…true encouragement comes from honesty before God and self and the strength of purpose to serve in the face of disappointment or uncertainty. Or so it should. I know a young person who sneered at the faith of an Episcopalian ”“ a more conservative person ”“ who chose to leave TEC for another set of ecclesial structures. “You would do such a thing”, this young person said to him: “yours is the generation, after all, who invented no-fault divorce”. In fact, in this case, the complaint was less directed at a purported hypocrite, than at what he perceived to be the witness of an impotent God, unable to garner the sacrificial steadiness of His adherents. But either way, faith is scandalized by those who do not have the strength, nor certainly seek the strength, to stand in the face of upheaval.
I will come back to this at the close of my remarks: honesty need be neither angry, miserable, nor defeatist. It should be the seed for hope, because it is the first and necessary turn to God who alone saves.
What is the difficult thing to speak, honestly? It is this: the Episcopal Church, as it has been known through the past two centuries, is no more, in any substantive sense. TEC is simply no longer the church filled with even the strength of purpose we saw only 10 years ago ”“ yes, even then, a church with a good deal of vital diversity and disagreement; but a seeming sense of restraint over pressing these in ways that overwhelmed witness and mission. And as a result, even then, it was church that was growing in outreach and faith. That church, shimmering still with some of the vibrancy of love spent for the Gospel seen140 years before, even 90 years before, is now gone. And TEC will not survive in any real continuity with this past and its gifts.
This is something we must face. To be sure, I am not speaking here of this or that diocese or bishop or congregation or clergy person within TEC: there are many through whose service the Gospel shines bright and the witness of the Kingdom flourishes. I am speaking of an institution as a whole ”“ not even in terms of its legal corporation, but in terms of its character and Christian substance given flesh in the Spirit’s mission.
I want to stress, please, that people in the comments interact with what Ephraim is arguing for and actually saying. Comments not doing so will be dispacted into the ether. Many thanks–KSH.
It interests me how these things sometimes happen. This morning we had Frank Rich’s cri de coeur about American culture and tonight we have Ephraim Radner’s cri de coeur about the Episcopal Church.
Providential, I think, that they happen so late in Advent and near to Christmas.
A rather inspiring and for me, exciting look at the Church I will get an opportunity to serve. I am very grateful to be starting my ministry at this time, and in this particular Church.
It appears Ephraim is saying that the Shekinah has left the Temple.
Thanks Kendall for posting this illuminating essay.
Thank you, Ephraim. Lately, I’ve been thinking we could learn much from our Jewish brothers and sisters, who maintained their religious and ethnic identity without a homeland for an extended period of time. I haven’t had time to pursue it, though. God bless.
Wow. Fantastic essay but…
The troubling aspect of this essay is the instillation of hope by the last section entitled [i]The New Season[/i]. Certainly, one should have hope in God’s Church. But hope in Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion? The Covenant has been weakened so by delay and dilution that I fear it will make matters worse than if there wasn’t one. Many have staked hopes in this document to be the game changer, but it is just another document in a long line of documents that have only proved impotent to resist the forces of entropy. When or if the same political machinations doom the Covenant (the [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25177 ]games[/url] seem to have already begun) as the other train of paper documents, what then?
People are tired. The raising of false hopes is not helpful. In fact, disillusionment can be soul endangering. People are turning, not just from Anglicanism, but from Christ’s church. The [url=http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/12/committing-to-the-anglican-covenantan-analysis-by-the-anglican-communion-institute/ ]ACI analysis[/url] doesn’t offer their frank assessment of the “disciplinary” part of the Covenant. I would be very interested in such a discussion that includes their opinions on the real-world workability of it. The ACI analysis also mentions the new, double secret ACC constitution. That certainly bodes ill and is less transparent than even the back door dealings of the health care “reform.”
as one who studied international relations as an undergrad, I am struck by Dr. Radner’s portrail of the hubris of TEC’s position in relation to the vital and growing Church of the growing South. For me there is a paralell here to the hubris of a foreign policy in the early 21st century which sought to impose our will on others by force of arms and economics.
But perhaps more important is the glimpse of what may emerge — will we tend the lamp of the Gospel, and be light bearers to the rest of the world? Or will we chose the moral intellectual and spiritual death of failed institutions who have lost the power to inspire, and must coerce conformity? Are these institutional death pangs also the birthing pains of a new age?
“The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. ”
Christ is born!
Glorify Him!
Islandbear+
Fr. Radner presents a most honest look at TEC: past and future. For the future the two most important factors are money and aging. For 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 Plate & Pledge increases have not kept up with inflation (in fact, for 2008 Plate & Pledge actually fell). And the ratio of Infant Baptisms to Burials has fallen each year for 2003 through 2008. In 2003 it took 53 Members to produce ONE Infant Baptism; in 2008 it took 63. But what is true for TEC is not the case for ALL dioceses. Dallas and Virginia had great losses (2003 through 2008) but both are quite “youthful” and have many well funded parishes to help support the poorer ones. They may well not grow but the yearly large losses may be behind them. On the other hand, to name just two, Springfield and Western Kansas are aging and have far too few (if any) well funded parishes to help an abundance of poorer ones. These varied results appear to mirror Fr. Radner’s look into the TEC future. Statmann
#6 You’re tired, and perhaps this is shaping your view of the future of Anglicanism. But don’t assume that because you’re tired, that all are, or that others see what Dr. Radner has written as false hope. I, along with others, many of whom are 30 and under, are being trained for various ministries in this particular Church and we are not tired. We’re excited, hopeful and inspired by the courage, wisdom, and perseverance of those, like Dr. Radner, who have stayed the course in our Church. We’re ready to serve: to preach, teach, write, study, evangelize and give of ourselves for the building up of the Church. And finally, many of us who have been paying attention (and there are quite a number of us across the whole Communion … thank you facebook) who are excited about the opportunity for mission in the context of a Communion polity given integrity by the Covenant Agreement.
I’m quite excited by the outcome of this Covenant. I think it provides a framework of relationships through which we will be drawn into discernment of God’s Word over time. I believe that it provides us with an agreed upon (for those Churches signing on) understanding of common life set forth in sections 1-3 and with the means of addressing violations of the relationships as set forth in section 4.
Anyway, check out the following analysis by four different individuals for more information: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/12/22/catholic-voices-four-responses-to-the-covenant
And 9, not all of us old codgers are tired either! We are not to be “weary in well doing” after all. Perhaps it would have been lovely to have lived in a former day -although with modern medicine and plush recliners – but we have been called to be faithful today. And in comparison with other dark ages we have such a light affliction.
Amen to that 10. I’m quite partial to the push recliners myself and wish I could have one in my dorm room to be quite honest!
Well, I can tell you that I, for one, have spent a lot of time being tired. As I type this, I’m about three weeks away from turning thirty, having just entered into the fourth year of my priesthood, and there are times when I feel like I’ve been at this for forty years. It’s wearying. And I know many other young clergy who feel the same way. There is often far too little light in all of this for those of us who wish to simply carry out the cure of souls.
And that’s why I really, really, really appreciate what Fr. Radner has written here. Not only do I agree with his analysis, but it gives me hope in the midst of the darkness. I especially appreciate the way he describes the fruits of humility. I’m personally humbled that he would choose to speak repeatedly to the needs and concerns of young Christians like myself who often feel left out of what is largely a baby boomer conversation in the church. May God bless Fr. Radner, Fr. Harmon, and all of us who seek to find a way to continue to live out the gospel in the strange land that TEC has become. And may God give us the strength to look past our weaknesses, dire though they may be, and instead see those all around us who are thirsty for the living water of Christ and don’t know how to get it.
This is truly a breathtaking piece and I am full of awe and respect.
I have some disagreements — anything this broad and sweeping in analysis and vision will produce some disagreements.
But I admire this piece for a number of reasons, two of which are these:
[b]1)[/b] It’s courageous enough to tell the truth about TEC. I have immense respect for that, in part because it’s so rare. The number of traditional people who continue to paper over the massive dysfunctions and corruptions of TEC is still astounding — people who want to claim that there are just a few issues, but that the foundation is strong. Or people who want to claim that if only “the moderates” were running the show all would be well. Or people who want to claim that if only we all speak sweetly to the revisionists and help to “educate” them and moderate our tone that they will come around, through the strength of our witness — they fail to comprehend the evil and the calculation and the perniciousness of the ideas and foundational worldview that now rules the leadership structures of TEC [note that I do not say the people — the ideas].
It doesn’t engender any faith or trust in our “leaders” when they deny the horror of the fire or the danger in general — while claiming to lead. That makes would-be followers who recognize the dire straits we are in even more distraught and ironically independent and autonomous. If our “leaders” are in denial about the catastrophe upon us, then why follow them where they wish to lead us? That leads, inevitably, to followers going off on their own path, knowledgeable at least in their situation if not the solutions. Leaders who proclaim in “non-anxious tones” that “things are not really all that bad” when the house is falling in around them and the heat searing the faces of their followers cause panic, not calm.
— Radner tells the truth [i]while he is within TEC[/i]. It’s hard, really, to state just how powerful such a voice that is. He’s capable of acknowledging just how dreadful a loss is TEC — while speaking from within it. I respect that more than I can say. Too often people who are within TEC either refuse to speak honestly — they lie to themselves and others — or they say the truth and a week later depart in a huff, all the while declaiming against those who are not as wise or courageous as they are to have left last week.
— Radner is willing to be honest about the terrible state — indeed the terminal state — of our church; it’s just gone — the Episcopal church is gone. “That church, shimmering still with some of the vibrancy of love spent for the Gospel seen140 years before, even 90 years before, is now gone. And TEC will not survive in any real continuity with this past and its gifts.” If we can’t be honest, and tell the truth about that, we’ll just repeat the same mistakes and never make the correct diagnosis, much less seek the right remedies. Trying to salvage something that is gone is fruitless, dispiriting, and untruthful.
The assembling of the data that illustrate his thesis is simply devastating. I expect that few to no liberals, and precious few moderates will be capable of absorbing the reality of this — but I’m grateful that Dr. Radner can say it publicly and back it up.
I particularly appreciate his searing truth-telling about two of the less-mentioned aspects of TEC’s disappearance — a) the intellectual lack of heft of our leaders and scholars and the b) horrible and deeply damaging acclaim of what is a simply termite-ridden, hollowed-out view of sexuality and human relationships, amounting to clerical malpractice of the deepest order, leading bodies and psyches down a path of pain, suffering, and tearing, rending damage.
Here are the key quotes for those two rarely-mentioned aspects of TEC’s dysfunction: 1) [blockquote]Much – but by no means all — of this has come most visibly from the leadership of TEC, but it has trickled down to parochial levels – ignoring Eucharistic discipline and the responsibilities of being “stewards of the mysteries†of Christ; altering the gifts of liturgical order on personal whims, spewing misinformation from pulpits while indulging idiosyncratic spiritual predilections with complete disdain for the gifts of former generations.[/blockquote]
And:
1) [blockquote]”But they remain among the most intellectually lazy Christians I know, most of whom stopped reading rigorously years ago, prefer arguments based on prejudice, and have contributed virtually nothing to the Anglican and larger Christian theological forum for decades now. There are exceptions, of course, some of them wonderful; but the problem frankly colors the leadership across the board, from the top down and the bottom up, from Left to Right, Liberal to Conservative. The Anglican intellectual tradition that is embodied by and that has derived from TEC is bankrupt, long deflated in comparison with even recent witness from other parts of the Communion.[/blockquote]
And:
2) [blockquote]The attempt that the majority of TEC’s leaders have made to normalize the sexual behavior of a tiny minority of people, and then to build normative moral and even biological principles upon this behavior designed to restructure the form and character of human relations in general, including marriage, family, and civil order, will surely go down as one of the great follies and social distortions of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. That TEC has now so clearly committed itself to this project remains an astonishing act of moral betrayal, intellectual irresponsibility, and self-destruction, done brazenly in the face of the endemic needs of the Communion’s majority of members whose own social fabric – again, leaving aside theology altogether – cannot sustain such self-regarding actions by their “friendsâ€.[/blockquote]
— He is honest about the long-term consequences of TEC’s disappearance, and malpractice of the faith: [blockquote]Of all times to run from this calling, when the roots of Christian faith and life have been so steadily and severely weakened in the West, and when that faith and life are but new shoots elsewhere, however vigorous in the short run, nonetheless under enormous threat! Every study made of Christian commitment in America (and in the West more largely) demonstrates the current vulnerability of Christian witness, especially among the young. Yet TEC has become the (necessarily shrinking) institution of the aging, who have less and less to offer to others of the light given in Christ in a time of increasingly desperate spiritual need.[/blockquote]
[b]2)[/b] The second reason [see, the above was only the first reason] that I so respect this piece is that it is obvious that the writer loves the Episcopal Church and recognizes just how beautiful a church that it was. I do too. It was my spiritual mother — and I’ll always love it, even though it is so lost and finished. I honor what it was, while recognizing that that is gone forever. But my deep sorrow over what happened to TEC is not going to take away from how grateful I am for how God used this church in my life and just how precious it is in my own life story and in my being found by Christ. I will always be so grateful for The Episcopal Church — even as I am clear about what it has become. I almost never find someone who has that same level of commitment and love of TEC — and Dr. Radner clearly does. That’s why when he says all the negative stuff he has said, it doesn’t come across as angry, bitter, vindictive, or vengeful; it’s not said with relish, and it’s not said as if there was never anything there that was wonderful — indeed that’s what makes what has happened so tragic. If you love someone beautiful and good and pure — and he becomes ugly, deformed, malevolent, cruel, destructive, and corrupt, the fall is all the more painful and sad. My eyes filled just writing that. Dr. Radner loved The Episcopal Church, he loves it still . . . and it’s gone.
I appreciate his articulating that — it takes a lot of courage and willingness to be hurt. It’s much easier to get hard and deny that there was ever a church that one loved and that deserved being loved. It’s much easier to say “I don’t love this church.”
At the risk of taking away from the sheer quality of expression and articulateness of thought of this essay, I’ll briefly mention my main points of disagreement — important points, but in no way taking away from the scope of Dr. Radner’s honesty and analysis.
[b]1)[/b] I do not believe it is “blasphemy” for departing congregations to defend their property from the predations of a faux church which desires to use those properties to ape the Christian faith and lure the unsuspecting into the incarnate symbols of that faith — great churches. We are an incarnate faith and we are incarnate people — we’re not gnostics. The material world is important, especially when the ill-informed and unknowledgeable seekers enter buildings hoping to find Truth and instead find the malevolent gospel being preached by the TEC-that-is-not-what-it-was. I’m sure that the above is counted as one of the “excuses” that Radner mentions. Obviously, I disagree. I don’t believe in yielding the signs and symbols of the Christian faith to pretenders.
[b]2)[/b] I continue to be befuddled by the hope in the Covenant as a tool for reform or church order. I honestly can’t see what Dr. Radner sees — I see the exact opposite. I would [i]love[/i] to see what he sees — I would love to have hope that the Episcopal Church is “on the far side of a widening channel” in the Anglican Communion. I simply don’t see that happening. I wish that it would. But I don’t see it — and I particularly don’t see it happening through the Covenant.
Instead, I see the Covenant — sitting there in all of its verbose and turgid grandeur of process — on the far side of a widening channel, while on the other side are the [i]actual actions and decisions[/i] of the Standing Committee, utterly separate from the Covenant’s processes and structures. It is the Standing Committee that makes recommendations and makes choices and makes judgements. I see nothing in the Standing Committee — particularly considering that the same malevolence and disease that guides TEC is also endemic in the membership of the Standing Committee and the schemings of the ACO and Lambeth Palace — that will cause it to “row with” the stream’s flow of the Covenant, the sense of the majority of the Primates [the Primates Meetings], or the sense of the majority of the bishops [Lambeth]. Instead, I see the Covenant in one place, and the Standing Committee in another, rowing vigorously away upstream.
When Radner says “[the Covenant’s] persistent progress forward to this point at last puts the lie to the naysayers and early eulogists of the Covenant’s purpose” I am dumbfounded. It’s not as if the naysayers [me, for instance] ever claimed that the Covenant text would never be final. It’s that we claimed that the final text of the Covenant would not be divorced from the problems that were endemic with the Windsor Report . . . and then the Windsor Process . . . and then the Panel of Reference . . . and then the Dar communique . . . and then the Windsor Continuation Group . . . and then the Covenant Working Group . . . those problems are that [i]those who control the political processes of decision-making and consequences within the Anglican Communion are themselves corrupt and compromised and TECian in theology and doctrine.[/i]
So I don’t at all see how the production of a final text [slow, but never thought to be something that would not occur] “puts the lie to the naysayers” unless somehow something has been done to deal with the Standing Committee’s membership — and indeed the memberships of all the other previous panels, commissions, and committees — which is after all the adjudicating body.
I see that “The Anglican Covenant, in its final form, points to the likelihood of a growing core of covenanting Anglican churches” but I don’t at all see how that “critical mass will soon shift the character of decision-making as a whole among the Instruments.” Indeed — I see that the “Instruments” are now circumvented by the Standing Committee — which is, again, endemically corrupted by the very people who are promoting New-TECian theology and practice and all the things that Dr. Radner so beautifully critiqued above.
I see, in short, a massive “punting effort” going on, such that we have to go through the last six years [i]all over again, and with the exact same ineffectual results.[/i] I wish it weren’t so — but that’s what I believe.
Thus I do not at all think that “the direction of our future has emerged so clearly” or that “we know the larger outcome” or how on earth we can “lay aside the anxiety” when the anxiety occurs because people like me see precisely the same outcomes from this latest committee as from all the other committees — and that is a document uncoupled from the reality of the discipline and order that is needed or the body that is supposed to bring about that discipline and order. The document is an idea that is [i]separate from the actual *action* that will or will not take place[/i] — and I don’t see that action being any different than the actions of the past six years.
I feel sad bringing up my two disagreements — but it wouldn’t be honest for me not to point those out.
And the good news is that those two disagreements can’t distract from this amazing essay or my joy in it — it’s just a pleasure to read, and the good that it does in expressing so clearly the disaster that befell the church that I love is immensely valuable for our future, whatever that may be, for the Truth shall set us free.
As Dr. Radner states in so many words, out of the rubble of a failed church will rise a cleansed church if, as he states in his last paragraph, “The Episcopal Church, as we have known it and given ourselves to its ministry, is over. But the Gospel is alive, and the Church that is Christ’s Body given, takes us to a new place.” The Gospel will be the vehicle to redemption. There are those in the midst of the debris who recognize that truth and will carry it forward. But there are many who are walking with blinders firmly in place. May the Holy Spirit help them cast the mote out of their eye and see the light.
In his essay Fr. Radner maintains that one must look honestly at the state of affairs within TEC, and remain courageous and committed in the face of the challenges. I read a staightforward reflection on matters regarding church adminstration, ecclesiology, ecumenical relations, finances, and even morality. Yet, I do not read the theological honesty that reaches to the heart of the matter.
To be honest TEC has changed, and is in the process of continuing to change, the very theological foundation of the Christian faith. What is now promoted is a post-modern new religious movement that embraces pluralism, relativism, and tolerance as its central tenets. Scripture is deconstructed to mean whatever is desired. The language of Christianity is retained, but the underlying meanings of the words have changed in a sophisticated scheme of smoke and mirrors, designed to give the detractors the illusion that orthodoxy remains.
In fairness, I believe Dr. Radner and others remain faithful believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, yet I do not understand how or why they do not appear to recognize the depth of change which is taking place around them – the very ground has shifted under their feet. Thus, I do not consider the more honest, or noble, action to continue in participation with such a church body which has a clear agenda to supplant the foundations of Christian belief with something completely different.
For those of us who have separated and are now attempting a reformation of the Anglican communion, I concur a call to honesty is vitally needed. However, it must be an honesty that looks beyond the surface solutions of the covenant, and is willing to take the stand necessary to bring into being a vibrant, orthodox, Anglican expression of genuine Christian faith and practice.
Thanks for the reference to the Living Church article, OP. The responses were not unexpected, and I would classify them as damning with faint praise. Graham Kings points out one obvious glaring problem area: “What of Churches which choose not to enter into the Covenant? The text deliberately does not deal with this matter, but the working party states that the Instruments of Communion should determine an appropriate response.” He tries to pass this shortcoming as feature. But it virtually guarantees the Anglichaos will carry on for years. Some of these non-Covenant provinces will be recognized fully by some of the instruments of (dys-)unity, e.g., Rowan “All-at-the-table-even-consecrators-of-Robinson-in-violation-of-Windsor” Williams. OP and Father Clavier state that they are not weary. Perhaps they will be when Lambeth 2018 rolls around and the chaos is no better, in fact worse, by a Covenant whose vaguenesses are stilled being argued about.
P.S. Sarah your reflections are genuine, honest, and accurate.
Fr. Jack Estes
Sarah, I think of all of the many reflections of yours that I’ve read, these two comments may well be the most moving. Thanks for being vulnerable. Many of us now outside of TEC still love the denomination, even amidst the wreckage and ruin, fully recognizing the “depth of change” that Fr. Jack mentions. Ten years is such a short period of time to have seen the huge differences that Dr. Radner mentions, but he is absolutely accurate with regard to that timespan.
[blockquote] The world’s and the Christian Church’s moral compromise, economically and politically has, over the past century (not decade!), provided a sad spectacle of ecclesial treachery, marked by only some brushes of light, though with countless individual offerings enlivening the more somber scene. Few have resisted this compromise, from either Left or Right on the theological spectrum. Certainly not Anglicanism as a whole, such that our Anglican vocation could arise from a deserved self-satisfaction. This could never be. [/blockquote]
As Dr. Radner indirectly points out here, we would do well to remember — and even take comfort in the fact — that we Anglicans have been facing manifestations of a seismic shift that has impacted (or will impact) the entire worldwide body of Christ. Our brothers and sisters in conservative denominations or non-denominations may be unaware or less aware of it (and even comparatively untouched by it), as I mostly was when I attended non-denominational churches several decades back, but what affects one branch impacts all in the end. Dr. Radner’s assessment that no side is blameless is an uncomfortable one, but he is accurate here.
[blockquote] But there is a reason to be brave and to be strong, through the pleading for divine grace and its promised self-giving. For Anglicanism’s witness has been valuable in all this, and still has a gift to offer other Christians and the world at large. If not to a superior moral achievement, her witness has been to a certain realism and penitence, politically and otherwise. And, to a remarkable degree, Anglicanism has also embodied a persistent hope that has been peculiar in its modesty, and in its willingness to humble itself before the Spirit of Christ, a convergence that has in fact meant missionary release along with its internal disarray. [/blockquote]
Yes, Anglicanism’s strengths are worth preserving and perpetuating, not due to any perceived superiority (heaven forbid), but in service to the larger body of Christ. Thank you, Dr. Radner, for once again pointing this out. We cannot hear or read it enough.
[blockquote] The Episcopal Church, as we have known it and given ourselves to its ministry, is over. But the Gospel is alive, and the Church that is Christ’s Body given, takes us to a new place. [/blockquote]
I find this indeed heartrending and I hope that I can humbly take it as a prompt towards some personal “attitude adjustment.” I am one who has effectively walked away, unable to survive spiritually in TEC or as a rector with the cure of souls, where over thirty years on the front line sapped my ability to continue. God has been gracious enough to retool and reinvigorate me, albeit in another part of the world. I like to think of this as being part of a new diaspora, a new exile. Am I justified in thinking this?
I believe that there is ample biblical precedent for these themes of diaspora and exile. Egypt, Babylon, Antioch come to mind. In each of these there was persecution, dismay and depression among the people of God. Restoration seems never to have brought fulfillment as somehow the people of God – IMHO – do not do well as settlers and institutionalists. They seem at their best as a pilgrim people with God dwelling in tabernacle rather than temple. It seems to me that Jesus points to this when he calls us to worship in Spirit and Truth. Jesus points to the folly of too high a regard for buildings. Paul and Peter remind us that we are temples in our persons of the Holy Spirit. The Church is the body of Christ and not made with bricks and mortar, institutions and the paraphernalia of cultic worship. It seems to me that whenever the people of god trust too much in these then God tears things apart. This is my interpretation of the hand of God in the recent years of the Anglican experience.
As a part of the new diaspora, living in a kind of exile I am getting used to the “new normal.” I find within this group that we are a collection of “all sorts and conditions.” None of us are perfect, or paragons of spirituality. Ephraim rightly points out some of the many flaws, and anger, rancor are among them. I am saddened though by the rancour between those inside and those outside amongst those who still try to be faithful, and not follow this new, vacuous and vapid TEC religion. Those who have left and those who stay are still surely in need of each other’s fellowship? How can we mend that net?
Realistically these upheavals take more than a single generation before a new normal is reached. It is my hope and prayer that this will happen and that the new normal will be a robust, apostolic and evangelical/charismatic body of Christ. Maybe the Covenant as it stands can be the vehicle for this – it certainly gives me hope in the face of the disintegration that we have witnessed. It will also require those of us currently inside or outside to mend our relationships. God willing this “new place” of which Ephraim writes may happen in my lifetime. Even if it were not yet will I pray for it and work for it in this distant and wonderful small part of God’s vineyard.
Dear friends:
As one who spends a great deal of my time working with those in grief, I am struck by the tone of all our posts. What I observe is the telling of the story and a moving beyond the present — tasks which indicate the first tentative steps in acceptance of loss.
Perhaps the greatest service Dr. Radner has provided is to tap into the deep well of grief we feel as we watch the agonies of the faith community which has formed us.
Islandbear+
Dr. Radner’s comments on TEC merely repeat what we all have been saying for a long time. In this, there is nothing new.
It is too late for TEC, fortiunately, but here maybe another source of hope for rebirth, however, in the economic collapse and its psychological consequences. For the first time in a long time, very large numbers of Americans realize that the substance of their lives is out of their control. Americans are resilient because they have been so successful at making their lives increasingly comfortable and convenient. As Lucy said, “All I want is ups and more ups.” Yet they can now see and feel what it is like to be pawns. Such distress and despair opens religious eyes precisely because the participant sees Vanity Fair in its true light, Las Vegas writ large and intrusive. And many will see that what can happen once, can happen twice and thrice – and may well be inevitable. They are bound to ask, “Where is there a world where this may NOT happen?” A new century will see this dilemma with fresh eyes.
TEC will yet try to save itself. I will still wager that Glassool is not approved. Larry
I am thankful for this essay, but since we are being honest, I have to ask, what is new about this? Is it the writer or what he is saying? It just seems like I’ve heard this many times before, though not really from Dr. Radner. Also, in honesty, the writing is challenging. I find myself asking: Is it me or is this overly nuanced at points? Having said that, there are times the writing style reminds me a bit of Charles Williams, so there is no better company I suppose. But, I don’t always “get” the asides… maybe I’m not up to it. I think the best thing Dr. Radner has done here (and like some, I have reservations about a few of the qualifications he makes) is that someone on the inside is saying, “Yes, what you think you see is in fact what is happening.” Thank you for confronting our rampant Episcopal denial. I think I realize this essay is from a unique place and to an audience that is not so much pointe to the pews. But it seems like we could use an interpretation, perhaps more clarion in nature, for average joes like me–in the interest of bringing as many very bewildered and disconcerted Christians as possible into an understanding of what they are witnessing and exactly what they are being called to do.
This may be a minor point in an article with many fine points, but I take issue with the tone of the following:
[blockquote]Meanwhile, upwards of $30 million dollars, by my reckoning – probably more – has been expended by the gentle Christian leadership of North American Anglicans, all the while claiming to take Luke 6:27-31 (among many Scriptural texts) seriously. It is blasphemy, pure and simple, not entered into through passion’s fury, but through deliberation and careful, cold planning.[/blockquote]
I am no fan of litigation, but insofar as he is referring to the orthodox parishes and diocese (and I am not clear on whether he is), I would point out that the orthodox are the only side that was ever and remains willing to settle any such questions outside of litigation. It seems to me that Dr. Radnor has not adequately considered the question of stewardship in the property questions. Moreover, the matter of stewardship informs his observations about the decline of giving to TEC, and, indeed, raises a question as to whether one should give any money to a TEC parish, even if one remains worshipping there. There are other options, such as ARDF. It would be interesting to read more on ACI’s views on stewardship of property – something spoken of at great length in the Gospels – and giving to TEC.
Incidentally, despite the financial straits of certain dioceses and parishes, it is not as though there are not large sums of money sloshing around TEC. Utah and Trinity Wall Street come to mind. As to why they do not use it to help other parts of the church keep their doors open, I suppose that when one is not committed to growth, one would not see that as important.
There is some honesty here, but some delusion, too. Dr. Radner recognizes that the Episcopal church known to many of us is vanished in the mist, and it won’t return. On the other hand, he chooses to fix the deterioration primarily in the last decade. But The Episcopal church has been disintegrating for at least half a century. It peaked in membership somewhere north of three million souls. But this was in the 50s, if I remember correctly, and while the population of the country nearly doubled, the Episcopal church lost a third. Given that trend, the task of spreading the gospel was better accomplished by other denominations, and the loss of the Episcopal church in that battle became progressively less important.
[i]This is an edited cross-posting:[/i]
Sarah’s point of appreciation for Radner’s voice within TEC is still ignored or missed by various commenters who – even though pretty much holding to Kendall’s admonition re: relevant comments – devolve into a form of “get out now”. The justification at this point for Radner, for myself, dare I say Sarah, for Jill W, [b]ni[/b]parson, apparently Father J, and OP, and many others who have commented to such over the last few years as T1:9 readers, is contained in this quote from his essay:
“Honesty is necessary, simply and straightforwardly, for anyone who seeks God’s will, and surely that is all of us, and especially those of us who are Anglicans in America and in the Episcopal Church.â€
(Ephraim is actually being very generous in using the phrase “surely that is all of usâ€, for surely it is not.)
As long ago as 1979, the Lord clearly told me to stay in TECUSA and continue on with plans for entering seminary, when I wanted to depart. Since then I have not ceased to be hammered by the theological, spiritual, ecclesiological, etc., “realities†within TEC. Thus I have not been in denial. And yet God has continued to remind me of his will for me, on several memorable occasions.
God’s will has led us here, and we will remain here until God’s will should lead us elsewhere. Thus, the “line in the sand†is God saying, “It is time to go.â€
Honesty, i.e. acceptance of the realities, regarding the TEC / Anglican situation is an important aspect of the discernment before and after God’s specific will is made known.
As Dr Radner intimated, any “real continuity†will not find foundation nor resolve in any physical or organizational structures, but exactly where it has always been, in the commitment to seeing the Gospel revealed and proclaimed, and in every effort made to make sure that is accomplished, not only in TEC, but in every Anglican context everywhere, in the power of the Holy Spirit.
As Tired (24) seems to complain, this should not be seen as anything new; indeed, it is a moment often found in the life and history of the Body of Christ. And this is also only the reiteration of Dr. Radner’s thoughts and exhortation over the past several years. Still, it seems we are down to the nubs here in TEC. So, even more Clarity of both calling and of the context for that calling is extremely helpful, and should further assist in solidifying resolve for those who are so called and choose to be obedient.