Permit me to share two stories, from a new priest in a new
congregation, to set the stage.
When I arrived as priest-in-charge of St. Augustine of
Canterbury Episcopal Church, Augusta ,
Georgia
This seemed excessive.
I began talking to people who knew the diocesan history, and
learned that this list of expectations had been hastily crafted in a
reactionary period, when the diocese was attempting to restrain breakaway
congregations, whose vestries believed (or had been taught) that they had no
obligation to follow diocesan canons or governance. The hope was to thereby teach the LEMs what
it meant to be “real Episcopalians” in spite of these vestries and
congregations.
These requirements (of “emergency” confirmation in order to
conform with the rubrics on the one hand, and of negotiating formidable lists
of formational requirements in order to serve in the public liturgy on the
other) point simultaneously to two realities.
One: it is right and appropriate that those who minister in the church’s name should be properly formed and prepared for that work of ministry;
Two: excessive or reactionary imposition of canonical
requirements as a prerequisite to exercising the ministry of the baptized are
neither right nor appropriate.
What is sought (in both of the instances above, if we look beyond the particulars of each case) is the suitable formation of persons in their work as baptized Christians, for service in the church and in the world. And this is indeed right and appropriate.
This is the substance behind a number of Resolutions before the General Convention in
What may be
lacking is education and formation. This
is addressed in Resolution A041, which asks two things: that the congregations of the Episcopal
Church provide instruction and formation in the history, structure and governance
of the Church and opportunities for lifelong Christian formation, and persons
serving in any office of this Church shall receive instruction in the history,
structure and governance of the Church and in the duties and responsibilities
of the office they undertake.
Formation in Christian faith and living is an ongoing lifelong process which requires the Church as a partner to provide suitable resources to foster that process. This reality is addressed in Resolutions A046 and A047, calling for the continuing development of trained “Christian formation leaders, facilitators and teachers” to serve the Church, and for the development of an Electronic Learning Community as a a principal resource for such formation.
Much of what is requested by these resolutions (especially A041, 46 and 47) is already being done in many, if not most, Episcopal congregations and dioceses. The importance of this particular legislation is a matter of canonical consistency: to remember throughout our rules of governance that it is by Holy Baptism that we come into the Body of Christ. We are formed as Christians throughout our lives to live into and out of what it means to be part of that Body. As the larger societies around us increasingly demonstrate values foreign to those of Christ’s household, the Church’s responsibility for this formation and education becomes ever more essential.
Query: Then what is the Sacrament of Confirmation for? Why would it ever be needed? If I follow the argument, one may receive Holy Communion and the rest of the Sacraments, presumably even Ordination, all without being confirmed? Is Confirmation nothing more then that the reaffirmation of Baptismal Vows? If so, then why is a Bishop required? Yes, Romans do have priests who preside over Confirmation, but their canon law states that they are doing so, standing in for the bishop. Tradition has it that Confirmation is the adult recognition of the baptised person into the body of Christ. Perhaps I have misunderstood, as the argument seems to obviate Confirmation and render it completely effete.
ReplyDeleteResponse: Hi Frank :)
ReplyDeleteThe understandings of confirmation--what it means, what it is "for"--are many, and sometimes self-contradictory, depending upon who is answering the question.
In fact, the confirmation rite in the current Episcopal Book of Common Prayer is indeed "nothing more" nor less than a solemn renewal of baptismal vows in the present of the Bishop. The prayer for the seven-fold gifts of the Spirit (formerly associated with Confirmation in earlier versions of the Prayer Book) is used in Holy Baptism, along with the signing of the cross (and often Chrism) to signify that indeed Holy Baptism is the complete rite, not dependent upon being "finished up" some time later.
The Episcopal Church alone among the Protestant Churches of the West (and yes, I know we're both Protestant and Catholic, but hold that for a moment) has reserved the authority of confirmation to its bishops. Every other church has allowed for presbyteral confirmation, as does the Roman Church (under certain conditions), as do the Churches of Orthodoxy. In our polity, everything a parish priest does, he/she does "standing in for the Bishop." So this is not so extraordinary as it might first seem.
Confirmation MAY mean a great deal to someone (like myself) who came into the Episcopal Church as an adult, where the rite signalled the ritual completion of some process by which we said "Yes, I choose this for myself now." Or it may mean very little, for instance, to someone who was confirmed at age 13 because that was when they were "supposed" to do it. The subjective experience of the rite will vary with the individual, of course. What the rite does not do, *in and of itself*, is bestow lifelong formation in the values, customs and teachings of this Church. That sort of formation is what the proposed canonical changes seek to articulate and require, particularly for persons who wish to exercise leadership (as, for instance, members of the Vestry.) The proposals do not obviate confirmation, but they do not ask it to attempt to do something it cannot.
From a lay perspective, confirmation meant a lot to me as well. My parents had me baptized in a Presbyterian Church at a very young age. Symbolically, it meant nothing to me, but presumably opened doors to membership in the body of Christ. At age 18 I went through confirmation in a Presbyterian Church because I liked the preacher but later learned the Presbyterians do not like gay men. Feeling unwelcome and rejected by Christians in general I left the church for a few decades but Jack and I continued to visit and take the pulse of attitudes of the church while we lived in the very liberal Bay Area. Here we encountered a very different world, full of love and inclusion unheard of elsewhere and a degree of "wisdom," for lack of a better word, among Episcopalians that I presume comes from their "inclusion" of both Catholic and Protestant values. We "dated" the Episcopal Church for several years and when we arrived at St. Paul's decided to enter into confirmation class to affirm our commitment to the Episcopal Church (not just St. Paul's). I hope that regardless of the church we support, we will share a lifelong commitment to justice, Outreach, liturgy, telling the truth, and adult Christian Formation and we hope the fruit will be "evangelism by example."
ReplyDelete