In the Anglican Church, Race Matters…Not Doctrine

I normally stay away from commenting on the convulsions of the Anglican Communion, whether here in the Diocese of New Westminster, whose bishop is a heretic and schismatic (by the standard definitions of those terms), or in the Anglican Church of Canada, which tolerates such behaviour, or in the Anglican Communion worldwide, which is wracked by controversy over the legitimacy of homosexuality (ostensibly) and a lot of other things, such as heresy, schism, power politics, racism, and more (fundamentally).

I have belonged to Anglican congregations in Winnipeg and Vancouver, and have lots of contacts in Anglican churches in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K., but I am not a confirmed Anglican and so I rarely speak up about what are “family problems” in someone else’s “tribe.”

Speaking of “tribe,” however, I am moved to headshaking by the recent appointment of Mark MacDonald, already an Anglican bishop, to the newly-created post of National Indigenous Bishop in Canada. According to the Anglican Journal, Bishop MacDonald will have “pastoral oversight over all of Canada’s indigenous Anglicans no matter where they live.”

The only other non-territorial bishop in Canada is the Bishop Ordinary to the Armed Forces, who has pastoral oversight of Anglicans serving in the Armed Forces. But this is actually, in an important sense, a territorial jurisdiction, in that most military personnel have their homes–especially while on active duty–in regions belonging to the Armed Forces.

Anyhow, what strikes me about this appointment is how enthusiastic about this news is Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, and exactly how he justified this extraordinary appointment: “It’s important to remember that we elect bishops for the church,” he said. “We don’t elect bishops for national jurisdictions.”

Well, yes. But this is the same Archbishop who has stood with New Westminster bishop Michael Ingham against the idea of appointing bishops to shepherd orthodox congregations in Canada who no longer respect their current bishops who teach against the doctrine of the church and flout its ethical norms. When it comes to churches that resist Ingham’s crypto-Hinduism and his support for same-sex marriages, suddenly Archbishop Hutchison gets all territorial again: one region, one bishop.

The weirdness deepens in that I actually agree with Hutchison on this point. If you’re going to have an episcopalian system (that is, governance by bishops)–and I’m not convinced you should, especially in North America, but that’s another topic–then they should govern the whole church in a region, of whatever size makes administrative and pastoral sense. There should be neither Jew nor Gentile, to coin a phrase. So I don’t see how appointing a bishop on racial lines is a good move in this regard.

Indeed, I don’t agree with my Anglican friends who advocate for orthodox bishops to shepherd orthodox congregations. What happens next? A proliferation of bishops, one for each congregation’s particular preference of liturgy, doctrine, morality, and so on? A bishop for Prayer Book conservatives and another for evangelicals and another for charismatics and another for Anglo-Catholics and another for Barthians and another for Tillichians and another for liberationists and another for New Agers?

No, what should have happened is what should have happened long ago: Michael Ingham and his like should have been charged with heresy and defrocked, if they did not recant. And at least if the church split then, it would be over the gospel, not over how we feel about homosexuals and their unions.

It’s too late for that, however. So now we have the absurd situation of catering to the alienation of native peoples–an alienation that is certainly understandable in the wake of the residential school abuses–by dividing the church’s leadership along racial lines, while stonewalling the many more Anglicans who are alienated from officials who patently deny the faith.

0 Responses to “In the Anglican Church, Race Matters…Not Doctrine”

  1. Tim Perry

    Exactly, John. Please feel free to say that to whatever bishops, priests, deacons, and laity in my church that will listen. If they won’t listen, shout it.

    It is a delightful irony that when liberals are castigating African conservatives, they talk about inclusion and having a seat at the table. When they castigate North American conservatives, they talk about schism, prohibition, replacing wardens, and changing the locks. Almost as delightful as the freedom with which both sides choose to invoke and/or ignore the procedures of the church depending on what will serve ideological needs at the time.

  2. j morgun

    I’m not Anglican, and I certainly don’t know a lot about the structure of the Anglican Church, so forgive my ignorance, but I feel passionate about this topic. Separations because of race and doctrine certainly have similarities and indeed point to definite hypocrisy… But I think that the case of the First Nations is exceptional. Considering the history of residential schools, and the fact that the church (Anglican and otherwise) has not even begun to seek meaningful reconciliation with First Nations people, I see the appointing of a Bishop to oversee Aboriginal believers as completely understandable. If there are complaints about separations along racial lines, perhaps the church needs to be proactive in building unity and repairing the damaged relationship.

  3. John Stackhouse

    I can’t solve the problems of the Anglican Communion, but I can at least solve Andy Rowell’s problem with an RSS feed available now in the sidebar of the homepage.

    Thanks for pushing me to do this, Andy!

×

Comments are closed.