• RSS Subscribe to Blog

  • PAGES

  • RECENT PONDERINGS

  • RECENT COMMENTS

    Steve on SAINTLY?
    Paul Nicholson on SAINTLY?
    RGE on Calling the Shots
    Walter J. Tanner on MARRIAGE EXTENSION
    franiel32 on IN THIS COMPANY
  • ARCHIVES

  • BLOG STATS

    • 107,346 hits

SPACE

I remain bemused by the growing inflexibility of bishops, or now in England, potential bishops to relax jurisdictional authority in the cause of creating space for constituencies whose principles reflect Anglicanism as it has been until fairly recently.  I confine my musings to the “western” provinces in which unity in comprehension has been a notable and perhaps a defining feature.

Until this moment I have been glad to point to the Church of England’s readiness to appoint “flying bishops” and to draw a distinction between the Mother Church’s pastoral flexibility in contrast with my own church’s pastoral insensitivity. I have delighted that the Mother Church, with its historic claim to territorial episcopacy rooted in the organization of the English Church after -wait for it – the Council of Whitby, has found itself able to fudge this heritage in the cause of comprehension while my own church, which has no claim or title to anything but the consenting allegiance of its members, insists on its territorial hegemony.  Bishop Erwin of Walsingham alludes to the English tolerance as “loving jurisdiction”, an outward sign of a bishop’s loving care for all, even at the expense of his or her’s right or status.  Sounds Christian wouldn’t one think?

The pastoral role of an Anglican bishop has been novel.  Presiding over a diocese containing those who describe themselves as Catholic or Protestant, progressive or traditional or even delightfully eccentric, the bishop has patterned the form of priestly ministry necessary in parishes made up of people with all sorts of opinions and personalities. Comprehension has been about unity rather than fragmentation, about mutual respect rather than a determination to win. Bishops have sought to take into account the foibles of local parishes, in liturgy. the content of sermons and even the fancy dress worn. The demands upon “comprehensive episcopacy” even reached to permitting other bishops to substitute for them if parishes found the Ordinary not ordinary enough for their tastes. (TEC changed the Canons to make that much more difficult to permit.)

Indeed it is not too long ago that this form of liberality was regarded as a virtue to be shared on the ecumenical stage as a pattern for Christian Unity. Now it is suggested that such a pastoral provision aimed at individual parishes is an affront to the dignity and authority of bishops and assault on the rights and dignity of those for whom the church recently began to make space in the nest, only to discover a cuckoo on the nest, intent on throwing out all the other eggs. All this, mind you, in the cause of justice, and a pretty harsh judgment at that, one which Anglicans once thought unfortunate in other more regimented Christian bodies.

There is something unbalanced in accusing the English archbishops, or the Communion Partners over here of totalitarianism when they seek desperately to preserve space for the nonconformist in our comprehension while in the name of progressivism and liberality gleefully depriving historic parties, now minorities the space to blossom and flourish or wither and perish within their home.

What will emerge may be more tidy, monochrome and manageable, but it will tragically less Anglican.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: