the Episcopal Church, a scheme to write an Anglican Covenant is devised, which is playing out right now.

In actual practice, the only ones that have broken canon law of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) are these overseas bishops, who have attempted to set up parallel jurisdiction in North America, which is a real no-no.  It is also of no small consequence that these same entities (with help from schismatic Anglicans over here) claim justification for their law-breaking based on a supposed breaking of faith and community on the part of the Episcopal Church (TEC) and Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC).

This issue brings up a whole host of questions, but there are a few specific ones I am interested in.  And before I go any further, I am not interested in flame-throwing or discussion of heresy or liberal tyrrany or other such inequitable and offensive non-conversation.  Here they are:

  1. Do we really hold as equal the conjecture of assumed unspoken laws and the actual breaking of real ones?
  2. Shall our U.S. love for revolution balance with our love of imposed equilibrium?
  3. Shall a spirit of mercy and forgiveness influence our future? Or shall pure legalism?  Or shall brute force?

There is a wonderful conversation going on over at Mark Harris’ blog, Preludium, about a hypothetical arrangement in which a parallel system might happen.  What is most profound is Harris’ response that there is one really good reason that it won’t:

Because no Communion of Churches in its right mind will deliberately include a new member church that exist precisely because the new member Church believes an existing member church to be un-Christian, heretical and not truly Anglican. Because the Anglican Communion has some interest in being in its right mind, that is a communion in which scripture, reason and tradition all play a part in discernment, the Anglican Communion will avoid, if at all possible, doing something as blatantly stupid as inviting membership from a church already a break-away from a member body.

He gives a second reason, based on the legal foundation, but this one superbly declares the problem of being the one who breaks something, then seeking to be seen as equals, with that same maturity and authority.  This, of course, is the nature of spin.

All of this is related to a gigantic cultural question that has been baring down on us for most of the 20th Century.  It reared its ugly head in the 2000s and won’t leave us alone until we deal with it.  It is so massive, that we, like the proverbial elephant, find ourselves arguing over defining it, while only seeing its parts.  That question is about authority and where it comes from.

Phyllis Tickle, in her prescient book, The Great Emergence, describes our history and all of the big questions of our history as relating to this simple question of authority.  Who has it?  What constitutes it?  How do we agree upon it?

What has been breaking through has been our inadequacy in dealing with the consequences of challenging authority.  Specifically, what happens when people or countries break certain laws?  Whether that is the U.S. military under Bush defying the Geneva Conventions through torture and indefinite detention or churches breaking canon laws, we are seeing few adverse ramifications for breaking many actual laws and treaties.  There seems to be no penal or social punishment for these sorts of actions.  This, of course, is aided by the “self-defense” scapegoat.

So, how do we deal with actual law-breaking when we have no prescribed means of punishment?

My response is coming tomorrow.  What do you think?

8 responses

  1. I think that it would help if you were not so philosophical and more topical explaining what the differences are. It is my understanding that it has to do with ordaining openly gay priests and liberals versus conservatives

    Right or wrong?
    John Wilder

    1. Drew Downs Avatar
      Drew Downs

      John,

      Yes and no. Imagine describing all of WWI as being all about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Imprecise analogy, but similar. What I was trying to highlight was the difference between perceived transgressions and actual laws broken. There are many more eloquent and nuanced descriptions of the past 8 years in the Anglican Communion than I care to go into here.

      If you think if it this way, a subset of conservatives have argued an intellectual transgression and committed a direct and physical act of rebellion. This is put the argument as philosophical which justifies further direct political action. My own response (which is in the majority of each group involved) is to say it is way more than sex and politics, but philosophical issues and political authority. The sex issue has been a useful publicity weapon (though relevant character in the story) but not the whole thing.

  2. […] years old, but as astute as ever.  In it, she tackles the question of authority as I raised in a previous post about the Anglican Communion.  I wrote that the source of our biggest conflicts are around the nature of authority and that, as […]

  3. Robin Fornwalt Avatar
    Robin Fornwalt

    If the rules/laws can’t be enforced, then people are going to break them to the limits of their own conscious. My neighbor has broken the law on many occasions, yet no one knows but me. Do I turn him in? Or do I make friends with him and use Non-Violent Communication to influence him? The only way I know I can influence him is to be empathic to his needs and earn his compassion because he understands my needs. Then we both act out of mutual respect. Anything other than this approach is aggressive and could turn into all out retaliation. And who wants a war? Not me.

    1. Drew Downs Avatar
      Drew Downs

      It seems that the old stick preventing bad behavior was being publicly reprimanded or had our efforts curtailed in some way (e.g. Presidents weren’t only checked by Congress, but the people and the lawyers, church canons weren’t broken except to depart, etc.). Now the public shame isn’t really enough as it is. There are too many to support them. Your neighbor would have someone defend him with “no harm, no foul, right?”

      My own instinct tells me that it isn’t so much about the laws but the priorities, anyway.

  4. […] the wrong president or they were wearing the wrong clothing, so they had it coming. In the church, we’ve seen the same thing occur when we ordain women or LGBTQ persons or otherwise expand the […]

  5. […] If you don’t know the story, I can hardly catch you up on 40 years of church history and not put you to sleep. I certainly couldn’t even recap the last 13 and do it justice. […]

  6. […] The great global challenge of the 21st Century is that our cultures are weak to the effects of bullying. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.