First, many of those who have found that they cannot continue in The Episcopal Church are people who find much catholic ritual, including vestments, unacceptable. The so-called “low-church” view of ritual and vesting is sufficient and the regalia of catholicity is anathema to many of the acronym-related crowd. I hoped there were no spies in church that Sunday. Had it not been for the progressive liturgical movement, the priest would not have been so arrayed that Sunday morning.
Then I knew that she had employed the New International Version for scripture readings. The very fact that this is allowed rubrically over the historic King James is a sign that The Episcopal Church progressives sought to broaden our experiences in hearing the scriptures.
Finally, a woman at the altar was a testimony that progressive visionaries reread the scriptures and found that indeed Paul may have just meant that in Christ there “is no male or female.” And so I fear for all my female priest friends, that they may find themselves the focus of inattention at best and defrocking at worst as much of emerging Anglicanism is not favorable to female priests. It happens, I know, for an ordained Southern Baptist friend of mine was recently sent a letter telling her that her ordination from some 20 years ago was no longer valid.
And I fear as well that those who are faithful saints in the acronym crowd will not succumb to the works-centered righteousness of fundamentalism. Newfound power can corrupt just as much as long-held power. And those who think they stand may need to watch, lest they fall. So my fear is for those who have reaped the benefits of progressive visionary thinking and praying and acting as well as for those who, ignoring previous progressive visionary thinking and praying and acting, are acting out of a non-Anglican ethos and are falling headlong into an individualistic congregationalism with bishops.
“. It was a fearful thing, for one night at about bedtime, several deacons appeared at our door to determine if Mrs. Mackey, my wife, was wearing pajamas with “legs in them.†For anything with legs was, of course, meant for men! She was safe, I assure you, and we were allowed to remain undisciplined in the church”
I don’t believe him.
Having daid that, he does raise some points to consider.
You needn’t read beyond the botched acronyms and the misgrouping of entitites (AAC a faction?) to conlcude that this article is the product of fertile ignorance.
That said, I did find it enjoyable that these groups have caused the author such concern that he finds it necessary not only to slur them with insinuations of fundy baptist leanings, but that he must scare the ‘beloved moderates’ and reappraisers with the fear of losing their WO – oh dread.
So 1970s. Priceless.
😉
[blockquote] Then I knew that she had employed the New International Version for scripture readings. The very fact that this is allowed rubrically over the historic King James is a sign that The Episcopal Church progressives sought to broaden our experiences in hearing the scriptures. [/blockquote]
You just have to laugh. Sure the NIV is a better translation in the sense that it is based upon older manuscripts. Personally I prefer the NASB. But who cares if you “broaden your experience” by listening to different translations of scripture when [i]you never assign authority to the Scripture in the first place[/i]. It’s not an artistic endevour. It’s not like comparing Von Karajan’s Beethoven to the efforts of another director. Better to hear and believe the KJV then to hear and experience the NIV. Talk about missing the forrest for the trees…
carl
“Many of those who have found that they cannot continue in The Episcopal Church are people who find much catholic ritual, including vestments, unacceptable” —Jeffrey Mackey
This description might have held true in another era. But it does NOT fit ANY orthodox Anglican I know who has left or is thinking of leaving ECUSA. Not one. If Mackey thinks this a major reason for such departures, he is fundamentally mistaken.
I wonder why Dr Harmon found this article worthy of excerpting and linking. It is no more than a sloppy bit of demagoguery.
It is telling that for this author the important thing about the Catholic faith is the externals of ritual and vestments, not the substance of the faith. The message is that the “reasserters” are (horror of horrors!) [i]Protestants[/i] who might not let us play dress-up at the altar anymore.
How puerile.
I don’t want to be seen as “piling on” but I have to agree with some of the above comments. This article really has all kinds of weird flags in it that make me wonder why it was posted here. It seems frankly just a bit flaky.
Chris,
Probably to show to what lengths some people will go to villify the Orthodox and those willing to take a stand FOR the Gospel.
This is “helpful” to post because it informs us how some people think about conservatives. Uninformed judgements aside, I found the tone so, well… he might easily have fit in with those who said to Jesus, “Hail, King of the Jews” as they spat on him and struck him.
I find it so ugly, especially from a Christian. And yet I can go there so easily myself. Lord have mercy on us.
#1,
I don’t believe him either. But I wish these people would get their epithets straight. First we conservatives are fundamentalists, then we’re Puritans and now we’re Congregationalists. Considering that one of the first group, Billy Graham, is only the reason I know who Jesus is since the Episcopal Sunday schools I grew up in never got around to it and considering that the second and third groups produced Jonathan Edwards, one of the finest intellects this side of the Atlantic has ever produced or ever will produce, I would be proud to bear any of those three titles.
LibraryJim,
I really can’t remember reading any vilifications of us Orthodox on any Episcopal website including the liberal ones. I think they are happy to ignore us.
#5 & #6, Kendall hasn’t shared with us elves the reason for his posting this, but I will hazard a personal opinion that is pretty similar to what #8 wrote at the beginning of that comment about “uninformed judgments.”
One of Kendall’s primary motives for maintaining this blog, as I understand it, is to allow folks from all positions on the “Anglican spectrum” if I can call it that, to be able to interact at a meaningful level of dialogue so as to be truly able to understand one another’s positions and accurately represent and respond to them when/if refuting them. Address what they’re really saying, not what you *think* they believe.
This article appears to be a pretty good case study in how not to do that. There are many assumptions made about motives and beliefs that are not backed up with any evidence and are in fact quite contrary to what many of us reasserters believe. There are errors of fact and gross generalizations, perhaps most notably:
“Many of those who have found that they cannot continue in The Episcopal Church are people who find much catholic ritual, including vestments, unacceptable.â€
Of course to counter that, one can point simply to three of the four dioceses that are on the somewhat faster track to possibly secede from TEC: Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Quincy. Traditional Anglo-Catholic dioceses all. Don’t see how they fit the caricaturization offered in this article.
So, at least from this elf’s point of view, take this post as an object lesson in what we *DON’T* want you to try at home.
Ad Orientum, I’m guessing Library Jim did not mean to capitalize the O in orthodox. Not sure if your comment was a bit of a tease or if you were serious.
It’s hard to know where to start with this. Suffice it to say that, as with most reappraiser pieces, a strong whiff of irony was in the air as I read. Part of that irony is in seeing one more deconstructionist wrap himself in the flag of Catholicity while defending a view of ordination that the Church Catholic rejects entirely.
The greater part of the argument that prompts one to laugh out loud, though, is the idea that the “acronym crowd†is the one tearing down the giants upon whose shoulders it stands. Really, now: it is the very nature of Episcopalianism to think that by bulking up on the frilly vestments and choking the congregation with billowing clouds of incense, one can make up for the abandonment of Christ, of repentance, of wholesale amendment of life and of denying yourself to take up the Cross. It is Mr. Mackey’s institution and its ‘60s-marinated leadership that foolishly supposes it can leech the patrimony of the Apostles and the Fathers and survive, even while rejecting most of that Faith.
Though they choose not to use acronyms as the traditionalists tend to, Mr. Mackey ought to take the beam out of his eye and see his own factions, who really do own all the “newfound power†that corrupts: the Integrity crowd, the Via Media crowd, the Claiming the Blessing crowd, ad nauseum.
Why the sad faces? I for one agree enthusiastically with the writer: I am immensely grateful for the “progressive visionary thinking” of the Oxford Movement (to whom we owe the vestments) and conservative evangelical Biblical scholars (to whom we owe the NIV).
Of course, it is true that the author thinks that all of these blessings are the work of “Episcopal Church progressives,” but never mind that. It’s the gratitude that counts.
It’s disspiriting to read the ritual denunciations above, because while I don’t agree entirely with the sentiments of the article (and one of the “facts”, which I’ll get to in a moment), it seems to me that the rush to rebuttal illustrates his point. If this is how a not esepcially radical thought gets treated, what’s going to happen when the reasserters don’t have Jack Spong, John Chane, and VGR to kick around anymore? All those ordained women present a huge problem, because a lot of them are (otherwise) conservative and will want to join the exodus when the denomination comes apart. So how are they going to be accommodated, when there are so many who deny their sacraments?
And now for the one fact this: how exactly did the NIV get authorized, anyway? I can still remember the days when the authorized versions were all the mainline translations, and all the RC translations, and all the Anglican translations. I was rather surprised to find, one day, that the NIV could be read in church. It’s hard to imagine that this was at the behest of the radical liberals…….
It’s hard to imagine that this was at the behest of the radical liberals…….
True, C. Wingate. I’ve been told the NIV is actually favored by evangelicals.
Elves,
You are correct, it was supposed to be ‘small o’ orthodox, that will teach me to use ‘reasserters’ from now on!
Jim Elliott <><
Alan,
While I, too, am grateful for the efforts of the Evangelical scholars for the NIV, I am still waiting for the complete ESV (with apocrypha) to come out.
By the way, to echo C. Wingate, I thought that all Bibles authorized for use in the Episcopal Church [b]HAD[/b] to include the apocyrpha?
The Living Church must have been short of good material to publish this issue. I find the writer to be somewhat self-satisfied and experience-centered and all over the map in looking at the church and what it should be. The intolerance and fragmentation he cites I mostly chalk up to the effects political correctness.
I fondly remember Dr. Jeffrey A. Mackey when he was academic dean at TESM. To describe him as anything but orthodox is ridiculous.
As I see it, he is urging the faithful remnant of Anglicanism in the US, to live under a broad tent: To accept both the high church liturgical Christian and those that are “snake belly lowâ€; to love those that cherish the poetic KJV of the Holy Scriptures and those that embrace translations that appeal to the modern ear; to understand those that agree with the calling of women to the priesthood and those that grieve at such a position.
We orthodox Anglicans should not quibble about proper liturgical form; we should worship God with a common structure and common theology. We should not quibble about proper biblical translations: we should embrace the living Word of God.
I value Dr. Jeff Mackey: he was a catholic voice at TESM and was a cherished influence on my life. Please reread his article understanding that he truly cares for the vibrant success of orthodox Anglicanism.
I liked it. I haven’t enjoyed an essay so much since the Rev Elizabeth Kaeton shared her reflections on the last General Convention.
I think my favourite phrase from the essay is: [blockquote]And I fear as well that those who are faithful saints in the acronym crowd will not succumb to the works-centered righteousness of fundamentalism.[/blockquote]
What’s lovely about it is, to paraphrase, he is asserting that he is afraid reasserters will [b]not[/b] start believing in salvation by works. I like that. A similar sentiment might be that if they continue on their path the orthodox anglicans will be just as High Church as the Assembly of God. For a former Baptist, the author is somewhat shaky on the idea of “justification by faith alone”.
I can not stress enough just how happy this wonderful little gem of writing excellence has made me.
Thanks #20 for the background. Perhaps I was hasty in my assessment. I’ll re-read this again more slowly and carefully. I confess I do find it hard to square what you write with what I read, but knowing nothing about the man, I take your words seriously.
Perhaps his fault, if there be one, is trying to overgeneralize? To seem to apply a very possibly valid criticism or warning towards a narrow segment of reasserters (i.e. the lowest church evangelicals and strongest “Fed-Cons”) and seem to claim that segment somehow represents many or most of those who have begun to explore leaving TEC if they have not already done so?
It is a confusing piece to be sure.
Elves & Jim,
It was definitely teasing. Sometimes what I try to pass off as wit tends to be a bit dry and the humor is missed.
Thank you orthodoxwill. Your words make Mackey’s piece a little more understandable. Though I must say his air of mockery, too easy dismissal to those holding to a male priesthood, and apparent desire to give some small credit to those who habitually compromise essentials of the faith, all comes across as well, a bit self-congratulating. No wonder so many of us misunderstood him.
There is always the danger of sinful over-reaction, especially in the face of such bald apostacy at the highest levels of TEC (or is that ECUSA?), but this is poor caution.
Surely, it’s a well-written spoof?
Ad O
I figured that, from past posts I know your style fairly well. Which is why I didn’t respond until prompted by [i]The Elves[/i] that I had made a slight boo-boo. 🙂 Thinking others may have mis-read my typo to mean something it wasn’t supposed to mean.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
This ‘thoughtful’ piece certainly makes me wonder how much of a theologian we are dealing with in point of fact. But that it seems experentially based is rather poignant, if irrelevant. I trust he got in all his snideness and favorite peeves amongst those with whom he disagrees. He certainly seems to have made at least a valiant effort in that regard if not towards theology per se.
orthodoxwill (#20):
I have gone back and re-read Dr Mackey’s article carefully, after reading your post; and I find no reason to change my assessment of it. Whatever his personal orthodoxy or churchmanship may be, what he wrote about those Episcopalian reasserters who have affiliated with overseas provinces is unfair and untrue. You claim that he wants to preserve a “big tent”, but his tone of contempt towards those who have left is unmistakable and casts doubt on whether his “tent” is big enough for those who are too low-Church for his taste and for those who don’t toe his line on WO.
If this is what passes for orthodox Catholic churchmanship these days, then the Church in which I was baptized and raised is truly dead (not that there was any doubt of that).
Obviously Dr Mackey has an axe to grind. Could this be related to his leaving Trinity School for Ministry? Me thinks he protesteth a bit too much.
“I fondly remember Dr. Jeffrey A. Mackey when he was academic dean at TESM” —OrthodoxWill, #20
Yikes! Academic? And at TESM to boot? Lo how the mighty have fallen.
I like reading the comments on blogs I usually don’t agree with….it is no fun to read those that I agree with….and this is enjoyable. I can’t believe that the “Living Church” ran it…good job to keep things interesting!
‘Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me!’
It does tend to verge on the hysterical at times.
The article does seem a little confused, as (1) the NIV is an evangelical translation, and (2) one of the problems I see with the new TEC and its focus on the MDGs is works-righteousness; that is, that we are called to do good works and that’s the sum of the faith. Works without faith and faith without works are both recipes for spiritual disaster.
Well. Let me ask the importan question. What WAS she wearing, and how was this demonstrated?
This is a sloppy piece of writing, and I fail to see what purpose is served by the posting. It’s fun to kick this ball around I suppose, but it’s so out of true that it won’t roll straight. I dunno. Maybe this is where the fun comes from. KM
The Elves [#11] have ably set forth reasons why Kendall might post articles like this. The article sheds light on how orthodox Anglicans (particularly those in the American Anglican Council and Anglican Communion Network) are perceived by their critics. It stands as a case study in sloppy reasoning.
A bit late in the game, but to answer the question back in #15, see Title II, Canon 2:
[blockquote]The Lessons prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer shall be read from the translation of the Holy Scriptures commonly known as the King James or Authorized Version (which is the historic Bible of this Church) together with the Marginal Readings authorized for use by the General Convention of 1901; or from one of the three translations known as Revised Versions, including the English Revision of 1881, the American Revision of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version of 1952; from the Jerusalem Bible of 1966; from the New English Bible with the Apocrypha of 1970; or from The 1976 Good News Bible (Today’s English Version); or from The New American Bible (1970); or from The Revised Standard Version, an Ecumenical Edition, commonly known as the “R.S.V. Common Bible” (1973); or from The New International Version (1978); or from The New Jerusalem Bible (1987); or from the Revised English Bible (1989); or from the New Revised Standard Version (1990); or from translations, authorized by the diocesan bishop, of those approved versions published in any other language; or from other versions of the Bible, including those in languages other than English, which shall be authorized by diocesan bishops for specific use in congregations or ministries within their dioceses.[/blockquote]
[b]or from translations, authorized by the diocesan bishop, of those approved versions published in any other language; or from other versions of the Bible, including those in languages other than English, which shall be authorized by diocesan bishops for specific use in congregations or ministries within their dioceses.
[/b]
Well, I guess that covers just about every version, then doesn’t it, as long as the Bishop likes and/or ok’s it. 🙂
For the record, I’m fine with that.
Even the list of named versions is pretty broad; it covers most of the major English translations I can think of off the top of my head except perhaps the ESV.