Once in a while comes an historical event so momentous, so packed with unexpected force, that it acts like a large wave under still water, propelling us momentarily up from the surface of our times onto a crest, where the wider movements of history may be glimpsed better than before.
Such an event was Benedict XVI’s landmark announcement in October 2009 offering members of the Anglican Communion a fast track into the Catholic Church. Although commentators quickly dubbed this unexpected overture a “gambit,” what it truly exhibits are the characteristics of a move known in chess as a “brilliancy,” an unforeseen bold stroke that stunningly transforms the game. In the short run, knowledgeable people agree, this brilliancy of Benedict’s may not seem to amount to much. Some 1000 Church of England priests may convert and some 300 parishes turn over to Rome””figures that, while significant when measured against the dwindling numbers of practicing Anglicans there, are nonetheless mere drops in the Vatican’s bucket.
But in the longer run””say, over the coming decades””Rome’s move looks consequential in another way. It is the latest and most dramatic example of how orthodoxy, rather than dissent, seems once again to have taken the driver’s seat of Christianity. Every traditionalist who joins the long and already illustrious history of reconversion to the Catholic Church just tips the religious balance more toward Rome. This further weakens a religious communion battered from within by decades of intra-Anglican culture wars. Meanwhile, the progressives left behind may well find the exodus of their adversaries a Pyrrhic victory. How will they possibly make peace with the real majority of Anglicans today””the churches in Africa, whose leaders have repeatedly denounced the Communion’s abandonment of traditional teachings? Questions like these are why a few commentators now speak seriously about something that only recently seemed unthinkable: whether the end of the Anglican Communion itself might now be in sight.
Fabulous article! Thanks for posting.
A fascinating and very stimulating article by a research fellow at the Hoover Institute. Written with great verve, I think Mary Eberstadt’s basic thesis is right on target. It’s not just the AC as we have heretofore known it, but all of [i]”Christianity Lite”[/i] as she aptly calls it, that is showing all the signs of being in terminal decline. Please note, I’m NOT saying that Anglicanism itself is doomed, but merely the current institutional form of the AC, which like a house divided against itself, simply can’t and won’t stand.
However, I do think that her claim is exaggerated and misleading when it comes to the abandonment of the Church’s traditional ban on artificial contraception as inexorably leading to all the other woes of liberal Christianity. I regard that as a non sequitur. It just doesn’t necessarily follow. That is, her historical take on the last few centuries is highly selective, and ignores the fact that what she describes as a chicken and egg question of which came first, relaxing sexual norms or theological ones, seems to ignore clear evidence that the theological compromises actually came first. Thus, I’d point to liberal theologian Friedrich Schliermacher as the first great exponent of “Christianity Lite,” and sexual ethics doesn’t seem to have been part of his agenda, as reflected in his famous 1799 [b]Lectures on Religion to its Cultured Despisers[/b].
But that quibble aside, I think Eberstadt is on the right track. I do think that Christianity Lite is indeed doomed, and fully deserves to die. But I myself would contend that the tendency to water down Christian standards of faith and practice goes back long before the Lambeth Conference of 1930, or Henry VIII’s infamously messed up marital life and the CoE’s notorious condoning of his divorces. I would say it goes all the way back to the Constantinian Revoluation and the highly problematic union of the Church and the Roman government, i.e., the whole notion of Christendom as such.
There is much grist for the mill here in this provocative article. As profoundly unsettling as it is, the bold assertion that Christianity Lite is hopelessly doomed bears careful reflection for all of us in so-called “Mainline” Protestantism. I’m convinced she’s basically right.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of Post-Christendom, full strength Christianity, not least within Anglicanism and fierce enemy of Christianity Lite
The author makes some good points, but seems to hold Rome up as a flawless template for others to emulate. It is more than a bit disingenous to criticize Protestants accepting divorce , while ignoring the increasing ease of annulment in the RC.
Is it now be in sight? Arr, cap’n, is be difficult to say.
A fairly typical Coluphidist tract from FT which blithely passes over the fact that they’ve been publishing this sort of victory statement for, oh, over a decade at least; I let my subscription lapse back in the 1990s when I realized that Gilbert Meilaender was the only writer there I really cared enough to read, and Neuhaus was already writing these sorts of articles back then. You would think that they would notice that we are still here.
American (and no doubt European) Catholicism has its own version of “Christianity Lite”: “Go to Mass and then do as you please.”
I don’t read Eberstadt to be arguing that the acceptance of contraception led to all the other woes of liberal Christianity. What she actually said, quoting both Runcie and Williams, is that, “The chain of logic leading from the occasional acceptance of contraception to the open celebration of homosexuality would prove suprisingly sound.” I don’t see much evidence that conservative Anglicans have really grasped the argument.
I think Eberstadt is on to something when she says that orthodox Christianity’s uncompromising adherence to a strict sexual morality spoke to the heart of a decadent and world-weary Roman Empire. There’s something about Christianity’s strict sexual morality that gets to the very heart of self-denial.
Eberstadt doesn’t hold-up the Catholic Church as a flawless model; rather what she says is that the Catholic Church despite it being being subject to the same secular forces as mainline Protestantism, hasn’t jettisoned its strict teachings on sexual morality.
While she scores some excellent points, I don’t think her prophecies go far enough. Surely Huxley hits the secular-progressive logic’s bulls-eye much closer(and much earlier) in [i]Brave New World[/i]: sex is much too fun, and reproduction is far too much a drag and far too important to be left to mere individuals and pair-bondings in what used to be called marriage: it becomes the province of the omnicompetent State. “Motherhood” becomes a dirty word, and whatever may be left of any sort of Christian is a Savage from the reservation in New Mexico.
Either that, or the Islamic Republic burns us all….
the only thing I found lacking was the author’s non acknowledgment of the AC in Africa – clearly it is flourishing there and is a more than adequate alternative to RC.
Phil, we don’t grasp it because it isn’t a good argument. Indeed, that’s one of the things that makes Catholicism a hard sell for me: its more vocal proponents don’t seem to appreciate that for their arguments to have weight, they actually have to be good arguments, not just Catholic arguments.
She quotes Runcie and Williams because they fit into her thesis, but I have to wonder whether Carey, for one, would fit. I certainly don’t. Casting Anglicans as buying into the theological determinism characteristic of Roman lawgiving is deeply wrong-headed; if thousand year old rules can be reversed, then so can ten year old unrules. It is not surprising that one can find Anglican bishops making such statements, and for certain one can find plenty of others who reject the logic, even though they are not absolute in their condemnation of contraception. That people in some milieu draw invalid conclusions is evidence of the fallibility and fallen state of mankind before all else.
“How will they possibly make peace with the real majority of Anglicans today—the churches in Africa, whose leaders have repeatedly denounced the Communion’s abandonment of traditional teachings? …. something that only recently seemed unthinkable: whether the end of the Anglican Communion itself might now be in sight.”
The end of the Anglican Communion is not remotely in sight.
However, the end of Canterbury’s pre-eminence in the Anglican Communion is definitely looming. A succession of ABC’s have been leaking the spiritual credibility of their office (through not providing firm leadership in favour of orthodoxy, particular at Lambeth from 1978 on), but under +++Wiliams, the credibility of Canterbury with the faithful has received a series of body blows.
We are getting closer to the time when a majority of the Anglican Communion says: “ABC may be Primate of All Engand, but from now on we will choose a Primate of the Anglican Communion from among all the Primates”. That day has not yet arrived, but it is getting closer, and will come if Canterbury does not make peace with the orthodox.
Pope Benedict XVI has indeed provided a bold stroke. He has offered historical orthodoxy, leadership and is providing the Roman Church with a fresh infusion of traditional orthodox Anglicans. What will not be immediately seen because it is not an obvious hemorrhage is the bleeding of individual families out of both TEC and ACNA. Taken as a whole it may be massive in the next ten years. Perhaps ACNA will be hurt the most. ACNA will need to define and brand itself as something other than “Not TEC”.
Dcn Dale at #11,
This all seems like a nice fantasy – I don’t think there is any evidence that appreciable numbers are going from TEC to Rome, yet you suggest that there will be:
(1) a “massive” move from Anglicanism to Rome in the next ten years [although quite why this should happen now when it hasn’t happened already is not explained]; and
(2) ACNA is going to lose *the most* to Rome?
This might be what Roman Catholics or some Anglo Catholics want to believe, but it hardly fits what we have seen so far, does it?
I am not sure that anyone knows precisely what is happening on the ground in either TEC or ACNA. But the indications are:
(a) TEC has already lost most of its regular attenders (depending on one’s view of how much they spin the current figures) and hardly any of those who have left have ended up in Rome;
(b) ACNA, if anything, is growing through evangelism to the unchurched. It is difficult to see why either former TEC who have left for ACNA churchers or new converts would give Rome even a moment’s thought.
“ACNA will need to define and brand itself as something other than “Not TECâ€.”
It already has. It subscribes to the Jerusalem Declaration, which is the classic statement of modern Anglicanism.
Those who are in TEC and considering whether they should leave or not, know where ACNA and its constituent groups stand on the things that matter.
This is clearly a different situation to the 1970s when the churches that signed the Statement of St Louis failed to coalesce and distintegrated into a myriad of shrinking groups.
RE: “I don’t think there is any evidence that appreciable numbers are going from TEC to Rome, yet you suggest that there will be:
(1) a “massive†move from Anglicanism to Rome in the next ten years [although quite why this should happen now when it hasn’t happened already is not explained]; and
(2) ACNA is going to lose *the most* to Rome?”
I agree that *ACNA* is not going to lose many to Rome.
But I do believe that Rome has been a huge gainer from the departures of TEC.
In my travels around dioceses, and my email correspondence, the winners in the departures from TEC have been 1) Presbyterians, 2) non-denominationals, and 3) Rome — depending on the *region of the country* as to which of those three had the stronger presence.
I see this in my own city, in other cities in DUSC, and in other dioceses. I have an email folder for almost every single diocese in TEC — and my contacts in each diocese. Periodically I will survey a diocesan folder of contacts to find out where they’ve gone, why they’ve stayed, etc. The results are always simply fascinating.
By far the fewest end up in an ACNA church. My estimate is that far less than half of the dearly departed went to an ACNA church — probably about 1/4. Depending on one’s expectations that’s either a good or a bad number. I think many leaders of the new province strategy believed very firmly that there would be far more that would end up in ACNA. I think they seriously underestimated certain factors that go into people making church decisions, and overestimated others. But from my own analysis, I think 1/4 is a very solid and significant haul of those who have departed.
Of course, that’s not a quantitative controlled study, which is what we would need. I’d love to be able to survey the all those who have left TEC from 2003 onward to find out where they went, and why they made the choices they made.
As it is, I can only speculate based on now hundreds of conversations.
If we calculate a haul of 1/4 for the forseeable future for ACNA, and we base our estimates on some 25,000 departures per year [reasonable considering the past 6 years of departures] we get about 6-7 K a year flowing form TEC to ACNA. I think that ACNA focusing on the unchurched is a good strategy for growth.
“Of course, that’s not a quantitative controlled study, which is what we would need.”
I still think these sort of grassroots observations are very valuable.
Rome should be grateful – an infusion of church-going Anglicans may help to slow her haemorrhage of roman catholics who drop out of church attendance completely.
I notice that you didn’t mention former TEC who drop out of church altogether – have you come across many of those?
“I think that ACNA focusing on the unchurched is a good strategy for growth.”
I agree. Judging by numerous posts on Stand Firm and T19, there are many ACNA congregations who have that attitude. I don’t know if their hierarchy shares that vision, but it would be wise.
Thanks, Sarah (#14), for sharing your impressions about where those who are departing TEC in disgust or despair are ending up. I would agree that only a minority of us are ending up (as I did) in the ACNA. Actually, I’d be happy if the proportion was as high as 1/4th. And I suspect that MichaelA may unfortunately be right and that a sadly large number of disillusioned ex-TEC folks are just dropping out of organized Christianity altogether, perhaps for lack of an attractive alternative in their area.
But I can assure MichaelA and other T19 readers that the hierarchy of the ACNA is very much focused on trying to reach the unreached “with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.” ++Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted is casting the vision that this will happen through “converted individuals” in “multiplying congregations,” which clearly indicates a sound intention to build the ACNA through conversion growth rather than through transfer growth. I’m actually really pleased with how mission-minded the current ACNA leaders are. The challenge will be to keep that focus clear in the 2nd and 3rd generation (should the Lord tarry).
David Handy+