Most of us are so busy with the life and work of the parish or group to which we belong, that do not take or make time to reflect upon its name and that of the larger unit to which it belongs. And, in the vast supermarket of American religions, we get so used to the peculiarity of our own name and association, even though it may seem odd to outsiders, that just live with it.
When we do reflect, or when someone asks a pointed question, perhaps we notice that we use both the word “church” and “Anglican [and/or Episcopalian]” in different ways and with different meanings. Perhaps we do not realize that this is confusing to outsiders and may also reflect the lack of witness in American “Anglicanism” to the confession in the Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Let us begin with the word “church.” When we use it of the consecrated building or temple, such as St Mark’s Church, do we realize that the underlying word here is KYRIAKON which literally means “thing belonging to the Lord.” This being so, do we also observe how odd it is to insert into the name of this building further words, such as “St Mark’s Anglican Church” or “St Mark’s Reformed Episcopal Church” or “St Mark’s Anglican Mission in America Church” ? Here is a building consecrated in the name of an evangelist for the worship of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Why complicate and distort this most important and beautiful fact by adding more nouns or adjectives? Why not simply have the correct name on line 1 and then on line 2 add any further information as to its identity (e.g., name of jurisdiction to which those who use the building belong)?
When we use the word “Church” in the Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church – we refer to the people of God, the household of God, the Body of Christ living through space and time and in heaven. The underlying word is ECCLESIA which literally means in the New Testament and in regular Greek, “assembly of people.” This people is governed by holy Order under the Lord Jesus Christ and it may possess holy buildings and other property, but “Church” here is people who are being saved from sin by divine grace and mercy. The local assembly of this universal people is also “church” and should be a kind of microcosm of the whole. Again the local assembly may have a KYRIAKON.
Regrettably the One Church of God is divided into many parts, several very large and many small. Thus for the purpose of identification of the parts we have to use adjectives to indicate what part (jurisdiction, branch, denomination etc.) is intended. So we speak of the “Orthodox” Churches and of the “Roman Catholic” Church. However, when we come to the use of “Anglican” or “Episcopal” we cannot any longer simply say “the Anglican Church” or “the Episcopal Church.”
Certainly there was once the one Ecclesia Anglicana in England and from this sister churches were founded in the British Empire and Commonwealth. But now, in North America, there is out there a growing list of the bits and pieces Anglicanism, testifying to the powerful centrifugal forces of modern American culture and religion, which caused them to be separate and keeps them so. There are over forty “jurisdictions” bearing the “Anglican brand name” in the American supermarket of religious denominations – everything from e.g., the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. through the Christian Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Missionary Church, the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church of America, the Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, to Anglican missions belonging to Anglican Provinces in Africa and South America. And many more! In each one there are “saints of God.”
From within this situation, Anglicans and Episcopalians may care to ask:
What are we doing to try to allow the centripetal powers of unifying grace to heal divisions and bridge chasms and reconcile the divided?
Do we think that this powerful statement of disunity honors the Lord or helps the propagation of the Gospel and the engagement in pure worship?
At least, should not all those who think that ECUSA is apostate at its center and who think that there is such a thing as the orthodox Anglican Way be seeking to find ways of being together in the name of Christ in real cooperation and practice?
Further, should not those who really want to unite their “Anglican” jurisdiction or group with Rome or the Orthodox or the conservative Lutherans or Presbyterians get on with doing this, so that those who really want to be Anglican Christians and who remain can attempt to unite in meaningful ways? [It is possible that those groups who are looking for unions outside of the Anglican Way are hindering the work of uniting the genuinely Anglican groups by raising unnecessary questions and creating unsolvable problems.]
---------------------------------
Additional Note. There is a further use of the word “Church” in the ECUSA and this is really neither from KYRIAKON or EKKLESIA! The commonly-used description of the Offices and Administration of the Episcopal Church in NYC as “the National Church” seems to equate “Church” with the office of the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council of the General Convention.
The Revd Dr Peter Toon June 2, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
No comments:
Post a Comment