6. It strikes me that your remarks about the future of dioceses and parishes within TEC and the Mark Lawrence affair provide an example of just such a prophecy. The fact is, however, we do not know the outcome of that affair. Further, we will not know what the future of what are often called “orthodox parishes and dioceses” will be if the Primates back their admonition with sanctions. I confess I agree that if nothing is done to inhibit TEC’s outrageous claims to autonomy our parishes and dioceses will be picked off one by one. I also believe that we will find ourselves in a state of anarchy within our Communion. The point, however, is that we do not know as yet this particular part of our future under God, and it seems to me rash to think that we do.
7. It is in the light of this remark that I wish to comment on your call to the Network Bishops not to wait for “Windsor Bishops” but to unite under the leadership of Bob Duncan in fellowship with one another and with Common Cause Partners. It is a source of constant sadness to me that the Bishops within our Church who do not support the direction taken by its current structure have often been either too cautious to speak and act or too quick both to declare defeat and to begin constructing what appears to be an escape pod. However, once again you anticipate the future in ways that seem to me uncalled for. Your primary reason for despair is the sad history of attempts to organize among our Bishops a credible opposition to the progressive juggernaut that controls the structures of TEC. This is a sad history indeed, however, its baleful quality has more to do with problems of relationship among these Bishops (many of whom are in the Network) than it does the machinations of the progressive clerisy that governs us. That being said, it remains the case that the Windsor Bishops will meet again in August, all Network Bishops have been invited, and (most of all) these Bishops will face a clear choice. Are they willing to stand and be counted, as neither the Windsor Bishops nor the Network Bishops nor those involved in Common Cause were when last the House of Bishops met? This question means concretely are they now willing to give public support to the proposals made by the Primates; and are they willing themselves to seek ways to address the pastoral crisis of our Church that has provoked the multiplication within our midst of other jurisdictions. In short, the question is whether or not the Windsor Bishops (whose number includes the Network Bishops) are willing in the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury to show that there is within TEC an alternative presence to its current structure. I am unwilling prematurely to declare all hope for such eventualities to be no more than a chimera.
The hope for the Windsor Bishops may be more than chimera, but Dr. Noll’s letter is a shot across the bow. August is their last chance. Dr. Noll’s point is that it should be clear to all that the HOB is not about to reverse course.
It is time to take one’s seat at the banquet, or prepare to see another invited to take your place.
To wait for absolute clarity is to do nothing at all. We do have enough information to make a decision. TEC is not and will not going to change course. Those who are inclined to do nothing will come up with another deadline after Sept. 30 and another and another.
There is nothing so unreal as the quiet confidence of the scholar far removed from the daily struggles of priests and bishops in an apostate church. In an abstract world, abstract speculations reign – in a world where people suffer the pains of loss, abandonment, conscience, contempt, and ridicule and where faithfulness to God and his Only-Begotten Son and the salvation of one’s soul are daily issues, the speculations of those cloistered in an ivory tower are quickly overtaken by events and rendered irrelevant. Thanks, Dr. Turner and Dr. Radner, but anything useful ACI had to contribute ceased being meaningful after the meetings of the HOB in March and the executive Council in June. While you whistle in the dark, others of us must work in the dark and sing the song of the Lord in a strange and alien land.
I actually thought this was a rather persuasive, powerful and moving reponse. Thank you Rev’d Turner.
Is it so impossible for us to disagree charitably? I hope that this thread doesn’t devolve as badly as the Radner thread, into personal snark attacks on the prinicpal and principled players.
I think Fr. Turner’s response is very perceptive and certainly deserves a more respectful hearing than most of the comments would indicate it’s being given. Whether once agrees with the ACI or +Duncan and Fr. Noll, there are grave dangers ahead and neither strategy offers a better chance of “success” than the other. What needs to be considered is what it means to be “the church”. I think the differing approaches of Fr. Turner and Fr. Noll spring from differing understanding of catholicity.
Here, here, to the calls for civility! In true Anglican fashion, a healthy dose of measure and moderation is certainly called for in weighing these matters.
I for one was quite pleased at Dr. Turner’s contribution– as we all should be. It is important for everyone here to recognize the valueable asset that ACI has been for the orthodox in the Communion. They have helped to accomplish far more than many ever thought possible, and continue in their mission much to the benefit of the entire Communion. They are friends, not foes, and ought to be treated and respected as such. Furthermore, their scholarly, academic and theological expertise has been devoted to these matters for quite some time, and their opinions ought to be given a serious amount of weight. How folly to dismiss such valuable insights simply because they tend toward different actions in the most immediate sense.
It is also important, methinks, to recognize that the task of introducing discipline and covenant into the Anglican Communion is a very difficult process, and this task will *require* the best efforts at measure that can be mustered. The Radner thread clearly displayed that some are not yet in a place where they can contribute to this task constructively. Indeed, the great task before us is to retain the Communion while interjecting covenant and discipline into it. Not to supplant covenant and discipline for the Communion. This is an important distinction, and one with profound sacramental and ecclesiological consequences. It is the difference between strengthening and building up the Communion and tearing it asunder. Anglicanism is at stake, and I cannot think of a more grave time for measure, thoughtfulness, and prudence to conquer momentary passions, emotions and whims. This we can do, but only with God’s help. Let this be our prayer, for ourselves, for the covenant process leaders, for our bishops and Primates, and most certainly for Archbishop Rowan.
#3: Who is the “scholar far removed from the daily struggles of priests and bishops in an apostate church?” Certainly not Drs. Turner and Radner, whose combined pastoral and missionary work and the typical sacrifices associated with such work speak for themselves. Both men typify the pastor-scholar of the patristic era–something lacking these days.
And let us all try to appreciate how difficult it must be to be a conservative, Bible-believing scholar in today’s world of mainline religion academia, “a world where people suffer the pains of loss, abandonment, conscience, contempt, and ridicule” as much as anywhere else.
Well said, William! The tone of the many criticisms of Fr. Radner, Fr. Turner, and Fr. Seitz has been frankly embarrassing and in many cases betrays an obvious ignorance of the valiant fight these men have made in the face of much hostility. Disagree with them if you must, but honor them for their courage which, though perhaps of a different kind, is no less than that of Bishop Duncan and the rest of the Network leadership.
I guess some people just can’t resist hoping for the pony.
Philip Turner said:
[blockquote]I am more than aware that reasons are given for the course of action you recommend that are not touched upon in your open letter. Chief among these are biblical passages that address the treatment of false or immoral brethren. This question is a theological one and it deserves the most careful theological consideration. … I am struck by the fact that those of us who oppose the false gospel now regnant in the Episcopal Church have resorted to political tactics first of all, and in doing so we simply mirror the priority given to politics by the ‘progressive’ forces we so oppose. In failing to do the hard theological work our circumstances demand we have become the mirror image of those whom we believe to be in error.[/blockquote]
It’s too bad that such care was not taken 500 years ago at the time of the Reformation either. [removed]void(0);
tongue rolleye
I think that resorting to politics in these debates reflects a profound lack of faith on the part of those who oppose the errors of TEC. If we trusted God more, we would see that our smaller numbers are immaterial; God is well able to defend the Gospel, and all He asks is that we stand, resist, and allow ourselves to be counted among the righteous. What would Anglicans think if the ABC called a binding Council to resolve the theological issues as was done in the early Church? (What would Christians think if the leaders of the Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches called a Council, a true Ecumenical Council, to debate their differences with a serious intent to resolve and to reconcile? Only the Second Coming could be better.)
Such Councils would require both faith and humility on the part of all participants: faith that God can work through sin-ravaged men; humility to admit that they might be wrong. Come Lord Jesus.
Dan Crawford is right on the money once again.
An infection that invades our thinking is impatience and pride – thinking that we are the all-knowing ones who must act NOW in order to save God’s Church (or our little Anglican part of it). Come on. Why do we think (in all our various forms – liberals and conservatives – political or theological) that we now know God’s mind well enough to act as we do? We like our ways, frankly, better than God’s ways, don’t we? You know, love you enemy and all that.
God is in control and He doesn’t need our impatient hubris to accomplish anything, particularly the reform of The Episcopal Church – again, either liberal or conservative reform. It is His!, not ours’ (liberal or conservative)! He will do what He deems best and at the right time – even if that time is beyond our lifetimes’. The solutions to our current problems may well be beyond our lifetimes. So? God is still God and His Church is still His Church.
Sometimes I think we act so hastily and arrogantly because we don’t think God is doing what He should be doing (like casting into utter darkness the people with whom we disagree), so we have to help the poor guy along. My goodness.
Live faithfully. Live consistently. Most of all live humbly and seek wisdom – God will provide without our feeble strategizing and politicking. Boy, God, am I glad I am not like one of THOSE people! 😉