The Problem of Communion: Impaired Communion

Is it helpful? Is it even logical?

First, I hope my readers will have a blessed Feast of the Ascension today. If you are in the Corpus Christi, Texas area and would like a service of Evening Prayer for this day, let me know.

Tuesday, I introduced into this Problem of Communion series the concept of impaired communion. I noted that a respected and learned friend dismisses this concept by saying, “Either you’re in communion or you’re not.”

And he has a point. To make it personal, let’s say I’m attending a service led by a priest who I know is in error significant enough to perhaps be a communion breaker — something that has happened frequently in Oxford. Hey, I can’t resist a good choir. Anyway, if it is a Eucharist, I have the choice of receiving communion from the errant priest or not. I can’t halfway receive. Nor can I receive with my fingers crossed, which would be something of a sacrilege. (Although once I would have been so difficult to get around and conspicuous if I stayed in my seat, I politely went forward with the rest and received a blessing. I am not certain I did the right thing, but I had to make a snap decision.) As my friend might say, either I take communion or I don’t. But I will foolishly press on and wrestle with the concept of impaired communion anyway.

I would define impaired communion as a suspension of communion that does not go to the point of a hard excommunication or separation. It might leave the question of communion as something to be resolved. It is done with more hope of restoration and less bridge burning than a complete excommunication and separation.

I can almost see my learned friend smile at my awkward attempt of definition. Perhaps a current example would better illustrate impaired communion and how it can be helpful in some situations.

When the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) was formed, the most difficult issue was the ordination of women. The resolution, presented as temporary, was that there would be no women bishops, and as for women priests and deacons, that would be decided at the diocesan level. For the sake of getting ACNA off the ground and keeping people together, this stopgap was agreed to, but as the Bishop of Ft. Worth Jack Iker, of blessed memory, recalled in 2017 in his annual address to his diocese:

Those of us who agreed to the formation of the ACNA in 2009 did so with the clear understanding that a serious theological study would be done and that a decision would be made at that time.

But this solution meant there was an impairment of communion from the beginning. For many in ACNA do not recognize women priests and will not receive communion from one. This was one reason women bishops were proscribed, to allow some semblance of communion between dioceses and at the provincial level.

The promised theological study was done by the Task Force on Holy Orders. It did find that women’s ordination “is a recent innovation to Apostolic Tradition and Catholic Order” and that “there is insufficient warrant to accept women’s ordination to the priesthood as standard practice.” But nothing in ACNA changed as a result. We were told, no doubt accurately, that there was not the consensus necessary to change the Canons.

That left the Diocese of Ft. Worth, among others in ACNA, with the quandary of how to respond. They could have completely broken communion and left. Or they could have done nothing and go along to get along. Instead Bishop Iker acted and stated the following in his 2017 address:

We are in a state of impaired communion because of this issue. The Task Force concluded that “both sides cannot be right.” At the conclave, I informed the College of Bishops that I will no longer give consent to the election of any bishop who intends to ordain female priests, nor will I attend the consecration of any such bishop-elect in the future. I have notified the Archbishop of my resignation from all the committees to which I had been assigned to signify that it is no longer possible to have “business as usual” in the College of Bishops due to the refusal of those who are in favor of women priests to at least adopt a moratorium on this divisive practice, for the sake of unity. Bishops who continue to ordain women priests in spite of the received tradition are signs of disunity and division. I hope these brief comments give you a better understanding of where we are and what my intentions are for future discussions about this issue which must take place.

To my knowledge, this “state of impaired communion” continues for the most part to this day, now under Bishop Reed, although he has consented to be appointed to at least one ACNA committee.

Although I do not think this state of impaired communion can work indefinitely, I think it a good way to proceed for the sake of unity. ACNA could not have been formed if full 100% communion among all its clergy, men and women, had been insisted on. At best, two churches would have been formed. And many did not find a multiple jurisdiction solution acceptable in part because overseas archbishops sponsoring us informed us that they would recognize only one province. And ACNA would not remain together if there were a take it or leave it policy on women’s ordination.

Still there are problems with impaired communion. Leaving aside the question of whether ACNA should be re-formed and reorganized, I cannot see this state working well for much longer. It is not unlike a marriage that stays together only for the sake of the children. There needs to be genuine reconciliation. And, although I have not studied the question extensively, I will venture to say it would not be in line with orthopraxy for this state of impaired communion to go on and on. If a matter is a communion breaker, and the matter has no hope of being resolved acceptably, then break communion. If a matter is not a communion breaker, then restore communion.

Still, I think impaired communion can be a helpful stopgap that buys time and avoids burning bridges for a time.

But, whether impaired communion is logical or a thing or not, I keep hearing my friend’s voice: “Either you’re in communion or you’re not.”

Yet, as I wrote Tuesday, communion does require putting up with some messiness and even illogic, does it not?

With that up in the air conclusion, do have a blessed Feast and season of Ascension.

—

Lead in photo: L to R, Bishops Ryan Reed, Foley Beach, and the late Jack Iker