Ten years ago on Candlemas, I participated in one of the most prayerful liturgies of my life. On this occasion, I was standing in the Chapter House at York Minster, stuffing bands in my cassock and learning how Church of England clergy queue for a procession. I was in England for a Priests’ and Deacons’ Retreat at Walsingham, but I quickly learned that anyone who was going to Walsingham was first going to York, including my host, which therefore included me.
I don’t think I had heard of Philip North before the ride up the A1, the great northern road stretching from London to Edinburgh. The former administrator of the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, North was well-known for his pastoral work and passionate advocacy for the poor. He was also a traditional Catholic and did not believe the Church had authority to confer holy orders on women.
His consecration was the first under the Five Guiding Principles agreed upon in General Synod for “mutual flourishing,” the hopeful roadmap for the coexistence of two very different theological frameworks in the Church of England, and came one week after the consecration of Libby Lane, the first woman bishop in the Church of England. The consecration was one of the holiest things I’ve seen. Maybe I was naive, but it seemed completely empty of tension.
John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, presided but delegated the consecration to traditionalist bishops. In the Chapter House, I recognized all sorts and conditions of clergy from social media, as if they were analog baseball cards. Traditionalists and progressives, men and women, smiled and laughed with one another and everyone seemed to be at ease because they did not have to hide who they were. They had space, the assurance of mutual respect, and the earnest desire that each may flourish; a feeling that was embodied when Bishops North and Lane embraced at the end of the service.
What is preventing the Episcopal Church from looking like this?
This year, Fr. Matthew Olver and Fr. Matthew Kemp have contributed excellent essays on Covenant addressing prayer book revision and the two theologies regarding marriage. In doing so, they addressed the complications and tensions that are to be expected with dual theological integrities. In a Covenant essay earlier this year, I voiced a real commitment from a traditionalist position to remain in the Episcopal Church, even with theological tension. That said, I think we must acknowledge, with all intellectual honestly, that two theological integrities cannot coexist in the current diocesan structure.
Generally speaking, those who hold traditional positions on marriage (and Holy Orders, for that matter) believe the church has no authority to change marriage, that it is a given from God which we receive. We say exactly that in the preface of the prayer book: that marriage was instituted not as a social construct, but by God. On the other hand, most Episcopalians today press for what they understand to be marriage equality and argue that a change in our doctrine and practice is a matter of justice.
When it comes to matters of justice, I don’t see how the church can allow for alternative views. I do not think it is fair, for instance, to expect a bishop who is an advocate for expansive marriage to support a rector who believes such actions are beyond the authority of the church. It is also not fair for a rector who holds a traditionalist position to be called a proponent of oppression. Yet both positions are affirmed as legitimate and protected by General Convention resolutions.
To my knowledge, General Convention has acknowledged dual integrities for two theological positions: Holy Orders and Marriage. For Holy Orders, General Conventions have a history of acknowledging as a legitimate Anglican position that the Church has understood ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy to be reserved for men, a position that (not unlike the subject of marriage) returns to the question of whether orders are a divine institution or human institution. In 1994, the Convention said that those for and against the ordination of women “hold a recognized theological position in this Church” (1994-C004).
Three years later, it was resolved that no one should be denied access to the ordination process, license to officiate, call to a cure, or letters dimissory “on account of their sex or their theological views on the ordination of women” and it even said that one should not be denied “a place in the life and governance of this Church” based on one’s views for or against (1997-A053). In 2000, the House of Bishops passed a mind of the house resolution affirming that “those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are both loyal to the Anglican tradition” (2000-B071). These have not been abrogated. They still have a place in determining our common life and witness..
There is not as long a history of resolutions dealing with two integrities regarding marriage, for the two rites are not (as yet) in the prayer book. At last year’s General Convention, a resolution was put forth (A092) that would protect the rights of those on either theological side of marriage. This resolution even called for the bishop who cannot, in conscience, ordain a person who holds a view different perspective to invite another bishop to oversee the process and ordination. This, I think, is finally an honest take in recognizing the structural difficulty, if not impossibility, that currently exists with theological perspectives that cannot be reconciled.
Even though these resolutions exist, the reality in the parish and diocese is often quite different. Bishops have been known to impose “theological tariffs” to accept a call or receive a license. Clergy in traditionalist circles have all sorts of battle stories, and I’m sure progressive clergy have the same, though perhaps in far fewer dioceses. I think there is a path that would not only preserve the conscience and integrity of everyone but would also fall under existing canons.
The first thing we must do is recognize, whether we like or not, there are profound theological differences and that we are committed to living together. Progressive clergy and laity need permission to raise their heads above the parapet in theologically conservative dioceses and likewise, conservative or traditionalists need the same protection. We need not hide out of fear of disciplinary action because we are not breaking the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church as it has ruled. We need not hide out of fear of ostracization, for we are not disobedient. But we do disagree.
We would need a change in canons to have a structure like the settlement in the Church of England and its Five Guiding Principles. Our current canons, however, do allow us to create a structure very similar to religious orders in the Roman Catholic Church. A Franciscan, for instance, who serves in a diocesan parish is bound to his Franciscan superior in matters pertaining to internal Franciscan life, but the friar answers to the ordinary of the diocese for matters concerning public worship and grants licenses to officiate. The superior of the order and the ordinary of the diocese work together.
What if the House of Bishops agreed to work with clergy who hold minority theological positions to create a Christian community in accordance with Canon III.14.2? Such a community would be a society of those who have committed themselves to a rule and Constitution. The rule and Constitution would articulate the theological and pastoral charism of traditional theological positions. As directed by canon, the society would have a bishop visitor. Clergy who join the society would do so with the permission of their diocesan bishop, which would be in harmony with the existing canons protecting the rights of theological minorities.
As with all Christian communities established by canon, the diocesan bishop would still hold all authority but would pastorally work with the bishop visitor regarding pastoral care and sacramental oversight. Churches served by clergy who are members of the society would still pay their full assessment to the diocese and would still have voice and vote in diocesan conventions.
When there is a vacancy in a parish, the vestry may then petition the diocesan bishop to explore candidates who are registered in the society. This is not a structure to separate, but space to draw closer. Under a scenario such as this, both integrities are given room to flourish without anxiety, and an invitation to support one another in a way not previously possible. Again, I think of the embrace between Bishop North and Bishop Lane. I think of all the pain that preceded that embrace and the hope that it represented.
None of this will be simple, but why not give it a try? Presiding Bishop Rowe has called for a “relational jubilee.” In a time when we’ve never been more divided, why not make the statement of resistance that disagreement need not include disparagement? Do we have the courage to acknowledge that our disagreements will find their resolution through the wisdom of time and space and not committee and ballot?
Can we love one another enough to flourish in the way we believe to be faithful? Can our ecclesiological ego hear the advice of Gamaliel in Acts 5:38-39?—“keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” The Church of England has the Society of St. Wilfrid and St. Hilda. The Roman Catholic Church has various religious orders. For the sake of mission, for the sake of unity, for the sake of seriously wanting a beloved community, can the Episcopal Church be as bold?
The Rev. Steve Rice is the rector of St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, an Anglo-Catholic parish in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and is the founder of the Society of St. Joseph of Arimathea.
