It’s been a week full of bad hair days for Anglican liberals. Their worst nightmare came to pass. Not one but two of Anglicanism’s world-renowned theologians made statements that had liberals fulminating, frothing and spitting in rage.
Firstly, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s surprisingly strong reaction to The Episcopal Church’s General Convention dealt a final blow to the bizarre pretence by the American leadership that their controversial resolutions were merely descriptive. Dr Williams realized that ”˜pastoral generosity’ amounted to a green light for same-sex blessings, and that the reference to ”˜no’ extra-canonical restraints on Episcopal elections was a turning away from an already very weak moratorium on the consecration of practising homosexuals.
Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s clear recognition that the Episcopal Church was walking even further apart from the Anglican Communion was followed by strong language of a twin-track communion ”” with the Episcopal Church on the outside track.
Many liberals can scarcely conceal their sense of betrayal at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s defence of the ecumenical, traditional and biblical consensus on human sexuality. They thought he was one of them when he was appointed. After seeing off Carey, they were certain that good old Rowan would support a gradual overturning of Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Instead, he has supported Lambeth Resolution 1.10 as the ”˜mind of the Communion’ at every stage. Perhaps he is now more aware than ever that the novel, liberal teaching on homosexuality would represent a massive departure from universal Christian norms and our ecumenical partners?
And then the worst nightmare came, the New Testament theologian, NT Wright, added his voice to the Archbishop’s censure of The Episcopal Church. Let’s not forget that this is a theologian who demolishes weak, tendentious and dishonest theologies for breakfast while the rest of us are blearily chewing our Weetabix. The Bishop of Durham both supported the Archbishop of Canterbury’s analysis but also called for immediate action to twin-track the Communion now. Don’t wait for the Covenant and the endless delaying tactics of The Episcopal Church, he warned, the Communion can be restructured tomorrow allowing a substantial and faithful remnant within The Episcopal Church to rally around the Anaheim statement with its declaration of loyalty to the Communion.
He was described as ”˜megalomaniacal’ by Colin Coward of Changing Attitude for this contribution to the debate. But an even clearer sign that the archiepiscopal broadside had rattled the liberals was the knee-jerk statement by 13 liberal organizations, including Inclusive Church.
The statement’s muttering about strengthening bonds of affection “with those ”¦ who share our commitment to the full inclusion of all of God’s faithful”, together with their criticism of a “two-track communion” amounted to a declaration of guerrilla warfare in the Church of England.
The initial thinking is not just to strengthen ties with liberals in North America, but to encourage the creation of an Episcopal chaplaincy in England along the lines of the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.
But they are also intent on planting more facts on the ground. It has worked in North America, so why not here? The first initiative is a survey of gay and lesbian clergy in the Church of England in an attempt to demonstrate that far from being anomalous these relationships and civil partnerships are widely accepted. This might amount to a massive exercise in ”˜outing’ clergy, but it could, in fact, be groups like Inclusive Church who are exaggerating the numbers of practising homosexuals
in ministry. The other declaration in the statement is that they will “continue to work towards liturgical and sacramental recognition of the God-given love which enables many LGBT couples to thrive”. This is another aspect of planting facts on the ground, with the stepping up of same-sex blessings despite the fact that these are not permitted in the Church of England.
In other words, lawlessness on the part of those who claim to uphold the law of the Church of England and who have criticized evangelicals and others for undermining canon law.
Why the liberals are less of a threat than they think
So should we be concerned about this new ”˜militancy’ on the part of liberal Anglicans? Not really. Firstly, the numbers involved are very small. Many of these 13 organizations amount to little more than a man and his dog. There are also duplicated memberships. Furthermore, for a campaign to come to anything it has to be a genuine cause and you have to be principled in support of your cause.
Liberals have been a victim of their own success, they are ensconced comfortably in the Church of England, they’ve dominated the hierarchy for decades and they’ve had it too comfortable. Furthermore, they now preside over mostly moribund churches and they don’t believe anything terribly much. If you’re really going to make a difference you have to believe in it as though it’s a matter of life and death, even eternal life and death.
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, August 14, 2009 edition, on page 15
what is he talking about? This is a fervid imagination. Did he hear either the Archbishop or the Inclusive church?
The Archbishop is simply describing a reality: we have two tracks. The Inclusive church is simply stating that it’s time for them to get organized.
Andrew Carey certainly appears to have heard all parties loud and clear, and I find his article a very helpful analysis of the situation.
[blockquote]The Archbishop is simply describing a reality: we have two tracks. [/blockquote]
And where did this “reality” come from?
There can be no doubt that this is a calculated gamble on the part of the liberal wing (perhaps misled by their concentration in the dioceses of London and Southwark into believing they possess greater strength than is actually the case) knowing that their hand has been forced earlier than they had hoped, and before the arrival of Women Bishops signals the departure of more of those who would be their opponents within the Church of England.
Rowan might suport orthodox with his words as he has done again, but this latest verbal volley will be no more then empty words. The two tracks is an empty threat. Bp Wright’s call for moving forward will go unheeded.GAFCon/FCA is the only force that Rowan hasn’t paralyzed with indaba. Rowan did NOT call for Ms Schori to step down from the Primate’s standing committee. That ilacuna is the most important point of Rowan’s communique.
Jefferson, that is a very good question. I think that the internet makes for lots of miscommunication. There are lots of different worlds: North Vs. South; 19th century vs 21st century; rich vs. poor; fundamentalism vs. capitalism.
Interesting dichotomies, Mr. Wilkins. Particularly the last one. Seems to me that those y’all like to call “fundamentalists” are the biggest champions of free-market capitalism. The liberalists? Not so much.
6. John Wilkins:
That list you mentioned: that has always been and always will. And, the fact that there is miscommunication does not for an instant prove that there is not also true and accurate communication. Your version of Jefferson’s question is a straw dog.
I weary at the attempt to miscommunicate.
Don
[blockquote]Jefferson, that is a very good question. I think that the internet makes for lots of miscommunication. There are lots of different worlds: North Vs. South; 19th century vs 21st century; rich vs. poor; fundamentalism vs. capitalism. [/blockquote]
So which of these yins and yangs you’ve inexplicably felt compelled to call out here is the “reality” the Archbishop described? Is it your contention that said reality preexisted the Archbishop’s description?
I enjoy reading Andrew Carey but I’m not certain he is reading the libs reaction correctly — at least in TEC [maybe correctly in COE?].
RE: “Their worst nightmare came to pass. Not one but two of Anglicanism’s world-renowned theologians made statements that had liberals fulminating, frothing and spitting in rage.”
Sure over here in TEC it takes hardly anything to get them foaming at the mouth. But I don’t think the ABC’s or NT Wrights are at all their “worst nightmare.” From a strategic perspective they recognize — as they have for some time now — that it’s just words.
RE: “Furthermore, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s clear recognition that the Episcopal Church was walking even further apart from the Anglican Communion was followed by strong language of a twin-track communion — with the Episcopal Church on the outside track.”
But this sort of strong language was already used — a year or more ago. It’s the exact same thing — almost the same words! I think the libs in TEC recognize that, again, it’s just words.
RE: “Furthermore, for a campaign to come to anything it has to be a genuine cause and you have to be principled in support of your cause.”
Well — the campaign certainly came to something in TEC by the liberals. So I’m not confident that it can’t happen in the COE either. They *do* believe what they believe, with all the intensity and fervor of their gospel.
I guess we’ll see.
Its evident that liberals don’t think deeply enough to overly concern themselves with anything as mundane as establishing the “theological highground” for their actions. I’ve never heard a liberal Christology yet that didn’t sound like the opening song for the Barney (Purple Dinosaur) Show. Its really about the maintaining the credibility derived from being in direct (full) communion with the See of Canterbury (the apparatus of the Church). It enables them to feel and act legitimately. In short, they are deriving their authority from the wrong place and person.
I agree, Sarah1.
Regarding the ABC and his words, he pretty much used the same “strong words” after GC2006. He inferred that separation was inevitable, so he proposed two categories of membership. In 2006, he called the two divisions “Constituient” and “Associate”. This time, it’s being called a “two track” or “two tier” model.
His strong words need to be backed up with strong actions, which we have seen he is just not able to do.
I wish I was wrong.
Sarah1 and More Martha,
I so agree with you. Once again, I say, who would have thought that Eliza Doolitte could have been so prescient? (Google the lyrics to “Show Me” if this reference escapes you).