Am I tired of this struggle? Yes I am! Am I discouraged? I am far less so now than I was a couple of months ago. The recent actions of our General Convention have made it clear to the Anglican Communion that The Episcopal Church has gone off course and is unlikely by its own choosing to right itself. It is likely that those dioceses and parishes that refuse to take the direction set by the General Convention will receive support from the Anglican Communion not given to those who do follow that direction. I believe in fact that “the worm has turned.” I believe that those who throw their lot with the Anglican Covenant will increase and that those who do not will decrease.
I have reason to hope, but I am not staying because things look a little brighter now than they did a short time ago. I am staying on because I believe it is the calling of a Christian to contend for the fidelity of the church and to do so from within the messy confines of its interior life. We are a mixed body and it will ever be thus!
And indeed, though things look brighter for those within TEC who supporter the covenant, there are even greater struggles on the horizon”“struggles of far greater significance than the current battle over sexual ethics. I speak of a concerted effort to diminish or be rid of the revealed form of Trinitarian language that gives basic shape to our liturgies, and the increasingly popular practice of offering the elements to people who have not been baptized. The first move replaces the form of Christian prayer and belief with a simulacrum and the second misrepresents both the person and work of Christ.
The waters we are entering are far choppier than the ones in which we now sail. Of that we can be sure. But does the degree of difficulty nullify the task presented by the calling to which I have been called? I do not believe so. I in fact said yes to two vows at my ordination. One was to give my faithful diligence always to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ and the other was with faithful diligence to banish and drive away from the church all erroneous and strange doctrines. I cannot see that the present defection of The Episcopal Church in the matter of sexual ethics breaks the bonds of those vows. I cannot see that the severity of future struggles does either. These eventualities only make their fulfillment more difficult and more costly.
Dr. Turner,
Thank you for thoughtful, prayerful, faithful and patient reflection on our current dilemma. I respect and second your response. I, too, will be staying because God’s faithfulness to humanity compels me to do the same.
Like Dr. Turner I have concluded that God is not calling me to leave the Episcopal Church in whose ordained ministry I have served since June 21, 1966. I’m six years younger than he is and continue to supply when asked. I think the leadership of the Episcopal Church has made some serious mistakes, but I am not yet convinced that the church has so departed from the Christian faith that I must leave. I respect those whose consciences have brought them to that decision, and I continue to pray for as much cooperation between the different expressions of the Anglican tradition as conscience will allow.
While Dr. Turner finds in his ordination vows a reason to stay, they were a principal reason I was compelled to leave. Ordained as I was under the rites of the 1979 BCP I vowed to drive nothing from the church….not even “erroneous and strange doctrines”. However I did vow to uphold the “doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church”. Different vows…and as we see more clearly than ever these days….a different church.
If and when (next week?) the ELCA makes formal its already accelerating plunge into the abyss of heterodoxy, I think I would rather join the small band making the difficult trip up the mountain of Christian faithfulness than sit back in the visitors center sipping tea. Yes, I suppose it possible to argue that resting easily on the sun-drenched deck gives opportunity to share the authentic Gospel with the pagans who remained behind, but … Jesus calls us to venture forth and reach those who’s hearts are open to hearing his call. Sadly that seems less and less the case among leaders in both our traditions. Something about shaking off dust and moving forward on the trail seems to fit here. At least for me.
It’s nice to be retired and reflect outside of the reality of parishioners leaving, budgets declining, and disputes increasing.
I doubt Dr. Turner’s increase/decrease formula based on signing the covenant…it is my hunch that many dioceses will sign the covenant agreeing to certain standards to have first tier identity, while going ahead as if it meant nothing by engaging in second tier behavior.
It is a shame the loving leadership of TEC has put its faithful clergy in these sorts of predicaments.
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
It’s like a marriage with infedility. The faithful spouse is justified in leaving. And yet – many choose to stay in marriage. Some will find tremendous blessings lie in store ; others grow deeper into denial and disfunction. I’m staying, perhaps naiively hopeful thy one day my unfaithful spouse will repent. Although disfunctional on one level, God is ever present in the community where I worship. Onward.
Very thought provoking article indeed. I am currently in exile from TEC and spending my time with the CRC here in Northern NJ. I had to do this for the sake of my family as well as my own well-being. I had hit one too many brick walls in my priestly calling, a calling which I believe God still wants me to maintain, even though I am working in another field and no longer get my paycheck from the church. The one thought Dr. Turner’s article raises for me is an understanding of what our primary focus is as clergy. Are we to maintain the Church or are we to focus our attention outward; that is, be a missionary? The former was difficult for me as it meant playing politics and distanced me from my passion which is to encounter the outsiders with God’s love in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. My perception is that those who have left TEC felt stiffled in accomplishing the mission of the church becuase tending to the church was a great deal of work and ultimately a distraction to the grander vision. This is why you will here those who let TEC remark how “free” they now feel.
It is a shame the loving leadership of TEC has put its faithful clergy in these sorts of predicaments.
Bitter much, FaithfulDeparted?
What I found interesting is that he is 74 and took his ordination vows “some 59 years ago.” TEC ordained at 15? 🙂
On a more serious note, I found the article very interesting. I think it would have come across better if he had emphasized that this was more his way than Jesus’. But we revisionists are usually relativists.
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
Pardon me for saying so, but I think Father Turner is fooling himself. He’s right, of course, about the current shabby state of TGC, its acceleration toward unitarian heresy and pansexual idolatry. But if he thinks that others in the Anglican Communion not in lockstep with TGC are going to be allowed to set foot on TGC property to provide pastoral support, I’ve got a bridge to sell him. Clergy attempting anything like that will be inhibited faster than you can say “inclusive church” by the tolerance kommissars.
No, Rev. Turner, survivors need to get into the lifeboats if they want to be rescued. No one’s climbing onto the Titanic to stroke your hand.
How sad. What a sad place to be. What a sad course to be on. A situation that seems addressable only by prayer, and yet, in that there is hope.
What is so sad? Dr. Turner follows God’s call on his life and knows that obedience leads to joy. Resignation? Definitely! Determination? It will require the grace of God.
Of course, it will be interesting to watch whether the ruling party of TEC allows him, and other like him, to stay.
I have known Philip Turner personally for over a decade, and greatly admire him. I hate to find myself in disagreement with him, but, while recognizing that historical analogies are always faulty, I disagree with one of his.
Dr. Turner draws a parallel between the current situation in TEC and the Donatist schism, and, by implication, equates the ACNA with Donatism. The analogy has been drawn numerous times. I first heard it before GC 2003, when reappraisers applied it across the board to those like Dr. Turner, who, while inside TEC, were resisting the “new thing.”
Mine own reading is that the proper historical analogy to draw to the current situation is not the Donatist schism, but the conflict between Catholicism and Gnosticism in the 2nd Century. Catholic Christians realized that the issue between orthodoxy and Gnosticism had to do with Christian identity itself, and there could be no compromise, let alone table fellowship, with Gnostics. As I read the sermons and speeches of the Presiding Bishop or the books of leading Episcopal lights like Marcus Borg, I find more parallels with Gnosticism than I do to Catholic Christians, who, while remaining orthodox, compromised under persecution.
At the same time, even the Donatist parallel is inadequate. Augustine of Hippo, living in Africa, exercised his episcopacy in a diocese in which (as a Catholic Christian), he was in a minority. There was a Donatist bishop in Hippo as well, and the Donatists outnumbered the Catholics. At the same time, Augustine was in communion with Catholic Christians worldwide, and this is where he drew his identity. He did not worship with the Donatists.
In the current situation, TEC (like North African Donatism) represents a minority position within worldwide Anglicanism. Despite constant pleas from the worldwide communion, it has repeatedly insisted on going its own way. While the majority Anglican church in North America, TEC’s position is a minority in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
A key difference between the contemporary situation and the Donatist schism is that, unlike Augustine’s day, the Anglican Instruments of Unity have failed to discipline TEC, and to supply an orthodox alternative. It is, as if, in Augustine’s time, the bishop of Rome had been unwilling to distinguish Catholic Christianity from Donatism in North Africa, and to be a Catholic in North Africa meant that one had no choice but to worship in a Donatist Church.
What would Augustine have done in a such a situation? What would he have done if there had been numerous Catholic bishops worldwide who, in their frustration with the Bishop of Rome’s slowness to act, had finally (after years of waiting) provided an alternative Catholic presence in Hippo, but, for reasons of his own, the bishop of Rome, continued to acknowledge, not the Catholics, but the Donatists? Would Augustine have worshiped with the Donatists, out of respect for the Bishop of Rome, or would he have worshiped with the Catholics, out of commitment to the universal Catholic faith? Something like that is the quandary many of us find ourselves in.
I agree with manna. I don’t see anything sad about Dr. Turner’s decision to stay — sounds like he’s looking forward to his work and his calling.
As a person who certainly hasn’t committed to “dying in TEC” but who is committed for the forseeable future I have a lot of sympathy for this article.
There are a few things I disagree with though in this essay, while I agree with its main point which is that Dr. Turner is staying in TEC and it’s certainly not wrong for him to do so.
I find a logical inconsistency in these two sentences: “Not only do I believe that the calling of Christians is to remain and contend with their erring brothers and sisters, I believe also that the dream of a purer place to be a Christian is just that–a dream.”
I agree with Dr. Turner that there is not a pure “place to be a Christian” — no denomination or church is “pure.” Therefore, since there is not a pure “place to be a Christian” those leaving for ACNA I’m confident will “contend with” “erring brothers and sisters” as well there too.
So those departing for ACNA will certainly contend in a “not pure” church. The logical inconsistency therefore is the notion that only if “Christians” stay in TEC will they have a place to “contend with erring brothers and sisters” in a not-pure church.
I don’t believe that “the calling of Christians” is necessarily to remain within TEC, [although certainly it is for some,] any more than I believe that “the calling of Christians” is to remain within the Southern Baptist convention or ACNA or the Methodist church. “The calling of Christians” is what the Lord calls them to do, and that is not always to stay for a lifetime in a single denomination or church.
Second, Dr. Turner states “If I were to leave I would in effect be placing myself outside the judgment God has rendered against my church (and no doubt others) for failing to keep the faith once delivered to the saints and failing to give an authentic witness through changed lives.”
I’m not sure how that is so. In fact, the act of leaving is also a part of God’s judgement. It is hard for me to believe that all ACNA members are believing that they are placing themselves “outside the judgment God has rendered against my church.” Whether we leave or stay in TEC we are judged. No matter what we do, we are judged. Perhaps Dr. Turner states this in part because *some* ACNA members proclaim how others should flee judgement by leaving TEC and joining ACNA. But I don’t think that all ACNA members are under the delusion that they will neatly escape judgement by leaving TEC.
Finally, I find this statement to be revealing of an issue that I and a close family member [also an Episcopalian] were chatting about just the other day on the phone: “The vast majority of the people with whom I have been contending are in fact Christians.”
Perhaps Dr. Turner is defining “Christians” as “all those who have been baptised” which if that is the case, of course all Episcopalians are by definition “Christians.”
But if one is going to use a differing definition of “Christian” — say “submission to the Lordship and salvation of Jesus Christ and belief in His Gospel” than there is a huge chunk of people at General Convention who believe no such thing at all. They proudly [i] proclaim[/i] by word and action that they believe no such thing — and in fact the Presiding Bishop is quite clear in her declamations against Christ’s gospel and not for it.
I think that latter issue is probably a big distinction in the actions and conversations of conservatives in TEC. If you truly believe that the people with whom you are disagreeing are actually people who believe the Gospel, then all that needs to happen is that they need to recognize the error of their ways, and your own arguments may well convince them of that.
But once one recognizes that the people with whom you are disagreeing don’t acknowledge or share the same gospel, don’t acknowledge or share the same foundational worldview, and radically disagree with the Christian doctrines of sin, incarnation, resurrection, atonement, basic anthropology, the nature of God, the Holy Spirit, the nature of Holy Scripture, and on and on it goes . . . then one recognizes that “conversation” in such an event cannot reasonably occur — which then leads to the simple assertions and then competing assertions that so often occur here at T19 between revisionists and traditionalists. We’re not even playing the same game or on the same playing field, and so it’s unreasonable to expect the two sides to be able to engage in meaningful dialogue [other than again, competing assertions of belief].
If you truly believe that the people with whom you are disagreeing are actually people who [i]do not believe the Gospel[/i] and confidently assert opposing beliefs, then what one recognizes is that one’s arguments will not convince them at all, but rather, only conversion will do.
And no Episcopalian of whatever sort can make someone else’s heart be converted to Christ and His gospel.
I should add that I give a hearty huzzah to traditionalist folks announcing that they are staying in TEC . . .the more the merrier.
And the part that I found the most touching in Dr. Turner’s essay was his acknowledgement and sorrow for complicity in TEC’s departure from the faith. Confession is something that all traditional Episcopalians — and departing Episcopalians — should be doing, I think. Though God can help us amend our lives — and amendment of life is a part of repentance — all of us I think have something to confess in our actions or non-actions with regards to TEC.
I respect Dr. Turner and Fr. Rightmyer. Faithfulness is always commendable. I must ask them, however, what advice they would give a young family with preteen children to educate and form as a Christian. Would they counsel such a family to remain in TEC and simply tell their children to ignore the unbiblical bits their rector or bishop comes up with? Or would they advise that family to seek other shelter?
Also, what counsel would Dr. Turner and Fr. Rightmyer give to a recent convert from outside Christianity? Would they advise such a convert to seek formation in TEC, but tell them to “just remember the bishop has got it wrong on the theology of the body” Or would they point elsewhere?
It seems to me that remaining faithful in an unfaithful church requires that one have no hostages in the form of children, new converts dear to one, or other “little ones” who might be damaged in the cross fire.
It is courage when a soldier declines to flee the field of battle. It is something else when a parent refuses to lead her children out of a battlefield.
Dr. Turner’s ministry appears to be most directed at the conversion of his ecclesiastical superiors, rather than at the welcome of sinners who do not yet know Christ. A ministry directed at the spiritual rescue of bishops is commendable. However if so, it is a ministry that few can or possibly should share.
As expected from Dr. Turner, this is a thoughtful and moving reflection. I’ve always had a question about this sort of argument, though, which comes from my own experience. I myself left the Free Lutheran Church (AFLC), a very small denomination mostly in the Upper Midwest that understood its confessional positions as the correct interpretation of Scripture (which, as sola Scriptura Lutherans, they saw as the sole and relatively unmediated authority for the church). The denomination did not have much interest in ecumenism, church history, catholicity, or etc., even with other Lutherans (and I imagine that Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod Lutherans could tell a similar story). I understood my move to Anglicanism as a move toward the church catholic, as providentially ordered by God throughout time and space, which reality I could not see pursuing in my own denomination. And I’ve met other Anglican Christians– my friends Christopher Wells and Matthew Olver among them– who would tell a similar story with respect to their decisions to become Anglican.
So, my question then becomes: What if the Episcopal Church should become (as it seems to be) a denomination with a determined self-understanding much like my own Free Lutheran Church?
What is so sad?
Manna and Sarah1, I’ll tell you what’s so sad. It is that TEC has placed so many fine and faithful Christians into such a difficult place. We know we are to strive against the evil one, but we did not reckon it to come from our own church. To me, at least, this is sad beyond belief — the source of the evil not the struggle against it.
I am thankful to Dr. Turner for his wisdom and example of obedience, but this article made me cry. I need to ask for forgiveness from him and the other devout theologians in my own denomination for my silence as they were steadily marginalized.
There are a few things I disagree with though in this essay, while I agree with its main point which is that Dr. Turner+ is staying in TEC and it’s certainly not wrong for him to do so.
I would suggest that the main point is not that Dr. Turner is staying and it is not wrong, nor is it as Dr. Turner+ claims, that he is listing personal reasons for staying. While he does offer personal reasons (age, familiarity), his main point is to offer a theological position that applies to more than just himself.
The logical inconsistency therefore is the notion that only if “Christians†stay in TEC will they have a place to “contend with erring brothers and sisters†in a not-pure church.
I don’t believe that “the calling of Christians†is necessarily to remain within TEC, [although certainly it is for some,] any more than I believe that “the calling of Christians†is to remain within the Southern Baptist convention or ACNA or the Methodist church. “The calling of Christians†is what the Lord calls them to do, and that is not always to stay for a lifetime in a single denomination or church.
The difference, as I see it, is that the Anglican Communion is not simply a ‘denomination’ in the eyes of people like Dr. Turner+. There are three branches of the ‘original’ Church which are able to trace their episcopate back to the Apostles: the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican Communion. So I read Dr. Turner+ as saying that the search for a ‘purer’ expression of Christianity is not reason enough to break with the ‘original’ Church. This is certainly not the way many would read it and that’s fine for them, but those of us who value the AC for that reason are not easily moved to leave.
“The vast majority of the people with whom I have been contending are in fact Christians.â€
Perhaps Dr. Turner is defining “Christians†as “all those who have been baptised†which if that is the case, of course all Episcopalians are by definition “Christians.â€
But if one is going to use a differing definition of “Christianâ€â€”say “submission to the Lordship and salvation of Jesus Christ and belief in His Gospel†than there is a huge chunk of people at General Convention who believe no such thing at all.
You know that Dr. Turner+ is not referring to “all those who have been baptised.” He is referring to the universal definition of Christian as it has been understood throughout history. Christianity is a faith defined by creeds. A person following the Church Universal’s teaching as to the meaning of the Nicene Creed (and, but not or, the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds to a lesser extent) is a Christian. Your distinction of two (or more) Gospels is more of a political distinction.
[blockquote]There are three branches of the ‘original’ Church which are able to trace their episcopate back to the Apostles: the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox and the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
Having known Dr. Turner somewhat on a personal basis for at least a decade, I do not have any reason to believe that he subscribes to the old Anglo-Catholic “three-streams” theory of Catholic identity. Before ACI became ACI, it was for awhile called Society for Ecumenical Anglican Doctrine, and its speakers regularly included Methodists like William Abraham, and Lutherans like Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten. I never got the impression that Dr. Turner or the other stalwarts of what later became ACI (Ephraim Radner, Christopher Seitz, and, until he crossed the Tiber, Rusty Reno) regarded Abraham and Jenson as members of pseudo-churches.
But, as I outlined above, the crucial issue is indeed catholic identity. The marks of catholic identity in the 2nd century were: Canon of Scripture, Rule of faith (which evolved into the creeds), worship in Word and sacrament, episcopal succession.
Episcopal succession was crucial insofar as bishops who could trace their descent to the apostles could claim to be faithful to apostolic doctrine. But bishops in the apostolic succession were regularly excommunicated in the patristic church if they were unfaithful to aposotlic doctrine. Alexander was bishop of Alexandria. Nestorius was bishop of Constantinople. Honorius was bishop of Rome.
If Christian faith is defined by the Creeds, and as you note especially, the Nicene Creed, it is a matter of question how many of the current HOB (including the Presiding Bishop) are Christians in the historic sense, for certainly they do not actually believe what it says even if they repeat the words every Sunday morning. And, as TEC’s representatives demonstrated in their document, “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” TEC regards itself as qualified to correct Scripture in light of new private revelations of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you Dr. Turner for saying it beautifully and with such charity. Yes, we may have the “right” but would it be “good” to leave. The old Devil would enjoy nothing more than seeing us continue to solve our problems via “divorce†from difficult relationships at the expense of the “children†(the young, newly converted & the elderly); to give up those marvelous places we’ve worshipped our Lord in for generations, those places of such grace and holiness; to break up families and old friends, to confuse our elderly, to take our very language from us, and more than anything, to defile the Sacraments and threaten the welfare of wonderful priests. Not me! As long as we are surrounded by the holy priesthood where we are, I will hold forth.
My faithful Christian friend remarked this afternoon, “Do they stop to realize they are attacking the Bride of Christ?!
No. 15 Clueless – you just hit the nail on the head…….reading all these entries…..stay or go – whats best for me……not only the young in a present congregation – what about generations to come. I have a year old gr. granddaughter – recently baptized a Christian in TEC….if fear for her……AND what about her children? I am not advicating staying or leaving, I just want to see less of “whats for me” and more of “whats for those to come”
[i] Posted by elf for Dean Turner[/i]
Jordan, #16, as always your comments and questions go to the heart of the matter. Your question about the catholic character of the Anglican Communion in general and TEC in particular is an important one. I believe that the Communion will in fact place TEC on a different “track†and that provision will be made for dioceses and parishes that wish to be part of the covenant to do so. In this case, I do not see that the problem that worries you will arise. Should these arrangements not come to be, Anglicanism will have become a federation rather than a communion, and TEC will be no more than another denomination within the spectrum of American denominationalism.
As you well know, this has been a primary concern of mine from the beginning. Would this eventuality be a reason for me to leave TEC? Probably not, if I am able to recognize in TEC’s forms of worship the Trinitarian faith. I would consider my status as a member of TEC as a form of exile in which there is enormous loss. I would, therefore, be sympathetic to those for whom a more fully catholic identity is a sine qua non of their Christian identity. Since I see Christian (though not fully catholic) identity in a number of churches Anglicanism becoming a federation would not be for me a sine qua non for continuing membership in TEC.
A greater difficulty for me is the possibility that TEC’s forms of worship will become ones that are not Trinitarian in form. When I was thinking about writing the piece to which you graciously and intelligently responded, I actually had a seventh point in mind. In my rush to finish the piece I forgot to include the fact that another reason for my not leaving is that TEC’s forms of worship, though seriously flawed, are nonetheless fully Trinitarian. TEC, though its leadership has fallen into terrible error, still is catholic in its forms of worship and order. Given that fact, it does not seem to me that the errors of its leadership (particularly its clerical leadership) are reason in and of themselves to leave.
However, if the forms of worship were to become non-Trinitarian, I would be presented with a terrible choice—one that would almost certainly lead me to leave TEC. I would no longer be a member of a Christian Church, though there would no doubt remain in TEC many Christians.
Philip Turner
Well, I must say that Dean Turner’s remarks are a pretty “creative” reading of Church History.
First, why begin with the Donatists (unless to enable him to invoke the authority of St. Augustine for his cause)? Not to mention the Egyptian Meletians (a sort of “kinder, gentler” [and ultimately less consequential] Donatists, who originated at the same time, ca. 310, over the same sort of issues as the Donatists), what about the Novatianists, who also left, ca. 250, for a “holier place?” What about the Montanists, who left ca. 200, because the “institutional church” had not recognized their purported “new outpouring” of the holy Spirit? What about Marcion and his followers ca. 140? Perhaps Dean Turner will claim that these last two groups were forced out of the Church by the excommunication of their leaders, and so do not form an exact parallel, but I think that the case of the Novatianists does apply, and that exactly.
Then, too, St. Augustine. Dean Turner errs here not so much by commission, as by omission. St. Augustine did indeed come to the views and advance the arguments that Turner adduces. But the real crux of Augustine’s arguments (put must pointedly and indeed repetitively) in his *Psalmos contra Donatistas* (a kind of long, almost doggrelly, popular and ear-catching, poem) was that the Donatists WERE NOT THE CHURCH, and that their opponents, the Catholics, were. Note well, The Church. Both the Donatists and the Catholics claimed to be the ONE and ONLY “The Church,” not denominations, not “branches” of the (either invisible, or visible but divisible) “Church Catholic” (a phrase I detest, by the way, since it relates to historic ecclesiologies as the jolly roger does to a recognized flag). How can an Episcopalian/Anglican, a member of a body or “communion” that never has claimed to be anything more than a branch, a portion or a manifestation of the Catholic Church or “Church Catholic,” appropriate Blessed Augustine’s ecclesiology (or that of any other Church Father, by the way) and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about Augustine, the Fathers, ecclesiology, or Anglican history? It is a remarkable act of prestidigitation, but one that plays fast and loose with the facts.
Cf. *St. Augustine and the Donatist Controversy* by Geoffrey Grimshaw Willis (1950; repr. 2005) for more than this. Willis (1914-1982) was a scholarly clergyman of the Church of England and wrote extensively on St. Augustine and on the origins of the Roman liturgy.