Sarx

ITH THIS part of the F.A.Q., we leave behind the questions of “how?” and “what?”, focusing more on the “who?” and “Why?”

Cartoon by Dave Walker.

You said you were thinking about the Indy Sacramental movement as a home for this. That makes you non-Anglican.

Anglicanism as a polity and an historically open-source philosophy of religion can drive some people batty: the inclusion, from the very beginning, of evangelical and catholic, of what each side saw as “conservatives” and “liberals”, within the Elizabethan Compromise has grown, certainly, to a point of fracture now. But Anglicanism’s charism is inclusion and what we hope to hold out is the idea of such inclusion in a Byzantine context.

The idea is to be, if you will, “non-Canonically Anglican”. I choose those terms on purpose – they will be understood by any and all who are Orthodox. There are 12 or so “officially orthodox churches” in the world. There are 70 or so officially Anglican ones. There are a handful of “non-canonical” churches. What this means, no one quite knows. In the USA, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), for example, was for a time considered non-Canonical but no one can actually tell you why. They were out of communion with the Patriarchate in Moscow. But In communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem – and a few others. Some groups were in communion with both Moscow and ROCOR. ROCOR and – for a long time the Ecumenical Patriarchate – considered the OCA to be non-canonical. But they still would go to parties with them. In America the churches of the Jerusalem Patriarchate are considered non-canonical by the Antiochians because of turf issues. But ROCOR welcomed them. Even more exciting, laity came and went between the various bodies at will. Only recently did some bodies decide that others were not welcomed at the chalice. The phrase “non-canonical” means only “some (but not all) of those who call themselves ‘canonical’ Orthodox don’t like you.” Effectively, there has always been “impaired communion” among the Orthodox – including many of the bodies that one imagines to be “Orthodox Vagantes”.

Some canonical Anglicans don’t like the indy movement. But on the other hand some canonical Anglicans do. I’m aware of places where, with the blessing of the local hierarch, indy clergy serve at Episcopal altars. Some even on staff. I think we can say “Non-Canonical Anglican” and get away with it. And have a good laugh at church polity at the same time. And, naturally, laity come and go between the bodies at will.

This underscores what I’ve been saying, towit, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are very much alike: Orthodoxy, as a collection of national or regional churches, has no unified leader, no central body at all. Only the media (and, sometimes, certain theologians) make the Patriarch out to be the “leader of world-wide Orthodoxy” as a parallel to the Pope.

Anglican land does, even now mirror Orthodox land: with a primus-inter-pares without power save in love’s name, several also-pares trying to up the ante, jurisdictional overlap in the USA, Jerusalem and Europe, sheep steeling and even whole parishes changing jurisdictions, and liturgical in-fighting about who is right with what text or translation that proves it. Don’t tell anyone, but sometimes you even see women wearing cassocks, although not as priests. Yet. And the Primate of Finland wants to welcome gay people.

So… there’s a reason there were Orthodox Bishops at the “Fond du lac Circus”. And with ECUSA (or parts of it) being in “impaired communion” with most or part of the rest, she’s filled with “non-Canonical” Anglicans too. If she should willingly walk away from the Communion or vice versa ECUSA would be no less Anglican save in the minds of literalist and legalistic readers.

So you want to lure away Episcopalians from an already-struggling community?

Not at all. There’s no intended “sheep steeling” here.

When I was growing up I was a member of a very wonderful Anglo-Catholic parish. We were Anglo-Catholic on the Novus Ordo model, like many English parishes. The rector was a supporting member of ARCIC, and as a community we were very sympathetic to Roman Catholics who were in exile: cut off from their home communion because of issues with divorce or marriage outside “the faith”. We became home to many disaffected ex-Roman Catholics: married clergy, gays and lesbians, unwed mothers, etc. Father John, the rector, made it clear that sacramental actions were not his to control, but rather God’s to bestow. I remember once, visiting a family in crisis: the parents were divorced and the mother had remarried. No RC priest could be found to make a pastoral call. But I needed only to pick up the phone and Fr John was there for this family.

They, too, joined the parish.

More traditionalist Anglo-Catholic places also fill this role, welcoming Roman Catholics disaffected by the liturgical changes of Vatican II found a home in such places as St Mary the Virgin in NYC or Church of Our Saviour in Atlanta.

At her best, Anglicanism welcomes home the exiles and that’s what I want to be.

Yes: there are disaffected Orthodox. I’ve met them. I had one Bishop in SF tell me that he was talking to many of the youth at the Greek food festival and, for them, the church’s only purpose was that annual food event. They wanted nothing else to do with it. I’d like to be Father John in this context. Gays and Lesbians, the “wrongly” married, single mothers and others who feel cast out of the church of their birth.

How would you get those?

I’m thinking post an ad on Craig’s list after Pascha (as celebrated on the Eastern Calendar) and maybe hold a few meetings in coffee shops.

Is this going to be all about liturgy and fancy eastern vestments?

No. If that’s all there is, it’s kinda boring. Jesus will not ask you how many metanias you did, nor will he care that you did or did not eat meat during Lent. Did you feed the poor? Did you help the needy? These are what he will ask you. To be Church, our community must empower the members to do the works that manifest God’s love in the world. We must show God’s own hospitality to those around us, to those who come to us, and to those we need to seek out. That will be what this is all about. Only in the doing will we be able to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Liturgy will flow out of this self-understanding as an emergent property, if you will.

But there will be fancy eastern Vestments, right?

Truth be told, I’ve never liked the vestments that look like my grandmother’s flocked wallpaper and costing $400 – $1500. Instead, I would imagine a parish with hand-made vestments could get along fine. We might even have to have a sewing bee. ANd while I know that several devout people make beautiful vestments, the making of them is note a secret reserved only to the initiated. And what would God say to me on judgement day if I were constantly wearing robes more pricey than my parishioners could afford for themselves?

Short term, I don’t imagine vestments at all. In fact, I’m struggling with my desire to own a Kosovorotka or Tolstovka, which I think would just be the coolest shirt ever. Add a vest with pockets to look, you know, clerical. But then, unless I had sewn the Tolstovka myself, I’d be dressing up to “look like” a Pharisee in the market place, nu?

Talk about staring the parish

I already have. Some of my ideas have changed, but the basic sketch is still the same. No, the Didache liturgy is not the same as St John Chrysostom. But we all need to start somewhere – and sharing the Holy Mysteries is what makes a church. So we’ll start somewhere that people can grasp and move forward. (And, truth be told, I imagine any parish will need a pot luck, Bible-study Eucharist, even after it can serve John Chrysostom’s liturgy.)

So, Potluck, Didache and Bible study – with some music teaching thrown in. Move to evening liturgies, and from there… who knows.