Liberals in the Church of England declared war on conservatives including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams tonight.
Condemning as “flawed” Dr Williams’s recent declaration that the way forward lay in a “twin-track” Anglican Communion, liberals revealed plans to bring in same-sex blessings and gay ordination in England, as has happened in the Episcopal Church in the US.
Their strategy will be to attempt to win the General Synod, the Church’s governing body currently dominated by evangelicals, over to the liberal cause. The opportunity will come next year when the quinquennial elections for a new synod are due.
Liberals from organisations such as Inclusive Church, set up and led by Giles Fraser, the new canon chancellor of St Paul’s, and the long-established Modern Churchpeople’s Union, will attempt to win key seats throughout the Church’s 44 dioceses in what look likely to be the hardest fought elections since the synod came into being in 1970 and which could turn into a battle for the soul of the established Church.
They’ve been at war with the faithful for years – I’m glad they finally came out of the closet and admitted this is what they are doing.
[blockquote]…conservatives including the Archbishop of Canterbury…[/blockquote]
I actually laughed out loud at that one.
Rowan Williams has only himself to blame for this. Sin now has a politically zealous constituency in the CoE to go along with that of TGC and the ACoC. Left untreated, the gangrene has spread.
The headline is absolutely tragic. We know they are Christians by [/i]their declaration of war[/i]. Lord have mercy.
You know Jeffersonian, I don’t think Rowan Williams could stop this. This developing schism was actually caused by the departure of the conservative churches in the US. It’s like a capsizing boat. The more people left the farther and farther the boat tilts until so many have left that the boat capsizes. Now the ones to blame for capsizing the boat are the ones that broke the delicate balance that kept the boat at even keel.
Jeffersonian: It’s true – if you play with snakes, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get bitten. The sad thing is that Rowan Williams could have made this so much easier on himself, the Church of England and the Anglican Communion if he would have shown a bit of leadership earlier on. But his repeated appeasement of the liberals has led to their having utter contempt for his leadership.
aldenjr – all that RW had to do back in 2003 was to exclude VGR’s consecrators and those bishops permitting SSB’s from the councils of the Anglican Communion. But he didn’t do that. Then he could have kept to the DAR agreement. But he didn’t do that. Time and again, he has cut TEC and its liberal allies slack, while making tut-tutting comments. You can only tut-tut without doing anything for so long before folks realize that you aren’t going to do anything. Had TEC’s bishops knew that voting to permit SSB’s and ordain active GLBT’s as bishops had real consequences, they wouldn’t have voted that way. The liberals know that RW is completely incapable of providing any leadership, and that he will simply get in the way of real leaders such as Bishops Wright and Nazir-Ali.
Thank you, James, I couldn’t have said it better. Williams didn’t sow this fiasco, but he definitely nurtured and cared for it lovingly. Now he reaps the whirlwind, the harvest of his fecklessness and perfidy.
4. aldenjr wrote:
[blockquote]This developing schism was actually caused by the departure of the conservative churches in the US. It’s like a capsizing boat. The more people left the farther and farther the boat tilts until so many have left that the boat capsizes. Now the ones to blame for capsizing the boat are the ones that broke the delicate balance that kept the boat at even keel.[/blockquote]
And what caused “the conservative churches in the US” to leave?
The further the “liberals” pushed their new religion, the more “conservatives” were excluded, until there was no point in their remaining. It was demonstrated over an over that evangelicals and catholics would not be tolerated in the new TEC. Ultimately they would have to either leave or be driven out. That was already happening in four catholic dioceses over the ordination of women. It is coming to the Communion Partners dioceses over the GLBT agenda. In addition to parishes and whole dioceses leaving the new TEC, legions more were leaving one-by-one.
aldenjr #4: I comment using your own analogy. It is better to abandon ship while you can still be able to swim to shore.
aldenjr [#4] writes:
Another way to look at it: Many of the people who had been forcing the steering wheel all the way to the right have jumped ship — so now the vessel might actually be able to travel someplace useful, instead of going around in circles.
A very intelligent comment over at Midwest Conservative Journal points out that if Rowan had taken steps (accept the Primates’ Meetings statements, remove people not in compliance with the Lambeth resolution of 1998 from international gatherings), he might not now be fighting this battle in this strength on his home turf. You reap what you sow.
I am sure that the concerns about border crossings and incursions will be discovered to have a “profound” reference in the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC/Gay”church” that enables them to enter England whilst condemning it in the USA; this newspeak is simple episcobabble and no longer recognized as doublethink. You wait and see that the true “See” is 815, not, as often claimed, Canterbury.
And, yes, Rowan paved the way for this on the body’s grace to implement The Body’s Grace. No one, I trust, least of all the ABC, is surprised?
Where did the liberals declare “war”? Sounds like they’re getting organized from their deep sleep.
I think Ruth is trying to sell newspapers.
Totally agree on all that has been said about how RW handled this. But – perhaps the Declaration of War on his own turf will prove to be the straw that will break…….perhaps they have woken up the orthodox in England when they might have bettered themselves had they let them sleep. The London Times fueled the war with their headline……It is a “state church” remember…..and they may have bitten off more than they can chew……..
Cole #9 “It is better to abandon ship while you can still be able to swim to shore” Is that what Jesus directs us to do. For me, I believe Jesus called me to standfast and witness, perhaps even to go down with the ship. I only comment that my observation is the sinking ship began with the departure of the conservatives.
[blockquote]Many of the people who had been forcing the steering wheel all the way to the right have jumped ship — so now the vessel might actually be able to travel someplace useful, instead of going around in circles. [/blockquote]
Now THAT’s funny!
Good luck with that, DC, when you slip 3% further ‘neath the briney each and every year.
aldenjr #15: No, I disagree in hindsight and foresight. The analogy: the ship has gone too far from shore to swim back. How does it feel to be aboard the USS Indianapolis? Seriously, the majority of my diocese and almost all of my parish believed that we couldn’t practice our Christian Faith without embarrassment, harassment and future persecution if we stayed on that ship.
aldenjr: I think many are called to stay on the ship; others (such as myself) have been called to leave. Neither the stayers nor the leavers have had an easy go of it, nor does either have any right to criticize the other, assuming the individuals at play have prayed, fasted, listened and obeyed God’s direction to them. I don’t understand how God works in this way – but there is much about how God works that I won’t understand while I’m ‘on this side of Easter’.
It may be true the boat is capsizing since the departure of a number of the conservatives – having left, it is not for me to say what condition USS TEC is in, since it is no longer my church. However, I would tell you many of us felt thrown overboard – or encouraged to walk the plank, maybe – rather than just jumping into lifeboats willy-nilly.
One of the problems with how things have been done in TEC, ACoC and the English Church is that conservatives are told, “We need to dialogue about this” or “We value your opinion” whilst reappraiser agendas are being fulfilled. VGR, SSB’s, the mandatory recognition of women’s orders (despite initial promises that accomodation would always be made for varying points of view and conscience) – including to the episcopate and primacy — these all moved forward whilst reasserters were being given platitudes. One doesn’t really value dialogue about how a forrested area should be zoned while bulldozing the forest to build a shopping mall. Similarly, one doesn’t seriously mean to dialogue or value an opinion whilst moving forward on that which is to be discussed.
RE: ” I only comment that my observation is the sinking ship began with the departure of the conservatives.”
As a person who is happily remaining in TEC, I disagree. The ship was essentially lost and unrecoverable long before 2003, due to the fact that dioceses — large or small — get 8 deputies apiece, and so no matter how much a diocese grows and evangelizes and is successful, they still get outweighted by the diocese of New Hampshire, or Maine, or Olympia, or Nevada, or Utah, or [insert any one of approximately 80 here]. Clean and simple. And long long before 2003, more than half of the dioceses were heterodox.
Thus, there has not been an opportunity to outvote the silly and corrupt and grossly heretical activities of GC since at least 2000 and I’d actually put it back to the early 90s.
The departure of conservatives has more to do with [i]acknowledgement of the reality of the irreformability of TEC at its highest level[/i] than anything else, and their departure was certainly not the [i]cause[/i] of the irreformability but rather the result.
That being said, there are plenty of small areas in TEC that are capable of being reformed and renewed. But at the national level — no, and that’s been the case for a long long time, although certainly some institutionalists have been in denial about that fact for quite some time.
I think — given the 2009 General Convention — that most of those institutionalists now acknowledge the reality that so many recognized long ago.
#10 D.C.:
[blockquote] …the vessel might actually be able to travel someplace useful, instead of going around in circles. [/blockquote]
But where? Who outside of former reasserters would want to go there? Put another way, how is liberal Christianity going to appeal to people who come from a secular background? Or another religious one?
I took it from your lack of reply to my last comment on [url=http://www.questioningchristian.com/2009/07/an-illustration-of-the-troubles-traditionalists-get-themselves-into-by-emphasizing-doctrinal-purity.html]this post[/url] that you’re not sure either.
vulcanhammer–how right–liberal religion does not attract genuine, strong believers. Take for examples Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. Very, very secular backgrounds–yet Merton winds up in a strict Trappist monastery and Dorothy Day strongly traditional in doctrine. When people decide they need or want a religion, they usually opt for The Real Thing.
Sarah1. Does that mean that our witness as faithful christians is diminished? No, I believe it is enhanced. We presently stand in starker contrast to the heresy than ever before. Now it maybe that I will have to leave, because I can no longer carry out our mission or am forced to recite a creed I do not believe in, or told by the greater Anglican body that I am out of communion with it, but that has not yet happened.
Vulcanhammer [#20], I suspect that “liberal Christianity,” and indeed traditional religion in general, won’t appeal to all that many people who come from a secular background — to anyone who takes the trouble to think seriously about the available evidence, most of traditional catholicism, even the liberal variety, has large lacunae in its credibility.
Deaconjohn25 [#21], I must confess it truly baffles me how any intelligent, educated, thoughtful person could possibly assent to most catholic dogma — but I must face the fact that many such people do, including several who are near and dear to me. I’ve been trying for years to figure out why we have such different points of view; nothing would would please me more than to solve that puzzle.
23…
I am confused..referring to 21, what specific catholic dogma are you talking about?
deaconjohn25 #21, D.C. Toedt #23 has basically admitted the central problem TEC faces these days re attracting new people.
It’s one thing to use conservative churches as a farm club. But many of the changes advocated by TEC reappraisers over the last two score have been justified by the idea that “modern man” (which has morphed to “post-modern people”) won’t go to a church unless the church adopts many of the ideas current in the society. Now it looks like TEC has “bet the farm” on that assumption.
For D.C. to admit that ““liberal Christianity  won’t appeal to all that many people who come from a secular background” is refreshingly honest. I’ve been waiting for a long time for such an admission. But he has shown his church’s impossible strategy for survival for what it is–impossible.
That means that they won’t appeal to the people who find the ultimate Sunday experience a tee off time at Raveneaux or Champions. Or the gay men in Palm Springs at their favourite hangouts on Sunday, taking in the morning (I [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2007/10/19/reply-to-susan-russell-on-inclusivity-and-grace/]challenged Susan Russell on that, not to receive a reply[/url].
And since D.C. is focused on Roman Catholicism and leaving same, [url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/2009/07/30/atheism-isnt-self-evident-from-a-scientific-education/]he might find the back and forth on this post of interest[/url].
Vulcanhammer [#25], I used the small “c” catholic. FYI, I’m not at all focused on leaving Roman Catholicism — I did that back in 9th grade, then ended up marrying an Episcopalian and drifting back to religion, as I explained here a few years back.
centexas [#24] for the specific catholic dogmas to which I was referring, see “Shortening the Nicene Creed,” which I wrote about five years ago; see also Benjamin Franklin’s creed.
For us, this is a stroke of luck, for like Saruman and the Dark Lord, they have opened battle before they were truly ready for the consequences.
A open fight is just the thing, for they must now show their hands and all will be able to judge the high cards from the jokers. The liberals will win some battles as they already have, nor is there any telling (from my seat) what England will think. But now the issue of polyamory will rise clearly, its growth documented, and the demand will be made in both England and America: Is this the culture you want? Is this who you wish to be? Is there any excess you will find more than can be tolerated? The breakdown of standards will be catalogued and many, who might otherwise be favorable to the left or who might not care, are now going to be forced to make a decision.
I am willing to predict now that the momentum that the liberals have created for all homophilia is running its course, and there is a new generation who will find common sense greater than the True Belief in the Agenda. Let the war games begin. In the long run, we cannot lose this fight because evolution has set standards that mere human passion for novelty and self indulgence cannot extirpate.
Larry
This public declaration could be a tactical mistake. Remember that the reappraisers have won the day in ECUSA because they did so incrementally, by pretending to be believers while the subverted the teaching of The Church.
D.C. #26, I do remember reading that on your blog, which is why I brought the subject of Roman Catholicism up.
Your use of the term “catholic” is confusing.
stjohnsrector – correct, and they also played the underdog/victim, along with being “believers”. This declaration is basically against the government/queen/and country….not good…..
[Ad hominem comment deleted by Elf – please address the issues in the thread, not other commenters, thanks]
Could some of our friends across the pond comment on this:
[blockquote]
Their strategy will be to attempt to win the General Synod, the Church’s governing body currently dominated by evangelicals, over to the liberal cause. The opportunity will come next year when the quinquennial elections for a new synod are due. [/blockquote]
Feasible? Can the liberals regroup and take the CoE?
In answer to robroy [33], I don’t know. Ruth Gledhill writes:
[blockquote] Signatories to the letter such as Inclusive Church are planning a survey of all gay and lesbian clergy in the Church of England. They believe that in some dioceses, such as London and Southwark, the number may be as high as one in five.[/blockquote]
If the signatories are right to believe that there are all those gay and lesbian clergy, who knows what they can do in the General Synod elections? But I’m sceptical. I think they may be assuming that most unmarried [male] clergy are closeted gay men; but I think there’s a good chance, even in London/Southwark, that most such clergy are actually [chaste] celibates.
More broadly, TEC clearly has liberal majorities of bishops, clergy and lay people. The Synod elections could prove me wrong, but I don’t think that’s true in the Church of England. I see why liberal Anglicans think it’s time to make a move (though ‘declare war’ appears to be Ruth Gledhill’s phrase), after the American General Convention; but I don’t think they can win their war, in England, unless many who agree with them have been ‘hiding their light under a bushel’.
#33: My take, and I make no promises that it is accurate:
They already have a large group in Synod – I usually estimate that the current synod is 50% radical liberal/moderate liberal, 50% split between the Open/Institutional Evangelicals (who hold a clear majority in this group), charismatics, Anglo Catholics and Classical Evangelicals (obviously, as in TEC, the majority on both sides are probably institutionalists first and loyal to the doctrines of their `party’ second). Evangelical and Catholic active laity probably outnumber liberal active laity (though the vast majority of course probably don’t care or don’t understand the theology or even what is meant by the labels, and liberals will hold a clear majority in those members of the church who don’t go to Church, but they can probably be discounted in this analysis) although are as not as well represented in synod as they are on the ground; the liberals probably have a majority among the clergy; the house of Bishops split down the middle although the majority of senior posts are probably now open/institutionalist evangelicals. Outside Synod, the liberals probably still have a large degree of control over the bureaucracy of the church. The difference is, of course, that the Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic Churches are generally growing or holding steady, while the re-appraiser Churches are rapidly shrinking. If they are to make a move, it has to be in the next few synods or they may well lose their chance. The re-appraisers do have the strong advantage that outside culture/the media are firmly on their side (as much as they are on anyone’s side) and moving rapidly away from conservative Christianity, and it takes a strong clergyman to hold his congregation in the face of the onslaught. If somebody slides, they will almost certainly slide towards liberalism (or more likely out of the church entirely). And the second advantage is that the number of representatives does not scale so much with the size of the congregation, so smaller re-appraiser congregations are disproportionately represented compared to larger re-asserter congregations.
The problem we face is, of course, politics. General synod is elected by deanery synod representatives. Deanery Synod representatives are in principle elected by the congregation, although, in practice, few are interested in standing so there will not be much of an election. Most of the congregation (at least, the congregations I have experience with) will not really care about these issues, or realise how important it is if it seems to leave the local congregation unaffected. They will doubtless have experienced from the pulpit and hold to some vague evangelicalism or catholicism, know there is some dispute over women’s ordination (which they will probably support) and homosexual practice (which they will probably be a little uncomfortable with, but may well regard that it is not that serious of an issue) though not understand any more than very superficially the reasons for either view; and certainly not understand and realise the full horrors of `higher’ criticism and re-appraiser Christiology, doctrine of God and doctrine of Man which go with it and which are the most important reasons for this battle. Their only real experience of the substance dispute might be if there is a FCA parish or two in their deanery, and maybe a couple of radical liberals, and they will look down on both sides and try to keep to the `moderate and sensible middle way’. This description is not true for the largest and most successful evangelical parishes, but it is, I think, correct in a significant number of smaller (normal) evangelical or catholic parishes (including the three with which I am most familiar) and it is for these congregations that the battle will be fought.
So the deanery synods representatives are chosen by the parish, and if the re-appraisers in the parish can organise they can probably get their man, since few people will be interested in standing. Otherwise, you may well get a vague evangelical who stands because nobody else will. He is presented two sides of a manifesto from each of the candidates, and maybe sent a few postcards from some candidates, and that is all he knows about them (admittedly my experience in Europe where the distances are somewhat larger than most dioceses in England is possibly somewhat extreme. I had no chance of evaluating the candidates beyond what they wrote and a futile attempt of trying to google their churches). Once the obviously inadequate has been eliminated, there is little possibility of distinguishing the re-appraiser, moderate and re-asserter since they will all write pretty much the same thing. Enough candidates, a good enough manifesto with a couple of nice sound-bytes or `in phrases’ which say nothing while appearing to be profound, and they can get their candidates into general synod. That’s the house of laity sorted. The house of clergy will be harder to manipulate (as clergy within a diocese are more likely to be aware of each other and aware of the issues), but they already have the numerical advantage there. Bishops, of course, they can’t really influence in the same way, except by trying to gain control of the appointments commission.
So, yes, the re-appraisers can easily win if the evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics sleep. But the elections are also an opportunity for us, if we can get our message into the parishes and wake the sleeping nominally evangelical behemoth. It is, of course, down to politics.
At least, that is my view from the continent. Possibly others in more typical situations would tell a different story.
#35–you might help non-Brits with the terms ‘open’ and ‘institutionalist’ evangelical, as this is often misconstrued in the US. ‘Open’ is a virtual bogey word for conservative readers in the US context.
By open Evangelical, I mean Fulcrum (or someone with a similar theological outlook), e.g. Tom Wright, Graham Kings etc. (among the Bishops, although I was chiefly refering to the laity inspired by priests allied to those Bishops). In the US, the leading figures of this group would be probably viewed as standard evangelicals. Obviously, in practice, it is a rather larger and more disperse group, and probably less well educated, than you would find in Fulcrum. The chief practical difference between an open evangelical and classical evangelical will be women’s ordination, although underlying this will be issues concerning the interpretation, reliability and nature of scripture, the role of tradition and in particular the church fathers and reformers in guiding our theology, and possibly epistemology as well.
Institutionalist I just made up (which was probably a mistake). My intended meaning was somebody unlike +Nazir Ali, who prefer not to (publicly) rock the boat rather than sticking their neck out over an issue of doctrine (if we ignore that loyalty to the church is in itself an issue of doctrine). In terms of synod or, more importantly, in a congregation, these people would be more inclined to go where the current takes them rather than risk causing offence by standing (possibly alone) on a point of doctrine.
That’s a big help. ‘Open’ in the US means ‘open to SSBs, etc.’ ‘Open’ in the UK means, as you say, open to WO, to certain conventions in biblical scholarship, etc. I suspect it would be fair to say that the schools teaching evangelical ordinands are for the most part ‘open’ (Ridley, St John’s Nottingham, Trinity Bristol, Cranmer Hall Durham, even Wycliffe Hall, St Andrews — where I taught –, LST).
The “war” described in the post exists only in some copy writer’s head. I fear the media are intent on using our internal distress to sell papers. I guess that would not be the first such occurrence on Fleet Street or elsewhere. The content of the article appeared to describe, as someone above indicated, an organized approach to the February General synod.
War? I think not. The English liberal is simply realizing what his/her American brothers & sisters have known for some time. When the liberal — who is more likely a moderate — remains ever so politely silent as the “conservative” forever rants on and on … it is the latter who sways public opinion.
With Church of England liberals and moderates awakened — if indeed they are awake … and I’m not yet convinced of that — the good news will be … England won’t submit to an Anglican Covenant … and that will be the end of that document.
# 23 “I must confess it truly baffles me how any intelligent, educated, thoughtful person could possibly assent to most catholic dogma — but I must face the fact that many such people do, including several who are near and dear to me. I’ve been trying for years to figure out why we have such different points of view; nothing would would please me more than to solve that puzzle.”
SEE:
Matthew 7:14 (New International Version)
14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
It seems to me that Episcopalians are among the few who are finding it.