Mindful of Christ’s words that “where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there among them” (Mt. 18:20), we should view with a high degree of concern the situation that has developed in the Diocese of Connecticut. Many on all sides of this matter have pointed out that this is a time for prayer and for the quietness needed in which to hear God’s voice and discern, individually and together, God’s will for us.

The facts, it appears, are thus: six rectors, along with their vestries, are defying the authority of the Episcopal Church USA, and of their diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith. These rectors—the Rev. Allyn Benedict of Christ Episcopal Church in Watertown, the Rev. Mark Hansen of St. John’s Church in Bristol, the Rev. Ronald Gauss of Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, the Rev. Gilbert Wilkes of Christ and the Epiphany Church in East Haven, the Rev. Christopher Leighton of St. Paul’s Church in Darien, and the Rev. Don Helmandollar of Trinity Church in Bristol—may face removal for their actions.

In a dispute concerning Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, the rectors and parishes have apparently sought alternative episcopal oversight under the direction of bishops they consider orthodox, in a way that severs all ties with their diocese and its bishop. This contradicts the Windsor Report’s recommendations and numerous understandings among bishops of the Anglican Communion, beginning with agreements reached over a century ago concerning jurisdiction. It also violates the Constitution of the Episcopal Church, which does not allow for the transfer of parishes to another diocese unless the parish abuts the other diocese and unless both dioceses and both bishops agree to the transfer. Consequently, Bishop Smith, having jurisdiction over these rectors and parishes, is prepared, on the advice of the diocesan Standing Committee, to act on his understanding of his canonical obligations to remove from office rectors who have abandoned the communion of this church, and hence abandoned their cures. A last-ditch meeting on April 18, 2005, apparently made no progress toward resolution. While none of us knows exactly what will happen next, these events have taken on an air of inevitability.

As I think about them, nothing grows in me so much as a profound unease, as it should whenever people who gather in Christ’s name find themselves in places of irreconcilability. In my experience, intransigence breeds intransigence, but the prophet’s call to stand firm in faith remains. Since, however, the greatest part of faith is charity, we hope that all involved in this dispute can stand firm primarily in charity, seeking with goodwill the reconciliation and community that is Christ’s gift to a broken, but by no means helpless, world.

From time to time, a conflict such as this arrives at that sublime state of intractability where cries of “Let us pray” give way to “Here I stand and can do no other.” In such a case, it is important to remember that the conflict of good things has the ancient name of tragedy, and much wisdom has emerged from its study. As the German philosopher and theologian G.W.F. Hegel noted, tragedy is the conflict of two or more goods, not the morality play or comedy (in the sense of Dante’s commedia) that is too often made of the conflict of good and evil. This is why to witness tragedy—and to witness to tragedy—brings not only poignancy but catharsis. By contrast, a triumph over evil brings not so much a release as a sense of relief or, at its worst, the Schadenfreude of a revenge fantasy fulfilled. Insofar as a victory over evil brings regrets, we grieve for the good who were lost, whose sacrifice for a nobler cause is tragic. Trading the good of preserving my life for the good of preserving others’ may or may not have been necessary, but it is always a tragedy.

With such thoughts in mind, it should be clear to us that a tragic situation developed in these six parishes in Connecticut long before they felt called to stand firm against their church and bishops for, among other things, ordaining and consecrating “unchaste homosexuals,” as they put it in a recent letter to Bishop Smith. It has been developing, in my view, throughout these rectors’ tenures, as they have estranged their parishioners from the Episcopal Church. Any good that they have done in their ministries has been wrapped in an effort to build walls of separation between themselves and any of their fellow Episcopalians who do not agree with them—and to build walls between the Episcopal Church and other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Actions that make walls such as these impregnable or that make our differences irreconcilable, are, as our Presiding Bishop has said, faithless. They are, that is, acts of despair.

One way to think of despair is as the refusal of charity. It is to cast away God’s caritas, gift of the Spirit and sign thereby of God’s presence. When others refuse to allow us to be present to them as God has called us to be, they not only reject our humanity, but also the Spirit of God, replacing it in their hearts with an idol they have made of their own understanding of what God wants, what God has said, or what all must confess to be saved. This is, in my view, what these six rectors have done and led others to do. As a consequence, their ministries, at this time, are nothing so much as efforts to protect for themselves what no one is trying to take away, and to keep for themselves things that are not theirs alone. Their ministries only appear threatened to them because they do not hold them securely with God—with caritas before all, and with malice toward none—but with the frailty of human hands, slipping.

Those who lead in such a way as to perpetuate conflict and to thrive on its spoils do the most damage to those who most closely follow them. We can predict this with historic and, I suspect, mathematical certainty. In the end, that is, it is the parishioners of St. John’s (Bristol), Bishop Seabury (Groton), Christ Episcopal Church (Watertown), Christ and the Epiphany (East Haven), St. Paul’s (Darien), and Trinity (Bristol) who will suffer most, whatever happens. The saddest thing of all is that they may continue, whatever happens, to place themselves beyond the church’s aid.

Yes, indeed, let us pray.

Christopher I. Wilkins, Ph.D.
Facilitator, Via Media USA
ciwilkins@viamediausa.org / http://viamediausa.org