Anaheim does not mean that the Episcopal Church is now a unified whole. There will be those who will want to boldly press forward and those who believe that now that things are settled it is time to rest for a bit. New fractures and caucuses will develop along a political continuum of those who remain. There will be fights over gender and power language in the development of new liturgies. Heated discussions will arise over the permanence and the number of partners to a marriage. (No, I’m not trying to say something flippant or sensational. It’s a discussion that’s already happening and, I think, a quite logical one if you accept some of the basic premises I’ve tried to sketch out above.) Contextual theologians and their more traditional counterparts will continue to wrestle over the boundaries of interfaith dialogue.
As the Episcopal Church lives more fully into its search for radical inclusion and deep engagement with the multiple cultures from which it draws its members it is highly unlikely that TEC will be a dull place. Those who previously thought of themselves as holding the middle ground will find themselves to be the new right of the church. Many who prided themselves on being progressive will suddenly find themselves to be the new voices of moderation.
I expect that for the next year or more the action will move to the international stage where the global Anglican Communion will wring its hands over what to do about the Episcopal Church. Don’t expect much of consequence. While the majority of the Anglican provinces in the developing world are opposed to TEC’s stands on a variety of issues, TEC has its supporters in Canada, South Africa, New Zeeland, Japan, Brazil, Scotland, Wales, and large sections of the churches in England and Australia. There may never again be a Lambeth Conference where everyone gathers together at one altar, but TEC will remain an important part of a truly global fellowship of one sort or another.
[blockquote]Heated discussions will arise over the permanence and the number of partners to a marriage. (No, I’m not trying to say something flippant or sensational. It’s a discussion that’s already happening and, I think, a quite logical one if you accept some of the basic premises I’ve tried to sketch out above.)[/blockquote]He’s right. Once we cut loose from traditional marriage, logical consequences follow.
I think this man is very insightful and expect his analysis to prove prophetic for both TEC and the ACNA.
(the “book club and college campus” comment alone is juicy with delicious connotation, while the comment about the ACNA “recreating the Episcopal church of 1989” drips with a more unsavory truth.)
First of all, could the elves please correct this man’s name: He is Br Stephen, of the Order of Cistercians — ‘Stephen, O.Cist” His surname is not “Cist.” Thanks.
He identifies his purpose as explaining Progressive Episcopalians to those who do not know them. IHe accomplishes this goal quite well. However, in the process of doing this, he says:
“From the time of the Elizabethan Settlement, there have been a large number of formidable broad church thinkers who have believed that Anglicanism is a Reformed tradition, confident that in the Anglican via media, unfortunate doctrinal and disciplinary accretions have been stripped away and that God-given reason gives men and women the competence to confront and engage with changing circumstances in every generation. These reappraisers, to use the term coined by Kendal Harmon, grounded in the classic Protestant heritage and the confidence of the Enlightenment, at last have a church that speaks largely with their voice and is able to move proactively.”
Later he identifies the roots of Anglicanism to be essentially shaped by English Enlightenment optimism and Pelagianism. The pre-Reformation “Garden of the Soul” spirituality did set the stage for an optimistic view of the human person, but it did also include the necessity of weeding the garden. For Br Stephen Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are just temporary blips on the radar who have always been interlopers in the Anglican enterprise.
While this monk knows a lot about Anglican history and ethos, I don’t think his assessment is altogether accurate.
The Anglican Divines of the 18th century were deeply, passionately dedicated to locating and living “True Religion.” The Via Media was not just a matter of “scraping away unfortunate accretions, in Br Stephen’s words, but of bringing the best of Catholic sacramental life in line with the preaching of the Evangel. Perhaps the broad church strain gained the upper hand at times — and this is apparently one of those times in TEC — but it is not the defining group within the anglican way. The Wesleys and the Oxford Movement are painted as temporary aberrations in this article. I think it could well be argued that they [i]are[/i] the essence of the Anglican way.
Reason was to be used to demonstrate the Truth and application of Holy Scripture, not run away into a blind acceptance of whatever current culture dishes up.
From the point of view of a monk in a Roman Catholic monastery, and an ex-Anglican at that, perhaps we do look like a nice Sunday morning club house for the aesthetically minded.
I would hope that this thread could explore more fully our spiritual and theological richness in answer to this very reductionist article.
Well, I am one of that “large bloc of Anglo Catholics” who is now extremely glad to have left TEC with our bishop and diocese, and to have joined with so many thousands of other like-minded conservatives in rebuilding Anglican Christianity in North America. Will we replace TEC? Who knows? That’s Christ’s choice……not ours.
[blockquote]Those who previously thought of themselves as holding the middle ground will find themselves to be the new right of the church. Many who prided themselves on being progressive will suddenly find themselves to be the new voices of moderation.[/blockquote]
Is SFIF’s [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/680]Greg Griffith[/url] also numbered among the prophets?
In short, Episcopalians who are tired of the recent Wars of Religion will build a Broad-Church institution that hates conflict and “enthusiasm” as much as did the Latitudinarian Anglican Establishment that emerged from the 17th-century Wars of Religion.
As then, those who cannot abide this sort of lukewarm religion will leave the Establishment and join the dissenters (then, it was the spiritual descendants of the Papal Recusants, Puritans, and Radical Reformation; now, it may be the ACNA). Eventually, another reform movement like 18th-century Evangelicalism or 19th-century Anglo-Catholicism will come along to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
#3 paragraph 6, I meant to say: “Caroline Divines.”
Is Broad Church the real root of the Anglican Communion? I think this should be disputed.
This is a very challenging description of the future. I understand that there are significant historical interpretations with which to disagree. I am however interested in thought about his predictions for the future. Anyone?
Lumen Christie, I agree completely that this article describes only the “Broad Church” as the essence of Anglicanism: this omits the glories of Anglicanism, from Cranmer through the Wesleys and the Oxford Movement to C. S. Lewis and many others. It takes the worst of the church (the Enlightenment dross) for the whole. I did find significant insights in the article, but I thought its perspective was strangely limited and skewed. If this is how Bro. Stephen saw Anglicanism, no wonder he left it.