When the students of the Anglican Episcopal House of Studies at Duke University speak about their community, they often speak of friendship and pain in the same sentence.
At the AEHS, part of Duke Divinity School, future church leaders pray together, take communion together, share classes and meals and conversation. Most are preparing for ordination as deacons or priests.
Yet despite their common goals, recent controversies in the Episcopal Church have complicated their sense of unity, particularly about the role of gay clergy and some dioceses’ decision to bless same-sex marriages.
Interesting! I liked the quote from the Ft. Worth Anglican. This experiment shows that conservatives aren’t devils; they can get along under the right (fair) treatment.
Besides, it’s a great setting to be in for school. You can rub the toe of R.E. Lee’s boot on the way into chapel.
I am very pleased that people are learning to relate despite differences of opinion. My only worry was the bizarre moment of communion in which someone defers authority of responsiblity due to ownership of cup! If we all simply say it is not for us to judge…anyone at all could recieve. That was a cop out IMO…even if potentially a pastorally sensitive one.
The Ugley Vicar has picked this up and is pronouncing clarity by identification with either Episcopal or Anglican, as is being suggested in this article. That is just too simple, and therefore not helpful.
Groups and associations and movements and parties within historical PECUSA have tended to identify themselves as ________ Episcopalian, especially because TEC has always tended (at least since the 39 Articles were made “optional” (if you will) in the 1800’s) to describe itself as not being a doctrinal denomination, save for the Creeds and the Prayer Book. The Anglican or Episcopal differentiation is a too simplistic use of terms to differentiate, considering that Episcopalians are Anglicans. Ask that question of the Canadians — to differentiate members of the Anglican Church of Canada (thus Anglicans) from those conservative/reasserter individuals/congregations/dioceses that have left the A.C.C., will you call those who have left as now Episcopalians instead of calling them what they “were”, as Anglicans?!
Further, will the Episcopalians of Sudan (because that’s what they call themselves) be willing to claim the simplistic designation that Duke Divinity School seems to be using to call Episcopalians those who are moving “in that direction”, presumably in liberal/revisionist directions?
What Episcopalians have usually done is to provide an adjectival descriptor to go along with the term Episcopalian. I don’t like it, but it has been helpful. An Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, a Charismatic Episcopalian, a Broad-Church Episcopalian, etc., are helpful outside TEC circles; these descriptors are contracted within TEC circles, so you might hear, “I’m (an) Anglo-Catholic”, or “I’m snake-belly Low”, etc.
Some of these descriptors people use have been self-chosen proudly; some have been applied by others, just to provide classification.
It’s been well-blogged that the terms “Liberal” and “Conservative” are inadequate for the purpose of differentiation within TECUSA and other Anglican Provinces. Much to the chagrin of many, so have the terms “biblical” and “non-biblical”, and so some folks instead opt for the extremes and label their opposites as fundamentalists or whatever is the antonym. This (understanding of the authority of the bible) is the core of the matter, however, so I think this area of description and differentiation could be fruitful. I prefer the terms our host coined.
In any case, is it possible for people and congregations and dioceses to agree on terms of differentiation in such a way as not to use them derisively, thus exacerbating separation, rather than underscoring differentiation? Or is that simply too much of a nuance to be helpful?
I could just put the term “Biblical” or the phrase “Bible asserting” or “A ‘Word of God’…” on our parish sign board and all our other Christian friends in town would know exactly what kind of Episcopalians we are. If we put the term “Reasserting..” on the sign board they’d have no idea, but we would (once I explained it to everybody in the parish). Using the phrase “We are a non-Progressive Episcopal parish” doesn’t do it either, although conservatives who are aware of the use of the term in various circles might sigh relief when visiting. And our neighborhood seekers would wonder why we boast in being stuck or static. Paul Zahl ran up a black flag over his cathedral (at that time) to differentiate; but the World around us that still needs to hear the Good News of the risen Lord Jesus would tend to wonder if we had any Good News to share.
We’re working on it, and if we get some brilliant divine inspiration we’ll pass it on. In the meantime, it just ain’t so simple as to assume Episcopal means ________ and Anglican means __________ .
Gator: Yes, Duke Chapel, Lee, and all that. And a big ol statue of John Wesley where normally you’d see Mary or Jesus. (Though you know the Div School has its own chapel.)
rugbyplayingpriest: I rather thought the same about the chalice… though don’t equate the article with Andrew’s actual position on the matter. I won’t presume to know what he thinks about the particularities of Eucharistic discipline, but I know he’s not an anything-goes sort of guy.
Rob Eaton: Agreed about “Episcopalian” and “Anglican.” I’m sure the article somewhat exaggerated that nomenclature for readability… I don’t think Jo Wells or any of the rest of us accept that as a total description. It’s shorthand that, in context, is easy to lapse into. (Though I’m not in the Episcopal Church I don’t ruffle at being called an Episcopalian, and all of the “Episcopalians” that I know here are perfectly happy to be called Anglicans.)
I was moved by the ending. For my part, I have to confess that I do not perceive the revisionists as grieving the splits. I hear the echo of Barbara Harris, “Don’t let the door hit you in the a**” or some version of it. I hear Schori et. al., “We don’t care if people leave. Just leave the buildings.”
I think the expression of grief could be most helpful all around. If we love the church, we should be grieved by what is happening to us.
If we love Christ, we will be grieved by what is happening in His Church.
Many have been so grieved they’ve dialogued and pled with the miscreants for decades…now due to continued false-speaking and skulduggery have had to make other arrangements for the sake of their souls and their children’s souls.
Thank God for the real Bishops from Africa and South America who have been willing to step into this and provide shelter.
Thank God for shining His light into the dark closet and cigar rooms of the Anglican Communion…and for exposing the dark deeds and duplicity.
Thank God for repentance and new life.
Rob+ writes, “In the meantime, it just ain’t so simple as to assume Episcopal means ________ and Anglican means __________”
The reality is that Episcopal is becoming a travesty among Christians. The Buddhist bishop is only the last salvo, but GC 09 will seal the fate of the moniker, “Episcopal.” The results of the clergy survey shows that Episcopal clergy are left of Marx. You can say that you are Episcopalian but “not that type of Episcopalian” till you are blue in the face but the public perception is firmly established that the TEClub is the gay church that promotes abortion.
RE: “The Anglican or Episcopal differentiation is a too simplistic use of terms to differentiate, considering that Episcopalians are Anglicans.”
Hmm. In this article, though, I thought it fairly clear as to what the two terms meant. Were others confused — or did the terms quite nicely differentiate?
Rob, I know that it’s been “well-blogged” that the terms “Liberal†and “Conservative†are “inadequate for the purpose of differentiation within TECUSA and other Anglican Provinces” — but I’ve never really agreed with that. No matter what theological difference, I am pretty certain as to what those terms describe. When talking about WO, for instance, I know exactly what the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean. When talking about same-gender sexual relationships, I know exactly what the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean.
RE: “is it possible for people and congregations and dioceses to agree on terms of differentiation in such a way as not to use them derisively, thus exacerbating separation, rather than underscoring differentiation?”
The problem is that “liberal” and “progressive” and all sorts of other monikers are not really liked by . . . . you know . . . liberal and progressive Episcopalians. ; > ) So the use of *any word at all* that makes clear the distinction between liberal and conservative Episcopalians will be considered “derisive” by liberals and progressives because [i]they don’t wish for such distinctions to be made[/i]. That is why, of course, various notorious liberals and progressives run around proclaiming how “orthodox,” “traditional,” and “evangelical” they are. They know good and well what people mean by the words “liberal” and “progressive.”
So their only answer is to attempt to insult the other by using the words “fundamentalist” and “puritan.”
So the nutshell answer is — no, it is not possible for people and parishes to “agree on terms of differentiation in such a way” as not to *be accused* of using them derisively.
And do such terms actually “exacerbate separation” — or merely point out the actual, existing separation that has occurred already?
In response to your pragmatic question, why not simply use a descriptor like “traditional” Episcopalian, trusting that the average vaguely aware person on the street will understand that this probably means you’re not a supporter of the latest greatest cultural fads of TEC and thus not a supporter of “whoever that gay bishop was?”
Timothy Fountain,
Do you really believe that “the expression of grief could be most helpful all around”?
I’m not sure of that.
It seems wrong somehow to try to force folks to pretend to be sad over the departure of conservatives. It would be a lack of integrity for revisionists to put on a sad face about that. Believe me, they’re thrilled to have the field left to them.
And how would it be helpful for us to think them grieved? Speaking only personally, I wouldn’t find it helpful to think revisionists were sad. Perhaps others would find it nice, but I don’t see the point. It just would seem a pointless pretense to me, and not honest or expressive of reality.
If it were sincere “sadness” it would remind me of some parent or spouse saying — and meaning — “believe me, this hurts me worse than it does you.” I’m sure some are sincerely grieved that they must “move forward with justice and inclusion” and thus boot The Other, but that wouldn’t make me feel better to know that. It would just seem like the self-satisfied assertion of a dysfunctional family member or something.
Robroy, I see your point, but “episcopal” has never been the property of Anglicans (whether orthodox or whatever), and will, I suspect, be around long after the Anglican Communion. Why else would the Holy Father have begun his latest letter (and many letters), “Dear brethren in the Episcopal ministry”?
And Sarah: I think you’re misunderstanding the point about grief. I didn’t hear anyone say that revisionists should feign grief if they don’t have it. The point is that “revisionists,” wrong as they may be, are not a uniform blob of wrongness waiting for your contempt. Sure, when the PB acts all sad, I think it’s fair to be suspicious. But not everybody is the PB. There are plenty of people who may not agree with me or the path of my diocese, but that doesn’t mean that they are thereby incapable of sadness over that loss. A Church which tries to numb itself from the pain of division is a Church which has lost touch with Jesus’ prayer “that they all be one.”
As to the student and the chalice, when he is an Anglican rector or priest under the direction of one, he may make a different decision. At Duke Divinity, this was probably right call.
And note what the reporter says about the property: “Several [dioceses and congregations] have sought to claim entitlement to property owned by the national Episcopal Church, resulting in lawsuits in civil courts.” Who owns the property are what the lawsuits are about, and the conclusions have varied.
Rob Eaton+, extending the argument about the name “Episcopalian” to Sudan really doesn’t make sense. Nobody would think that the Sudanese church suffers the doctrinal splits we do in the U.S. “Episcopal” means “lead by bishops,” and is used by the Egyptian church too. I can see the Canadians have a problem, though, since their church was originally called “Anglican.”
I realize you are trying to fight the good fight where you are, and I wish you well. But the day is soon coming, and has arrived in many areas, when, in the USA, “Episcopal” means adhering to the spirit of the age and “Anglican” means adhering to Scripture and Creed.
Sam,
RE: “I didn’t hear anyone say that revisionists should feign grief if they don’t have it. The point is that “revisionists,†wrong as they may be, are not a uniform blob of wrongness waiting for your contempt.”
I don’t connect those two sentences. I understand the former, but find the next sentence irrelevant and not connected to what I said in my comment. First, nothing I said above — although it was certainly straightforward and direct — indicated that revisionists are “uniform blobs of wrongness” or that I hold them all in “contempt.” There may be a few — [i]a very few[/i] — that I hold personally in contempt, largely for their dishonesty and hypocricy. But by and large I honor revisionists in the Episcopal Church and note their many sterling qualities. They have, after all, by their own actions . . . won. They must have done quite a few things right!
But the fact remains — and I repeat myself here — that 1) many revisionists — as you point out with JKS — expressing grief would be merely feigning grief — which I would certainly despise and 2) of those revisionists who might feel sincere grief, I’m not certain how that would be helpful to me or others.
There are many people who, in the act of doing a bad thing, feel heartily sorry while doing it. That feeling is not particularly helpful — in fact it often confuses the matter even further.
I’d first like to thank my friend Sam Keyes for speaking up for me in comment #4 – it is odd to find oneself quasi-quoted in the paper. (I think the article said “Wells recalled Rowell telling her†– that is some solid reporting, no?) Not only is one not given the opportunity to nuance one’s own words, but one can hardly hope to nuance what someone else recalls you saying. Goodness. So I’m thankful that Sam graciously flagged me as more careful with the Cup than the willy-nilly tone taken by the hearsay quote attributed to me.
So, in the effort at a bit of clarity, I am a deacon in CANA soon to be made a priest in the Province of Uganda, serving as an associate rector at St. Peter’s Anglican in Tallahassee, Florida. Neither I nor any of those under whose authority I serve have an “anything goes†attitude towards Holy Eucharist. That being said, that night in Goodson Chapel was a difficult experience, especially given the oddly unmoored ecclesial setting of Eucharist celebrated within the context of the Anglican Episcopal House of Studies at Duke. I was merely a Divinity School student at the time, migrating away from aspirancy in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia toward postulantcy in CANA (as a parishioner at The Falls Church, I considered myself more under Fr. John Yates’s authority than Bishop Peter Lee’s). The night in question, however, I was even more at the mercy of the situation – I was a mere Lay Eucharistic Minister bearing a chalice for whomever was the Celebrant that eve (I do not remember his or her identity, but it was likely either a local TEC priest or Dean Jo Bailey Wells herself).
Before addressing the manner in which I gave her the cup that evening, let me first note that the article is correct in suggesting that Lauren Kilbourn and I are fast friends, two people on opposite sides of a seemingly unbridgeable divide who nevertheless love each other greatly. Indeed, the sharing of the Cup that night was a kairos moment in our love for one another; the Cup of Blessing was surely a blessing to us. I love Lauren and her partner [ ] very, very much, though nowhere near how much Christ Himself adores them and gave His life for them. Lauren is a baptized Christian, longing to know Christ more deeply. I happen to believe that Lauren’s expression of her sexuality is contrary to God’s will, as clearly expressed in Holy Scripture. However, that evening the authority to refuse Lauren the Cup was certainly not mine – it rested with the Celebrant.
At the risk of really opening up a can of worms, let me honestly reflect on what I would do were the authority mine. Were she to come unexpectedly to an altar where I was the Celebrant, I would serve her Communion, knowing as I do that I come also to the altar engaged in willful sin in many areas of my life. I would share the Feast with her as a sign of our common hope and the hope that we might live in unity under the faith once delivered to the saints. On the other hand, were she a parishioner at a church where I was a regular Celebrant and where she repeatedly came to the altar to receive, I would counsel her after the development of a close pastoral friendship to refrain from taking Eucharist out of fear that she would be heaping condemnation upon herself (1 Corinthians 11:27). But I would do that because I love her and respect her and long for both her and me to live holy lives – certainly not because I find her repulsive or abhorrent or unredeemable. Quite the opposite – I adore her.
None of the above would surprise Lauren – in fact, I’ve shared this response prior to posting it in the interest of our continued honesty and openness. To be sure, neither of us is worthy of the Cup. But to live in what God declares sin (see, e.g., Romans 1) under a supposed Sacrament of the Church (“marriage,†as Lauren and [….] held a BCP marriage rite in a TEC parish in North Carolina during our Senior year at Duke Divinity) is to fall outside of the parameters of the pursuit of holiness called for by one who approaches the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. Lauren disagrees with me strongly on this point, of course, but, by God’s grace, we still love and trust one another enough to name what stands between us. I add the essential facts that Lauren confesses Christ as fully God and fully Man, crucified, risen and coming again in glory, and as the only way to the Father. I thus have much more in common with Lauren across our ecclesial divide than I have with many of the bishops who lead TEC. Lauren and I share a unity at core that actually highlights how far TEC has strayed from orthodoxy at its most senior levels (see, e.g., the interview with the PB in the July 10, 2006 edition of Time Magazine). TEC’s heterodoxy is at the crux of the Anglican/Episcopal divide (however the terms should be used). It must be said that VGR, et. al., are merely side shows.
To review: I gave Lauren the Cup that night and, in a similar circumstance, would give her the Cup again. It was not my call to make that night – and you can think that slap-dash if you’d like, but I try to view the responsibility for that as resting with the Celebrant. I don’t think it is a LEM’s place to lob salvos in the battle being waged for the heart of our church right now. If I were the Celebrant at the church where she regularly worshipped, then out of love for Lauren, in the hopes of an amendment of life for her, after many an occasion of pastoral counsel, I would forbid her to come to the altar week after week. I would do the same for a heterosexual couple living in a sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony. I hope I would do the same for a notoriously greedy family who consumes without regard for the needy. I would hope that someone would do the same for me – not to punish me, but to disciple me towards a holy life.
In any event, I do not find Lauren any more unredeemable than I find myself. We love each other – even while our differences mean that we don’t share a regular Table outside of the context of Duke Divinity School. Our differences do not impact our care and love for one another, nor the hope we both have for an undeserved entry into the Beatific Vision by God’s grace.
Andrew,
Well done. If it is any assist in comradery and fellowship, I am in agreement with your conclusions of doctrine and practice. You also have my prayers for your continued witness to the Faith once delivered.
Katherine,
I did include the Sudanese identity as an incorporative extension. For one thing, what happens here in the USA gets blasted around the world immediately in various media forms. Using the term Episcopal and relegating it to a particular un-orthodox set of beliefs and practices would have its affect and effect in the ability of the Sudanese Episcopal Church to have impact with the government and other religious groups. We saw that and heard about it from Anglicans in Uganda and Nigeria especially after Gene Robinson’s consecration.
But even more locally, that extension of mine to the Sudan was done still with the context of Duke Divinity School in mind. When or if a member of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan enrolls in the Divinity School they will know themself as Episcopalian, which then throws the simplistic differentiation at the school into confusion (mind you, my earlier comment was motivated by the Vicar of Ugley proclaiming “clarity”). Certainly, they might just be referred to as “from the Sudan” (though so many of the progressives would be asking questions to find out if this particular Sudanese student was more like they were, providing some kind of coup), and leave it to some backhanded reference to a press conference at Lambeth Conference featuring the student’s Archbishop. But then you are back to adjectival solutions: American Episcopalians and Sudanese Episcopalians (who are really Anglicans?).
Is this bringing any clarity? I don’t think so. Your comment that “Nobody would think that….” certainly is not helpful in that regard. Who is nobody?
Now, if a member of the Scottish Episcopal Church shows up, then all is well, right?
Part of my point here and in my earlier comment is that all members of TEC and of the entire Anglican Communion must resist simplistic characterisations to classify ALL as of being of one mind. Because we aren’t. The beginning of the good fight is making that noise.
And part of my point is USA Episcopalians in the liberal leadership must stop being so arrogant as to suggest that The Episcopal Church is somehow found only in the USA. That is why I rarely use the annogram TEC, but instead TECUSA or PECUSA because they are helpfully descriptive.
Sarah,
Thanks for taking this seriously.
Ah, the descriptor “Traditional”. Don’t think I haven’t thought about that. One of the problems is that “traditional” doesn’t always mean the same in people’s minds, and then you have to define traditional.
The other problem is that within the context of liberal and conservative differentiation in TECUSA, the term already has history.
[url=http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/4_April/040403_episcopalian_church_at_harvard.shtml]Look at this article[/url], for instance, note the title, and then read paragraph 4 or 5 ff, noting connections.
No clarity here.
Rob Eaton — but the article was very clear. In the theological context of prayer books, the traditional stance is that the 1979 one is strikingly weak and at least conducive to heresy. That article made it pretty clear to what that church — ACPK — referred by its use of the word “traditional.” Very clear, in fact.
And that illustrates my point.
Think of it this way. Isn’t your hope — in your context — to let folks know that in The Episcopal Church your parish is on the right side of the issues which confront it.
So your sign could simply say “a traditional parish in The Episcopal Church.” And let it go at that.
Of course, in whatever context — whether RC or Presbyterian or the Republican Party or Russia or Czechoslovakia or a French restaurant — the word “traditional” would not be defined in the same way.
But that’s not any sort of new challenge — that’s an old one, and it’s why words are useful in their contexts, but not generally outside of those contexts. A “traditional” Anglican is not going to be the same as a “traditional” Baptist or a “traditional” Roman Catholic or a “traditional” Sicilian or a “traditional” French chef.
But in a particular context the word “traditional” makes perfect sense.
Consider further your audience. I’m assuming that you’re not trying to communicate the stance of your parish to the APCK. Or the Roman Catholics. Or the Presbyterians. Or even those who have recently departed TEC.
Aren’t you trying to communicate the stance of your parish to 1) pagans and seekers who might be vaguely aware of the issues within TEC and 2) other members of TEC?
If that is the case, let me assure you that if I were in the diocese of San Joaquin [connected to the Province of TEC] and I were driving through town, and I saw your church sign which said “St. Slitherton, a traditional parish in The Episcopal Church” I would know fairly certainly what that sign meant.
I’m suspecting that a seeker who has kept half an eye on the news of The Episcopal Church but who was otherwise ignorant would probably be aware of what the word “traditional” meant as well.
And a passing member of the APCK would hurl anathemas at your parish for still being within The Episcopal Church in the first place.
; > )
Thank you Andrew for your straight forward and thoughtful response. How could a secular reporter hope to “report” fully on what we (in the middle of it all) can’t always articulate clearly.
Rob Eaton+, I thank you for your reply, but I can’t agree with you. I am in the Episcopal Diocese of Egypt at the moment. I know a number of Sudanese Anglicans here. Their church is indeed called the Episcopal Church of Sudan. But as you know the Presiding Bishop and ECUSA leadership have maintained that they are a separate, autonomous, church. I don’t think the term “Episcopal” without the “USA” is negative in other parts of the world. It is ECUSA which has made the term negative among American Christians. I felt this when I was still an American Episcopalian. I could see expressions change, and I had to explain that I am actually a believing Christian. This is what you are doing in trying to differentiate your parish, and I agree with Sarah that a sign saying “a traditional parish in the Episcopal Church” would tell passers-by what you mean.
Katherine,
Phew…for a minute there, I thought you were going in a different direction. But, I can see from your last comment we are not in disagreement. What you are saying about the word Episcopal in the Sudan is exactly what I am saying is the reason Duke Divinity cannot simply separate Episcopal students from Anglican students. Some other designations are needed….here.
As an Episcopalian….the kind I am……I am proud to stand next to my Sudanese brothers and sisters in the sense of our shared Faith (and I take your comments to confirm what I know of that Faith) and bear the label Episcopalian.
God bless you there in Egypt.
BTW, I am not related, as far as I know, to Bp. Derek. Wouldn’t mind if I was, though.
Sarah,
I don’t want to belabor the “traditional” adjective discussion for fear of moving this thread completely away from the post. And you are the master of marketing, so you know I will eventually bow to your expertise and counsel.
So I will leave the traditional discussion with this last comment — the APCK, and the Traditional Episcopal Church out here (especially since Bp Morse is from out here) are identified as 1) reactionary, and 2) fairly ineffective, and 3) 1928. Exactly.
How shall we identify the reasserter TECUSA student at Duke? I think Episcopal is just fine – which just proves my point – that it is too simplistic to suggest Episcopalians are obviously revisionists. What otherwise would you do to differentiate there? Call them traditional Episcopalians? Not if they use the 1979 BCP, nor if they accept women’s ordination.
I think rather (and you will help me out on this, I know – and I do truly look forward to your assistance) that it will be the identification of an association (but then we’re back to a name that is self-identifying), or a motto or short theme that points to a further and deeper statement of faith and doctrine.
And that’s where I am right now. Anything more is just thinking out loud without clear reason. I do think this, however, that the conclusion we come to here should be also applicable to the hypothetical reasserter TECUSA student at Duke.
Rob Eaton, Bishop Derek has gone to retirement in New Zealand, alas for us, but I was privileged to know him for about eight months before he left. We have a new English-speaking pastor, the Rev. Mike Parker, and he’s fine, too. It is humbling to worship among Egyptians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Eritreans, many of whom have suffered for their faith far more than even those of us in “progressive” ECUSA dioceses.
It’s true that “traditional” in Episcopal/Anglican American circles does often mean 1928 and/or no ordained women. That WAS, after all, the tradition until the late ’70s. I don’t know what the right term would be to mean the opposite of “progressive.” The only thing I can think of at the moment is something like a motto under your church name: “Scriptural, liturgical, apostolic faith.” Perhaps Sarah the marketing whiz can come up with a great slogan to describe folks like your parish.
I said this earlier, but I’ll repeat it since the discussion of Episcopal/Anglican has dragged on. The AEHS is not particularly interested in this distinction. We purposefully took both adjectives in our name (with no slash). We do not routinely use Anglican or Episcopal in the way implied here — Jo Wells is the last person to imply that the terms must be strictly defined. (I do not fault the reporter for trying to simplify it.) The deeper point, I think, is precisely the one that Rob is getting at: when you actually talk to one another you can’t rely in such reductions because you find that they don’t work very well. It is the putting a label on a sign thing that we are trying to get away from: there’s nothing wrong from using those terms (whether traditional or whatever), reductively or not, but they should be the beginning of conversation not the end. If someone asks about my churchmanship I don’t say “I’m a traditional Anglican” and then run off.
It might be helpful to point out that this kind of escapist dichotomy is exactly the kind of thing that Gene Robinson does. He visited last year (was on tour for the LGBT organization, not the div school) and sat across a table with me and a couple others whining about how the conservatives would never listen to him. Strange, the way such an “inclusive” person was closed off to question and conversation.
Anyway, I think that what the AEHS at Duke is trying to model is a politics that is not reliant on violent button-slogans and banners — the kind of party convention that General Convention seems to have become, and the way many seemed to want Lambeth to be (and though there were a lot of buttons it resisted that a little better… not necessarily to good results) — but rather on friendship (Ã la Aristotle). It must strike both liberals and conservatives as insanely idealistic (such as Hauerwas’ insistence that Christians shouldn’t kill one another), but that’s Duke Divinity for you.
RE: ” . . . the APCK, and the Traditional Episcopal Church out here (especially since Bp Morse is from out here) are identified as 1) reactionary, and 2) fairly ineffective, and 3) 1928.”
I agree with you. But pagans and seekers and even — shudder — almost [i]every single member of TEC[/i] — know nothing about the APCK and the TAC. Zippo. They’ve never heard of the APCK or of TAC. Actually [i]nothing at all[/i]. You’d be amazed.
Even at SF where I have meticulously and repeatedly posted on the Continuing churches as well as TAC and its efforts — and done so with little comment except explanation of terms and sending people directly to sources, because I think it’s important that we understand the reforming efforts of the past, even if some consider them to be strikingly unsuccessful — most commenters and readers know precisely nothing about those two bodies. And most commenters and readers at SF and T19 are far far far far better informed about such matters than the average member of TEC.
So again, the average pagan, seeker, or member of TEC who passes by your church — with the sign that says “a traditional parish in The Episcopal Church” — will know where you’re coming from. The pagans and seekers are not going to think “boy, that 1928 BCP is a doozie” and the average Episcopalian isn’t going to think “wow — they don’t believe in chemical contraception or women acolytes there!” Why? Because they’re ignorant!
Take it from me. Rely on the ignorance of your audience and don’t parse the terms, just because you’re more highly informed then even most Episcopal clergy, who I’ll promise you have also not heard of the APCK or of TAC. It’s sad — but that’s just how it is.
RE: “How shall we identify the reasserter TECUSA student at Duke?”
If I were a reasserter student at TEC, I’d simply say “I’m a member of The Episcopal Church and traditional in my theology.” And leave it at that. If people are really really really really knowledgeable [and I do mean really knowledgeable] they *might* ask “which prayer book do you like” to which I would reply “the 1662.” ; > )
RE: “I think Episcopal is just fine – which just proves my point – that it is too simplistic to suggest Episcopalians are obviously revisionists.”
There’s where we may really differ. In an academic environment, where presumably people are somewhat informed about the travails of TEC, I definitely don’t think that the word Episcopal is a good word, unless closely defined by a descriptive adjective. I’m sorry — but whether others like it or not — the word “Episcopal” is being quite well-defined for us by the raving loony antics of Our Fearless Leaders. From a marketing perspective, it just adds up. When salmonella is found in just a few peanut butter jars, people look with suspicion at peanut butter — ALL peanut butter. And when you have literally four times a year salmonella outbreaks every single year for five years [some would say for 40, but that’s another discussion], it’s simply impossible for “the brand” not to suffer. Even some people on the street — not in Anglican circles — think “not Christian” when you say “Episcopal.”
RE: “What otherwise would you do to differentiate there? Call them traditional Episcopalians? Not if they use the 1979 BCP, nor if they accept women’s ordination.”
Like I said above — yes, I would. Nobody — except a very very few highly enlightened ones — knows much about WO or the BCP. And that’s why you add “in The Episcopal Church” — you define the context by which you are “traditional.” Obviously, no one in The Episcopal Church is going to be gnashing both over WO and the 1979 BCP — they’re gone.
This reminds me a bit of the amusing descriptions of yours truly in various contexts. In some contexts — at home and abroad outside of TEC circles — I’m a slightly fruity, laid back, left of center, black sheepish sort of person. Nice, but a little flower-childy. Though I am somewhat liberal and a little too passionate about certain issues, I’m accepted.
Set me back in TEC contexts and I’m [b]The Meanest, Most Rigidest, Most Bigoted, Most Homophobic, Most Right-Wing Blogger Ever[/b]. ; > )
RE: “I think rather (and you will help me out on this, I know – and I do truly look forward to your assistance) that it will be the identification of an association (but then we’re back to a name that is self-identifying), or a motto or short theme that points to a further and deeper statement of faith and doctrine.”
But once you use an association [a la The Network] then you have to explain to all the seekers and pagans and members of TEC who haven’t heard of The Network what that precisely means. They don’t know what “Anglican Communion Network” means — something that I don’t need to pound on here.
And once you use a “further and deeper statement of faith and doctrine” — you’ve lost the audience again. They don’t know what “apostolic” means anyway. Once you use a motto or slogan that has something to do with faith and doctrine — you’ve lost the pagans and seekers and the members of TEC right off the bat. They don’t know faith and doctrine, except a very very very very few — and those few are going to understand right off the bat what you mean by “traditional” as long as you put in the qualifier “of The Episcopal Church.”
I think — very unfortunately — that you are giving way way too much credit to your audience.
Sarah that is pretty amusing about your description in two different contexts.
I thought I’d also add that most of the AEHS people don’t read the blogs. That might be a little surprising given Craig’s huge efforts over at Covenant and the presence of a few of us there. Oh I know one TEC guy who reads stuff over at the Episcopal Café, and a few others who will look at things here when they are pointed out to them, but generally we do a lot of reading (books) and talking… perhaps Andrew can correct me if he’s still reading these. This is my spring break, so I’ve got a little extra time for this sort of thing. Again there’s that question: what kind of politics do you have, and what are the virtues that sustain it? Sarah’s right about signs and marketing, as well as, I think, the empirical claim about general ignorance. Yet I think we need to be very careful about dwelling too much on these kind of labels as if they are static — the very discussion of the evolution of “Episcopal” proves that they are not. The question of that initial label is only an interesting one if you insist on staying forever at the level of introductions.
RE: “I thought I’d also add that most of the AEHS people don’t read the blogs.”
Agreed. I wouldn’t know about the AEHS folks, but the vast majority of Episcopalians are simply not using the Internet all that much for news and information, much less heading over to niche Anglican pubs.
RE: Labels. I see them as nothing more than rough shorthand — extremely useful in the right contexts, but still rough shorthand. Usually the ones in TEC who decry “labels” I’ve found are the ones who are liberal and revisionists [and yes, I’m very deliberately using label words]. They don’t like being named that by others in TEC. That’s when they haul out the “I believe in the Creeds” bit — and then often redefine words like “Trinity” and “resurrection” to boot.
Much of linguistic work is about one side needing/wanting to redefine the labels that apply to them that they don’t like in order for them to more thoroughly deceive people who rely on those labels to identify [i]in a short-hand fashion[/i] the beliefs of others. In short, label battles are often political power battles of rhetoric.
As long as people know that labels are rough, short-hand descriptions for the purpose of identifying others and where they stand — but not really for the purposes of relationships or intimacy or deep knowledge of the other — and as long as people understand that some people don’t wish to have their beliefs identified because they wish to deceive others — then the rhetorical battles will continue.
Thus you’ll always have progressive TEC clergy saying to lay-rector-search committees “why of course I’m thoroughly orthodox, conservative, evangelical, and traditional in my theology and completely believe in the Christ figure’s resurrectioness”, while all the while being a Crossan-loving, Borg-admiring, Robinson-voting heretic.
As a PS:
RE: my description in various contexts . . .
The most fascinating thing about this is that my radical liberal friends [yes, I call them liberal and they call me conservative] who are not Episcopalians or Christians — feminist, Gore-adoring, deconstructionist pagans who like Shirley MacLaine and various crystals and send me Hillary-loving emails and think guns are just awful, just to be clear — think that I am very sweet and loving and kind and admire my tender feelings. We talk movies and books and philosophy and go hiking.
; > )
But in TEC circles, the liberals think, again, . . .
Well, see above.
I’m late to this thread. Not sure anyone is still reading. But just in case, I can confirm what Sarah writes in #24:
[i]I agree with you. But pagans and seekers and even—shudder—almost every single member of TEC—know nothing about the APCK and the TAC. Zippo. They’ve never heard of the APCK or of TAC. Actually nothing at all. You’d be amazed. [/i]
This mid 40-something cradle Episcopalian who grew up in the diocese of Newark and who followed ECUSA politics and growing heresy had never heard of APCK until 2003 and the aftermath of GC03. (I think commenter LP on the Apostasy group board was my first exposure to APCK…) Granted, I was too young to have really known or heard much of the split over the ordination of women. Also it just wasn’t even talked about in the Diocese of Newark…, so the whole existence of the Continuum was basically news to me in 2003, especially all of its sub-jurisdictions. I kinda sorta knew there had been an exodus in the 70’s over WO, but didn’t know any of the details.
Sarah,
We’ll try it out. First, I should let you know that our current correspondance letterhead says, “St. John Church” and on the next line, “an Episcopal parish in the greater Anglican tradition.”
But trying to define the greater Anglican tradition, nor helping people understand Anglican, seems helpful.
Anyway, here is text for a newspaper ad going in this Thursday, Friday and Saturday:
Prophet
Dennis Cramer
brought to you through
St. John Church
1701 E Prosperity Ave, Tulare
Tuesday, March 24
7:00 pm
God knows your heart
and God wants to speak to your heart
about things now and things to come
Free admission
Donations to help provide for Dennis’ travel
from Pennsylvania gladly accepted
St. John’s is a traditional parish in The Episcopal Church