The reason ADU takes great interest in TEC is twofold: (a) it is a pioneer in a new style Anglicanism, full of novelties; (b) some key leaders in our church seem bent on taking ACANZP down the same path that TEC has pioneered.
TEC is, indeed, something of a trailblazer - whether we deem such trailblazing to be prophetic or heterodox. A certain type of Anglican liberalism which is present in England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia and New Zealand is dominant in TEC. So, consider TEC to see what North Atlantic and Australasian Anglicanism would look like if this particular expression of theological liberalism became dominant in these provinces also.
+Mary Glasspool to some extent personifies such trends. Her consecration to the episcopate signalled TEC's definitive rejection of the moratoria called for by the Instruments of Communion. It gave expression to the ecclesiology of autonomy/Manifest Destiny shaping TEC's self-understanding, rather than the communion ecclesiology of the Windsor and ARCIC processes.
In a recent Huffington Post article, Bishop Glasspool addressed the issue of same-sex marriage. Doing so, in the words of Episcopal Cafe, she "considere[d] the sacramental dimensions of marriage equality":
In the Episcopal Church, marriage has traditionally been treated as a sacrament. The outward and visible signs of the sacrament are the rings and vows that two people make to each other. The inward and spiritual grace is the reality of the relationship the two people already have given by God.
As a priest friend in TEC recently pointed out to me, some in TEC may wish this was the case - but it's not. The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage in the BCP 1979 is quite explicit that gender is a given part of the sacramentality of marriage. The Catechism similarly defines the sacramentality of marriage:
| Q. | What is Holy Matrimony? |
| A. | Holy Matrimony is Christian
marriage, in which the woman and man enter into a life-long union, make their vows before God and the Church, and receive the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows. |
The point at issue here is not the cases for and against same-sex marriage in civil law. Nor is it even about the provision of a liturgy of blessing for same-sex relationships. It is, however, about the Anglican understanding of the Church's sacramental economy and its expression in the formularies of Anglicanism in general and TEC in particular. Judged against these formularies, Bishop Glasspool's definition of the sacramentality of marriage is significantly flawed. Now, it may be after General Convention 2012 this is no longer the case. At present, however, TEC shares with the rest of the Anglican Communion a definition of the sacramentality of matrimony in which gender has significance.
For Catholic Anglicans, the sacramental economy is no mere matter of ordinances, rites or functions. It is instructive to recall that Article 27 begins by declaring that Baptism "is not only a sign of profession" and Article 28 declares that the Eucharist "is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves". Rather, Baptism is a sign and instrument "of Regeneration" and the Eucharist is "a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death".
The sacraments (both the two "generally necessary for salvation" and the other five which serve and promote the Church's communion) are the life-giving gifts of the Crucified and Risen One, the means by which He enables us to share in the life of the Triune God. It is worth noting here that Bishop Glasspool's view that in celebrating the sacraments "we are recognising God's gift of grace in others" falls considerably short of a catholic understanding of the sacraments.
The debate over how the Church responds to the contemporary phenomenon of committed, same-sex partnerships should be reflected upon within the contours of the sacramental economy, shaped by these gifts the Bridegroom has bestowed upon His Church. But increasingly this is not what is happening. Instead, the sacramental economy is being regarded not as gift but as property, shaped not by what has been received from the Crucified and Risen One, but by that to which early 21st century postmoderns aspire.
| . | |
2 comments:
BC, this is an excellent analysis which I (sadly) believe accurately reflects the current state of affairs in The Episcopal Church.
For some in ordained leadership, it doesn't matter what the Prayer Book liturgies or the catechism say about much of anything, including the sacramentality of marriage. As one Episcopal priest and deputy to General Convention said about the opening exhortation of the marriage rite:
"It is a dumb prayer that is based on prejudice not Bible IMO – God did not establish a bond and covenant or marriage in Creation. The story has nothing to do with marriage – it has to do with procreation – which we no longer support with abandon. As to Jesus attending a wedding as a basis for holding marriage in esteem – also not much of a reason. I hope someday we have an opening to the marriage ceremony that is not so laughable."
You wrote: "It is worth noting here that Bishop Glasspool's view that in celebrating the sacraments 'we are recognising God's gift of grace in others' falls considerably short of a catholic understanding of the sacraments." I hear this kind of thinking, particularly as part of the rationale for eliminating baptism as the necessary prerequisite for receiving communion. I've noted this in one of my postings entitled "The Push for Communion Without Baptism is An Assault on the Church" when I wrote:
"It's a sad state of affairs when, in the name of inclusiveness, 'the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God' (BCP, p. 858) comes to be seen as just 'some ceremony,' a hurdle that the Church makes people jump through before they can be deemed sufficiently worthy to partake of the Eucharist. ... Instead of "a sure and certain means by which we receive" grace (BCP, p. 857), such a negative portrayal of Baptism as a roadblock to inclusion ends up saying that Baptism merely reveals the grace that's already there. In other words, you don't need Baptism to be adopted as God's children, made members of the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom, because every human being is already a child of God. Going through the motions of the Baptismal Rite is merely a way of affirming what is already the case. Which, of course, begs the question: why bother with Baptism at all?"
This is what elsewhere I have called Tinker Toy or Play-Doh Theology:
"The presupposition is that there is nothing given via revelation for theology to deal with, no substantive content to the Christian faith that makes a claim on our lives and loyalties. So if you don't like the configuration of tinker toys you find in the Church, you simply take them apart and make something new that better reflects your personal theological, ethical, and political views (this was called 'constructive Christian theology' back in my divinity school days). And if you don't like the shape of play-doh that you find in the Church, you simply mash it up and reconfigure it into whatever shape(s) suits your fancy."
And if you don't like tinker toys or play-doh, you simply toss them out and find other "toys" to play with.
Bryan, many thanks for your comment. I am particularly struck by the relationship you emphasise between the debate I mention and CWOB. It is - as you emphasise - the same dynamic at work: the dismantling of the Church's sacramental economy.
Post a Comment