Daniel,

In the face of the failure of a Communion based on mutual trust and “bonds of affection,” what then would you suggest?

The call for a confessional Anglicanism is one which I hope will be rejected. The 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP are authentic expression of the faith, but can hardly be seen as authoritative for all times and all places.

I recall a moment when it became clear to me that civility in the US was at risk. It was during an interview with Gen. Wesley Clark after one of the 2004 presidential debates. Gen. Clark was part of Sen. Kerry’s campaign team and for several minutes the interviewer treated him with an incredible level of rudeness - interrupting every response from Clark. I never imagined that I would see a decorated retired general treated that way by a reporter.

One of the problems is the anonymous nature of blog comments.

I don’t believe that this is the domain of electronic phase space.  Our culture seems to be isolating itself into clics of intellectualism, choosing those they agree with, without any strategic sense of community.

I have experienced this same angry polemic in person and at work, not only electronic forums, or one-to-one e-communication.  Even hand written letters, rare though they are, seem to have lost their art, and resorted to declarations, and meanness.

The problem seems a purposeful, though not always with awareness, inidividual isolation. The solution seems to be community where there is safety.  We as Christians need to see we have the inherent solution as long as we avoid being part of the problem.

When I was in seminary and university in what is now the distant past we were rigorously schooled in the fundamentals of logic so that we might learn rationally to analyze an argument and respond to it in an informed and reasonable manner. It was some of the most valuable teaching I had, but in today’s forums the rules of logic and principles of rhetoric have all but disappeared. We have delineated ourselves into what are essentially two armed camps slugging things out. Moderating voices are sidelined and so the answers now HAVE to be right or wrong, black or white, left or right, liberal or conservative, traditional or progressive, and so forth, and so forth.

I remain convinced that a core problem is that the presuppositions (sp?) of different sides are never articulated. If you enter a conversation with someone with markedly different assumptions, and those assumptions are never acknowledged, the debate is likely to be frustrating indeed.

[I switched browsers and I miss the spell checker in Firefox]

I am so thankful for this blog!
There is only ONE who knows our hearts, and HE is the one who taught “Judge not lest ye be judged.” We never know what pain and fear might be motivating folks who go for the jugular on some other blogs.
Perhaps blogs such as this one will serve as places where people can feel safe to express their points of view without fear of rejection.

I wonder what blogs would have looked like had they existed during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Talk about polarizing events! JFK assassination theories, Vietnam war disillusionment, Vatican II, the era of Nixon, changes in social mores, wow, what fodder for rancor and misunderstandings. Not only on the world scene, but there was the initial attempts to allow women to be Episcopal priests, a whole new/revised prayer book, new music, etc. I suspect that the choosing of sides and throwing darts at the other side would have surfaced in spades in blogs if they had existed. I think that we see the unruliness of whatever debates are now occuring because they are so public whereas in years (centuries?) past they were much more behind the scenes. The Pharisees and Sanhedrin do not appear to have been very tolerant of the followers of Jesus (and how many times did St. Paul get run out of town?).  That all said, I do prefer to confine my forum-following to ones that are moderated at least to a degree.  I stay away from free-for-all forums, especially where religion and politics are on the agenda.

I think that Phil makes some good points, but I think that the problem goes way beyond blogs and the internet.  Phil says

What is the solution?  First, we need to debate in public with the ground rules of basic logic.  Second, we need to be sure we understand the arguments that the opposition makes.  We should try a forum where we actually argue for the opposing point of view.  When I debated in High School we had to be prepared to debate both sides of the issue.  This was very helpful.  Third we should refrain from political machinations as the means for discernment.  The last place that should be discerning doctrine is a political body.

I work at a law school.  One of the things done at law schools is that students are required to take part in “mock” trials - they are each assigned one side or the other of a contemporary legal issue and made to argue that side.  The rationale is that a good lawyer ought to be able to argue any position well.  Well last year, the issue chosen by the professors to be argued was same-sex marriage.  Students were assigned randomly to argue either side.

Apparently, there was one very liberal professor, who was unable to separate her personal feelings from her teaching, and she brutally attacked the poor students who had been assigned to argue the case against same-sex marriage.  This professor was completely incapable of stepping back and responding in a calm and gracious manner.  This seems to me something that is increasingly happening.  As someone in academics, I see this behavior overwhelmingly from liberals who are intolerant of and threatening towards anyone who deviates from their POV, but I have seen similar responses at times from conservatives to those with different…

Or as my good friend Fr Blankinship has often said: the Internet proves that a billion monkeys tapping away at keyboards will never randomly produce Shakespeare!

One of the problems is the anonymous nature of blog comments.  Since we don’t look at our advesaries, we don’t see them as persons whom we need to respect.  This can be solved by having more open dialogue in person and in open forums.  A few years ago, the Presiding Bishop came to Dallas and had a question and answer session with the clergy.  She was gracious and took all questions - but she didn’t answer them in any detail.
Another problem with the blog format is that it allows the easy construction of straw man arguments where a person will object, not to the actual argument, but to a mis-representation of it. 

A third contributer to this whole mess is the politicization of the discernment process within the Church.  We no longer prayerfully discern what God has revealed to us in Holy Scripture, but we create political action groups and push and strain at the boundries and dare anyone to gainsay us.  Our tactics are those of the political arena, not those of the Church.  This creates winners and losers and winners and losers share animosity towards each other.

What is the solution?  First, we need to debate in public with the ground rules of basic logic.  Second, we need to be sure we understand the arguments that the opposition makes.  We should try a forum where we actually argue for the opposing point of view.  When I debated in High School we had to be prepared to debate both sides of the issue.  This was very helpful.  Third we should refrain from political machinations as the means for discernment.  The last place that should be discerning doctrine is a political body.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Thank you Dan for your openness. 

First, I am thankful for Fr. Tony’s irenic and insightful post. As an avowed revisionist, I have long thought that the resignations of traditionalists were unfortunate. I have no desire that the Communion become monochrome and have valued my friendships with those who hold convictions very different from mine.

Second, I have grown weary of complaints that one is being ignored or not listened to. As a revisionist I have neither ignored nor refused to listen to traditionalists. At the end of the day, however, I have made decisions that traditionalists wouldn’t make, not ignoring their convictions, but disagreeing with them. A similar process may happen in settings like ACC meetings, and a decision that one doesn’t like doesn’t mean that one was ignored.

The sad result, IMHO is that this openness is in fact the opening to a parting of the ways.  That which you hope for as a diversity in one community is not possible to such as I.  In my opinion you have embarked upon another path; diverged sufficiently from the apostolic path to have walked into a religion that I cannot recognize as Christian.  This is disagreement that can be done irenically and lead to a mutual parting of the ways, which is how I understand it between us.

HOWEVER neither you nor I have influenced those who seem to lead.  I believe shenanigans of the ACC, the Standing Committee and these new developments as a form of hostile institutional take over by those on the “revisionist/reappraising” side.  This was most obvious in Jamaica.  It clearly had been going on for some time as we see now revealed in the writings of those who resigned or did not bother to turn up.  So far as I am…

It is notable that Fr. Clavier does not actually make a case that the substantive critiques of the ACC constitutional document and the process by which it was developed are much ado about nothing.  For example, in an attempt to deflect some of the criticism, he says,

Note that a standing committee by definition is a committee of the body which appoints it and must answer to that body.

But the point is that the new document uses the term “standing committee” but defines it in a way, within the document and by reference to the Companies Act, which is inconsistent with the usage Fr. Clavier says holds “by definition.”  In this case and others, Fr. Clavier has neither effectively rebutted the point or shown why it is unimportant.

Fr. Clavier also ranges over other territory not specifically the subject of the critiques of the constitution.  However, when it comes to supporting the charges of “much ado” or sounding like conspiracy theorists, he may think he has done so via atmospherics, but he hasn’t hit home.

First, I am thankful for Fr. Tony’s irenic and insightful post. As an avowed revisionist, I have long thought that the resignations of traditionalists were unfortunate. I have no desire that the Communion become monochrome and have valued my friendships with those who hold convictions very different from mine.

Second, I have grown weary of complaints that one is being ignored or not listened to. As a revisionist I have neither ignored nor refused to listen to traditionalists. At the end of the day, however, I have made decisions that traditionalists wouldn’t make, not ignoring their convictions, but disagreeing with them. A similar process may happen in settings like ACC meetings, and a decision that one doesn’t like doesn’t mean that one was ignored.

Naive and unreal!!  Oh well James.

Fr. Tony - whilst I respect your conciliatory spirit, I do have to wonder at either (1) your astonishing naivete or (2) your refusal to deal with reality.  Do you REALLY think that the Lambeth Conference would have had ANY different result had the GAFCON bishops attended?  As for the ACC, the western liberals managed to exclude GS delegates (and decided that the same rules didn’t apply to them when it came to SC membership) and managed to engage in political and procedural trickery and deception to pass a motion that had been previously defeated.  As for the Standing Committee, the resident orthodox primates (including Abp. Mouneer) resigned because he said that his voice was being ignored, and, in addition, ineligible liberal westerners were accepted as SC members in pretty clear violation of the rules.

Fr. Tony - all of the above happened with the tacit or open approval and/or planning of Rowan Williams.  Williams has time and time again played the GS leadership as dupes and fools - marginalizing them from any significant positions of power within the Communion, yet then claiming that “all is well” because they attended his emasculated gabfests.

Rowan Williams knows what needs to be done.  He has the power and authority to do it.  There is no point at all for the Global South leaders to continue playing Rowan’s games.  They have learned through bitter experience that Rowan has fully enough power to marginalize and sideline them when he wants to.

IMHO, the smartest and wisest thing for the GS leadership to do now is to NOT play Rowan’s games anymore until Rowan starts taking their concerns seriously.  When Rowan indicates that he is prepared to seriously address the Communion’s problems, then the GS can step forward.  Until then, there is no value at…

Yes it does by making it plain that the ABC and others in the AC are engineering a shift of power that will limit the authority of the primates, limit the discipline of heterodoxy, and will marginalize the orthodox majority representation in communion decision-making overall.  Your statement, “If traditionalists remained they would govern,” is a faith statement at best and is way far of the mark, imho, given what is going on at the higher levels of our AC hierarchy.

Orthodox provinces recognized years ago what Canon Kearon has recently said, that pecusa does not share the faith and order commitments of the AC.  To state that one is not in communion with a non-church is a statement of reality.  Refusing to share communion with those who have rejected the faith of the Communion is a godly act.  To stay in communion with heretics and an apostate body is to be complicit with the damage that pecusa has done and continues to do to the Communion, imo.  I have read the arguments of Radner, Reno (before he left for the RCC) and Turner.  The ACI crew are good theologians, but they are not the only good theologians in the AC.  I would cite J.I. Packer as just one among a number who have understood the ACNA as a godly response to the heterdox actions of pecusa and the ACiC.

If you want to stay in pecusa and play the political games of pecusa that is certainly your right.  You can call it an act of theological coherence as Radner does; that’s fine.  I will proclaim with a clear conscience the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the support of others free of association with those who have embraced the false gospel of pecusa.  Your example of Simon Stylites is strange given…

Tony, and does the resignation of orthodox bishops from the Instruments contribute to the witness of the Gospel within the Communion?  Right from the beginning of this crisis, orthodox provinces have acted as if they were autonomous, unilaterally declaring themselves in impaired communion with other provinces, as if “communion” was their gift, rather than that established by mutual relationship with the See of Canterbury.This strategy of withdrawal, typified by refusing to take communion with or receive from those deemed unworthy, makes every province and indeed every individual an autonomous moral authority. If we refused to kneel next to gossips, or adulterers, or those who abuse their spouses, or nowadays children who abuse their parents, liars, the jealous and indeed all who fall short of the glory of God and seem to defy general calls to repentence, our Eucharists would be thinly populated, and as +Michael Ramsey once observed, those remaining would be disqualified for their pride.

If we have confidence in the Gospel, we demonstrate such confidence by engaging those who err, even if we seem to lose, becoming noted for our consistence in adversity, our love for Jesus and our pastoral passion to restore those who fall. The present strategy of erecting pillars and perching on them in the desert, as modern versions of Simon Stylites, merely hands our mother the church into the hands of those in error. 

The Communion isn’t TEC, isn’t as nearly far gone from original righteousness as TEC. If the southern provinces are loyal to their Anglican mission they should step up and take responsibility.

“If traditionalists remained they would govern.”  Really?  Is this what we have seen over the last seven years?  Is this what the recent changes have been intended to strengthen?  Were the traditionalists that resigned being listened to prior to their resignations?  The answer to all three questions is a rather obvious no.

Thank You for an excellent article. Yesterday at church, the opening hymn was “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones.” One of the verses was “Thou bearer of the Incarnate Word, Most Gracious, magnify the Lord.” I have sung this hymn for years, and didn’t realize until yesterday that this verse is about Mary.
Our Roman brethren believe that the Blessed Mother will have a major role in the conversion of the world. She probably needs to convert “protestants” in the process.

I believe that Michael Poon’s article on the GS sit needs to be referenced here.
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/questions_regarding_john_rees_clarifications_of_the_new_anglican_consultati

He raises questions that I do not hear addressed, that have to do with western dominance in the AC.  It was not that long ago that there was significant objection to western dominance in the AC from GS leaders who at that point had not separated themselves through things like GAFCON and the recent resignations from the “Standing Committee” or what ever it is now officially called.  Part of the debacle in Jamaica with the ACC was again western dominance through language (English of course) and parliamentary rules that often take a lifetime to master, especially if one is not from the “west.”

Michael writes politely but I believe clearly.  When will we learn that the AC is meant to be a global communion not a western fiefdom, which, IMHO, is it swiftly becoming.

As convener of a subgroup of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order, tasked to review the Communion structures – due to report in the Cape Town Meeting later this year, I am puzzled why IASCUFO has not received report of such substantial work in its meeting in Canterbury in December 2009. Many Anglican colleagues worldwide have devoted huge effort to work on Communion matters, with the aim to find ways for the Communion to overcome its “ecclesial deficit.” Like some, I feel our labour spent on Communion matters is perhaps abused and wasted by the lack of transparency and due consultation.

Communion infrastructures have arisen in haphazard ways since 1945. The new ACC Constitution, I fear, is another instance. The lack of in-depth consultation on the constitutional changes stands in sharp contrast with the thoroughgoing processes in the drafting and dissemination of the Anglican…

The ACI has published a response to the interview with Canon Rees, concluding that the questions and concerns raised by its earlier Contrasting Futures paper are for the most part left unanswered.  http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2010/08/the-acc-articles-of-association-questions-remain/

It is true that Master Hooker didn’t create “the three-legged” stool theory, although he carefully expained the role of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. What he meant by Reason is plainly at odds with the later Enlightenment definition, now used by “progressives”, which makes them in their own way conservatives! grin

The Via Media was probably popularized not by Hooker but by George Herbert in his poem “The British Church” in which he decribes the CofE as “a mean between two extremes”, Rome and Geneva. It is difficult to connect that concept with the polemics of the Via Media groups in TEC.

In the following portion of an essay by the Anglican Curmudgeon we find what should be a normative approach to Richard Hooker, particularly on the subject of the Anglican theological method.  The essay is titled “Via Media Movement: No Orthodoxy—We’re Episcopalian!”  This section shows how the Via Media groups distort Hooker.

“By 2003, the name “Via Media” had become popular as a means of self-identification for several of these groups.

“The term ‘Via Media’ comes from the 16th-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, whose work established Anglicanism as a ‘middle way’ between continental Protestantism and Catholicism,” said the Rev. Edward Copland of Southwest Florida Via Media Episcopalians, the newest Via Media group. “Via Media groups in the Episcopal Church provide a balance to the American Anglican Council and Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, whose Web sites and publications call for criticism of the Episcopal Church and its presiding bishop,” Copland explained.

“The quotation is from this March 2004 article published by ENS, which does a good job of pulling together all the various threads of the Via Media-related groups. One characteristic of these groups is their misappropriation of Richard Hooker to their cause, as you can see from the above quotation. They profess to be his followers in employing the concept of a “three-legged stool” in traditional Anglicanism—affording scripture, tradition, and reason equal weight in judging the correctness of doctrine:

‘We are loyal to the doctrine, worship and discipline of the Episcopal Church USA. We are nurtured by scripture, tradition and reason – the three-legged stool of traditional Anglicanism. We are Episcopalians striving for that via media of diversity and tolerance in the Diocese of Fort Worth.’

“In fact, the author of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity never alluded to or described any such “three-legged stool”. To quote an…

There’s an interview with +Rowan’s Chancellor on the Anglican Communion website addressing these issues.

I think Fr. Clavier overlooks the distinction between charity law and company law.  The paper does not assume any overreach by the Charity Commissioners.  In fact, the paper is clear that the use of a U.K. entity for activities that need to regulated by U.K. charity law is not what is being objected to.  Bringing the ACC’s entire legal structure into a UK company means that its internal affairs are subject to UK law, which has implications that go beyond regulation under UK charity law.  One example mentioned in the paper is the imposition of particular voting requirements for amendment to the Articles.  Since the internal affairs of the company are subject to UK law, the fact that jurisdictional reach as to individuals outside the UK and Europe may be limited is not a satisfactory answer to the concerns raised. 

And the above is in addition to the power shift within the ACC that is effected by the new Articles and the attempted infringement on the prerogatives of the other Instruments and reduction in the role of member churches.  The suggestion is made that the paper draws improbable conclusions.  Is the thinking that although power may have been appropriated, it won’t be used?  Recent history suggests otherwise.

The Charity Commissioners are extremely unlikely to involve themselves further than their duty to ensure that funds raised and property owned are properly managed.  It’s a stretch to contemplate the EU involving itself in international Anglican matters and only has any form of jurisdiction in the UK and the rest of Europe. 

I do agree that representation needs to be more reflective of the membership center in the Communion. I certainly agree that TEC, in its mastery of canonical manipulation, will continue to seek to frustrate the will of the majority, that the Standing Committee must be made work for the ACC and the other Instruments. It is vital that the Covenant be adopted as soon as possible. Until then the possibility for more mischief remains.

We really should be careful about overkill. The Charity Commissioners are charged with ensuring that a non profit entity is genuine, and has appropriate rules for holding, buying and selling property and that funds are raised and spent in accordance with the purposes of a society or group.  The SC has been identified as the body answerable to the commissioners in such areas.  We are in danger of driving reasonable people into the liberal ranks when we draw improbable conclusions or project worst case scenarios.

What strikes you as overkill in the ACI’s paper?

We really should be careful about overkill. The Charity Commissioners are charged with ensuring that a non profit entity is genuine, and has appropriate rules for holding, buying and selling property and that funds are raised and spent in accordance with the purposes of a society or group.  The SC has been identified as the body answerable to the commissioners in such areas.  We are in danger of driving reasonable people into the liberal ranks when we draw improbable conclusions or project worst case scenarios.

Two thoughts:
1) Though I agree with what the ACI statement says, I think that a statement from the members of the Covenant Design Group, speaking as the CDG, that they were not informed beforehand of the changes to the ACC Standing Committee, and that the Committee as it has been reorganized under UK law is not the body they had in mind for such an important role under the Covenant, would carry more weight. I don’t necessarily mean a published statement, but I hope some such message to the Primates is being prepared, or has already been sent.
2) Has it occurred to anyone else that, if not for the procedural confusion of the Jamaica ACC meeting, and the delay which it caused in releasing the Covenant for consideration by the member Churches, the Covenant might already have been approved by some of them? Bad as it is to have this sleight of hand revealed now, it would IMO have been even worse if it had not been discovered until after the Covenant was in effect. If a Province had already signed onto the Covenant, would it even have been able to reverse its decision after the revelation, without the approval of the ACC Standing Committee?  The word “providential” comes to mind.

James, you clearly understand the realpolitik at work in the AC.  I hope that your dire predictions don’t come true, but you may be correct.

I didn’t even know this was optional?  The Great Commission (our “marching orders” if you will) tell us to go and make disciples of all nations.  I would assume that it includes people of other faiths, not just agnostics or athiests (as these were rather rare in the 1st century Palestinian Judaism).

Now the method of sharing the Gospel with people of other faiths should be respectful of their journey towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I’ve known several Muslims in prison who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  I ask them not to hate Islam, but to see Islam as part of what prepared them to know and accept Jesus Christ.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Daniel is surely correct when he says

I doubt that any of the Instruments is up to the task of preserving unity within the Communion

It definitely seems that the Anglican Communion is becoming more divided by the day, with each “last chance” being destroyed as it gasps for breath.  The latest such casualty would seem to be the Covenant, now suitably discredited by the shameless fiasco with the Standing Committee.  It certainly appears that Rowan Williams has cut out the legs of the Communion’s bishops (represented by the Primates and Lambeth Conference) from having any meaningful contribution to unity.  Furthermore, the ACC is exceedingly unrepresentative, and now apparently, subservient to a small group of western liberals who seem to follow no rules except those that they choose to follow.  Rowan Williams seems to have chosen a path of political manipulation and centralization, marginalizing the Global South while empowering western liberals.  The end result of this path will be, at best, a nominal Communion that is in reality an antagonistic federation of competing communions, and at worst, well, the same.

It is really too bad that Rowan Williams did not seek to lead the Communion towards a more organic, conciliar and representative future.  I think that the Communion would best be served by seeking to make the ACC more representative (give the smallest Anglican Province one seat and then apportion the rest by ASA).  Let the Primates and Lambeth Conference make significant decisions amongst themselves.  Let a Standing Committee emerge from the ACC and Primates with membership based on ASA representation.  Work with the British government on ABC appointments such that it would appoint as ABC a person selected and/or approved of by the Standing Committee.

Unfortunately, I think that for now the Anglican Communion will have to await its…

Dr. Radner’s comment - “It is not appropriate for one of the Communion’s four Instruments to be an English company….” - brought to mind a suggestion made elsewhere that it may no longer be appropriate for one of the Instruments to be an Archbishop who “is selected by a single Communion church, the Church of England, by means of an opaque process run by church elite. Moreover, the appointment is enmeshed with the politics of the United Kingdom. That selection process is undemocratic even within the Church of England, and no other member church of the Communion has influence over it at all….” (quoted from Lionel Deimel’s Web Log) Given what are the divisions within the Communion, I doubt that any of the Instruments is up to the task of preserving unity within the Communion, especially if unity requires member church’s adherence to certain - but clearly not all - Lambeth resolutions.

Tony,
I do agree with you in the short term. But I think that we must take a long-term view because we must wait on God for our renewal. It is not assured that there will not be renewal from within TEC or, in my case, the ACoC. There are new, young, faithful leaders being trained to go into both parish and academic ministry. I am not saying this will happen right away, but serving from within might allow for this transformation - by God of course - to occur. It is furthermore a biblically faithful witness to serve from within the erring people of God - from the prophets of the OT to, most obviously, Jesus Christ himself. That, along with historical examples of evangelical renewal movements, at the very least within Anglican and Roman Catholic history, would seem to provide at least part of the basis for the underpinnings of ACI’s position. I really do suggest you check out Dr. Radner’s post on the T1.9 thread; I think you will find it offers some perspective that you might find helpful in understanding ‘the battle’ they are committed to. Yes it is one of submission, but submission to a patient waiting on God to reform the structures of the Church; something perfectly within his power to do even if it doesn’t suit our schedules. For some perspective of why this is so, check out that thread.

Katie

Katie, I responded to Phil’s comments not yours.  I actually agree that the primates and the ABC should not allow their authority to be diminished. 
As I have said I do not put as much faith in the covenant as you all.  pecusa in particular has demonstrated that she can sign anything if forced to do so and will do so without any compunction concerning the truthfulness of her actions.  As I have also said, I am heartened by the recent sanctions, but isn’t it obvious that Schori and Co. do not care about the unity of the AC and will not turn back from pecusa’s current course?  I generally don’t read the comments at T19 or SFIF, but I did look at the comments that you linked.  I find Stephen Noll’s the most insightful - the essay above, like SFIF at a previous point, do not take into consideration the role of the ABC.  He has circumvented the Dar es Salaam sanctions and now has let if not enabled this change in the ACC.  This is realpolitik at work in my mind.

Tony,

You might find this discussion offers some insight concerning the mission of the Church and the “battle” which you believe ACI to be waging in error. Your argument does not account for the arguments put forward and responded to in these posts.

See particularly posts #7 through 20. http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/31309/#comments

Phil, rely on politics,no.  Be aware of and act accordingly, yes.  I appreciate the theological work of the ACI and I don’t think anyone in or out of pecusa should cede the field. I am heartened by the recent actions of removing pecusa representatives from councils, but I don’t believe that God will redeem pecusa. So, if not ceding the field means staying and working within pecusa then obviously we have a difference of opinion.  If not ceding the field means evangelizing and discipling people where God has placed us, then let’s work together. Placing so much faith in the covenant and the instruments of unity is misplaced, imo.  I do not believe that the covenant is the answer nor do I put my faith in the instruments of unity.  The battle does belong to the Lord and the ACI and CP are not only fighting the wrong battle - they are losing miserably. Schori and Co. would rather create their own communion than capitulate to the AC.  Whether God redeems the AC is an open question.  Meanwhile, the Global South and the ACNA are evangelizing, planting churches and dioceses, while the ACI and CP seek to work within a corrupt ecclesiastical system.

Tony,

If we rely on politics, the conservative cause is lost in TEC.  I don’t believe that is the role of the ACI.  I see Dr. Radner et. al. as prophets in the fashion of Ezekiel - “Whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house), they shall know that there has been a prophet among them.” (Ezekiel 2:5)

There is great humiliation and kenosis in what those of us who have remained in TEC, while being “loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.”  I know that the conservative cause is not going to win in TEC and I doubt it will win at the ACC.  But we are not called to cede the field, but to fight the losing battle for the battle is not ours.  The battle belongs to the Lord.  God will redeem TEC and the structures of the Anglican Communion at a time of His choosing.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Tony,

While I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the ACI pronouncements what is generally lacking is any understanding of realpolitik.  The conservative reformers within pecusa are constantly outflanked by the liberals in pecusa and the Anglican Communion.  It is a shame; I know that the ACI and CP folks mean well, but there is a gospel out there and your efforts have consistently come up short with regards to pecusa and the AC.  I don’t say this with anything other than profound disappointment.  The fact that Kearon would say that pecusa does not share the faith and order of the AC should be reason enough to see that nothing that has happened over the last seven-plus years has changed pecusa’s belligerent stance toward the AC nor is pecusa any closer to walking back to the AC.

You’ve made an assertion about the efforts of ACI with regard to the gospel and its proclamation that seems generalized and therefore unconvincing. I think you’ve largely missed the point of this piece, and, it seems, in the larger picture, the theological and political convictions of the work of ACI. Perhaps I am mistaken in this however. Could you provide a deeper analysis, particularly with respect to this piece, as to why you have made the generalized claims you have. Perhaps it would also help if you provided particular examples of what you mean by “there is a gospel out there and your efforts have consistently come up short ...”

Thank you,
Katie

While I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the ACI pronouncements what is generally lacking is any understanding of realpolitik.  The conservative reformers within pecusa are constantly outflanked by the liberals in pecusa and the Anglican Communion.  It is a shame; I know that the ACI and CP folks mean well, but there is a gospel out there and your efforts have consistently come up short with regards to pecusa and the AC.  I don’t say this with anything other than profound disappointment.  The fact that Kearon would say that pecusa does not share the faith and order of the AC should be reason enough to see that nothing that has happened over the last seven-plus years has changed pecusa’s belligerent stance toward the AC nor is pecusa any closer to walking back to the AC.

Randy+,

If sexual expression is not as important as those other items you list, then why do the progressives keep bringing it up and why do they continue to act in ways the hurt the unity of the Church?

Progressives, it seems to me, have two options.  First they can say that blessing homosexual sex (perhaps limited to a mutually monogamous relationship, perhaps not) is a gospel imperative and it is worth breaking fellowship with those who do not bless homosexual sex. 

Second, they can say that they don’t care about the unity of the Church - it is less important than blessing what the rest of the Church calls “sin.”

What progressives cannot say is that this this issues is not that important.  It is obviously more important to them than fighting poverty, disease, or working to spread the Kingdom of God through evangelism.  If it were not so important, they would not be pushing it until the other issues were (mostly) resolved.

Remember, it is not the conservatives who kept bringing this issue up before General Convention until GC gave a “Yes.”  The progressives were the ones who did that.  Their actions speak louder than any words concerning social justice, poverty, health care, or evangelism - let alone on Christian Unity.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Point taken Randy.

However, I disagree with Ian’s point 2. The Gospels are particularly important because in them we see Jesus living out the scripture. The Gospels are a historical record of Jesus, the Living Word. To see the Gospels as of particular importance does not mean that we disregard other scripture. It simply means that we bring the rest of scripture to Jesus to see if there are implications to be found in His earthly witness.

I was responding to those who will only take the 4 Gospels as authoritative Scripture and dismiss the rest.  There are then of course those who will impose further limits of their own making.  There is a particular group who like to exclude St’ Paul.  Another would exclude some of those attributed to St. Paul, ... and on and on and on!  The editing of the Scriptures seems to me to be a tactic used to limit discussion as much as others would accuse me of proof texting.

There used to be an old saying about contexts and pretexts.  Maybe someone can help me.

The goal here is honest discussion, intellectual and spiritual.  I believe that there need to be some parameters, and that for me these are usually those defined historically in the councils of the Church.  I.e., the canonical Scriptures as authoritative as a whole.

OK, I’d like to back off from the idea that sex is not important. I agree that sex is important, and it certainly deserves serious discussion among Christians who are concerned about right behavior. However, my point has been that there are other issues in regard to right behavior that are at least as important as sex. Among these I would include justice issues, war, how to treat our enemies, the right place and use of money, who is our neighbor. (And, from my point of view, sex is less important than these in part because they seem to be of greater important to Jesus. He talks about these things much more than he talks about sex.) I like Ian’s point 3 in this regard.

However, I disagree with Ian’s point 2. The Gospels are particularly important because in them we see Jesus living out the scripture. The Gospels are a historical record of Jesus, the Living Word. To see the Gospels as of particular importance does not mean that we disregard other scripture. It simply means that we bring the rest of scripture to Jesus to see if there are implications to be found in His earthly witness.

For example, I believe that Jesus shows us that the way in which we approach issues of faith is of crucial importance. The religious enemies of Jesus often attempted to present Him with a difficult ethical situation and quote to him a scripture that would seem to mandate a particular action that had to be taken. A case in point is the woman taken in adultery. Jesus often responds in a way that places the importance of people above the importance of the law. He saves the adulterous woman’s life, even though she clearly appears to be guilty. This…

typo corrected!

From Benjamin, with which I agree assuming a typo in the penultimate line and that life should be like.

I simply don’t accept the idea that Christian commitments should be circumscribed by what is absent from the four Gospels (and pitting the Gospels against the rest of Scripture is surely odd, although convenient, at least in this instance).  A Gospel-based anti-intellectualism is kind of life…evangelical anti-intellectualism, if we think about it.  And surely, that is not something we want to aspire to?

Some follow on points -
1.  Jesus was very specific about marriage and thus I like Leigh’s point above

Sexuality, at is roots, is creation theology, and the right order of creation in light of Christ incarnate.

2.  Why should discussion be simply from the Gospels?  Our Anglican formularies regard the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as “God’s Word Written.”  Scripture as a whole is abundantly clear about sexual behavior as to what s acceptable and what is forbidden.
3.  The New Testament, and I take Jesus attitude and fellowship with the “impure” as the starting point, is focused on redemption through the Atonement and then the pursuit of Holiness in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Thus the holiness code is transformed in the New Testament so far as things like the dietary codes; meanwhile the ethical and moral codes are in fact made stricter, as in the Sermon on the Mount.
4.  IMHO there is also a liberal anti-intellectualism which is quick to dismiss intellectual argument, discussion, dialog that does not begin with their precious presuppositions.  Any discussion must be willing to examine presuppositions, from what ever quarter.  On the other hand we as Christians base our beliefs on God’s revelation.  This makes some truths absolute for us!  This…

Randy+ (and all) -

2. Sex does not seem to be high on Jesus’ list of priorities. He does not attempt to maintain his “purity” in regard to sexuality. Instead he consorts with the impure and is more focused on their needs than on his purity—woman taken in adultery, woman at the well, woman with the issue of blood.

I wonder: can we really get a “list of priorities” from the Gospels?  I find the claim that Jesus had little interest in sexuality simply baffling as it assumes that the Gospels were written as systematic treatises which intended to convey all of Jesus’ thoughts about any given topic.  Yet, we all know at this point in the history of Biblical criticism that the Gospels do very, very little to paint anything more than a rough historical sketch of Jesus.  So, why should we assume that the Gospels give us any important insights into Jesus’ views on sexuality?  Indeed, why assume that the Gospels give us any important insights into Jesus’ views on, e.g., environmental degradation?  Surely, no one would say, “Well, Jesus doesn’t seem to say much about environmental degradation, so we therefore don’t have to think critically about it or make any commitments on point.”  Jesus never address all sorts of things - does that mean, however, that they are unimportant?  Surely, the answer is ‘no!’  Using the Gospels for an end that they were not written to address (in this case, sexuality, although we could be talking about myriad other topics) is really just a thin form of proof-texting.  It appeals to those who are already inclined to embrace the conclusion of the argument, but the logic itself is non-existent.

I simply don’t accept the idea that Christian commitments should be circumscribed by what is absent from the…

Hello all!

I don’t wonder if we would be loathe to admit that the current strife in the Communion isn’t having an effect on the attitude some parishes have towards homosexuals. It seems to me completely appropriate to remember both of the points being made here: that we are all sinners, and that sometimes parishes have used the polemics as a reason to become defensive against the presence of homosexual people in the church. Certainly not all “conservative” churches do this, but I do think it is something to keep a guard up against. We can never forget to offer the same community of faith to others that Jesus offered us while we were (are) still in sin too.

However, to write off the “issue” of sexuality as not-so-important seems a pretty grave blunder. What rarely gets talked about in discussions about sexuality in the church (except for writings like Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body) is that when we talk about sexuality we are really talking about creation and our physicality as human beings. Sexuality, at is roots, is creation theology, and the right order of creation in light of Christ incarnate. God is love, but God is an incarnate, historic, particular God, too. If we throw away sexuality debates we are throwing away the church’s understanding of what creation is for, what our bodies are for, and, in the end, the incarnate Christ. Perhaps much of our talking past one another, anger and frustration comes out of not adequately addressing this basic theology. Maybe the blessing of this will be a strengthened sense of creation theology, and thus theology of the body, in light of God of Man.

Peace,
Leigh

Randy+,

1.) Regarding Marcion: I would argue that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God’s purpose in the world. We do not disregard scripture, but we interpret scripture through the Living Word, who is Jesus Christ. Most of Jesus’ religious critics took the word very seriously, but they did so in a way that hardened their hearts toward their neighbors and, therefore, missed the point. Jesus, our Savior and our Lord, is the point.

I agree with your first sentence and your second sentence. However, doing these things does not allow one to understand Jesus simply as exemplar; rather it calls one to read all of Scripture figurally. The conclusions you have drawn concerning things like the scope of God’s providence, the calling of sinners, etc, make Jesus exemplar, as you state. What your conclusions - using this method of reading Scripture - imply is that we can pick pieces from Scripture and create our own canon within the full canon of Scripture. In this scheme, we then are to use this self chosen canon of Scripture to govern our actions; we cut off the full canon and justifying it by saying that Jesus only addressed these particular issues, issues which we generalize in order to broadly fit our own circumstances. This leads to a sort of marcionite like reading, or perhaps a supercessionist reading of Scripture.   

2.)Regarding sexuality: Jesus seems unconcerned about criticisms that He is consorting with sinners and tax collectors. He points out that He came to save sinners. Most of us are hot to condemn the sins of those with whom we disagree, while disregarding our own sin. Homosexuality becomes a key issue because we who are not homosexuals can see ourselves as pure in to regard homosexuality. At the same time we live…

James: My point is that everyone in the Church is a sinner—as we see in the Romans passage. Yet, we have identified one group of sinners and treated them as though they were the problem. We are the problem.

I believe we deceive ourselves when we think that our sins are somehow less significant than the sins of others or that we are repentant and others are not. As we wrestle with scripture in the community of faith, we should be more convicted of our own sin and less concerned about the sin of others. The same Holy Spirit that can convict me of my sin is perfectly capable of convicting my brothers and sisters in Christ without my help.

I think James answers this point well. No Evangelical would deny their own sinfulness. Why is the claim that we deny our own sinfulness so pervasive if not the fact that those making the charge often want the whole idea of sin taken off the table? The claim that I think my repentance is complete while others are not is just wrong, and I would claim that this charge of hypocrisy is merely a way of avoiding the need to face up to their own sinfulness. The answer to the question, “Who are you to tell me I need to repent?” is “A man (or women) who is also in need of repentance.”

Why are we so ardent to point toward sexual sins, but so casual about warning of the sins of violence towards others? I would argue it is because we have been seduced by a culture that has taught us that violence is acceptable and made us blind to the pervasive misuse of our sexuality. It is not 10% of the people in our parishes who are wrestling…

Randy:

I would still suggest that you are erecting straw man arguments.

Yet, we have identified one group of sinners and treated them as though they were the problem.

No, conservatives haven’t.  If you look at the history of how the sexuality controversy has come about, it was not that conservatives one day decided to be extra-picky about homosexuality.  No.  Rather, it came about when liberals decided to advocate that the Church declare certain sexual behaviors as being “good” and “blessed by God.”  The conservatives said “no, the Church can’t do that.”  The conservative position is most certainly not that one group of sinners is the problem.  The problem is that one group of sinners wants the Church to say that their particular “sin” isn’t a sin any more.

I believe we deceive ourselves when we think that our sins are somehow less significant than the sins of others or that we are repentant and others are not. As we wrestle with scripture in the community of faith, we should be more convicted of our own sin and less concerned about the sin of others. The same Holy Spirit that can convict me of my sin is perfectly capable of convicting my brothers and sisters in Christ without my help.

I am not aware that there is any sin contest.  I am not suggesting that anyone’s sin is worse then whatever I do.  The problem is whether we agree that all sinners and sinful behaviors need to be transformed by the Gospel of Christ, or if we declare that some sins no longer have this need.  One of the things I greatly miss from the old BCP is the penitential language.  I take great comfort from it because I know it is true - I know that I am unworthy…

Dear Father Clavier,
I taught school for twenty-one years. I taught fourth and fifth graders. During those years I saw children who were nine and ten years old who were already struggling with their sexual identities. I still know many of these children as they approach their thirties. As I have wrestled with the place of homosexuals in our Church, I see the faces of those children in my mind. I think of their lives, their abilities, their kindness, and their struggles.

I also think of the rubric found in Holy Baptism:

Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ’s Body the Church. The bond which God establishes is indissoluble.

One of the problems with baptizing infants is we have already made commitments and promises to them before we know them well.

While I am committed to following the lead of my Bishop and our diocese, I understand and am sympathetic to those who find this difficult.
Randy+

Again, nobody is suggesting that the Church not be open to sinners -

James: My point is that everyone in the Church is a sinner—as we see in the Romans passage. Yet, we have identified one group of sinners and treated them as though they were the problem. We are the problem.

I believe we deceive ourselves when we think that our sins are somehow less significant than the sins of others or that we are repentant and others are not. As we wrestle with scripture in the community of faith, we should be more convicted of our own sin and less concerned about the sin of others. The same Holy Spirit that can convict me of my sin is perfectly capable of convicting my brothers and sisters in Christ without my help.

Why are we so ardent to point toward sexual sins, but so casual about warning of the sins of violence towards others? I would argue it is because we have been seduced by a culture that has taught us that violence is acceptable and made us blind to the pervasive misuse of our sexuality. It is not 10% of the people in our parishes who are wrestling with issues of sexuality, it is closer to 100%.

As I look at our diocese I find a community of people who are not in agreement about what I have termed the “disruptive” issues of our day. However, I also find a community of people who are intent on serving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. I rejoice that we are committed to God. I rejoice that we are committed to one another. I believe the Holy Spirit will guide us and direct us in the long run. I believe the same thing about the broader communion.…

No doubt we shall hear that if this attitude prevailed, women and minorities would remain enslaved.  The simple answer to that is that being gay neither indicates a gender nor a race. The matter of predisposition gets us nowhere in that attraction is in itself “neutral”, sometimes benign as in attraction to classical music or rap, or frightful as in attraction to violence or fraud. Being female or black has no moral implication in itself. Acting on a predisposition may well have a moral implication. To suggest that Jesus had nothing to say about morality is to take Mr.  Jefferson’s scissors to the Gospels. That Jesus contemplated the marriage of persons of the same sex contradicts the Gospel record.

I like Katie’s reply very much. It underlies a basic problem: there is a serious disagreement among us about who Jesus is. If he is merely an “exemplar,” then there are many exemplars to choose from. Why would Jesus be in any way special?

Randy:

I must take issue with your comment:

2.)Regarding sexuality: Jesus seems unconcerned about criticisms that He is consorting with sinners and tax collectors. He points out that He came to save sinners. Most of us are hot to condemn the sins of those with whom we disagree, while disregarding our own sin. Homosexuality becomes a key issue because we who are not homosexuals can see ourselves as pure in to regard homosexuality. At the same time we live in a hypersexual culture, and we ignore the way sex and commerce interact in regard to heterosexuality. Heterosexual sin is much more pervasive than homosexual sin, yet we are not driving heterosexual sinners out of church.

You seem to be setting up a straw man here.  I have never heard any Anglican conservatives suggest that homosexuals should be driven out of the church.  I have experience with several parishes in Canada and the US which have since become part of the ACNA.  I would direct your attention to St. John’s, Shaughnessy in Vancouver, Canada.  Before Michael Ingham and his liberal allies decided to force the issue of same-sex blessings on the diocese, St. John’s counted many LGBT members, including the head of Vancouver’s Integrity group.  St. John’s never wavered in its Scriptural teaching on sexuality, yet these folks were always welcome.  It was only AFTER the liberals pushed this issue, that St. John’s took its principled stand, in response to which, many of the LGBT members left.

Thus to suggest that by refusing to declare certain sexual behaviors as “good and blessed”, conservatives are seeking to “drive people out of the church” is simply grossly untrue and unfair.  Homosexuality becomes a key issue when it is demanded that the Church officially approve of, bless, and hold up as an acceptable lifestyle,…

Hello Katie, Thanks for your reply.

1.) Regarding Marcion: I would argue that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God’s purpose in the world. We do not disregard scripture, but we interpret scripture through the Living Word, who is Jesus Christ. Most of Jesus’ religious critics took the word very seriously, but they did so in a way that hardened their hearts toward their neighbors and, therefore, missed the point. Jesus, our Savior and our Lord, is the point.

2.)Regarding sexuality: Jesus seems unconcerned about criticisms that He is consorting with sinners and tax collectors. He points out that He came to save sinners. Most of us are hot to condemn the sins of those with whom we disagree, while disregarding our own sin. Homosexuality becomes a key issue because we who are not homosexuals can see ourselves as pure in to regard homosexuality. At the same time we live in a hypersexual culture, and we ignore the way sex and commerce interact in regard to heterosexuality. Heterosexual sin is much more pervasive than homosexual sin, yet we are not driving heterosexual sinners out of church.

In my experience, the Holy Spirit transforms our lives in the work of sanctification which occurs inside the Christian community. All of us are in need of sanctification. All of us are sinful and rebellious in need of the redeeming work of the Holy Spirit. Once we admit this, it becomes much harder to identify one group of sinners in the Church who are not to be tolerated.

3.) Regarding issues: In no way do I believe God is a watcher. I believe Jesus, our Lord, is living and active and sharper than a two edged sword, and He is at work in the world today. Our task is to follow His leadership.

Rev. Hoover-Dempsey:

A couple of things came to mind in reading your reply.

“1. Our focus on these matters needs to be on Jesus as an exemplar of how conflict and relationships should be handled.”

Our focus in fact needs to be on searching all the Scriptures, read figurally, Christologically because “all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (Tim 3:16-17). To simply read Scripture with Jesus as exemplar is to read Scripture in Marcionite-like or perhaps a supercessionist fashion, excising or replacing the OT and thus ignoring Providence - God’s Providence. And it would seem that reading with Jesus as exemplar allows people to use a limited frame of reference which does not lead to transformation but rather leads to a submission to their own culturally shaped morals; a sort of idolatry (Is 55:8-9) (of course all are guilty of this to one degree or another, this happens to be a particular example). Only examining parts of Scripture while ignoring the rest does not allow us to find our place before God since all Scripture is given by God for the building up of the Church.

2. Sex does not seem to be high on Jesus’ list of priorities. He does not attempt to maintain his “purity” in regard to sexuality. Instead he consorts with the impure and is more focused on their needs than on his purity—woman taken in adultery, woman at the well, woman with the issue of blood.

Certainly he consorts with these people. He calls all people “I have not come to call the righteous. I have come to call sinners” and yet “There is no one…

I appreciate Ephraim Radner’s article. I’d like to respond to the ideas that were raised in my mind as I read the article, and as I have read other recent posts.

1. Our focus on these matters needs to be on Jesus as an exemplar of how conflict and relationships should be handled.

2. Sex does not seem to be high on Jesus’ list of priorities. He does not attempt to maintain his “purity” in regard to sexuality. Instead he consorts with the impure and is more focused on their needs than on his purity—woman taken in adultery, woman at the well, woman with the issue of blood.

3. The kinds of issues that Jesus seems more concerned with are issues of ministry to the downtrodden—to women, to the hungry, to the sick, to the lost. Jesus also seems very concerned about loving our neighbor and loving God. The “disruptive” issues of our day—sexuality, ordination of women, property disputes, who is right and who is wrong—seem to have very little to do with the agenda of Jesus.

4. Whether we can come to agreement or not is not the issue in terms of our unity. Our unity is not based on our agreement. Our unity is based on the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not call together a unified community. I doubt that the apostles agreed about much. However, they did agree about Jesus. He is our unity. We continue to live together in disagreement because this appears to be what Jesus desires.

5. We are evading much more serious issues by our focus on the “disruptive” issues. The world is engulfed in war and hatred, while we focus on sexual behavior. The creation of God is threatened with nuclear extinction, while we worry about who owns the…

Thank you to Dr. Radner for this essay.  I appreciate the historical perspective that he provides.

Hi Ian,

No, no, I don’t think we’re far apart. My comment only concerns terminology and nuance. The “Church Catholic” as it pertains to the Communion is a fine way of phrasing things.

I like the expression Church Catholic of which the Provinces of the AC are a part - and Canterbury has recently used the phrase to great effect when describing the error of TEC’s decisions.

I do not think we are too far apart Katie.

Ian,

Very good quote. However, I would note, with Fr. Dan, that in a divided church, it is difficult to use ‘orthodoxy’ as being definitive of what it means to be part of the church catholic. What is ‘orthodoxy?’ By whose standards is this measured (this of course raises the question of ‘what is the church catholic’ (since many Churches to not recognize a ‘church catholic’ or do not recognize other churches that claim to be churches as being members of the church catholic)? Can we boil it down to ‘essentials (a failing of ecumenical theology)?’ Dr. Radner did make the point in the article that it is relationship in which common faith and order is maintained, not essentials i.e. definite measures of ‘orthodoxy,’ that is definitive of being in communion - note he did not use the phrase ‘church catholic’ and he was speaking very particularly of the Anglican Church and its relationships and commitments.

Anyway, this is a minor quibble. On the whole, I agree that it is very difficult to conceive of some of what happens in the Episcopal church as constituting a faithful witness indicative of our call to catholicity and unity.

Neal - sorry I flew home yesterday - it was a too fleeting visit.  I am now off to NYC and London.  I am preaching for Kevin Oct 24 and will have the weekend in Dallas - Can we get together then?

Dan,  Palmer and I will have to disagree as the de facto situation when so egregious as it is in the AC, by TEC’s actions, becomes dominant.  The resolutions and actions deny the official formularies.  I also suggest that teh import of Schori’s and her allies statements and dictats also set aside the formularies.  We are back to the question of what are the doctrines and disciplines of TEC and how these are defined.  Were TEC to repent and return I would be thrilled.  IMHO TEC should somehow be inhibited from the AC.  If here actions are enshrined in canon and constitution or a new BCP then the route is excommunication.

Dan, I do not want to get into a my truth your truth situation re Palmer, TEC or the AC.  However the AC has its opportunity to speak, and at last it is doing so.  IMHO Canterbury has spoken with the removal to TEC from “Faith and Order” as her actions, and now new formularies maybe are now contrary to orthodox doctrine as the AC understands it.

Ian, the Anglican ecclesiologist whose work is featured in a series of articles I wrote now appearing in TLC would disagree. William Palmer would say that as long as the official formularies of a church are orthodox, it yet remains a church, even if it presently tolerates gross error in its midst.

Ian, I like G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy means that the dead have a vote.”

Are you still in Dallas? Wish you’d come by to say hello.

Excellent and many thanks.

I am reminded of Richard John Neuhaus “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed”.  I would ask the question: “where orthodoxy is simply an option in a Church - is that Church part of the Church Catholic?”  My answer is NO and thus I question TEC as defined by KJS.

This is a calm, non-anxious and important comment on the public exchange of letters between the Archbishop fo Canterbury and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

First, it is important because it frames the issues in terms of who we are as a church as a part of a larger Communion. Do we have obligations on behalf of the larger Communion? He states that we are certainly free, as a province, to make our own decisions; but that those decisions make our representing our Communion problematic in ecumenical conversation.

Second, he distinguishes between the appropriate place of diversity and unity and the locus of conversation as a church. There are some decisions that causes a church, in this instance TEC, unable to represent the other churches in the Communion because the Communion as a whole has determined that that action does not represent the norm in the Communion. And Dr. Radner appropriately points out that both Bishop Jefferts Schori and Archbishop Williams both agree that TEC has done something that is out of step with the rest of the Communion, and therefore does not represent the mind of the Communion.

Third, he argues that institutional memory and institutional commitments matter. Previous agreements do bind future generations. (A history of TEC reveals that we don’t honor our internal prior commitments and suffer, as an institution from amnesia).

Archbishop Williams is not exercising papal authority. He is exercising collegial authority. Long ago he said that as Archbishop of Canterbury he has an obligation to the Church and its teachings that supersedes his own personal opinions and theological speculations. He is only doing what he said he’d do.

Thanks Tony - one of the best pieces I have read in a long time.  I have been thinking about many of the issues you raise as regional ACNA folks would like me to take the first steps towards planting a new ACNA congregation in my locale.  The prospect is an exciting one, but I think that the future of North American Anglicanism does not lie with replicating the outdated model we see in TEC (and many other denominations).  When I met with the ACNA local planter coordinator, he began his talk trying to convince me that planting a church wasn’t all about locating a building, planning the bulletin, and organizing the vestry.  I, of course, needed no such convincing, but the fact that he had to start with this tells a lot about what his experience has taught him what most people think of when they think of church planting.

I don’t have the answers - I am still trying to wrap my mind around much of this.  But I do believe that an international, global Church, with a solid connection to the past, and ties to other Christians of all races and economic statuses, which teaches mutual accountability (including accountability of the wealthy to the poor) has an incredible advantage starting fresh in our cultural mileau.

Susan Russell’s name comes as no big surprise, though I notice that her links to Integrity and Claiming the Blessing are omitted from the capsule bio.

David:  The ordination to priesthood is also indelible, and bishops are ordained priests before they are bishops, therefore they remain priests as well as bishops.  English canon law does not recognize female bishops, but it does recognize female priests; ergo from that legal perspective KJS can act as a priest but not as a bishop.  Obviously if she is a bishop then she is a bishop, but not in law, and that is where the matter lies.  With all your talk of indelibility (which I agree with you on) you neglect to mention that the episcopate is the fullness of the sacrament of order and therefore a bishop can function as both a deacon and a priest.

Of course, I don’t believe that she’s a deacon, a priest, or a bishop (or a Christian), but that’s beside the point, which is, again, concerning law.

Now what seems passing strange to me is that the PB’s office didn’t know of these regulations and that the Dean of Southwark was similarly ignorant. Had the PB merely been invited to preach no license would have been necessary and she could have worn anything she pleased. But the fact that we are weeks before the debate on women bishops in the English General Synod makes me wonder whether all this had more to do with that than is being admitted. A woman bishop, and the PB at that, denied the right to dress up as a bishop makes a wonderful rallying cry for those in favor of women bishops.

I saw an interesting speculation elsewhere to the effect that the incident may indeed have been a calculated outrage committed with malice aforethought and with the upcoming synod in mind. Of course it cannot be proven but the history of American church development (see for instance Philadelphia, 1974) is replete with this kind of tactic. I think it would be disastrous for the communion if this were to spread, and I’m afraid that ACNA and GAFCON give evidence of it spreading into the southern hemisphere churches.

Folks, please walk back to the focus of this post. It is not to speculate about the motives of people on either side.

David,

Are you saying, then, that +KJS should not have been allowed to preach or celebrate or concelebrate in the C of E at all?  That’s one way to read your comments.  Since a Bishop does everthing as a Bishop (even teaching and preaching, and since the C of E does not allow for women bishops, then no woman bishop should be allowed to do anything on C of E grounds. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I have to disagree about indelibility of orders.  I believe that this is a part of certain church teaching but it is not a belief held universally.  In some cases people may not be ever actually ordained - the view of some re women.  Then others view “defrocking” and laicisation as removal of orders.  For me the language of deposition in TEC is just such as opposed to releasing of vows.  Then there is yet another group, an I am probably one of these, who see the espousal of extreme heresy or apostasy as a de facto relinquishing of orders.
Meanwhile some of us who refer to “Mrs.” Schori on a regular basis are being petulant.  When I was a rector I would have forbidden her to “do” anything in our parish as IMHO she is a scandal to the Church and has de facto renounced her orders by espousing another religion.  The very charge she lays against those whom she so often deposes.
Sometime ask me about something on which I have strong views!

Ian, Episcopal consecration is indelible.  Deposition makes a person unable to function within a given province, but it by no means removes their ordination.  I have never heard anyone, even his most vociferous opponents, claim that +Duncan is no longer a bishop.  If anyone is referring to him as “Mr.,” my guess is they are making a somewhat petulant complaint about the tendency of some to refer to ++KJS as “Mrs. Schori.”.

If the PB is always a bishop, and presided as a bishop in a CofE setting, then she broke CofE cannon law.

This is not surprising, in that she has broken TEC cannon law already, what would stop her?

Actually, a better spin for the PB would be that the laying aside of the symbol of bishop in the miter was also a laying aside temporarily her role as bishop, thus allowing her to officiate in the CofE. While actually still being a bishop, it allows all to hold to the spirit of the canon, if not the letter. This is a gracious action, and deserving of praise.

Given her and her supporter’s reactions, the first case seems more likely.

I won’t stray into the area of whether the Archbishop’s action was a snub or not, I dont find that sort of self-indulgent comment helpful.  Ian states it well when he reminds us that the whole subject of WO is in “reception”, which obviously means that Provinces are in different “stages” of that process, and thus discretion is needed when visiting a Province if one is in an Order not fully received there yet.  These matters surely were well known by both 815 and Southwark.

No a bishop does not always celebrate if present. A diocesan bishop normally so does.

You raise an interesting set of questions, which I cannot help but ask a couple.

++KJS is a bishop.  Anglicans generally believe that ordination is an indelible sacramental act, not a “function.”  She cannot temporarily “relinquish” her episcopacy and act simply as a priest or deacon.  Whatever she does, she does it as a bishop.  She celebrated as the Eucharist as a bishop at Southwark, whether she was wearing a mitre or not.  To claim that since she was not wearing a mitre, she was celebrating as a presbyter is theologically bankrupt - it almost sounds Pythonesque.  Therefore, if it is violation of English law for a woman to “celebrate as a bishop,” (mind that all eucharists are Episcopal acts in that the bishop is the primary celebrant if present) then the ABC should have denied her permission to celebrate, as a violation of the law takes place whether she is wearing the hat or not.  A mitre does not make or unmake a bishop.  The only way to read this is a snub.

In a period of “reception”  is a person a bishop when some in the Communion do not and cannot accept/understand a person as a bishop because of their doctrinal belief in male only “orders?”  Even when one says that orders are indelible, or for the whole Church.
What does it mean when KJS deposes such as Bob Duncan, Andrew Fairfield, Henry Scriven and several more who are none the less honored and accepted as bishops in the larger AC?  Then folk in TEC insist of referring to the above folk as “Mr.”

It seems to me that TEC has in fact taken a particularly denominational view of “orders”  as well as espousing a kind of denominational loyalty that effectually treats other portions/provinces…

++KJS is a bishop.  Anglicans generally believe that ordination is an indelible sacramental act, not a “function.”  She cannot temporarily “relinquish” her episcopacy and act simply as a priest or deacon.  Whatever she does, she does it as a bishop.  She celebrated as the Eucharist as a bishop at Southwark, whether she was wearing a mitre or not.  To claim that since she was not wearing a mitre, she was celebrating as a presbyter is theologically bankrupt - it almost sounds Pythonesque.  Therefore, if it is violation of English law for a woman to “celebrate as a bishop,” (mind that all eucharists are Episcopal acts in that the bishop is the primary celebrant if present) then the ABC should have denied her permission to celebrate, as a violation of the law takes place whether she is wearing the hat or not.  A mitre does not make or unmake a bishop.  The only way to read this is a snub.

This incident shows me how either tone deaf the Presiding Bishop is or how petulant she is.  Understanding the problem of women bishops in England, she should have simply said:  “Sure thing, Rowan.  I won’t take my mitre or crozier and I’ll wear my black clerical shirt out of respect for you and England.”  Instead, she decided to wear a purple shirt and carry her mitre. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

This incident does tend to undermine the credibility of TEC’s faux indignation over border-crossing bishops.

The rules were not written with +Katharine in mind, or even with women bishops in mind!  They have not a thing to do with “sacramental theology”.  Within the Province of Canterbury any overseas cleric, in whatever Order, requires a license from the Archbishop to perform sacramental functions. The same rules apply inthe Northern Province. Normally one merely presents proof of ordination and this is forthcoming.  As yet, in the CofE the law, (of the church/land) has no such category as a woman bishop. Th same sort of problem arose years ago, before the CofE admitted women to the priesthood. Women priests from abroad could not be licensed in the CofE.

Now what seems passing strange to me is that the PB’s office didn’t know of these regulations and that the Dean of Southwark was similarly ignorant. Had the PB merely been invited to preach no license would have been necessary and she could have worn anything she pleased. But the fact that we are weeks before the debate on women bishops in the English General Synod makes me wonder whether all this had more to do with that than is being admitted. A woman bishop, and the PB at that, denied the right to dress up as a bishop makes a wonderful rallying cry for those in favor of women bishops.

The sacramental theology point is troubling.  In trying to pretend this is not a snub of the PB, they are making a distinction between the Eucharist as celebrated by a bishop and one celebrated by a presbyter.  The requirement in sacramental theology is one in right authority, which can be a person of either order.  Also, a person consecrated bishop bears an indelible charism.  If ++KJS is a validly-ordained bishop, which the ABC would not question, then she ALWAYS celebrates as a bishop, whether or not she is wearing a mitre.  Clothing has nothing to do with charism.  By this line of reasoning, a bishop in cassock and surplice cannot perform confirmations,  as they would do so as a priest.  If “celebrating the Eucharist as a bishop” by a woman would cause a breach of canon law, that has occurred whether she is was wearing the hat or not.  In that case, the ABC should have refused her license altogether.

I just came across Diana Butler Bass’s commentary on “mitregate” here, where she engages in the typical hyperbole / deceit which I think was begun by Jim Naughton, and now, with the crisis getting hotter, is apparently being used by Episcopalian loyalists whom I normally wouldn’t suspect of such - she is describing those who oppose Schori as

[people who do not] want their gay and lesbian friends and relatives to be part of their church communities.

I’ve never met, that I know of, an Anglican who doesn’t want this, and it’s also in blatant disregard of what Lambeth I.10 teaches.  The other descriptions are also not really characteristic of what’s going on in TEC.  I’ve responded here with an article reminding us of the likely election fraud at the PB’s election - since the issue of “honesty” is once again brought before us by TEC loyalists.

This is a great pity.  Diana Butler Bass had seemed a “moderate” voice within TEC, willing to look at some aspects of the church with candour and perspective.  We will probably be seeing more “moderates” shifting position with the extra pressure being put on TEC.  Things are becoming ugly and possibilities of gentleness in dialog are becoming scarcer.

As the continuing debate here would indicate, the actions of TEC have not ended the discussion. However, given my approaching retirement, I will have to leave this discussion for the time being.

There was only the hope that we could continue to work together as Anglicans, sharing our common commitments in mission, and engaging in a continuing conversation about human sexuality.

What is our mission?  For me, it is to reconcile the world to God in Jesus Christ.  To go, make disciples, baptize, and teach them to obey everything Jesus (and his body, the Church) has commanded us.
As for continuing the conversation, let me give this analogy.  There is a family business.  Like all businesses, they have to decided how to spend their money in the best interest of the business.  One of the more wealthy brothers thinks that purchasing a private jet would be good because it would allow the business owners to save significant time when travelling.  He brings this up for discussion over and over again and is constantly voted down.  However, as a part owner of the business, he goes and purchases (on behalf of the business) a private jet.  The brothers and sisters are furious with the brother.  They say he had no authority to do what he did.  They ask that he sit out of the BOD meetings because he has caused so much hurt within the family and the business.  But the brother keeps showing up at board meetings and keeps discussing purchasing the jet and what a good thing it is.

The time for “continuing the conversation” has past.  TEC is not interested in “continuing the conversation” because it has cease listening to the rest of its brothers and sisters about “purchasing the jet.”  TEC has purchased the jet and still wants to talk about it, not to engage in discernment, but to get others to agree that that the new jet is a good thing.
If you want to…

I accept Phil’s apology. However, I suggest that people not use “you” to refer to anyone other than the person they are addressing - it leads to confusion.

I understand that there are many in the Communion who are upset that TEC acted on its discernment about the election of two bishops and has made some allowance for dioceses to act on their discernment about same-sex relationships. I don’t expect - nor do I think most Episcopalians who share my convictions on this matter do either - that other Anglicans will accept TEC’s actions as consistent with Anglican teaching. I continue to accept that TEC may be removed from the Communion because of actions which I fully support. What I had hoped for - perhaps naively - was that we could continue to be in communion with one another in spite of this serious disagreement. We have managed that with disagreements about other unresolved issues - including the ordination of women - and I hoped that we could live with this disagreement as well. In that hope there was no insisting that others accept TEC’s actions as good, no demand that any member church recognize Gene Robinson or Mary Glasspool - or Katharine Jefferts Schori - as bishops. There was only the hope that we could continue to work together as Anglicans, sharing our common commitments in mission, and engaging in a continuing conversation about human sexuality.

Now “Whitby by Dan Brown” - THAT would be snarky! (But even more to the point…)

I don’t know that I’d accept exactly that representation of what they say, but in any case I do not think that a fault in theological process provides an adequate bridge back to the doctrines espoused in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts.

All gnostics, Charlie?  Isn’t that a bit extreme?  When GC and the PB say that the HS has spoken to them in ways different that to the consensus of worldwide Christendom, isn’t that a form of gnosticism?

Could you spell out exactly the words in which General Convention made us all gnostics, with a citation?

Daniel:  Snarky or not, I think that it is the title of the article as published in the Living Church - see here.  I think the reference is meant to suggest that just as Hollywood movies often create a fiction by misusing historical events in support of a cause, so did the PB in her letter.  While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t see it sufficiently developed in the article itself for the title to really make sense.

Thanks, Phil, for this much better model of making your case.

I don’t disagree that the members of the Communion have the right - and some have exercised the right - to decide not to be in commununion with TEC. What has concerned me is the assumption that has been made that TEC violated the terms of our relationship with one another. Certain Lambeth resolutions have been elevated to the status of acts of synods or ecumenical councils, something which might perplex the first Lambeth attendees. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates have been assumed - by some - to have authority based upon documents, e.g., the Windsor Report or the draft of the Anglican Covenant, that have not been affirmed by all the synods of the member churches. I understand that the Communion’s leaders are navigating difficult waters adn I don’t want to imply by my criticisms of specific actions any impugning of their motives. I simply think that there assumptions being made by various people that need to be challenged.

Daniel is right that there has been no official AC structure which has any power over provinces, except the power of “bonds of affection.”

Is this not precisely what makes TEC’s action so painful? TEC has gone forward with an agenda that the Communion pleaded with them not to do, on the basis of bonds of affection. The ABC has hoped (too long, many have said) that BOA would brings us back together again. Seems clear that the ABC has decided that BOA are no longer enough.

Coming back to the title of this thread, the PB’s effort to rally the troops in her letter will of course convince only the already convinced. But is it not also a slap in the face to the ABC, calling him the “colonial oppressor?” Will he turn the…

Daniel,
No disrespect is intended,  I believe that you believe you are not requiring anyone to change their beliefs.  If you disagree with the actions of TEC in ordaining +Glasspool and +Robinson or you disagree with liturgies to bless same sex unions, then I must have missed it.  There is a huge difference between believing something is right and acting on that belief.  In the case before us, there are people who believe that same sex unions are not immoral and that God calls people who are involved in them into ordained ministry and has no problem with their continuing in that relationship.  However, they also realize that, for now, the Church teaches differently and are unwilling to act on their beliefs out of deference to the rest of the Church.  If you are in that camp, the I am sorry I put you in the other camp and I ask forgiveness.  When I said “you,” I was using you, Daniel, as a stand in for the leadership of TEC and that was both sloppy and wrong.

Perhaps an analogy (which is always suspect) might better illustrate my thinking.  I have a rule against cats in my home.  I am allergic to cat dander and I have an astmatic episode where there is a sufficient quantity of cat dander.  My sister from Houston used to own a cat and I would ask her to board the cat when she came to visit me.  Now, if she came to visit me with the cat, I had two choices.  I could change my rule about cats in the house or I could ask her to find a hotel room where she could keep the cat.  If she refused to get a hotel room, then she was forcing me to change my…

So, Charles, given your definition would a denomination that accepts a form of gnosticism as pecusa has done in General Convention or the PB has done in public statements qualify.  I would guess that both definitions get us to the same place when one recognizes the gnosticism of pecusa.

Friends, I believe Canon Daniel made an entirely reasonable request that people in this space take him at his word when he describes what he believes and what he intends with his actions. When you’re inclined to dispute a person’s self-perception here, please resist the impulse.

I have no trouble thinking of fellow Episcopalians who say, flat out, “We are on the right side of history and justice, and Anglicans who disagree with us are bigots.” Canon Daniel has not written in this tone, and it makes no sense to treat him as if he has.

Helpful - thanks

Tony, I and most of the rest of the world would prefer a definition along the lines given in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself[.]”

I have no problem accepting that there are brothers and sisters who have concluded that TEC is not running the “store” properly. What is, of course, a question on which there is disagreement is who has the authority to declare that this “branch” is being mismanaged. I used to think that for Anglicans the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral was the requirement, but it seems that now it is acceptance of a particular position on one - and only one - theological and ethical issue.

This is a fundamental ecclesiastical issue: there are no “branches” in this operation, no franchises. There is one Church - TEC cannot decide for itself what to do with its branch or franchise. This is the heart of my objection to the dichotomy between “right” and “relationship.” It is the central irony of out current situation that many on the right AND the left have assumed this branch/franchise paradigm (this is most clearly seen in attitudes regarding bishops).

I don’t disagree that the members of the Communion have the right - and some have exercised the right - to decide not to be in commununion with TEC. What has concerned me is the assumption that has been made that TEC violated the terms of our relationship with one another. Certain Lambeth resolutions have been elevated to the status of acts of synods or ecumenical councils, something which might perplex the first Lambeth attendees. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates have been assumed - by some - to have authority based upon documents, e.g., the Windsor Report or the draft of the Anglican Covenant, that have not been affirmed by all the synods of the member churches. I understand that the Communion’s leaders are navigating difficult waters adn I don’t want to imply by my criticisms of specific actions any impugning of their motives. I simply think that there assumptions being made by various people that need to be challenged.

Daniel is right that there has been no official AC structure which has any power over provinces, except the power of “bonds of affection.”

Is this not precisely what makes TEC’s action so painful? TEC has gone forward with an agenda that the Communion pleaded with them not to do, on the basis of bonds of affection. The ABC has hoped (too long, many have said) that BOA would brings us back together again. Seems clear that the ABC has decided that BOA are no longer enough.

Coming back to the title of this thread, the PB’s effort to rally the troops in her letter will of course convince only the already convinced. But is it not also a slap in the face to the ABC, calling him the “colonial oppressor?” Will he turn the other cheek?