I am finally provoked into writing something by the details of the goings-on in Michigan with a priest named Gene Geromel (details at Thinking Anglicans.)
I’ll begin with a comment about Gandhi. Gandhi was very clear that the path of non-violent resistance would mean breaking laws. He was also very clear that the non-violent resister must never reject the right of the society to enforce their laws, (by sending the resister to prison) because if the legitimacy of laws as such were called into question then the only consequence would be anarchy, swiftly followed by a rule of the strong, and then all that the non-violent resister desired would be undone. I suspect this is the sort of attitude that underlies Paul’s comments in Romans as well. In other words any resistance has to understand its context, and not be mindless in its opposition. Rather the opposition must be clearly focussed, otherwise it turns into a battle of wills and power, and not a search for the truth, which respects the humanity of those with whom the disagreement lies.
Now in an episcopal church, ie one which accepts an historic handing down of apostolic authority to people called bishops, the primary locus of social authority is the Bishop. The Bishop is the focus of unity in the faith; the Bishop’s role is precisely to uphold apostolic teaching. Where there is dispute over what that teaching consists in, the Bishops have the primary role in resolving those disputes. Furthermore, the Bishop is, within their own diocese, the sole legitimate authority, particularly with regard to the Eucharist. In other words, no priest can celebrate the Eucharist within a diocese without the permission of the Diocesan bishop. (That is, within a particular church or communion. That isn’t a point about a bishop having jurisdiction over any other denomination – although in Anglican terms that’s quite an interesting question).
In the presenting issue afflicting our church, that role of the Bishops has been called into question. One of the major ways in which the body of Bishops has sought to move forward is through ‘delegated episocopal oversight’ – in other words, if a particular priest or congregation cannot in conscience accept the ministry of their bishop then the relevant bishop allows another bishop to act in his stead. I happen to think this a disturbing principle, but be that as it may, it seems to a) retain the proper episcopal lines of authority, and b) express the desire to remain in communion with as many fellow Christians as possible.
Where this possibility is rejected, then the honourable course would seem to be to leave the episcopal-type church. For if the oversight of the Bishop is rejected as such then the whole communion is also rejected at the same time. You can’t reject your Bishop and still belong to an episcopal church – it’s a contradiction. It is exactly what Gandhi was cautioning his followers against – you can reject specific elements, but you have to accept the structural process or else the whole project collapses.
Now from what I understand this is exactly what has happened in Michigan. The relevant bishop would seem to have gone out of his way – FAR out of his way IMHO – to ensure that a particular parish priest and congregation could be catered for, in good conscience. Except that the particular priest didn’t seem to accept the logic of what I have outlined above – and so the dispute continues.
Yet what has now happened is that half a dozen other bishops have recognised this priest as a minister in their dioceses. I can’t imagine a more fundamentally anti-episcopal act.
So the church split has arrived. ECUSA first, the worldwide communion next. Perhaps we’ll all end up joining Rome or Constantinople.