(note: edited 4/28/2009, 10:30 pm, LEK)
I met with the Canon to the Ordinary of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago this morning to begin again/continue conversation around what a relationship between Reconciler and the diocese might look like. It was an invigorating time. As a pastor in a denomination that is not even in conversation with the Episcopal Church, I am thankful for the opportunity, after our Episcopal Priest resigned, to continue the conversation with the diocese. I also must say that I genuinely like Rev. Canon Scott Hayashi, and our conversation was not only informative and genuine but also enjoyable.
Now you may be awaiting a "but", and there is a "but". I begin here because there is also frustration and I want to be clear about the source of the frustration and that I think this is a theological problem and issue, and not personal. Also, I want all to understand that I really do have a deep appreciation of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. On many occasions I have considered becoming an Episcopalian, but each time have have been stuck with that I'd simply be trading one non-essential Christian identity for another that would have the analogous places of misfit and fit as my being Evangelical Covenant. So far in my spiritual journey this is true about all denominations I have considered, and it is my experience of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that they mimic Protestant denominational-ism which keeps me from finding a way to truly evaluate their claims of being the One Church. So, the frustrations I had with the conversation with the Rev. Canon Scott Hayashi, is not surprising given this long term struggle with denominational identity, and given the theological conclusions I have been coming to over the years.
It was also frustrating because I entered into the conversation with an expectation that was quickly shown to be unrealistic. I had hoped that both given that the Canon has known of us from nearly our beginning and was Canon to the Ordinary under the previous Bishop and given that Bishop Jeff Lee had spoken very positively and shown great interest in Reconciler at his visit that the Diocese might be able to offer Reconciler some options of relationship. Bishop Lee has appeared to be a creative thinker ecclesiologicaly speaking and I had hoped today's conversation would show this. From the outset the question of what to do about Reconciler was put in my lap, as something I needed to articulate to the diocese. This was certainly appropriate since no one who has been with Reconciler since its inception and who helped form its original vision had spoken this directly to the diocese before today. The blame for this can be laid both at our feet and the feet of the previous bishop. Tripp and I felt that this sort of conversation needed to be initiated by an Episcopal priest, but our first priest was not resident in the Diocese of Chicago, and when Laura came on and first began the conversation she was still learning the ropes and the shifting reality of Reconciler. It is also possible that this conversation could really only happen at this time and under these circumstances.
We were able to have a candid conversation, and I think I might have even given the Canon, what my wife calls, my "flashy eyes". We asked each other difficult questions and pushed each other on our positions. So genuine dialog around the nature of Christian identity and the importance of denominational identity for having a robust Christian identity. At this point in time and what we have more or less asked of the three denominations from the beginning was that they each accept as a congregation something that could not be said to be either Covenant, or Episcopal or Baptist. Denominational identity is a problem, and becoming less and less of an asset certain studies and statistics suggest, so we started Reconciler as a way to be Christian without these particular identities but with the hope that our three denominations could find away to hold their own identity more loosely. It is the Rev Canon Scott's sense that the Episcopal church will never hold its identity lightly enough to enter into situtation that would allow a congregation to affiliate with denominations with whom it is not in communion with (and the Covenant and it are hardly in conversation). In short the canons (church law, not those with the title of canon) of the Episcopal church, simply wont allow it. Preservation of Apostolic succession is part of this, or rather if we were an episcopal church and a Covenant and a Baptist it would mean being in communion with those without Apostolic succession, yet Apostolic succession is needed for communion. This makes sense at times the lack or tenuousness of the Apostolic succession for the ECC is a concern and makes Rome and Orthodoxy very attractive.
So, I asked for other barriers besides Apostolic succession, and of all things to my surprise and consternation was baptism! And not that baptism were invalid if done by me or an Episcopal priest at Reconciler but that they could not be recorded as being Episcopal baptisms! That is the diocese of Chicago could not record or archive for Reconciler even of a baptism performed by one of its priests because it could not say that at that time said person was also being received into the Episcopal Church. I very nearly went into a tirade about that baptism must only be into the one Church or that it is not baptism, but this did not seem the appropriate time to become "flashy eyed" about that bit of theology. In part because it was tied up with the issue of identity and whether or not Christian identity could be specific enough or strong enough to be a sustained and sustaining identity. On this point I did become "flashy eyed" (I suspect, this is not something I am generally aware of, but Kate has been pointing it out to me over the years and I do find that on certain topics or at certain points in a discussion or argument I will become very pointed and I can feel the energy in my self all focus around my eyes.) I simply pointed out that it seems to me that to be part of the Body of Christ and to have the Mind and Spirit of Christ should be a fairly specific identity, that one does not need to narrow down or improve upon. I think I also bore down fairly hard on denominational-ism as something at least the Faith and order Commission of the WCC was seeking to bring us all beyond. I refrained from quoting Paul in 1 Corinthians, even though I do believe it is a clear and obvious condemnation of the idea that a more specific identity than that of Christ is necessary for Christian faith. It seemed undiplomatic to carry this argument too far when I was also seeking to be identified with that which I am also critiquing. Ah yes the beauty and the challenge of this vision of Reconciler's.
The problem of Reconciler then can be summarized (with a nod of appreciation and debt to Derrida and deconstruction) as a problem of the archive. The problem of our desire to be affiliated at once with three denominations or for the denominations to recognize at all what we are doing is asking them to be the archive of the work of the Spirit in our midst but which does not technically reside where they are. Or more to the point how does one archive what has no current domicile, and which does not want to be its own archive. The denominations, and perhaps especially the the Episcopal Church and quickly following the Covenant Church, can only archive what they posses as a denomination, that is the work of the Spirit that they can identify as being something more than simply the Spirit of Christ. The denominations can only archive a baptism (which all claim, based on agreed upon multilateral statements based in approved and accepted in ecumenical dialog and statements of the WCC, is an act of God and thus the Spirit, and is the entrance into not any particular group or expression of Christianity but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) if in addition to being the entrance the the One Church it is also the entrance into a particular denomination. I was shocked, infuriated, practically speechless as the Rev. Canon Scott genuinely and without irony presented this as this great barrier, and backed it up by insisting on the necessity of particular denominational identity. It simply appears to me to be a basic contradiction that one cannot get around if there is only one Baptism and one faith then if one is a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church one records that fact and archives the work of the Spirit and the one church whether or not said person wishes to be a member of your particular order of Christian. I also know and understand the purely human institutional and worldly need to count your members and to then be able to extract money from them for the perpetuation of your group, but that as Paul says is to speak in merely human terms which is at odds with the Spirit of Christ. I understand human pragmatic concerns, but we are talking about the greater things of the Spirit of Christ and the reality of the One Church, or at least my reading of the work of the WCC has lead me to think this was what we were all talking about. At times I wonder though.
Thanks to our conversation I do know what Reconciler has been asking of any who will listen and specifically the Episcopal Church the Evangelical Covenant Church and the American Baptist Churches, Metro Chicago. Reconciler is asking that the denominations seek to be the archive of a hoped for and future reality of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolci Church. That they be willing to archive a work of the Spirit that is gathering the lost sheep back into the fold but who for what ever reason are kept outside the church,where ever the Church may be (and I realize my Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends believe they know where it is, but I repeat these are two competing claims difficult to assess at the moment, for me and many others). Whether this return and this gathering is for the entrance into a re-united, or simply re-entering of the One True Church, this is a future and not present reality, and we are asking that those who see in our midst the work of the Spirit be willing to archive a work that they cannot posses and thus to be the archive of another reality and to house the record of what God has begun in our midst, though it may be small and not worthy of mention in the worldly pragmatic account of statistically significant numbers, I also realize that this request goes against the logic of the Archive,for the archive means control and power, it means to have a domicile of a particular narrow identity. In that sense Archive and Spirit may be in tension or at odds, and yet, the Church is to be such an Archive one that is in the end only an eschatological archive, the Church archives not for its own power and control but to be the conduit of the Spirit and a sign and sacrament of the present and coming dominion of God! So in a sense a Christian archive is something the Church does not control but holds without domicile for that day when we enter the New Jerusalem. The archive of the Spirit resists all identity and power that is not Christs. If Reconciler is a work of the Spirit than any one can archive it without needing to posses it. And it would be our hope that someday that archive would be taken up and recognized by the One Church, as an archive of the Spirit bringing home those who could not find their way through the morass of claims and counter claims and multiple identities, but whom the Spirit of Christ sought out and found and is bringing home.
This just might have something there for this Sunday, Sunday of the Good Sheppard.
Larry, this post asks and wrestles with deep and troublesome questions. While many denoms would not want to be described as "controlling", our organizing and ordering tendencies seem to dictate that the outcomes may be described so.
ReplyDeleteI note the same tendencies are present in our interactions with one another, and also in our very own self-perceptions! We feel much better when we can tidily box somebody up to excuse our unloving behavior, or when we can claim, "oh that's just who I am!" and let ourselves off the responsibility hook of the Word.
Perhaps we need to reconsider Who should be doing the ordering!
Might it be possible to delineate some of the underlying motivations which are potential drivers of such resistance? Then, it might be possible to provide an alternative and positive understanding of how to approach denom authorities with offer to participate in the reign of God without ownership. It certainly could be that the present condition of denom "ownership" (with its financial and psychological implications for the members) may be one factor driving people away from organized churches.
May the Holy Spirit guide you in this journey!
Ann,
ReplyDeleteYes I can see how what I said could be read as saying that denoms are "controling". Though, I was using Derida's analysis of the Archive in which the Archive as a concept and a practice is about the control of information and a source of power. So, I see what I am saying as a value neutral observation, that "controling" does not have. In view there is always a certain amount of control required in any ordered activity even a Spirit lead one. Though I also think as the church and in Spirit lead organisms there is the equal and opposing need for letting go of control. This is a constant tension I have experienced in pastoring and spiritual direction. Problems arise when this tension is forgotten and we convince ourselves that in bringing order that there is not control and so no longer feel the need to let go of it. So I'd say that it is not "controling" that is the issue but the lack of letting go that seems to be at least one issue when it comes to the Episcopal church and the ECC to take Reconciler seriously.
Your metaphor of ownership is I think working on the same level as my metaphor of archive. What I was hoping to get at with the Archive was the possibility of offering the denominations an alternative. That is I am in talking about Archiving a work of the Spirit that does not originate with the denominations I am not asking them to give up their need (from my POV a very good and necessary need) to archive what the Spirit does in their midst, except I am asking them to do so in ways that include things that may also be happening in the midst of others or entirely outside their walls. So, If I baptize people all relevant adjudicators should record it. In fact it is the archiving activity of denominations that in this lininal space of an Ecumenical congregation that is needed to be done for the ecumnical congregation lest it become its own archive and thus cease to need the connection with others, and then as the Rev. Canon said we become our own denomination especially if there are eventually more than one (and the different sort of thing Reconciler is in some sense requires more than one especially if there is a greater need for this different sort of thin in general out there). In a sense Reconciler is asking the denoms to administer something that is other than they are. The resistance here (and what I meant by "control" in part) is that Reconciler will not and does not seek to create good Episcopalian, Covenanters or Baptists. Yet and here's the contradiction I see, which gets back to an unacknowledged need to control is that the denoms want to say oh but we are also about simply making good Christians (but as Episcopalian or Covenatners or Baptists). What seems to be seen as undesirable is making Christians who do not have these other identities. In other words it seems to me that it is precisely the fear of loss of "ownership" or "control" that is at issue here, and the idea of archiving the work of the Spirit is to be precisely that bridge to say look you still have a role to play just not the one you thought it was or the one you played in the past.
Thought-provoking as always.
ReplyDeleteISTM from the Catholic side of the fence that IIRC the wall of claimed apostolic succession at Reconciler was breached with intercommunion - Episcopalians receiving from non-episcopal ministers. That said I see the Episcopalians' point (you may be in communion, sort of, but canonically either you're Episcopal or you're not).
...it is my experience of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy that they mimic Protestant denominational-ism which keeps me from finding a way to truly evaluate their claims of being the One Church.Would you please explain this? I can guess what you're getting at but am not sure.
Both of these Catholic one true churches are by definition not denominations (without even a branch theory) but you can say there are denominations in them: (limiting myself to things fully in the official versions of these churches) the ethnic jurisdictions of the Orthodox (who are a communion of churches both amazingly alike and surprisingly little to do with each other even side by side in America - not only no Pope but not even a Lambeth Conference... they don't need them) and in Rome both jurisdictions (for example the Ukrainian Catholic diocese occupying the same territory as the RC Archdiocese of Chicago) and de facto like the (fading away) Catholic, Central, Evangelical and Broad factions of Anglicanism (the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter, a kind of religion I like, on one end and the old boomer liberals of Call to Action who run lots of parishes and schools on the other with a massive muddled middle who just show up and want their rites of passage - the FSSP and CTA are de facto denominations unto themselves like the Ukie Catholics are de jure).
Might the small post-denominational emergent, intentional etc. churches end up a repeat of... congregationalism? (Already around of course in United Church of Christ, Baptist and Churches of Christ modes.)
Yes I could see your point from the Catholic side of things about breaching the wall of apostolic succession through intercommunion though the two hardly seem connected from the views of any one in the Episcopal church. And all that aside I too see the Episcopalians point, however for all the talk about apostolic succession they admit they are a denomination or have in all the conversations there have been around Reconciler.
ReplyDeleteYou ask what I meant about mimic Protestant denominationalism. Well what you say about having denominations within them is certainly part of it. On the Orthodox side that to become Orthodox in the US I essentially have to pick Greek, Antiochene, OCA (Russian). And so, I find my very Protestant way falling and I know what I prefer in experience, the Greeks, but that hardly seems the way to enter into the one ture church. and the picking and choosing is not so cut and dry on the Roman Catholic end but both in LA and in Chicago I know the Parishes that would be the easier entry, but then what am I joining and agian its my prefernces. So, the lofty talk about one true church I get theologically even how one or both of these could be the one tru church in someway better be or we are in deep trouble, yet on the ground I don't see it I simply see the same issues the same problems the same muddle I find among Protestant denominationalism. Even yoru statement "these Catholic one true churches" is held by some but not all and that claim even disputed by each of the the other side. So, I think what I meant is that the mimicry has to do not entirely with what I find but that there is enough of a muddle for a variety of historical and contemporary reasons that it is hard for me to see my way to anything that looks like the lofty theological claims that I'd like to accept, and am seeking.
I think your point about a repeat of congregationalism to some extent is correct, or at least we are simply repeating the same movements protestants have made continuously since the Reformation. Reconciler in trying to find some way to have connections between groups was seeking to not repeat that, though I am seeing the patterns, and the reason for the patterns. it is not encouraging in some ways.