These convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states. They grow from trust that God will use faithful witness in his own time and in his own way to bring about his purposes””purposes that do not stem from our imaginings or our desires but from God’s justice and God’s mercy.
Just what are these convictions and commitments? Here we must summarize a host of conversations to which we have been party over the past several years. The convictions revealed are these.
1. The weakness and disarray of TEC (and indeed of the churches of the West) are best understood as the result of divine displeasure at pervasive misconstruals of Christian belief and practice coupled with a common life that blows neither “hot nor cold.”
2. It is a form of delusion and disobedience to place oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends for the health of his church. Rather, fidelity calls for acceptance of the judgment as both just and merciful. It calls also for faithful Christians to live through that judgment to the end. This way is none other than the way Christ himself walked, believing not in a future state of his devising and constructing but in God’s power, through his death, to give life to the dry bones of his people.
3. The pattern of Christ’s life suggests the necessity of a clear differentiation between a way faithful to his life and teaching and one that has simply assumed the form of the culture with which the leadership of TEC has identified.
4. The obedient form of differentiation suggested by the pattern of Christ is not separation but faithful persistence along a different path within the fellowship of the church that has nurtured one as a Christian but has, nonetheless, gone astray.
Update: Sarah Hey has a lengthy response to this here which concludes this way:
Let’s be clear. There are Episcopalians who are most interested in the “inside strategy.” The fact that the ACI and I assume the Communion Partners group eschews the “inside strategy” does not mean that those Episcopalians do not exist.
On the other hand, it is good to see the ACI and the Communion Partners continue to clarify their goals publicly. Their expressed goals do not make them “bad organizations.” Their goals merely express who they are and what they intend to do — and it’s important for clergy who are making decisions about participation in either organization to be aware of what those organizations mean to do. There are some good people in both organizations and, from the perspective of this layperson, the Communion Partners is currently the only place that an inside strategy clergyperson can gain some fellowship.
In the same way, we all know what the new Anglican entity — the ACNA — is clearly seeking. Those who leave for the ACNA have obviously abandoned any “inside strategy” as well.
At this point, those Episcopalians interested in the inside strategy need to connect with one another, and seek counsel where they can — but with crystal clarity that there is no organizational or institutional or national help for them. We are, as I have said for the past almost two years, on our own. Acknowledging that fact is the first step towards clarity and healing and seeking help where we can find it, with those who share our goals — and of course, fellowshiping with joy with all orthodox Anglican brothers and sisters, whether in the ACI, the Communion Partners, or the ACNA.
A thoughtful piece with many cogent arguments. Well done and most persuasive!
One area, however, I would like to see strengthened is the proposition that the Archbishop of Canterbury has been a historic focus of unity. It is not clear to me that this history extends much beyond the mid-Twentieth Century.
Thanks, George. It’s a bit unclear what the final sentence intends to get at. One does not need Newman’s view of development in doctrine to acknowledge that—due to the missionary success of Anglican Christianity, let it not be forgotten—the Communion evolved certain understandings of unity and accountability. Just as there were once infrequent Primates Meetings, then there were annual ones in Carey’s time. Just as once the idea of enhanced authority for the Primates would have been seen as presumptuous, then later it was viewed as desirable by the Instruments themselves. The preamble to the Constitution speaks of communion with the See of Canterbury and it does so reflexively. At issue so far as ACI is concerned, is clarifying that some in the present TEC believe in accountability and so the Instruments, including Canterbury, are regarded as necessary and appropriate. For others (Bill Franklin spoke the other day of the Episcopal Church ‘separating’ from the Church of England – a strange way to state it) TEC is autonomous, independent, etc. This strikes us as a false account of history and of the self-identity of the Anglican way in the US. In the light of that, we point to the preamble to the Constitution as a better guide to this church’s character. It is another point, of course, whether at present the See of Canterbury is an independent focus of unity, over against the other Instruments. Given that he alone inhabits the other Instruments, his role is unique. But he also seems to wish to see his role in conjunction with them and not independent of them. I have made the case in print that the Primates Meeting should be the point instrument, at this present time, and the ‘enhanced role’ language intimated that. But Primates Meetings have not themselves proven immune to disruption. Evolution and balance seem to go as requirements alongside missionary growth.
I am not sure there is much point revisiting the various arguments for those who have joined ACNA and those who remain in TEC. I do take exception, however to the following “conviction” (#2):
[blockquote]It is a form of delusion and disobedience to place oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends for the health of his church. Rather, fidelity calls for acceptance of the judgment as both just and merciful. It calls also for faithful Christians to live through that judgment to the end. This way is none other than the way Christ himself walked, believing not in a future state of his devising and constructing but in God’s power, through his death, to give life to the dry bones of his people.[/blockquote]
I find the tone and content of this statement self-serving and cold-hearted when those who have walked away from their church buildings and pensions as a matter of conscience are accused of delusion and disobedience because they are refusing the judgement of God, whereas those who remain are suffering under that judgement. Can the ACI not be generous in acknowledging that both groups understand that the Episcopal Church has fallen under judgement and each group has made its witness and is prepared to pay the consequences and seek renewal in its own way?
This is a very good article by ACI.
I do not think the TEC leadership are worried about a ‘Replacement Province’ set up by those who have left. I do believe TEC leadership are very much worried about the prospect of an Anglican Covenant which they will not sign, and the consequencies of that.
The Primates’ Meeting in February in Egypt will be very significant indeed.
BTW, the historic focus of unity of the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury goes back a long way. To whom did the Canadian Bishops turn to convene the first Lambeth Conference? The Archbishop of Canterbury. See the history of the Lambeth Conferences [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4317892.ece]here[/url].
The first part of The Times online archive copy of their article on 9 October 1867 may be read [url=http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/viewArticle.arc?articleId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1867-10-09-09-010&pageId=ARCHIVE-The_Times-1867-10-09-09]here[/url].
To whom does Pope Benedict XVI look as the historic focus of unity of the Anglican Communion? The Archbishop of Canterbury.
To whom do the leaders of the various Orthodox Churches look as the historic focus of unity of the Anglican Communion? The Archbishop of Canterbury.
To whom do the leaders of the various Protestant Churches look as the historic focus of unity of the Anglican Communion? The Archbishop of Canterbury.
To whom to the leaders of the Anglican Church in North America look as the historic focus of unity of the Anglican Communion? Now that is an interesting question… What is the answer?
If, this organization were a true federation of congregations, without the absolute power grabbed by 815, I’d be all for the ACI’s postition.
BUT, that is not the case. There will be a purge of as many of the “orthodox” parishes, dioceses, bishops, etc until perhaps only a “tiny minority” in isolated, or weakened positions is all there is left.
WHY, oh why doesn’t the ACI understand? Do they really perfer we ALL continue down the path to Hades for the sake of “togetherness”.
In other words, we should not leave til we’re dead, or thrown out?
It breaks my heart, to see the drumbeat of these kind and intelligent folk, trying to keep people in a church that seldom preaches the Gospel of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Please ACI folks, at least consider the children, it is hardly possible to send/take children to church, and then have to undo the damage done to their souls.
Grandmother in SC
“It is a form of delusion and disobedience to place oneself and ones friends outside the judgment God intends for the health of his church. Rather, fidelity calls for acceptance of the judgment as both just and merciful. It calls also for faithful Christians to live through that judgment to the end.â€
A question I am left with is when is “the end†through which the judgment ought to be lived. Under the rationale of patient and enduring witness rather than strategy or tactics or separation, it doesn’t seem clear there is an end in view. Yet the stated commitments in the next paragraph of the paper include commitment to an Anglican Covenant containing clear consequences for Provinces that don’t ratify or that do but don’t abide by the terms. If TEC should become such a Province, would it then still be disobedience to become disengaged from the legal and canonical structures of TEC/ GC/ 815? Is it the very concept of a replacement province that is bad, or the fact that the gun is being jumped?
For a case that at some point separation may well become the right course, it seems to me that one can look to a piece by one of the same authors: Ephraim Radner’s “Truthful Language and Orderly Separation†(September 9, 2008 on the ACI web site).
TEC is not “the Church”. The practice of excommunication develped precisely to deal with heresy and apostacy. We have never been called on to suffer at the hands of those claming to be the Ark of Salvation.
RE: “The Primates’ Meeting in February in Egypt will be very significant indeed.”
I agree. I think it will be as significant — and similar to — the Primates meeting at Tanzania. I think as a result, further Primates will recognize that they need to move forward with their own plans, given that nothing helpful will occur either through the Primates meetings or Canterbury.
The same thing occurred at Dar. Once the non-adherence to Dar was fulfilled, it led to further movements of certain Primates away from Canterbury.
I expect more of that after the one in Egypt as well.
I don’t find the inside and outside language helpful at all especially because it usually isn’t given a reference point, i.e. the questions inside of what and outside of what are not answered. Those now in ACNA, for example, certainly consider themselves “inside” the Anglican Communion and “outside” of TEC. But TEC is a full member of the Communion in full fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that quickly gets further confused.
Steve Noll is right to put his finger on conviction #2 in his comment. In my talks in Colorado (more there and still more there) I emphasized the need for tentativeness and generosity as reasserters respond to each other during this difficult time and unfortunately this comment by ACI fails to meet that standard. I do not think it fair to those criticized, either, as I do not think those in the ACNA would say they are not under the judgment of God.
The comment referred to those who believe it possible to get outside the judgment of God. Kendall has said that ACNA does not hold this view, and I would not assume they did grosso modo. So it is unclear how this is an ungenerous comment or where there is disagreement on the principle of God’s judgment. Or is there disagreement between Kendall and Steve Noll (‘refusing the judgement of God’) in #3 above. At any event, it seems a bit overweaning to say this was an ungenerous attack on ACNA when Kendall says ACNA does not hold this view. ACNA was never mentioned in the point being registered, as I suspect we too understand people inside ACNA probably have different understanding on the principle itself.
As far as I am concerned, it appears that we have lost the sight of the necessary goal–which is not about ourselves. The angels proclaimed Jesus for the world; the Asian magi came to worship the infant as king, not as king of the Jews but as king of kings. The whole gospel and the whole existence of the Church is about God’s glory being spread to all peoples around the world. We can reform the Church from within to be more comfortable–but God shook up the Church in Jerusalem with a little persecution in order that they would get going and make disciples of all nations. Likewise, today’s comfort must be about returning to the evangelistic, missionary, apostolic witness of the Church to the world.
Currently, I remain in TEC in an ACI-related diocese. But I am painfully aware that more and more of my missionary contacts and opportunities are with dioceses and peoples that are outside the TEC circle of influence. If our reform is to be successful, it must bear fruit missions outside TEC (or for that matter ACNA), otherwise we will have won the battle only to lose the war. Even as we approach Epiphany, one out of five people in the world today has no access, absolutely no access to the Gospel in their own language, their own culture, their own community. No access. How can we turn this picture around? How can we put missions and witness at the top of the list of expectations rather than as an afterthought on the bottom of our list of priorities?
BTW, I wholeheartedly recognize and appreciate that much of the debates are given to us by God specifically to equip us to communicate the Gospel to an increasingly secular culture. We must be asking the questions of what is Scripture, what is God’s authority, what does it mean to reach out without being judgmental yet being clear about God’s judgment on sin–all sin, and his extravagant generosity in the Cross and Resurrection.
“Our work is not to take this kingdom by force of design and tactic, but to make a faithful witness, practice faithful endurance, and wait upon the Lord to see what he will make of what we do and say”–this is what sounds, to me, presumptuous, since all of us strive to hold these aphorisms, and yet many of us are, strangely, unpersuaded by ACI’s methodology.
This, and the general tenor of the ACI approach, sounds like OT prophets trying to call their own people to repentance. Without a doubt, faithful Anglicans need to call our own people to repentance. The difficulty for me with this approach, is the NT Commission to take the gospel into the world. We are more than a self-contained Kingdom like ancient Israel. We are called to be a missionary movement.
In this post-Christendom world, we would not only have to reorient today’s pagans to a Christian worldview, as the Apostles had to do in the first century, but we would have to constantly buffer our “seekers” and new converts from the very denomination we’re asking them to commit to. How many people have we lost physically because they eventually learned that TEC supports abortion on demand and, at the least, winks at sexual immorality and downplays the role of the Bible in the life of the Church? How many people have we lost spiritually because, as babes in Christ, they learn that the “religion” of those holding the highest offices in the Church conforms more to society’s cafeteria-style religion and excuses the carnal desires the orthodox call these babes in Christ, as well as ourselves, to forsake?
#5 & #6 of ACI’s “commitments required by differentiation” are caught between the ideal and the real:
“5. Commitment to the evangelization and teaching of those who do not follow Christ as Lord and Savior, and service to those in need and distress.” –This is exactly why those in the ACNA felt compelled to make the move they made: the priority of mission. Without a doubt, the churches of the NT had their problems as St. Paul reveals, and ACNA will have its problems, but trying to make converts that come under the umbrella of an organization that looks more like one of the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 2-3) is something I cannot in good conscience do.
“6. Commitment to effective Christian formation of a new generation of well equipped lay and clerical leadership through new forms of theological education within the parishes and dioceses of TEC.” How will this happen, when too many Bishops and Commissions on Ordained Ministry will not send their candidates to seminaries that will do just this because of the stigma of having a Nashotah House or Trinity (or, God-forbid! a Gordon-Conwell!) grad in the diocese these days (even if there had never been a Common Cause Partnership to stir things up)?
William Shontz (Gordon-Conwell Grad–before they had an “Anglican Studies” program)
[url=http://theleca.org]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]
This piece seems to exhibit more or less the same degree of opposition to separation generally as it does to promotion of a replacement province. In a comment elsewhere, one of the authors (Dr. Radner), identified circumstances in which “decoupling†would be warranted:
It doesn’t seem immediately clear how the position that there was a well-established and persuasive need for Fort Worth to decouple from TEC is to be reconciled with the broadly negative view of separation in the current article. I also find troublesome a similar overbreadth in statements by Communion Partner rectors setting forth a commitment to remain in TEC without any language of provisionality or other qualification.
The so-called “strategy from within” would likely have held with more support from without. If there had been a consistent, repetitive, unbending, single Communion voice of support from without toward the struggling orthodox within TEC and Canada, it would have offered the moral support needed for almost all of them to endure. But ambiguity breeds more ambiguity and does not encourage people to stay in place. Still, I remain hopeful that the Covenant widely endorsed could have the desired effect.
Prof Seitz’s point about the place of the Archbishop of Canterbury was what was troubling me—-and I thank him for the explanation. My own belief is that shared doctrine should have primary place over ecclesial structure—but that is not the point of the article and an issue not under discussion.
In re Graham Kings’ comment — this is a rather slim or perhaps superficial reading of the history. The elevated position of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the Anglican Communion is a post-war construct….one that saw its beginnings in the 1860’s—-not with Lambeth by the way but with the Eton College case and Colenso case in South Africa. The notion of a Canterbury focused ecclesiachurch is foreign to the reformers and Caroline Divines—not that this makes the current structures wrong—my point is that an appeal to theology/ecclesiology is stronger than an appeal to history. Prof Seitz’s response addresses this concern quite clearly.
#4 Dr Kings
I suppose another interesting question is:
To whom do the leaders of the Episcopal Church of the USA look as the historic focus of unity of the Anglican Communion?
Regarding #11: I have been to a delightful Christmastide concert in the intervening couple of hours, and want to clarify my frustration and apologize for sounding off a bit earlier.
I do appreciate ACI’s effort to put out there their understanding of both tracks. Like Sarah Hey, I do not find myself agreeing to or identifying with either of these two tracks. I feel squeezed out of the conversation about the future of Anglicanism in America and my part in it, by this on-going discussion between ACI and ACNA. I do not find ACI’s description of ACNA’s track matching the conversations that I have had with various ACNA folks–nor do I follow the logic of their own case (specifically moving from conviction #4 to #5).
I have been asking myself and God for some time now, what am I missing? Today, I honestly think God has given me an answer. I do start with the question of apostolic witness (e.g. missions) and then work from there. ACI’s list of commitments starts with Windsor and works out from there. What would it look like if they moved #5 up to #1–namely to put evangelism and missions up front? For WilliamS #13, it apparently leads to a decision to follow the ACNA lead.
For me, I remain free to mobilize my parish for evangelism and missions. Nearly every week one or more parishioners will ask about goings on–or bring me a news article about the latest Epis happening. We are now laying the groundwork to call an assistant priest in a year’s time–but will there be a missionary-hearted priest coming out of one of the seminary’s ready to step into a TEC parish? Might I call a priest from overseas? Not likely–given that most of my international contacts are in provinces that have declared that the TEC’s actions have impaired the communion.
My bishop has said our diocese will stay; I am under his authority and so will work to stay. That means we as a diocese need to re-work our structures and ministries to accomplish evangelism, missions, discipleship, raising up godly new priests, etc as stated in ACI commitments 5, 6 & 7. That further means re-working our diocese to prevent and protect ourselves against the intrusions of the TEC leadership. That’s where the real differentiation takes place. It’s one thing for the alcoholic to clean the house of alcohol and commit him/herself to recovery–it’s another thing to say to a good drinking friend, you can only come to my house if you leave that bottle at your own home. If we are going to stay and witness from inside, we will have to change the way we go about our ministries and become just as feisty and provocative as those that have joined other parts of the Communion.
Allow me to add my two cents.
Back in the 1980’s, my diocese was drifting further and further from orthodoxy. At a certain point it became rather obvious I was no longer welcome. They wanted me to be seated in the pew, and they certainly wanted my tithe, but as for the rest it was clear, however unsaid, “Sit down. Shut up. Where else are you going to go?”
in 1989 I swam the Tiber. That is where. Now, after 20 years, even were the ACNA to supplant TEC, I could not imagine swimming back. Provide someone no place to go within, and they will go without.
In any event, KJS risks irrelevancy, not because of the ACNA, but because she has backed the orthodox into a corner where even and they do stay, they are second class citizens within TEC.
From my conversation with others who have swam the Tiber over the years, that much has not changed, and in the eyes of many has become worse.
I don’t know that we hear much from orthodox ordained who are in reappraiser dioceses – we hear from ordained who are in moderate dioceses and certainly from those who are in reasserter dioceses, but not from those in full-on reappraiser dioceses. The reason, I suggest, is this – they are not there. It is fine to talk about the need to stay, but where bishops and standing committees have been stringent about not allowing the calling of a priest who is committed to reasserting matters of the faith and they are committed to not advancing postulants who are reasserters, ultimately the reasserters wither away – they go elsewhere, they stop coming or they give up their fight. So when one’s reasserting bishop and standing committee support (or at least don’t quash) a reasserting parish and its ordained leadership, staying within TEC, enduring the judgment and being the prophetic voice calling for repentance is fine – but absent that prerequisite, neither the Communion Partners’ nor ACI strategies work at all.
I would also second the point made by Grandmother, #5 – we left TEC because we could not keep explaining to our children why doctrine matters but the chuch (TEC, not the local one) kept violating it. I suppose we could have kept quiet ourselves and been careful never to talk over those issues when the kids were around, but that isn’t our charism. So it was simply better to leave. Children need grounding and teaching, not recurring explanations about why the church works against what they read in Scripture.
19 and 20 — Thank you for your words. That is why I am looking hard at the LCMS, Rome and Orthodoxy. I fear that Anglicanism is breaking apart irrecovocably, and that the fault lines along which it is breaking are inherent in Anglicanism. There is much that I will miss, but I have no interest in explaining away the actions and views of the ECUSA hierarchy. It really is all about the Truth — and if that means leaving behind pretty liturgy, buildings and vestments (and tasteful music) — so be it.
WS #13, you hit on the two issues that are uppermost in my mind.
[blockquote] “5. Commitment to the evangelization and teaching of those who do not follow Christ as Lord and Savior, and service to those in need and distress.†[/blockquote] I have had a serious problem with how the diocese I am located in has moved toward TEC’s reappraised theology in recent years. I find it very difficult on a personal level to live into the Great Commission for the fact that I could not in good conscience bring a new believer into a church in the diocese and believe he/she would receive the needed spiritual nourishment that would help them to mature in their faith.
Oh, certainly the various parishes know how to do “service to those in need and distress†on the level of helping those in need through food pantries and other outreach, but these ministries do not make it a priority to spread the Gospel along with the supplies.
Growing up in the Diocese of Pittsburgh I witnessed first-hand the living out of the Great Commission. I went along on door-to-door evangelism walks and watch street corner evangelism in action. Even retired +Hathaway was involved, in full regalia. I have the pictures to prove it!
That is what formed my idea of what living out the call to seek the lost and reach out to those who do not know Jesus Christ really means. I certainly have not seen that happening where I live and I fear I never will. And it comes down to the the fact that you cannot witness to what you do not believe. If you cannot believe that Jesus is The Way, The Truth and The Life how can you take that message to others.
[blockquote]6. Commitment to effective Christian formation of a new generation of well equipped lay and clerical leadership through new forms of theological education within the parishes and dioceses of TEC. How will this happen, when too many Bishops and Commissions on Ordained Ministry will not send their candidates to seminaries that will do just this because of the stigma of having a Nashotah House or Trinity (or, God-forbid! a Gordon-Conwell!) grad in the diocese these days (even if there had never been a Common Cause Partnership to stir things up)? [/blockquote] Again, I assert that WS#13 hits the nail on the head. I have seen this first-hand, heck it is my life story, and the stories of several close to me.
Also, on the level of educating the children within its congregations, when this has become less of a priority, and the Gospel has become so watered down, how can these children be raised up to be mature Christians? How can they possibly be looked to as the future generation from which will come effective lay leaders and clergy?
As to local education, a diocese must be able to consistently provide quality instructors. If these instructors lean toward the moderate/liberal theology of TEC it certainly will not appeal to those who are firmly in the conservative or even the conservative/moderate camp. They will feel alienated, and although they may make fine lay leaders and clergy, they will be stepped over to get to those who are in conformance with the diocesan viewpoint. I have seen it happen.
God will bless what He will bless and deny what He will deny. Acts 5:33-42 pertains. Worth a quick read.
However much I may agree or disagree with the propositions and positions of the theologians who penned this mini-essay, their work will never cure episcopalianism. What they offer here is simply their opinions based on their particular ecclesiological perspectives and generally pragmatic and speculative forms of reasoning. Ultimately, there is no authority behind their words. They are thinkers who may or may not have circumspectly examined these issues and the beliefs and principles of those on the other side. But these are simply not things that each individual Anglican should be left to judge independently. At this stage, these men need to submit their ideas to orthodox Anglican bishops and other key leaders of various stripes and allow us to read them through the filter of these leaders’ responsible critiques. They must accept that theirs is a supporting role that must be available to change direction and priorities in the service of the training of the laity of the Church and the goals of her orthodox leaders.
Right now without delay, we need our theologians to demonstrate how to be careful to restrain our American careerism and never usurp the leadership functions of those who have the gifts and the commissioning to productively exercise those functions. We also need our theologians to give us a picture of what the historic authorities and saints of our tradition have offered on these questions, and not simply a rehashing of their own well-rehearsed and well-known debate position. Not long ago, ACI was doing that kind of orthodox and catholic work. That must now become the norm. It is the only way that we can continue to discuss these issues and not be led down distracting paths that force us to examine and re-examine new and old points of contention.
As evangelicals and Anglo-catholics failed to look out for each other over most of our history, progressivists seized power with gusto over the last three generations and their false gospel is now the norm in most dioceses. This is now producing spiritual hemlock for consumption all throughout the denomination and we can’t protect the faithful by altering the mixture a bit, as the old broad church folks tried to do in their friendly alliance with the closet progressivists and the old liberal party. It is my conviction that from even an evangelical catholic and canonical perspective that grants merely a persuasive authority to the voice of the early conciliar Church, traditionalists and conservatives of various schools had the duty to set-up their own renegade ecclesiastical systems long ago. And we should have been fighting for these systems together, even as we may have been standing on different sides of jurisdictional fences. Over the last 50 years, we should have been acting like children of God (instead of proper, well-educated and well-mannered churchmen and churchwomen), always looking to our Lord and a Heavenly Father who gently points us in the right direction and reminds us to forget ourselves so as to get over ourselves, and reject every impulse to ensure appearing respectable. This attitude would have led us to continually take “unofficial†steps towards greater unity, and to work on shaping leaders that all the orthodox could unite behind. But our place in polite society kept most of us from these kinds of misbehavior.
For the protection of the faithful from the spiritual diseases that have beset us (which should be the first priority of Anglican priests and bishops), it is irrelevant whether or not those renegade systems and strategies would have been structured to function from the inside or the outside of the official ecclesiastical structures of episcopalianism or Anglicanism. But because even very traditional evangelical and Anglo-catholic theologians and church leaders have long labored under the delusional American and Anglo-Germanic sin of being in love with one’s own individual opinions and beliefs and the defense thereof, most of us have continued to engage in these theoretical arguments ad infinitum. We have failed to dig-in and work closely with those of other schools of thought to get the multitude of Lots out of Sodom, and failed to act while being fully convinced that, in our inaction, we are standing on principle. We have failed to follow the definitively foundational Anglican principles of looking for the consensus of the Church Fathers and the doctrines behind the canons of the Ecumenical Councils (clearly contravening the vision behind the 1928 consecration service that points us to a place of submitting readily to “what the ancient canons command” and what is clear in Holy Scripture). I would be happy to provide a long list of teaching from the early Church Fathers (ante-Nicene, Nicene, post-Nicene) about the need to stand-up to heretical bishops (and those bishops who sanction or provide cover for heretics) and depart from them when they are recalcitrant. However, I am sure that the reply would be “we’ve looked at those over and over, and they simply don’t provide clear direction for our particular situation”. And my response would be (and has been) “they’re clear if you’re looking to receive guidance and direction from them and not merely find concepts that you can analyze and from which you can tease out the nuances vis a vis the present context”.
I grant you the Anglican situation is complex, but if we had simply been the solid catholic and evangelical Anglicans that our tradition and authoritative benchmarks lead us to be, and not been so concerned about being intellectually respectable, the combined authority of Lambeth 1998, the Windsor Report, Dromantine, Dar es Salaam, etc. would carry the weight of an Ecumenical Council, and we would be acting in concert with the majority of the Primates of the Communion, and together renewing and rebuilding the spiritual work of God on this continent that he has placed in Anglican hands. But instead, there have been far too many in the Anglican academy and publishing circles who have wanted to ensure that as wide an audience as possible would continue to hear their unique ideas, even as we are in the middle of a war for souls that requires focus on Christ and the basics of doctrine and spirituality. And so the criticism among the orthodox escalates, and many laity and clergy are left confused and spiritually eviscerated. In this context, individuals or individual parishes or associations are forced to become their own authorities simply to have some clarity about which of the array of intellectually respectable positions is not really based in Christian wisdom. With self-appointed authorities everywhere, real authority and the ability to discern where it lies is gone.
I am a committed Anglo-catholic who currently sees Western Rite Orthodoxy as our best choice for a home. I am part of a very traditional, high-church parish that is remaining in a “moderate” TEC diocese. My family and I left a “continuing church” parish in 2002 because we saw the heart-hardening effects of the constant monitoring of other orthodox Anglicans generally for the purpose of showing the rightness of one’s own position over against the supposed wrongness of “that group†(It may very well be that this has always been a significant part of Anglican church culture, revealing that there are chasms in Anglicanism that will not be bridged and ultimately, that Anglicans are not truly catholic in vision while we may be so on paper). The orthodox in TEC are now doing the same thing to eachother. While I wanted our parish to be out of TEC a couple of years ago, I have been willing to follow the lead of my very faithful orthodox priests as long as there is really something in the works that will provide us with a proper ecclesiastical covering, such as the Communion Partners plan. And while I see many serious canonical problems with the Common Cause province in formation, I simply refuse to be a self-appointed critic of orthodox Anglican church leaders (especially those who are charitably and wisely and patiently taking back ground from the powers behind the prevailing pseudo-christianity of episcopalian progressivism).
I firmly believe that God has sent us these excellent and mostly evangelically-minded Anglican leaders from Africa to break us of our destructive, very modern and American habits of mind. It took some time for me to come to such beliefs, but all I needed to do was to merely consider the actions they were taking and the things that they were accomplishing – the fruit of their ministry, and not merely what they were saying and writing. They have continued to work tirelessly to eradicate false teaching and spiritual disease and to break down demonic strongholds. They have acted to force needed changes in the Communion and in TEC that as Primates they had the right to push for. Yet, they struggled for several years to work within the existing Communion structures and deferred to the symbolic authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury until it became clear that serious discipline of TEC would continually be postponed. On the other hand, we on this continent have continued to be principally commentators and spectators and observers – almost as if we’re watching a sporting event on television. We do a little work on the ground now and then, but with few exceptions, and the Common Cause Partnership is, in the main, undoubtedly one of the principal and admirable ones, the work that so many of us actually do to break down barriers and challenge the status quo seems to be just the amount necessary to make our wives happy enough so we can go back to the game again. And when it is generally easy to come home to a comfortable place on the couch (figuratively speaking, of course) at the end of the day, I just can’t get all that impressed with what some orthodox folks are having to patiently endure at the TEC office.
Sounds pretty “critical” (not to mention “self-appoitned”) to me, Young Joe! “I am a committed Anglo-Catholic who currently sees Western rite Orthodoxy as our best choice for a home”; “I firmly believe that God has sent…”, and so on.
Not that this bothers me. We live in a time and place where we are all asked to make choices all the time about our affiliations and commitments. That’s called modern liberal society, and it includes religion and churches. It includes conservative and “orthodox” religion and churches too! And in doing that, we analyze, weigh options, assess critically, persuade, defend, whatever. You are doing this all though your comment: which diocese or church or set of leaders or writers or theologians is more or less “orthodox” or “moderate” or “progressive”, and which have been doing this or that in the past, and which are likely to go in what direciton or other, and where you ought to stand in relation to them. It’s inevitable. You cannot avoid being a “self-appointed critic” — no one can.
In TEC and in Anglian churches in the West (but also in places like Africa — anybody look recently at the number of breakaway groups there are from Anglicanism, as well as other churches, in any number of countries there?) — we are all being faced with choices of one kind or another. Arguments are inevitably offered as to why one choice or another makes sense. Many of us do all this very privately. However, it is currently the case that these arguments enter into and sometimes even engulf the public discussions and concerns of entire congregations. The clergy of a parish or mission, or some of the clergy, or the vestry, or some of the vestry, or combinations of these plus larger or smaller groupings within the congregation — they make decisions and choices and leave or commit in this or that direction. Often there is conflict; sometimes actual splits (as we all know); these are often bound up with analogous discussions and arguments and choices and conflicts and splits within dioceses and so on.
The question “why can’t we all get along?” is a good one, in the sense that it would be good to get along. But the answer is nonetheless obvious: the choices people make at present are among options that split people and congregations and dioceses up. TEC, ACNA, CANA, AMiA, and all the rest of the gang have never, never made commitments to avoid encouraging and accepting such optional choices and splits in other congregations. If someone in a CANA congregation wants to split off and join back with TEC, they will be happily accepted by TEC. If someone in a congregation in the Diocese of Dallas wants to take a group out of their parish, or the parish as a whole, into ACNA, they will be happily welcomed. There are no “no go” zones in the American scene any longer. I would imagine this will spread to other parts of the Communion as well (it already has in Britain to a degree; it will be happening in Africa as well).
In such a context, offering an argument for doing something different and particular is, as I said, inevitable. It is not any more “self-appointed” than anybody else, bishops included these days. One may agree or disagree or not care about this or that argument (including the one in the ACI essay above); but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that any of us can avoid arguments altogether. Not now; not here. Even the choice not to argue about any of this is one that is sustained by an argument of some kind. I am becoming more persuaded by this last kind of argument every day; but it is an argument nonetheless, requiring explication and justification. Most importantly, it requires the witness of a certain kind of life. But even lives are arguments, for better or worse. Certainly, that is what people from Jeremiah to Paul believed.
Young Joe—on the relationship in the church between theologians, bishops, cardinal rectors (and their lay support system), you might have a look at Archbishop Williams book on Arius; this is the most illuminating aspect of that book, in my judgment. Or study the debate between Jerome (monk-theologian) and Augustine over the translation project which would come to have the loose title ‘The Vulgate.’ It would of course be a sad conclusion to reach that ‘leaders’ are not theologians (one thinks of the strong academic training of an NT Wright, or Nazir-Ali, or Scott-Joynt, or Josiah Iduwe-Fearon – all Bishop leaders), or that theologians have some sort of deferring obligation – church history says otherwise, and in spades (one thinks of Calvin, Luther, Erasmus, Bucer, and the list goes on, in the path of Jerome or Justin). As for ‘supporting our leaders,’ you would have to indicate who you think they are! We at ACI have been involved for many years in the meetings and common counsel of Bishops we judge leaders, and I am myself canon theologian in Dallas. I don’t mean to prolong this or to be defensive, but your remarks came from left field in the universe ACI inhabits. BTW, if you want to come to an ACI event where the focus is on theology and church life, there is a good one planned for Houston in April and the ad should appear soon in TLC. It would be nice to be able to compartmentalize our labours at this time, but again church history shows this is a luxury we cannot indulge in our present season. Grace and peace.
Rev. Seitz:
I appreciate your comments. They are precisely the kind of candor about your theological foundations that I am looking for. I am in the middle of writing a fairly lengthy to Dr. Radner (sorry Dr. Radner, but at this stage, I believe it is critical that we all try to really be clear about where we’re coming from; what our strongest loyalties, spiritual affections and theological commitments are, and sometimes that requires a paragraph or two), so I’ll try to be as brief as I can be here.
1) I find you remark about not having any deferring obligation to bishops to be extremely terse, and a bit dismissive (you are probably more pressed for time than I am, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). As Anglicans and catholics, we all have a deferring obligation to bishops (elements of the teaching of Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneaus, Clement of Rome come to mind) – I don’t really know why your theological work would have a special exemption. And it seems that the attitudes of Calvin and Luther are actually a good example of exactly what you criticize in the ACNA, especially the distance that the leading Reformers ultimately put between eachother (in fact, Calvin’s spiritual offspring have provided that same negative example in the way they treat eachother nearly every generation for about 400 years).
2) Even though I am an Anglo-catholic, I am actually a big fan of Bucer in his early years, and his attitude of deferring to the Church led to a brilliant and healthy doctrine of justification that was presented at Regensburg, only to be summarily dismissed by men on both sides (Roman and Protestant) whose thinking was being “carried along by a torrent” (to borrow from a description that Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople gave to aspects of the doctrine of the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen in an exchange of letters in the 1570’s when the Lutherans constantly refused to adopt a scintilla of Orthodox wisdom in order to maintain what they considered to be the perfection of their only recently constructed theological house) of ideological thinking.
3) If we are to engage in the same kind of constant criticism of and focus on what believe to be the shortcomings of the other orthodox Anglicans on this continent who are only fighting for their lives in the ashes of an episcopalianism that has been fragmented for generations, we will produce a hardening of lines between factions that many take 400 years to heal. You might try to publicly help and encourage those folks in your writings, at least as much as you criticize. After all, there are some good theological things that they do. I think that this would show that you are at least willing to give some deference to the teaching of Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3.
3) You wrote “As for ‘supporting our leaders,’ you would have to indicate who you think they are!” – actually an excellent point about the problem of authority within Anglicanism and episcopalianism that I address indirectly at the end of my 5th paragraph above. I would say that a reasonable place to start would be to support all theologically orthodox Anglican leaders who demonstrate a love for God and for souls and who are committed to renewing the Anglican Way and saving the Communion (even if they disagree with you on the rather secondary matter of what kind of temporary structures are needed to get us through the present crisis). Also, consider how these leaders are following the clear teaching of the New Testament and the Apostolic Canons. The evangelical churchmen among them are certainly showing the courage of their convictions. From my perspective on the crisis (what I hope is a truly catholic one based in the historic canons and the wisdom of Holy Tradition), there are many problems with the formation and constitution of the nascent province, and I believe more patience and seeking the mind of the Communion is in order. However, when I try to put myself in their shoes, I simply can’t fault them.
4) You wrote “Or study the debate between Jerome (monk-theologian) and Augustine over the translation project which would come to have the loose title ‘The Vulgate.’” I will look into this. I have to admit that I’m completely ignorant on the subject. However, I don’t see this as pertinent to the kind of special grace the orthodox need to allow one another in the dark forest of apostacy and heresy that episcopalianism has become. Furthermore, if testy and rigid St. Jerome is your model, what in the world are you doing in TEC?
Again, I do appreciate your comments. I am also very appreciative of most of the theological work that has come out of ACI until very recently.
Dr. Radner and Rev. Seitz:
While I have your attention (to some degree), I am compelled to ask a handful of questions based on your recent ACI essay/commentary and the last comments of Rev. Seitz on this thread:
1) Were the tactics and strategies of Cramner and Bucer to re-form the liturgy legitimate, given that the 1552 prayerbook was clearly designed to bring about deeply desired and very particular future (and significantly altered) states against the will of a very narrow majority of the laity, the will of a fairly solid majority of the lower clergy, and the will of a slight majority of the bishops in Convocation – the official and proper theological authority of the ecclesia anglicana? I certainly don’t expect that you would be in agreement with all of their tactics (such as imprisoning Bishop Tunstall in the tower to preserve a moderate protestant majority of bishops or not actually going through the proper process of consent and approval to have the 1552 BCP authorized), but how do you (or can you?) justify their tactics and strategies and the fruit of them, and criticize those of Common Cause and ACNA when the latter are dealing with an outbreak of spiritual disease far worse than could be found in the pre-Reformation British Isles?
2) If one is opposed to “tactics and strategies designed to bring about future states”, how can one consider the 39 Articles to be legitimate since they were based on Cramner’s independently designed 42 Articles, a tactic to de-legitimize the traditionalist position on a range of doctrines? It is also important to note that the requirement of subscription to the Articles in 1571 was itself a tactic of the Crown to maintain order in the church.
3) While the break with Rome and the reformation of the Church of England were accomplished under the approval of only one patriarch of the official church hierarchy of the day, the ACNA functions under the approval of and informal but well-defined spiritual authority of a significant number of Primates of the Communion (on the approval level, it might be approaching a majority), which is our ecclesiastical homeland as the Roman Catholic Church was to the English people in the 16th century. How is the work of the ACNA any less legitimate than the English Reformation given the above and the fact that Common Cause/ACNA is an attempt to stay in the ecclesiastical homeland while the English Reformation was not? How can the CofE be considered legitimate if in 1559 it was placing itself “outside the judgment God intends for the health of his church”?
4) Would the reformed Church of England be a church that properly allows for moderate protestant and evangelical schools of thought were it not for the bold strategies of Calvin and the Genevan Reformed against various ecclesiastical and civil authorities and the tactics of the English clergy who found shelter in Geneva during Queen Mary’s reign? By your standards, weren’t the Genevan Reformed and the exiles from England practicing “a form of delusion and disobedience”, placing themselves and their allies “outside the judgment God intends for the health of his church”?
Please don’t read this as an attempt at “gotcha”. It is not, although I’m sure it will be seen that way. As I said in my first comments on this thread, I am finding myself to be more and more open to Western Rite Orthodoxy (as I meant to say in my poorly edited comments in #24 above, “Western Rite Orthodoxy as our best choice for a home [if American Anglicanism falls apart, and the Communion as a whole makes no provision for the orthodox faithful”]), and I hope to get a sense of what the theological landscape of the Anglican Communion will be if and when your school is the new “high and dry” party (fairly traditional in practice but not perspective, classically evangelical, and generally catholic in orientation, but very loyal to existing and customary structures/systems/processes/institutions/authorities) that tries to hold the center.
Please forgive my long sentences and spotty editing. As with my previous comments, I’m trying to do this on the fly while I look after my two younger daughters.
Joe–I confess I don’t know what you are on about in terms of deferring to Bishops. My Bishop is on the ACI Board and a close colleague, and CP is a movement with a major Bishops’ component. The Rector of Incarnation where I work is a Bishop. I am Bishop Stanton’s Canon Theologian and Professor of Biblical Interpretation in Toronto, where my area Bishop is a fine evangelical. Obviously at present Bishops disagree with themselves. Grace and peace.
Rev. Seitz:
Thanks for your response.
You actually introduced the phrase “deferring obligation to bishops” into the discussion. My point was that at this stage, it would be helpful if your work had the unofficial imprimatur of at least one bishop who might publicly say “I can endorse the stated principles of this ACI paper because I find grounds and/or support for them” in such and such Church Father or saint or Anglican Divine or Scriptural passage. As I stated in my first posting on this thread, your stated positions in this paper are ultimately nothing more than your opinions based on what appears to be your own kind of generally biblical but essentially pragmatic logic. You are now regularly hitting the Common Cause/ACNA folks just as hard with these opinions as GAFCON slapped the Communion with the Jerusalem Declaration. Wouldn’t it be wise to have a public dialogue that actually leads to something more than a rhetorical tennis match?
Now I am certain that if we all simply drop any search for interpretive and doctrinal authority and start throwing our slightly innovative teachings at each other, we will never come together. Such an anti-communitarian, anti-leadership approach (rejecting anything approaching a true church culture where all parts of the Body are always open to learning from one another, and we actually work to get difficult problems settled) appears to have become endemic to Anglicanism, however, and as much among those who are theologically orthodox as those who are not. And this elevation of individual opinion is especially prominent in episcopalianism. I believe it is a major factor in our current crisis. Careerism in the church leads to a lot of private agendas being pushed and then to a kind of insecurity that breeds factionalism and disdain for proper authority actually doing anything authoritative.
Strangely enough, while I disagree with your conclusions, if I come from a very traditional symbol and mystery hermeneutical perspective, I actually find your general approach to be a sound one (St. Ambrose, as one example, drew out a number of sacramental principles from the pattern of our Lord’s life). But again, that is merely my personal opinion and I can reference no common theological authority to directly support it. I would never attempt to use such an opinion to instruct large numbers of faithful orthodox Anglican christians to remain in the lion’s den and prevent them from believing that God may have opened the exit door through which we see a number of wise, orthodox bishops of the church leading people out.