There is something beautiful about the way in which Augustine and Thomas integrated the map of the self society provided them within a complex account both of Christian belief and practice and an extensive account of the forms of human relationship. Indeed Anglicans still employ versions of these exhortations and prayers. Nevertheless, they sound strange to many in the pews who think of themselves not as embodied souls with intellect, will and appetite but as persons with rights, selves with particular histories and individuals whose nature is unique. These people may well look to marriage to provide mutual society, help and comfort. These, after all, are good things for selves in search of flourishing. Nevertheless, the tie of marriage to procreation will most certainly be jarring if children are not part of a couple’s notion of flourishing. Again, persons (in the modern sense of the word) probably do believe government is to provide civil order and administer justice fairly. These tasks create the space necessary for the pursuit of private goals. However, is government within its rights to maintain true religion, and ought government to be given the right to monitor the private virtues and vices of individuals? Embodied souls once thought that as the intellect was to order the powers of will and appetite, so the ruler was to order the unruly wills and affections of the citizenry. Nevertheless, in our time persons protective or their rights may with good reason believe assignment of these responsibilities to government intrudes inordinately on the freedom of individuals in pursuit of good, as they understand it.
The theological task, therefore, is to integrate the present account of human agency within a comprehensive account of Christian belief and practice. It is false to say that progressive voices have not attempted to do just this. It would also be false to say that more traditional voices have not sought to bring the changes in moral practice now common in the West under the scrutiny of such an account. The problem is that progressives have made the connection by reducing Christian belief to rather vacuous account of divine and human love; and traditionalists have, as it were, “majored” in dogmatic assertions while remaining unaware of the moral gains that have come with our present map of the self. If I hope for a more adequate account of Christian belief and practice from progressives, I hope also that traditionalists will manifest less dogmatism and more awareness of the moral gains that have accrued to the West because of its current account of moral agency. In a way, addressing these inadequacies defines the theological and moral task now presented to the churches of the West. If this task were to be undertaken by Anglicans, the Achilles Heel of Anglicanism in North America and the United Kingdom would most certainly be exposed, and perhaps the Anglican Communion in those lands would be spared Achilles fate. Perhaps other churches might even undertake the same task.
Demographics is your fate. For TEC, in 2009, the following dioceses had ONE OR LESS Marriage per church: Alaska, E. Oregon, Eau Claire, Fond Du Lac, Montana, N. Dakota, N. Indiana, N. Michigan, NW Texas, S. Dakota, Spokane, Springfield, W. Virginia, and W. Kansas. No Marriages mean no young couples, no children, and more empty pews. So very sad. Statmann
Even sadder. In 2009, TEC had the following dioceses with LESS THAN ONE Infant Baptism per church: E. Oregon, N. Michigan, and W. Kansas. How depressing it must be to sit in church for an entire year and not see a single Infant Baptism. Statmann
I see that Statmann is strewing his usual divisive hateful bigoted rhetoric here.
Clearly he does not want to acknowledge our strengths as an inclusive, diverse church.
It is sad.
But thankfully Sarah has toddled along from her usual abodes at Thinking Anglicans and Episcopal Cafe to restore some balance :o)
On a serious and positive note, Dr Turner’s article was well written and ably researched – thank you.
The Key truth of this article, for me, is this:
[blockquote] “The Gospel of “God with us,†the Gospel of “The Word became flesh†has had the cross expunged from its content. What remains is a principle of affirmation designed to proclaim the goodness of creation and to support moral betterment. Christmas has become a feast of affirmation. Good Friday does not mark an act of reconciliation and redemption but a moral tragedy. What incarnationalism misses is that, in taking human form to reconcile and redeem the world, the Word of God exposed, judged and conquered its darkness.” [/blockquote]
The demise discussed above of TEC is sad, true and seemingly unavoidable when TEC’s dominant leaders seem to have established another religion. The new religion is based on taking parts of apostolic Christianity and excising them while exaggerating other parts so that they no longer mean what Apostolic Christianity intended. Thus [i] Baptismal Covenant Theology[/i] is used to teach unbiblical doctrines.
Might it not be time for a true General Anglican Council to meet, talk and wrestle with these issues. Dr. Turner ends his article with this plea/suggestion:
[blockquote]addressing these inadequacies defines the theological and moral task now presented to the churches of the West. If this task were to be undertaken by Anglicans, the Achilles Heel of Anglicanism in North America and the United Kingdom would most certainly be exposed, and perhaps the Anglican Communion in those lands would be spared Achilles fate. Perhaps other churches might even undertake the same task.[/blockquote]
This typically thoughtful, profound, and irenic article by Dr. Turner has spurred me to break my self-imposed exile from posting comments here for the last six months or so. The question of what constitutes the “Achilles Heel” of Anglicanism is a crucial one that deserves the kind of serious, deep reflection that Dr. Turner has provided a marvelous sample of in this perceptive essay. Let me begin my response by thanking Fr. Turner and the ACI team for this latest stimulus for the kind of real theological dialogue and debate that has been so sorely lacking in recent years, despite, or perhaps because of, the incessant controversy and strife that has been tearing Anglicanism apart at the deepest level. Alas, the fact that this essay has generated so few comments thus far is itself symptomatic of the problem that much of the debate has not been “radical” enough in the sense of not digging down to the roots (radix) of the conflicts.
I would largely concur with Dr. Turner’s assessment of what constitutes the Achilles Heel of Anglicanism, which he identifies as our tendency (at least in North America and the UK) toward “over-adaptation” to the prevailing “socio-logic,” i.e., over-accommodation to the world and the powers that be in this world. In biblical terms, we Anglicans have always tended to be far too much conformed to this world, and too willing to defer to the social, political, and not least economic elites that dominate Anglo society. Given our state church heritage, we have terrible difficulty heeding the biblical call to be “[i]in the world, but not of the world,[/i]” and to “[i]Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world…[/i].”
I said above that I largely concur. My basic problem with Dr. Turner’s typically astute analysis is that I think he doesn’t pursue its implications far enough, and that his tone is in fact excessively irenic. I wish he’d dared to go further in developing the notion of Anglicanism’s fatal weakness being its over-accommodation to the prevailing culture and its Zeitgeist or worldview, and I wish he’d been more willing to “contend for the faith once entrusted to the saints” (in the rather strident and polemical spirit of Jude 3), letting the chips fall where they may.
So let me let off some pent-up steam, in my own typically more provocative and even polarizing fashion. I won’t seek to develop or argue the case for the following assertions, but content myself with merely declaring them, and see if it sparks more vigorous discussion than Dr. Turner’s more moderate and restrained remarks has done so far.
Thesis #1. Yes, Dr. Turner is right and the greatest single flaw inherent in Anglicanism (historically speaking) is our pervasive, endemic tendency toward [b]over-accommodation[/b] to “the world” and its ungodly ways and values. Whether that serious flaw is in fact a fatal one, in keeping with the image of an Achilles Heel, is perhaps debatable, but Turner’s judgment that this historic wekanessrepresents our point of greatest vulnerability is far less so.
Thesis #2. Yes, Dr. Turner is right in attacking the false ideology he calls “incarnationalism” as a gross distortion of the true Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and its corollaries involving “the work” of Jesus Christ in his atoning death and resurrection, and his final judgment of us all. As someone who sees himself standing very much in the tradition of Charles Gore and the Lux Mundi school that championed thinking of Christinaity as “the Religion of the Incarnation,” I welcome his timely clarification of how that stress has been sadly perverted by so-called “Affirming Catholics” who have divorced the principle of the affirmation of the basic goodness of the created order from the recreation of all things through Christ the Redeemer and Second Adam. ++Michael Ramsay made the same fundamental objection long ago, and I heartily concur with both Dr. Turner and Dr. Ramsay in their critique of the abuse of that honorable tradition in Anglican theology. To be polemical in my usual style, the trouble with so-called “Affirming Catholicism” is that is is really pseudo-Catholicism, a betrayal of authentic catholicism. (And like Dr. Turner, I say that as a strong supporter of WO, which of course leaves me open to the charge of being a pseudo-catholic myself).
Thesis #3. Ever since ++Thomas Cranmer subordinated himself to Henry VIII (as did so many of the bishops), or countless Erastian leaders likewise subordinated themselves to the Crown in the later 16th and 17th centuries, Anglicanism has indeed been characterized by a persistent, endemic willingness to conform to this world, and by a perverse tendency to condemn all Christian “nonconformity.” That is of course simply inherent in being a state church, and thus it is fundamental and intrinsic to our historic Anglican roots and ethos that we suffer all the usual weaknesses of being a thoroughly Christendom-based or Constantinian sort of Church. That was understandable in the 13th or 16th centuries, and perhaps even in the 18th, but it is inexcusable in the 21st century, in a decidely non-Christian and post-Constantinian age (in the Global North).
Thesis #4. In my more provocative style, let me boldly state a highly contentious and polarizing claim: The only thing worse than a state church (in a Christendom era) is a ex-state church that still pretends to be a state church, or simply knows no other way of operating (in a post-Christendom era). It is high time that we jettisoned the useless baggage of our Erastian roots once and for all. (Ironically, of course, some of our African Anglican sister churches may be soon entering a new Christendom age as virtually established churches. If so, let them learn from the mistakes of the past)
Finally, thesis #5. Along with our historic Anglican captivity to the worldly powers that be in Anglo society, I would have to say that this is not our only Achilles Heel as western Anglicans, although it may well be our ultimate one. There are at least two other major flaws, fatal or otherwise, that continue to haunt us and render us so vulnerable and feeble in resisting the assaults upon us from every side. First is our famous, or should I say infamous?, theological and liturgical ambiguity on [b]essential[/b] matters that really can’t be claimed to be matters of adiaphora after all. For much too long we Anglicans have boasted of what we should actually be ashamed of, namely that we are not a confessional church bound by a creed similar to the great Augsburg Confession of 1530 (or the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, or the decrees of Trent, etc.). There is a desperate need for a fresh restatement of what Anglicans truly believe in a manner that functions as the 39 Articles did back in 1571, but in a clearer and more unambiguous way, that avoids the deliberate ambiguities of the Articles that were, in the end, politically and socially rather than theologically motivated.
Another fatal flaw that desperately needs correcting is closely related. Now that world Anglicanism (and even the CoE) is no longer subject to the British monarch as the Supreme Governor of the Church (it hasn’t in fact been true in England since 1689), there is a devastating power vacuum at the center of Anglicanism, since nothing has ever been created to take the place of the monarch in adjudicating disputes within Anglicanism (each national church being effectively treated as indeed autonomous, with the vaunted Instruments of Unity/Communion as merely organs of consulation rather than governace). This is literally intolerable. That is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Our greatest need is to fill that vacuum. We simply have to get beyond our traditional Anglican fear of papal-style tyrrany, and recognize that what is killing us today is Protestant-style anarchy. We simply have to find a way of creating new structures of authority that can effectively GOVERN world wide Anglicanism, with a clear and unambigious re-affirmation of the classical Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism, as revitalized by the recovery of the patristic model as filtered through the biblically-based reforms of the English tradition. That will require nothing less than a replacement of the 39 Articles and the former Instruments of Unity, both of which are clearly inadequate to unify Anglicanism today, in a dangerous but also exciting post-Christendom era.
A blessed Holy Week to all.
David Handy+
Provocative as ever
At a conference called the Baltimore Convocation, held in that city to launch the 1991 Baltimore Declaration, Stanley Hauerwas was one of the speakers and on that occasion he applied the Achilles Heel reference to a trend in Anglicanism which he traced back at least to “Lux Mundi†in 1889, saying it had now come fully into its own with the view among many modern Anglicans that “what the Incarnation means is: God came to earth, looked around, felt right at home, and said, H’mmm, not half bad!†For that matter, the heresy in all this was of course already implicit in what the Athanasian Creed sought to dispel by its insistence that Christ in His divine and human union is “One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God.†Has not this indeed become the defining theological issue in TEC? Might the ACI be willing to sponsor a restoration of the English Prayer Book requirement of reciting Quicunque Vult in public worship on thirteen holydays throughout the year?
William McKeachie
At leasst 95% of the time I concur with Philip Turner, and this post is easy to applaud. I wonder what he, or others, would make of this kind of Easter Message, sent today, from a TEC Bishop:
“God’s loving response to the painful suffering of life and the difficult losses we face is as faithful as the returning blossoms of spring. It is you. When you speak truth to power, you are the risen Christ. When you attend to the injured and the ailing, you are the risen Christ. When you advocate for and sacrifice on behalf of the one who has less, you are the risen Christ. When you place your cloak around the shoulders of the one in need, you are the risen Christ. When you offer God’s love in the places where it is yearned for but not easily recognized, you are the risen Christ.”
I find this a variant, or distressing application, of the Incarnationalism that Turner mentions. A couple of tweaks and the message might be brought in the bounds of my own circumference of thelogical sanity–to wit, in doing those things we ‘bear witness to the Risen Christ’ are ’emissaries of the Risen Christ’ or some such language. But it all seems incautious, undisciplined, and woefully weak on Christ’s own freedom and prerogative.
Am I being too theologically fastidious? Help!
To #7, I would add that the ancient maxim used against Docetism, namely, ‘the unassumed is the unhealed,’ has been transposed by many in our leadership(with grave consequences) to be now ‘the assumed is healed (perfectly and without remainder)’ to support a universalism, effective at the Incarnation, incorporating all into the Godhead.
At least that’s how I see leaders like the PB and others operating.
Ian Montgomery wrote:
[blockquote] “Might it not be time for a true General Anglican Council to meet, talk and wrestle with these issues.” [/blockquote]
In the life of the church, general councils were often preceded by other councils, as the process of the whole church discerning truth (and where each person stands in relation to that truth) is a long one.
Thus the great Hosius of Corduba attended numerous smaller councils to spread the message of orthodoxy before the great council of Nicaea. And of course Nicaea itself was only “the end of the beginning”, not the final victory which Hosius did not live to see.
I think we can discern a similar process going on in our own day. Gafcon in 2008, the Fourth Global South to South Encounter in April 2010 and the CAPA conference in late 2010 are all “preliminary conferences” to something that is yet ahead of us. I note that there will be another Jerusalem Conference in 2012, which may itself be yet another step on the road towards a gathering of all orthodox Anglicans.
I echo NRA’s appreciation for Dr. Turner’s thoughtful essay. (And I am delighted to see a comment from the beloved former blogger David Handy+.)
Turner offers wise insights into the rise of a false gospel of Incarnationalism. Especially that this ideology comes as a principle “cut loose from a doctrine†where “the cross [is] expunged from its content.â€
The essay is quite wide in scope as it attempts to point to a theological task for the churches of the Christian West in these times.
As part of his prescription to attend to the task of understanding the “nature of human goodâ€, Dr. Turner makes a claim related to the inherited tradition to which I would make a clarification.
Turner says
My suggested clarification is that the “almost everyone†in the above quote may not include Philip Melanchthon who is attributed with saying
This quote from Melanchthon is used by ++Fitz Allison in his book “Trust in an Age of Arrogance†where the human person is seen as in bondage until he/she responds in Trust (Faith) to the only One who can set him/her free. Thus the intellect is seen by some as incapable of directing the will toward its proper end.
Is the mistaken priority of the intellect in the West at the center of the idolatry which we are now seeing? Would a return to the understanding of the heart as the foundation of the human person allow us to hear the One who calls us into true life? Is ++Allison’s perspective on the nature of our human problem a deeper insight than the “eroding of the map of the self†to which Dr. Turner points?
hereistand (#11),
Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, my foray into blogging here at T19 is meant to be very brief. I plan to go back to monitoring the discussions here without adding my 2 cents’ worth.
But I think the issue of Anglicanism’s Achilles Heel that Dr. Turner raised is profoundly important, and deserves much wider discussion. I regret that so few people chose to comment on his stimulating and thoughtful essay, but then again, it’s Holy Week…
As for the insightful Melancthon quote you mentioned, hereistand, I think it’s very apt, and it illustrates the need to explore these complex matters more fully. Since Dr. Turner’s essay is quite brief (for the ACI), I can’t be sure, but I suspect that he would probably agree with you, hereistand, about the corruption of both the human mind and the will in our fallen state.
FWIW, I think those orthodox Lutherans are likely correct who see Anglicanism as a form of “Philippism” (in distinction from the more polemical orthodoxy of the Formula of Concord, i.e., following the irenic tendencies of Philip Melancthon and his spiritual kin).
David Handy+