Anglican Schism in America


Schism is always in the eyes of the beholder. My own denomination has divided at least three times -- three major divisions at least -- and each group would see themselves as the faithful descendant of the Founder's vision. What is interesting in our case, the Stone-Campbell Movement -- is that we were founded essentially as a unity movement.

The Anglican Communion was born in schism, in essence. Henry VIII chose to break with Rome for a number of reasons, the divorce being only one of them, and established the Church of England. The world-wide Anglican Communion, in large part a legacy of Britain's imperial past, traces its roots to England and yet each have their own identity and issues. One of the founding principles of the Anglican Communion, is that one not invade the episcopal jurisdictions of another. Yet, we have seen just that happen in the past several years.

Of course, schism in the Anglican Communion is nothing new. There are a number of small communions in the US that have emerged over the years -- most recently over the revision of the 1928 Prayer Book (which some apparently believe was sacred) and over the ordination of women.

My own academic studies have focused on a little known group that emerged out of the political upheavals of the late 17th and early 18th Century. The Nonjurors were a company of rather rigid and conservative Anglicans, who affirmed divine right monarchy and the irrevocability of oaths taken to the monarch. Thus, when William and Mary replaced James II in 1689 (The Glorious Revolution), those unable to swear allegiance to the new monarchs lost their positions in the state established church. Some of these folk disappeared into the woodwork, but others sought to create a remnant community, which they believed would protect the legacy of their tradition until such time as the rightful monarch could be restored. What is important to note is that both sides saw the other as the cause of schism. Not only that, but both sides believed that schism was a sin against the church and against God.

Consider this quote by Nonjuror activist Charles Leslie:

That this marriage of our Bishop, whereby we are, by proxy, married to Christ, cannot be dissolv'd, nor are we divorced from him, and marry'd to another Bishop, by any other means, than those which Christ has appointed; otherwise the marriage still remains: And a second Bishop is a second husband, that is an adulterer, while the first husband lives, and is not divorced for a just cause, and by an authority that is competent. (Charles Leslie, Case of the Regale, quoted in Robert Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic, University of Delaware Press, 1993, p. 86).



Now, word comes that a formal step is being taken to gather together the various separated Anglican groups in North America and create a parallel entity on American soil. It will seek recognition as, I would expect, the rightful heir of the Anglican tradition in North America. This entity would be known as the Anglican Communion in North America. This entity would include a variety of groups that have left the Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church in Canada over the years. How this would work, no one knows. Although ordination of gays is the cause celebre in this case, most of these groups, including the disaffected ones exiting the Episcopal Church oppose the ordination of women.

As a former Episcopalian, my prayers are with this communion. Schism is never a good thing, but perhaps it will free the church up to become what it envisions itself to be. Unfortunately there are outside groups involved, making this a more difficult situation.

For more on this see the New York Times article.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I can see that this period of upheaval has been painful for Anglicans on both sides of the divide (if in fact there are only two sides).

As a cradle Catholic, I was trained to view division, disagreement and schism as terrible evils, prevented only by adherence to the singular voice of the Magisterium. As I have matured as an individual I have thought more deeply about matters of faith and especially about orthodoxy and the issues involved in the unity of the Church and I have come to a more complex understanding: Schism, though painful, is a consequence of growth.

I see that perfect unanimity of thought an belief and practice is not only not possible, but is likely not even an ideal to be prayed for. Humans are each different beings with different ideas - and God made us this way and God did so because God preferred us this way. Human beings do not operate as an organic collective but as a connected community.

Worship, though done in community, is a very personal thing, personal between the worshiper and other worshipers and God. God speaks to us in a language we can understand, and we worship best when we worship in a language and in a setting which is meaningful to us.

Most Christians, indeed most people of faith, believe that their beliefs are correct, if not "orthodox". We think we are basing our beliefs on truth as best we can determine. We think others are likewise sincere, even if we would disagree with them. But we believe what we believe, and it is very hard for us to feel a part of a worship community whose beliefs are significantly different than their own. If such is the only belief community available to them, they will either revolt, causing great distress to an otherwise peacefully worshiping community, or they will grow apathetic, neither of which I think is acceptable to God.

Most of those worship communities came about in a disagreement with a pre-existing community of believers. When they separated, both the remaining body and the offshoot have claimed to be the keepers of the true way, while the other group has been led astray somewhere along the way.

Over time each of the communities comes to recognize that they are more able to worship in peace and harmony without the burden of accommodating their former brethren. And God is blessed by the formation of a new body of worshipers, open to accept new worshipers who formerly had no community available to them that spoke their language or reflected the truth as they understood it.

We cannot all live in the same house, sharing the same bed. Yet we can all be part of the same neighborhood, praying for blessings of peace and wholeness and salvation for each other, even if our neighbors are more comfortable worshiping next door.

John
fishface42 said…
I was wondering if the ultra-orthodox Anglicans couldn't be part of a "personal prelature" like Opus Dei within the Roman Church. But I fear that the two parties are too divided to make this work. Also, there is no central authority to whom all the provinces must pay heed. Perhaps this is the karmic consequence of Henry's so-called Reformation.

Popular Posts