But the Church must change if it is to survive, adapting its understanding and message so that it remains compelling in changed circumstances to modern people. I actually believe that lack of central authority in the Anglican Communion is one of its strengths, as the autonomy of individual churches provides the freedom to experiment with doctrine and liturgy without the entire Communion’s having to endorse it. (A loose Communion structure also gives churches unsympathetic to innovation credible deniability when confronted with complaints about innovations elsewhere in the communion.) As I said in “Saving Anglicanism,”
Is it not as likely that catastrophic conflict can be avoided””as it has been avoided for the past three centuries””not by getting more engaged in one another’s business, but by becoming more tolerant and less engaged? To interpret the current conflict in psychological terms, the Episcopal Church did not make traditionalists unhappy, they chose to be unhappy. They could have made a different choice. Perhaps the salvation of the Anglican Communion lies in less communication, less consultation, and less caring for one another.
This is really the only way forward that I can see if both the Anglican Communion and the integrity of the churches of the Communion are to be preserved.
I hope, then, that the General Convention will adopt a strategy that preserves the ability of The Episcopal Church to live out the Gospel as we understand God’s call to us in 21st-century America. This is a higher goal than preserving peace within the Anglican Communion or even than preserving the Anglican Communion itself.
Great idea – “the Church must change if it is to survive, adapting its understanding and message so that it remains compelling in changed circumstances to modern people.”
Look, it’s clear modern Americans want to know how to make more money, we want to be affirmed in our behavior – I mean, really, really, Oprah-style affirmed – we want to be titillated by a lot of scandal and celebrity, we want every kind of sexual adventurism to be celebrated, or, at least, not judged – yes, I think ECUSA is really going to get great results if it makes itself over in that image. And how Christian that would be!
But the Church must change if it is to survive, adapting its understanding and message so that it remains compelling in changed circumstances to modern people.
This mantra has been chanted forever, accompanied by cratering membership and attendance numbers, financial decline, and decreased cultural relevance. At what point are these snake-oil salesmen going to be seen for they are?
All Arius wanted to do is to understand the person of Jesus in his context as he understood it. That was more important than perserving the Church Catholic. All Nestor wanted to do was the same. In fact all the great heretics of Church History only wanted the freedom to express their experience of God as opposed to submitting to what the Body of Christ taught.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I have two comments to make:
1. this is sheer apostasy: as clearly there is no revelation and, by implication, no God in this man’s rendition of Christianity
2. whatever “the Church” he is speaking about may be it is certainly not the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” in which those who recite the Nicene Creed profess to believe. (Perhaps it is “The Church” of a Creed which alters the “Holy Ghost” in its preceding clause to the “Zeitgeist.”)
It is strange to say this, as it should be so obvious. Perhaps the pan of slowly-heating water in which “the Episcopalian frog” has been sitting unawares for so long has finally boiled over.
The salvation of the Anglican Communion lies in “less caring for one another”. Could this be that “Western heresy” KJS was talking about?
OK – if he really asserts this from thelogical principle (rather than grabbing at anything that may further the Episcopal Church’s current agenda), let’s see him argue for the same policy within Provinces.
Paul clearly recognized that problem that false teachers created for the church. He did not appreciate their point of view or offer dialogue. But then that was just like Paul.
“To interpret the current conflict in psychological terms, the Episcopal Church did not make traditionalists unhappy, they chose to be unhappy.”
Why does this sound so much like the old saw that abusers use
“it’s her own fault, if she did not act that way I would not have to hit her.” or we also have the classic “He just wasn’t giving me what I need to grow so I found someone else” to justify adultry.
I suppose I would be choosing to be unhappy if I was to weep, wail, throw things and raise a major ruckus should I see my husband walking into our bedroom with a prostitute. He on the other hand would simply be exploring our marriage in the modern context of sexual freedom and new understandings of biological imperitives to park the car in as many garages as possible. Truly I would have no grounds for complaint. Rather I should rejoice in this ability to grow into his authentic self. Which better have money for an authentic divorce lawyer.
I suppose he is one of those who think God changes too….or that God needs to change in order to be relevant. The hubris of such thinking is just beyond comprehension.
Tell me again who are the schismatics.
Well, them, Mr Deimel, why don’t you just come right out and say that your Church has left the Anglican Communion? C’mon…..be honest for once!
While I agree, of course, with all those above who have sharply criticized Lionel Deimel’s essay, I think Deimel’s position is expressed with admirable clarity and calmness. He’s wrong, terribly wrong, in his basic assumptions about the relationship of the Church to the world, and the desirability of allowing the AC to degenerate into a very loose federation of completely autonomous provinces with no accountability between them. But he’s stated his reasons for thinking as he does without hiding behind ambiguous phrases or indulging in shrill denunciations of his conservative opponents or ad hominem attacks.
Essentially, Deimel has capitulated to the relativitic spirit of the age and adopted a [i] “Well, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” [/i] strategy. He’s desperate to appease Christianity’s “cultured despisers” (to use Schliermacher’s term). Liberal Protestants have been trying that futile strategy for over 200 years, but it hasn’t worked. Appeasement rarely does. The intelligensia and those who pride themselves on being enlightened and sophisticated continue to despise Christianity, and the liberal denominations are withering away.
“Progressives” like Deimel follow the example of Neville Chamberlain rather than Jesus Christ. And thus they accomplish the remarkable reverse miracle of turning wine into water, and trading the pearl of great price for a bunch of worldly trinkets and accolades.
David Handy+
Thanks Fr,. David – I agree with all that you have written. But I have a nagging feeling that the posture is simply tactical. If the TEC progressives thought they might “win” at the Communion level they would be arguing for the right of the Communion to take positive action against “intruders” (and so forth). (Indeed they have tried to argue for such as and when it suited). There is clearly an ecclesiological defecit/incoherence within Anglicanism concerning the ecclesiological status of the Province. (Stephen Sykes identified this 30 and more years ago). Of course it arises out of the ad hoc internationalization of the Church of England and the claim to ecclesial national independence that flowed out of the English reformation and its legal enactment. The opportunity the current crisis offers is to continue to move beyond that history and bring ecclesial coherence to the fact of the Communion. (Indeed the development of the Communion over the last century and more is towards greater coherence). One might see both the Covenant and FCA as attempts to move towards a more coherent Anglican ecclesial international unity.
Of course, the alternative is, so to say, to blow up the bridges, and attempt to undo the development of the Communion over the last 150 years. Sadly some progressives in TEC seem minded to press down on the plunger.
driver8 (#12),
Well, let me return the compliment and say that I fully agree with you. Only let me add that the fateful assertion of the national autonomy of churches without any international accountability that resulted from the Act of Supremacy of 1534 and all its aftermath in Anglicanism is part and parcel of the Constantinian, Christendom nature of the kind of Anglicanism we’ve known up until now.
And that’s one of the reasons why I keep harping on the need to move beyond that stage and to evolve into a whole new post-Erastian, post-Christendom kind of Anglicanism. And that’s why I keep arguing that we simply are forced, willy-nilly, whether we like it or not (and of course, mostly we don’t) to begin developing some centralized, transprovincial structures that can hold worldwide Anglicanism together, such as the “Anglican Supreme Court” I keep calling for. For clearly, the real danger we face is NOT some kind of Roman style tyranny, but a very Protestant style anarchy.
Since I’m often very critical of the noble ACI scholars here at T19, let me give credit where credit is due and freely acknowledge that they have done some wonderful work in calling attention to why the kind of position Lionel Deimel has set forth so boldly is completely unacceptable. I’m thinking especially of Philip Turner and Ephraim Radner’s fine book, [b] The Fate of Communiion [/b].
Confessional groups like the Lutheran World Fellowship can accept a mere loose federation of national bodies partly because they have those credal bonds to keep them together to a significant degree. We don’t have that as Anglicans, and so adopting that same strategy is even more deadly for us.
Bottom line: it is of the essence of the Church to be ONE, as well as holy, catholic, and apostolic. And the whole federation approach is fundamentally incompatible with the kind of VISIBLE unity that the Church is called to manifest.
And BTW, I thought your #5 was brilliant, driver8. As usual, you pierced right to the heart of the issue, and nailed it.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Oops, the LWF should be the Lutheran World Federation, of course.
And let me clarify that in saying above that Anglicanism isn’t confessional, I didn’t mean that it’s not confessional at all, but just that it’s not marked by clear doctrinal boundaries in the way that the Lutherans, Presbyterians, or Catholics are. Hence our need for stronger bonds of other sorts, both in terms of liturgy and polity.
As a part of the FCA, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (through the ACNA) I fully support the move to reassert or recover more of a confessional basis for Anglicanism. I just don’t think the old Reformation era 39 Articles can suffice for that, and a new creed will have to be developed that does justice to the hybrid nature of Anglicanism as both evangelical and catholic, and hopefully allowing room for the whole charismatic dimension of biblical Christianity too.
That is, when the Lambeth Quadrilateral states that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds are [i] “the sufficient [/i] statement of the Christian faith,” I think that begs the questions, well, sufficient for what?? And if the answer to that question is, sufficient for maintaining the doctrinal boundaries of the Anglican or Christian church, I must firmly and emphatically disagree. The present crisis in Anglicanism proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that those two ancient creeds are NOT sufficient for keeing Anglicanism orthodox.
David Handy+