In 2003, after TEC’s General Convention gave consent to Gene Robinson’s episcopal election, some conservatives began to use the term “realignment” with respect to the Anglican Communion. At the time, it seemed to refer to a movement ”“ not yet fully en route ”“ to forge a common witness to the Scriptural commitments of Anglicanism, that would draw together the Communion’s organs of discipline and mission in a newly integrated manner. This would, some hoped, isolate the Episcopal Church’s own wayward developments from the rest of the Communion, offer godly pressures for reform, and provide conservative Episcopalians with a clearly defined Communion basis for their own local witness. “Realignment” was, in what seems to have been the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestive understanding, a “confessional” movement within the Communion.
The term “realignment” has taken on a new meaning, however, over the past few years. It now seems to denote for many the erection of new hierarchical structures among Anglicans, separate from, independent of accountability to, and out of communion with a range of other existing Communion entities and persons. Instead, these structures claim a more local or individualized form of accountability, as in a congregational polity now lifted into an ”˜episcopal’ frame of reference. These new structures of “realignment” are ones through which provincial, episcopal, and local oversight is offered, through which ministry is ordered, through which discipline is effected, and through which resources are shared, apart from the Anglican Communion’s already established organs of ecclesial life, including, in some cases. Some have called this “realignment” a “new Reformation”; others (rather contradictorily) have seen it as a step to reunion with Rome; others have stressed its provisional nature (though without explaining how the erection of new orders of ministry and discipline can, in the nature of the case, be provisional).
We can argue as to the wisdom and the theological and moral appropriateness of this new reading of “realignment” and its practical outworking. Indeed, the argument has been going on for several years already. But it is worth noting, apart from such debate and purely as a factual matter, that the new understanding of Anglican realignment has yet to be accepted by many who are its purported objects of concern. The factual matter of observation may also, of course, inform substantive questions themselves.
There has been, for instance, a grand announcement made recently that the Anglican Church in Canada was itself in the process of becoming a part of this new “realignment”. Two retired Canadian Anglican bishops were “received” by the Province of the Southern Cone (in South America), and this South American-based province invited Canadian Anglican congregations to leave the Canadian church and join them. Ordinations in Canada are planned, and new structures being set up to provide this South American-Canadian alternative Anglican church to function alongside the current Anglican Church of Canada. All of this, indeed, follows the multiple models of “realignment” already set up the United States, where several African Anglican Provinces (Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya) have their own hierarchical and disciplinary structures in place within America, ordering the life of American Anglican congregations and clergy, supervising the flow of resources, and engaged, from afar, in disciplinary and legal matters.
Despite the much-publicized announcement of this Canadian “realignment”, however, to this point only two congregations, both of them not members of the Anglican Church of Canada, have agreed to participate. The Canadian “Network” of conservative Anglican congregations who have expressed a willingness to listen to this invitation numbers 16 congregations, half of whom come from a single conflicted diocese (New Westminster), and none of whom as yet have agreed to “realign”.
There are, of course, Canadian Anglicans who may be interested in this realignment; some of them may be waiting for the next set of plans to unfold; some are reflecting; some are getting ready to move. Perhaps soon. We may well see several more congregations join up. But we will not see a large proportional number, despite the fact that, in Canada, even longer than in the US, conservative Anglicans have been struggling with the challenge of bishops, synods, teachings, and disciplinary practices that they believe to be seriously at odds with the Gospel. And why is that?
It is not because the evangelical stakes are not as high in Canada as in the United States. It is not because Canadian Anglicans who love the Scriptures and the Lord of the Scriptures and the Church of this Lord, are not as astute as their American counterparts, or as brave, or as faithful. It is not because they do not realize that leaders and synods within their church have, in fact, crossed the line of Communion teaching and commitment. One may wish to judge the value of the differences in question; but even refraining from such judgment one can and ought to point out that Canada is not the United States, within Anglicanism as much as in anything.
 Canadian Anglicans have long lived in a rapidly secularizing culture. They recognize the dangers of meeting the atheism and hopelessness of a secular and fracturing social and moral environment through the witness of Christian fragmentation.
 Canadian Anglicans are already bound by the habits of “commonwealth”, and the virtues of “communion”, understood in this historically-informed Anglican fashion are well-rooted in their practice.
 Canadian Anglicans are schooled, if not in a religious way nonetheless in a real way, in the life of loyalty.
 Canadian Anglicans already know the tremendous cost of legal battles, having endured and suffered from the Residential School litigation and settlements, and they don’t have as much money available for such battles as their U.S. counterparts. They also know, from this and other experiences, the heart of moral hypocrisy that so evidently and powerfully lurks within the lives of institutions and their reformers both.
 Canadian Anglicans are aware that their identity as a national church is fragile due to Canada’s vast geography and tendency to regionalism, their small numbers as a church, and far fewer material resources than their neighboring Episcopal Church. Many of their parishes are small and scattered throughout Canada’s large rural areas. To leave the larger Canadian church is a luxury that only a very few urban parishes could afford. For most conservative Anglicans, realignment means isolation.
If Anglican “realignment” has a positive meaning for conservative Canadian Anglicans, it will probably be in terms of its earlier meaning. Realignment, then, will probably be embraced in terms of the confessional witness that sows its seed, maintains its integrity, suffers its resistance, and gives of itself within the bonds of common life as they can best be lived within the conscience of charity and truth that Christ’s Spirit has so long afforded His Church among those who earnestly seek it. This will not come easily, to be sure. It will require greater explicit organization and commitment. Individuals who have stood in the shadows will be called to step forward. The endurance of hard words will need to be borne. There is the threat of discouragement, of lagging energies, of disaffection even.
There is also a very special concern in the cultural context unique to Canada. In Canada, the particular danger must be faced that the conservative immigrant, ethnic, and Native Anglican congregations and their leaders will be affected more than anyone (a problem the more homogeneous U.S. church has not had to face.) Yet whatever the new structures and provinces and bishops and clergy and discipline that are established within Canada by Anglicans from elsewhere in the world, it is fair to say that the vast majority of faithful Canadian Anglicans will choose a different path.
All this represents straightforward observation. It may prove inaccurate as time moves forward, or it may prove a point of permanent distinction. God alone knows. The fact that Canada is not the United States, however, has enormous implications in the struggle for the witness of global Anglicanism. Indeed, only the United States is the United States ”“ and even there, many widespread assumptions are not what they seem. Understanding the distinctions, especially where the Gospel is concerned, will do much to protect other parts of the Communion from the distinctive morass of American turmoil, whose realignments have, as yet, proved easier to multiply than to order.
I had read that ACoC were to be [url=http://www.anglicanjournal.com/issues/2007/133/nov/09/article/church-may-soon-be-reimbursed-for-residential-school-payouts/ ]reimbursed[/url] for some of the payouts they have made in the Residential School Litigation but hopefully they will use it for mission rather than on lawyers. I hope that Canadian Anglicans will take a different and less combative approach from TEC in dealing with these issues and perhaps provide an example to the rest of us of restraint and reconciliation.
Ah, the forlorn and failed hope of the ACI for an internal “realignment” within TEC is now projected onto a new subject, the ACoC. As the writers note, time will tell. Time well tell whether their hope new for an internal “realignment” within ACoC will become just as forlorn and just as failed as their previous hope for TEC. And is it an accident that former ACI resident(s?) of the USA are now employed in Canada? Nevertheless, ACI continues to search for some place for relevancy for their failed message.
er, “hope new” = “new hope”
I can’t help but think with friends like these……
To my mind, much of the article seems to be about converting presuppositions and assertions to facts. Much I do not find helpful at all. What has often bugged me with folks like Ephraim Radner, ACI etc is that they do not appear to have a solution to offer, other than to grin and bear it, and presumably go down with the ship. Very noble indeed, and I can understand some are called to do so. However, to call all to do so seems, frankly, unfair and very unhelpful.
I’d make a couple of specific points:
1. Yes, indeed, as is rather scornfully noted – there are only two congregations joined up. These were special cases, and this is likely to change. It has only been a couple of weeks since the initiative started. I’m glad that Ephraim knows that a large number won’t move – how he knows is another matter.
2. I’m interested in how all these things about “Canadian Anglicans” were discovered. This sounds more like a political manifesto, they do this kind of thing all the time here, frankly I cannot stand being told what I think and beleive.
Perhaps one last point. Ephraim Radner points out that Canadians are rather less schism prone than our American cousins. Fair point. Therefore, does that not say something about what is currently happening? Perhaps that can be answered by the dismissal of ANiC as little more than a lunatic fringe – however that dismissal seems to be done solely as a means to gather folk to his cause.
I do not understand at the end of the day what Ephraim gains by this (and earlier letters). He isolates friends who disagree on the diagnosis to the problem, and plays handily to reappraisers who are very happy to make capital of this kind of thing. There is very little charity in this kind of action. At the end of the day perhaps folks like Ephraim will get their wish, standing alone on the deck of the sinking ship as all around reappraisers raise a glass in toast to the success of the new thing?
Much of what is said about the Canadian sitcha is true – but things will intensify when people here see just how vindictive and ruthless some bishops can be to their “brothers and sisters”. I suspect Cain has nothing on Michael Ingham.
[blockquote]This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.[/blockquote]
I have said that the onus of proof that any church can survive the innovations of “inclusivity” (which again is a dishonest spin-word for homosexual clergy and blessings of SSU’s). Indeed, there is much evidence to show the converse, that inclusivity is a death toxin.
Now, the ACoC has chosen to drink deeply of this poison. As Radner and Reed points out the TEC, because of its financial resources can carry on for some time. The ACoC cannot. It’s death is coming much more quickly. What are the orthodox to do? … Choose life.
Truly, with the Goddard piece and now this, one has to wonder what planet the ACI is on. They seem totally disconnected from the facts as they are on the ground, and absolutely oblivious to what is happening. This formerly (ardent) Communion Conservative is astounded that such bright and gifted souls haven’t yet perceived what almost everyone else on both sides of the divide–save perhaps Rowan Williams–so clearly understands. I have no problem with the faithfulness of those who are determined to fight to the end, like the Japanese on Iwo Jima. But what I have a problem with is the utter failure to understand that outside the cave which the ACI seems to inhabit there is a battle raging and well on the way to decisive resolution. How this piece adds anything to an understanding of the current situation is beyond me.
I’m happy to accept Dr. Radner’s postulation that the outside-provincial church realignment will be tiny.
So . . . why write an article about how tiny it will be? Why not simply ignore it?
The bottom line is…
the ANiC is where God has led me, and that’s good enough for me.
#9 Sound like a nice T-shirt slogan.
[blockquote] Understanding the distinctions, especially where the Gospel is concerned, will do much to protect other parts of the Communion from the distinctive morass of American turmoil, whose realignments have, as yet, proved easier to multiply than to order [/blockquote]
Well, to date I can’t see much distinction. It all comes down to “can an orthodox minority see a future for themselves if they remain under existing structures?”. When Bishops start locking them out of their churches and influencing who their next rector is going to be, they start to see there is no future and they leave. When they see other parishes leave and have their buildings taken away from them, they start to stop maintaining their existing plant. When they spend time and energy discipling new converts, only to see that when they move areas and go to new Anglican churches they get ‘undiscipled’ they stop making the effort, and point newcomers to other churches where they know they will be safe. Eventually the whole congregation loses all energy, and it becomes ‘leave now or slowly die’.
In order for the turmoil to stop, the majority have to show some charity. Instead they are adopting a take no prisoners approach, so the turmoil keeps expanding.
Read the story of Exodus. Why did God harden pharoah’s heart? To make it clear to the Israelites that there was no turning back, there was only one option – leave. Leaving is very hard. Its got to get really bad for people to step out of their comfort zone and make that move. Every lawsuit, every TEC press release, every act of discipline, every rector turned down, every bishop not confirmed provides that push. The press releases of the last few weeks are showing that Canada is starting to harden their hearts too. Same hard heart, same reaction – more people will join this Exodus…..if only they would all head in the same direction instead of all setting sail for different lands….
Br er Rabbit
These statements seem rather incoherent; are you affirming that only time will tell, or are you asserting that time has already told?
I would be quite disinclined to agree with you concerning the latter; because results are not immediately forthcoming does not indicate failure. I would imagine that the two writers, given their current positions, would have insight into the will and workings of bishops, priests and laity in Canada at a far more intimate level than most anyone on this blog. Given their experience in both Canada and the US, I would imagine they might have a unique perspective from which to view the possibilities for internal realignment within Canada.
VaAnglican
Could you please explain what this decisive resolution looks like? I would like to be clear on what you mean before I comment. My tentative response: there is indeed a battle raging and yes, Christ will bring resolution; in the meantime, are we not called to struggle together even in error? I would agree that to try and remain within the existing structures of TEC or the ACofC is an agonizing prospect (and obviously has been already for many). But until these entities are no longer considered a part of the communion by the communion – is not the stepping outside of them an autonomous action? The very crux of the problem cited with TEC and the ACofC? Further, although it may be agony for those trying to hold fast to the faith within these sinful structures, is that not exactly what Christ did and are we not called to follow in his path for the sake of unity in Him?
Canada is different from the United States on many levels; having lived in both countries for several years, I would admit that the ACI approach has a better chance of working in Canada; Canadians tend to be more cautious, more patient and more willing to knead through nuanced information than do Americans (this is a gross generalization I am aware). I think this tendency (though in certain areas is quite a hindrance to progress) leaves time and space not for endless discussion, but for challenge, correction and wise decision making. Will it actually work? As Rabbit said, “only time will tell.”
The practical question is: can I conscionably tithe to an organization that will be actively spending the funds counter to the gospel? As a good steward the answer must be no. So do I:
a. stop tithing at all?
b. find a church to which I can tithe with good conscience?
Optimus, I am asserting that time will tell whether ACI’s hope for relevancy will be rewarded–or disappointed. The situation in Canada has yet to play itself out. Based on ACI’s past track record, I am wary of putting faith in their “insight into the will and workings” of the Canadian apparati. I have little insight myself, except that I know the character of +Venables and respect him as a man who almost certainly has counted the cost before entering into this battle.
Where and how did Dr Radner acquire this insight into Canada?
Rabbit: Thank you for the clarification. While I certainly respect the intention of +Venebles, and Harvey, I find their autonomous action to be rather hypocritical.
I certainly do not know how this will play out; I do know that (I am currently living in Canada) we have had one quite conservative bishop write a stern letter to all clergy that they were not to engage in any realignment efforts or strong disciplinary measures would be taken. Even amongst conservative clergy in several diocese I know, there is indeed great angst and anger, but little movement toward realignment. This may change; but not within the near future.
And as far as I know, Dr. Reed is not a part of ACI; he is and has been a professor (retired as of last spring) of pastoral theology at Wycliffe College in Toronto for many years and is thus intimately familiar with the landscape of the ACofC and Canadian culture in general.
Toral1: Dr. Radner is a professor at Wycliffe College in Toronto and as such I would imagine that as with all of the professors, has had much contact with bishops and clergy from all over the Canadian Church in addition to ample contact with ordinands and lay persons from all over Canada. He is a bright individual and I would assume that he has been able to determine, given the differences between the two countries, where might exist potential differences in response to the current situation.
#15– I think he’s been in Canada for four or five months now, which, as any missionary will tell you, is all the time you need to develop a clear understanding of your host culture. Or perhaps not.
Actually optimus, Dr Radner’s responses to the two churches (US and Candian) were very similar: negative. He opposed the US realignment, and now that it is gaining traction, and shows a decent chance of success he’s trying to differentiate it from the Canadian one.
I wonder how sophisticated and informed Canadians are, compared to American conservatives. After all, they don’t have Stand Firm In Faith up there.
In some ways this is true in England, for instance, where the conservative movement politically is just now gaining traction. Media is extremely important in mobilizing and educating people, and where conservative media is not available, liberals have a field day.
[i] According to their IP addresses, many of the commenters on this thread are Canadian. [/i]
-Elf Lady
“Where and how did Dr Radner acquire this insight into Canada?” I think this is unfair. Ephraim is a very deep and broad thinker and could speak on the perspective of an Anglican in Canada, Burundi or Liverpool. Thus, he is probably quite accurate in his characterization of the Anglican Canadian and in his prediction that relatively few will opt for realignment and accept passively the innovations of the ACoC, much to their loss. Then again, perhaps, the slumberers (hibernators?) of the North might awaken and reject this disposition.
#19 check out Classsical Anglican Net News. There are more sites.
For 3 months. He hasn’t marked his first Canadian half-term exams yet.
I think it is likely that the more one is passionate about the issue in either country, the more informed one is. I would venture to say that as in most things, there is a large majority that are quite unaware of the larger issues at stake. That being said, because conservatives feel under threat, a great majority of them in Canada seem to be relatively informed and as I mentioned above, because Canadians tend to be more patient and discerning than their more emotive cousins to the South, they tend to develop more sophisticated and nuanced arguments.
Robroy and Farstrider: I concur with Robroy’s assessment of Dr. Radner’s wisdom and discernment. Robroy, I think unfortunately many will assent to the “innovations” as we have a rather large ‘liberal’ contingent in Canada. However, I think that the conservatives will be slower to jump on board the realignment train given many of the tendencies that Drs. Radner and Reed laid out. The culture here (Canada) has a tendency to act more slowly, with more consideration, patience and desire to sacrifice and suffer for others at the expense of self than do Americans (I say this having lived in both countries and worked extensively with people in issues of consensus, planning, debate, politics). Hence it is possible that conservatives will take a different route than the realignment that has occurred in the United States. I don’t believe for a moment that they will take this sitting down or passively allowing the rot that is ‘liberalism’ to grind them into the dust, but I do believe that their method of dissent might be more in line with what I understand ACI to be advocating.
Toral1
Actually given that the first semester is nearly finished, I would say that he has either or is likely to mark his final exams within a week or so. Alas, that was not your point.
Three months is a short period of time. However, the article was also written by Dr. Reed who has been a professor at Wycliffe for 20+ years where he has been intimately connected with the Canadian culture and the Canadian Church for that period of time. I would assume that Dr. Radner has been on a steep learning curve in terms of where the Canadian Church stands. However, given the position he is in, at the institution he is at, with the other individuals with whom he has worked (ie George Sumner, now obviously David Reed), and an intense semester with postulants from all over, it is likely that he has had more insight in three months than the average Canadian church goer has in 10 years.
Re #18: They don’t have Stand Firm in Faith? I assume that this is because they don’t have the Internet up there, but spend their time chewing caribou jerky while waiting for spring. And in England, the conservative movement is only getting traction, Margaret Thatcher being such a flash in the pan and all, thanks to Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the liberal media.
It is wonderful that US citizens are proud of their country, but it might be nice to consider that at least 33 other countries have literacy rates at least as high as we do. They aren’t yokels just because they don’t parrot American conservative values.
Dale Rye, you’re right, the English are not uneducated yokels. They are public-school educated, brainwashed sheeple.
Christian radio is forbidden. Taxpayer money is extorted to pay for the government television and radio mouthpieces.
The electorate is misinformed or simply subservient. Having views counter to the prevailing ideologies are labeled hate speech.
The Internet, youtube, and new, private technologies are starting to break down the barrier of government control, but it will take a long, long time, and may already be too late.
Why in heck should the Canadians spend their tithe money on an institution that has threatened to sue them if they withdraw? Radner is insane or blind or both.
[blockquote] Understanding the distinctions, especially where the Gospel is concerned, will do much to protect other parts of the Communion from the distinctive morass of American turmoil, whose realignments have, as yet, proved easier to multiply than to order.[/blockquote]
This appears to be written by someone who [i]assumes[/i] turmoil and disorder in the midst of the US realignment, not one who can provide any evidence. Is the realignment fluid? You bet. Is it filled with turmoil and disorder? Not from my perspective within one such congregation and happening to know others in congregations in various stages of realignment in this region and beyond it. There has been remarkable cooperation among bishops and clergy that are technically under different international jurisdictions. For instance, ordinations to the transitional diaconate in a “Bolivian” church, followed by ordination to priest in a CANA church. This coming Sunday, a rector of a church which has been under the care of the Bishop of Bolivia will be consecrated a CANA bishop in the Church of Nigeria. Our regional annual council for the Anglican District of Virginia, though mostly consisting of CANA parishes, also has members under the care of Uganda.
Fluid? Absolutely. But very traditional in a post-Nicene way: Following the pattern of Nicea – dioceses of apostate bishops must be considered vacant and urgent measures must be taken to provide valid episcopal protection for the faithful congregations. It is a very ancient tradition in the church. I suspect that anyone way back then who was outside those congregations and who was opposed to their being protected would have imagined he was seeing “turmoil” and lack of “order”. That view does not match reality for today’s realignment.
justinmartyr
How is realignment (autonomous action – given that neither TEC, nor the ACofC have been declared by the communion as no longer being in the communion) different in action (not principle) from what TEC have autonomously done? Both camps have become frustrated with the process of living together and both have acted autonomously to resolve the suffering of that living together. Is it really a success to realign given the manner in which it was brought about? I would have no problem with realignment were we to bring it forth as a communion, but now we have everyone acting autonomously claiming that they are acting in and for the truth. But I think we’re called to something more challenging than that and if we are to truly witness to that calling, to stay and struggle in life together, to stay as Christ stayed, that we will be closer to following the pattern of Christ’s life and thus of holding together truth and unity; a truth and unity that the current actions on both sides have shattered.
The Commonwealth has suspended members whose current behavior is not up to Commonwealth standards. It suspended Zimbabwe just recently, and I assume Idi Amin’s Uganda was suspended for the duration.
Yet we see no sign that Canterbury will suspend TEC or ACoC, despite blatant violations of the Lambeth standard on same-sex matters. Instead, Canterbury is taking steps to turn Lambeth from a council of bishops into a directed fellowship event, thus vitiating the Anglican Communion as a conciliar body. Believing Provinces are therefore suspending TEC and ACoC on their own authorities. If the wayward North Americans ever repent, as the ACI hopes, they will be welcomed back into the Church.
25. Dale Rye,
Fabulous. I remember going form Dio Edmonton to Nashotah House and explaining to a southerner how hard it was on all of us when our houses melted in the spring! Hook, Line, and Sinker: he took it.
For the record, Canadians have better internet access than we do, spend more time on the internet, have a vastly better awareness of what is going on outside of their country, and an almost genetic commitment to interdependency.
What do I know? I attended Trinity College, across the street from Wycliffe as an undergraduate, and served in Dio Edmonton from 1986-1999. I was born in Canada, but raised in USA. I’m a dual citizen, currently living in San Jose, CA. So here’s my take:
Point 3 belongs in point 2 as a subset. Pt. 4 is quite dubious given the political realities, and for Pt. 5.. see pt. 2. The proposing of pt. 5 is most American BTW. Divide and conquer thinking.
IMHO, informed by 12 years of ordained ministry in dio edmonton, & 4 years of active anglican life at Trinity, & a another life in warmer climes, I would say that pt. 2 nails it.
A commitment to interdependence leads to patience. Sounds rather Pauline doesn’t it? It is typical of people stressing independence to mistake a commitment to interdependence for passivity. Do you really think the Primate of Canada reacted over nothing, or is it possible that he understands within his cultural context how close things are to spinning and his desperation rests on some merit? Do you remember the crisis in the United Church of Canada not so many years ago?
So along with Rowan Williams, Dr. Radner’s advice to those who cannot conscientiously stay in TEC or in the Anglican Church of Canada is . . . wait for it . . . to stay in. How very helpful.
And this abuse and misapplication of the term “congregationalâ€. . .
is nothing but a backhanded slap at struggling Anglicans.
Yes, with friends like these . . .
Optimus Prime. You wrote:
[blockquote] “How is realignment (autonomous action – given that neither TEC, nor the ACofC have been declared by the communion as no longer being in the communion) different in action (not principle) from what TEC have autonomously done? Both camps have become frustrated with the process of living together and both have acted autonomously to resolve the suffering of that living together.”[/blockquote]
There is autonomous action that is contrary to the faith once and for all handed down to the saints (which is the kind of action the liberals have been taking) and there is the “autonomous” action that is taken so as to guard that faith and to realize the expressed intentions of the Primates that the orthodox be granted alternative oversight.
The point on which you and I (and others) disagree upon is your contention that our primary calling is to “struggle along together” in an organizational structure which many feel has become apostate. Our primary calling is to worship God in spirit and truth and to witness to the gospel of Christ (a gospel of faith and repentance) with clarity and conviction.
You counsel patience. Does it concern you that orthodox ministers will either retire or be forced out of their parishes only to be replaced with heretics who preach no-gospel? What about the pastoral implications? Would you be happy to bring your children to a Church that taught something that was other than Christianity?
As for your contention that Canadians are more “sophisticated” and “nuanced”, it seems to me that those are rather beguiling terms for attitudes that could be summed up more negatively. Canadians are remarkably willing to ignore what doesn’t immediately effect them. This is not necessarily a noble thing, I hope you would agree (and I write as a Canadian).
#25 [blockquote] Do you remember the crisis in the United Church of Canada not so many years ago?[/blockquote]
The United Church of Canada is the only Church that is in a worse state than the Anglican Church of Canada. I know of a number of evangelical United Church ministers who stayed within their Church hoping to turn it around in the end. To the best of my knowledge there are only two left in the whole of the greater Vancouver area. The rest of the United Church congregations are barely recognizable as Christian. Not a great motivator to wait for the final collapse, really.
#26. Justinmartyr contributed.[blockquote] Dale Rye, you’re right, the English are not uneducated yokels. They are public-school educated, brainwashed sheeple.
Christian radio is forbidden. Taxpayer money is extorted to pay for the government television and radio mouthpieces.
The electorate is misinformed or simply subservient.
[/blockquote]
Chipping in from northern England I am just staggered by such rubbish. Just on a small point of radio. There’s Premier Radio for example.
Or am I just a subservient, misinformed old guy.
On the basis of this contribution by him he must be wrong about everything else?
#25 and #34. The UCC is a great example of: Allow your church to drink the “inclusive” kool-aid and die.
The [url=http://magicstatistics.com/ ]Magic Statistician[/url] has a wonderful quote:
[blockquote]I find myself strangely heartened by General Synod treasurer Peter Blachford’s observation that many dioceses have given up updating membership statistics in favour of more important activities.[/blockquote]
The ACoC hasn’t published data on church membership since 2001! It heavily relies on census data. The problem with this is that it includes people whose shadow hasn’t darkened the door of a church for forty years but were baptized as a child, hence they check off ACoC when filling out a form. Ingham, Hilz, etc., simply do not want the laity to know how their “leadership” is killing the church, hoping that the passivity of the members will continue.
We, Christians, are called to be salt, to be a light, not to be passive pew protoplasm (how’s that for alliteration!). Again…
[blockquote]This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. [/blockquote]
It seems that the ACI at final analysis is composed of company men. In the final analysis they will not leave. And that’s ok, but they should say so.
ON the other hand, in that case, the laity should know that they are on their own and that absent realignment, they may well have to leave the AC, as the only representative of the AC, will be a non-Christian and apostate Church.
Rob Roy: You simply cannot get that kind of insight into a culture in five months. We *are* culturally very different up here.
I concur with #8. The message I take away is this: “…on top of all the other bad things we’ve said about external realignment, if you’re still not convinced, then you shouldn’t try it up here because it won’t work…”
(Note: the referenced two churches do not represent all the churches in Canada under alternative oversight.)
What’s Premier radio? It’s probably a long-range station broadcasting from Europe.
In SouthWest England where I hail from the Christians tried unsuccessfully to get a radio station. They had the wherewithal to purchase one, but Her Majesty’s government, in its profound wisdom refused entry into the market. To this day AFAIK there is not a single Christian radio station allowed to broadcast from England.
The challenge I see in your second paragraph is that “many feel has become apostate” includes individuals using their individual conscience to determine that. Individual conscience though is subject to God, and his will preserved in the apostolic witness given and preserved in his Church. As I have already pointed out, our Church has not yet decided to kick TEC or the ACofC out of communion yet (though they certainly have the wording in place to do it – Lambeth, Windsor, and the Covenant Agreement). The problem I see with this autonomous action is that it is not in accord first, with the pattern of Christ’s life; he suffered, struggled and was crucified amidst great apostasy, sin and abandonment, yet he remained in relationship with these people so that they might repent, believe in him and have eternal life. Why should we think our call and God’s demand on our lives would be different? We are all sinners; the point is, we have to struggle together to challenge and call one another to repentance if we are to follow the pattern of God’s life and his will for his Church. How does it help to leave? This may reduce your struggle and angst, but that’s not what you’ve been called to do; we are to carry our crosses and bear the struggle of life together such that we might continually draw one another to repentance. As a whole, it would seem that every time the sin gets so great, rather than struggle through that, we as protestants, decide to follow our own individual conscience and start a new denomination, or cast out those who should be disciplined rather than permanently cast out. Our individual consciences are subject to God and thus subject to the gift of authority he has given us through the Church. So until that Church says you’re outta here TEC and ACofC, any autonomous action we take to go around the Church that we feel isn’t moving fast enough, is sinful, regardless of which side you’re on.
Of course these things concern me. That is why I am currently doing what I am doing so that from within this Church, I might use my gifts to hopefully one day, turn out priests who will preach and teach the gospel. I counsel patience because things will not happen overnight; because we don’t see results right away (by this I mean within our lifetimes) does not mean that God’s will is not unfolding according to his time. History shows that it sometimes takes hundreds of years for things to unfurl. Why do we believe that everything should be right in our own time? We’re but a small cog in God’s plan. Of course the pastoral implication are enormous. Of course I wouldn’t want my children (were I to have any) to not be taught about Christianity – which is why I might volunteer to teach Sunday School, or to set up educational classes, or to teach my kids at home, or to become a seminary professor so I might teach those priests who are teaching my kids about orthodoxy. Since I do not believe that there is at any moment, one, true, indefectible church (NOT Church), I believe we are called to live together (which is often suffering and struggle) asking not what our church provides us, but rather how we in our church are to serve God and thus one another.
I do most certainly agree and Americans are apt to no much the same (having lived in both I can attest to this). The question was asked though, about conservatives, not about Canadian Anglicans in general and my reply was to this question, not more broadly speaking. When a Canadian does actually care about something (in this case the conservatives who feel under pressure) they tend to be more sophisticated and nuanced in their thinking than do Americans.
#40 JM – not quite Eastern Europe, but certainly London and South-Eastern England. You can listen to it online [url=http://www.premier.org.uk/ ]here[/url]. They have TV as well.
God bless public-school educated, brainwashed sheep Pageantmaster
Wow, that is great news indeed. I stand corrected on this point.
I stand by my main point however. Political correctness runs amok in Britain. Biblical Christians are investigated for hate crimes. There is a seething disdain among a great portion of the populace for the free market and the ability of people to live their lives according to their own consciences. Unless your nose is buried in your parish you run constantly afoul of the anti-religious attitudes of the general population. The church in the country has for the large part abdicated its role of caring for the poor, elderly and infirm to the government. The result is near euthanasia in managed care facilities, the propagation of single parent families, and a drastic shortage in targeted health care.
The full post mentioned by robroy (#36) is here. Thanks, robroy. “Passive pew protoplasm”—I’ll have to remember that one.
It’s true that the most recent membership statistics for the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) are now six years old, but even they paint a dire picture. In 1961, the ACC had 1.36 million members; in 1971, 1.1 million; in 2001, 642,000—a fall of over half in forty years.. The ACC is losing members even faster than The Episcopal Church!
Sources here and here.
To leave or to stay, there’s the rub. I find it fascinating that those who believe we should leave a church they consider apostate will quote Revelation 18:4 (“Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins”) to justify their actions. But in true Anglican fashion, should we not seek the whole counsel of scripture? At the very least we might consider what other parts of the Apocalypse have to say. The Rev. 18:4 passage counsels Christians to come out of a pagan city. But if you look at the letters to the seven churches, nowhere do you find the risen ascended Lord counseling his people to leave. He isn’t pleased in all cases to be sure but he doesn’t tell his people to get out. For the church at Pergamum which has some relevance to our situation on the matter of sexual sin, Christ doesn’t counsel exodus but repentance. Or how about the letter to the church at Thyatira? He says, “Hold fast until I come,” – an especially appropriate message for all to consider during the season of Advent it seems to me.
Having lived in Scotland for a decade, the picture of j-martyr seems, like a lot of blogdom, exaggerated. Thanks for the correction Pageant. One of the challenges of being in a Communion is clearly before us: learning to understand other cultures and seeing Jesus Christ in mission in each, with its own particular challenges. My sense of Scotland is that it is simply a challenge like other challenges, inner-city Toronto (where I now serve a church), South Carolina, New Haven, FL, and so on (where I have served or worked in times past). Jesus Christ will give us enough to do wherever He seeks to make his kingdom known (everywhere).
Mrs. Falstaff (#38), Toral1, etc. Again I would say that Ephraim is a broad, deep thinker who understands all things Anglican, locally and globally. Disagree with the essay, but the dismissal because Ephraim has only been on faculty for a few months is a mistake Also, I would point out that he is a coauthor to this essay. Because of his membership in ACI, he stands out and takes the heat. This is is from the faculty description page from Wycliffe of David Reed:
[blockquote] B.A. (Barrington), M.A. (Andover Newton), Ph.D. (Boston).
David Reed has been a faculty member at Wycliffe since 1987. His teaching career (math and physics) began in his home province of New Brunswick. He moved to New England for his theological education and was eventually ordained in the Episcopal Church. Following eighteen years in parish ministry, he and his family moved to Toronto. David’s interests in pastoral studies include spirituality, congregational life, cultural and spiritual trends, family and sexuality. A long time interest is the study of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement, Oneness Pentecostalism in particular. This has resulted in publications and invitations to lecture in Mexico, New Zealand and the Philippines. David has forthcoming a book entitled, “In Jesus’ Nameâ€: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals, which is a definitive historical and theological study of the third stream of modern Pentecostalism He and his wife, Carlynn (actor, writer and liturgical dancer), have two sons. David is honorary assistant at St. Paul’s, L’Amoreaux in Scarborough, ON.[/blockquote]
(One has to like him, in that he started out in Mathematics and Physics.)
Professors Radner and Reed might be correct that realignment won’t succeed in Canada. Those that try may be shot down in flames by Ingham and Hilz. But I disagree that it shouldn’t be tried. Father David Handy have written two wonderful essays on “Why Realignment.” Found [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8049/#152815 ]here[/url] and [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8049/#152990 ]here[/url].
Some responses to the general question some have posed as to why I would dare (or bother) to comment on Canadian matters:
1. The Canadian situation in question has received a good deal of coverage in the secular media and on blogs like this one, and it has elicited a good bit of interjectory comment from Anglicans around the world. It is obviously viewed as an important matter that merits some discussion. So, I am discussing, along with others.
2. It is certainly the case that our observations of fact in this little piece and the evaluations attached to them could be wrong or at least distorted. Since these observations are ones shared by many, it is worth engaging in some debate as to their accuracy and usefulness. I always learn from these exchanges, especially when they are seriously pursued.
3. There is clearly a risk involved in a non-Canadian commenting on matters in the Canadian church. In the face of this real risk, I would note:
a. Our brief comments are not just my own, but shared with the Rev. Dr. David Reed, a native Canadian churchman of long-standing experience and wisdom, recently retired Professor of Pastoral Theology at Wycliffe College, and someone who is held in great respect by many Canadian Anglicans.
b. It is interesting that among those who believe someone like me should stay away from discussing Canadian matters are those who are eager to defend the engagement of non-Canadian Primates and bishops in Canadian churches, and seem to have no problem explaining, justifying, and submitting to the oversight of foreign churches they have never spent any real time working for or within. This is less a matter for criticism than an observation of inconsistency and misplaced anxiety. See below.
c. The larger turmoil besetting our Communion and North American churches in particular pertains to the reality that, as the Windsor Report put it, what “affects all†should be “decided by allâ€. It is certainly the case that what General Convention, General Synod, New Westminster, Niagara, Southern Cone, Lagos, Sydney, Kampala, Canterbury, Rochester, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and so on do these days is affecting “all†of us. That’s just the point. We all have a stake in these matters, I no less than others. And we should all be discussing these things together, not for the sake of the thrill of argument, but for at least providing a basis in knowledge for the “decision by all†that until now seems to have escaped us, but for which (I am assuming) we all yearn and work.
4. I am not blind. Perhaps I am insane. And perhaps, even – to use the example of the philosopher Hilary Putnam – we are but the mental projections of large Brains in a Vat. In which case, someone else is having more fun than we.
Re #41: Good summary of the position of many of us who are “reasserters” rather than “rejectionists” in Andrew Goddard’s recent, reviled typology. Saying that Anglicans cannot, consistently with apostolic order, take unilateral actions without broad consultation is not to say that they could not take the same actions (in this case, leaving TEC or the ACofC and establishing alternative structures) following action at the Communion level. In Catholic tradition, declaring episcopal thrones to be vacant due to apostasy is not a decision for individuals to make.
Given that many of the US border-crossing episodes are occurring in rather strongly reasserting dioceses, it is difficult to see what the immediate threat is to justify these actions without waiting on the Communion. In many cases, it seems that the justification given is conviction that the Communion will [i]never[/i] act. If so, those who are acting need to stop wrapping themselves in the flag of loyalty to the Anglican Communion and be open and honest that they are setting up structures that are not only alternative to TEC, ACofC, and other reappraiser provinces, but alternative to the existing Communion itself.
Optimus Prime. You wrote: [blockquote] “The problem I see with this autonomous action is that it is not in accord first, with the pattern of Christ’s life; he suffered, struggled and was crucified amidst great apostasy, sin and abandonment, yet he remained in relationship with these people so that they might repent, believe in him and have eternal life.[/blockquote]
Certainly Christ remained, geographically, in Palestine. What he was actually doing, though, was reconstituting Israel in himself and in his band of followers (12 men for the twelve tribes). Realignment is remaining, geographically, in the dioceses but reconstituting Anglicanism under genuine Anglican oversight (also in Christ).
And yes, OP, individual conscience does play a role in such decisions, but individual conscience is as much a human trait as it is a Protestant one. In the 4th century Alexandria was, for some time, under the control of Arian bishops. The orthodox in Alexandria, rejected the validity of these bishops’ ministry and appealed to Athanasius, their former bishop for help. Athanasius responded, graciously, by stealing into Alexandria from his hiding place amongst the desert fathers to perform the role of bishop for the faithful congregations. Are you saying that St. Athanasius was a divisive Protestant? If those who are pursuing realignment were given to the denominationalism that marks many Protestant bodies, they would have simply broken off and started a new thing, irrespective of Primatial oversight. They waited a very long time for signs of change before, at last, appealing to the Primates to provide them with an Athanasius of their own. Now the Primates have done so (apparently with Williams’ approval, though we shall see).
Of course the presumption is that at some point the AC will act. I think not. And if not what then?
robroy re Fr. Handy’s essay #1:
It is true enough that “God and Satan don’t mix.” However, despite his statement (part of which I cut out concerning wheat and tares), we cannot alone, by individual conscience, decide and judge whether we are standing in God or Satan? We are bound to God in our individual conscience; God exercises his will and his judgment in and through the Church (even a church in great sin and error); thus we assent to God by assenting to the Church. As far as I know, TEC and ACofC are still a part of the Anglican Church. Thus to not assent to them, even though they are admittedly in great sin, is to simply abide by your own will, not God’s.
We are indeed struggling against a malignancy within the Church, but we have been and will continue to struggle with it; point me to a time when this struggle was not occurring. But that is what it means to hold together truth and unity; to live with one another in Christ. What will a “new reformation” do and when will the next one within that same body occur? Reformation, the life together that we are called to in the shape of Christ is NOT faithfully lived by continuing this external reformative practice. We’re currently in churches that are all in error; jumping from one to another, or realigning is not a step closer to following God’s will, it is simply an exacerbation of moving in the wrong ‘direction.’ We must stop using our own declaration of which body has the ‘right faith’ and start asking how we can most faithfully serve the body we’re in.
Dr Radner.
In your letter you rather pointedly stated that the two churches that have availed themselves of the alternative oversight were not even members of the Anglican Church of Canada. This seems (to me, at least) somewhat disingenuous. What you failed to mention, for those who do not know the background of these churches, is that one (Church of the Resurrection) was disinherited by Bishop Ingham. They were members of the ACofC, but they were one of a number who have been expelled from their property, their priest summarily fired. The second church (St John’s Richmond) is a church plant from an orthodox ACoC parish, also in the Diocese of New Westminster. There was never any hope of them being recognized by Ingham.
It could seem as though you are unsympathetic to the plight of the disenfranchised orthodox who have been left outside the episcopal umbrella.
Moreover, as someone has already mentioned, these are not the first Canadian churches to seek alternative oversight. A number of other congregations are already under the oversight of African bishops. The thing that differentiates the Network’s move from these individual churches is the scale– the two churches that are now under Venables’ oversight are just the first… they had nowhere else to go, so they were able to respond immediately. But you know that there are others preparing to make the move, I think, which is why you felt it necessary to write the piece you did when you did.
Dale, time is so quickly running out for the orthodox Anglicans in America. Four bishops have fled to Rome. How many more priests? How many more laity? How many have fled to other denominations? And when crisis hits, the process accelerates. Thus, mechanisms need to be implemented now.
When critical mass is lost without such an orthodox structure in place, so too will be Anglicanism in North America. It is not that the AC will never act, rather it is that the ABC is actively subverting action. Again, I would refer you to the essays referenced in #47.
Optimus Prime:
Two church bodies. In one the gospel is rarely mentioned, unless it is being “re-envisioned”; many of its leaders deny the essentials of the historic Christian faith (deity and resurrection of Christ; uniqueness of Christ etc.); this church body mandates, or allows members of its body, to sacramentalize sin; traditional Christians are held back from ministry, while traditional Christian ministers are thrown out of their places of ministry.
In the second, the gospel is preached, the essentials of the faith are defended; corporates sin is acknowledged and repented of, rather than redefined as holy; traditional Christians are discipled and released into body-ministry for the sake of the church and an unbelieving world.
You believe that we require an AC statement before we can know whether one is of God and one is of Satan?
farstrider
First, I am not calling individual conscience simply a ‘protestant’ thing; it is a thing of human nature, but it is one subject to God, not to one’s own personal opinion. Unless we would affirm, as do liberals, that God is directing us as individuals – individual inspiration – than individual conscience rightly construed, is assent to God, through and in the Church.
No, not at all. I would however question why he chose not to stand as a martyr (if that need have happened) and stood as a witness to Christ amidst the sin of Arianism. Perhaps had he stood, so many would not have fallen into that sin. Of course it was through the council of Nicaea, of the Church universal, not through an individual’s act, that orthodoxy was affirmed.
I have no problem, if in fact primatial oversight is granted by the Church, with a realignment of bishops – because it is to the God and thus to the Church that I assent. My only problem comes in autonomous actions that are not approved by the Church. As I said above, if the Church either kicks the ACofC or TEC out, or if an realignment is approved, I will certainly be on board. I am not on board however, with following the same path that liberals have taken of proclaiming individually inspired insight into God’s will and thus taking autonomous action.
[blockquote]No, not at all. I would however question why he chose not to stand as a martyr (if that need have happened) and stood as a witness to Christ amidst the sin of Arianism. Perhaps had he stood, so many would not have fallen into that sin. Of course it was through the council of Nicaea, of the Church universal, not through an individual’s act, that orthodoxy was affirmed.[/blockquote]
St. Athanasius did stand as a witness in the midst of Arianism– it was through the stand of Athanasius, largely, that Arianism didn’t win the day. Every hear the phrase “Athanasius contra mundum”?
With regard to individual decisions, the decision for realignment was agreed
Sorry… to continue…
… the decision for realignment was agreed upon by a great number of Primates who have recognized that the ACofC was not delivering what its former Presiding Bishop had promised it would. The path that the Network has taken cannot be compared to liberal claims to individual inspired insights into God’s will as they Network has not tampered with the basics of Christian teaching. To quote the Windsor Report, there is “no moral equivalence” between primatial crossing of boundaries and the innovations of the TEC and ACofC. That differentiation is something that the Communion has agreed upon and is something you can rest in.
Speaking as an ANiC member, I would be more than happy to wait for the ‘Church Universal’, in this case the AC, to make a decision.
However, at least in the short term, it appears unlikely that the AC can make a decision, as the response of the primates to the JSC illustrates. The reality is that the AC is deeply divided, and functionally unable to make any effective decision – or even have any idea as to how a decision would be enforced.
Therefore, such an action as ANiC has taken becomes neccessary, simply to provide a safe place if nothing else. To not do so is like asking folk to stay in the burning house while a committee meets to discern the nature and the appropriate response to the fire. That might even be possible, however as we have seen half the committee is composed of arsonists.
As I said earlier, and say again, I do not understand what ACI and similarly minded folks here gain by this (and earlier letters). It isolates friends who disagree on the prognosis of the problem, and plays handily to reappraisers who are very happy to make capital of this kind of thing.
Reading this kind of letter it is hard to remove a sense of betrayal from one who should be a friend, but appears to spend more capital attacking his friends than by making common cause with them.
#53: I have always agreed that there are individual congregational cases where the need for alternative oversight is pragmatically pressing. This is not in dispute, as far as I am concerned. And if this were all that was being pursued and offered, I would personally be quite sympathetic. But that is not the dynamic that is being reported or even, for the most part, asserted and encouraged. Rather, what is being lifted up, as a summons and call to mission, is a much broader “realignment” in terms of the entire Communion and its structures. I have always thought this is the wrong way to go, continue to think so, and think it particularly misguided to press in the present context. Far from playing into the hands of the liberal leadership of parts of the ACC, as Peter in #59 suggests my comments are traiterously doing, I believe that it is the over-reaching claims of the new realignment that are doing so, providing bishops excuses now to haul in their conservative clergy for scolding and threatening, providing them clothing (however ill-fitting) for taking the legal and political high-ground and so on, thereby ratcheting up the rhetoric of the conflict within a context in which the conservatives must invariably come out as the “troublers”. In the face of this, we get splits and more splits, mistrust among conservative bishops themselves, conflicting hopes and pressures brought to bear among Global South leaders, and on it goes.
farstrider,
Of course he did.
I should have confined my statement more as I was speaking to the specificity of his leaving after being exiled. But further to my point, we cannot really compare the situation of Athanasius with that of todays bishops who are providing alternative oversight. Athanasius was exiled forcibly and could probably only have stood for orthodoxy as a martyr; our orthodox bishops and clergy on the other hand are not exiled rather they can take a stand within their own location.
could you direct me to the portion of Windsor from which that quote comes please? Thanks.
Unity is not basic to God’s teaching about truth (and the way we seek truth is not ours to define)? As I said far above, I am not drawing a moral equivalence between the two, as it would appear Windsor does not; I am however, suggesting an active equivalence between them. If these TEC and ACofC are still a part of the Anglican Communion, regardless of morality, to take action to break with them, is faulty on two accounts: 1) we are ordered by the Church – the Church of which both entities are still apart, thus their direction remains that to which we must assent until an actual break occurs and is agreed upon not simply by some of the Primates, but by the whole Church; 2) this action is not patterned on Christ’s life nor upon his call to seek truth in unity (however rotten and sinful that might be).
I suspect at issue are a number of major factors: the problems/impossibility of legal resolutions to problems; the internal fighting that is occasioned especially in conservative regions when conservative parishes are encouraged to join efforts to leave, and the bad blood that results; the obvious divisions within conservative Primatial ranks over just how to address the problems of autonomous members, and the danger of splitting and deteriorating already fragile Instruments (like the Primates Meeting); and a genuine disagreement amongst conservatives over timing: some believing discipline is a joke and no longer possible, others who either believe this is wrong or that it is immoral not to work all the way to the conclusion in favour of this. David Handy (I am unsure who he is, leader of a New Reformation) speaks of ACI being ‘naive’ — of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. That may be so, so far as he is concerned. But from where ACI sits, there are issues of substance dividing conservatives, not just issues of strategy. I do not believe in other words that this is simply personalisable — making enemies, etc. It is a struggle over various matters of substance. Can anyone, for example, tell the various US churches what the likelihood of suing to retain property in Canada will yield? God bless. C S
RE: “Given that many of the US border-crossing episodes are occurring in rather strongly reasserting dioceses, it is difficult to see what the immediate threat is to justify these actions without waiting on the Communion.”
What on earth does this mean?
The “immediate threats” are three-fold.
1) Parishioners in conservative churches melting away to other non-Anglican churches, threatening the unity of the Episcopal parish. You may decry this and say how awful it is, but rectors of such parishes need to make decisions.
2) Dioceses don’t stay conservative ad infinitum. Some thing it a good idea to get out while the gettin’s good.
3) Parishes don’t want to be a part of what they consider to be an apostate Episcopal church. You can say “it isn’t apostate” but once a parish as a whole believes that, there is simply NO reason for it to stay, unless it really really really really believes that the Anglican Communion as a whole may act to discipline, which as we all know is highly unlikely [i]since Rowan Williams does not wish it.[/i]
As a Canadian, I have to agree with Radner’s assessment. I have read the responses and wonder how many are Canadians and how many are Americans and others putting their spin on the ACC.
[blockquote] David Handy (I am unsure who he is, leader of a New Reformation) speaks of ACI being ‘naive’—of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. [/blockquote] Congratultions, Rev. Handy!
You’ve just been promoted to [b]leader[/b] of the vast multitude of advocates for the New Reformation. Can you send me an application?
…back in the Briar Patch,
#61 O.P.
The correspondence that I was drawing between Athanasius and those bishops who are offering alternative oversight hasnothing to do with martyrdom. It has to do with godly bishops who realize that the faithful need godly pastoral care. As Athanasius did, so they are now doing.
In re: Windsor, you wrote: [blockquote] could you direct me to the portion of Windsor from which that quote comes please?[/blockquote]
And I must offer my apologies. The quote actually came from the Primates Communique from Dar es Salaam (point 10): The line in question says, “The Windsor Report did not see a “moral equivalence†between these events, since the cross-boundary interventions arose from a deep concern for the welfare of Anglicans in the face of innovation.”
In re: unity, yes, unity is important. The goal of realignment is to maintain unity with the Anglican Communion worldwide. You will recall that when realignment was announced, it was described as a “temporary” measure, given the extremes faced by Canadian orthodox. God-willing, the ACofC will come to a place of repentance and the two streams can once again flow as one. If not, an alternative structure will be in place when the ACofC goes down.
64, as a Canadian I can only agree with Radner’s statement in part. He is right that many Canadians won’t move. The reasons he offers for Canadian reluctance I don’t agree with (but I have already commented on that above).
I, at least, found the letters appeal to Canadian distinctiveness more than a little condescending. I trust the Canadian readership will be able to curb the unfortunate Pavlovian response that inevitably follows such comparisons. It’s ironic that our former corrupt Liberal gov’t managed to hang onto power for years by drawing comparisons between the Conservative Party (who wanted Canada to become the 53rd State) and themselves– who were the truly Canadian party. It would be too precious if the liberal leadership of the ACofC was able to capitalize off of such statements (from the conservative side) as well.
On the other hand, I think Radner doesn’t fully understand how frustrated many Canadians are. While time will tell, I expect more will make the move than he expects– or than he would like (thus his article). And I suspect they will be making their move soon.
I commented on the issue of the Canadian developments on the Stand Firm blog last week, but there is one point that I would like to repeat, and which I think the two authors should have included in their fine analysis of the scene there. That is, the historical Canadian antipathy towards confrontation. Unlike its neighbor to the south Canada emerged as a nation, not through revolution, but through compromise. And compromise has characterized Canadian political, cultural and religious life at many points in the intervening 140 years. There are more reasons for this than just history, e.g., a thinly scattered population, and the understanding of Canada as a “mosaic” of cultures rather than a “melting pot”. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the Anglican Church of Canada, but if the United Church of Canada experience of twenty years ago is anything to go by, I do not expect many churches or congregants to leave. The Anglican Network is operating against VERY strong and deeply ingrained cultural forces.
True, as long as that is done in accordance with the whole Church, not as bishops or parishes acting on their own. If they act by common authority, or the “common order of the Church” as Article XXXIV states, then indeed this is a way forward; if they act alone, to whom are they really consenting? The problem with the current action, is that this realignment, even if it is temporary with the hope of repentance, has been done outside the common order of the Church.
Why? You do not agree that at a general level there is much truth in them? Again, Dr. Reed, the other author on that article has had extensive experience in both this country and in the Canadian Church. Would you simply discount that?
I would doubt this; his interaction with the Canadian Church is not limited to one geographic region, nor to conservative or liberal parts, rather it encompasses a broad cross section from laity to bishops. I would imagine he is well aware of the frustration of many of the ‘orthodox’.
Several quick responses as I just caught on that my name was being invoked in this thread.
#47, robroy, thanks for providing links to my recent “essays,” as you call them, posted on SF in the last couple of days. I’m glad you think they’re “wonderful.” I look forward to seeing what others think.
#52, optimus prime, you’ve raised a crucial issue that demands a thoughtful answer, which I hope to give elsewhere. Suffice to say for now, just asserting something doesn’t make it true. What are your reasons for insisting so strongly that a Reformation is unjustified? I simply don’t agree that it’s a matter of opting for personal autonomy instead of catholic order. The increasing involvement of the Global South and more and more primates shows that this is actually part of a really widespread groundswell. Whether it is of the Spirit or of the “flesh” time will tell.
#62, Prof. Seitz, it’s been ages since we talked, so I’m not surprised you don’t remember my name. Alas, I’ve hardly published anything since getting my Ph.D. at Union-PSCE in 1998 (in NT), but I hope to make up for lost time soon; I’m working on two books now. The first of which is tentatively called: “A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF: Is the Breakup of Anglicanism the Start of a New Reformation?”
I have great respect for you and all your hard work over the last few years. This is not the way I would have chosen to enter into conversations with you. I’ve been posting a lot lately on SF, so for now, I’ll let those statements put my accusation that the ACI has been “naive” in context. If you read the whole post, it actually commends the work of ACI in many ways.
#65, Finally, Br_er Rabbit, I got quite a laugh out of being promoted to LEADER of the New Reformation too. +Bob Duncan, call your office! And as for that application, it’s in the mail.
David Handy+ (canonically resident in the Diocese of Albany)
interim pastor at Mission of Grace, Newport News, VA (AMiA)
otherwise at Eternity Anglican Church, Richmond, VA (Uganda)
Well, I find the comments from the ACI folks very illuminating.
NRA:
I look forward to reading what you have in mind – paper or book?
You are absolutely correct in the first sentence. I have debated whether I should post an answer to this question here because to give you a patient and respectful answer I believe would take more time and space then I currently have. With that in mind, I would like to exchange this idea with you so perhaps in a couple of weeks when my exams are done, if you were willing, I could expand on what I have said and seek your feedback.
I would agree; it is much more intricate than simply autonomy or catholic order.
And this is an interesting point. One could certainly ask the same of the Reformation; was dissent from the RC Church divinely ordained or humanly undertaken? Are we now in a position to be able to determine that? Should we continue in external reformative action if we cannot answer that question?
I hope to be able to continue this exchange with you as these are very interesting questions and I would very much like to hear your opinion.
Dr Radner:
1. Feel free to comment on the situation of the Canadian Church as much as you want. I simply suggest you be careful before putting your name to an essay which contains generalizations about Canada and culture which, if submitted to an 1st year undergraduate course at Victoria College (directions: walk out the front door of Wycliffe and cross the street to Trinity; walk East, navigate your way across the crossing right at the top of Queen’s Park, a very dangerous crossing until they put the stoplight in, continue to walk east, past Emanuel College, the UC divinity school, and into the Northrup Frye building.)
If an undergraduate submitted an essay on the distinctiveness of Canada containing the observations on Canada contained in the essay you signed your name to, the best he could hope for is a C+ and advice to attend the voluntary “how to write in English” seminars that are available at U of T for free.
If that sounds harsh, let me quote from your essay:
Beg par? What do you mean? Be more specific. If you can’t translate what you say into plain English, it prob means you don’t have anything to say (Orwell).
Radner:
Beg par? Pretentious BS. Cross out this paragraph with a red X.
Most of Canada population-wise is situated along a belt close to the U.S. border, and is just as densely populated, or more so, than the most similar (climatic) areas to the South. In terms of density, rural Ontario is no different than rural Ohio or Pennsylvania; rural BC no different than rural Washington or Oregon. It is true that is easier to check out in urban areas because you can be very confident than in any city with as many as 4 Anglican churches, if one checks out, it will be possible to survive financially, because Christians from the remaining Liberal churches will happily join a Christian church.
In rural areas, it will be tougher; but no tougher than in the U.S. (You are aware that there are large U.S. states with much rural population?)
The ACC will find enuf money to conduct as much litigation as it sees fit, no matter where or how it has to find it. There will be little litigation because in Canada, the law is clearly on the ACC’s side, and no ‘Deniss canon’ is needed. The $1 mil Cheryl Chang claims to have available is most likely a hard bluff, designed to warn the ACC that they cannot get away with things like firing rectors without their having an opportunity to have witnesses with them when they speak with their bishop, or — trying to deprive them of their pension benefits entirely (which is illegal)
The $1 mil the Network claims to have available will, God willing, be used to much more useful things.
A seminary would be the most obvious needed example. At the moment, Wycliffe professors who sided with the Network could use their jobs, or their ecclesiastical prestige. Eventually a seminary with scholars who have moral courage will have to be found.
Just don’t assume that you can run away, having smeared +Duncan, and find an easy retreat in Canada. You have to run a lot further away than downtown Toronto to get away from God.
Toral
RE: “If an undergraduate submitted an essay on the distinctiveness of Canada containing the observations on Canada contained in the essay you signed your name to, the best he could hope for is a C+ and advice to attend the voluntary “how to write in English†seminars that are available at U of T for free.”
Right — but as the same may be said for the above comment by Toral1, and as neither comment nor the essay was written for Victoria College one wonders what on earth the point of that remark really has to do with any sort of rational argument.
RE: “Just don’t assume that you can run away, having smeared +Duncan, and find an easy retreat in Canada.”
Not certain where Dr. Radner “smeared +Duncan” . . . but that would explain the deepy hostility that is redolent throughout the comment I suppose.
Sorry, Sarah. I tried very hard to be as polite as I could.
1.The extremely poor writing of the “Canadian culture” part of the article made it very hard to discuss. There are potentially interesting points somewhere in there: e.g., re Canadians’ greater attachment to the Church of England than Americans’. That actually can cut two ways, but nothing in the Radner/Reed article develops that.
2. Victoria College gives what is what is (or at least used to be) regarded as the country’s greatest “Canadian Studies” courses and curriculum. Dr Radner, as a Canadian expert and professor at the University of Toronto, no doubt knows that already.
3. I am as willing as anybody to throw around “distinctive Canadianness” generalizations. they really have to be a lot better than in that article, though.
God bless.
Toral
Toral1:
What the hell is your problem? If you want to sling insults, go and find yourself another forum in which to do so; until your adolescent outburst, there was an interesting dialog occurring. Your point is entirely lost embedded in your angry and insolent tone. Further, why have you chosen to attack Dr. Radner? As has been mentioned numerous times in this conversation so far – the article was ALSO written by a theologian who has been in Canada and dealing intimately with the Church scene here for 20+ years. Yet I see no criticism of him. This, in addition to your adolescent approach, leads me to believe you have a personal vendetta against Dr. Radner which really has no place here without being accompanied by insightful and detailed reason for your criticism.
Did you actually have a point other than to sling insults with BS rational? Please clarify what you’re talking about because your language is incoherent.
#72, Optimus Prime, thanks for a courteous response. I too would welcome a chance for the kind of more extended and thoughtful interaction than is usually possible on blogs, where a clever riposte is often more valued than a profound insight. But, you can relax and be assured, I didn’t have exchanging book-length replies in mind either.
I would also agree with Prof. Seitz above (#62), that there are indeed many complex substantive issues that threaten to prevent the CCP (and other orthodox Anglicans) from being able to form a coherent and unified movement. The dangers of fragmentation are very real, as the last 40 years or so of the so-called Continuing Church movement within Anglo-Catholic circles have shown all too plainly. And historically, the record is abundantly clear that once a serious break in communion occurs, other breaks tend to follow, often amazingly quickly. Thus, not long after Luther launched his reforming movement in Wittenberg but had gone into hiding in the Wartburg Castle (because of the threat on his life), his faculty colleague Carlstadt started preaching a much more radical version of the call to Reformation, including inciting the crowds to destroy church statues as idolatrous and so on, and Luther felt he had to risk coming back to Wittenberg to quell the uprising before it got further out of hand. Likewise, not long after Zwingli initiated the Reformation in Zurich, the Anabaptists were soon calling for even more radical reforms. And as is well-known, even though there was a strong desire to present a united front against the Papacy, Luther and Zwingli could not come to agreement on eucharistic theology at the famous Colloquy in Marburg in 1529, and so the Protestant movement fractured, and those divisions are with us to this day.
But despite those very real dangers and temptations, I still believe that a New Reformation is both inevitable and indeed tragically necessary in our time. We should no more tolerate the follies and heresies of our “Worthy Opponents,” who spread their false gospel of moral relativism and universalism, than Paul did the Judaizers, or Ignatius or Irenaeus did the Gnostics, or Athanasius did the Arians, or Augustine the Pelagians.
And please note that the moderate, sensible, non-polarizing via media approach of the “Semi-Arians” and the “Semi-Pelagians” was eventually rejected as inadequate and insufficiently zealous for the truth. I contend that the same is true today.
But by all means, now that the discussion has begun, let’s keep it up. Best wishes on your exams, Optimus Prime.
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Passionate Supporter of the New Reformation
76 I think you meant “BS rationale“
Fr. Handy: Thanks! I do hope they go well, this is an easy tool to procrastinate with and I still have a few hundred pages to read before I can begin writing! But we must keep the conversation up. I will try to post later this evening or tomorrow. Thanks for the offer for discussion; I very much look forward to it.
Yes Toral1 I did. Shall we continue to discuss errors of grammar and spelling? Or could we move on to more substantive matters?
#60 – Ephraim, I didn’t call your comments traitorous. However, they will indeed play right into the hands of the liberal leadership. If this ANiC action provides Bishops an excuse, well, so be it. If it is not this, it would be something else, or otherwise the slow death of gradual replacement.
I wish I could see some kind of hope in the ACI type position, but I see none, for you are not offering anything to those who have held on for, in many cases years, hoping that this would play itself out internationally. The only thing that is playing out internationally now is a wider split. Please do note (and was missing from your article) how wide the provincial support for the ANiC action has been.
I would suggest what we are seeing is a Luther / Erasmus type split, only that in this case if we are to play the majority numbers game (as you were doing in your article), then ironically the structures and institutions you support will become the breakaway group.
I too would like to see what the ACI is offering. I see nothing. If the ACI has a plan to reverse 03 then lets hear it.
Peter and Br. Michael,
It is a bit challenging to present a detailed and nuanced argument to support their position on this blog; have you had an opportunity to read any of the books they have written? I felt much the same way both of you did until I was able to read a couple books written by ACI affiliated individuals and test my theories against their detailed and reasoned arguments.
Peter (#81),
Well said.
New Reformation Advocate (#77) When you speak of the inadequacy of the via media approach, are you speaking of the “traditional” via media between the more or Reformed and Catholic streams or are you (as I read it) developing the connection you had already made between attempts to fuse relativism with traditional faith? I apologize if my question seems dense… just wanted to be clear.
Peter:
Why should anyone offer something to you in this life? Our hope is not (necessarily) in the temporal realm. What was Christ offered but abandonment, disciples who did not see or understand, traitors, condemnation, torture and death? But he was vindicated and exalted by God for remaining in relationship with all the individuals who were sinners, apostates, etc, because this was God’s will. This is why there is so much discussion of struggle and of carrying one’s cross within our sacred Text; our relief is not necessarily going to be temporal. We are called to witness to God, as Jesus did, in the midst of sin, heresy, apostasy. This may be painful, agonizing and deadly. To walk away from this is to turn away from that to which God is calling us.
I am not saying that we should be passive or do nothing and that we shouldn’t work for change within our Church; however, I am saying that by trying to force a temporal solution that appeases our tumult, we are forcing human actions to be enacted in human time, rather than relying upon God’s providential ordering.
#85 Optimius Prime – I wasn’t referring directly to me, for I am not in an ACoC diocese that is in serious difficulties right now (though I fully support ANiC and will join the Southern Cone just as soon as I am able to).
I’m not quite sure what you are seeking to argue regarding a temporal solution? I would say that a Church institution is both a spiritual and temporal edifice, in that it has elements in both. Therefore I cannot easily isolate the two.
With that in mind, I would choose an edifice that has it’s roots in Christ than an edifice that to my mind is Ichabod.
Beyond this, you appear to be flying in the face of Church history. We have never been called to work alongside heretics, or to put it another way ‘how can two walk together unless they are in agreeement’? Heretics, whether donatists, gnostics or arians etc, were disavowed for a reason, for they preached a strange gospel. Are you now saying that we should be yoked to an institution that is corrupt and now preaches a strange gospel? We are called to witness to a world full of sin (which is in us, too) the most wonderful message of salvation, and you would argue that we should do this in tandem with heretics? Does this not make us culpable if we do not seek to seperate from it?
I would say we have waited for God’s providential ordering – it is here and now.
From [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071204/tpl-uk-immigration-ed79be6_1.html]Here[/url]:
[blockquote] OTTAWA (Reuters) – One in five people in Canada last year was born in another country, the highest proportion since the 1930s, according to census data released on Tuesday. The foreign-born population grew four times faster than the Canadian-born population between 2001 and 2006, as an estimated 1.1 million immigrants made the country their home, Statistics Canada said. Only one-fifth of those newcomers spoke either English or French, Canada’s two official languages. Chinese languages were the third most common mother tongue, after English and French. [/blockquote]
Although we may talk about the past and present of the Anglican Church of Canada in relatively narrow cultural terms, its future, if it is not to be a sterile cul-de-sac, cries out for a wider view.
#84, Farstrider,
Thanks for asking. I’m sure you weren’t the only one to wonder what I meant. You aren’t showing yourself dense; I was just terse and my choice of phrasing (using “via media” in an unusual way) was probably needlessly confusing.
Your hunch was correct. I did NOT mean to pour scorn on the great Anglican via media between Rome and Geneva (or perhaps originally between Wittenberg and Zurich). Not at all. What I had in mind was rather how “Semi-Arianism” was a sort of via media, if you will, between Nicene Orthodoxy and Arianism, just as “Semi-Pelagianism” was a similar middle way between Augustine and Pelagius.
And what I was thereby implyhing was that despite our Anglican predeliction for always favoring attempts to find the broad common ground and to avoid fanaticism, or what I teasingly like to call “our immoderate love of moderation,” sometimes the right and proper position is NOT the moderate, middle way, but one of the “extremes.” Thus, consider the Nicene Creed’s stress on Christ being “of ONE/identical being or substance” (homoousios) with the Father and not the Semi-Arian compromise of our Lord merely “of LIKE substance” (homoiousios), much less the denial of the Arian claim that he was of a different substance altogether. During all the tumultuous turmoil of the 4th century, with orthodox and Arian emperors alternating and throwing the Church into repeated chaos, it was tempting for Athanasius and later the Cappadocian Fathers to compromise and accept the seemingly sensible broad middle path (of like substance) that was highly popular and more culturally acceptable. But fortunately, they held out for the “extreme” position in this case, and rightly so. For the homoousios position is really true and essential to the Christian faith. And they DIDN’T share communion with the Arians in the meantime.
What I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t write off those who currently seem to be “extremists,” because sometimes history later proves that they were right all along. Obviously, what I have in mind here is the seemingly extreme and radical position of the CCP, in being willing to break not only with TEC, but even with Canterbury, IF need be. And yes, I do recognize that the need still hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt yet; it’s still a significant “if.” Obviously, I’m much more skeptical than the ACI leaders on that score, but time will tell (and before long too).
I hope that clarifies things.
David Handy+
New Reformation Advocate,
Thank you for your helpful response. We are agreed… although it is a difficult path to follow. I admit that the idea of breaking with Canterbury is, frankly, horrifying to me. It breaks my heart that we have come to the point that this is even being discussed, but there it is.
Christ didn’t walk along side heretics, apostates, sinners? Paul didn’t do the same? Before you quote me 1Cor 5, and we get into a Scriptural exchange, I will simply state that Paul’s reasoning for this action is to do with repentance, not permanent exile as 2Cor 2:5 and many other texts will attest. One can call another to repentance by walking apart from them, but only when this is done as a disciplinary measure of the whole Church, not simply by bishops or churches who choose to autonomously walk apart.
As for early Church, orthodox actions were taken in the context of the universal Church, abiding Church order. Thus I am not claiming that we necessarily need walk with these individuals forever – I am however, claiming that we must not act autonomously. If and/or when the whole communion says, you guys are no longer a part of this communion until you repent of your action, then this is the time to walk apart for the reason of calling them to repent. In this case, we would be taking appropriate disciplinary action. However if we continue to act, various regions on their own, we will have simply acted with an autonomous action not consistent with our call to unity. If we achieve an end, unity, through means that are not in line with God’s will, have we taken faithful action?
I would say we have waited for God’s providential ordering – it is here and now. And what makes you the one to determine this because evidently, our Church (though it is moving toward this end) has not confirmed it. Again I ask, if we achieve an end, unity, through means that are not in line with God’s will, have we taken faithful action?
Optimus Prime,
There is a certain irony in our debating the issue we are insofar as (I believe) our motivations are both Catholic in nature. The difference in our approaches is likely due to different understandings of what Catholicity means. For you, I think, the national Church is quite significant. For me, it is less so. Communion and diocese are key; but when a diocese moves into heresy, action needs to be taken less that diocese cease to be a valid expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I understand your desire to be faithful in the place that you are, even if that means suffering misunderstanding and persecution, and I would agree that sometimes we are called to be faithful in such circumstances. There are other times when we are called to fight heresy and denounce it for what it is. Ultimately it is not about you or I trodding along a path of suffering, it is about the Church being faithful in guarding the deposit of faith with which it has been entrusted. It is about the people of God being led to living waters, and not poisoned wells.
The Catholicity of the Church has to do with more than unity for the sake of unity; it has to do with the Church following on in the footsteps of the Apostles, martyrs and Fathers of the Church. The faith that is being promoted in much of our Church would not be recognizable as Christian to Athanasius, Basil, Augustine, Gregory, Aquinas, Erasmus, Luther or Cranmer. It (broadly) no longer bears the hallmark of even “mere” Christianity.
You speak of awaiting the voice of the Church: two points.
Firstly, from a truly Catholic point of view, you already have it. To quote Chesterton, “I believe in the democracy of the dead.” We know what Catholic faith should look like– at least in its “mere” form, and we have a great cloud of witnesses who would challenge us to remain Catholic (and Evangelical) and not remain with the Docetists/Arians et al.
Secondly, from an Anglican point of view, most of the Anglican Communion would agree that realignment is what the present circumstances call for. Although national repentance would be better (and I agree). I don’t think many of us who have opted for realignment (and I am one of them) consider this to be the best-case scenario. However, for many of us it is the only scenario that is viable.
That Common Cause is a “tiny” resistance movement is simply not a reality. In Colorado Springs there are now three times as many common cause parishioners attending church on a given Sunday morning than there are folks sitting in TEC pews–and while TEC continues to diminish, the common cause churches here are growing by the week…building two new church facilities right now, and looking at new church plants in developing parts of town…compared to TEC members who are too sophisticated to even add to their numbers by God given acts of procreation, let alone by a witness of loving to do what God commands…
Farstrider,
I think you’re right, we are both catholic in outlook; a good pairing for discussion though. I’m not as concerned with the national Church as I am with the Church universal and our assent to that Church in which I believe contains the apostolic witness. I am also however, quite concerned about the bishops who, as I just heard in a presentation recently, “should be the servants from the local church to the universal and from the universal to the local.” I do agree completely though that action must be taken and I find it rather infuriating that we can’t move forward toward disciplinary measures that might make that “doing something” effective. The issue of authority has been clearly elaborated upon in Windsor, the disciplinary measures, have not. But I also think it crucial that we act in accordance with Church order at the local and the universal level; not simply for the sake of unity for unity’s sake, but because I believe that unity is in fact our temporal working in and toward truth (even if it might not appear to be).
I think we must always fight heresy and denounce it. How we go about that is absolutely vital though.
Very true, suffering, nor unity are done for their own sake. We absolutely must guard the deposit of faith; but lest we take on the structure and the associated theology of the RC Church, or become a Confessional Church, how we go about preserving that faith within communion (who’s structure I believe provides for the right balance between office and charism evident in the Epistles and the Pastorals) requires that we act within the confines of our Church order.
Yes you are absolutely right; unity cannot be pursued for the sake of unity. Unity must be pursued for the sake of truth which abides in unity; that is, in living in our Christian lives together (which sometimes, well honestly quite often means suffering) while continually correcting, guiding, worshiping and witnessing both to one another and to those who have not yet heard the gospel. It is here, in this life together, that the deposit of faith is found, even amidst sin. I think we need to be careful in how we think of the notion of protection of the deposit of faith. The Church is indefectible; but it is indefectible not because human beings have been given the power to sustain it at all moments, but because God sustains it (the Greek tense and voice in the passage concerning the keys being passed onto Peter actually emphasizes that what has been bound on earth has already been bound in heaven, not that what we bind on earth will be bound in heaven as the NRSV renders it. This shifts the emphasis from the power and authority of the Church, to what has already been completed by God). Thus, it is indefectible in God’s time, not necessarily in our limited time frame of existence (say 80-90 years). So protection is ultimately God’s realm of action; our role of protection then, means not that we must somehow protect this faith. It cannot go anywhere, God has already accomplished this. Rather, it means that we must wrestle together with one another to continually call one another back to an affirmation (or in some cases to knowing) that faith.
Optimus Prime,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
[blockquote]I think we need to be careful in how we think of the notion of protection of the deposit of faith. The Church is indefectible; but it is indefectible not because human beings have been given the power to sustain it at all moments, but because God sustains it…[/blockquote]
You are, of course, right from the perspective of God’s preservation of the faith throughout time… the gates of hell and all.
I was thinking, though, in terms of the application of that faith to the local Christian community. In 2 Timothy 1:14 Paul exhorts Timothy, “By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (ESV). We, as the Church (particularly as leaders in the Church) have been entrusted with this deposit and been entrusted to guard it. There is a human dynamic here that cannot be wholly subsumed into God’s overarching preservation of the truth. While I gather you would rather not go down the proof-texting road, the New Testament provides us with a great deal of input into how it is to be guarded. Negatively, we are to forbid the teaching of false doctrine in our churches, we are to have nothing to do with false teachers, we are not to welcome them into our homes (which I would interpret, given the NT context of house-churches, as meeting places, although there could be a broader principle of hospitality and support)… the list goes on, and I know you are familiar with it. The point I would like to highlight, though, is that while some of these exhortations are offered to episcopal-like figures (Timothy, Titus), they are also addressed to local fellowships and to the presbyters of those fellowships. On a local level there must, in certain circumstances, be a move of separation. On what basis? On the basis of the responsibility that shepherds have been given for their sheep.
I am not advocating denominationalism here… in the context of the Catholic whole no such moves are necessary (in fact they would be counterproductive). I am talking about realignment, though.
Just a few last thoughts before calling it a night…
#92 It may just be me, but statements like “we are bigger than you” and “we get more money in the collection plate than you” can come across negatively. At the end of the day, its not who is bigger than who, its who is right.
farstrider,
And thank you for the thoughtful reply!
Oh yes, I would entirely agree. We certainly cannot step away from a role of protection of the deposit of faith; it is more about how we balance that with understanding that it is something already protected by God. If you go too far to one side, you end up developing an overly ‘official’ structure, if you go too far down the other, you end up with too much of a charismatic focus. And you’re right, the Pastorals, particularly Timothy do develop clear grounds for an office that will serve a protective role. I think these need to be read in concert with the more charismatic structure of the Epistles as well though. There is a fantastic book that speaks to this that I would definitely recommend if you haven’t already read it called “Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power” by Hans VonCampenhausen.
I think this is an area we may have to agree to disagree on. If we begin to break our Church order at the local level, we are first, going back on a promise to maintain relationship and order (according to the Articles). We could do this if we were a congregational Church body; but I find it hard to see how we could maintain communion and do this. However, I do believe that we need to address serious deficiencies in our structure; chief among the fixes being issues of authority and discipline (dismal currently) and closely following that, a more definitive role of the teaching authority of bishops in close connection to authority and discipline. Realignment may indeed need to occur; but it must be communally decided AND most importantly acted upon such that the decision reflects and creates space for what we’re really desiring, repentance (which, even if it doesn’t come, we are obliged to make room for).
Our key is recognizing that it is in God’s time that we operate so that when we develop structures, those structures create time and space for the deposit of faith to be realized within our communal life together. Operating on our own time (thinking 20 years is a long time for a decision to be made) tends to make us create too official a structure for the above process, or it can lead – as it is doing – to breaks in the body.
Alas, I must actually start working on my papers so I won’t be able to post much, but I look forward to seeing any feedback you may have. Thanks for a great conversation.
Observing—firstly the issue of numbers involved in the common cause movement was raised in Dr. Radner’s paper–so that seems relevant to the thread when the question has to do with if he has a firm grasp of the facts on the ground and is his proposal is based in the realm of possibility and reality.
Secondly I would say that clearly in scripture certification that the Holy Spirit is at work and of God’s blessing what is right is growth–God added to their numbers day by day those who being saved.
God’s judgement on TEC is clearly indicated in its shrinking numbers. Now Schori says that is because Episcopalians are too sophisticated to bred like homing schooling fundamentalist rabbits–that she would say that at the very least indicates that she understands her church is not growing–as a scientist she looks at it one way, as theologians we would see it as a sign something entirely different.
Optimus prime, Teh ACI may have really great ideas. Just how do you propose that they impliment them? GC) will very likely repeal 0033 and probably authorize SSB. Already the nondiscrimination canons have the effect of normalizing acceptance of homosexual behavior. What is the plan for repealing those? Just how do you plan to organize given tha fact that the AAC is, most likely, not in the picture any longer? Where in short where are you going the get the duputies? Without them and the laity, which you offer no incentive to stay, just how do you propose to enact all these great ideas?
#97 Ok, maybe its that old limitation of written words – you can’t hear the tone of the delivery, or see the expression on the writers face. When I read the comment on the ave pledge thread and then this one here it was coming out to me as a “we’re better than you” argument/boast, which is what irritates me about the TEC spin.
And yes, growth is a sign of blessing. But then again Mormons are the fastest growing religion in the US today. And Grace Cathedral in San Francisco is still one of the largest churches in TEC even though its into extreme new age stuff and has been for years. And there are some faithful churches out there that are not growing. So I don’t think the lack of numerical/financial growth necessarily means lack of blessing, and the evidence of it does not mean there is blessing there. But I do think TEC’s decline is clearly evidence that its lost its way spiritually… I don’t know… its all too complicated for me 🙂
#90 optimus prime – Good morning. The word I used was work, not walk. To expand on that, of course we walk alongside sinners (unless we like to think we are the new Pharisees) because we are sinners also. But I do not think we are called to work alongside heretics, because we will be preaching a strange gospel that will not lead to salvation. That’s why in the Churches history there has been such a strong reaction to heresies.
I would be more than willing to wait for the whole church to issue discipline, but that brings us back to another point – what do you do when the whole church is riven, often split down the middle? Is it reasonable to expect to church to be able to speak with one mind, if indeed it can speak at all?
I think there is a pastoral necessity for the actions we are seeing. I share your alarm at the implications, though I beleive it is a tragic neccessity.
As far as why I get to determine whether this is God’s providential ordering – of course it is not my decision to make, but it is my opinion that it is here. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don’t think I am.
99. Maybe God blesses the ministry at Grace Cathedral (flawed as it is) like he blesses our ministry Grace Church (flawed as it is)…but in a church where two-thirds of its churches have less than 100 in attendance on a Sunday morning, something isn’t right–numbers are not everything, but they are not to be ignored–even in the midst of the Schori/O’Neill attack on me we are right at 500 per Sunday with three services and a children’s chapel…that must mean something.
Br. Michael,
First, since I am not a member of ACI, I am not entirely sure how their internal logistics would work. I’m not quite sure that this gets at your intended question though. Were you meaning to ask how the ideas the ACI proposes might be implemented by the Church? I will reserve comment until this is clarified.
Upon some things we will have to wait; you have proffered one potentiality but I think it would be dangerous to make ad hoc decisions concerning potentialities. This would be acting in desperation, not in patient faith. As I said in a post above, it is God who protects the deposit of faith; we are called to in patience and charity to seek, understand, challenge, chastise, worship and grow in that deposit within our life together.
Before I could comment on the non discrimination canons, I would need to examine them carefully to determine how they arose and the nuance of their meaning for our lives today. Thus I cannot offer you an answer at the moment.
I apologize but I am unclear as to your questions here. Could you please clarify what this paragraph means? Thank you.
Where are you going to get the votes and organization to reverse the actions of TEC at General Convention 2009? If you don’t have an organization up and running now you are too late. The point is you haven’t a clue as to how to do this. I will guarantee you Integrity is ready and moving as we speak.
Oh, and since 1995 the AAC provided the orthodox with orgainzational support up through 2006. I doubt that they will be there at GC 2009. But I can’t speak for them.
[i] This is a thread about Canada, not General Convention in the US. Please don’t change the topic. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Grace Cathedral’s stats are found [url=http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_125200751239PM.pdf ]here[/url]. It is true that they have a big congregation. It is also true that the they have lost 15% of their ASA since 2001. Giving is up! (When I visited and went to the cathedral a year ago, it was more than half empty during a regular Sunday morning service.) Rich empty churches. The TEc future.
Sorry Elf Lady, and Optimus I apologize. I was abrupt and rude. Sorry.
Br. Michael,
Apology accepted; all is forgiven. I do understand the frustration and I share it. We may differ in how we move forward, but I believe we both have the same hope. Thank you and God bless.
#106 robroy I think that was the California diocese chart. The chart for Grace is [url=http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_125200783406PM.pdf] here [/url] , and their ASA is actually up last year.
Thanks, Observing.
One of the interesting aspects of this thread is how the mere inclusion of Ephraim’s name on the essay becomes a lightning rod, and I don’t think it is because of his membership in the IRD(!) but rather the ACI. As orthodox leave in droves, the political outlook of the remnant can change dramatically. The Anglo-catholics have been hit hard by the defections (return home they would say) of the four bishops. How many priests have swum? How many laity? The more evangelical remnant don’t really care for the line, “We must wait for the catholic, ecclesiastical solution even if it never comes.”
Now with the exiting of dioceses like San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth and ANiC up north, what will be the slant of the even smaller conservative remnant? Pretty soon there will be the remnant of the remnant left. These remaining few will be more open to the wait and see approach. Of course, it is my contention that there will be so few left that the conservative primates will be not willing to expend energy for the meager few and will dismiss them with the entire apostate TEC. Also, the remnant’s remnant will have rejected solutions by Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, Rwanda. So who is going to take up their cause?
Robroy, I agree.
The example of what’s happening in the Diocesse of VA is a cautionary tale and a rather sobering lesson for the ACI and ComCon types. I was present as an observer at the annual Council last January of that formerly moderate and irenic diocese, and I was shocked at the dramatic change in mood in just one year. Bishop David C. Jones, the Saffragan and a man I’ve long known and respected as a champion of church planting, made a scathing attack on those of us who have criticized the diocese as departing from orthodoxy. Irate, he vehemently denied the charge, and was loudly applauded for a long time. The departure of so many strong, evangelical churches in that flagship diocese has tipped the balance of power drastically. Witness the stunning rejection of the whole idea of the Anglican Covenant by the Standing Committee.
There, in microcosm, we see the future of the remnant within TEC. Personally, I see no realistic long-term future at all for the orthodox in TEC. Oh sure, I know a few bastions will survive in isolated places. For heaven’s sake, there are still a few orthodox churches left in the UCC. So what??
As I said above, we are dealing with a heresy here that is equivalent to stage 4 malignant cancer. Drastic action is called for, or the patient will not survive. This is not mere “Realignment” that we are witnessing. And it won’t lead to mere “Renewal.” This is the time for a great and glorious New Reformation, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in almost 500 years. Or so I firmly believe.
“Let goods and kindred go…”
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Fervent Supporter of that New Reformation
I agree with Robroy and NRA.
I cannot comment about Radner’s suppositions and prognostications about ACC and ANiC, but his unsubstantiated claims about the realignment that is well underway in the US and the supposed contrasts upon which he apparently bases some of this article do not seem to fit the reality that I see from my perspective of actual parishes in Virginia and several other areas.
As I [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8109/#152912]said[/url] earlier in this thread:
[blockquote] This appears to be written by someone who assumes turmoil and disorder in the midst of the US realignment, not one who can provide any evidence. Is the realignment fluid? You bet. Is it filled with turmoil and disorder? Not from my perspective ..There has been remarkable cooperation among bishops and clergy that are technically under different international jurisdictions….
Fluid? Absolutely. But very traditional in a post-Nicene way: Following the pattern of Nicea – dioceses of apostate bishops must be considered vacant and urgent measures must be taken to provide valid episcopal protection for the faithful congregations. It is a very ancient tradition in the church. I suspect that anyone way back then who was outside those congregations and who was opposed to their being protected would have imagined he was seeing “turmoil†and lack of “orderâ€. That view does not match reality for today’s realignment. [/blockquote]
The David Handy+ handle of “New Reformation Advocate” seems apt. I do not want to be merely a part of some shuffling of deck chairs of a ship whose deck is sloping ever-more toward destruction, as Handy+ describes for the TEC Virginia council. I want to be part of the Great Commission operation. I would prefer for my connection to be through faithful bishops who really are willing and practiced at defending the faith and defending the flock. If no such connections existed, I would find another way to be part of the Great Commission operation whether it functioned through synod and elders, was merely a congregation led by elders, or whatever sort of polity it had, but the Gospel and the Great Commission command to build the church are the essentials.
For the impending and in process reformation in the US, I think that the ACI has not laid out any actual practical operating plan that protects the faith and the flock. For Canada, I see that the ANiC may be doing just that. For Canada, I do not yet see the ACI saying anything else but, “Hang on tight to your deck chair and wait”.
Bill Cool,
Thanks for your kind words. Like Br_er Rabbit far above (#65), I’ll be happy to send you an application to become an official, card-carrying member of the New Reformation!
As I’ve said elsewhere, this New Reformation may be starting rather slowly, like a train pulling out of the station. But once it’s built up steam and is well underway, it will be practically unstoppable. Over 250 congregations now under foreign jurisdiction in the US alone, and on top of that three whole dioceses in the process of leaving TEC (and more may well follow). With growing recognition from more and more primates around the globe. The momentum is definitely picking up.
David Handy+
Passionate Advocate of that New Reformation
robroy:
Yes I’ve noticed this. It is rather unfortunate as it reminds me of the manner in which debates occurred in the Reformation. I think it is important that we don’t remain locked in the same box that the reformers did in how they responded to the situation before them. Unless you agree that division is what God seeks for his Church, or you prize truth over unity (in which case you simply have a false definition of truth), then I would challenge that the way forward is not to be found in the Reformation era. We need to recognize that a large portion of the difficulties in our moving forward in unity today are as a result of the manner in which the Reformation debates occurred. The attitudes, assumptions and adversarial method in which the debaters chose to engage one another, encouraged polarization of issues that should rightly be construed not as opposites but as necessary tensions of our lives together (ie Scripture and tradition, faith and works, etc).
Please note: I am not suggesting that we should hold SSB or “Christ as simply one vehicle to God” in tension with our doctrines; I am rather, asking that we be charitable in reading and in engaging one another in the hope that we might maintain the time and space to graciously assess our options for achieving that which fills our common ground.
I would have to agree with Ephraim concerning Canada in this particular case; evangelical Canadians do seem inclined toward a patience here. Perhaps in the US the evangelical remnant don’t really care for the line, “we must wait for the catholic, ecclesiastical solution …” but this is just not as evident in Canada. Certainly there are some who are inclined to leave (there are 13 parishes a part of ANiC), but this action doesn’t seem foreseeably wide spread in nature in Canada.
How in opposition to Scripture would be this move; or are the bishops not called to act as the Lord in shepherding even the one lone sheep?
Then hopefully the communion acting as the communion rather than as autonomous entities will serve the remnant as they have been so called by God.