A most “moderate” statement. It describes the plight of those who are committed to the Anglican Communion in some historically recognizable form (whether from the left edge of the middle or the right edge of the middle) as well as anything I have read. This crisis is all about the fact that Anglicans have ceased to share a common language to describe Christianity, and the divisions run as deeply within the reasserter and reappraiser camps as between them. The Covenant was intended as an effort to restore a common language, but that effort seems not to be working.
What is making it immeasurably worse is that we keep talking past each other without even recognizing it. We are exhorted to work towards the creation of Anglican churches that will have none of the features we value in Anglicanism by people who don’t understand why we cannot join them. We hear calls for heavy lifting issued to those who do not want any lifting, and calls for unity in diversity issued to those (and often by those) who do not find unity, diversity, or possibly both, to be desirable goals. We part, perhaps necessarily, but with unnecessary acrimony. We are in the middle of an unfolding tragedy with no more power to affect it than one of the uncomprehending spear carriers in Shakespeare’s plays.
All we can hope is to meet one day in battle against the Enemy, though all the hosts of Mordor lie between.
A fine comment, Dale. I sincerely wish more would capture the sad and tragic dimensions of the present moment. As I have been insisting–we are ALL under the judgment of God. May He have mercy on us.
Seems like the reasserters don’t have the same “unity” that the reappraisers do. We reasserters are fragmenting to the point that it is going to be difficult to have a common voice (even while we are attempting a common cause). If it’s not WO it is which alliance. This saddens me. I respect +Duncan and Ephraim both (neither who have a problem with WO) — I also respect +Iker who does. We re giving lip service to not making this a “deal breaker” but it is clear in the blogs that for many it is. None of us seem “orthodox” enough for each other — while in the reappraiser camp all seem happy with each other.
Thanks, Dale & Kendall, for your comments. The current situation does read a bit like something from Sophocles’ plays…the “tragic flaw” being that quest for a certainty that omits love, mercy, and a deep reliance on the revealed will of God the Holy Trinity at every moment. After several years of “the battle,” I’m feeling that an analogy to WWI trench warfare is appropriate. As Verdun became a perfect machine for the slaughter of young men, so the Anglican Schism Crisis is becoming the perfect process for the destruction of the best elements of Anglicanism, with the resulting “parties” all too easily settling for partisan ideology, neo-pharisaical smugness, and turning a blind eye to the very dialectic that makes this form of Christianity rich and rewarding. It is becoming a kind of war of attrition, very delightful to the Evil One, and corrupting both “sides†of the conflict with increasing rapacity. Just as WWI sickened Europe in ways we are still not able to comprehend, so too do I fear this prolonged ecclesial war will damage the faith and witness of all who dip their hands in the bloody stream of partisan viciousness. How hard it is not to become an angry Jonah: hot, bitter, missing the point of God’s call, grumbling, and oh-so-self-righteous. I number myself as one who has fallen victim to this from time-to-time. I continue to repent of it.
I was called by God to be faithful to Jesus as an Anglican, and I shall do that as best as I can — by God’s grace. I recognize that we are in a time of deep division, and that there is “blame†enough to go around on all sides. However, I am not going to let the pathology of our era destroy the joy of following Christ I have known as His disciple i this tradition. As Dale has wisely remarked, the art of taking past each other is abroad in our day, and it is a Dark Art, indeed. The corrosive damage done by judging others is profound – damage to us, the other, and the Church. The last three years have taught me this in vivid and painful ways. None of the great worthies I most admire in Anglican history allowed the ongoing struggles of the Church to mar their essential joy, or to become mean-spirited or lose sight of the centrality of humility. The tone of anger, condemnation, and outright pig-headedness I have seen in our Church (and in which I have, sadly, occasionally participated in directly or by silent consent) is unworthy of those who would follow Jesus. Having opinions is fine; being willing to sit in the Seat of Judgment is quite another thing. Let Jesus alone do that; the Church’s history is littered with terrible accounts of “disciples turned demi-gods” creating heresy and schism through their attempt to de-throne Jesus.
I prefer what Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Runcie did when the Pope visited Canterbury Cathedral. No one knew who should sit in St. Augustine’s Throne: the Pope (as the Patriarch of the West and successor to the Pope who sent Augustine in the first place) or the Archbishop (as the head of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop/host of the Cathedral in which it was all taking place). What to do?
What was done was, in the end, the only right thing to do: an ancient copy of the Gospels was placed in the Throne, and the Pope and Archbishop sat on either side…just as good disciples should do.
So may it be in our own day and Church…by God’s grace and through that holy virtue of humility.
Sarah:
Well written, thoughtful, truthful, but at the end I come away thinking: a noble, wistful, waste.
As you know I care virtually nothing about Anglicanism; but everything for God, for Christ, for the Spirit, and for the people. Everything, Sarah. After 15 years or so of pew sitting in a TEC church, the tragedy of Anglicanism’s disaster has become, for me a great rebirth of faith. I think also a great winnowing and calling of the faithful is taking place in what outwardly seems a desperate time. To me the difference between Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives is more simplistic, assuming that we’re right about what will happen soon: those who won’t try, and those who will. Sure, everything you say about the dysfunctionality of what is being attempted is right on the mark, but Sarah, every church is dysfunctional to one degree or another, and the Anglicanism that you say is now being lost is a chimera in my humble opinion. It was a dream; only a dream, a Camelot. It never really existed in the first place, and its just taken us a few hundred years or so to find out. No matter what happens in September, I unlike you, will keep on keepin on. I will continue trying to build up my AMiA congregation, feed the hungry, visit the sick, preach the Gospel, read my Bible–in sum, try hard by God’s grace to do as He commands, in fellowship with other Christians–as He also commanded. In the end, I am simple Peter, with his simple fisherman’s confession of faith shorn completely of the intellectual, the theological, and the historical. It saddens me that this should surely be enough for us all, but for the Sarahs of the world it is not enough. My advice to you, which you will never take, is again simple: if the Anglican form of worship on Sunday is one in which you can encounter God, then please do so, and concern yourself not whether Canterbury is, or is not in that moment.
And yet, even so my deeper counsel is this: even if you leave “Anglicanism” in its entirety and find a good solid church to be a part of, by all means take that season of rest to recharge your batteries, renew your spirit, open your heart; and fall in love, all over again.
Peace always,
William
RE: “In the end, I am simple Peter, with his simple fisherman’s confession of faith shorn completely of the intellectual, the theological, and the historical. It saddens me that this should surely be enough for us all, but for the Sarahs of the world it is not enough.”
No, it is not a good thing at all to have a “faith shorn completely of the intellectual, the theological, and the historical,” nor is it in fact possible to have such a faith. It is possible to have an ignorant faith, of course, but not one shorn of theology, intellect, or history.
A wish to have such a faith is nothing more than pietism, a terrible gnostic attempt to divide the material from the so-called “spiritual”. It is just such pietism that led the Episcopal church’s reasserters to such passivity and cowardice and pietistic “spiritualism” divorced from engagement with the organization that we were a part of.
Hopefully the AMiA church of which William is a part will make an effort to disciple its people better than so many ECUSA parishes.
RE: “No matter what happens in September, I unlike you, will keep on keepin on.”
As will I.
RE: “As you know I care virtually nothing about Anglicanism . . . ”
So I am a Gnostic then, and ignorant at that. Then ignorance is indeed bliss then. Sarah, I have failed in my effort to be kind to you in our disagreement judging from the tone of your response. My apologies.
#3, what do you base this opinion on? Certainly the most radical have some semblance of common purpose, but can you really say that liberals are all on the same page and have a greater level of unity than do conservatives? For example, we agree on every article of the creeds and we agree on much beyond the creeds. We agree on the issue du joir, and much in terms of mission and ministry. Please explain how you see liberals more unified.
William#2 and Sarah: Please, please let’s be gentler with one another. It does not lessen my strength or faith to be gentle with those with whom I disagree; actually, God strengthens me, a type of paradox, without my knowledge, when I am gentle with anyone. Anyone. I repeat: anyone.
William#2, I certainly agree with many of your points; I am also a parishioner of an AMiA brand new church plant, and organist, pianist, worship planner and multiple other roles quite different from my Senior Warden and business-of-the-church roles at my prior Episcopal parish — but please consider how it might affect someone to say “my advice to you, which you will never take” (don’t you see how off-putting that is, and actually rude, quite unmannerly?). And please consider how it will affect someone to say that you, unlike them, will keep on keeping on (again, presumptuous and frankly rude).
Sarah, please have the spiritual wisdom to see through his words about a faith shorn of the intellectual, etc., and see his pain, his spiritual growth. He has already told you that he was a pew-sitting TEC’er for 15 years, and now he’s feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, and more! Please don’t quell that! And who cares about intellectualism, in the end, in terms of hanging all our faith on it? Please hear me out; I can speak from both sides: am both an intellectual (Ph.D. and other credits), and also a practitioner, interested in daily application with small business owners and corporate executives, and was reared on a working farm, of all places, where much is applied rather than intellectual theory (much = almost all, save my father who was organic before it was cool). So: I can speak from both sides, and I say to both of you, please have some respect! There are points of agreement within both your posts — why do we continue to torment one another?
Am just so very weary of seeing one Reasserter after another tear down another Reasserter’s viewpoint. No, I am NOT asking “Can’t we all just get along?” I repeat: I am NOT asking that. I am asking: “As Christians, can’t we afford loving kindness to one another and reflect charity in our blog posts while respectfully disagreeing?” Yes, of course we disagree on various matters: we delight in debate and discourse. My question is aimed toward something that is purely within our control: let’s be gentler with one another when we disagree. Please.
Susan, thanks for your post. I hope that you saw a mixture of gentleness and frustration in both of my responses towards Sarah, whom I like very very much if one can “like” someone known only on a blog. Sarah is one very very tough lady, so in context words that might seem unmannerly or off putting to you, well, she can knock down blindfolded with two arms tied behind her back.
But you are right.Susan, I would venture to say that Sarah and I agree 100 percent about the core values and beliefs of Christianity. And yet, here we argue over something called Anglicanism that is not necessary to save a single soul.It drives me nuts,and here Susan you can see the merit in mine and Sarah’s little brouhaha: its a microcosm of why the whole sorry lot of us willprobably never get together.
And Sarah, my apologies again if I have given offense. I like you, respect you, agree with you on everything I consider near, and dear, and STILL owe you lunch!
Blogs may be used by God to shape the conversation and seeing some of the lay folks reaction might be used by God to prod hearts. Check out this exchange on Stand Firm between Dr. Munday & Dr. Seitz directly below.
I am grateful to Sarah for her comments. I was ordained in 1966 and 1967 in a very different Episcopal Church. I’m a Prayer Book Catholic and think the decisions by a majority of the bishops and deputies at General Convention 2003 and 2006 not to take the advice of the large majority of the bishops at Lambeth 1998 were mistakes. I sometimes feel like Sarah’s “man on the end of the pew.” However, I am not convinced that the clergy and lay people I know in the Episcopal Church have departed from the Christian faith as the Anglican Communion has held it, and while I respect the conscientious views of those who have rejected the spiritual authority of the General Convention, I have not yet been led by my conscience to do so.
It well may be the case that the House of Bishops will not give the assurances requested by the Primates, and that Archbishop Williams will not as a consequence withdraw his invitations to those who do not do so. I think the failure of the House of Bishops will be a mistake, and the Archbishop’s failure will be a mistake. The consequences of these and other errors may well be the end of the Anglican Communion as we have known it, and that will be a tragedy.
I pray that the American House of Bishops will recognize the seriousness of the situation to which the actions of the majority have led them, and pray that Archbishop Williams will act in the best interests of the whole communion. And like the rest of us, I’ll wait and see what happens.
This is, so far, the best defense of the Comm. Cons. position (with which I am most sympathetic) as opposed to the Fed. Con. position. I think what many Fed. Cons don’t realize or accept is that for some of us, if the Communion falls apart, it is NOT to AMiA or CANA that we are looking to. I know that some of my Fed. Con friends find that bewildering or painful but it is nevertheless where we are at in our journey. I am with Sarah on this one but I am also aware that it is deeply distressing to many of those that have started up new CANA or AMiA congregations.
With all due respect, since the current ABC is, personally, very supportive of TEC’s sexual revolution, he is highly unlikely to every exercise the kind of leadership which “communion conservatives” use as their basis for staying not matter how deep, dark and smelly TEC becomes.
Common Cause is based on the supposition that relying on the mechanism of the ABC…or on any of the so-called “instruments of unity” (an unknown reality prior to the debacles of the 21st century!)…is to place our priorities thusly: 1st: The institution of the Anglican Communion, regardles of its faithfulness to the Gospel; 2nd: the catholic Faith, as Anglicans have practiced it for 2,000 plus years.
Common Cause puts First Things first. I have no idea whether or not a C.C. province of orthodox Anglicans will ever see the light of day, much less prosper. Especially when Don Quiotism runs deep in the veins of those who believe that the ABC and I. of U. will somehow (magically?) turn things around.
#14 Matthew, I agree with you. We’ve been tossed about by this turmoil for four years and many are weary. I know I am. When parishes become primarily seats of righteous indignation and membership in them a political statement, I must retreat. Belonging to a Christian community is supposed to assist one’s journey in faith, not become a stumbling block. For now, I must be a stay-at-home Anglican, as I have neither the strength nor desire to be a political Anglican.
Thank you Sarah for your thoughtful analysis. It made me aware of my own ignorance.
It would be very helpful to have a glossary or directory of the major groups, their views and key members. Following the Tolkien metaphor it would be helpful to have some way of ‘finding’ each other after the dust settles.
From this lay person’s perspective it does not matter much (in the short term) which church organizations we are part of. It is more a matter of property ownership and which ministries to support. Of course, in the longer term the various memberships, position statements, etc. matter a great deal but there is nothing that requires a precipitous decision.
RE: #16. Thank you. Glad I am not alone. As for #15, Stuart Smith, don’t make the assumption that all of us are staying in TEC just because CANA and AMiA is not where we are heading. I understand your concerns about the ABC and I of U. Its just that some of us are looking at other options (non-Anglican) at this point rather than CANA or AMiA or other groups.
First, a little of my personal context. I don’t live in a city or region where there is a single orthodox Episcopal church. I don’t think there is one in the diocese or neighboring dioceses. Traditional Episcopalians here worship in moderate or liberal parishes. This has been the case for decades. Therefore, if I needed to worship in a church that was both 1) orthodox and 2) anglican, I have had no choices for decades. There has been 15 years of talk among orthdox believers about starting up an orthodox parish but its all been talk. There have been no support from the Bishops so not much structure or energy to make it happen. And, orthodox believers have not worked to make it happen either. There is also no CANA parish or AMiA parish anywhere nearby either. Therefore, if TEC or the diocese continue a leftward drift and we are treated with even more hostility, my choices are not CANA or AMiA unless something like that were to emerge and I see no sign of it. I have been looking at my choices here in the Lutheran Church (I realize ELCA may go down the same road as TEC but at least it would buy some time). Others are looking to Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.
Yep, Matthew, same situation here. There are two break-away churches about an hour and a half from me but I’m not well enough to make that trip regularly. Besides that, I’d like to be more involved in the parish community than just showing up for services when possible.
I’m former RC and my objections to that church remain; I could never return to it. I’m leery of Orthodoxy for similar reasons. As an Anglo-Catholic, I was delighted to find a home in the AC and I’m probably more tied to the AC than most Episcopalians. I go to England at least once per year to visit friends and love worshiping at churches/cathedrals in London and Canterbury. Canterbury Cathedral has a special place in my heart, not only for its beautiful worship and edifice but also for the fact that one of my ancestors was an ABC and is buried there.
My greatest hope is for an authentic, orthodox Anglican expression in the U.S./North America. As you said, I believe ELCA is headed down the same path as TEC and while I’ve looked at LCMS, it seems too “low church Protestant” for me. I have little choice, it seems, but to wait and see.
The current sturm und drang is an opportunity that must be taken by the Anglican communion to review its essentials and purge from this list those things which are not wholly clear from Scripture, e.g., that original sin by its nature condemns all souls rightly to hell if God’s grace is not granted. Such positions, long held, have acquired a life of their own by virtue of tradition, but in fact, tradition merely ties past to present and has itself no truth content. There are a number of such elements – Christ was crucified for our sins, or the notion of the communion of saints, the notion that Christ was wholly human but without sin – that need to be removed to purge the Anglican stables. Only by doing this will the church be able to get rid of the adiophora flaccidity that presently infects it. It is crucial for the church to be clear about its essentials because the present turmoil is precisely the absence of such clarity.
The talk about unity is idle and without real merit, for there is no reason for an enforced unity or a pragmatic unity. Neither would last long. The only worthwhile unity can come from a common core of beliefs rooted in Scripture. LM
#19, exactly teatime. This has been the story of my life. There was no orthodox parish when I lived in Salt Lake, Reno, Eugene, Madison, etc. I view CANA, AMiA as primarily a regional thing. It exists in Plano, No. Virginia, Kansas, perhaps Mobile, some other places. But it does not have geographical universalism. Many, many areas of the country are devoid of orthodox anglicanism. Therefore, we do not take it seriously. We are either going to stay in TEC or look at entirely different options. Also, as one who has not lived in major metropolitan areas, I’ve not had these choices. OTOH, rural communities often do a better job of accomodating orthodox believers (even if the parish as a whole is liberal) because there can only be one viable church. I have spent much of my life in rural America where there has often been only one Episcopal church and it has to do the best job it can to be the church for all. People forget there is a rural component to TEC. In the ELCA, it is the core of their membership.
Clarity … By self-definition, it’s a good thing. Only problem: if lots of people, not cynically but sincerely and in good faith, disagree about things, the very last thing you want is … clarity. What you want – and what the AC used to provide – is generous, wide-ranging formulations which give people freedom.
By the way, Larry, as you surely must be aware, lots of your personal formulations aren’t in the least reasserter. There is a church which has space for such as you – it’s called TEC or in England the C of E.
Well, John, Thou makest me smile. Me, in TEC? I would be a case of BO in a Nice Ladies tea. Or I should say, at a homosexuals tea. What could possibly make you say such a thing. Incidentally, how do you tell a reasserter from a reappraiser? The labels never seemed to mean much to me, given their dictionary sense. I take it they mean leftwing and right wing? Liberal and conservative?
Your position on clarity is also surprising, but I guess you want obscurity so that, in the fog of theological drizzle, no one can see whose face is under an umbrella. Tut tut, John. And more tut.
Clarity is essential if we are ever to discover a set of core beliefs without which no organization can develop an identity and a resultant practice.
We have no such core at present, as you know, but I submit that as long as we maintain central beliefs that are manifestly at odds with scripture, no core belief can ever be subscribed to by two or three people gathered together in his name. The examples I cited above have no support in scripture; they simply don’t. They are like the RC’s fantasies about Mary Ever Virgin and the Immaculate Conception. Wish fulfillments, perpetuated by centuries, become tradition, and tradition generates belief. I do love tradition, but its only job is to tie past and present; it has nothing to do with truth.
If you doubt my claims above that the items listed are unjustified by scripture, discursive-ate away. If you cannot, then explain how in all conscience can they be perpetuated? It’s time to get rid of the adiophora thing because its real function has been abused so badly. No, you can’t believe anything you want and call it “the flexibility that has so distinguished Anglicanism over the centuries.” This is what called forth “The Vicar of Bray.”
You want to duke it out, John? Then let us make a little list of core doctrines. WE can agree, Yes? that all such must have clear roots in scripture? WE can start with the 39 articles and see what is piffle and what isn’t. This is of course what the bishops and the ABC would be doing. Then, when the job is done, they can say, TEC doesn’t subscribe to these; they’re dead meat. And if I don’t suscribe,I’m toast too. This is called Growing Up. Being an Adult. Making Decisions.
Anglicanism isn’t for everyone and I still can’t imagine why we keep talking as if it is. Grown mothers and fathers look at the scumbag friends their kids bring home and they say to their kids, “Not in this family, buster, we don’t and won’t. Now, let that sink in. No means no.” You’ld think an entire church would be able to be that adult, wouldn’t you? This is what the Pope has done, for all intents and purposes.
Well, John, are you game for core doctrine? Or shall we debate whether Growler’s letter of resignation to Bumble is insightful or an intellectual atavism and then sing a little reggae and call it a hymn? Larry
Tut tut, for the elves too. Oh, you’re right about straying from the thread but the above isn’t personal (in the sense of being an attack). That is, none of it is surly or ill-natured, or isn’t meant to be. John and I have disagreed about all sorts of things (and even agreed several times, to our dismay.) Anyway, if you’re going to give me a smack, then read John’s above mine. Doesn’t he deserve to have his wrists smacked?
Ok, so this is impersonal now. Would anyone out there like to take on my offer to make a little list etc. This is, after all, a vital matter even if, for some reason, the ABC isn’t watching our every word.
There’ll be a thread along soon that will not stir elvish remonstrance. The Miscreant in Maine
Einen augenblick. You know, elves, the subject here has been unity, so I really wasn’t off the thread, for that was my subject too, since I was arguing that there can be no worthwhile unity if we have not first established core doctrine. Larry
The comments don’t seem to work on SF. Robroy requests that we ‘follow the footsteps of Seabury’ –which could be salutary but I doubt would lead us to Network or Common College.
“On following in the footsteps of Seabury.
You might have a look at a basic historical account of Seabury. Keen loyalist. ‘Regularly’ consecrated in Aberdeen (to call him ‘extra territorial’ in our present sense is anachronistic; there were no consecrating bishops in America; he had studied at Edinburgh). The last person to be called anti-Canterbury. The C of E did not consecrate him because, though he wanted to, it required an oath of allegiance which would have put a bounty on his head. He wanted to be a Bishop and was prepared to sail back to (loyalist) Canada and be a Bishop there. In good time, the C of E did indeed recognize him (after the revolutionary war was over), and they put strictures on the fledgling church which Seabury was anxious to comply with (descent to the dead, etc). Seabury was a keen Church of England proponent and signed his name accordingly. It sounds like what you have in mind is Methodism.
Incidentally the present Scottish Episcopal Church often likes to claim Seabury as a radical – anti Canterbury, but on terms opposite to yours: a true TEC Bishop, independent minded, etc. I heard this frequently, and with some amazement.
History is often the first victim in strife like this. ”
Ah, Larry mou (Greek),
I often experience the same experience. That to me signifies that things are not so simple, that boundaries aren’t so impermeable, that, etc. etc. But you know all this …
A most “moderate” statement. It describes the plight of those who are committed to the Anglican Communion in some historically recognizable form (whether from the left edge of the middle or the right edge of the middle) as well as anything I have read. This crisis is all about the fact that Anglicans have ceased to share a common language to describe Christianity, and the divisions run as deeply within the reasserter and reappraiser camps as between them. The Covenant was intended as an effort to restore a common language, but that effort seems not to be working.
What is making it immeasurably worse is that we keep talking past each other without even recognizing it. We are exhorted to work towards the creation of Anglican churches that will have none of the features we value in Anglicanism by people who don’t understand why we cannot join them. We hear calls for heavy lifting issued to those who do not want any lifting, and calls for unity in diversity issued to those (and often by those) who do not find unity, diversity, or possibly both, to be desirable goals. We part, perhaps necessarily, but with unnecessary acrimony. We are in the middle of an unfolding tragedy with no more power to affect it than one of the uncomprehending spear carriers in Shakespeare’s plays.
All we can hope is to meet one day in battle against the Enemy, though all the hosts of Mordor lie between.
A fine comment, Dale. I sincerely wish more would capture the sad and tragic dimensions of the present moment. As I have been insisting–we are ALL under the judgment of God. May He have mercy on us.
Seems like the reasserters don’t have the same “unity” that the reappraisers do. We reasserters are fragmenting to the point that it is going to be difficult to have a common voice (even while we are attempting a common cause). If it’s not WO it is which alliance. This saddens me. I respect +Duncan and Ephraim both (neither who have a problem with WO) — I also respect +Iker who does. We re giving lip service to not making this a “deal breaker” but it is clear in the blogs that for many it is. None of us seem “orthodox” enough for each other — while in the reappraiser camp all seem happy with each other.
Thanks, Dale & Kendall, for your comments. The current situation does read a bit like something from Sophocles’ plays…the “tragic flaw” being that quest for a certainty that omits love, mercy, and a deep reliance on the revealed will of God the Holy Trinity at every moment. After several years of “the battle,” I’m feeling that an analogy to WWI trench warfare is appropriate. As Verdun became a perfect machine for the slaughter of young men, so the Anglican Schism Crisis is becoming the perfect process for the destruction of the best elements of Anglicanism, with the resulting “parties” all too easily settling for partisan ideology, neo-pharisaical smugness, and turning a blind eye to the very dialectic that makes this form of Christianity rich and rewarding. It is becoming a kind of war of attrition, very delightful to the Evil One, and corrupting both “sides†of the conflict with increasing rapacity. Just as WWI sickened Europe in ways we are still not able to comprehend, so too do I fear this prolonged ecclesial war will damage the faith and witness of all who dip their hands in the bloody stream of partisan viciousness. How hard it is not to become an angry Jonah: hot, bitter, missing the point of God’s call, grumbling, and oh-so-self-righteous. I number myself as one who has fallen victim to this from time-to-time. I continue to repent of it.
I was called by God to be faithful to Jesus as an Anglican, and I shall do that as best as I can — by God’s grace. I recognize that we are in a time of deep division, and that there is “blame†enough to go around on all sides. However, I am not going to let the pathology of our era destroy the joy of following Christ I have known as His disciple i this tradition. As Dale has wisely remarked, the art of taking past each other is abroad in our day, and it is a Dark Art, indeed. The corrosive damage done by judging others is profound – damage to us, the other, and the Church. The last three years have taught me this in vivid and painful ways. None of the great worthies I most admire in Anglican history allowed the ongoing struggles of the Church to mar their essential joy, or to become mean-spirited or lose sight of the centrality of humility. The tone of anger, condemnation, and outright pig-headedness I have seen in our Church (and in which I have, sadly, occasionally participated in directly or by silent consent) is unworthy of those who would follow Jesus. Having opinions is fine; being willing to sit in the Seat of Judgment is quite another thing. Let Jesus alone do that; the Church’s history is littered with terrible accounts of “disciples turned demi-gods” creating heresy and schism through their attempt to de-throne Jesus.
I prefer what Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Runcie did when the Pope visited Canterbury Cathedral. No one knew who should sit in St. Augustine’s Throne: the Pope (as the Patriarch of the West and successor to the Pope who sent Augustine in the first place) or the Archbishop (as the head of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop/host of the Cathedral in which it was all taking place). What to do?
What was done was, in the end, the only right thing to do: an ancient copy of the Gospels was placed in the Throne, and the Pope and Archbishop sat on either side…just as good disciples should do.
So may it be in our own day and Church…by God’s grace and through that holy virtue of humility.
In Christ,
Hursley
Non Clamor sed Amor Psallit in Aure Dei
Sarah:
Well written, thoughtful, truthful, but at the end I come away thinking: a noble, wistful, waste.
As you know I care virtually nothing about Anglicanism; but everything for God, for Christ, for the Spirit, and for the people. Everything, Sarah. After 15 years or so of pew sitting in a TEC church, the tragedy of Anglicanism’s disaster has become, for me a great rebirth of faith. I think also a great winnowing and calling of the faithful is taking place in what outwardly seems a desperate time. To me the difference between Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives is more simplistic, assuming that we’re right about what will happen soon: those who won’t try, and those who will. Sure, everything you say about the dysfunctionality of what is being attempted is right on the mark, but Sarah, every church is dysfunctional to one degree or another, and the Anglicanism that you say is now being lost is a chimera in my humble opinion. It was a dream; only a dream, a Camelot. It never really existed in the first place, and its just taken us a few hundred years or so to find out. No matter what happens in September, I unlike you, will keep on keepin on. I will continue trying to build up my AMiA congregation, feed the hungry, visit the sick, preach the Gospel, read my Bible–in sum, try hard by God’s grace to do as He commands, in fellowship with other Christians–as He also commanded. In the end, I am simple Peter, with his simple fisherman’s confession of faith shorn completely of the intellectual, the theological, and the historical. It saddens me that this should surely be enough for us all, but for the Sarahs of the world it is not enough. My advice to you, which you will never take, is again simple: if the Anglican form of worship on Sunday is one in which you can encounter God, then please do so, and concern yourself not whether Canterbury is, or is not in that moment.
And yet, even so my deeper counsel is this: even if you leave “Anglicanism” in its entirety and find a good solid church to be a part of, by all means take that season of rest to recharge your batteries, renew your spirit, open your heart; and fall in love, all over again.
Peace always,
William
RE: “In the end, I am simple Peter, with his simple fisherman’s confession of faith shorn completely of the intellectual, the theological, and the historical. It saddens me that this should surely be enough for us all, but for the Sarahs of the world it is not enough.”
No, it is not a good thing at all to have a “faith shorn completely of the intellectual, the theological, and the historical,” nor is it in fact possible to have such a faith. It is possible to have an ignorant faith, of course, but not one shorn of theology, intellect, or history.
A wish to have such a faith is nothing more than pietism, a terrible gnostic attempt to divide the material from the so-called “spiritual”. It is just such pietism that led the Episcopal church’s reasserters to such passivity and cowardice and pietistic “spiritualism” divorced from engagement with the organization that we were a part of.
Hopefully the AMiA church of which William is a part will make an effort to disciple its people better than so many ECUSA parishes.
RE: “No matter what happens in September, I unlike you, will keep on keepin on.”
As will I.
RE: “As you know I care virtually nothing about Anglicanism . . . ”
So it certainly appears.
So I am a Gnostic then, and ignorant at that. Then ignorance is indeed bliss then. Sarah, I have failed in my effort to be kind to you in our disagreement judging from the tone of your response. My apologies.
#3, what do you base this opinion on? Certainly the most radical have some semblance of common purpose, but can you really say that liberals are all on the same page and have a greater level of unity than do conservatives? For example, we agree on every article of the creeds and we agree on much beyond the creeds. We agree on the issue du joir, and much in terms of mission and ministry. Please explain how you see liberals more unified.
William#2 and Sarah: Please, please let’s be gentler with one another. It does not lessen my strength or faith to be gentle with those with whom I disagree; actually, God strengthens me, a type of paradox, without my knowledge, when I am gentle with anyone. Anyone. I repeat: anyone.
William#2, I certainly agree with many of your points; I am also a parishioner of an AMiA brand new church plant, and organist, pianist, worship planner and multiple other roles quite different from my Senior Warden and business-of-the-church roles at my prior Episcopal parish — but please consider how it might affect someone to say “my advice to you, which you will never take” (don’t you see how off-putting that is, and actually rude, quite unmannerly?). And please consider how it will affect someone to say that you, unlike them, will keep on keeping on (again, presumptuous and frankly rude).
Sarah, please have the spiritual wisdom to see through his words about a faith shorn of the intellectual, etc., and see his pain, his spiritual growth. He has already told you that he was a pew-sitting TEC’er for 15 years, and now he’s feeding the hungry, visiting the sick, and more! Please don’t quell that! And who cares about intellectualism, in the end, in terms of hanging all our faith on it? Please hear me out; I can speak from both sides: am both an intellectual (Ph.D. and other credits), and also a practitioner, interested in daily application with small business owners and corporate executives, and was reared on a working farm, of all places, where much is applied rather than intellectual theory (much = almost all, save my father who was organic before it was cool). So: I can speak from both sides, and I say to both of you, please have some respect! There are points of agreement within both your posts — why do we continue to torment one another?
Am just so very weary of seeing one Reasserter after another tear down another Reasserter’s viewpoint. No, I am NOT asking “Can’t we all just get along?” I repeat: I am NOT asking that. I am asking: “As Christians, can’t we afford loving kindness to one another and reflect charity in our blog posts while respectfully disagreeing?” Yes, of course we disagree on various matters: we delight in debate and discourse. My question is aimed toward something that is purely within our control: let’s be gentler with one another when we disagree. Please.
Susan from Tennessee
Susan, thanks for your post. I hope that you saw a mixture of gentleness and frustration in both of my responses towards Sarah, whom I like very very much if one can “like” someone known only on a blog. Sarah is one very very tough lady, so in context words that might seem unmannerly or off putting to you, well, she can knock down blindfolded with two arms tied behind her back.
But you are right.Susan, I would venture to say that Sarah and I agree 100 percent about the core values and beliefs of Christianity. And yet, here we argue over something called Anglicanism that is not necessary to save a single soul.It drives me nuts,and here Susan you can see the merit in mine and Sarah’s little brouhaha: its a microcosm of why the whole sorry lot of us willprobably never get together.
And Sarah, my apologies again if I have given offense. I like you, respect you, agree with you on everything I consider near, and dear, and STILL owe you lunch!
Peace,
William
Sarah and Dale, thank you for these posts. And Dale, you certainly sum up my own feelings when you write:
We are in the middle of an unfolding tragedy with no more power to affect it than one of the uncomprehending spear carriers in Shakespeare’s plays.
We are in the middle of an unfolding tragedy
And yet there is always hope in the Lord.
Blogs may be used by God to shape the conversation and seeing some of the lay folks reaction might be used by God to prod hearts. Check out this exchange on Stand Firm between Dr. Munday & Dr. Seitz directly below.
I am grateful to Sarah for her comments. I was ordained in 1966 and 1967 in a very different Episcopal Church. I’m a Prayer Book Catholic and think the decisions by a majority of the bishops and deputies at General Convention 2003 and 2006 not to take the advice of the large majority of the bishops at Lambeth 1998 were mistakes. I sometimes feel like Sarah’s “man on the end of the pew.” However, I am not convinced that the clergy and lay people I know in the Episcopal Church have departed from the Christian faith as the Anglican Communion has held it, and while I respect the conscientious views of those who have rejected the spiritual authority of the General Convention, I have not yet been led by my conscience to do so.
It well may be the case that the House of Bishops will not give the assurances requested by the Primates, and that Archbishop Williams will not as a consequence withdraw his invitations to those who do not do so. I think the failure of the House of Bishops will be a mistake, and the Archbishop’s failure will be a mistake. The consequences of these and other errors may well be the end of the Anglican Communion as we have known it, and that will be a tragedy.
I pray that the American House of Bishops will recognize the seriousness of the situation to which the actions of the majority have led them, and pray that Archbishop Williams will act in the best interests of the whole communion. And like the rest of us, I’ll wait and see what happens.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC.
This is, so far, the best defense of the Comm. Cons. position (with which I am most sympathetic) as opposed to the Fed. Con. position. I think what many Fed. Cons don’t realize or accept is that for some of us, if the Communion falls apart, it is NOT to AMiA or CANA that we are looking to. I know that some of my Fed. Con friends find that bewildering or painful but it is nevertheless where we are at in our journey. I am with Sarah on this one but I am also aware that it is deeply distressing to many of those that have started up new CANA or AMiA congregations.
With all due respect, since the current ABC is, personally, very supportive of TEC’s sexual revolution, he is highly unlikely to every exercise the kind of leadership which “communion conservatives” use as their basis for staying not matter how deep, dark and smelly TEC becomes.
Common Cause is based on the supposition that relying on the mechanism of the ABC…or on any of the so-called “instruments of unity” (an unknown reality prior to the debacles of the 21st century!)…is to place our priorities thusly: 1st: The institution of the Anglican Communion, regardles of its faithfulness to the Gospel; 2nd: the catholic Faith, as Anglicans have practiced it for 2,000 plus years.
Common Cause puts First Things first. I have no idea whether or not a C.C. province of orthodox Anglicans will ever see the light of day, much less prosper. Especially when Don Quiotism runs deep in the veins of those who believe that the ABC and I. of U. will somehow (magically?) turn things around.
#14 Matthew, I agree with you. We’ve been tossed about by this turmoil for four years and many are weary. I know I am. When parishes become primarily seats of righteous indignation and membership in them a political statement, I must retreat. Belonging to a Christian community is supposed to assist one’s journey in faith, not become a stumbling block. For now, I must be a stay-at-home Anglican, as I have neither the strength nor desire to be a political Anglican.
Thank you Sarah for your thoughtful analysis. It made me aware of my own ignorance.
It would be very helpful to have a glossary or directory of the major groups, their views and key members. Following the Tolkien metaphor it would be helpful to have some way of ‘finding’ each other after the dust settles.
From this lay person’s perspective it does not matter much (in the short term) which church organizations we are part of. It is more a matter of property ownership and which ministries to support. Of course, in the longer term the various memberships, position statements, etc. matter a great deal but there is nothing that requires a precipitous decision.
RE: #16. Thank you. Glad I am not alone. As for #15, Stuart Smith, don’t make the assumption that all of us are staying in TEC just because CANA and AMiA is not where we are heading. I understand your concerns about the ABC and I of U. Its just that some of us are looking at other options (non-Anglican) at this point rather than CANA or AMiA or other groups.
First, a little of my personal context. I don’t live in a city or region where there is a single orthodox Episcopal church. I don’t think there is one in the diocese or neighboring dioceses. Traditional Episcopalians here worship in moderate or liberal parishes. This has been the case for decades. Therefore, if I needed to worship in a church that was both 1) orthodox and 2) anglican, I have had no choices for decades. There has been 15 years of talk among orthdox believers about starting up an orthodox parish but its all been talk. There have been no support from the Bishops so not much structure or energy to make it happen. And, orthodox believers have not worked to make it happen either. There is also no CANA parish or AMiA parish anywhere nearby either. Therefore, if TEC or the diocese continue a leftward drift and we are treated with even more hostility, my choices are not CANA or AMiA unless something like that were to emerge and I see no sign of it. I have been looking at my choices here in the Lutheran Church (I realize ELCA may go down the same road as TEC but at least it would buy some time). Others are looking to Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc.
Yep, Matthew, same situation here. There are two break-away churches about an hour and a half from me but I’m not well enough to make that trip regularly. Besides that, I’d like to be more involved in the parish community than just showing up for services when possible.
I’m former RC and my objections to that church remain; I could never return to it. I’m leery of Orthodoxy for similar reasons. As an Anglo-Catholic, I was delighted to find a home in the AC and I’m probably more tied to the AC than most Episcopalians. I go to England at least once per year to visit friends and love worshiping at churches/cathedrals in London and Canterbury. Canterbury Cathedral has a special place in my heart, not only for its beautiful worship and edifice but also for the fact that one of my ancestors was an ABC and is buried there.
My greatest hope is for an authentic, orthodox Anglican expression in the U.S./North America. As you said, I believe ELCA is headed down the same path as TEC and while I’ve looked at LCMS, it seems too “low church Protestant” for me. I have little choice, it seems, but to wait and see.
The current sturm und drang is an opportunity that must be taken by the Anglican communion to review its essentials and purge from this list those things which are not wholly clear from Scripture, e.g., that original sin by its nature condemns all souls rightly to hell if God’s grace is not granted. Such positions, long held, have acquired a life of their own by virtue of tradition, but in fact, tradition merely ties past to present and has itself no truth content. There are a number of such elements – Christ was crucified for our sins, or the notion of the communion of saints, the notion that Christ was wholly human but without sin – that need to be removed to purge the Anglican stables. Only by doing this will the church be able to get rid of the adiophora flaccidity that presently infects it. It is crucial for the church to be clear about its essentials because the present turmoil is precisely the absence of such clarity.
The talk about unity is idle and without real merit, for there is no reason for an enforced unity or a pragmatic unity. Neither would last long. The only worthwhile unity can come from a common core of beliefs rooted in Scripture. LM
#19, exactly teatime. This has been the story of my life. There was no orthodox parish when I lived in Salt Lake, Reno, Eugene, Madison, etc. I view CANA, AMiA as primarily a regional thing. It exists in Plano, No. Virginia, Kansas, perhaps Mobile, some other places. But it does not have geographical universalism. Many, many areas of the country are devoid of orthodox anglicanism. Therefore, we do not take it seriously. We are either going to stay in TEC or look at entirely different options. Also, as one who has not lived in major metropolitan areas, I’ve not had these choices. OTOH, rural communities often do a better job of accomodating orthodox believers (even if the parish as a whole is liberal) because there can only be one viable church. I have spent much of my life in rural America where there has often been only one Episcopal church and it has to do the best job it can to be the church for all. People forget there is a rural component to TEC. In the ELCA, it is the core of their membership.
#20
Clarity … By self-definition, it’s a good thing. Only problem: if lots of people, not cynically but sincerely and in good faith, disagree about things, the very last thing you want is … clarity. What you want – and what the AC used to provide – is generous, wide-ranging formulations which give people freedom.
By the way, Larry, as you surely must be aware, lots of your personal formulations aren’t in the least reasserter. There is a church which has space for such as you – it’s called TEC or in England the C of E.
Well, John, Thou makest me smile. Me, in TEC? I would be a case of BO in a Nice Ladies tea. Or I should say, at a homosexuals tea. What could possibly make you say such a thing. Incidentally, how do you tell a reasserter from a reappraiser? The labels never seemed to mean much to me, given their dictionary sense. I take it they mean leftwing and right wing? Liberal and conservative?
Your position on clarity is also surprising, but I guess you want obscurity so that, in the fog of theological drizzle, no one can see whose face is under an umbrella. Tut tut, John. And more tut.
Clarity is essential if we are ever to discover a set of core beliefs without which no organization can develop an identity and a resultant practice.
We have no such core at present, as you know, but I submit that as long as we maintain central beliefs that are manifestly at odds with scripture, no core belief can ever be subscribed to by two or three people gathered together in his name. The examples I cited above have no support in scripture; they simply don’t. They are like the RC’s fantasies about Mary Ever Virgin and the Immaculate Conception. Wish fulfillments, perpetuated by centuries, become tradition, and tradition generates belief. I do love tradition, but its only job is to tie past and present; it has nothing to do with truth.
If you doubt my claims above that the items listed are unjustified by scripture, discursive-ate away. If you cannot, then explain how in all conscience can they be perpetuated? It’s time to get rid of the adiophora thing because its real function has been abused so badly. No, you can’t believe anything you want and call it “the flexibility that has so distinguished Anglicanism over the centuries.” This is what called forth “The Vicar of Bray.”
You want to duke it out, John? Then let us make a little list of core doctrines. WE can agree, Yes? that all such must have clear roots in scripture? WE can start with the 39 articles and see what is piffle and what isn’t. This is of course what the bishops and the ABC would be doing. Then, when the job is done, they can say, TEC doesn’t subscribe to these; they’re dead meat. And if I don’t suscribe,I’m toast too. This is called Growing Up. Being an Adult. Making Decisions.
Anglicanism isn’t for everyone and I still can’t imagine why we keep talking as if it is. Grown mothers and fathers look at the scumbag friends their kids bring home and they say to their kids, “Not in this family, buster, we don’t and won’t. Now, let that sink in. No means no.” You’ld think an entire church would be able to be that adult, wouldn’t you? This is what the Pope has done, for all intents and purposes.
Well, John, are you game for core doctrine? Or shall we debate whether Growler’s letter of resignation to Bumble is insightful or an intellectual atavism and then sing a little reggae and call it a hymn? Larry
[i] It sounds like we’re beginning to stray from a discussion of the post. Let’s return to the post without making it so personal. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Tut tut, for the elves too. Oh, you’re right about straying from the thread but the above isn’t personal (in the sense of being an attack). That is, none of it is surly or ill-natured, or isn’t meant to be. John and I have disagreed about all sorts of things (and even agreed several times, to our dismay.) Anyway, if you’re going to give me a smack, then read John’s above mine. Doesn’t he deserve to have his wrists smacked?
Ok, so this is impersonal now. Would anyone out there like to take on my offer to make a little list etc. This is, after all, a vital matter even if, for some reason, the ABC isn’t watching our every word.
There’ll be a thread along soon that will not stir elvish remonstrance. The Miscreant in Maine
Einen augenblick. You know, elves, the subject here has been unity, so I really wasn’t off the thread, for that was my subject too, since I was arguing that there can be no worthwhile unity if we have not first established core doctrine. Larry
The comments don’t seem to work on SF. Robroy requests that we ‘follow the footsteps of Seabury’ –which could be salutary but I doubt would lead us to Network or Common College.
“On following in the footsteps of Seabury.
You might have a look at a basic historical account of Seabury. Keen loyalist. ‘Regularly’ consecrated in Aberdeen (to call him ‘extra territorial’ in our present sense is anachronistic; there were no consecrating bishops in America; he had studied at Edinburgh). The last person to be called anti-Canterbury. The C of E did not consecrate him because, though he wanted to, it required an oath of allegiance which would have put a bounty on his head. He wanted to be a Bishop and was prepared to sail back to (loyalist) Canada and be a Bishop there. In good time, the C of E did indeed recognize him (after the revolutionary war was over), and they put strictures on the fledgling church which Seabury was anxious to comply with (descent to the dead, etc). Seabury was a keen Church of England proponent and signed his name accordingly. It sounds like what you have in mind is Methodism.
Incidentally the present Scottish Episcopal Church often likes to claim Seabury as a radical – anti Canterbury, but on terms opposite to yours: a true TEC Bishop, independent minded, etc. I heard this frequently, and with some amazement.
History is often the first victim in strife like this. ”
Grace and peace.
[i] SF has turned off comments on Sarah’s post. [/i]
-Elf Lady
‘Thou makest me smile.’
Ah, Larry mou (Greek),
I often experience the same experience. That to me signifies that things are not so simple, that boundaries aren’t so impermeable, that, etc. etc. But you know all this …