What is the point? I have been racking my brain lately asking myself”“and others”“this question, desperately trying to find a sound answer. What is the point of remaining in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury? Reading articles such as this one brings this question again to the forefront of my mind. What is the point?
We should recognize as many Catholic bishops as possible (i.e., to “be in communion” with them), but schism occurs when major differences arise (usually accompanied by sin on at least one side) such that the Church can no longer recognize “catholicity” in the other. In the case of the Episcopal Church, “impaired” or even broken communion exists between many of the orthodox bishops and the heterodox bishops, and from an ecclesiological perspective, many of the sees are vacant (hence the need for missionary efforts from the Global South). Of course, the heterodox have no concept of Catholic ecclesiology, so they view this as “boundary crossing” which is patently absurd, considering they have no concept of much of anything Catholic. But I digress. The question I have been pondering is, what is the point of being in communion with Canterbury?
I have to say that I have finally come to the point of wondering what is the point of remaining in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury since he keeps trying to support TEC by making end runs around the Primates. As Akinola has rightly said, you don’t need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus. I’d rather be a part of an orthodox Anglican Communion any day than remain in one headed by the revisionists – be they Americans, Canadians, Englishmen. South Africans or whomever!
Its a restating of the “staying or leaving” question. Do you stay in TEC even though its apostate? Do you stay in the AC even though its in communion with the apostates? Why not, if you love a good fight, or prefer swimming in life’s ocean with a millstone around your neck instead of without, which is hard enough already.
Re #1: The Traditional Anglican Communion already exists. Why reinvent it?
Either “Anglican” is defined as “a community of churches with historic, liturgical, and theological ties to the Church of England, each of which is in communion with the historic See of Canterbury” or it is defined as “Whatever I choose Anglican to mean.” If the latter, there is certainly no reason to prefer THE Anglican Communion to the TAC or any other established or newly-formed body that chooses to call itself Anglican.
This, I would think, is particularly true for someone who thinks he can declare “hetrerodox” sees vacant as a matter of private judgment. If “bishop” (episcopus) means “anyone I choose to recognize as a bishop,” then the individualist definitions of “Episcopal” and “Anglican” logically follow. To someone who knows God’s will by private revelation, the corporate discernment of the Church as a whole is irrelevant.
It is sad to see that reasserters are falling into the same individualistic rejection of the traditional methods of Anglican group decisionmaking and discipline as the reappraisers.
What’s really sad, Dale, is to see the ABC, Kenneth Kearon and the like reject traditional Anglican group decision making in favor of their own back-door machinations. I think the sinking in of this reality, not some imagined moral equivalence with the reappraisers who are on the verge of ripping the Communion apart, accounts for what we’re now seeing “on the ground.”
How I responded at “All Too Common”
I want to continue to be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and I love the Anglican (in my parish’s case, read: traditional Anglo-Catholic) liturgy. The authority and validity of the Sacraments are rooted in the Apostolic Succession going back to the original Apostles. This is also very important to me. If the See of Canterbury can/will assert the importance Holy Scripture and Jesus Christ as THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life, then I can be content to remain in communion with Canterbury and part of the current Anglican Communion.
Absent such assertions and actions to counteract the heresy of TEC, its apostate bishops, and other heresies/heretics elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, the ABC will have abdicated his position of “first among equals†in the AC because he will have failed to defend “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saintsâ€. Jude 3
If ++Cantuar abdicates his responsibilities, there will be no point to staying in communion with Canterbury. In that case, I would hope and pray that the “continuing†Anglican-style-and-heritage clergy and lay believers may form a realigned, believing Communion including the Common Cause Partners and as many “Continuing Churches†(outside the current Common Cause Partners) that will preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, dead, and resurrected.
I will be watching Bp. Iker (my bishop) and his actions very closely as all this unfolds over the next 2 1/2 months.
Thanks, Phil. You answered for me very well.
Being in Communion with Canterbury requires Anglicans to love the man who fills that office. Christians show love by calling one another to set aside every sin that erodes or destroys what the Creator intends: that we be with God in whose image we are made and remade in Christ God. Loving ++Rowan means telling him that he needs to repent of breaking the trust of the apostolic ministry by his willingness to entertain TEC’s corruption of the Faith.
Objection to Dale Rye’s overall thesis — false either/or dichotomy.
RE: “If “bishop†(episcopus) means “anyone I choose to recognize as a bishop,†then the individualist definitions of “Episcopal†and “Anglican†logically follow.”
Yeh . . . that’s why fellow bishops are supposed to do the recognizing and non-recognizing. Thankfully, they are doing just that.
I believe, that as an Anglican, that I am a member of the Church Catholic with it’s roots clearly implanted in the Apostolic/Patristic beliefs and traditions of the Church Catholic prior to the schisms that split the church into the present Roman, Orthodox and Anglican branches.
The present problem within the Anglican Communion (AC) is one of of a schism forced upon it by those calling themselves Anglicans (in the USA Episcopalians) who are forcing upon the AC secularly driven beliefs/practices that those who adhere to the “Faith once given” (the Apostolic/Patristic Church) cannot accept.
I suggest that we label those who adhere to the “Faith once given” as “True Anglicans” and that those Anglicans who wish to radically change Scriptural interpretation, the Creeds and the traditions of the Church Catholic be called “Anglicans of the Secular World.”
Let them go and form their own church. No need for much concern for Sunday school since many of them distain ‘breeding’ or being seen as ‘breeders.’
Isn’t this the case, that if TEC is thrown out, much of the dust in the present amosphere will settle? LM
Excellent question!
One author I read suggested that one reason the English lost the battle of Hastings in 1066 was that the pope had guaranteed the salvation of the attackers and threatened the defenders with damnation. Perhaps this is too colorful but it makes the point that before the reformation ‘the’ church defined the criteria for salvation.
When I say the Nicene creed I affirm the universal Catholic church not the Roman Catholic church. The Anglican church isn’t even mentioned. In other words, according to what Anglicans say each week in church, the fellowship with other Christians is more important than being in the Anglican club.
All that said, the identity of any Christian church must be defined by it’s mission which must be more unique than it’s theology. The theology that defines the minimum criteria for membership must itself be kept to a minimum. Too much detail becomes confusing and leads to more division. But the theology itself does not define a denomination. Two denominations can share similar theology but have different missions and it is their missions that define them.
The crisis in the Anglican communion is so deep because we have not been acting with a common purpose for decades and some theologies are not even clearly Christian.
There is no point whatsoever in continuing the attachment to the English monarchy but to go forward we must agree on a common mission. Sadly we may need to clarify our theological baseline but that in itself is not enough on which to build an identity we must also agree on our common mission if we are to do anything productive together.
I will grant that the ultra-conservative (your read: Orthodox) Anglican provinces have a [i]huge[/i] membership. I will not grant, however, that the majority of [i]provinces[/i] would vote to “throw TEC out” of the Anglican Communion.
What is evolving on the right side of the aisle is fascinating in a ghoulish sort of way (IMHO). It is not, however, Anglican in ethos, let alone ecclesiology or theology.
The leadership of TEC is heretical by the standards of apostolic teaching both in Scripture and in the writings of the Church Fathers. The more one reads the Fathers, the more one shudders at how far TEC has strayed. Regardless of what happens politically, Padre, TEC is no longer a Christian church. But, don’t worry! It may align with religious entities that share its errors.
Most of the entries above simply prove my point. Each of them assumes that the writer has the individual right to determine “the standards of apostolic teaching” or “the faith once given” and cast all those who disagree with his or her private judgment out of the Church.
That is [b]exactly[/b] the same short-circuiting of the process of collective discernment in favor of what an individual or local group believes to be right that led to the election and consecration of the current Bishop of New Hampshire. On this individualist theory, one must go where he personally believes “the Spirit leads” or “the Bible teaches,” and to heck with what other Christians might believe.
In each case, someone will follow only those external authorities (Nigeria vs. TEC, Primates vs. Canterbury, Rome vs. Geneva, and vice-versa in each case) that agree with his or her predetermined interior convictions. All other external authorities are regarded as self-evidently illegitimate. As Huey Long said, “Every man a king!” except this is more of “Everyone a Pope.”
World Anglicanism has undertaken a process of collective discernment that will, in all probability, result in TEC being required to walk apart. Refusing to participate in that process by declaring that it is not bindingis itself a decision to walk apart, whether made by a reappraiser or reasserter individualist.
The divisions of the TEC (and CoE and AC of Canada):
1) Ideological liberals. Liberal leanings more important than ecclesiastical structures, e.g., Integrity, VGR.
2) Institutional liberals. Liberal ideas important but ecclesiastical structures moreso, e.g., KJS.
3) Federal conservatives. Conservative leanings more important than ecclesiastical structures, e.g., Matt Kennedy, GS (me, too!).
4) Communion conservatives. Conservative ideas important but ecclesiastical structures moreso, e.g., ACI folks.
It seems to me that ideological liberals and federal conservatives are in the driver seats on the left and right, respectively. Absolute numbers are anybody’s guess. This is a problem for the ABC. A bigger problem for the ABC is his seeming knack to convert comm cons to fed cons and lib institutionalists to lib ideologues by the machination games he plays. I and, it seems, many others used to be comm cons but have become thoroughly disgusted with the ABC and his subcommittee report and the early invitations.
Father Matt has suggested that the ABC is trying to forge a comm con/liberal institutionalist alliance that he can take to lambeth. I think he is going to be disappointed with the turnout.
Dale,
You cannot leave your definition of “Anglican” alone (where did you get that albatross, anyway?) or use it as contrast without defining the term “church.”
RGEaton
robroy,
I’m not included in those categories.
RGEaton
“What is the point of remaining in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury?”
After reading Abp. Sentamu’s comments, I’ve been asking myself the same question.
Ok, Rob+ so what are you?
It is kind of interesting that it seems that the ABC is trying to forge an alliance between himself and the weaker, dare I say more insignificant elements, the liberal institutionalists and the comm cons, all the while shrinking the numbers in those groups as people leave, turned off by his dithering with intermittent inept scheming.
Dale #14, I think your argument disproves your own point. There have been any number of meetings that have affirmed a communion wide discernment that your church has descended to apostasy–not the least of which was Lambeth 98. Despite these meetings, votes, pronouncements, and reports, some elements of the AC are unwilling to formally eject your church–most notably, Rowan Williams. This is no longer an argument about corporate discernment versus individualism, its a process argument; just how many meetings Dale, how many votes, and how many statements have to be issued, before we can finally say the “corporate discernment” has occurred? The Global South Primates seem to be saying that in view of the multiple attempts to achieve political compromise with TEC, and the numerous meetings and statements issued, we’ve had enough, its time to move on, TEC is not turning back–indeed, the facts on the ground clearly prove that its full speed ahead with the revisionist agenda.
TEC will not pause the lawsuits. TEC will not stop the same sex blessings. Gay Bishop nominees continue to step forward. TEC will not agree to APO. TEC pronounces that Jesus Christ is not the only means by which we are saved.
The notion that anyone should sacrifice a saving relationship through Jesus Christ within an ekklesia serving His purposes on the altar of Canterbury based Anglicanism is laughable or horribly tragic depending on your perspective. What is “the Church,” Dale? When Jesus said that Peter was the rock that He would build His church on, was he referring to a building, or the AC?
NO. There were no denominations, no buildings. He was referring to the ekklesia, the called out people who hear His word and do his work as a body, united–not divided, arguing, and suing each other.
We must come out, Dale, united as a body, to do His work, which does not include wasting precious time on useless bickering.
[blockquote] “Anglican†is defined as “a community of churches with historic, liturgical, and theological ties to the Church of England, each of which is in communion with the historic See of Canterbury†or it is defined as “Whatever I choose Anglican to mean.†If the latter, there is certainly no reason to prefer THE Anglican Communion to the TAC or any other established or newly-formed body that chooses to call itself Anglican.[/blockquote]
One could read any number of classical works that talk about what it means to be Anglican and find virtually no references to the “See of Canterbury.” For example, I’m not sure that the word “Canterbury” appears once in John Jewell’s [i] Apology of the Church of England[/i]. If one reads those who articulated the historic understanding of what it means to be Anglican–Thomas Cranmer, John Jewel, Richard Hooker, George Herbert, John Donne, the 39 Articles et al–what one finds is a collection of doctrines and practices: an affirmation of the primacy, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture, an affirmation of the historic creeds as summarizing the heart of Scripture, an understanding of the church as expressing a kind of continuity with the primitive Catholic Church, and a critique of late Medieval and Tridentine Roman Catholicism as a deviation from patristic Catholicism, certain practices of worship and devotion rooted in Prayer Book worship and the daily office. And, of course, views on the relation between grace and morality, all flowing from and connected to the above.
Also, while not a central concern (as it was not a matter of dispute at the time) there are very clear statements about Christian sexual ethics–sometimes in odd contexts, e.g., Jewel’s defending the C of E from accusations of antinominianism, or Hooker’s discussions of why wedding rings are adiophora but sexual fidelity in marriage is not.
For historical reasons, those who write these things were in communion with the see of Canterbury.
But, of course, Anglican doctrines and practices can exist without necessarily being in communion with Canterbury. After 1776, the new American Episcopal Church found it necessary to receive its orders through Scotland. When the Church of South India was formed by the merger of Anglican and Protestant Churches, it was necessary to break with communion with Canterbury. And they did so with Canterbury’s blessing.
If one actually reads Cranmer or Jewel or Hooker et al, it becomes quite clear that (as they broke with Rome), they would have had no hesitation to break with Canterbury should Canterbury break with the doctrines and practices which encapsulate the gospel–because the identity of Anglicanism does not lie in communion with an historic see, but in doctrines and practices that adhere to the gospel.
Unfortunately, TEC has clearly broken with the doctrines and practices that are essential to the identity of historic Anglicanism, and with the Christian gospel. As such, whether TEC is in communion with Canterbury or not, it is no longer Anglican in any historic sense of the term–because it is no longer Christian. If then, churches wish to continue in the historic doctrines and practices that form the identity of historic Anglicanism, they cannot do so within TEC.
Unfortunately, there are signs recently that the ABC seems intent to be complicit in acquiescing to TEC’s departure from Anglican doctrines and practices (and historic Christian faith) and their persecution of those who try to maintain them. This creates an anomalous situation where, in order to continue in historic Anglican doctrines and practices, it is necessary to break with TEC, and should the ABC continue to acquiesce in TEC’s departure, to break with the ABC as well.
The coming to be of an Anglicanism that preserves the doctrines and practices of historic Anglicanism, but is not in communion with Canterbury, as well as an American TEC that is in communion with Canterbury but has abandoned historic Anglican doctrines and practices is odd to say, the least, but the responsibility for such an anomaly can be laid squarely at the feet of TEC, and, unfortunately, more and more the ABC.
Finally, it also needs to be recognized that the historic meaning of “Anglican Communion” has also changed. Historically, being an Anglican meant being in communion with Canterbury because Anglicanism was coterminous with the C of E. The Anglican Communion came into existence because Anglican doctrines and practices became international, and there were churches that were not on English soil that believed the doctrines and practiced the practices. If Canterbury’s dallying leads to the split of the Communion, and Canterbury aligns itself with those who have abandoned historic Anglican doctrines and practices (and Christian faith), then (necessarily) but paradoxically, in order to remain Christian, Anglicanism will mean being in communion with those provinces that continue historic Anglican doctrines and practices and not with Canterbury.
William Witt, thank you for taking the trouble to write what you did.
I suspect that everybody on this thread — progressive or traditionalist — knew what you said already, and so sometimes it just seems pointless to write it all out again.
But I’m glad that you did . . . for the record, so everybody knows that we know already.
I agree with Sarah Dr. Witt. Thanks for the clear and definite statement.
I am borrowing your comment, complete with credits (where due) for our group. I know they will appreciate it.
Blessings, and thanks for ALL you do.
Grannie G
I too agree with William Witt. The longer the ABC delays and dallies the less I am disposed to want to stay in the Anglican Communion. If it is nothing more than TEC writ large then it is something I can do without.
I am amazed at the number of commenters on this blog who claim to be true Anglicans but are ready now to abandon Canterbury and walk apart, simply because they don’t like the way the present ABC is running his part of the show. So who are the separatists here?
[blockquote] So who are the separatists here?[/blockquote]
Bob from Boone,
I see you’ve read my post carefully. If so, you know that the separatists are those who claim to be Anglican, yet abandon the historic doctrines and practices that give Anglicanism its identity. They have separated themselves from the very definition of what it means to be Anglican. Apart from a continuity in those doctrines and practices, “Anglicanism” is nothing more than unitarian dress-up–whether or not it is in communion with Canterbury.
Watch closely, folks. This is the switch part of the bait-and-switch.
We have been told that the only way to preserve our place in the Anglican Comunion is to withdraw from our dioceses and, indeed, attempt to withdraw our dioceses from the Episcopal Church. Now, the idea is being planted that Canterbury itself in not necessary to Anglicanism. I’ll let you in on a little secret — it’s been tried before. The churches of the Continuum attempt to be Anglican, but without worldwide recognition, they are a puny group.
The Catholicity I see described above bears no resemblance tot he Catholicity I see in the Anglican Communion today. It has nothing at all to do with bishops conforming to ever tightening doctrinal binds. It has everything to do with being part of a worldwide Communion where the bishops recognize one another as bishops. Attendance at Lambeth is evidence of this mutual recognition.
[blockquote]It has everything to do with being part of a worldwide Communion where the bishops recognize one another as bishops. Attendance at Lambeth is evidence of this mutual recognition.[/blockquote]
That’s wonderful, Ruidh. I’m assuming that means you’re completely behind insisting that only those bishops be invited to Lambeth who have fully and completely endorsed not only the requirements of the Windsor Report, but also the recent requirements of Dar Es Salaam, and that any bishops who allow blessings of same-sex unions (whether private or public), who would approve of ordinations of non-celibate gay clergy or bishops, are involved in lawsuits against fleeing parishes, and who have not endorsed the primatial vicar scheme, who make heretical statements such as that Jesus Christ is “a way” to salvation rather than the only exclusive way, should not be invited to Lambeth. Yes?
I do tire of the cries of schismatic! I seem to recall that immediately after the DeS conference, the lefties were clamoring to leave the communion. The HoB talked about interfering “foreign bishops.” Now, their perception is that the ABC is siding with them, and so we have, “The ABC defines the communion, and we are part of it.” Come September, the ABC might surprise everyone and disinvite the apostates. We would see another flip-flop from the Ruidhs and B from B’s. As bad as Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
I challenge you to find anywhere that I have written that I am willing to give up my connection to Canterbury. I’ve been a centrist in this whole dispute, not a schismatic.
Why do you want to exclude all of the GS like that? They have violated the WR with their interventions.
Ruidh, pardon my ignorance, but what is a “centrist in the whole dispute?” Many in your church argue that sexual morality in the context of gay behavior is, worst case scenario, “adiaphora,” or not essential to salvation. Therefore, many in your church argue, the “orthodox” are being either “schismatic” or “fundamentalist” or “homophobic” (choose your adjective as you wish) by raising the issue forcefully and even leaving the church over it.
However, the leaders and members of your church WERE NOT SATISFIED that we agreed to disagree over this. They insisted on pushing the issue to have gay behavior receive a seal of approval by installing an openly gay man as a Bishop of the whole church. Then they went even further at General Convention by giving tacit approval to gay blessings/marriages in the church by “recognizing” they were part of “our common life.” This was very very deliberate. Before, we agreed to disagree; after, those of us who disagreed had to confront the fact that no longer did we come to the communion rail in disagreement over sexual morality; we came to the communion rail at a church whose doctrine was now opposed to ours.
So, I ask again, whats a “centrist in this whole dispute.” I respectfully submit there is no such thing. You are either part of the innovation, or you are not.
WW –
Appreciate your constant willingness to think through these things and make the connections.
One difficulty with your outline above – one that I have noticed before with others who, as Sarah noted, have articulated the same or tried to – is the popularist reduction made like the commenter on another blog who, after reading your comments, said, “Right..if Seabury didn’t have to recognize Canterbury, why should I?” The unwitting, truly, consequence of this kind of statement is that it places this person in agreement with George Werner who, perhaps unwittingly, played into the hands of those at GC06 looking to proclaim TEC as its own Communion, complete with the display of foreign national flags.
Perhaps if only for this reason alone the question of whether Canterbury is necessary for Anglicanism simply raises difficulties that don’t even need to exist, and finally produces an unnecessary line in the sand. That line will only further the distinction between different kinds of reasserters, not point out the errors of the revisionist.
Does that make sense?
(cont.)
Do you see the unholy alliance between those on both sides of righteousness claiming the lack of necessity of Canterbury for Anglicanism’s sake?
The bottom line, of course (I say that like there are no Episcopalians who would disagree with me), is that our salvation is found in Jesus Christ, and nowhere in the bible is the Archbishop of Canterbury listed as a necessary requisite.
Again, nowhere in the bible is the Church of England, or the Anglican Communion, or Anglicanism, named as being the true Church (although our history has been to elicit behaviour that betrays our arrogance in believing that we ARE the true bearers of the Gospel).
But does that mean that Anglicanism has not been an act of the Holy Spirit? I think I’m in good company to think so. Thus, God has a vested interest in Anglicanism. And would He not anyway, as we believe we are a portion and part of the Body of Christ and that He sees us that way.
Alluding to the issue of the necessity of alignment with Canterbury, It’s not about the right person in the office (Anglicanism, as that variety of Christianity which has emerged from England), but it IS about “getting it right” when one of its claimants gets it wrong. Have we heard with some unity of discernment that God has said, “Anglicanism is closed”? That would be a more important question to have people give their opinion about.
RGEaton
The one question is do you want to be Christian or not?
If you want to be Christian, read Romans 2 and stop judging your fellow Christians.