For the moment I will leave aside the many problems that attach to TEC’s press for a polycentric communion. It is enough to say that their argument will work only if communion excludes common belief and practice but focuses instead on cooperation in good works and mutual aid. (Though even here, because of conflicting theological commitments, “good works” can be construed quite differently) Of more immediate importance is the logic of inclusive justice. The logic of inclusion employed by progressive Episcopalians excludes meaningful opposition from the start.
This exclusion is of such importance that it must not go unchallenged. It is a matter that concerns all Episcopalians. Exclusion of meaningful opposition in respect to the matters now before The Episcopal Church in the end will produce a niche church rather than a catholic church. Progressive claims to inclusivity are in fact false. The logic of their position drives relentlessly toward an increasingly constricted identity. The question progressive Episcopalians must answer is why members of the Episcopal Church that do not share their views ought to think otherwise. To put the issue more directly, progressive Episcopalians need to show the membership of their church and the rest of the Anglican Communion why their position does not end in an exclusive form of church life rather than a diverse one. This observation leads to a direct question. The question is what reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Episcopalians to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church. I certainly have my own reasons and have stated them on many occasions. But progressive Episcopalians have claimed something that both their words and actions belie, and it seems only right for them to confront and explain this inconsistency to the rest of us.
While I admire Professor Turner greatly (he was dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale when I first enrolled there in 1996), I wonder at the motivation any traditional Anglican would have at seeking a reason to stay in TEC from a “progressive” member of TEC? It would seem that if conscience is so troubled and indeed betrayed by remaining within TEC, the last place to go to find justification for staying would be the very representatives of the structures which cause trouble and or betrayal!
Perhaps his question is rhetorical, and therefore is a cause for some reflection. Such reflection, however, ought to be short-lived in the face of the inexorable march by TEC to the very “niche” church Professor Turner describes. Folks who are seeking to save the lost and the least are surely having a hard time incorporating them into a body like TEC, which is abandoning the foundational teachings of the Gospel at every turn. Reflection is a good thing, and academic discussion invaluable for preserving theological conversation, but at some point the sheer fact of souls being lost must come first.
I continue to pray for my brothers and sisters who have chosen to remain in TEC and provide a faithful witness to the Gospel. I also pray they find the freedom to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ in whatever circumstances – even in chains.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican Church (not just claiming so, but in communion with a clear majority of the world’s Anglican believers!)
Durant, Iowa
Thanks, Kendall, for posting this. I rarely check the ACI website, unless someone tips me off that a significant new essay has been posted there.
This is vintage Philip Turner stuff. Very incisive and convincing. It’s as lucid and persuasive and reasonably expressed as can be.
[b] But who in the world is listening anymore?? [/b]
The “progressives” could hardly care less. Dr. Turner and the other noble scholars at ACI can continue to write all the marvelously crafted, learned essays they want, but they will continue to fall on deaf ears. They can churn out powerful refutations of the fatally flawed theological underpinnings of the progressive agenda in TEC, and the CP bishops can quietly applaud and offer verbal support, but all that really matters to the activists is ACTIONS, not empty words. So the “progressives” keep calling the ACI/CP bluff, and they’ll continue to serenely ignore all those eloquent words that in the end, in practical terms, amount to nothing.
As always when dealing with the ACI, one looks in vain for any threats, if their words aren’t heeded. And if there are no threats, why in the world should anyone take them seriously??
And that is probably why so many of us on the conservative side no longer take them seriously either. At least, I confess that I don’t. I’m somehow reminded of the Eliza Doolittle character in [b] My Fair Lady, [/b] [i] “Words, words words. I’m so sick of words. Show me!” [/i]
A very cogent essay, Dr. Turner. But totally irrelevant now. The future belongs to those who are willing to ACT.
The New Reformation is here, and we won’t wait for the ACI leaders to give their blessing. The ACNA is already underway. And we tarry for no one.
David Handy+
David+,
We are the chorus, and we agree, we agree, we agree!
Darin+
Fr. Darin,
We’ve just discovered any thing we have in common. I also graduated from Yale/Berkeley, albeit in 1983, long before Dr. Turner became dean of Berkeley. But I did overlap with Dr. Chris Seitz, Dr. George Sumner, and Dr. Ephraim Radner, who were also at Yale in those heady years. I have the greatest respect for them as theologians. But very little respect for them anymore as tacticians in this church civil war.
Who cares what the “progressives” in TEC think anyway?? Why in the world would I pay any attention whatsoever to the arguments of my friends on the other side of this fight for the soul of Anglicanism? Except, of course, purely on the basis of personal friendship. And those bonds of affection don’t stand a chance in the heat of a church war.
David Handy+
David+
Good to hear of that connection – let’s try to connect via other means, too. Facebook? Twitter?
Darin+
Oops, I meant that’s [i] another [/i] thing we have in common.
But Fr. Darin, I suppose we should stop this little mutual admiration society or Greek Chorus thing we’ve got going here.
David Handy+
When one is on a crusade inconsitancies hardly matter. I think we would all do well to go back and reread Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Dr. Turner may have some things right, but he really doesn’t try to construct a credible progressive view. The argument is:
TEC wants to be inclusive of all.
X does not want to be inclusive.
TEC cannot, therefore, include X.
Therefore TEC is not really inclusive.
At least Dr. Turner is interesting on this point: progressivism leads to a constricted identity. It is worth exploring, but Turner doesn’t lead us into any fruitful direction. I think, for example, of the Dutch nationalists who want to circumscribe Islamic fundamentalists because it threatens the tradition of Dutch liberalism.
Further, the Anglican Communion had been a sect for many years. It was never the majority church in this country. It was always a niche church in the US.
It is unfortunate that progressives in TEC seem to emphasize mainly inclusion. There are better ways to critique some aspects of the the conservative position. It is enough just to assume some agnosticism about the priority of male-female intercourse in human relationships. After all, I don’t know many progressives who are denying the divinity of Christ. He doesn’t clarify what, exactly is at stake, and ends up with a caricature of a progressive position.
Dr. Turner has it right. CWOB is just ritualized table fellowship. Frankly, bad coffee and doughnuts in the Hall have more appeal.
frdarin and NRA, of course it is irrelevant to you, you have made your choice, and God bless you. But it is a relevant and germaine question for those of us who have stayed and who, for numerous and sundry reasons, do not view ACNA as a viable option for us at this time. The PB and many other progressives keep telling us that the TEC tent is big enough for us, when it is becoming increasingly manifest that this is not true.
[b]What reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Episcopalians to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church.[/b]
I like this question a great deal, and for reasons beyond that which Turner offers. Among my problems with liberal theology is that it doesn’t provide a sufficient reason for the church to exist. If the PB is right that Christ is just one way of many and that the real mission of the church is the MDGs why shouldn’t I just go join Rotary? And if the Spong’s of this world are right, then the entire existence of the church is a sham and our entire common life is a lie. If they’re right why stay and live a life of liturgical hypocrisy instead of spending our Sundays lying in fields trying to be One with the One or whatever the heck else we want to do?
Alta Californian,
No offense was intended toward you.
Sounds like you have a better answer to the question than you are likely to receive from any of the folks in TEC leadership.
God bless you.
Fr Darin+
No offense was taken. I’m just saying the question is more relevant to some than to others. NRA asked “Who is listening any more?” I just wanted to say “I am”, and perhaps other non-ACNA reasserters are.
I don’t know that we’ll get a good answer from TEC, but even if not, I still think it is good that the question is asked.
Regards,
Alta californian, you phrase an interesting question: and it depends really what a Traditional Anglican thinks is central to Traditional Anglicanism. I admit, I think the dichotomy of “traditional” vs “progressive” doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are competing traditions in scripture; and there is the critical inheritance we gain from the reformed tradition which is a part of “progressivism” or “liberal evangelicalism.” Some could argue that when someone says “traditional Anglicanism” they think white people or… British culture.
Let’s take a different view: the neighboring Episcopal church, for example, is a very traditional Anglo-Catholic congregation that is predominantly black. It is also very conservative, but has a few gay members. They say the creeds and prefer biblical sermons that focus on how God is changing the world for the better. They are in the Episcopal Church, and will choose to remain so. Why? Because they have strong relationships with bishops, other clergy, and the community as Episcopalians.
Perhaps for them the question is: why leave? In their parish nobody is making demands to become “inclusive.” They don’t believe that TEC has left Jesus.
John, I don’t think you have offered an answer to the question. Of course, you might argue that the question is a bad one from your point of view but it’s not yourself you are trying to persuade. I talked to a man on Sunday who said he would leave the Episcopal Church if General Convention passed resolutions approving same sex marriage. Why ought he to stay?
Joining this thread as a non TEC member (who therefore partially eavesdrops), and as a member of another province of the world-wide AC who has ministered in four provinces in three decades, I have to say two things up front:
1) Well; I am very interested – still. Because the Body of Christ is bleeding and it needs serious cauterization to stem the flow of blood. And 2) I have followed a good amount of Dr Turner’s writings over the past few years, and have a broad sympathy with his theological approach.
Thereafter, I have to also declare that I know first hand good folk on a number of sides of a number of fences in this “civil war†(David Handy) – as no doubt many in America do. [An aside: I have also been through one other military civil war, also with friends on all sides … From which there were, and are, never any [i]real[/i] ‘winners’ …] These include (within North America as a whole) friends who remain in TEC and other friends who have decided to embrace alternative ecclesial arrangements. And so, when I read this thread from where I stand, as one who presently still remains committed to the broad ‘Windsor Process’ – in hope; yes, “among the fragments†(Radner) – [b]I conclude that Dr Turner has an important feature of the struggle absolutely correct[/b]. There is a staggering hypocrisy, not to say, illogicality, in much of the stance and actions of TEC’s present leadership.
But I also wish to seriously ask: just who is going to dare blow the whistle and/or write upon the wall MENE, MENE, TEKEL and PARSIN? For as I read that chapter of Daniel, it needed a Jew – and a wise Jew at that! – in the very midst of Babylon to be there, in order to actually interpret what was upon that wall for the benefit of the blighted. Other Jews might have been elsewhere; and good on them! Let them rebuild other walls as they see fit (read: ACNA // Nehemiah). And as we all await (yes; one more jolly time …!) the results of the Covenant Working Group’s deliberations, I do reckon a serious form of whistle blowing will eventuate for the benefit of the wider Communion as we see the RCD take effect across the Provinces world-wide. For there are always a number of fronts in any war: stemming the flow of TEC’s bad blood overseas is one form of action, while proposing strategies and/or dealing with North American internecine haemorrhaging will provoke other forms of needful action – including theologizing.
You see folks; you are not alone in this strife! The broken fifth rib down is causing the stomach muscles pain; and it hurts when there’s the need to cough, as there’s another bout of flu going around! And so, as you strap up the abdo to assist the fifth rib’s healing, spare a thought for the immune system’s having to crank into gear to deal with the flu virus – for which action there’s always a time delay between the onset of infection and the immune system’s eventual mounting an adequate response. And I wager ACI’s support for the Covenant Process will prove such an “adequate response†in the fulness of time – on behalf of the Communion writ large. Although to be sure, to date, [i]on another front[/i], the so-called Instruments have proven woefully inadequate [i]within[/i] TEC, where “autonomy†rules, by and large. Yet there too a number of folk continue their weekly worship and ministries despite – not because of! – 815’s antics. A friend is rector of a large church that ‘remains’, under Jesus Christ’s singular rule.
RE: “I admit, I think the dichotomy of “traditional†vs “progressive†doesn’t make a lot of sense.”
Yes indeed — even though John Wilkins beautifully illustrates the stark divide between progressives and tradionalists in the Episcopal church, it’s always vexing to have the rhetorical lines so starkly drawn. Best to try to blur those difference if not in actual action or belief, at least in the deconstruction of the meaning of those words.
Some could argue that when someone says “traditional Anglicanism†they think white people or… British culture.
Then some people would be missing the substance for the culture.
In their parish nobody is making demands to become “inclusive.â€
May that long be the case for them, but will it? John, you really haven’t answered the question at all.
Art, I thank you for a thoughtful post that speaks to me.
Alta Californian, I just worked my way back up the thread and wow, you have really asked the hard question that is never answered.
Among my problems with liberal theology is that it doesn’t provide a sufficient reason for the church to exist. If the PB is right that Christ is just one way of many and that the real mission of the church is the MDGs why shouldn’t I just go join Rotary? And if the Spong’s of this world are right, then the entire existence of the church is a sham and our entire common life is a lie.
This is the dead end that revisionist theology leads to. The question that really should be posed then is why should anyone go to TEC? I say that as one still in the church, still struggling, but wondering how much longer I can do so.
Turner has hit the nail on the head, and i have to disagree with those who say this isn’t a relevant ‘tactical’ move. It’s precisely the best tactical move: The progressives are used to having no opposition at all, so they’re complacent with their own inconsistencies. Turner’s question drives a wedge of separation between being a supposedly ‘just’ church and being an inclusive church. You can’t be both just and inclusive. Merely raising the question in an open forum, such as the floor of a diocesan convention in a progressive or border-line diocese, will force the progressives to choose one or the other, and to come starkly face to face with the real absurdity of their churchmanship. For traditionalist churchmen in progressive environments, this is ammo to the foxholes, a smooth stone to the sling against the progressive giant that has made it very difficult to quibble with the slogan “All are Welcome” – even when we know that’s code for “progressives only please – opposition need not apply.”
I meet Roman Catholics who wonder why they should stay in the church. But a close RC friend gave me the answer: “it’s my family. Our American culture teaches us to abandon one another, and I think the Catholic church provides an alternative to that. I have my own beliefs and conscience, but I’m a Roman Catholic. It’s a church I love.” He had the maturity to recognize that, although he is a progressive in the Catholic church, the institution was far more than the total of his disagreements. I admire that view.
Another reason is that – if progressive churches are dying, in the fullness of time, the land, the endowments, and the authority will be left to those traditionalists who remained. Leaving means progressives are less likely to be held accountable.
I admit if someone is leaving ONLY because of same-sex marriage rather than, say, someone preaching against the doctrine of the trinity, then they probably don’t have much of a reason to stay – because that is how they define Christianity. I would hope that our faith is strong enough that we can still engage each other.
It is a product of liberalism that we think we should choose our denomination and move from one sect to another. Perhaps in some way, we are all truly liberals now, rather than Catholics.
When Phil Turner writes “It is enough to say that their argument will work only if communion excludes common belief and practice but focuses instead on cooperation in good works and mutual aid, surely he jests. The common belief and practice among members of the Episcopal Church include fidelity to the Book of Common Prayer, the historic Creeds of the Church, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, a sacramental theology as well as a denomination-long practice of comprehensiveness. Our “good works and mutual aid” does not identify us — it is an outgrowth of our commitment to the life, witness, teaching and inspiration of Jesus Christ. Is that out of date for Fr. Turner?
Phil Turner’s recent theological musings seem cut off from the life stream of the Episcopal Church — gone is a sense of comprehensiveness, sacramental theology, an understanding of religious language as that of belief, of metaphor and discernment. In its place is, regrettably, an incipient authoritarianism and quasi- fundamentalism that is alien to our tradition. Time would be better spent being honest about the shift and his reasons for departing from Episcopal Church traditions rather than mischaracterizing the church.
#18 and #20 —
Good posts, both. Read together, they demonstrate the difficulty many of us face and have faced.
Of course, I can’t claim to have taken any kind of virtuous path in this regard. My most recent ECUSA parish (and I am still on their books) is sinking into an examplar of much that is wrong with ECUSA today. I don’t think other parishes in my county are much better off (although for different reasons). I have visited RC parishes, an orthodox parish (Antiochian) and a LCMS congregation. In each of them, I find a glimmer, but, so far, none of them feels like home. The ECUSA, with all its faults, felt like home (although less so with each exposure to “creative liturgy”).
But, of course, I had to ask why it felt like home. And that was because I was drawn to parishes that reflected Anglo American culture. In other words, I was a cultural Espiscopalian, and, as a Christian, was drawn to the expression of Christianity within the context of Anglo American culture.
Well, Anglo American culture is frayed, or fraying. The ECUSA, in its worship of “diversity” reflects less Anglo American culture, and more “multi-cuturalism.” And, as many more knowledgable about theology than I have commented on this forum, its Christian identity may be coming more attenuated.
So, since I can’t answer to my own satisfaction the question “Why be an Espiscopalian,” and I could not see inviting any friend to a service at my old parish, I stopped going. The ECUSA was like family, but some families do fall apart. When that happens, its sad, but it does happen.
Again, those things don’t amount to much in the way of a reason to stay, John. Is that the best you can come up with? I have family. I have friends. Isn’t church supposed to be more than that? And are you seriously suggesting that a motive for staying should be waiting for revisionists to die out? (And to be clear, I don’t define Christianity by homosexual issues but theological ones.)
Alta Californian (#10), art (#15), and others still in TEC,
I’m in a calmer mood today, and would like to assure all orthodox Christians still in TEC who may read this thread that, like Fr. Darin, I understand that Philip Tfurner’s cogent essay may be very relevant for them, and an encouragement or source of practical help for many of the fellow parishioners and friends they know and care about. I freely grant that there are many possible reasons for remaining within TEC, and we all have our own set of constraints and conflicting tugs in various directions.
My frustration is not with those reamin on board the Titanic out of a desire to help save others. I was expressing my frustration with the ACI leaders, who continue to advocate an approach to this church civil war that amounts to a mere rear guard action, or so it seems to me. And I am sick of merely defensive actions. I’d rather launch a bold counter-attack.
And that requires ACTIONS that put TEC’s leaders on the defensive, not mere words. My frustration is that the ACI/CP leaders seem unwilling to back up their brave words with sufficiently brave and radical actions. But despite occasional outbrusts of keen disappointment in them such as I expressed so clearly early in this thread, I’ve largely come to accept the fact that they feel a different calling than I do as to their role in this fight for the soul of Anglicanism and western culture. And that’s OK. They continue to serve a vital purpose, and they’re doing so with distinction, dedication, and great skill.
David Handy|
David+, I don’t think this piece is passive. Don’t you wonder why no one is really answering it?
Good grief! You’ve at least replied to the Rev’d Dr Turner’s question this time. These aren’t your words, but I think are a fair summary of your reasoning, “If you disagree with the Episcopal Church and argue that the theology of human sexuality is a first order issue (as in the tradition of the church) and think the Episcopal Church’s stance on human sexuality is in error, then you will have little reason to stay a member of the Episcopal Church”.
It’s severe but I actually respect it much more than all the “inclusivity” rhetoric.
[blockquote]But a close RC friend gave me the answer: “it’s my family.[/blockquote]
John, I don’t know if this is more sad or pitiful. I became an Anglican half a lifetime ago because I believed that Anglicanism was that branch of the Reformation churches that most closely approximated Reformed Catholicism. TEC no longer has any resemblance whatsoever to Reformed Catholicism, and nineteenth century Liberal Protestantism in post-modern dress is certainly not “my family.” I have no interest in it . . . whatsoever.
A self-identified progressive, and a regular participant on T19 for a number of years now, is so incapable of understanding what really motivates orthodox Anglicans that he cannot get beyond suggesting that it has something to do with “white people” and “British culture.” And he suggests that people like me should think about staying in TEC because what has never been in any sense “my family” has managed a hostile takeover of the institution, so completely transformed it that it is no longer even a bad caricature, but presumably we should hang around for memories of something that used to be, but simply exists no longer.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I mean this to be a serious question to #20.
1. Conservatives are to stay so that if progressive adjustments of anglicanism fail, they can retain the property? Do you mean this?
2. Conservatives should stay because TEC is home and they serve a purpose of ‘checking’ progressives? Is this your view?
3. Do you believe that those in power in TEC at present mean to find genuine space for those who will not out of conviction embrace the SSB agenda? What evidence is there for that? The point of Turner’s citing the ‘justice’ logic is that ‘justice’ logic is, in the nature of the case, bent on justice all the way down. It cannot tolerate exceptions. Do you believe otherwise?
I do not intend this comment for speculation about why some conservatives stay and what they are doing to fight for space to survive, via the Communion and in other means. That is another topic. ACNA-ites have of course chosen a way they believe will work and one can only wish them well; this is no longer their central concern, if ever it was.
My question is directed to #20 and the logic of progressive liberalism. Is it Locke or Rousseau? Laissez-faire post modernism (let everyone have space to believe as they wish) or universal truths that need to be enforced?
I don’t know whether I can phrase a reply in a way that would satisfy most “progressive Episcopalians,” but since I am one myself I’ll take a stab at it.
Dr. Turner does in fact make a cogent point. If full LGBT inclusion is seen as a justice issue — and most of us on the “progressive” side do see it that way — then it must follow that our tolerance for injustice (as we see it) must be sharply limited. Those on the “traditional” side would of course act the same for any matter they agreed was a matter of justice.
This means that “space” granted for practices that are opposed to justice (let’s take the rider “as we see it” as given for the remainder of this comment) must indeed be temporary and, if granted, granted for strategic reasons. Dr. Turner is quite right in this conclusion. But, again, this is not progressive duplicity; this is required by the logic of anything that is taken to be a justice issue.
I question, however, his conclusion that this will inevitably turn the church into a “niche” church rather than a “catholic” churth. The orthodox church that is the dream of “traditional Episcopalians,” the church in which heresy and “strange teachings” are forbidden to take root, is no less exclusive than that which we progressives are accused of creating; but Dr. Turner seems unconcerned that this would create a niche church.
I will also point out that the position which reasserters are being forced into in TEC, one in which they are (grudgingly) permitted to believe as they like but are forbidden to put those beliefs into practice, is exactly the position that the “compromise” of the Windsor Report asked progressives to submit to. The truth is that the matters in tension (expressed as justice on one hand and doctrinal orthodoxy on the other) are so primary that neither side is prepared to grant the other much “space,” and certainly not forever.
One might turn Dr. Turner’s question around: if the traditional Episcopalians won, what reason would a progressive have for remaining a member of the Episcopal Church? What “space” would be permitted, what “broadness” tolerated, in that hypothetical orthodox regime?
But that would not be to speak to the heart of Dr. Turner’s question: “What reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Episcopalians to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church?” The only answer I can give is: I don’t know. I don’t know because I don’t know what brought you to this church in the first place, or what caused you to remain. I hope it was because you found in this church a way to follow God, and really that’s the only reason anyone should be a member of any church.
I can say that for me, I am a member of TEC because there really is no other church for me. I can’t convert to the Roman Catholic Church because the RCC and I disagree on some key points, mostly having to do with human sexuality, and I could never honestly say that I submitted to their teaching. I can’t be Lutheran or Presbyterian because I am at heart not Reformed. I can’t go to most of the other Protestant churches because their sacramental theology is too low. For me, it’s pretty much Anglicanism or nothing.
Which is why I can sympathize with Dr. Turner, because if the political situation were reversed and it were the reasserters who were winning in TEC, then I would be the one seeing the church in which I grew up turning into something I could not, in conscience, be part of… and yet having nowhere else to go. And that is a terrible place to be.
So I wish, I really do, that I could say to Dr. Turner, “Don’t worry, there will always be a place within TEC for you; a place wherein the teaching and the practice will conform to those doctrines that you cannot compromise.” But I believe — just as strongly as Dr. Turner believes the opposite — that some of those doctrines are wrong, and cause needless suffering, and are opposed to God. And so, in the end, we cannot grant that space… any more than you could grant the opposite space to us, if our positions were reversed.
I wish it were otherwise. But it is not.
if the political situation were reversed and it were the reasserters who were winning in TEC, then I would be the one seeing the church in which I grew up turning into something I could not, in conscience, be part of… and yet having nowhere else to go. And that is a terrible place to be.
Yes, it is. For me, too, it is pretty much Anglicanism or nothing. It is a sad thing to have come to this pass.
The orthodox church that is the dream of “traditional Episcopalians,†the church in which heresy and “strange teachings†are forbidden to take root, is no less exclusive than that which we progressives are accused of creating; but Dr. Turner seems unconcerned that this would create a niche church.
It would create a Christian church. Which is what TEC looks less and less like – and I’m not talking about sexual issues when I say that. It’s saddest of all, I think, that we could share so much, Ross, but that communion between us seems increasingly impossible.
Thank you for your thoughtful post – though it tells me, in essence, that I don’t belong to the church that I call “home” anymore.
Ross I want to thank you for your clarity of thought and expression. The truth is that both parties have come to see this is a first order matter (and its disingenuous to pretend otherwise – such as when folks ask why are the conservatives so obsessed with sex). So that in the long term there is unlikely to be a much space for the “losing” view within the Episcopal church. I think perhaps one part of the Rev’d Dr. Turner’s point is that TEC has pursued this logic fairly persistently at home, and argued against it in the Communion. Is there any theological principle at work here – beyond the desire to move forward with the justice agenda?
Charity might encourage the national leadership to say such things in public and to the Communion. But as such charity might inhibit the justice agenda, which is the overriding goal, it seems unlikely.
For me as a conservative, wholeheartedly loyal to the Episcopal church, but in disagreement with the justice agenda the task is to bear witness to the cost and continue to point to the path not taken.
FWIW I do want to add that conservatives did, unwisely in retrospect, live together with those who disagreed according to the old “gentlemen’s rules”. So they granted plenty of space to those who were in the 70s and 80s in a minority within the church advocating what has now become the church’s justice agenda. Bishops who ordained gay clergy were not in fact put on trial, same sex partnered clergy were not accused of abandoning the Communion of this church, vestries were not removed from office etc. One might say they were simply unprepared to take the steps taken by the progressives now they have the reigns of power.
#2 NRA,
” But who in the world is listening anymore??”
A good number of Anglicanism’s next generation of laity, priests and scholars who have been inspired by the witness, integrity and faithfulness with which the members of ACI have patiently and convincingly made their biblical, theological and historical arguments.
Re # 20 and the line about “staying because it’s familyâ€; and to reinforce the questions of # 28 Seitz., etc.
I have to acknowledge, firstly, the facts on the ground since the Reformation that there has been in the Western Church an assumed tripartite division: between the invisible Church and the visible Church, and again between the visible Church and those various organizations who call themselves churches. But that does not mean I have to ‘tolerate’ anything less than the Creed’s declaration of “one holy catholic and apostolic Churchâ€. On the contrary, the Creed makes all of us, who so readily assume our contemporary mentality of consumerism applied to church groups, seriously guilty. Hence the strong call in [i]The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity: In One Body through the Cross[/i] (2003) to repent of such a cultural mind-set, which quite simply conforms to ‘the world’.
I say all this again quite simply to answer the question , Why Stay? Because that’s where God has put one! Period! Nothing else is quite robust enough in my view. Two things arise, the one positive, the other negative. [b]Ecumenical endeavours are of the essence[/b]; all Christians are beholden to work on as many fronts as they are able to heal the wounds of the broken Body of Christ. The likes of John 17 and the Creeds prompt such a call. Secondly, when one finds oneself in such a position as Dr Turner’s, we are also beholden to speak out. And yes; strategizing towards forms of concrete action we deem appropriate is the corollary – but that does not upstage straight forward theological speech of the likes now of Dr Turner’s ACI post. Strongly pointing out the sheer “illogicality†(my own description in #15 above) of an alternative deemed position is itself a form of action. And, to use a military metaphor, throwing such well fashioned grenades into appropriate forums is especially a form of action. For justice is indeed justice all the way down – or nothing at all but a sheer power grab. Augustine has clearly taught us that; even as the likes of MacIntyre have also shown there are [i]differing grammars[/i] re justice – which should give many a so-called “progressive†serious pause for thought! Yet the Gospel is surely NOT such a grab; or so Rom 1:16 would indicate. And I note this is Paul’s own grenade into the then supreme capital of power that sought its very own form of “salvationâ€!
Still very interested …
Professor Witt,
I admit, blogging doesn’t allow us to be very precise about language. I find the word “liberal” to be troubling in all but the thinnest sense. I prefer “reformed” and Catholic, myself, but I think we have different ideas of what identifies as both. I know we disagree about Schleiermacher, for example. I also hope I won’t be as casual about using the word “post-modern” – which seems to be more descriptive than normative. I admit, I’m don’t have the theology degrees, so I don’t usually understand your arguments. They seem to be that “tradition is always like so and we can’t change tradition. Liberals are decadent and want to change tradition, which God hates. And the bible.”
Professor Seitz:
1. If God wants conservative churches to grow and liberal churches to die, I would expect that traditionalist Episcopalians would think a bit more strategically. In my opinion they are quite reactive. Every time GC moves or makes a theological decision, conservatives react. They do not plan. The fact is that liberal churches are dying. I think smart conservatives could make a place within the church if they weren’t so easily offended. God is going to win in the end, anyways. At least, that what scripture implies.
2. Since I think that “liberals” often do not understand the conservative view, I think that a righteous and justified position would be one that takes missionary activity to liberal Christians seriously. It’s not an easy road, but if the conservative position is true, then it will live beyond the ages.
3. I do believe otherwise, because I think the issue is leadership and not theology. Some people think that all follows from good theology, but I don’t see a lot of evidence for that. Personally, I think there is a credible place for a happy medium, but it will nonetheless discard the notion of gay people being defective. It would stem from the historically orthodox blessing of friendship.
Well, Seitz: I’m pleased that you would engage using some common literature. It wouldn’t, however, be Locke or Rousseau. Neither everything goes/”post-modernism” or “universal rules” seems to describe what is going on, exactly.
I don’t quite understand what you are asking. I don’t think a liberal can credibly say that “anything goes”.” Nor does it seem that scripture itself sees most rules as “universal.” It’s a bit more challenging and nuanced than that, right?
Insofar as our technology has altered geography and time, we are all in a “post-modern” world. I don’t see this as moral or immoral. It is, however, a change. I think there is a problem with “laizzez-faire” but, heh, due to our political alliances, I doubt you’ll get very far down that angle unless you challenge your supporters.
Personally, Professor, I believe until you guys confront liberal high “post-modern” capitalism, you are going to go nowhere. I’ve seen little coherent theological thought on the conservative side about the real relationship of sexual decadence with the market and economic imperialism, aside from some astute Catholics.
eg:
http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2009/05/abortion-and-catholic-culture.html
As long as the merits of a commercial society are proclaimed to be the greatest source of meaning for all humanity, orthodox Christianity is going to find itself disabled. Its strongest critique would be of our current system of arrangements, that rewards all sorts of unfettered desire. Capitalism.
#29 asks whether progressives would leave the Episcopal Church if reasserters “won.” I believe the answer is clear: for over sixty years the “reasserter” position won on matters of full inclusion in the Episcopal Church. What did the progressives do? Did they moan and groan and villify the majority (as is happening from the reasserter camp)? No, they did not. We were in the Episcopal Church for the long term and we believed that in God’s good time the core of our Gospel values would prevail — and we pledged ourselves to active waiting.
There are few progressives for whom full inclusion is a justice issue. If you read what we write — on The Episcopal Majority, Preludium and other blogs and in our publications — you will have noticed that the issue for us has to do with what we believe is the overwhelming witness of Scripture as well as being faithful to the life, teaching and witness of Jesus Christ to God’s inclusive love. I fail to understand how Chris Seitz, William Witt and others continue to miss this — unless they are really arguing from what is for them a pre-ordained conclusion.
Given the choice between the Anglican Church Institute with its ties to such organizations as the Institute for Religion and Democracy and the Episcopal Church Institute with its ties to traditional understandings of Biblical authority and interpretation, it is difficult to give much credence to Turner, Seitz, Armstrong and Radner.