Faith, Unity and Discipline

It came to my email address at work. I’m not sure how they got it, but they did get my email address, and they did send the invitation.

Specifically, the organization Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) sent to me an invitation to “ ‘Best Ever’ For Survival of Robust U. S. Anglicanism,” a “U.S. Pan-Anglican Renewal and Restoration Conference” next month in Orlando. The theme for the conference is “One Christian Question for Episcopalians;” and the question seems to be, “Do you want to follow Christ, or do you want to stay in the Episcopal Church?” LEAC also has as a goal establishment of a new province of the Anglican Communion in North America to displace the Episcopal Church within the Communion, and there does seem to them to be a connection between staying with the Anglican Communion as they expect it to change and “following Christ.” That seems clear from their online brochure, which includes “Five Facts about our Church.” The first three are,

1. The American Episcopal Church has abandoned Christianity.
2. The Anglican Communion remains our Christian home.
3. LEAC Rises Up to preserve with you our Christian faith and values.

I won’t be attending, of course. Any regular or even cursory reader of this blog would recognize that I disagree with LEAC on a number of issues, not least in my belief that the Episcopal Church continues to follow Christ, and lives well within what has been the Anglican Communion. And certainly I don’t agree with their goal, stated in the cover letter of the invitation, of a “NEW PROVINCE: Together, we can partner with many others to strengthen our church as the Communion moves to charter a new American province.” This reflects their assertion earlier in the same letter, “Credible leaders on all sides insist that reconciliation is now impossible, that schism has occurred and soon will be formalized. Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) has risen up as a catalyst for the survival of a strong Anglican presence, not a small remnant, when TEC leaves officially.” To prepare for that, “Cadres trained in Orlando will carry educational models and strategies to the “Middle 80%” in their own and other churches.”

In light of that, I was struck by a statement in the same letter, “Four bishops will be among a faculty of 20 successful “doers.”” Now, that got my attention, and was the primary reason I actually looked at the brochure on line. There are indeed four bishops named. One is from the Anglican Province of America, and another retired from the Anglican Mission in America. Their presence is not of concern to me. They have neither responsibility nor accountability to the Episcopal Church (although arguably the AMiA bishop did at one time).

However, I also noted the participation of the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman of the Diocese of Quincy and the Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith of the Diocese of Springfield. Now, these two do indeed have responsibility and accountability to the Episcopal Church. These are active members of the House of Bishops and ordinaries in their dioceses. I have to wonder about their participation in this conference, the clear intent of which is to disassemble the Episcopal Church.

Recently there has been a great deal of interest in the Diocese of San Joaquin, and its bishop the Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield. Other bishops in California asked whether there were grounds for a presentment against Bishop Schofield for abandonment of communion based on actions of the Diocesan Convention. The appropriate committee of the House of Bishops determined that a presentment was not appropriate (and almost immediately after that it was learned that the Diocesan Convention had gone even further). My own thought on that was that while the Convention of San Joaquin had acted and Bishop Schofield had presumably approved, Bishop Schofield had himself not acted on the Diocesan Convention decisions in a way that definitively left the Episcopal Church. This is not to suggest that I could agree with him or with that Diocesan Convention. It simply acknowledges that there cannot be action based on what we think someone might think.

But, it seems to me that Bishop Ackerman and Bishop Beckwith are taking action. They are participating in a conference the purpose of which is to train and empower “cadres” to take back to the “Middle 80%” within the Episcopal Church, so as to lead them out of the Episcopal Church. Both were ordained bishop according to the Book of Common Prayer (1979), and in their ordinations committed to “solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.” (BCP p. 513) Both committed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.” (BCP p. 518) But, how are unity and discipline and even faith guarded by “cadres” sent out to parishes to lead away the “middle 80%?” How is unity, discipline, or even faith guarded when two bishops participate in training and empowering those cadres for that purpose? These bishops are not simply agreeing with an action of a diocesan convention, however unfortunate it might be. They are choosing actively to participate with those who want to tear the Episcopal Church apart. LEAC isn’t simply interested in being there when dissatisfied Episcopalians leave. LEAC wants to lead them out; and it appears these two bishops want to lead with them.

Now, I have no doubt that these two men believe that their action is necessary for their integrity. Perhaps they do not feel they can defend the faith as it has been understood by the General Convention, and by, I believe, the majority of the Episcopal Church, including that “middle 80%.” In that case, they could honorably and in good faith put the affairs of their dioceses in order and retire or resign. Once out of office, each could consider how he should continue to find his ministry within the larger Body of Christ. Such action would be unfortunate, but it would establish and not impugn anyone’s commitment and integrity. On the other hand, participating in leadership in LEAC seems a clear step to damage the discipline and unity and even faith of the Episcopal Church, and not simply in their own dioceses.

I have written elsewhere on the limitation we face when we speak of ordaining bishops for “the whole Church.” The commitments I made as a priest I made to and within the Episcopal Church, however I might see the Episcopal Church within the larger context of the Body of Christ. Those commitments are institutionally meaningful, whether or not I want to see them as theologically meaningful beyond the limits of the Episcopal Church. If I don’t meet those commitments, it is the Episcopal Church, and not the Anglican Communion, that holds me accountable. The same is true of every member of the House of Bishops. If one bishop can be investigated for agreeing to possibly damaging decisions within a diocesan convention, can two be investigated for specific actions that support specific attacks on the integrity of the Episcopal Church?