(Mark is Rector of St. James' Episcopal Church, Millcreek Hundred, Wilmington, Delaware. Formerly Coordinator for Ministry in Higher Education, Coordinator of Overseas Personnel and Partnership Officer for Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East at the Episcopal Church Center. He is author of The Challenge of Change, the Anglican Communion in the Post Modern Era, published by Church Publishing Incorporated.)

For most of us, most of the time, the Episcopal Church is the one we go to on Sundays. That's it. The further away we get from our worshipping community the less the connection. So, when I was reflecting on the possible retrenchment that might grow out of the Lambeth Conference, a clergy colleague of mine said mockingly, "Gee, that really scares me!" It made me think, does it really matter to the rest of us what the bishops do at Lambeth? Only rarely, I think. But rarely is often enough to warrant our close attention. So here are some beginning thoughts on the matter. They are pretty simple, and I apologize for that, but they do address a bit the question, "Does it matter?"

Of course we all have some contact with the wider church community. We know that the givens' of our local experience are not determined alone by our own worshiping community, They are greatly influenced by our commitment to a wider circle. The Book of Common Prayer, our expectations of our clergy, our sense of what is right and proper in Episcopal Church worship all derive from our sense that we are the local incarnation of a wider communion and fellowship. Anyone involved in the ministry of the church, lay and ordained alike understand that there is a discipline that accompanies that wider engagement. In order to acquire that discipline, we come to agreements about how we will present ourselves before God and our neighbors, and we develop a sense of who we are.

As Episcopalians, part of our agreement has been that we see ourselves bound with one another by way of councils. We are not solely congregational, we are in council with our bishop, and our local counciliar bodies are in turn a part of a larger counciliar system called the Episcopal Church. We agree to abide by the Canons of the Episcopal Church, and by the rules its councils provide for the conduct of public worship, the organization of the church and its mission, and the ordering of its ministers.

Our sense of council beyond that point is less clearly defined. In the Preamble to the Episcopal Church Constitution, the Episcopal Church is defined as "a constitutent member of the Anglican Communion" which is defined as "a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer." (This formulation itself arose out of a Lambeth Conference.)

The formula has one great failing. There are two distinct criteria for membership in the Anglican Communion: "communion with the See of Canterbury," and "upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth...", but there is no hint as to how the two are connected. Is there a link, and if so how is that connection between communion and common faith established?

From a local standpoint all of this may seems pretty abstract, and unmistakably dull, until one thinks about the strange possibilities. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were not to invite, or at some point dis-invite say, the Bishop of Newark (or someone like him), to Lambeth, would that be tantamount to a break in communion? If he were to do so because he or a select committee determined that the Bishop of Newark did no longer "uphold and propagate" historic Faith and Order, would that mean that the Archbishop was trying to impose his will, or that of some party within the Church, on a diocese in the United States? The answer is clearly, "Of course."

What would that mean here (say in Delaware where I am located)? Well, would clergy ordained in the Diocese of Newark be clergy recognized in the rest of the Anglican Communion, here or elsewhere? Would their state be different than any other clergy seeking a job outside her or his own diocese? Would the Bishop of Newark continue to be part of the House of Bishops, if members of that House were determined to be in fellowship with the See of Canterbury and felt they must express solidarity with Canterbury rather than Newark? If the Bishop were not part of the American house, would the diocese have any obligation to pay for the support of the Episcopal Church? And interestingly, would another person be able to be elected by delegates from worshiping communities, and claim for his or her constituancy in Newark's domain the funds and properties of the Diocese, since they would claim to be the entity locally established in communion with Canterbury?

What is not clear is just how the dual criteria of communion with Canterbury and "faith and order" might work out in practice. And that is what Lambeth is all about, at least this time. Lambeth is about practice, practice, practice. Some of the bishops think that practice makes perfect, and are perfectly willing to tell us what constitutes correct practice. It matters a great deal just how they might wish to bring us to perfection.

Several ideas have been reported and floated about in the media that claim to be about making the Anglican Communion a "more perfect union:"

1. The Archbishop of Canterbury or the Primates (who could more easily skew matters away from the bishop heavy West) ought to be given authority to address faith and order issues internal to a Province (like the Episcopal Church) if asked to do so by some as yet to be determined body within the Province. The way this might work out in practice could be pretty dreadful. Perhaps it is enough to note that the Roman Catholics seem to be asking that we strengthen "central authority," although I suspect that is so they will know just where to send their next infallible rejection slip. If they are for it, might we not think to be against it? Let the buyer beware. Why should we care what the Romans think, since they have rejected our Orders yet one more time, using that great gambit of central authority, namely infallibility?
2. The Lambeth Conference itself could attempt to determine just who was in communion with the gathered bishops when they met as a group. That is the source of petitions and suggestions that certain bishops be called on to repent or leave. But that gives to the Lambeth Conference a council function it does not have. The invitation to Lambeth is to communion together, to supper. That invitation is issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury, not by some of the guests deciding who is acceptable. This is not only a bad idea; it is bad manners. It also flies directly in the face of the earliest worries about Lambeth, that the Conference might indeed become a Council and might try to determine by whatever means necessary correct doctrine or discipline.
3. The Conference could adapt certain resolutions that would provide a litmus test for future inclusion in the Communion. The Kuala Lumpur Report is touted as a possibility. This is dreadful. Litmus tests are reactive in the worse way.
4. Barring other possibilities the idea of a walk out has been floated as a means of political coercion. The idea is that the really successful, growing and vibrant part of the Communion could leave and take the "real" church with it, leaving only the empty shell of the degenerate West behind. If the threat were taken seriously the West would have to clean up its act and repent. If not, so be it. And here the danger is simple and real. It assumes that these bishops are not themselves subject to judgment and repentance, or that their own houses are powerfully in order. There is arrogance in this threat that takes many forms, too many to list here. It equals the worst of the arrogance of some of the Western bishops who assume their agendas to be the central ones. The future of this sort of threat is unseemly name calling. The press would have a field day!

Who knows if any of these proposals will make it through? Indeed, who cares? I think we should.

What are we to do with any of this? We in the church have to exercise a great deal of energy to move beyond the local to anything like a concern for the workings of the Lambeth Conference. And because, as church, we so seldom look beyond our own local concerns, it seems as if it is an artificial and even unseemly sort of activity. That is, it seems political in a raw sort of way. Because we do it so rarely, it also seems contrived and sometimes silly. Jesus surely did not have either the parade of imperial princely bishops or the bickering of the prudish in mind. Yet the Lambeth Conference can be both imperial and prudish, and both for political reasons. If it acts in imperial or prudish ways, that matters, and not for the good. It is not just silly stuff, for the bishops come home.

Whatever emerges from Lambeth this week, life on the local level will go on. But if bishops in this Church come home more hesitant to embrace those who the Conference was hesitant to touch, the Conference will have been a disaster. If they come home more concerned to regulate right thinking than to embrace new dreams, the Conference will have done us a wrong. If they come home cowed by the purity practice they have seen from afar and not enlivened by the transparency they have experienced in pastoral practice with those in their care, there will be no health in us.

At its best, Lambeth can strengthen, refresh and encourage those who God has put in places of high visibility where they are often sacrificed for our petty foibles. At its worse, Lambeth can help them turn away from all of us who are heavy laden and have no rest.

That is why, it seems to me, it matters what the Bishops do at Lambeth.

• Back to Work: Reflections on the aftermath of Lambeth 98, and why there can be no rest, By Mark Harris. 9/5
• What part of the word 'full' don't they understand, by Mark Harris. 8/11
• The Rev. Mark Harris [Wilmington, DE] responds to Bishop Spongs' Theses. Pre-Lambeth, 1998
• Louie Crew's Anglican pages.
• Louie Crew's home page.
• Send mail to: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu

Please sign my guestbook and view it.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.