AKMA replies to several bloggers who took exception to his original post re: Chicago diocesan convention and the ECUSA schism over Gene Robinson.
Father Adam acknowledges (and respects) the different theologies represented in this current Anglican flashpoint. But he is still a bit puzzled.
Now I’m confused by something else: why, if an alleged breach of church discipline is so very bad, are those to whom it gives offense unwilling to say, “We can no longer remain in communion with those transgressors; we renounce communion with them”? In the present dust-up, it seems as though people want very much to be able to say, “We aren’t renouncing them — they’re renouncing us.”
It seems to me that the answer to the question lies precisely in what is meant by the term communion. Is it primarily institutional? Is it fundamentally Eucharistic? What role do dogma and doctrine play?
Father Adam is a bright man, and could eat my theological lunch before it got made, so I doubt it has escaped his notice that the "discursive abyss" lies in the vast expanse of this funny little word, communion.
The worldwide Anglican communion (or at least the majority of it), understands that the doctrinal content of the Faith, which necessarily includes its moral content, is something received and kept. In light of this view, the Robinson consecration is a departure from the faith and practice of the Church. Quite literally, ECUSA has moved away from the historic Anglican communion.
ECUSA views communion as . . . well, for the life of me, I have trouble nailing down what ECUSA believes. On the one hand, the official position in ECUSA is that core doctrine doesn't include moral stricture--at least not on the specific terms of the sexuality debate (cf. the Richter trial). Indeed, practically speaking, it doesn't appear the ECUSA believes that doctrine plays any meaningful role in communion. Bishops Bennison and Duncan are both hierarchs in good standing. Spong still draws a pension as does Wantland. But one would be hard pressed to affirm that these men have the same Faith, at least in its content.
Now the Presiding Bishop, among others, highlights certain sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, as constitutive of communal bonds. And at least prima facie, this goes back to Ignatius (well, really, St. Paul). But here again, when we dig a little closer, we come to see that there are severely divergent views on just what these sacraments are and what they're doing. More to the point, if there is not shared content of faith regarding the Eucharist, have we reduced the sacrament to some magical ritual in which we all somehow can continue to hang out together? Here, I admit, I no longer have a handle on what ECUSA believes any more about the Eucharist, so I'll have to defer to AKMA's perhaps more in-depth and field-trained grasp. Perhaps he can better articulate how the Eucharist (or some other sacrament) is constitutive of communion for ECUSA given what I take to be all the divergence on this matter.
The only thing that seems clearly stated in the ECUSAn understanding of communion is that it is institutional. One need merely listen to the players to get the sense that since ECUSA still has her Anglican Players International card, she's still in communion with the rest of the (Anglican) world. Therefore, since she's institutionally attached (via Canterbury and the other instruments of unity) she's Anglican, and if anyone is going to be breaking communion it's "them others" since ECUSA isn't breaking communion with them.
It seems to me that these are the two fundamental views of communion being put forth. And I don't think they're reconcilable. So in the end, it's going to take more than an appeal to institution to ensure continued communion.