RSS

Contact us

FAQs

Sunday 27 May 2012

Mark Sisk and the crisis of the communion

Before meeting the Episcopal bishop of New York I nose around the massive cathedral. On a wall, between two side chapels, is a brass plaque, inscribed in copper-plate with some august words of sacred scripture: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands…We declare these truths to be self-evident, and so on. Maybe the Declaration of Independence should be more prominently displayed, for this Church has recently got in touch with its revolutionary side. In a sense the whole crisis in the Anglican Communion originates in its awkward propensity for democracy (bishops are elected).
 
Mark Sisk doesn’t look like a revolutionary. He looks like an older thinner Bill Bryson: round specs, light beard and genial smile. He has no lordly airs: my pompometer stirs not.
 
He tells me that the relationship with England has always been ambiguous: after the Revolution, England was reluctant to see a separate Church emerge. ‘The Church of England did not make us feel embraced in those early days. On the other hand there was a desire, from our side, for the connection – the first Lambeth Conference was called because American bishops asked for it. The notion of the Communion is something that in many respects has been invented by the Episcopal Church - our creation as a separate Church created the Communion, if you will.’
 
The current crisis in the Communion began with the election of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. Was Sisk glad about this bold development, or did it feel like an alarming leap into the unknown? ‘Well, ideally these things would be neat, and there would be guidelines in place, but in real communities the process tends to be more difficult. This man was well known and highly regarded. Everyone knew that he was in a committed same-sex relationship; nevertheless they voted for him. And I personally am somebody who is very committed to the democratic process. They may be wrong, but they gotta live with their decisions. They know their own situation best.’ But diocesan democracy is not the whole story: the bishops had the choice of whether to approve the election, didn’t they? ‘Yes, and the questions for me were: first, is this man a Christian, a faithful person? I felt he clearly was. Is he living an openly and notoriously evil life? In my opinion no. Did this election take place properly? Yes, I felt it did.’ If the subsequent crisis had been somehow forseen, would this approval still have taken place? ‘I think it’s entirely possible that it would have.’
 
Has the Church been pretty united in backing Robinson, despite all the external anger? ‘Yes, not unanimous of course, but press reports of internal dissension have been far overblown. In this diocese, which admittedly is not typical, no parish has left. Overall, two or three hundred parishes have, out of seven thousand congregations.’ Losing five per cent of the church doesn’t sound too fatal, but it could get worse if the dissenters are granted recognition by the Anglican Communion, as the more authentic Anglicans.
 
From a liberal point of view, I suggest, the Episcopal Church emerges from the crisis stronger than ever. It has got off the fence, declared its liberal identity. Does the pro-gay line help in communicating the gospel to young liberal agnostics here at home? ‘Yes I think it does have positive impact for mission, but again I think one of the great dangers is that we are insufficiently articulate as to why this is the case – lots of voices want to say, oh they’re just being up to date with all the latest secular thinking – and we mustn’t acquiesce to that interpretation.’ The Episcopal Church does have a reputation, I suggest, for wacky liberalism, liturgical experimentalism, lesbians knitting their own vestments (I don’t say the last bit). ‘I think that’s a very popular interpretation of the Episcopal Church in England – an assumption that we’re wacky, out-there, anywhere, and clergy can do whatever they want. Our disciplinary procedures for clergy are actually very rigorous, compared with certain other parts of the Communion.’
 
Support for the ordination of homosexuals entails the desire to see gay marriage, I suggest. So Sisk is in favour of changing the nature of marriage? He hesitates slightly. ‘I think the Church is sort of wrestling with that, but there is no consensus yet. Personally I believe in moving that direction.’
 
What has emerged over the last few years is that the Atlantic marks a major difference in ecclesiology. The crisis has showcased the democratic habits of the Episcopal Church. If the debate in the Communion starts going its way, as progressives assume, it could emerge with new authority, as the new model of Anglican Church, could it not? ‘I think it’s a mistake to prescribe for another community what their structures should be. In this large and pluralistic country democratic processes work reasonably well. England is a different country – how it works things out is its own business. I wouldn’t want to tell England how to operate, and I don’t think England understands at all well how we operate.’ 

Actions: Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink   |   Comments (10)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Back to top

Advertisement

Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved