The discussion thread on Dr. Ephraim Radner’s resignation from the Network is closing in on 200 comments. You can catch up on it here.
Of particular note: Dr. Radner has left a comment here
This elf also found Terry Wong’s comment here highly worth reading and considering, for a perspective from a Global South leader.
I ask everyone, does any of this really matter in the long run? Radner will be at Wycliffe helping to raise a new generation of Evangelical clergy to preach the Gospel. This is good. In the meantime, there is some really good material being sequentially posted at Stand Firm about the 39 Articles and also a series on Luther’s theses. We are all deeply hurt by the mess surrounding us, but I think that by refocusing on understanding our faith and away from who said this or that the healing can begin.
Physician,
I agree with what you say to some extent. But don’t think that means that “this doesn’t matter” — in fact the Radner / ACI vs. Network question is largely one of theology and ecclesiology. Some important questions are being raised and wrestled with in these debates. That too may be a good thing if it helps us clarify our vision, identity and our calling as a church.
Just my opinion.
–elfgirl
I’d also like to point out Karen B’s comment [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4770/#88591]here[/url] which covers much of the interim history from the perspective of “as it happens” rather than a look back. If the Network is too radical for some, it’s because some of the “moderates” choose to sit by and watch.
IMHO, I find nothing with which to disagree in +Duncan’s remarks. ++Rowan had his opportunity to shape events and took a pass. I had great hopes after his audience with the Holy Father whose clear message to his former Archbishop (translated from churchspeak) was, “Get your **** together.” He is nowhere to be found as the fire rages and TEC makes abundantly clear that it does not intend to honor a single letter of the Communique. Perhaps the Archbishop will surprise me but I expect nothing but more talk, talk, talk, including an explicit admission that his authority extends only to the borders of his See. Thus, we can indeed ask what about Canterbury is essential to Anglicanism in the same way we can ask what about the Diocese of Seattle is essential to Anglicanism. This is why I find Dr. Radner’s position puzzling. TEC has declared its intent to depart from the tenets of the faith. If Canterbury wants to be in communion with [i]that[/i], then I question why I or Dr. Radner should bother with Canterbury, much less with TEC.
Ephraim Radner and the Network have parted ways. What is the essence of that parting? For our Network friends, our unity proceeds from a common confession of faith. Will a church maintain that confession or not, is a simple question. If not, then the only sensible thing to do is sever the relationship. They had hoped the Communion would have the courage to sever the relationship with TEC, but as TEC has seemed unwilling to honor its conservatives much less repent, and as the ABC has wavered in his leadership, the Confessionalists have grown weary of waiting for the day of reckoning. These Confessionalists are not re-creating Anglicanism per se, but are willing to walk away from part of our tradition, namely, Canterbury, to save it. The “new†is an Anglicanism without Canterbury or Lambeth, much like Anglicanism could be the Catholic Church in England without Rome.
For our Communion friends, the first hope has been that the Communion, through the Instruments of Communion, would come into maturity. They have argued for more than a common confession, but a way of life that calls interdependent bodies to own their behavior, that is to say, a covenant. Along those lines, they have argued that we must let the process of discipline take its course because the end goal is not simply confessional conformity along historic Protestant lines, but Communion in a way not achieved among Protestants, Roman Catholics, or the Orthodox.
So, for some time, these Confessionalists and Communionists shared much: a desire for a Covenant Renewal ceremony like that of Joshua and Israel so long ago. The Confessionalists simply came to believe that the day of meeting would never come, that the revolutionary revisionists would take them out if they tried, and that the moderates would equivocate to the degree that no day of decision would ever happen.
Meanwhile, we seem to be getting two messages from the Communionists. The first message is the call, with bell-like clarity—for discipline. That discipline has always included walking together or apart. The Communionists have argued, clearly, cogently, logically, that without discipline, there can be no real communion. The second message has been an undertow in Radner’s+ work. This message has been a call to suffer within the brokenness of the body. Here we get to a certain rub: if there isn’t a point at which one will walk away, isn’t discipline really a hollow threat? If “walking†is the worst thing of all, why not return to Rome with Rusty Reno and suffer the lack of Scriptural warrant for highly advanced Mary-Worship, Transubstantiation, and Papal Infallibility (much less celibacy for the clergy, and you can forget women at the altar)?
Personally, I’m not real jazzed about becoming a Confessionalist. I love the Network, their passion for evangelism, for truth, for the kingdom. But frankly, when I left Pentecostalism as a student at Oral Roberts University, it was for the Great Tradition, which no Confessional Body has seemed to really “get†to date. I’d like to trust them, but I’ve seen too many anointed men and women of God fall off the deep end.
At the same time, there has always been a time for leaving. Abraham left. John the Baptist left. And isn’t that what Jesus indicated with his words about the Temple? I’d like to know why Cranmer recanted then stuffed his offending hand first into the fire. Was it because of cowardice or an inability to wipe the dust of Rome from his feet (or was the papacy in France at that point?). You all get the point.
I love Ephraim and Duncan too deeply to wade in with criticism for either at this point, at least in this forum. I’d love to read your criticism of my take on these things…
Theron Walker+
Rector, St. Philip in the Field, Sedalia CO
Clergy Co-chair, Communion Laity and Clergy of Colorado
Dear Rev. Theron, Thanks! This analysis is very helpful and I believe is a useful model to explain the differences among us orthodox. I see myself as a Protestant confessionalist, and in a minority among orthodox Anglicans. Your piece has been very enlightening to me and I appreciate your taking the time to post it.
Fr. Walker’s post reminds me of a saying I heard rather often from my grandmother: “Be a speedy goer but a strong abider.” This has always seemed to me an excellent point. Well, we have abided and abided until we are, or should be, abided out. Isn’t it time to be a speedy goer? I have argued for this again and again, because when you stick around with the wrong people too long in brotherly fashion you tend to get like them.So I have used another common platitude,”Lie down with dogs, rise with fleas.” Don’t tell me about Jesus and the publicans and the social riffraff. What he can do and what we can get away with are rather different things, given our parentage. When we start picking up fleas – and many a post shows a whole lot of itching going on – it’s time to choose other bedmates.