This essay is about our Anglican identity. In particular, what does it mean to “stand firm in faith; be persons of courage; be strong. Do everything in love” (1 Cor 16:14)? There is much talk these days about the hard facts that require conservatives to abandon hope for a future that includes communion with TEC and even Canterbury. Indeed, in some circles, it is an accepted commonplace to speak of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the harshest terms, declaring him a weakling, a quisling, untrustworthy, and faithless. Schism, in the judgment of some, is more godly than maintaining communion with those they judge to be heretical or apostate.
While I acknowledge the hard facts of our reality at this moment, and I, like many, suffer much distress about my own ecclesial future as we navigate this difficult time together, I disagree profoundly with those who counsel despair and rationalize abandonment of Canterbury and global schism. I agree that the issue at hand is our Christian identity, but I suggest that a militant politics of “liberation from TEC” ensnares us in behaviors that contradict our identity in Christ and therefore lead us astray. Part 1 reviews lessons from the mission field of Islam to introduce the practical significance of an identity founded on relational receptivity. Part II develops this concept by examining closely J. Kameron Carter’s study of Frederick Douglass to show that the militant identity advocated by some may well actually repeat the self-destructive performance of Christian identity of those from whom it is claimed we must seek liberation. Following Carter, I propose that the cause of our Anglican identity crisis in the West is a “modern” theology, the core of which is shared by both liberals and “orthodox,” that is insufficiently paschal, charismatic, pentecostal, and spiritual. Drawing heavily upon the work of Carter and Kenneth Bailey, in Part III, I conclude by offering a rough outline of how our Anglican identity might be alternatively understood and performed.
An extraordinary piece, worth reading and praying and acting upon. I found myself greatly moved and encouraged. Immediately, as I am a “modern” I began to think of “how” this would work out. Yet I realize that my wanting to know “how” is a quest for security, for safeness, and that I really know that this is not achieved by strategy but by grace.
Remarkable, and worth re reading many times. In this age of quick points and quick retorts this one shuts me up. Too much to comment on really.
Craig,
I appreciate very much what you’ve written, I suppose because I have been thinking and praying and saying these very things for quite a while. But you’ve managed to put it all into one essay, and give contemporary validity especially among “reasserters” by including your observations of Acbp Fearon. That is well done.
Since I have been thinking about this for awhile, though, there is one aspect of biblical theology that I would include, especially considering the lessons for this past Sunday. There is this aspect of “fire” (which appears in the Jeremiah and the Luke lessons) which relates to God’s power. I take it to be a reference to one of the workings of the Holy Spirit. Paul makes this reference, as you are aware, when he ties together the proclamation of the Good News with signs and wonders (of God’s power). So while at the same time redefining (or perhaps better, reminding us) what peace is and what power can be, there must be the validating ministry that comes from laying on of hands to see God’s redemptive work powerfully manifested in healings, miracles, etc., etc. So then we can say there IS a power, God’s power to show who He is and that He loves us, versus the political and social power manufactured for and by human beings.
How would you add that into your essay thoughts and direction?
RGEaton
It saddens me whenever I read well written essays that begin with the wrong premises. This essay begins with statement of the approach Archbishop Fearon of Nigeria takes in evangelizing Muslims, the “otherâ€. Craig Uffmand writes: “From Eulogius… to St. Francis…to colonial-era missionary efforts… the common thread in evangelistic efforts to Islam was the presupposition that Muslims are hostile, contempt-worthy savages who must be conquered on behalf of Christendom. As a result of such evangelism approaches, buttressed by Western military power, Muslims worldwide equate Christanity with the Western culture that must be resisted.â€
An underlying premise is that Christianity is a Western Religion. He forgets that Christianity did not start as a Western religion- it started as a Middle- Eastern religion. He forgets that of the five major centers of Christianity in the first few centuries Rome was the only Western Church. The other four, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem, were non-Western. The Church in Egypt was alive and well and Alexandria was the leading center of theology long before Islam existed.
A second premise, common with many Western writers, portrays Christians as unique in history: aggressors, oppressors, and colonialists who spread the message by the sword. This is a view peculiar to those who are guilt-ridden in the West. Eastern Churches, especially in Egypt were the subjects, not the perpetrators, of violence and colonialism – and that by Islam. When, in the seventh century, Muslims invaded Egypt [the country and the Church I know best] and conquered it by military power it was to spread the message of Islam. And this aggression and oppression is not ancient history. It is still true today that it is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity – one can be severely punished, but it is legal to convert to Islam. Periodic persecution (including martyrdom) of Christians occur, though frequently [for political expediency] are not reported in Western media.
In addition to my concern about starting with the premises that Christianity is a Western Religion and that Christianity is unique in attempts to spread the message by the sword, I am not convinced that Zwemer’s doctrine is the way of Christ. Did not Jesus confront the Pharisees and teachers of the Law [He even called them brood of vipers, and told them their father is the devil]? Did He not confront the money changers and the merchants? Did not Peter confront the crowd on the day of Pentecost [“you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.â€] and three thousand were baptized that day? Did not Stephen confront the Sanhedrin? Was not all of Paul’s ministry confrontational?
“Sympathetic understanding†and “relational receptivity†are fine, and Jesus modeled these also [ Sameritan woman, woman caught in adultry are examples] as long as the ultimate objective is the “confrontational†question: Who do you say Jesus is?
Moheb,
What is different about these examples and the preaching to Muslims today:
1) Did not Jesus confront the Pharisees and teachers of the Law
This is an internal discussion Jew to Jews.
2) [He even called them brood of vipers, and told them their father is the devil]?
This was John the Baptist Mtt3 and is still an internal religious discussion
3) Did He not confront the money changers and the merchants?
Internal
4) Did not Peter confront the crowd on the day of Pentecost [“you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.â€] and three thousand were baptized that day?
This is a historically specific discussion again Jew to Jews
5) Did not Stephen confront the Sanhedrin?
Internal
6) Was not all of Paul’s ministry confrontational?
Not in the way we see here. Harshness and confrontation is reserved for those already knowing and failing to live up to the call.
We certainly need to guard against pluralism. But often confrontation helps us feel right but not having the desired result. Paul actually portrays himself as very flexible to non-believers, becoming all things to all men that he might win some to Christ. Once called, he might have a harsh word or two for backward leaning.
William:
Thank you. Yes, these (Jesus, Peter, Stephen and often Paul) were all “internal”. While I addressed the Muslim issue, Uffman had used that as a background for his ultimate objective: applying “relational reciptivity” to the current crisis in TEC, my ultimate objective is to point out that it is not wrong to be confrontational with those who are “internal” but need to be confronted. Jesus was harshests with the religious leaders: (a) they should know better, and (b) they were leading the flock in the wrong direction. [He called them brood of vipers in Matthew 12:34 and 23:33 and sons of the devil in John 8:44].
Moheb,
Thank you. I missed the brood of vipers quote from Jesus I went to the first. Must have been a common phrase in the day.
I have not fully finished the article. Perhaps unwitingly Uffman is even more critical of TEC in treating them as infidels not a internal to the Church.