Dear Kendall,
I have been following your blog with great interest, and I wonder if you would compare what is happening now with the Anglican Church with what happened in the 16th century with the Roman Catholic Church?
It seems to me that a preoccupation with works, property, and wealth were present then, and while we don’t necessarily have the sale of indulgences going on, we are nevertheless, very indulgent.
The reaction has been to re-focus the church on the transcendent, the relationship with the divine, and re-emphasize faith and scripture. Again, this seems very analogous to the Reformation period.
What I’m wrestling with is how far this Reformation process extends — is it simply an Episcopalian Reformation, or are we looking at an Anglican Reformation? In other words, how rotten is the English church?
I’m also wondering if by calling it what it is, a Reformation, we can begin to educate folks that this isn’t about 2003, but about something much deeper?
One way to see the Reformation conflict is as a difference of opinion between those who saw man’s need as being for Infusion – a gift of grace that serves to add what is necessary for salvation – and those who saw man’s need for Conversion – a gift of grace that creates a new spiritual being. As I read the Post and Courier article and others some believe that same-sex sex is acceptable and that gay men and lesbians need support from the society and the church as an agent of society in their same-sex relationships (Infusion). Others believe that same-sex sex is not acceptable, that it is incompatible with the teaching of Scripture and that gay men and lesbians need to change their behavior (Conversion.)
Feelings run deep and hot on both sides of the question. The Episcopal Church has been engaged for a generation is seeking to determine whether persons who believe in Infusion and those who believe in Conversion can live in the same church.
Time to play with some logic; it might help. Let’s examine the following statement: All reformations are ultimately a defence of the authority of scripture. I generally accept that as true.
First of all, the converse — All defences of scriptural authority are reformations. — is not true: We’re talking about a lot of garden-variety apologetics here.
The inverse, however — If it’s not a defence of scriptural authority, it’s not a reformation. — whilst quite true, is decidedly irrelevant in the current disputes, involving as they do a vigorous defence of the the authority of scripture at their core.
The same could be said for the contrapositive — If it’s not a defence of the authority of scripture, it’s not a reformation. — which I hold to be true-but-irrelevant for the same reason.
Finally, the existence (or not) of a contradiction — There exists at least one reformation that was not a defence of the authority of scripture. — is again irrelevant because of the unmistakable defence of scriptural authority in the ongoing dispute between Anglicans and the Episcopal power-elite.
The key question, consequently, becomes whether the current defence of the authority of scripture is actually a reformation … or simply apologetics … which in turn begs the question of whether there is a struggle for power or merely a theological disagreement.
ECUSA’s actions in the past year alone make it abundantly clear that they (at least) understand this as a struggle for power. They will impose their world-view on as much of the church as they possibly can. Their actions force the answer — which is that it is indeed a reformation upon which we are embarked, meaning it will almost certainly require several generations before the dust begins to settle.
It’s a huge bother, and we certainly didn’t ask for it. We are, however, called to stand in the gap, which may in the end be (for our times) the cornerstone of “Well done, good and faithful servant…”
What say you Fr. Kendall? I’m sure we’d be truly interested in your response, since you are definitely qualified to answer the question.
Blessings,
Gloria
This reformation does concern property but it is more about theological focus and control than about political power, the stability of the state and the burning of heretics. Also the Bible is not a fresh discovery to most of the masses today, and superstition does not seem to have overtaken church rituals. Beyond that, what is going on today, to my idea, is an attempt to stamp the Great Seal of the prestige of the church and its vestments, architecture, holy titles and institutions on contemporary sexual practices and political notions of right and wrong. There would also seem to be, as in times past, people in high offices who are living off the endowments of the church who are content merely to keep sucking at that teat. Others in high office are using their power and privileges to bring the orthodox forcibly in line with their outlook. There are persecutions today but they involve control of endowments, jobs and pension plans and thwarting of promotions and personal convictions. To some extent we had a little of this at the turn of the 20th Century with the Anglo-Catholic skirmishes. At the heart of today’s dispute are the authority of the Bible and the definition of the seven Sacraments, both of which, to reasserters, are being subverted.
This is not a Reformation at all but the living out of the decision we all made during the 16th C. Reformation to decentralize authority to interpret Scripture. The splitting up of Anglicanism is neither new, nor it actually that important on the grand scale of things.
Bishop Stephen Jecko, last spring, expressed his belief that a reformation was coming that would affect all mainline Protestant denominations. His words gave us hope during the adult Sunday school hour when he visited our parish to confirm and receive. (I wish I had recorded it.)
OK, so here is an Anglo Catholic view of things. I see this as more of a counter-reformation, where the traditional church is rekindling apologetics, theology, evangelism and catholicity to defend itself against a threat from self-styled reformers (Schori, Booth-Beers, Robonson, Susan Russell, et. al.) and reinforcing the core. In some countries the national church has been taken over by the reformers (US, Canada, possibly England), but the core of orthodox Anglicanism is being bolstered in response. One could take the analogy further by comparing Bishop Bob Duncan to Bishop John Fischer (and possibly Kendall’s Elves to the Jesuits.)
One thing I should have added is the recourse of reappraisers to philosophies based on science and psychology and personal experience.
Reformations certainly do involve property – ask the English parishes that saw their treasures hauled off to finance the king’s wars and the monasteries that saw their lands confiscated and given to the king’s allies. Reformations also involve a great deal more about authority than the authority of scripture. I seem to remember the English Parliament enacting laws about doctrines as well as liturgies. It’s entirely possible to look at the Reformation as an assertion of a rising hegemony of northern European – German, Swiss, English, and so on – goverments over the historic power of the Roman empire, represented by the Catholic Church.
All of which is to say that presenting the Reformation as a movement “to re-focus the church on the transcendent, the relationship with the divine, and re-emphasize faith and scripture” is simplistic. The very real doctrinal issues are only a piece of that which was occuring in the Reformation and property was another big piece.
What I see in both the Lutheran Reformation and this conflict is that one side (Luther, orthodox Anglicans) is more concerned about staying true to Scripture and rejecting recent innovations. The other side (16c RC, reappraisers) are more concerned about the loss of property and power (both temporal and theological) – although there are some on this side that do make Scriptural arguments. I will agree that the English Reformation was more ambiguous as to the property/power issues.
You need to look more broadly. The power and property transfers did not simply occur with ecclesial properties. In the case of Luther, German princes used the reformation to gain power and property from the Holy Roman Empire. The greedy have understood how to foment “reform” to their material advantage since the beginning of history.
In my area we are seeing a strong revival as Christians are leaving the Episcopal Church and other mainline churches and affiliating themselves with Christian fellowships.
The next mission field is to send missionaries back into the mainline churches from which the Spirit has departed, to win people to Christ. The fact is that the people who have captured the mainline churches know their time is limited. Those in control are becoming increasingly frightened and will increase their persecution of Christians as much as they can to maintain their control, but the fact is they only have another 5 to ten years before they are gone and they know it, even if they won’t admit it. God will not be mocked.
7 – Indeed. For those whose main interests were power, wealth and the approbation of secular society there was really only one side to be on in the English reformation. It is not surprising that many of us follow in their footsteps today.
Huber – I’m not saying that power did not play a role with the German princes, although in the long run they were defeated by the Holy Roman Empire. After all, it was the political climate in Germany that saved Luther from the fate of Hus. But that was not Luther’s motivation or the motivation of many on his side.
I guess that my take on what is going on now is a bit different. I am in a small group which is going through the CFP series which was developed at Trinity in Ambridge. Our current study is the Episcopal Ethos, authored by Leslie Fairfield. He talks of four poles of Anglicanism: Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, Liberal and Holiness. In light of that, what I see are centrifugal forces at play pulling each of these poles to their extremes:
1. A move among evangelicals to a low-church, deconstruction of sacraments, deconstruction of the role of clergy, etc.
2. A move among Anglo-Catholics toward Roman practices like adoration of the Host, purgatory, etc.
3. A move among Liberals to secular humanism, which is well documented at T19 and SF.
4. A move among the holiness folk toward ever more charismatic practices (this is a small group in numbers).
My own faith incorporates all four of these elements in a certain balance, as I believe that that approach is supported by Scripture. This to me would be the goal of a reformation. What I think is happening is not so much reformation, but fragmentation.
[blockquote]I’m also wondering if by calling it what it is, a Reformation, we can begin to educate folks that this isn’t about 2003, but about something much deeper?[/blockquote]
Here in Colorado, we had the pleasure of hosting Kendall Harmon for a conference yesterday. One the many points he touched upon is that we are dealing with a situation like a marriage turning sour and heading for divorce court. As in that situation, there are two different views of reality. I paraphrase Kendall:
The reality put forth by the left was that New Hampshire in 2003 in their God-inspired discernment process elected someone who just happened to be a homosexual in a active same-sex relationship. The international community then reacted at Windsor and Dromantine. The American province then countered with GC 06, etc.
In contrast, Kendall asserts that the story basically began in the nineties with the explosion of Anglicanism in the global south. This resulted in a majority for the first time in Lambeth 98. The result was Lambeth 1.10. The Americans were aghast, appalled, affronted, a-everything. They were determined not to be displaced from their position of power and turned aside from their “enlightened course.” A series of actions and resolutions were put forth saying, in essence, “to hell with Lambeth 1.10.” This then culminated in 2003 and then came reaction, counter reaction, etc.
Sorry, one more thought. To me, an example of holding all of the elements together is the Missouri Lutherans, who are evangelical (ie: Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine), somewhat “high church” (the church being where the sacraments are adminsitered, the holder of the Office of the Keys, etc), sacramental (baptism effectual, Jesus present in the elements of the Eucharist) and liberal (very much oriented to serving others and meeting their needs to exemplify God’s love for us).
I am no expert but it seems to me that we are in the midst of Reformation III. The struggles in the AC are a small instance of a much larger pattern. The first ‘Reformation’, Reformation I transformed the church from a grass roots movement into an organized religion with a standardized theology. The main ideological challenges were the Philosophies of the day and Greek and Roman religions. At the time western civilization was being challenged by the Persian Empire.
THE Reformation and Counter Reformation (Reformation II) addressed the stagnation and corruption that had built up in the organized church. The challenge of the day presented by the Renaissance and the so called ‘Enlightenment’ were not dealt with so well. The various attempts to reconcile faith and the new thinking were abysmal and incomplete. At the time western civilization was being challenged by the Ottoman Empire.
Reformation III is much more messy. We have the unfinished business of clarifying the Gospel to meet the challenge of secular thought and the unprecedented flow of ideas between world cultures and religions. The response in the West has been to say “You have your truth and I have mine”. We have muddled ideas. Just because everyone should be free to believe whatever they want doesn’t mean everyone is right. At this time our security and our ideals are being challenged by the Middle East and now China and India are in the fray.
A move among evangelicals to a low-church, deconstruction of sacraments, deconstruction of the role of clergy, etc.
Actually, I think that the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church (at least from my APA experience) has stayed pretty constant regarding its theology, but has a newfound respect and appreciation for liturgy and hierarchy. I predict that the whole Episcopal controversy is educating a whole new generation of evangelicals about the role and purpose of the priesthood.
Loved the Jesuit comment. Some of us have felt the fires of the inquisition — or were those the Dominicans?
robroy:
My recollection, which will take time to document, is that Lambeth, if not ecusa, has made resolutions on human sexuality prohibiting homosexual acts, since at least’78, so L 1.10 was part of a continuing process, despite Kendall’s assertion. BTW, I thought I was the only one from Pueblo at Christ Church; let’s carpool and save some gas money next time. I was greatly impressed by Cn. Harmon’s presentation.
1. A move among evangelicals to a low-church, deconstruction of sacraments, deconstruction of the role of clergy, etc.
I cannot agree with this comment. The evangelical CANA group is not deconstructing sacraments, deconstructing the role of the clergy or worshiping in a low church mode. Quite the opposite in fact. We are emphasizing the fundamentals of the Nicene creed via a liturgy that is elegant in its presentation. Today, I heard a sermon that was eloquently preached on the Book of Revelation. I have heard nothing like it in the Episcopal Church since early in the last century. I pray that our bretheren will be led back to the fundamentals of the early Church be it Anglican or whatever.
Kendall, who wrote this? Can you say? Larry
This cannot be called a reformation because it is so unimportant to the 99% of the world which is paying no attention to what a few (as a part of a whole) churches are doing. Luther altered an entire civilization. We will have precious little effect on the broad run of Americans who are paying no attention at all. All we are doing is talking. And talkiing. And talking. No one acts. No one leads.
Until real blood is shed, nothing important is going on. We will talk ourselves into irrelevancy. And you already know this. LM
Dear Athanasius, I sincerely hope that what you are experiencing with CANA holds true. I would love to see a reformed Anglicanism focused on Scripture and holding all of its historical emphases in balance. My reading of news items and threads leaves me concerned that holding this balance is going to prove difficult.
Physician: I cannot deny that it won’t be difficult. However, I sense a new spirit, or perhaps the Holy Spirit, operating in the growing CANA congregation. I watched in awe on a number of recent occasions when a young man, blind since birth, read the epistle at the morning service using his newly acquired Braille skills. He will also be entering a seminary to eventually be ordained. Other young people are joining. This is not a moribund group of old pew sitters even though many of us are pretty ancient. The spirit is moving, teaching, comforting us as Jesus promised.
Larry Morse (#24): Without wishing to be critical of your opinion, I fear that you are quite wrong in your understanding of what is actually happening here. This is not some local squabble that affects a mere 1% of the Christian world, but rather a shot (and certainly not the first) in a battle that is about to engulf the whole of Christendom.
My take is more in keeping with the thoughts of John A (#18). This is a major fight about the soul the church, specifically an understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives. He calls it Reformation III. At the risk of being considered a complete crack-pot (since I cannot devote enough time here to explain this properly), I prefer to think of this more in terms of “Whither the Third Age”. This is a battle to see whether our desire to help our neighbor will be governed more by divine or by human criteria. The last 2000 years have simply been an opportunity for us to decide what we think it means to have “Christ within us” or to be “born again in the image of Christ”.
Now the trial begins.
You are quite right. This is a fight for the soul of a church. My point is that the troops in the field are small and the rest of the country is not effected by what they do. If you can show me, for example, that leadership here will change America’s love affair with homosexuality, then I am very interested indeed. Only you can’t show me that, esp. because there ARE NO LEADERS that amount to a hill of beans. There is no Luther. Will TEC die? Sure, but so what? Who will care and what effect large national effects will it have? None. It will become emaciated and irrelevant; it will become a “church” for the homosexuals and they won’t stay long because they will have isolated themselves, a Fire Island for a religion.
Tell me, what is the Anglican church going to do that shaketh the seats of the great and the powerful? Unseat the ABC? And now tht I think of it, the soul of the church is not really in jeopardy, for good Christians will continue going to church and ignoring the deviants and the marginal. This soul cannot be touched and won’t be. The homosexuals cannot damage this and neither can TEC.
The danger comes, not from the church and its bickering, but from the secular culture that continues to run America. It will expand the forces of scienticism (and we will continue to ignore the threat that science and technology place on all religion’s raison d’etre, as you have read here) as it supplies the spiritual hungers by producing real results from real promises. And we will be left saying “I believe in One God…” to smaller and smaller congregations. God will not be able to compete with a cure for cancer and rebuilt hearts from cloned tissue. Not that He cares, mind you, since He has the last word. But we have lost our strength, Prufrocks all: Do I dare to eat a peach? Shall I wear my trousers turned and walk upon the beach? We have heard the mermaids singing, each to each, but I do not think that they will sing to us.
I live near the cold northern ocean where, now, the waves run gray-green and the rote of the winter seas can be heard on the outer ledges. The wind scours the frozen sand, the seagulls turn, slide down and mount the winds from the surf, and the foghorn on Seguin sings its old familiar tune. Christ is here, as tough and free and intensely alive as ever, among the mermaids. He is not what we have turned Him into, a meek mild purveyor of sentimentalities about love, the Beatitudes notwithstanding. He knows the judgment and the judge, and one can hear and smell this reality in the bitter northern sea and the hard easterlies. In fact, Mother Nature is His daughter,she only does what she is bid, and all our achievements are sand before the full moon’s tide. Let the tide run but a little higher, and our hearts will feed the fishes. Larry
I have been a life long Anglican and I have served in the Church as a priest for over 19 years. As I encounter the problems of the Church, and have followed the blogs on the varied issues of morality, Scriptural authority, ecclesiology, and episcopacy, and worship (I assure you I am an amateur in these fields) I have been led to look at the nature of the Church from an eastern orthodox position. I find a peculiar absence of Eastern Orthodox perspective on the debate in Anglicanism. If I understand correctly, approaches to many of the issues of interpretation of Scripture, theology, governance, discipline and the like were handled by the Eastern Orthodox , (dare I say the Whole Church) in a manner that might be helpful to us Anglicans in search of a modern Reformation. I think the solution to our modern problems lies in understanding how the Early Church handled their issues, issues which really are not that different from ours. Again, if I correctly understand Timothy Ware in his book The Orthodox Church, the Reformation was simply a symptom of schism and drift created by the See of Rome.
I wonder if the Anglican experiment to restore the Church, brought about by the Reformation and some interesting National politics, didn’t go back far enough. Perhaps the issues of Scriptural Authority, episcopacy and worship all fall apart when bishops fail to speak as one in council, and fail to disciple one another and their priests when personal opinion falls outside the mind of the Church as determined in the great councils, which for Anglicans today is Lambeth.
MartinNL
Physician: I moved in VERY “low church” (evangelical) circles within the Episcopal Church for many years. During the 80’s and 90’s there was a fair measure of liturgical confusion and, I suppose, deconstruction of the liturgy, as fully-converted evangelical Episcopalians encountered (and tried to accomodate) charismatics and young “Jesus freaks” from the late 60’s and 70’s. Certainly, right up to the present, there were immense liturgical innovations and ecclesiastical simplifications to be found in various parts of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and in a few other scattered outposts of the “low church” around the country. But, at the same time (during the 80’s and 90’s), in other places, like the Diocese of South Carolina, evangelicals were discovering a LOT of commonality with other orthodox branches of the Church– such as the orthodox Anglo-Catholics. The strengthening of these ties of commonality, through a variety of groupings and organizations that developed and morphed throughout the 80’s and 90’s, has led to a renewed appreciation of the traditional Liturgy by many very low-church Anglicans. When I attended Grace Church in Manhattan (When Fitzallison Simmons was the Rector), we had Morning Prayer and a Sermon on three Sundays every month. Holy Communion was a once-a-month event. I now attend an AMiA church. My current Rector is, in many ways, much “lower” than I have ever experienced before. And yet we celebrate the Eucharist evry Sunday, and we do so with the sort of liturgical propriety and finesse that would meet with the approval of anybody from Nashotah House.
Larry Morse: if by the phrase “fight for the soul of a church,” you are referring to TEC, then I have to say that for me, personally, and for a lot of other orthodox Anglicans in America, the fight is OVER– TEC is now in the very firm grasp of the Forces of Darkness. The real fight that all true Christians should be waging is not a fight about institutional identity, real estate, or money. We should be fighting to win the souls of the lost and the dying; we should be fighting to bring light to world steeped in darkness; we should be fighting for the right to proclaim– to shout– the Good News of Salvation through Jesus alone to a sinful and dying world, where Satan still holds immense sway over the course of events. Personally, I think it should be obvious to all true Christians that TEC is completely LOST. The Lord has NOT raised up a “leader” to “take back” TEC because He seems to not care much, one way or the other, about the prestige, power, money, and holdings of TEC. He as always preferred to accomplish His work through “jars of clay.” God uses the humble and the foolish things of this world to confound to proud and “wise.” I am comforted by the fact that the world-wide Anglican Communinion– as a whole– stands shoulder to shoulder with Aslan. Whether to C of E goes over to the Dark Side in the months or years ahead is an interesting question, but not one of much importance. Maybe there will be some sort of miracle and the C of E will pull back from the cliff-edge of apostasy at the last minute. I can envision ways that this might happen. I can also easily envision the C of E following the same course as TEC, with the same results. One way or the other, however, these things should be of little concern to those of us who seek to follow Jesus do His will in this world. There is– and always will be– one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There remain MANY Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Anglican provinces, dioceses, and bishops throughout the world. Some of the BEST of these are to found among the poorest of the poor, in places like Africa and in some of the more awful parts of Asia. For whatever it is worth, it is my opinion that the only question that individual orthodox Anglicans need to be concerned with is which of the TRUE CHURCH are they going to affiliate with. TEC is no longer a viable option. It probably hasn’t been for a very long time now, but many of us were slow to realize this. The fight for TEC is over– Bishop Robert Duncan effectively announced that the other day at his Diocesan Convention and in his wonderfully succinct reply to the PB.
My last comment contained some very bad and convoluted phraseology; there were many typos born of passion. It was a comment that I dashed off much to quickly, as usual! It should have been, “…that individual orthodox Anglicans need to be concerned with is which PART of the TRUE CHURCH are they going to affiliate with.”
I submitted the original question, and have found the subsequent responses very interesting. I’d like to make a few observations so far:
In re #2: there are some logical positions that have not been explored so far, such as this one: “this could become an Episcopalian or Anglican Reformation if X or Y happens, but it could become something altogether different if Z happens.”
In re #7: I thought in terms of a counter-Reformation originally, but I am speculating that this is more of a Reformation because the institution is rotten, and the theology of the institution has drifted from its original moorings. It would be a counter-Reformation if forces within ECUSA or the C of E were to respond to the heresy within and the reformation from without.
In re #9: apologies for my shorthand, but I think there is a multi-level conflict happening here: theological, political, ideological, institutional, doctrinal, and ceremonial, to name a few. This is why I believe we are engaged in a Great Debate, not a minor denominational squabble.
In re #28: all I can say is that so far, the evidence shows that God works in mysterious ways. Jesus was a carpenter in an insignificant outpost of the Roman Empire and his 12 disciples weren’t necessarily educated in the Harvards or Oxfords of his time. Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King…leaders always seem to come out of nowhere, don’t they? But they come. SJ
In the case of heresy vs truth, the grass is truly greener on the orthodox side, and indeed, actually contains nutrition instead of empty calories, and produces more contented sheep. That’s why our Shepherd, Jesus, calls us to feed there.
It’s true. Catholics were not a very numerous visible presence in the US until the latter 19th Century, with the influx of Irish Catholics due to the potato famine.
Even then there was widespread persecution of Catholics (today we’d call those ‘hate crimes’). Many businesses hung signs in the windows “No Irish Need Apply”.
A friend of mine did a Master’s thesis on anti-Catholic bigotry in the South and came across stories of Catholic priests being lynched if they showed up in certain areas of the South wearing their clerical collars.
Thankfully (for my ancestors, at least) the Irish immigrated in sufficient numbers to win elections and gain positions in police and fire brigades, and so turned public opinion.
31 and 33: If there is a reformation beginning, what is being reformed? Are we fighting for the soul of the church as bluenarrative says? Is this fight the reformation? Then nothing is being reformed. The threat posed by TEC is in essence a reformation; we are now cast as the defenders of the faith and so not reformers at all.
I submit this is nothing more than an extension of common Protestant practice, that each church and each parishioner is his own priest, and that fragmentation of larger unions is the common Protestant consequence. WE are not now “catholic” and are about to become even less so, even though the fragments will all continue to use the word. Protestantism is a consequence of an industrial society and Catholicism is the consequence of an agrarian society. Agrarian societies do not favor atomistic individualism, and industrial societies, because they destroy agrarian societies, favor fragmentation as they favor anomie and rootlessness. The industrial society has no use for the past; and we can see TEC as the offspring of this social posture.