Whither Anglo-Catholicism?
by Lynea J. Search

Introduction
I was raised in a "high" Episcopal church. I truly love its traditions, and especially the sensual beauty of its liturgy. I'm drawn to its liberal use of "smells and bells," which recall Jewish and early Christian liturgies. I love the extra effort put into music and chant. I also cherish two qualities Anglo-Catholicism shares with Anglicanism in general: our independent Celtic heritage, which from early times has remained as separate from Rome as possible; and our wide embrace of Christendom through the combination of both "Catholic" and "Protestant" elements in our worship and theology.

So why don't I stop worrying about larger issues in Anglo-Catholicism, and just enjoy its aesthetics? Because I sense that we are in some slight danger of losing our tradition altogether--of watching it "morph," as the kids would say, into some beleaguered Roman caricature of itself. That in so doing, people like me would be forced to accompany it--or leave. That if we are to avoid this scenario, we desperately need to utilize the precious democratic traditions of Anglicanism.

Anglo-Catholics are no more, and no less, than Anglicans with a preference for greater "Catholicity in our worship than is true in other parts of the worldwide Communion. Period. The most important reason for my choosing Anglican Christendom is our Church's position on authority--that is, its threefold appeal to reason (or personal conscience), scripture, and tradition, and not Church hierarchy--as sources of authority for the individual. While the Roman Church pays lip service to these three as well, they are actually practiced in our Church! We are not under any binding temporal authority whatsoever about things spiritual or social. No Pope, no bishop, and no priest can legislate my thinking. Bishops and presiding bishops can and do utter their opinions, often and publicly. But, unlike the Romans, we are not "bound" to follow their advice. Likewise, while they can exhort all they want to from their pulpits, priests and rectors cannot dictate to their parishioners what they must or must not believe, or how they must behave. As an Anglican, I greatly cherish this freedom of conscience.

I realize that Anglicans are often perceived as "wishy-washy" about doctrine and issues such as human sexuality. I delight in this; I believe that this is what Jesus wanted to found--a body of loving, accepting, joyful people. This is the "flavor" of Anglicanism--not its weakness.

Authority: A "Hot" Issue

Currently, there is disunity among Anglicans over "ecclesiology"--the question of how and where authority should be vested in our Communion. As we know, historically this issue did not exist in the Church of England; "royal supremacy" replaced "papal supremacy" after the English Reformation, and life went on. But it is arising now in the larger Anglican Communion, as disputes arise in some areas of the world which, some think, require adjudication by a higher lever of authority than the nation or province.

History may enlighten us here. After the English Reformation, the Church of England sought to limit bishops to their ancient pastoral role as "guardians of truth." The "disestablished" ECUSA, in its first General Convention in 1789, went further to democratize the Church, designating priests, laity, and bishops as "co-partners in matters of high decision." It was U.S. Anglicans who called for the first Lambeth Conference of pan-Anglican presiding bishops in 1867. From its inception, Lambeth has refused to intervene in internal provincial disputes. Its position on social issues such as contraception also changed radically between 1908 and 1958. Lambeth's pronouncements have never been viewed as doctrinally binding (Lambeth Task Force, Appendix 4, 1998).

The 1998 Lambeth Conference, with its resolution stating that homosexuality is "incompatible with Scripture," has prompted many people to ponder anew whether we want to allow real authority to become vested in the 37 presiding bishops, or Primates, of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The more conservative elements say that our Church ecclesiology is "underdeveloped," even "retarded." They agree with Lambeth's Resolution III.6, which allows Primates to intervene in national churches in "emergency situations," and would extend such powers to non-emergency situations.

Conservatives endorse Lambeth Resolution III.8, which asks the Primates to initiate and monitor study on the need for "instruments of oversight" at all levels in the Communion. An editorial in The Anglican Catholic looks approvingly on an "Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission" (ARCIC) document called "Authority in the Church III," which raises the issue of "universal primacy," and is "of course . . . a reference to the traditional teaching office and focus of unity found in the successor of Peter" (emphasis added). Formed in 1970, the ARCIC, whose "specialist members have been officially appointed to represent the Anglican Communion and the 'Catholic Church' worldwide," has since 1981 been calling for an "international dialogue" based on four "Agreed Statements." The nature and exercise of authority in any future united Church is clearly the biggest sticking point; the most recent statement, called "The Gift of Authority," was issued in May 1999. While admonishing the Pope/Primate of a future "united" Church to exercise his ministry "in collegial association with the other bishops," most of the concessions seem to be coming from the Anglican side. Many pages in this document are devoted to justifying the exercise of authority at the parish level. Less is said about the Pope/Primate and other high-level clerics; nowhere is there mention of just how they would gain office, or how actual decision-making at any level would proceed. One must assume, therefore, that the current "top-down" approach of the Roman Church would remain intact in both areas--most likely with the addition of a few more carefully selected bishops and archbishops to "represent" the rest of us.

This clerical-led constituency is certainly a fairly small minority within the ECUSA, and most likely in the Anglican Communion as well. I am fairly certain that, were the Communion to become more "centralized," this conservative element would be easily outvoted--if the process required democratic voting and involved all national and provincial bodies, as well as selected laypersons and clergy. Were it to involve basically joining the Roman Catholic Church--for that body as currently constituted would accept nothing less, considering Cardinal Ratzinger's recent claims that the Roman Church is a "mother" with no "sisters"-- the repercussions would be scary indeed.

Optimistically, the above discussion points to a "win-win-win" solution. That is, the Church could retain the status quo, intervening only in "emergency situations" (with continued parish and perhaps diocesan secessions). Or, the Church could centralize authority in some body via a democratic process, thereby enabling it to intervene when priests, bishops, or presiding bishops break with agreed-upon policy. Or, conservative clerics and their followers could leave the Church and elect their universal Primate or, more likely, join the Romans. In the latter case, they (thank God!) don't have enough influence to drag Anglo-Catholicism with them!

Concluding Remarks

Despite the attitudes of some of its leaders, I see no inherent reason why our beautiful Anglo-Catholic tradition should be on a Roman-imitating course. Specifically, I see no reason why we should (a) tend to ignore--in homilies, catechism, and study groups--the more progressive scholarly findings regarding Jesus' life and new interpretations of scripture; (b) irrationally disassociate ourselves from Christian feminism--with wonderful, insightful, possibly even Church-saving theology that uncovers the terrible historical Judeo-Christian sin of deleting the "feminine" from the Godhead; and (c) allow the hiring and retention of overtly authoritarian bishops and priests.

It saddens me to think that a few very conservative Anglo-Catholic parishes, even whole dioceses, appear to be on the brink of joining a growing movement toward small-but-tough "Fundamentalist Fortress" sects. If certain Anglo-Catholic groups decide to count themselves among such groups, they are certainly in good company--not only with certain Protestant and Roman Catholic groups, but with Moslem, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalists as well. This scenario of worldwide theocracy scares me to death, and I fear we are closer to its realization than we think.

We are blessed with opportunity here! Unlike the Roman Church, where the very discussion of certain topics is (at least officially) banned, we are an autonomy-loving Church. So come on, Anglo-Catholics--indeed, all Anglicans--let's take the ARCIC at their word and begin a serious dialogue about authority. If we don't, this one-sided movement is clearly poised to occupy the present vacuum. Let's begin to focus at all levels--from parish study groups, to diocesan, national, and international conventions--on discussion aimed at retaining Anglo-Catholicism's democratic and progressive Anglican heritage!

Lynea Search belongs to the Episcopal Parish of St. Michael and All Angels in Tucson, Ariz.