The next stage of the never-ending Anglican schism comes this week when the Archbishop of Canterbury and other key Anglican leaders fly out to New Orleans to meet with the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops.
Some might say that this is the crucial stage in the crisis given that the Primates at Dar es Salaam named September 30 as the deadline for The Episcopal Church to comply with the Windsor demands for repentance, a moratorium on same-sex blessings and ordinations, and alternative pastoral care for ”˜conservatives’ who are estranged from their diocesan bishops.
I have my doubts about how crucial this will be, given that the deadline seems to be meaningless. There is no scheduled meeting of any kind in the Anglican Communion to assess whether The Episcopal Church (TEC) has complied. Furthermore, it seems likely that the House of Bishops will attempt to convince the Archbishop’s party that it has indeed complied as far as it can but only a full General Convention can make the necessary response. The fact that there has already been a General Convention meeting last year which could barely even agree on what the Primates and Windsor meant in their demands, will be neither here nor there.
It seems clear that TEC, aided and abetted by the London-based Anglican bureaucracy is playing a long, tactical game. If the process, and the Anglican Communion, can just limp along from hurdle to hurdle without an overt split then the opposition will just melt and die.
The Episcopal Church will continue to downplay the crisis, no matter that scores of parishes are leaving, that dioceses are on the verge of breaking links with the whole edifice, and that African Primates are consecrating bishops and creating parallel jurisdictions in the US. It is business as usual, to the extent that the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, even had the brazen cheek to stand for the Primates Standing Committee during their meeting in Tanzania, and got elected. She thus ignored the fact that TEC’s very status in the Communion is, at the very least, a secondary one according to the Windsor Process, until the demands are complied with.
I’ve heard more than one Primate during the past decade express frustration about their dealings with The Episcopal Church. They feel deceived after years in which the leaders of TEC refused to discuss the changes they were making in the whole area of human sexuality. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold would do anything to avoid conflict and assured the Primates that nothing had changed and the rapid technology of the internet was distorting what was really happening.
In reality, the technology of the internet ensured that all those who had an interest could see what was really happening in the Episcopal Church. And, let’s be absolutely
clear, it’s about much more than sexuality. Bishop Harold Miller put it very well in an article in the Church of Ireland Gazette earlier this month: “In so many ways, parts of the Episcopal Church have been losing deep aspects of their identity. If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalised or even rejected, where do we go from here? “The faith remaining will be a very different
faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints ”” and I, for one, am not going there!” he concluded.
He, like me, has seen incredible divergences between the faith widely held in The Episcopal Church and the faith of Anglicans elsewhere. For my part, I believe it is the baptismal liturgy of the 1979 Prayer Book that is the crux to understanding the direction of The Episcopal Church. In Anglicanism what you pray is what you believe, which is why Cranmer’s Prayer Book is the nearest we have to a unique foundational statement of theology. The US liturgy has much less of an emphasis on sin, repentance, deliverance and transformation than liturgies elsewhere. Wherever you go in The Episcopal Church you now hear the appeal to the Baptismal Covenant.
This is the real covenant Episcopalians are saying, and the foundational nature of baptism is emphasised to the point where it is held that all the baptised are equally entitled
to all the sacraments of the Church -including ordination. This kind of theology makes no demands of its adherents. The baptised are all equal members of the same club. No confirmation, or preparation, is necessary for admittance to communion, and there are increasingly fewer barriers to ordination. Thus there are huge numbers of divorced and remarried priests, and as many homosexuals in partnerships. This kind of theology in which sin, repentance, atonement is unfashionable has little need for Jesus and the Cross, which is why in the past I’ve described it as verging on unitarianism.
Any settlement of this Anglican crisis needs to face up to this divergence in theology. But it should be a compassionate and unity-building settlement. Demands for The Episcopal Church to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion are ultimately uncaring and uncalled for. The need is for the re-evangelisation of The Episcopal Church and this can hardly be accomplished by outright schism.
–This article appeared in the September 21, 2007 edition of the Church of England Newspaper, page 14
RE: “Demands for The Episcopal Church to be thrown out of the Anglican Communion are ultimately uncaring and uncalled for. The need is for the re-evangelisation of The Episcopal Church and this can hardly be accomplished by outright schism.”
“Uncaring” for whom? The Anglican Communion, who is the patient? Those Episcopalians — many life-long — who can no longer be a part of such a monstrosity? Uganda? Nigeria? Kenya?
Uncaring for whom?
Back in the late 60s and early 70s, when the renewal and charismatic movement was just starting, many many renewed Episcopalians determined that “re-evangelisation of The Episcopal Church” was called for.
And . . .
. . . Here we are, 40 years later, as the Episcopal church after the renewal movement was going to “just focus on the gospel.”
I think that, whether Arminian or Reformed, Roman or Protestant, most Christians can agree that when the Holy Spirit refuses to work in an organization or a people, “re-evangelisation” will not occur.
One can ponder all day long and into next year why on earth the Holy Spirit did not act to renew and convert the Episcopal church over the past 40 years.
But . . . there it is.
Sarah, I would suggest that schism, in this case, is occuring because the renewal movement occured and was at least in part successful.
I am also quite sympathetic to your question of “‘Uncaring’, for whom?” The Episcopal Church/Anglican Church has been shedding devout christians since before the Civil War, and I believe that God, in His profound love, might well be providing opportunity for the Church to allow under the loving wings of Jesus Christ, some of the little chicks that have been kicked out from under those wings.
Mr Carey seems to have a very narrow focus and vision – he is a company man.
I also think that schism is very educational in itself. What is the very first reason that non-christians use to defend themselves against the Gospel? Isn’t it that christians are hypocrites? Well, here we are answering the immediate question as to whether we will continue to by hypocritical or not. Holy Scripture really is “holy” to us.
This traditional Episcopalian (High points of each week?: Podcasts of the Sunday Eucharist from S. Thomas-Fifth Avenue and Choral Evensong on BBC) thinks that all this breathless coverage of the goings-on in New Orleans is getting a bit tedious.
Many Fridays, Canon Harmon posts the Wall Street Journal’s ‘Houses of Worship’ column. But not _this_ Friday when there were _three_ excellent, worthy-of-posting pieces in journalism’s bastion of capitalism (hopefully, the links work):
* “An Ecumenical Revelation” ( http://tinyurl.com/3cd3gf )
* “Jonah’s Dilemma” ( http://tinyurl.com/386gr2 )
* “Confession Makes a Comeback” ( http://tinyurl.com/2sp6an )
As the Episcopal Church spins apart, please accept an offering of three gadgets that trumpet the theme …
“Episcopalians Agree: Clean is Good.”
One can envision Confirmation classes raising oodles of money assembling:
* A laundry clean/unclean indicator
* A dishwasher clean/unclean indicator
* A sanitary rest for tableware when eating at chain restaurants
(pictured at http://tinyurl.com/35qdgv )
Pete, believe me they are in the queue. Thanks for the post.
Bishop Miller (whom I have met) said it all when he said,
““In so many ways, parts of the Episcopal Church have been losing deep aspects of their identity. If God is not Father, Jesus is not Lord, the Son is not unique, baptism is not necessary, the creeds are optional, repentance and sin are dated concepts and the atonement is marginalised or even rejected, where do we go from here? “The faith remaining will be a very different
faith from the Christian faith once delivered to the saints — and I, for one, am not going there!†”
I agree with the bishop. ‘I am not going there.’
To ‘go there’ is to become someone who is not Christian.
‘To go there’ is to become someone who questions both the Father and the Son.
‘To go there’ is to presume that as a ‘mere mortal’ one can mutate, change and deny Scripture in accordance with the perceptions of secular society.
So in this age of world-wide web communication we need a meeting to determine where TEC has complied? I think not.
[blockquote]The need is for the re-evangelisation of The Episcopal Church and this can hardly be accomplished by outright schism.[/blockquote]
I’m sorry, but this is flat-out wrong. The only possible way it can be accomplished is [i]with[/i] schism. TEC is corrupt, defiled and, like a fish, rotting from the head. It’s a fool’s errand to do battle with the grandees and pashas running the show at 815. What is needed now is a substitute Anglican presence in America, one that adheres to the faith once delivered and one that will evangelize, not the wheezing invalid of TEC, but those faithful that remain in it. Those are the souls that need to be rescued.
Bypass TEC. Rebuild American Anglicanism.
In the current circumstances, is schism optional? I doubt it.
“I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned.” Gal 1:9
“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave … it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on that day than for [them].” Matt 10:14-15
“You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral, or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard, or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.” 1Cor 5:11-13
I don’t know whether or not anybody at 815 is a [i]drunkard[/i], but otherwise this passage is firing on all cylinders. The biblical answer is clear, no matter how hard the academics, administrators, and self-important ecclesiastical power structure wiggle, squirm, obfuscate, and punt.
How appropriate that the current US primate had an academic specialty in cephalopods. The octopus is intelligent and crafty, changing color and shape according to circumstances and able to slither through the smallest available crack because it has no spine.
When corned the octopus ejects masses of purple ink, obscuring everything and enabling it to flee its dilemma. Once entangled in its tentacles, escape is difficult.
The problem isn’t the Baptismal Covenant; it is myopic focus on one question out of the eight. Andrew Carey seems not to know that the first three questions are about belief–the classic questions of baptismal candidates for 1800+ years. Then there is the one about the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers, even older than the creed. Then one about repentance from sin and returning to the Lord. Then one about evangelism. Then one about ministry. And then the one that seems all important in the life of TEC at the expense of the rest, the one about justice.
It isn’t the Baptismal Covenant; it is the skewed approach taken by bishops and priests that minimizes or ignores seven out of eight of the questions. These eight questions and their appropriate answers, followed by belief and action congruent with the answers can lead easily to genuine, faithful, orthodox Christianity. But, just as we are not to expound one part of scripture against another, so it should be with the baptismal covenant; it isn’t a buffet.
I agree that TEC needs to be evangelized, but I don’t believe that this can be done from within. The orthodox must withdraw for mutual spiritual support, take time to heal the wounds and then to offer Christian witness to those who remain.
Question:
If the ’79 baptismal rite it behind a lot of this, if, in spite of certain strengths in imagery it has corrupted our theology, then:
is it time for orthodox priests to basically practice civil disobedience and use an older rite?
Randall
1) I too wonder about the appeal to baptismal theology. The baptism service itself is quite complete, as mentioned above, but as a ground for theology I’m not sure. Unless, what is meant, is that we are grounded in a transforming relationship in which the love of God and love of nieghbor are again put first in our lives. I am of the opinion that committed relationships between gay and lesbian persons are one way to love out this new way of life, while I am aware others may not be. It is unfair to characterize all those who are remaining faithful to the Episcopal Church as people who have no room for repentance, transformation and obedience, any more than it is unfair to characterize all people who oppose same sex blessings as homophobic. We can troll the blogs and fine these folks on both sides, but I don’t think it represents the majority.
2) I think it is interesting on this blog that there is [among some of the commenters] the belief that schism, and the creation of a pure church will open a new era of evangelism and renewal. I must say, I don’t see that where I live (California). The churches that left years ago over women’s ordination are now little more that struggling congregations with a lot of older folks. While the vibrant and growing churches in our diocese are those that take the power of God seriously and are open to the full participation of gay and lesbian people.
If folks want to split go ahead, but it is my experience that such moves will eventually simply lead to more division, and there will simply be one more small Christian group in the smorgasboard of Christian dnominations.
Thomas
I would tend to agree with #9. I don’t think the answer is a return to the older rite, but to teach the full meaning of the current one. We live in an ideological era; too many TEC folks put all their emphasis on the last of the questions following the Apostle’s Creed. The fullness of the Faith cannot be found by placing all of one’s focus on orthodoxy OR orthopraxy. The Summary of the Law suggests that they are both required and essential, held in the proper balance. That’s what I call authentic orthodoxy.
#3: Please do me a favor and explain how you get evensong from the BBC.Larry
Question:
What ARE the thelogical implications of “you are sealed as Christ’s own forever”?
Obviously with my screename I have an affinity for the older rite, but I really think that this turn of phrase, moreso than the social justice clauses of the newrite, has caused a lot of our problems.
Thomas —
[blockquote] … I think it is interesting on this blog that there is [among some of the commenters] the belief that schism, and the creation of a pure church will open a new era of evangelism and renewal. [/blockquote]
You may be right, but I doubt that anyone here thinks in terms of the creation of a “pure” church, whatever that might mean. Perhaps “faithful” church would be a better description.
As to a new era of evangelism, even with the most faithful doctrine and brilliant preaching, overcoming the spiritual inertia of this society won’t be easy. But if we’re to make the (huge) effort, it would be better to exert ourselves on behalf of the real Christian doctrine rather than for merely the sort of self-actualization and public niceness that we find preached in countless self-help columns and Miss Manners’ engaging pieces.
Craig,
You and I agree! And to return to the point of the original article the place to argue doctrine is with those who we are joined through faith in Jesus Christ. It would be interesting to actually do a survey in the Episcopal Church and ask how many people believe that they are saved by grace through the work and sacrifice of Jesus, or how many believe that God is creator of heaven and earth. I imagine that the vast majority of clergy and people would say they did believe this. The question for me is, what points of doctrine are the deal breakers? I believe the Holy Scriptures to be the word of God and to contain all these necessary to salvation. I believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. What is the doctirne that you think the church as a whole is throwing away. (Please don’t mention Bishop Spong. While may appreciate his ability open up the conversation, I think one can hardly say he represents the beliefs of more than a small minority of the church about true doctrinal matters.)
Anybody else want to jump on what doctrine the majority of the church is disregarding that merits schism?
Thomas
17. Thomas415:
Thomas, it is not what Spong does nor teach that would creat schism. It is the fact that though Spong does hold out heretical views, and can do so without discipline, that is the cause for schism.
Don,
So let me see if I get this right. I am going to be excommunicated because I won’t spend the energy to have a heresy trial. Frankly, I haven’t seen much good come out of heresy trials in the long run.
Back to my main point. It seems to me that the number of people, and clergy, who hold extreme views in matters of central doctrine are a small minority of the Episcopal Church.
I was wondering if there is any research that proves otherwise?
Thomas
Thomas, I could debate your observations on past heresy trials but I prefer to just ask, what is the world-wide cost of the current blow-up?
Don,
Good question. What is the cost of the worldwide blowup? And why did the consecration of one bishop in a small out of the way diocese cause such a ruckus?
Thomas
Why the rucus?
Because there is a faith worth defending.
The cost?
My son is thinking about giving up on the Church. If the Church does not stand for anything, he wants to find some entity that does.
How many thousands of souls are heading toward a godless eternity because they have been lead to believe that their baptism, alone, gives them a birthright to Heaven? God is not mocked. We are to rebuke a man and then forgive him if he repents. But you say that we rebuke no man.
Don,
I understand your son not wanting to waste his time on an organization that doesn’t stand for anything. My parish church stands for something, and I think the Episcopal Church stands for something. Anyway, I digress.
I guess I am asking which core doctrine has the Episcopal Church violated, and is the best way to confront that through schism. I would certainly understand you not wanting to take communion with John Spong, but what about with me? That is my question. It seems to me that the arguments being put up by so many who either insist that the Episcopal Church walk apart, or that someone needs to leave, are setting up a straw man. Where is the evidence that the Episcopal Churchas a whole or as an institution has departed from “the faith”? It must be significant to want schism.
It seems to me that rebuking is not in the owners manual for Jesus’ disciples. Mostly a whole lot of judge not lest you be judged it seems to me, followed by a lot of concern for the lost sheep. I am not saying that we shouldn’t point out errors in thinking, just that humility seems to be the higher calling.
By the way, see post #12 for my thoughts on baptismal discipline.
Thomas
#14 Larry,
You can listen to Choral Evensong on the BBC Radio 3 website. A new one is broadcast every Sunday evening but you can listen to them day or night. This week it is Southwark Cathedral, next week Hereford Cathedral. Enjoy!:
http://tinyurl.com/2ya6qh
Janis
OOPS
If there wasn’t such an impressive relationship between those in favor of SSU, and those who doubted the uniqueness of Christ, the real Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the miracles expounded in Scripture, etc etc then we wouldn’t be in such trouble in the first place. Unfortunately, read the blogs, the correlation is absolute.
Thomas415, try reading a little farther in Article VI: “so that whatsoever is not read [in Holy Scripture], nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith . . .” This contains a huge negative pregnant, that whatsoever IS read in Holy Scripture, shall be believed as an article of the Faith. TEC appears to hold that whether a thing is read in Scripture or not, it is not required to be believed (except for the MDGs — those are mandatory — I’ll have to get you a Biblical citation to that later.) Thus, nothing is required to be believed.
But, you say: God’s disapproval of homosexual conduct is unclear and doubtful in Scripture.
If so, an honest corollary must be that nothing is clearly enough stated in Scripture to require belief, for it is hard to find more clear, absolute and unambigous language in Scripture, and we are back to Mr. Gander’s point that TEC stands for nothing.
With regard to heresy trials: if the church had a set of beliefs to which a large majority of the people adhered, it would be impossible for people like Spong to rise to the highest levels, and be warmly invited by the PB, and paid to speak to clergy in her diocese. Rather, heretics would be mostly shunned, not held up as positive examples.
Trooper,
I don’t think I’d use the blogs as an indicator of the mind of the larger church.
Thomas
27, It’s as good a place as any. And what’s wrong with a few heresy trials. If you are right there won’t be many and we can show that we really affirm our doctrine.