Note carefully what this proposal represents. Dr. William’s strategy would produce a communion of churches that includes, on the one hand, a majority of churches that are firm in understanding the sinfulness of all homosexual behavior and, on the other hand, a minority of churches that are firm in believing that homosexuality is not only not a sin, but that it is also morally insignificant. According to Dr. Williams plan, these two groups of churches would continue to exist in some sort of formal communion. As he sees it, this would avoid “apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication.”
Without doubt, churches and denominations can remain healthy even as they experience disagreement over any number of non-fundamental issues. Nevertheless, when an issue as fundamental as the sinfulness of homosexuality becomes the fulcrum of division, no church or denomination can maintain a divided mind. Given the Bible’s clear statements regarding homosexuality, those who honor the authority of Scripture must see a division on this question as a test of their church’s commitment to the Scriptures as the Word of God.
While in this case it is the Episcopal Church that provides the object lesson, similar issues and questions of ecclesial integrity can and will arise within every church and denomination. In this light, these recent developments in the Episcopal Church demand the careful attention of every committed Christian.
Mohler calls Rowan’s two-track proposal a “theological disaster.” Ouch! Personally, I think Mohler is correct, and his analogy re: Lincoln and slavery very apt.
And I think that even as he was proposing the two track plan, Rowan recognizes its fundamental weakness… note Rowan’s repeated emphasis on the issue of ecumenical relations. A two-track Communion may make for less internal anguish, but it is a disaster as far as relationships with the wider Church.
I hope Rowan will seriously consider Mohler’s concerns since he represents one of the best known contemporary theologians and spokesmen from the Baptist / evangelical tradition.
Ditto, Karen (#1). I’m not sure why Al Mohler writes so often about us Anglicans and our foibles and troubles, but I’m glad he does. Frequently, as in this case, he writes very insightfully and is able to summarize complex issues very concisely. Sometimes, outsiders can see us more objectively than we see ourselves.
I agree that ++RW’s two-track plan for Anglicanism is fatally flawed, because the second track (the pro-gay, relativist one) is simply and flatly unChristian. Mohler is right; adopting that foolish plan would be disastrous.
David Handy+
Further thoughts … The thing about two-track speech, rather than Williams’ earlier talk of two-tiers in 2006, is that at least now the two tracks may be allowed to seriously diverge over time -“in the middle distanceâ€. Then we’d be allowed to see also, following 1 Cor 11:19, just who/what is “recognizably genuine†with absolute clarity!
[blockquote] In this light, these recent developments in the Episcopal Church demand the careful attention of every committed Christian.[/blockquote]
This is precisely why I pay close attention to the TEC, despite not being (nor ever having been) an Anglican. The gang that usurped TEC has fellow travelers in every Church indeed.
# 4 TV. I can only agree. Yet I’d qualify your comment only to say, “… in every Western Church …”. For the cultural hegemony of Western pluralism is one of the key drivers here, resulting in the sort of proposal we have in ++ RDW’s Two Track scheme.
Rowan Williams’s proposal for a “two-track” Anglican Communion is a theological disaster. Beyond this, it is almost certainly unworkable. The reason for this is simple — both sides in this controversy see the question of homosexuality as both unavoidable and fundamental. Both sides see the question as far too important to remain unsettled. Neither side can accept the permanent disagreement of the other.
This is the core issue that squeezes me, and I suspect lots of others, out of the two-track Anglican Communion altogether. I don’t believe that the question of homosexuality is fundamental. Unfortunately there is no third-track for those of us who hold that this question, like a number of other moral issues, is one about which reasonable, reflective, well-informed Christians can disagree.
That isn’t to say “everything is relative,” or to say that there’s no fact of the matter as to whether homosexual activity is right or wrong, or that it’s a trivial issue. There are a lot of moral issues that are definitely non-trivial, e.g. the death penalty, when if ever is war just, and a whole host of economic issues that are extremely serious but about which reasonable, reflective, well-informed Christians can disagree.
The fundamental issues about which reasonable, reflective, well-informed Christians can’t disagree are the metaphysical issues, the basic theology: the existence and nature of God, post-mortem survival, the divinity of Christ. It’s one’s views on those theological issues that make one a Christian or not. What I find depressing as I follow all this whole miserable story is that, however much everyone may protest, it’s pretty clear that in their guts both liberals and conservatives believe that Christianity is fundamentally a moral agenda (much as they disagree about what that agenda is), and that ethics is important but theology isn’t.
#6 – If you’re looking for theology, please read “Theology of the Body” by John Paul II. You will find all you need there to show that our basic creation into male and female is very theological.
And why should I accept the authority of JPII in defining what counts as theology, or on anything else? I’m not Catholic.
“That isn’t to say “everything is relative,†or to say that there’s no fact of the matter as to whether homosexual activity is right or wrong, or that it’s a trivial issue. There are a lot of moral issues that are definitely non-trivial, e.g. the death penalty, when if ever is war just, and a whole host of economic issues that are extremely serious but about which reasonable, reflective, well-informed Christians can disagree.”
Diversions here? Christian history has never said the death penalty per se is immoral, only whether its particular application is correct. Except for a few dissenting voices, the issue is prudential and pragmatic, not foundational. Ditto with war.
As for economic issues, I really don’t think there’s a word from the Lord on cap and trade or basic rates of income tax. Christian theology and ethics can give principles, not precise political prescriptions (the preacher proudly pontificated with his row of sweet P’s).
Thank you logic guru #6 for putting your finger on a vital point:
[blockquote]it’s pretty clear that in their guts both liberals and conservatives believe that Christianity is fundamentally a moral agenda (much as they disagree about what that agenda is), and that ethics is important but theology isn’t.[/blockquote]
The point is that ever since Kant most in the West think instinctively like this; but we need not! There is another way. And personally, I have had to conclude the ‘homosexual issue’ – how I hate this formulation frankly; it’s [i]people[/i] we are referring to – has to do with the [i]imago Dei[/i]. Not much more theological than that …
The question may not be a first order theological question, but it does touch on basic anthropology. The question is, basically, does gender matter? In other words, the [i] imago Dei [/i]. This is the question underlying the other questions regarding sexual conduct (and is why Giles Fraser (a notable liberal from the UK) attacked the Pope’s critique of gender theory). So it becomes a first order issue because of what underpins the question under discussion. Another thing that makes this particular question important is that it asks questions regarding authority and our decision making… This qoes beyond Mohler’s [i] sola scriptura [/i]. On this point I agree with RW (even though I’m sceptical about a two-track communion).
[blockquote] This is the core issue that squeezes me, and I suspect lots of others, out of the two-track Anglican Communion altogether. I don’t believe that the question of homosexuality is fundamental. Unfortunately there is no third-track for those of us who hold that this question, like a number of other moral issues, is one about which reasonable, reflective, well-informed Christians can disagree.[/blockquote]
LogicGuru, why don’t you flesh this out a little? How do you see a third track working?
#6, I think you have misjudged the issues – I agree that for liberals, “ethics’ is important but “theology” is not. For conservatives, both are important. The ethics of “social justice” is imperative (a god) for liberals, and important for conservatives. But the theology of the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and atonement is paramount to conservatives, but not so with liberals (read Susan Russell’s Good Friday sermon of 2 years ago in which she called God a sociopath, if Jesus had to die for our sins on the cross). And this dichotomy is what is at the heart of the schism. But it is natural for liberals to not like or want to believe in atonement, because they don’t want to believe in sin or that sin has any consequences. If you don’t believe me, again look at Ms Russell+ preaching and look at the multiple times that sinful matters were omitted from the 1979 PB, in comparison to previous PBs. I will forecast that the next edition of TEC PB will have even less in it about sin and will be almost exclusively about joy and unconditional love being available without any action or choice on the part of humankind – i.e. the cheap grace theology – but obviously not the whole story of Christianity.
A couple of observations:
First, Mohler misses the fact that even Rowan Williams says that the “twofold ecclesial reality” is possible in the “middle distance” – in other words, this is not a long term or permanent solution. It is an interim step toward something we do not yet envision.
Second, he fails to understand that not all levels of “Communion” are the same. It is quite plain in the ABC’s proposals that the “federated” churches do not enjoy the same unity of mission and witness as the “covenanted” churches. In fact, the entire scheme is a recognition of the fact that this is, ultimately, one of those church dividing issues and we cannot pretend indefinitely to be in the same church. But rather than jump straight to schism and a calling a pox on one another’s houses (a venerated tradition in the SBC, of which Mohler is a part), this is an attempt to provide space for a clearer understanding on all sides as we move toward a future we do not yet envision. +++Williams even says elsewhere that Anglican churches that are not part of the Covenant would have a shared heritage but would “be to us as Methodists.”
The SBC is hardly a hotspot of strong or deep ecclesiology. Mohler may be a smart guy on some things, but he doesn’t understand what is being proposed or the ecclesiastical issues at play here.
Actually, I think a two-track system is simply cosmetics to cover up a schism. Ultimately I just don’t see what it does in any real or practical way.
Br. Michael – It distinguishes those who simply share an Anglican heritage from those who share a common faith and witness. Call it schism if you must, but I think it is far more gracious to find a way to acknowledge the shared history and simply cast folks into the outer darkness.
# 16 – last sentence should end “…shared history *than* simply cast folks into the outer darkness.”
Question. Will other denominations be willing to “talk” with those in a two track system. Is not the orthodox, who agree to the “two tracks” compromised by their consent to such a system? Would ACNA and the GS be tainted by such an agreement? Would not unchurched persons question such a stand, in that the unchurched, seeking the Lord, are entitled to truth. “Like in, oh by the way, we have this other group who call themselves Anglicans as well. Now we don’t totally agree with them, but we do have an association with them. You understand, we want to be socially correct for our times.”
[blockquote]Would not unchurched persons question such a stand, in that the unchurched, seeking the Lord, are entitled to truth.[/blockquote]
The unchurched see thousands of denominations and sects representing every conceivable theology and flavor of Christianity most of which claim to have the truth. If the unchurched have any interest in becoming unchurched they will either pick the one whose theological stance best accords with what they believe on independent grounds or, much more likely, affiliate with the congregation that’s most convenient, that has the programs that interest them and people they find congenial, and ignore the theology.
Speaking as one who has been unchurch for a number of years now I see denominations, both liberal and conservative, in the process of defining and hardening their positions on a variety of theological and ethical issues, particularly “life-style issues,” to reflect the Culture Wars split between social liberals and conservatives in the larger society. That split means that quite a number of people, including me, have fallen through the cracks.
Schism or not, the Episcopal Church has already become polarized. There are social conservatives whose views on theology in the narrow sense I find congenial but whose views on ethical issues and whose theology in the extended sense, including views on gender I believe are wrong. And there are social liberals, with whose views on ethical issues I’m largely in agreement, but who have no interest in theology in the narrow sense, don’t believe in God in any recognizable sense, and regard the Church primarily as a mechanism for social improvement. The Big Tent collapsed long ago.
#19, I understand what you are saying and agree with much of it. But I would look again at the “social conservatives’ ” (as you term us) stand on ethical issues and theology on gender. We actually are generally just as strong on those issues as our brethren on the other end of the continuum. So don’t take their word for what our views are – that would be a mistake.
Although I agree that the theologies are not compatible – the situation is that the leader of a lagre historic family of churches is confronted with conflicting theologies – in the not too distant past this would have resulted in schism and perhaps war. Wars of religion among Christians are off the table (at least for now) – which most would agree is a good thing.
The question then becomes what to do about the incompatibility. Some wish to unite more closely – some are unwilling to do so if they cannot have their beliefs. Two tracks make it ok for the family to casually break up let those who wish to do a new thing do so without destroying the family. Sometimes the prodigal son returns.
I hate to disagree with you, David, but I think a two-track solution is the best that can be created in this situation. My understanding is that the model for the Anglican Covenant has been the many bilateral covenants and agreements between Anglicans and Lutherans and other such agreements. You can be in covenant with other Christians with whom you are not in communion.
Of course, for those Anglican provinces (and dioceses, etc) that don’t sign on to the covenant, there would have to be another kind of ecclesial situation negotiated. It would be strange. On the other hand given the rhetoric of the far left in Anglicanism, just how much “in communion” will they ever be with the rest of the Anglican Communion? So I suppose Track Two would be a place to park provinces (and dioceses) that would pretty much stay in impaired or broken communion.
But you are right to raise the issue of theology and doctrine in such a two-track communion. We might have bonds of affection but little else. And after sorting provinces (dioceses?) out into tracks one and two, I think that the likelihood is that the two tracks would grow farther apart.
Rudy (#22),
Thanks, friend. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me all the time. As Ruth Graham once said very winsomely, [i]”If two minds always think alike, one of them is unnecessary.”[/i]
But if I may say so with equal respect, I think you’re underestimating the extent of the problem. The Covenant does seem to be modelled, as you say, on the various ecumenical statements that have come out of the many different inter-denominational dialogues of the last century. And that’s precisely the problem. Because when you’re dealing with the two “tracks” or camps within the Anglican world, you’re not dealing with an ecumenical relationship (such as with the Methodists, as my old friend Eric Turner+ mentioned). Alas, you’ve moved into the realm of INTER-FAITH dialog. Because the second track isn’t even Christian.
And I mean that literally.
David Handy+
Eric (#14, 16, 17),
It’s great to see you posting comments here. I remember with fondness the times we spent together when you lived in Richmond. I hope things are going well for you in Melbourne. I’ve noticed your name listed among the signatories of some statements by the CP rectors. That puts you in some very good company, my friend.
As for your #14, I would have to agree that we must take into account the fact that as a Southern Baptist, Al Mohler’s view of the Church is very different from that of even very low church Anglicans. For a Baptist of any sort, the local church is king, and any higher level connections are rrelatively unimportant.
However, I don’t think his article should be dismissed either (I doubt you meant it that way, but unsympathetic readers might take it so). I think Mohler is saying that the ABoC’s two track plan is doomed, not only because it will not work pragmatically, but because it [b]shouldn’t[/b] work, and it shouldn’t even be attempted, since it grants a false credibility to the heretical second track. And there I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Part of what’s interesting to me is how we seem to have chosen different paths or strategies in this church war than those who know us both might have expected. That is, I suspect you’d agree with me that generally speaking, you are more low church and Protestant than I am. And yet you’ve felt called to side with the CP folks so far, and I’ve chosen to side with the ACNA. That doesn’t mean that my ecclesiology is less catholic than yours, but that I’ve chosen to insist that catholic order is secondary to catholic faith, and not vice versa. It’s high time that we Anglicans rediscovered the essential principle that, as I keep saying here, [i]”Doctrine trumps polity, and not vice versa.”[/i]
Anyway, I’m glad you entered the fray on this thread, and I hope you’ll continue to post comments at T19 whenever you can do so.
David Handy+