You really couldn’t make this up. The latest crossing of swords in the Church is widely reported today, and has quickly gained the tag ‘Mitregate”. The story runs that Presiding Bishop Katharine, who had been invited to preach and preside at Southwark Cathedral, was subsequenly “vetted” by Lambeth Palace and asked for proof of her ordination to all three orders (eh?!), and then told she could only carry, not wear, her mitre, nor carry her crozier – the symbols of her office.

Is it true? It’s well known in Church circles that one of the current pastimes when there isn’t any news is baiting the ABC, whose job is a poisoned chalice in some ways – it’s impossible to find a middle way, so someone will deride him whatever he does. So there may well be an element of exaggeration or a vital missing piece in the story. As far as I know no statement has yet been released by Lambeth, so the story is one-sided. Whatever the truth behind the headlines, though, this has already caused another almighty wave of fury on the other side of the pond, which is picking up plenty of echoes over here.

Hugh Muir commented on Monday on this oddity, and today Ruth Gledhill at The Times reports that: ’Lambeth Palace are investigating the way the leader of The Episcopal Church was treated in Britain this week after Anglicans in the US have complained that she was forced to carry, rather than wear her mitre, at Southwark Cathedral. ‘The Most Rev Katharine Jefferts Schori has described as “nonsense” and “bizarre” the edict from the Archbishop of Canterbury that forced her to hold her episcopal hat when she preached and presided at Holy Communion this week.’

But if it is true (and it’s clear, though regrettable, that the story rings immediately true to Episcopalians in the USA) what could possibly be the reason for “vetting” such a senior and renowned Church leader, and by implication giving such a cool and guarded welcome? . It’s well known that The Episcopal Church has been asked to take a step back from the Anglican Communion since the ordination of Mary Glasspool (although it seems curious to me to pick only on one detractor and not play even handedly with all parties in a disagreement). So either that consecration, or the perceived disobedience it implies, could be the reason. On the other hand, the Church of England Synod is just about to debate a vital stage in the process towards consecrating women as Bishops here – so was there a wish to avoid any kind of confrontation or accusations about cranking up the pressure in that quarter?

Author Diana Butler Bass, though, says the row is nothing to do with homosexuality or women in the Episcopate, but to do with a more fundamental disagreement about the identity and practice of Anglicanism worldwide. She was quoted on CNN’s Beliefblog but read her argument in full on her own blog at Beliefnet

This is not a conservative/liberal argument (both Rowan Williams and Katharine Jefferts Schori are theologically liberal). This is a fight between rival versions of Anglicanism–a quarrel extending to the beginning of Anglicanism that has replayed itself periodically through the centuries down to our own time.

Rowan Williams’ letter articulates “top-down Anglicanism,” a version of the faith that is hierarchical, bishop-centered, concerned with organizational control, and authoritarian…  This version of Anglicanism stretches back through the Middle Ages and relates to similar forms of Christianity as found in Roman Catholicism and some forms of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Katharine Jefferts Schori’s letter speaks for “bottom-up Anglicanism,” a version of the faith that is democratic, parish-based, mission-oriented, and (even) revolutionary…  This version of Anglicanism is rooted in both the ancient Celtic traditions of English Christianity and the missionary work of St. Augustine of Canterbury circa 600.

As history unfolded, different cultures have picked up on one or the other of these two streams–for example, the British church remains primarily hierarchical (even referring to their bishops as “My Lord Bishop”); while the American church is primarily democratic (”God alone is the Lord”).  The Ugandan church is authoritarian; while the South African church is revolutionary. The Anglicans in Sydney, Australia are boundary-oriented and communally closed; while most other Anglicans in Australia are liturgically-oriented and open (the Anglicans in Darwin, Australia are so open that their cathedral doesn’t even have walls).

At its best, Anglicanism manages the polarities between these tensions–often creating locally innovative expressions of a church that is both hierarchical and democratic, bishop and parish centered, bounded and liturgically open at the same time.  Over the centuries, this has been called the Anglican art of comprehension, or the via media (the “middle way”).

Read the rest here (edit: – Diana has just been in touch to point out to me that she has updated her post since I quoted it… so go read her latest thoughts)

Me, I shall avoid getting over excited until there is a statement, if one is needed, from Lambeth and from TEC. I suspect, especially given that the Presiding Bishop’s comments quoted above were typical of her gracious and understated style, that this event is ten percent genuine gaffe and ninety percent media kerfuffle.

(A minor detail struck me in Ms Butler Bass’s account, which may be worth pointing out for those unfamiliar with the curiosites of British culture. “My Lord Bishop” is a term rarely used in real life, and when it is, it’s in the context of a highly formal setting such as the house of Lords, where Bishops really do hold the title of “Lord”, along with a whole bunch of other people who hold peerages of one sort or another. It doesn’t indicate a hierarchical attitude (at least no more than any other Episcopal system) but the fact that we have peerages, which are generally held in amused affection, rather than overly seriously. The bizarre theatricality that was larded on in the West Wing is a complete fiction. We really don’t do that here.)

Click here  for my further thoughts on Mitregate, and the reactions of those women who are being ordained this month;

and here for why I think the English Church can get mired in a row about a hat