What about the definition of Anglican? In the October issue of First Things, I expressed the hope that last summer’s Lambeth Conference, and particularly the leadership of Archbishop Rowan Williams, gave strong evidence that the center of the Anglican communion intended to hold together; that the Episcopal left and the GAFCON right would not, in fact, carry the day and so lead the communion ever-further down the road to fragmentation and incoherence. Since that time, most of the action has been on the GAFCON and Bishop Duncan side; and the more influence they have, the less chance there is of an eventual coming-together of things.
But the ball is now in center court, as it were””this February’s meeting of the Anglican primates will be crucial, as will the meeting of the Covenant Design Group in April and the Anglican Consultative Council’s meeting in May. If Anglicanism is truly to mean something beyond the local, these meetings will carry forward the Lambeth vision of a genuinely covenanted “global” and “catholic church,” with its ministry, faith, and sacraments “united and interdependent throughout the world,” as Rowan Williams has put it.
There are, of course, no guarantees. The forces of dissolution and division right now are strong, and it is always much easier to pull apart than it is to hold together. The question “Anglican or Episcopalian?” may always be with us; but at the least, we may still be able to hope that the question “What kind of Anglican are you?” will not become just as common.
I have long identified myself as an Anglican, or more explicitly, an Anglican, not an Episcopalian. Until about 3 years ago, that was most likely to result in a puzzled look. These days, it usually results in a big smile, and words to the effect of “Good for you!” The look from an Episcopalian is more likely to be pained, and often actively hostile.
“By taking the name Anglican for themselves, the clear implication is that the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church are not in fact authentically Anglican, . . .” actually, many of us wonder if they could even be described as authentically Christian any longer. I think the author, like many who have chosen to pursue the “inside” strategy, completely misses the historical significance of the global shift now underway in Anglicanism and in Christianity more broadly. The problem is especially acute in the Protestant tradition, but Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are fighting the same battles. There’s NOTHING in the history of North American Anglicanism that compares to what’s going on right now. The departure of the REC in the 1870s pales by comparison. What’s happening now globally is, on an order of magnitude, more similar to the Reformation than anything else I can think of. To describe the current developments as a few hardcore conservatives going it on their own is to completely miss the significance of the transformation now underway.
Hylden also states:
“And although Duncan’s group and his supporters have asked for approval from the global Anglican instruments of communion, they have also made it clear that they do not consider such approval to be necessary. Duncan and his allies enjoy the support of five evangelical Anglican primates, mostly African and all associated with the confessional GAFCON movement. This is, forthrightly, all the approval that the new church supposes itself to need; apart from this, Duncan’s group considers itself authorized to go it on its own.”
Statements such as these show how out-of-touch he is with what’s really happening. First of all, ACNA enjoys the support of far more than five “mostly African” (Wow, ponder the dismissive racist overtones of that comment for a moment!) primates. Second, the support for ACNA in the global Communion is vastly greater than for TEC. It seems unlikely at this moment that the historic instruments of the global Communion will be capable of meeting the current challenge. But that fact is probably not important. The Communion is NOT Rowan Williams, nor is it tiny minorities of very wealthy Western Europeans and North Americans who are uncomfortable with historic Christianity. The Communion is its people, and its people are today overwhelmingly in the Global South, not in North Dakota or in New York. The majority has come of age, and they will define the future of Anglicanism. ACNA does NOT need the recognition of the historic instruments of Communion anymore than Thomas Cranmer needed the recognition of Rome. What ACNA needs is the recognition of the vast majority of Anglicans globally, and the recognition of the vast majority of catholic Christians, east and west, and if I was going to place bets on this I would put my money on ACNA over TEC any day on BOTH counts.
Mr. Hylden notes: “In short, it seems clear that for most Episcopalians, the core of their identity lies elsewhere than their status as Anglicans.” Yes, where does the “core” of their identity lie — the values and ideals of the surrounding secular culture perhaps?
Like many who advocate the “inside” strategy, Mr. Hylden places great hope in a mysterious group he describes as the “valiant Communion Partners.” This is a group also much heralded by the Anglican Communion Institute which has virtually NOTHING to show for its efforts. On many occasions we have been told: “Just wait until the Communion Partners act!” But at all the critical moments, like in New Orleans in September, 2007 they seemed to disappear into thin air. For the most part these “Communion Partners” seem to be moderate bishops who straddle the theological fence (some supporting the new theology of TEC and some supporting a more orthodox view). They do not seem to be driven by their commitment to the Gospel so much as to their commitment to the institution of the TEC. In any case, they have proven that they either have no backbone when the moment of truth arrives, or they are no match for the hardcore leadership of the TEC. What is clear is that Common Cause bishops are VASTLY outnumbered within the councils of the TEC. It can only be a matter of time before even their tepid resistance to developments within the TEC will pass as they retire or die off.
In view of this reality supporters of the “inside” strategy need to come up with a compelling argument for their strategy. For the leaders among them there is a most pressing question: to what extent is my pursuit of this strategy endangering the souls of those who follow my lead? The Lord’s command in John 21.15-17 is clear.
The curious thing about this is that the author equates the ABC with being a leader. Playing around with the legitimacy of the names by which groups like to be identified is a parlor game, in my mind, by this point.
RE: “First of all, ACNA enjoys the support of far more than five “mostly African†(Wow, ponder the dismissive racist overtones of that comment for a moment!) primates.”
Chris could you point me to the links of the writings of the other Primates who have communicated their support of the [i]ACNA[/i]?
Sarah, written comments are not the only way to judge support for ACNA. I have personally spoken to one primate, not a member of the GAFCON Council of Primates who has not yet declared his public support of ACNA, but he wholly supports it, I can assure you. A good place to start are the six members of the GAFCON Council of Primates:
The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentino Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
To these six I would wager very strong, though perhaps not yet public support from:
The Most Rev. John Chew, Primate of South East Asia
The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies
The Most Rev. Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem & Middle East
The Most Rev. Daniel Deng Bul Yak, Primate of the Sudan
and possibly
The Most Rev. John Wilson Gladstone, Primate of South India
I have suggestions that there are others and I would carefully watch the 20 odd provinces that now consider themselves to be in broken or impaired communion with the TEC.
Sarah, I should have mentioned that if you add up the flock under these primates you will get well over half of the global Anglican Communion. You’ll also get that part of the Communion which is growing!
I read my way into the Anglican WAY on the works of CS LEWIS, DOROTHY L.SAYERS, GK CHESTERTON, CHARLES WILLIAMS and JRR TOLKIEN. I have always been Anglican. I used to be Episcopalian until they officially abandoned the ANGLICAN WAY on 22 November 2008 at Diocesan Convention here in Missouri.
And, yes, people seem to grasp very powerfully the difference between episcopalianism and the ANGLICAN way.
RE: “Sarah, written comments are not the only way to judge support for ACNA.”
Well, actually, yes, they are — for people who don’t trust hearsay and won’t take other people’s word for it.
I’ll be waiting for the written recognitions of the ACNA by the various Primates you have named. It won’t bother me a bit if that occurs — but until then, and so far, that’s what will be important.
The fact that there has not been such vast written acknowledgements and recognitions demonstrate how important that it is.
Dear Mr. Taylor,
It is a matter of fact that support for GAFCON comes mostly from Africa. I am not sure that pointing this out in an article is racist. I also wrote elsewhere that GAFCON’s support is mostly evangelical. The reason I thought both facts worth mentioning is that GAFCON, while indeed representing a large portion of Anglicanism, is not comprehensively representative of or supported by the whole. And this is part of my larger concern; that action initiated and undertaken by a fragment (however large or small) on its own steam will likely lead to fragmentation; it is, to that extent, to leave the other portions aside and to set up a de facto division that will quite possibly later become de jure, and then expand into further divisions.
I believe this to be a serious concern, having nothing at all to do with racism. I take accusations of racism very seriously also, and I do not think that it is wise to make them without good reason. It bothers me to be thought of in that way.
Jordan
I think Sarah’s point is well taken. One prominent blog, for instance, stated that Apb. Chew was on his way to the new province gathering in Wheaton, and that simply wasn’t true. I don’t know what he is going to do in all of this, to be sure, but knowing him, I doubt the blogs are the place to figure it out. Indeed, I would guess that lists such as Christ Taylor has provided, are likely to shift in many and various in the coming months. Who knows?
I will take issue, however, with Taylor’s triumphant-sounding discovery of Hylden’s “racism”, implied or otherwise. It is a silly and demeaning accusation, that is unwarrented by the context of Hylden’s remarks. His point was simply that he viewed the support of the new organization to be localized, rather than widely founded. One can debate the accuracy of that observation without inpertinently stooping to play a racism-card.
Also: Part of my overall point, in the article, was that the average American now thinks that the word “Anglican” has something to do with Africa, rather than a global catholic communion. And the underlying concern here is that “Anglican” has started already, in common usage, to mean something local rather than catholic. The article was a way of pointing out how common usage highlights the way in which Anglicanism is in danger of becoming no more than various local bits and pieces. Pointing out that the word “Anglican” is already associated with Africa in the American imagination is strong evidence toward that.
++Valentino is a Communion Partner Primate. If he ‘supports’ ACNA it is in a general sense of wishing conservatives in NA well. Sarah is correct. ++Tanzania attended Lambeth and also was at a pivotal early CP meeting in Houston, where he declared his support. If ACNA supporters wish to claim formal support for their constitution by various GS primates, we would need to see explicit record of that. Beyond that, it is important to keep our eyes on the challenge of anglican christianity wherever God places us in His will and way. That includes those who wish to pursue a new province strategy, and those who do not.
Mr. Hylden, words matter and your words in this article convey a distinct tone, which, overall, is quite dismissive. Take for example this statement:
“Moreover, the vision of Anglicanism here in play clearly gives very little weight to catholic order and global communion. The new Anglican church was created, as it were, by fiat— Duncan’s forthcoming elevation as archbishop, and the new group’s status as an Anglican province, are thus far only self-declared realities.”
It is following this dismissive, and inaccurate characterization, I would argue, that your next sentence is also intended, perhaps subconsciously, to also be dismissive. You state:
“And although Duncan’s group and his supporters have asked for approval from the global Anglican instruments of communion, they have also made it clear that they do not consider such approval to be necessary. Duncan and his allies enjoy the support of five evangelical Anglican primates, mostly African and all associated with the confessional GAFCON movement.”
What possible purpose could there be here in identifying the five primates as “mostly African” in the context of your argument other than to be dismissive? Coming as this injection does, your sudden geographical aside is both intended as a continuation of your dismissive tone and, in this case, it is frankly racist — perhaps unintentional, but racist, nonetheless.
In the previous paragraph you make another dismissive statement:
“Take, for instance, the widely publicized formation just this month of a new conservative Anglican province—the so-called Anglican Church in North America, with Robert Duncan as its new archbishop and primate.”
Or perhaps you don’t see phrases such as “so-called” as dismissive.
In your second response, #11 above, you state:
“Also: Part of my overall point, in the article, was that the average American now thinks that the word “Anglican†has something to do with Africa, rather than a global catholic communion.” Perhaps you should quit while your ahead. Is there anything wrong, or inaccurate with the average American thinking that the word “Anglican” has something to do with Africa? Doesn’t the word “Anglican,” as a matter of fact, have quite a lot to do with Africa? What percentage of the world’s Anglican’s would you guess live on the African continent? How does that number compare to the number of Anglicans in North Dakota, or in North America, for that matter?
As for Professor Radner’s and Dr. Seitz’s comments, I find them disingenuous, to say the least. Archbishop Valentino Mokiwa may be a Communion Partner Primate, I don’t doubt that. He also serves on the GAFCON Council of Primates and was a signatory to the Jerusalem Declaration of June 29th. As you both know only too well, in this murky Anglican world in which we now live people sometimes wear many hats. However, I would assert that it is possible to discern where many people stand despite the lack of public statements. As both Professor Radner and Dr. Seitz are well aware, there are a number of primates who, for a variety of valid reasons, are not in a position to state in public their full views. My point to Sarah is simply that there are times in life in which one cannot say publicly everything you think or may want to say. At the same time, many of these primates are making clear through their broader actions where they truly stand. Sarah, there’s no reason why you should take mine or anyone’s word for anything, but I would suggest that you might look at the collective actions and statements of many of these primates and you’ll soon see that things are not as mysterious as they may first seem.
RE: “Coming as this injection does, your sudden geographical aside is both intended as a continuation of your dismissive tone and, in this case, it is frankly racist—perhaps unintentional, but racist, nonetheless.”
You’re certainly welcome to make assertions “frankly”, Chris Taylor, but in that case, one assertion is just as good as another.
So . . . no, it isn’t racist. Not at all. Hylden merely pointed out a description of the five known Primates that support the ACNA — evangelical and mostly African. And you sound rather like Jesse Jackson in your assertions.
There’s nothing implied that is “racist” in that description. All that you say is merely [i]inferred[/i] — which is quite a different thing.
RE: “Sarah, there’s no reason why you should take mine or anyone’s word for anything, but I would suggest that you might look at the collective actions and statements of many of these primates and you’ll soon see that things are not as mysterious as they may first seem.”
Oh, I don’t think anything’s “mysterious” at all. I think a certain number of Primates are on the written record as supportive of the ACNA. . . . And a certain number of Primates are — not on the written record.
Maybe they will be soon. Maybe they will be later. Maybe they will be never. Who knows. But there’s no real [i]mystery[/i] in it — other than that mystery that appears to be attempted by people who are hinting and claiming and hearsaying. But I don’t take that seriously.
Excuse me for butting into what is not my argument, but Sarah and Jordan Hylden might take into consideration the racist and xenophobic slurs against Africans that have been cast in the past. Chris Taylor might consider that Sarah and Mr. Hylden are not John Spong or Jim Naughton. Hylden, in particular, wrote a reasonable and, I thought, charitable analysis of the Episcopalian/Anglican situation, and not for the first time. Whatever one might think of his ecclesial choices, there is no reason to assume he means ill.
And now, I will butt out.
I, for one, enjoyed Jordan’s essay. I can see where Chris Taylor could take offense at the “mostly African” bit, but I don’t think that offense was meant. The revisionists, however, do mean offense when they dismissively refer to the CANA-nites as “Nigerians.” Of course, the CANA-nites rightly view the attempted slur as a badge of honor. Perhaps, Jordan could have said “Global Southerners” (or as we say in Texas, “Global Suthuhners”.)
But Jordan points to the main weapon of the revisionists, a poison dart that Windsor, Camp Allen, now CP bishops have not been able to defend against. The revisionists simply need to make the term Episcopal an anathema to those that hold to traditional orthodoxy. When Mr Bruno or Sisk march in a gay pride parade, then, in the eyes of the public, +Gary Lillibridge is marching in the parade as well. The public doesn’t differentiate between consecrators of Gene Robinson and those who objected to it, so +Stanton might as well had been laying hands on Gene. And the transformation of the Episcopal denomination into the gay church will be completed after GC09 when B033 will be repealed, and there will be lots of Gene spawn running around. It will make mission impossible for the remaining orthodox. Ms Schori accused the orthodox about being fixated on homosexuality. The issue is definitely secondary with the CP bishops and rectors, but liberals won’t allow the issue to be removed from the front and center – simply put some more lesbian Episcopal priests on another reality show, have a St Bart’s like wedding between two gay Episcopal priests at the National cathedral or St. John the divine in NYC, etc. The press and laity will be asking these conservative leaders, “What about this latest homosexualist outrageous one-up-manship?”
I’m glad that Hylden and Taylor have responded, and their arguments on the issue of “racism” can be clearly assessed by readers.
I agree with Taylor that our Anglican world is “murky” and that people where “many hats”. Indeed, many people do not say what they really think. On this score, Taylor is at least more forthcoming!
Jordan, I see that Damien Thomas picked up your piece in the [url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/12/21/anglicans_versus_episcopalians_in_america ]Telegraph[/url]. A couple of zingers from his essay:
[blockquote] In America, “Episcopalian” is coming to mean the official, gay-friendly Church that not only ordained Gene Robinson as bishop but – increasingly – thinks he is a very good thing. Its liturgy is mostly groovy Catholic-lite, its theology achingly liberal, and if Rowan Williams hadn’t ended up as Archbishop of Canterbury (a job he badly wanted) then I suspect he’d feel pretty much at home there.[/blockquote]
[blockquote] What we’re witnessing, in other words, is a multi-vehicle pile-up on the Anglican freeway. So much for the breathing space that Rowan is supposed to have created at his triumphant Lambeth Conference.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Popular understanding is usually much wiser than theoretical wishful-thinking, and nowhere more so than here. The divisions in the church have led the American public to attach the meanings to the words Episcopalian and Anglican that they actually bear in their usage—namely, that to be an Episcopalian means to be a member of an pro-gay, autonomous American denomination, more liturgical than most churches but firmly within the theological orbit of liberal Protestantism. To be an Anglican, by contrast, means to be part of a conservative evangelical church with bishops, connected somehow with Africa and opposed to homosexuality. The definitions have by now become quite distinct and firmly fixed in the national lexicon—ask almost any church-going American what the words mean, and you will get an answer something like the above.[/blockquote]
Hylden has too much confidence in the knowledge of most Americans, whether church going or not. There is something to associating TEC with the gay church or perhaps in some areas the litigious church (“You know, the [i]Episcopalians[/i], that bunch that is always suing each other over buildings”), but I think if you asked most Americans about Anglicans, the better educated or more informed would associate them with England, the majority would probably give a blank stare.
Taylor: “As both Professor Radner and Dr. Seitz are well aware, there are a number of primates who, for a variety of valid reasons, are not in a position to state in public their full views.” That is a very true statement. (BTW, why does Radner get to be a Professor and I get to be a Dr?). Advent blessings!
Dave C.: If you were going to come out with a new car, would you rather have an unknown name brand or “Yugo”?