For months, some Anglican churches and/or leaders in the “Global South” have proclaimed that they are in a state of “broken communion” or “impaired communion” with the U.S. Episcopal Church. These Anglicans are outraged about the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly-gay priest in a long-term committed relationship, as Bishop of New Hampshire. This morning, Simon Sariento’s Journal published a list of some twelve to nineteen provinces that have made such proclamations.
That got me wondering again: Just what does it mean when someone says we’re in “broken” or “impaired” communion? To what extent should (we) Episcopalians be concerned about proclamations of this kind?
There’s an obvious threshold question: What does it mean to be “in communion” in the first place?
Communion as Mutual Participation
in Proclaiming and Serving the Gospel?
The Latin root of “communion” is said to mean “mutual participation.” In announcing full communion between the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold implicitly defined “communion” as being grounded simply on a shared historical ministry and a common mission:
[T]he Episcopal Church is now, as of today, in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on the basis of a shared ministry in the historic episcopate and for the sake of common mission in proclaiming and serving the Gospel.
Griswold’s statement comports with some of the dictionary definitions of a synonym for communion, namely fellowship:
fellowship: * * * The condition of sharing similar [Ed: as distinct from identical] interests, ideals, or experiences, as by reason of profession, religion, or nationality. The companionship of individuals in a congenial atmosphere and on equal terms. A close association of friends or equals sharing similar interests.
The simplicity of this definition is quite attractive. I can regard myself as “in communion” with anyone who seeks to follow Jesus and to proclaim his good news. This doesn’t mean I must agree with everything the other person believes or says or does. In fact, I might even be able to be in communion with Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., as long as they lived the values that Jesus preached.
More Restrictive Definitions of Communion
But other, more restrictive definitions seem to imply that communion is a much closer bond than mere fellowship:
communion: * * * Intercourse between two or more persons; esp., intimate association and intercourse implying sympathy and confidence; interchange of thoughts, purposes, etc.; agreement; fellowship; as, the communion of saints.
A body of Christians having one common faith and discipline; as, the Presbyterian communion.
(Emphasis added.)
This comports with the harder line taken by some Roman Catholics, as in this excerpt from an essay at Faithful Voice:
[T]hose who dissent from Church teaching are not in communion with the Church. They have set themselves against the teaching of the Catholic Church, according to Canon Law, if they dissent from teachings which are to be held definitively. In other words, they have set themselves against Christ. For it is He who teaches us through His Church.
Communion as the Peace of Christ?
According to In Communion, in the Orthodox tradition:
The phrase “in communion” reveals the deeper meaning of the word “peace.” To be “in communion” is to be linked with others at the deepest level of existence. For the Orthodox Christian, communion means intimate participation in the life of Christ: receiving the awesome and life-creating Mysteries that heal body and soul, repel adversity, illumine the mind and heart, sustain love and faith, nourish wisdom and banish fear. This is the peace of Christ.
If Communion is Broken, Should We Care?
That’s a tough one. For myself, I have to revert to professional type and give the classic lawyer answer: It depends.
I also have to ask myself what difference it makes. Communion is at least somewhat important because none of us knows everything. Moreover, history provides ample proof that much of what we think we know could very well be incomplete or just plain wrong. As a result, we’re well-advised to pay respectful attention to those who honestly disagree with us, or who simply have a different perspective, in the hope that we might all learn from each other.
On the other hand, communion doesn’t seem like that big a deal. As I mentioned yesterday, I strongly suspect that each of us has an individual, non-delegable responsibility to God to make our own moral judgments as best we can. We can and should consult others. There are times when we can properly defer to the judgment of another, e.g., if we believe the other to be more capable or better informed. But that decision is itself a judgment, for which we are accountable to God just as much as for any other. We can’t evade responsibility for doing (or not doing) something on grounds that a “communion” authorized (or prohibited) it.
In the end, I guess I’m not so concerned about whether I’m “in communion” with someone else. That’s just a label. I’m much more interested in whether I can work with them to proclaim and serve the Gospel. If I can, then from where I sit, I’m in communion with them.
Leave a Reply