While we can profoundly disagree with one another on matters of ecclesiastical polity and biblical interpretation, as long as we can jointly profess the faith of the ecumenical Creeds, there ought to be no justification for our breaking of our communion. We may find the unilateral Decisions of TEC problematic, but threatening to remove TEC from ecumenical dialogues is a puerile response that flies in the face of the hard struggles of the ecumenical movement to value both unity and difference.
Communion is a gift of the spirit which is best understood through deep reflection. Br Roger testified to this and his testimony was accepted by Christian leaders and Christian institutions from all denominations.
Perhaps what is needed at this time is a deeper, personal and mystical understanding of communion and a less rigorously denominational and institutional understanding of communions. In so doing, it may be possible to reconcile our differences ”˜without ever breaking fellowship with anyone’.
One tires. Rather than once again countering this nonsense, a simple link suffices:
http://www.americananglican.org/assets/Publications/Primates-Report-Final.pdf
The basic issue of division actually is about whether the leadership of TEC does indeed “profess the faith of the ecumenical Creeds.” Reciting the words does not equate to “profess[ing] the faith.”
And, here is the key phrase, “as long as we can jointly profess the faith of the ecumenical Creeds”. I can appreciate Eimhin Walsh’s sentiment regarding the Anglican Communion and indeed Christian communion based one our common and historical faith. I heartily agree! However, that communion holds, as he rightly stipulates, only so long as we can jointly profess the faith of the ecumenical Creeds. Once we cannot, that communion–which is deep, personal, and mystical more than it is rigorously denominational and institutional–is evidently broken no matter how fervently we profess it to be whole. That is the crux of the problem. TEC’s unilateral actions are not wrong solely because of their unilateral nature, although such behavior is rude and reckless toward the rest of us in the Anglican Communion and indeed in Christendom. What is so wrong about TEC’s unilateral decisions is that their content, their concerns evidence the already-brokenness of our Communion. By removing TEC’s representation from ecumenical associations, the leadership of the Anglican Communion is demonstrating that it has come to this very conclusion. I do not see the Archbishop of Canterbury resigning himself to the permanent loss of TEC from the Anglican Communion, but I do see him drawing a line in the sand even if that line in the sand is more about ecclesiastical, or institutional, matters than of that deep, personal, and mystic communion of which Eimhin Walsh speaks so fondly. The partial dissociation from TEC, even though only in ecumenical representation, has been very long in coming. The dilemma has been weighed and considered and weighed some more. It is good to finally see some action to protect the deep, personal, and mystic communion we all share for the sake of the the faith of the ecumenical Creeds which we, even if not the leadership of TEC, jointly profess and profess with joy. We must be cautious not to nice each other right into heresy and the perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Though tempting as such niceness may be, we must stand firm in the faith once delivered to the saints and speak the truth in love. And, as both Paul and Jesus instructed, that may even if painfully require the expulsion of a brother or sister that they may repent and return to the Lord. These are painful times; of that there is no doubt. We all, of whatever opinion, are grieving. Let us pray for one another.
William Witt is faster and more succinct than I. 😉
Yes, Willliam Witt, one does. But then what? What THEN to do? Larry
So, blessing the businesses of those who put out the “No Irish” signs or who engage in blatant racism or work for the destruction of any ethnic group would be OK as long as they say that Nicene Creed during their service? WTF?
When we say that the Holy Spirit “…has spoken through the Prophets”, we acknowledge that there is a certain amout of biblical interpretation that is creedally based and required. Anglicanism (along with the majority of the Church) has made a distinction between the Biblical Commandments that are ceremonial and those that are “moral” (Article VII). The Apostles themselves set all sex outside of marriage as against God’s moral commandments. Thus, homoerotic sex is outside of God’s commandments. If this is not the case, then the Holy Spirit did not speak through the prophets and we are not “creedally orthodox.”
You either accept that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets and, thus, the moral commandments in Holy Scripture, come from the Holy Spirit and cannot be contravened or you don’t. If you don’t accept that, then you cannot call yourself “creedally orthodox.”
To say that I am “orthodox, except for ….” is to say that I am a heretic.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
What Phil Snyder said, and more so. I would go farther to say that Mr. Walsh’s vision of “communion” essentially wipes away any need for doctrine, or meaningful, exegetical study of Holy Scripture. Who needs pesky, freedom-limiting doctrine when I can simply “profess the ecumenical creeds,” and wipe away millennia of church teaching? And the Bible? It’s simply what I want it to say, as the spirit strikes me. Your exegesis is no better or worse than my eisegesis.
Postmodernist pabulum.
“a spiritualized understanding of unity”- it’s so nice, it avoids the difficulties of real unity.
It was said: [blockquote]We may find the unilateral Decisions of TEC problematic, but threatening to remove TEC from ecumenical dialogues is a puerile response that flies in the face of the hard struggles of the ecumenical movement to value both unity and difference.[/blockquote]
A purported interest in preserving unity and difference might be credible had its proponents not been fighting so hard (Lambeth, Jamaica, etc.) to exclude the ACNA from the communion entirely and the Global South from having any representation in it.
William Witt is right on target. As the link he gives documents clearly, there are vast numbers of TEC bishops, clergy, and lay leaders (Adult Ed teachers, etc.) who recite the words of the creeds and yet disbelieve the plain meaning they have been given — and not only disbelieve privately but actively promote such disbelief in the lives of their parishes.
Eimhin Walsh either thinks that by reciting the words all these people believe them (in which case he is in a complete fantasy land) or he doesn’t care that they don’t believe them (in which case his notion of church is purely theatrical, like a pageant with beautiful words and costumes and gestures). Since he doesn’t make clear which he believes, his piece is worthless and no one can take it seriously.
I don’t see Mr. Walsh valuing this difference. Theological relativism, especially relativism tactically proffered, is either self consuming or a smokescreen behind which advances a firm view about the true and the good. When enough ground has been taken – the screen is lifted and “diversity” is no more. It’s a tactic repeatedly used across the Anglican world and TEC are trying, with some successes and some failures, to use it at the Communion level.
Mr. Walsh is merely misinformed. Someone subscribe him to the HOB/D listserv–their vivisection of the Nicene Creed lately has been most instructive. The Masters of TEC are much too knowing and advanced for Constantinian power trips as mere Creeds.
[blockquote]Yes, Willliam Witt, one does. But then what? What THEN to do? Larry [/blockquote]
Larry Morse. By now, the limited options are fairly clear.
1) Leave TEC for another Anglican body.
2) Leave TEC for a non-Anglican body.
If one is in an orthodox TEC diocese:
3a) Stay and witness by becoming a Communion Partner.
3b) Leave TEC (as a diocese) for ACNA and prepare for litigation.
If one is not in an orthodox diocese:
4a) Stay and keep a low profile.
4b) Stay and resist.
4c) Stay and resist until one is kicked out.
4d) Once 4c is a reality, opt for 1) or 2).
4e) If one is clergy, transfer to an orthodox TEC Diocese or a non-TEC Anglican diocese, and dare to be deposed.
4f) Vote to leave as a congregation, and prepare for litigation.
5a) Hope that Canterbury and the “structures of unity” or The Covenant will some day discipline TEC, and choose option 3a) (if one is in an orthodox diocese) or 4a-e) (if not in an orthodox diocese).
5b) Conclude that Canterbury, etc., will never discipline TEC, and that the future for an Anglican Communion must be elsewhere, e.g., the Global South, and choose option 1).
5c) Conclude that Canterbury, etc., will never discipline TEC, but that the future of the Anglican Communion does not lie elsewhere either, and then choose option 2), 3a) or 4a-e).
5c) Conclude that Canterbury, etc.’s failure to discipline TEC is a sign that Anglicanism was a mistake from the beginning, and choose option 2).
Those are all the possibilities that come to my mind. Perhaps there are others. (There is also the Nuclear Option–Give up on the church and sleep in on Sunday mornings, but I am not including that as a viable option.)
In my case, 4d) happened fairly quickly, on July 13, 2005, and I chose option 1). I am in ACNA, and Bob Duncan is my bishop.
William Witt, well said! That is the most comprehensive list of contingencies I think I have seen yet. However, I would throw one nuance into 3b and 4f. Leaving TEC does not necessarily require litigation. It has become fairly clear that despite common sense, the laws on the books, and state constitutions, the courts will likely rule in favor of TEC unless the US Supreme Court weighs in and surprises us all. But, more importantly, property is just that, stuff, and is not necessary for life in Christ or witnessing to Christ. In fact, the struggle to retain said property can be damaging to the witness to Christ. Would it not be better to be wronged? It is quite liberating to be wholly dependent upon the Lord for everything including a place to gather to worship and conduct the work of the church. I do not presume to speak for God on this point, but it is something to consider when contemplating the next step.
Modest Mystic,
Quite right. Property can be walked away from, and in some (I would not say all) cases should be. The continuing members of my former parish in CT (comprised of two of the CT6 parishes, St. John’s, and Trinity, Bristol) decided in the long run to walk away, leaving the diocese with one empty building, and one building that they have to keep on life support with diocesan funds. A third CT6 parish (Christ Church, Watertown) also walked away (now New Hope Anglican).
At the same time, whether the courts will decide in favor of TEC varies considerably from state to state, and also on whether one is a diocese or a parish. (The Dennis canon refers to congregations, not dioceses.) And, of course, at some point, this will go to the Supreme Court, and someone needs to make the case when that happens.
Yes, forgive my cynicism about the courts. I did not know that the Dennis canon only refers to congregations. That is interesting. Someone much more savvy that I (indeed most of us) will have to make that case when the time comes. Imagine the legal mess if the Supreme Court did overturn all those property cases. That would be something to watch. Either way, God is sovereign over all. 🙂
William Witt: These contingencies are sound enough, but I want you to cut deeper where the living tissue is. I have not been asking for contingencies, but solutions, fundamental redefinitions. Your contingencies leave the essential problems untouched.
For example:
1. The church’s image as ladyfinger Christianity MUST be altered. You know this, yes? There is precious little to attract a man’s attention to Anglicanism. It portrays itself as soft, sensitive, gentle, kind, forgiving, forbearing, patient, civil, tender, and, worst of all, passive and spineless. The overall sense is that the Beatitudes are Christ’s description of what a Christian SHOULD be – although why and how this has come about, I cannot guess. What man is willing to believe that he should be poor in spirit if he is to be Christian? This is clearly nonsense, both in text and in the real world. But if men will not join the church, what will we have but a church of Rowan Williams’s: bright, educated, wishy-washy, wordy, ineffectual and centerless.
There was a book – written by a woman – a number of years ago who wrote that every middleaged man has a sign on his desk, reading “No More Bullshit.” That’s true, isn’t it? And then we have the ABC and all the other bishops, a patriciate that does nothing but talk and talk and talk, backing and filling,fiddling while Rome creates a a shining web for disaffected flies. Are men really going to join this church, guys who, with every reason in the world, are tired of bullshit?
2. It is time and TIME to make it clear that “love” is not something that one feels for kittens. Christ certainly doesn’t mean that and there is every reason to believe that God’s love and mercy are real but steel. What he feels for us is the very archetype of tough love, but we go right on selling a smarmy sentimentality: Hate the sin but love the sinner and other such – what can I fairly call it? –
spiritual pablum. But Christ makes it clear, there is a hell, and sin will give you a free ticket there. He came to save sinners, but not on the cheap. He knows the odds; that’s why few are chosen.
3. Enough with the judge not so you will be not judged. This is the pious sentimentality that continues to mark Anglicanism, but it’s a misreading. Christ can’t mean that at all; it’s a oxymoron. We are ALL going to be judged and he will do it. Moreover, like us, Christ renders judgments all the time and he doesn’t hesitate to condemn.
The church needs to rethink where it needs to go if it plans to survive and that means that the above suggestions be taken seriously. The church MUST begin to speak to men; it MUST actually tell the truth with no more bs. Am I wrong about this? Larry
1[blockquote]I have not been asking for contingencies, but solutions, fundamental redefinitions[/blockquote]
Larry Morse, I see that I misunderstood your question. If Anglicanism has a reason for existence, it is to be a reforming movement in the Western Catholic church–at least that is what its initial apologists argued. I have no quarrels with any of your three points, except to note that these are what happens to a church that has forgotten its identity.
However, while these are caricatures of a certain kind of “Anglican Vicar” Anglicanism that one comes across in Monty Python sketches, British episodes of Mystery (PBS) and Wallace and Gromit, I have not run into the genuine article, not even among the “moderate” or liberal Episcopalians I have known. Perhaps this is a British phenomenon?
Well, not quite. While working on my doctorate, the Anglo-Catholic bishop of my diocese could only have been described as “precious.” But that was a generation ago. Does his type even exist in TEC anymore?
What I have found too often among US Episcopalians/Anglicans is a lack of interest in being Anglican in its historic sense. Too many want either to be liturgical unitarians, Fundamentalist Protestants (especially of the Calvinist variety) or non-liturgical Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, liberation theologians or disciples of the political religious right.
I encounter a very different type of Anglicanism at the seminary where I teach, not only among the faculty, but especially among the students. Some are converts to Christianity, some having found faith through overcoming addictions. Many are former free church Evangelicals, attracted to Anglicanism because of its historic roots and liturgical worship. Most are quite serious about Scripture. (It is surprising how many Trinity students end up loving Hebrew exegesis.) Many come from churches that have come out on the other side of the TEC battles, and anticipate startup ministries in store fronts or school gymnasiums. While here, many choose to do ministry with the homeless, or at the local jail. Also, we have a lot of international students, most from Africa, including Sudan and Nigeria, where they have faced Islamic persecution. I think that these students are the future of orthodox Anglicanism, and it is not “precious.” [We also have regular international visitors like Archbishops Mouneer Anis of Egypt and Ben Kwashi of Jos, Nigeria. Nothing “precious” there.]
The “solution” as I see it, is not “fundamental redefinition,” but resourcement, returning to Anglicanism’s original justification as Reformed Catholicism, and to the sources of such–not antiquarianism (1662 BCP), nor returning to the partisan churchmanship of some previous Anglicanism, whether that be the Reformation, the Oxford Movement, or English Evangelicalism, but a recovery of biblical expository preaching, catholic liturgy, serious theology rooted in the Fathers (East and West), the best of Medieval Catholicism, the Reformers, the Caroline Divines, and, yes, Evangelicalism and the Oxford Movement, as well as later figures from Michael Ramsey to Alister McGrath, prayer life grounded in the Daily Office, lived faith with social and ethical consequences.
That at least is the kind of Anglicanism I think we’re trying to recover at Trinity School for Ministry (shameless plug). I see it every day, and it is heartening. As I undestand it, this is also the future for Anglicanism that I see embraced not only by Bob Duncan and the ACNA, but also by orthodox TEC bishops like Mark Lawrence (SC) and William Love (Albany).
William Witt. I am sorry that this has been archived. There is so much that needs to be said here, and your entry above deserves a response. But when stuff is archived, it is essentially dead. I hope that this debate will be revived on a later relevant posting. Larry