Realignment, or Reformation?

On Friday and Saturday, April 18 & 19, 2008, at Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, Georgia, I attended a conference of the Southeastern Convocation of the Anglican Communion Network.
Friday morning’s panel discussion was the highlight of the two days, and the presentation by The Reverend Dr. Kevin Donlon was a real eye-opener, and in some ways the highlight of the highlight.
I had not heard of Donlon prior to this – he is the rector of an AMIA parish in Tampa, Florida, though in the past year he has logged over 100,000 air miles, serving on the Global South’s Theological Formation and Education Task Force, whose specific task is to draft a theological framework for a new catechism for the Anglican Communion. He has a Ph.D. in church history from Oxford, with a specialty in canon law. Of interest to some in Tennessee - he also knows John Bauerschmidt extremely well, as they were in Oxford at the same time doing their doctoral work.
Here is what I heard him say:
While many are talking about the need for “realignment” in the Anglican Communion, Donlon does not believe that a realignment would be sufficient to correct the current troubles. He argues that we must have a reformation.
He used the analogy of a car - we go in for a realignment when things are just a little out of whack on the front end of our car, when we suspect something is wrong and drive it in for our mechanic to “fix it.” On the other hand, we have a reformation when an institution’s core foundation itself is flawed, and we need a major overhaul of the entire system – that is his premise on the foundations of Anglicanism.
Donlon believes that Anglicanism was doomed from the beginning because of the establishment of the Church of England as the State Church. With bishops chosen by state officials, rather than church officials, and the titular head of Anglicanism, the Archbishop of Canterbury, part of that system, he does not believe we have the structure to settle difficulties such as the one in which we find ourselves today.
He argues, however, that we do have a model in church history that will satisfy our current need, that we must go back to the conciliar model of the New Testament Church and the early fathers – as John Rodgers said, “Bishops gather for councils, not for picnics.” It is exactly how the church organized itself and settled disputes in its first ten centuries. Donlon advocates that we reform to that model for Anglicanism in the 21st century.
Donlon believes that this reformation probably will not include Canterbury – as he sees it, Canterbury is likely not to participate because of its established position in the Church of England and perceived need to maintain that position.
He also added that the only legal entity currently, by canon law, among the Instruments of Unity in the Anglican Communion is the Anglican Consultative Council – not the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Primates’ Meeting, and not even the Lambeth Conference. This, he argues, is another major flaw in the current polity and structure of the Anglican Communion.
Donlon has a book coming out sometime this summer – Order Out of Chaos. It sounds like a must-read.
Donlon’s comments, for me, focus even more attention on the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem this summer, prior to Lambeth. He is serving as an advisor to the Global South Primates. If they are listening and contributing to what he is saying, the reformation he says we need may be closer than what some of us may think.

Tithing

Do you ever think about tithing? Evidently, not many of us do anymore. Here's an article about the Barna Group's latest survey on tithing - giving 10% of our income, the Biblical standard for giving, to our local church.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Post a comment below.

SIGNS & SYMBOLS

Well, I finally decided to enter the 21st century – the Richardson household signed up for Netflix this past weekend.

And, through cyberspace, I then proceeded to go back almost into the middle ages - I just finished watching Into Great Silence on my laptop. If Fast & Furious – Tokyo Drift is your favorite movie, this 2 hour and 41 minute film might not be your cup of tea. My seventeen year old son, Jacob, walked through while I was watching, looked at it for a moment, and said something along the lines of, “so, Dad, you’re watching old monks doing boring things.” I tried to ignore him as that often is how he describes me.

This documentary, by Philip Gröning, is about the monastery of Grand Chartreuse in the French Alps. Gröning spent six months with the monks, living as they live, filming everyday life as they live it - there’s no voiceover, no musical soundtrack, no artificial lighting, and definitely no explosions or car chases.

There is one scene in the film in which there is dialogue – occasionally “the fathers” go for a walk and are permitted to talk with one another. In this scene, they are discussing their custom of hand-washing prior to their shared meal (most meals are eaten solitarily in their cells). It’s clearly a ritual – single file, they walk by a trickling spigot, pass their fingers through some water, and then wipe their hands on a large linen cloth prior to entering the refectory (that’s monk-speak for “dining room”).

Some of them seem ready to do away with the tradition – they feel that it serves little purpose, as they are not really washing their hands. But then one of them says,

“Our entire life, the whole liturgy and everything ceremonial, are symbols. If you abolish the symbols, you tear down the walls of your own house.”

He goes on – “When we abolish the signs, we lose our orientation. Instead, we should search for the meanings…The signs are not to be questioned, but we are.”

And lastly – “The error is not to be found in hand-washing, but in our minds.” Let those last two statements sink in for a moment.

“The signs are not to be questioned, but we are.” “The error is not to be found in hand-washing, but in our minds.”

Far too often, as a culture, we are far too ready to cast traditions, or things, or even people aside, because they no longer fit into our notion of what we believe life should be like today. I deeply appreciate this reminder to look inside of me for the problem, and not assume too quickly that the issue is the tradition or the thing or that person I may think I can do without in my life.

Yes, I am the one to be questioned – the error is most often in my mind, and not in the liturgy, or the teachings of the Church through the ages, and definitely not in the Scriptures. As someone has said, “It is not we who read the Scriptures – the Scriptures read us.”

The entire film resonates with its recall to simpler life – to borrow Brother Lawrence’s phrase, to practicing the presence of God in each moment of daily life. The monks kneel in their cells on wooden prayer desks (with no kneeler cushions!) for extended prayer time. They sit in silence in their cells for most meals, bread, soup, fresh fruit, water, alone with only their thoughts and God as companions, looking out on the changing seasons as seen through a small window or an open door.

The film itself is sacramental – an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace.

So, the next time you have 2 hours and 41 minutes on your hands, and want to be reminded of what is really important in life, and don’t mind letting some old (and young) monks doing boring things be the ones to remind you, sign up for Netflix and watch Into Great Silence on your computer. Or, go old school, and let them send it to your house. I for one can always use a little more middle ages in my 2008-paced life.