Church as "Safe House"

In the Episcopal Ordinal, one of the vows a bishop takes at ordination is to "guard the faith... of the Church" (BCP p 518).

It's not an easy task. Perhaps for some, this suggests that the bishop is to protect orthodoxy and be on the savvy for any signs of theological drift. The Anglican tradition, however, is not known for being all that schmoozy with orthodoxy, generally not preferring neat systems, but comfortable ambiguity, instead.

Anglican authority rests on scripture as understood through tradition and reason, with maybe some experience thrown in, that is, scripture as the "normative tradition" in which all the others are evaluated and grounded and from which they may not "depart." By its very nature, though, interpretation by such an inherently corporate method cannot possibly reside in a single person or even a single order of ministry, clergy or lay, but traditionally rests in what has been called the "consensus of the faithful." The scriptural canon as we know it, that is, the Old and New Testaments, and the Nicene Creed, e.g., were creatures of church councils in which such multilateral authority was understood and accepted as the norm.

It should be obvious, then, that to "guard faith" as is required of bishops at ordination is vastly different, say, from protecting the creeds from errancy, a difference somewhat analogous to that between authority and power, between servant leadership and manipulation, between faith as way of life and faith as system. Anglican tradition is consistent with the gospel’s insistence in effect that we, and especially the bishops or other overseers are by the very nature of their office, called to be shepherds, not veterinarians, pastors, not judges or inquisitors, and rarely and only when competent, apologists and prophets.

One of the primary reasons the church has a thing about the office of bishop and exercises such care and expense to maintain and sustain it is to ensure and oversee the availability always of church as a "safe house," a time and a place where faith as being faithful can be dared, practiced, refined, renewed, and articulated with security, where the faithful in all four orders of ministry (lay, deacon, priest, bishop) with all our shortcomings and sinfulness, confusions, uncertainty, and perplexing relationships can exercise our covenanted adventure in faithfulness, in short, where we can be faithful to God, to each other, to ourselves, and to everybody else.

There is hardly a greater risk than this, which, as well, is one of the higher forms of love for one’s neighbor. Such obvious vulnerability requires the most compassionate and perceptive kind of pastoral leadership, oversight, and community.

Such a safe house has little or no need for exclusive and patronizing boundaries rigidly placed, nor for monetary hostage-taking, but only such indefinable limits as may be offered through the grace of forgiveness and reconciliation and inclusion. Any church that proceeds to charge its own members with heresy, let alone tries and convicts them (if even it could be called a church in any New Testament sense), would be guilty of the grossest kind of spiritual malpractice and negligence. When we go about choosing bishops as we soon will do, it would be well to keep all that in mind. Anything less, would be just plain tacky. -- JLD

[COVENANT, Number 17, June 2004]