At the end of all this, it is American Ecclesia Anglicana that has asked the rest of the Anglican Communion to pay the steep price of breaking down Anglican Order worldwide just to save Anglican Faith in America. Yet it is American Ecclesia Anglicana that needs Anglican Order the least, and may not be able to appreciate the true cost many a province will pay for this great loss. Cognitively, I blame it all on a generational gap — that we have a generation for whom the values of laying down one’s “rights” for the other are fully beyond the cognitive horizon. This generation just cannot see it, no matter how much information is presented.
There is hope (there is always hope), that it will take the next decade for all the various pieces of Anglican Order to settle so that a new structure can be reconstituted in some form. It will also take that time period for many of the players that have been at the forefront of this fragmentation to retire from active ministry and thereby effect some change in the high levels of cathetic investment in the current state of intransigency. But a decade in a time of economic globalization is equivalent to a century during colonialism, and the impact of Anglican Order to mediate alternative terms and conditions of the rapacious ethics of globalization will be lost for millions. And that is the cost the rest of the Anglican Communion will have to pay for trying, and failing, to save Anglican Faith in America at the end of the day. Cognitively speaking, if colonialism was like a lion, a predator that devoured the globe economically but left in place global Anglican Faith and Order that delivered the gospel for millions, globalization is like an African Hyena. It is a different predator animal altogether- more rapacious. Let me explain. A lion usually kills its prey before it starts to feed on it. A hyena has no compunction about such niceties. Hyenas just start feeding while the prey is still alive. And economic globalization is one huge, hairy starving hungry hyena for those of us in Global South Anglicana.
An African proverb from my tribe says Empisi y’owanyu ekurya nekurundarunda -loosely translated to mean, “the hyena from your home village will eat you without scattering your bones too far, perchance your family might have a piece of you left to bury.” What we have lost is the unique infrastructure of global Anglican Order that would have effectively carried the new bold initiatives enshrined in the idea of the Global South Economic Empowerment Fund, which in turn would have rightly mediated those awesome Millennium Development Goals in our contexts, in a process that promised to us a new history of negotiating different (better) terms of engagement for us in the globalization dynamic. Our great Anglican Faith notwithstanding, globalization for us in the Global South, without Anglican Order to deliver the prophetic ethics of Anglican Faith, will be that other strange hyena from another village that will scatter our bones to the four winds. Sadly, this reality it also beyond the cognitive horizon of many in American Anglicanism who will continue to safely live off the benefits of their legal base, oblivious to the actual price paid by the rest of us for the breakdown of Anglican Order. As Winston Churchill put it, “Never was jeopardized so much for so many by so few for so little.”
And as the MasterCard commercial put it, “some things may cost so much by price, but some other things are priceless”. And as Anglicans facing Christian witness in the 21st Century, we have missed this point. The words of St. Paul to the Romans provide a fitting end to this essay:
Personally, I’ve been completely satisfied with who you are and what you are doing. You seem to me to be well-motivated and well-instructed, quite capable of guiding and advising one another. So, my dear friends, don’t take my rather bold and blunt language as criticism. It’s not criticism. I’m simply underlining how very much I need your help in carrying out this highly focused assignment God gave me, this priestly and gospel work of serving the spiritual needs of the non-Jewish outsiders so they can be presented as an acceptable offering to God, made whole and holy by God’s Holy Spirit. Looking back over what has been accomplished and what I have observed, I must say I am most pleased-in the context of Jesus, I’d even say proud, but only in that context. I have no interest in giving you a chatty account of my adventures, only the wondrously powerful and transformingly present words and deeds of Christ in me that triggered a believing response among the outsiders. In such ways I have trailblazed a preaching of the Message of Jesus all the way from Jerusalem far into northwestern Greece. This has all been pioneer work, bringing the Message only into those places where Jesus was not yet known and worshiped. My text has been,
Those who were never told of him-
they’ll see him!
Those who’ve never heard of him-
they’ll get the message!
Romans 15: 14-21 The Message
An interesting perspective which shows the dilemma being faced by the primates. What is more important truth or order? I’m glad that many have realised that truth is by far the more important, and are taking a stand for that. But there will be a price to pay in terms of precedents that are being set. IMHO it is a far less costly price than allowing heresy to spread further through the communion.
But its an important point for the future to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. TEC got into the mess it is in today because in the last decades, too many orthodox packed there bags and left, and it gradually descended into more and more apostasy as more and more of the right left. If the centre had held their ground 30 years ago, and there had been an equal peeling away of the far left and far right, it would be in a completely different situation from the one it is in today. And now its tilted so far to the left, that its the old center that is leaving, and all that remains bears only a passing resemblance to anything Christian. So yes, unity is important and something to be valued, because it ensures long term stability by holding the center. And the left does have things to teach the right, as does the reverse. A fully right church is no more really Christian than a fully left church. The only hope for Anglicanism in North America is where all the pieces that have broken off over the years all make an effort to get back together again.
This is a must read for all Anglicans. Americans worship freedom! Perfect freedom is found only in the Lord whom we are made to worship.
I am most likely missing something vital, but honestly, I think he is giving more to “Anglican order” than it is due.
I agree with Observing. But in order for that to happen an orthodox Anglican remnant must be preserved, otherwise lay Anglicans will join other denominations and once that happens I doubt that they will come back. What is to be done for these folks?
The ACI has to offer these people some hope to keep them in the Anglican fold and I just don’t see that they do that. Common Cause does.
So I ask a simple question, and I beg for a clear concise answer, not a 10 page scholarly reply that will take the average reader hours to decipher, “What hope does the ACI offer the fed up lay person, in a reappraising diocese and parish, who is ready to leave Anglicanism for another denomination, that would convince them to remain Anglican?”
Observer observes:
[blockquote]TEC got into the mess it is in today because in the last decades, too many orthodox packed there bags and left, and it gradually descended into more and more apostasy as more and more of the right left.[/blockquote]
I am not sure that this is true. A large portion of the problem lies squarely in the lap of the orthodox leadership. The “Windsor” bishops now Camp Allen bishops overvalued collegiality. To many orthodox laity and priests said, “Our bishops are good, orthodox leaders.” Have you heard any public repentance from these orthodox bishops saying, “If I had held my ground more firmly 20 years ago, we would not be in this predicament.”?
[blockquote]The only hope for Anglicanism in North America is where all the pieces that have broken off over the years all make an effort to get back together again.[/blockquote]
This is precisely the stated goal of CCP to gather up the pieces in contradistinction to the ecclesiastically haughty who dismiss those that have fled as tainted and make no effort at going into the hills and gathering up the scattered flock.
#4,#5 I’m think I’m starting to understand the logic of the primates plan now. They have realised the orthodox and the liberal movements are too far apart for any form of reconciliation right now, and that the balance of power is too tilted to the liberal side. So they are going to build up and recognise a parallel orthodox AC body in North America, on a strictly temporary basis. Once the natural attrition in the liberal wing ensures that the balance of power is more equal, they are going to tell the 2 groups to reconcile. At least I hope thats what their plan is…. if only they would make it more clear!
Once again, I will agree with Robroy here. That is indeed the goal of the CCP, not only to be biblical and missionary, but also uniting.
But I wish to call attention to the insight of our Global South brother that much of this terrible conflict is due to the blinders on the eyes of the current generation of leaders in TEC. I think that’s an incisive and apt observation. We Boomers (I’m 52 and squarely in the middle of that monster-size generation) are indeed far more limited by our generational blindspots than we realize.
I like to tease my friends and colleagues at times about what year they think next year will be. So many Boomers were so profoundly shaped by the turmoil of the 1960s that they tend to see everything through that grid. And though they’d never say it, they THINK and ACT as if next year will be 1968 all over again. You know, the nostalgic remembrance of those supposedly glorious days of protesting the Vietnam War and all that went with that whole cultural revolution (including, alas, the “Sexual Revolution” after the invention of the Pill). 1968 was the year of those violent demonstrations at the Chicago Democratic Convention, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, etc. A heady time, to be sure, but we are still reaping the bitter fruit of the wild oats sown in those tumultuous years.
Alas, so many leaders in TEC (almost all Boomers of course) tend to see the whole homosexuality issue in terms of the dominant categories of the Sixties, i.e., as a civil rights issue, instead of as a personal morality issue. And they have a strong generational bias toward a permissive stance on sexual matters.
But whatever else may be true of 2008, it will NOT be a replay of 1968. That much at least is sure.
David Handy+
A Noncomformist to the proudly Nonconformist Boomer Generation
[blockquote] TEC got into the mess it is in today because in the last decades, too many orthodox packed there bags and left, and it gradually descended into more and more apostasy as more and more of the right left. [/blockquote]
I’d have to concur with robroy’s comment on observing’s note. I’d say: [blockquote]TEC got into the mess it is in today because in the last decades, too many orthodox sat on their butts in pews (yours truly included), and it gradually descended into more and more apostasy as the revisionists found they could get away with it.[/blockquote]
But a lot to the orthodox did leave while the rest of us did nothing. In any event here we are today. So what is to be done?
Br. Michael, I think we’re doing it. It seems disorganized to the outsider, and disloyal to the hardcore catholic, but the former Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America has noticed that there is such a thing as the orthodox, and it’s not them.
…still in the Briar Patch,
To Observing, Br. Michael, and many other like-minded skeptics of whether the “outside” strategy is justified or will just be self-defeating, I would like to offer an analogy.
All of us who have engaged in parish ministry are familiar with a sad situation that arises all too often when a marriage is put in serious jeopardy by an affair (or, more accurately, the affair exposes that the marriage was already in deep trouble). Let’s say the husband was the one involved in the affair, and that he refuses to break it off, despite earnest appeals from the wife, the children, their pastor, and most of the couple’s friends. Alas, it’s all too common.
What many of us clergy have occasionally had to face are difficult pastoral situations where the marriage actually ends in divorce. The husband marries “the other woman.” AND YET THE EX-WIFE KEEPS HOPING HE’LL COME BACK TO HER SOMEDAY. She just can’t imagine life without him, and she’s simply unable or unwilling to face living on her own or marrying someone else. It’s a tough pastoral challenge.
But that is roughly the situation as I see it for the orthodox in TEC today. Our national leaders, including the majority of bishops and certainly the Executive Council and the 815 staff, are like the unfaithful husband. They have fallen in love with someone else, i.e., the false gospel of relativism and an extreme version of The Social Gospel that substitutes the MDGs for John 3:16. Although there has been no official divorce, they have been cohabitating for years with this “other woman,” and very plainly said, “I love her more than you.”
How long will it take before the ACI and ComCons realize that this wayward husband is just not coming back?
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Rejoicing in the Emergence of the New Reformation
How curious the above take on ACI from David Handy and others. But it is useful as well to get a sense of two things at least. First, the need for those who have left to justify their actions and encourage others to follow; this is completely understandable. It would make no sense at all, were there another way forward, for those who have left or who judge this a critical if not uplifting set of decisions to be made (on behalf of separation) to speak otherwise. I can follow this logic in a very straightforward way. There is no other way forward, so it is imperative to leave. And so forth.
Alongside this—and here the first point is underscored—it is imperative to view ACI as lacking a strategy, failing to reveal one, etc; or as being involved in something like a ‘vain hope’ (‘the wayward husband is not coming back’). That hope being, as Handy sets it out, a belief that TEC will somehow reform itself and change its ways etc. ACI is enjoined by Handy, along with what he calls ComCons, to come to an awareness that ‘its hope’ on this score is in vain.
On this latter point I cannot think of anything further from the truth. ACI does not believe that ‘TEC’ (we can let the simplification for a moment stand) will change its ways in the matter of same-sex blessings and the embrace of teaching contrary to the Communion’s conciliar judgments. At the risk of repeating what we have said consistently:
1) it is crucial to allow the Instruments the possibility of good functioning in such a way that whose who wish to walk apart are able to have the courage of their convictions and so do that; our commitment is therefore to maximal Communion participation and adjudication, including Lambeth conference (now or later is not for us to say) and covenant design phases, aggressively prosecuted by the ‘conservative’ forces of the Communion (which of course remain in the majority!);
2) this means that those in TEC who wish to have views of SSBs and the like that are contrary to the catholic and evangelical faith embraced by Communion Instruments are forced to lean into the reality this bespeaks, over against Communion life and forbearance to its demands;
3) as for a plan, we have consistently said that the best way forward is for a non-juridical alliance of Bishops in TEC who are keen to display their maximal commitments to Communion life, and join with Lambeth and Primatial associates in the name of this; stay, defend the faith, limit the incursions of un-catholic teaching, and maximize links to communion life; it would be repeating ourselves to say this yet again: Christian witness means witnessing, as best one can, and while we understand that some people wish to leave and form other structures, that is not our view; this makes it puzzling to hear those who have left continue to ask why we are not leaving;
4) For this to make any sense in the short and longer term, ACI wants to see what transpires in the next months (Advent Pastoral Letter; Lambeth invitations; adjudication of the JSC assessment, which we judge inadequate (see numerous statements); in some ways, our position is like that of Dallas, SC, CFL, Albany and other good dioceses in TEC, with whose Bishops we have worked: we do not wish to create facts on the ground that limit then our position to act in godly and prudential ways.
We understand that others do not agree with this. Fine. But surely there are better things to do that continue to focus on ACI (Roy notes that this is a blog tendency in the light of Radner/Reed).
We will work as hard as we can in ways we have worked heretofore and appreciate that others will have a different view of matter. We do not see the formation of alternative structures as meeting the crisis where it needs to be met, but we have said this repeatedly and appreciate that others have a need to put facts on the ground and get on with what they judge best. Disagreements are in the nature of the matter, especially in times of judgment.
Dr. Seitz,
I appreciate your typically thoughtful and carefully tempered remarks. I am not one of those who accuse ACI of lacking any positive plans. And I’m sorry if I have contributed to an inordinate focus on ACI. I see you and Philip Turner etc. as allies and as part of the solution, not part of the problem.
However, I will take this opportunity to spell out more clearly why I do still think that the ACI approach is “naive,” and unworkable. In an ideal world, where we had all the time in the world, such an irenic approach that is determined to work “within the system” would be highly desirable and something I’d support.
Alas, reality is very different from that ideal world. We don’t have the luxury of endless waiting to see how the four current Instruments of Unity/Communion are going to adjudicate this crisis. I freely grant that you have much more contact with AC leaders than I ever will, and you have been in the thick of this fight for years, whereas I’m only been an observer from the sidelines, silently cheering you on.
But suffice to say for now, that Don Armstrong was also a part of ACI for a long time, and he appears to have also grown impatient with the type of approach that has characterized things so far: the long wait for a year for the Windsor Report to come out, then the 7 months for the HoB to respond to Dar, and now the current wait to see if Canterbury will make any meaningful response to the HoB rejection of the Dar requests and the further wait to see if Lambeth 2008 actually comes off and if so what shape it takes etc. And that doesn’t even take into account the further delay involved in allowing the Covenant Process to play itself out.
I’m afraid all your time in academia may have predisposed you to be accustomed to such long, long periods of relative inaction or little action. But down at the parish level, and in the tumultuous world of ecclesiastical power-plays at the diocesan level within North American Anglicanism, things tend to develop at a faster pace. Or to use the medical analogy I’ve appealed to repeatedly on various threads, we are dealing with stage 4 malignant cancer here. The deadly and pernicious heresy of moral relativism is at an advanced stage, and it is metastasizing rapidly within the international body of Anglicanism. We simply don’t have unlimited time to wait, and wait, and wait some more.
But I’m also firmly convinced that it’s not just a matter of lack of time. The grim and tragic fact is that the present Instruments of Unity/Communion are simply inadequate to deal with this crisis. This is where I think you and the other noble and praise-worthy leaders of ACI have been most naive. I fear that it’s totally unrealistic to expect that a Communion-wide solution can happen, if it depends on such severly-flawed instruments.
The Lambeth Conference, not to mention the relatively recent development of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates’ Meeting, were never designed to handle a crisis of this magnitude. They are merely, as everyone knows, for consultation. They are completely inadequate for imposing any really meaningful discipline. Even if +++Rowan Williams should suddenly and unexpectedly withdraw some of his earlier invitations to Lambeth, do you REALLY think that will make that much difference to the heretical leaders of TEC. I feel pretty sure that Bishops Chane, Shaw, Bruno, and their despicable ilk would simply wear that as a badge of honor, take the minor slap on the wrist, and chalk it up to the inevitable fate of being persecuted for their “prophetic” ministry (sic). Much sterner measures are necessary. Or so I firmly believe.
The main leaders of the Global South are absolutely right. The leaders of TEC and the Ang. Ch. of Canada who are promoting this false gospel of inclusivity and relativism (the “gay is OK” deception) must be EX-COMMUNICATED and their sees should be regarded as vacant.
It’s time to stop pretending that we are dealing with matters that can be peacefully negotiated. This is outright ecclesiastical civil war. It’s sad, but it’s true. No use pretending otherwise.
“Let goods and kindred go…”
David Handy+
YDS 1983
Dr. Seitz-ACI, this is what I was talking about. Just what did you say? I have no idea. I pose my question directly to you: “What hope does the ACI offer the fed up lay person, in a reappraising diocese and parish, who is ready to leave Anglicanism for another denomination, that would convince them to remain Anglican?â€
David Hardy: My time in academia (theological work), where the battles were fiercer a decade before the present struggles in american episcopalianism, taught me one must not leave, because there is no place to ‘leave.’ One must stand and bear witness. I confess I find the tone of your comments slightly unctuous. Sacrifice is what Christian service about. Perhaps I spent too much time around colleagues who lived out their Christian commitments as did Isaiah, Jeremiah and others. You have your views about the dead-end of Communion adjudication; I do not share them. I have already said that if one came to these views, it might well be logical to build new structures. Especially if one thought that one was a part of what you are calling a ‘New Reformation’, indeed, it might even be incumbent upon him/her. That is fine. It is not a view I share.
Br Michael: I confess it is hard to give pastoral advice to someone I do not know, whose circumstances I would have to guess at, and whose only contact with the realities we are discussing is through a blog and the vehicle of numerous concerned, somewhat clipped, statements — most of them angry or frustrated at what ACI has or has not done. This last comment indicates that you have ‘no idea’ what I said. That does not bode well.
Mindful of the limits of this kind of format: is the question you are asking, tell me why to ‘remain Anglican’ and not join ‘another’ denomination in American church life? Do you want to join ‘another’ denomination? What is holding you back? Would it benefit you in your spiritual struggles and allow you the sacramental and ecclesial support for the Gospel you are otherwise missing? I’d have to suppose, with the little bit I know, that if your answer to this is ‘yes’ then it would make sense. But I’m not very comfortable giving this kind of advice–beyond what is obvious–on a blog. Maybe the question is, why are you staying in what sounds like a difficult place; and why do you judge blog discussions a good way to sort out difficult questions of Christian living right now? I am happy to say what I can about ACI, mindful of the limitations of a forum like this, and also given other demands on my time. But I would not use this as a good way to face into what sounds like important decisions you are facing. I know that when one comes to a difficult point of decision, it is a good thing to proceed very carefully. Beyond that, I would be guessing and might not have understood the matters at hand given the limits of this kind of forum. I would not encourage you to think that ACI is going to provide some kind of step-by-step plan of what it is seeking. Our general principles and goals are stated, even in the preceding comment. But these led you to a view that you had ‘no idea’ what we were doing, so I suspect this note will also exasperate you. God bless, and all strength in your struggles to walk in Christ’s way.
To get back to the original article for a moment…
Many of the commenters above seem to have missed a central point of what Canon Twinamaani is saying. The title is “How American Anglicans Think and Act,” [i]not[/i] “How TEC Thinks and Acts.” The problem is not just American reappraiser individualism, but American individualism as such. Any union between American and Global South reasserters is destined to be a very rocky road because the two groups have massively different cultural expectations.
As the Rev. Canon repeatedly states, he can count on one hand the number of Global South bishops who would tolerate the sort of clerical and congregational independence that the “New Reformation” takes for granted as its birthright. To the extent that AMiA, CANA, etc. congregations are trying to escape an authoritarian TEC bishop, they may be fleeing from the frying pan into the fire. To the extent that the Global South provinces are trying to settle a problem, they may find that they have just invited the root cause of that problem, American individualism, into their own provinces.
Dr. Seitz,
I’m sorry if my tone above seemed “slightly unctious.” I’ll leave that to others to judge. I’m not sure what academic colleagues or teachers you may have been alluding to who taught or inspired you to stand your ground and not run away. I suspect one of them was your mentor, the esteemed Brevard Childs, whom I also hold in the highest regard and with the greatest admiration. I freely and gratefully acknowledge that you have long been a stalwart defender of orthodoxy within Anglicanism.
Indeed, you and Philip Turner have been a heroes to me. That hasn’t changed. And I can guess (better I think than many readers of this blog) some of the price you may have had to pay in academic circles because you have valued service to the Church above service to the secular Academy. I commend you for that.
But I don’t wish to continue this sort of strained discussion in the public eye. It might help if we got better acquainted through a different medium. I might seem a little less unctious. As you say, the world of blogging has real limitations (as well as some important and unique strengths). It fosters clever repartee, but not serious, in-depth discussions (i.e., it’s not an academic forum!). I’ll try to email you privately one of my representative essays in a more academic style, in the hope of building some bridges here before more walls go up. We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. A fresh start might help.
“Naive” or not, you and the other distinguished scholars of ACI have performed an incredibly valuable service to the whole Anglican Communion. I have nothing but thanks for your persistent and heroic labors. But a new era is dawning, and different sorts of gifts may be required if a New Reformation is in fact coming to pass. God bless you richly.
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Unabashed Proponent of a Thorough-going Anglican Reformation
Dr. Seitz, I thought I asked you a simple straight forward question. And I quess I have your answer. If we were in Court I would deem it nonresponsive. You state: “I would not encourage you to think that ACI is going to provide some kind of step-by-step plan of what it is seeking.” This throws me on my own resources. Very well. Thank you for your kind reply. And I wish you a reflective Advent and a Merry Christmas.
#16, Dale Rye,
Very perceptive, and I welcome your call back to the original theme of this thread. I agree that our American “individualism” is highly problematic, including our great love of independence and virtually unlimited personal autonomy. Actually, I see overcoming that one-sided American stress on autonomy (without an equal stress on responsibility and accountability) as part of the New Reformation that is now underway, at least within western/northern Anglicanism. That’s one reason why I, for one, hope that the interventions from the Global South don’t end too soon. It’s actually good for us proud, independent Americans to learn to submit humbly to leaders from other cultures that are far less individualistic.
+Bob Duncan “the Lion-Hearted” has rightly and eloquently said more than once (e.g., at the ACN’s Hope and a Future Conference in Pittsburgh), that there are three crucial choices that we all are going to have to make. And they will determine our fate. Everything depends on these three basic decisions.
First, +Duncan said, we must choose between orthodoxy and cultural accommodation. That is the “evangelical” choice. Clear enough.
Second, +Duncan also went on record as asserting equally firmly that unlimited autonomy was just as much of a threat to faithful or classical Anglicanism as heresy. Thus, he likewise insisted that we must all make a second momentous choice, which he called a choice between autonomy and accountability. That, he noted, is the “catholic” choice. Faith AND Order are both essential. Or “Doctrine” AND “Discipline,” in our usual Anglican terminology. So, I think we are agreed on that point, Dale.
Third, but that isn’t all. We also face yet another fateful choice, which the ACN/CCP Moderator called a choice between mission and sullen inaction. That he termed the “charismatic” choice. It’s always easier to curse the darkness than to light a candle and do something constructive. Blogging is fun. I’m really getting to enjoy it. But it’s no substitute for taking action and giving our all to fulfill the Great Commission (and the Great Commandment).
Although intervening GS primate have with one accord declared that their pastoral interventions are emergency measures and not intended to create permanent American jurisdictions (which would be an unbearable burden on them long-term), I repeat that my personal hope is that Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and the Southern Cone will not cave in to the pressure to end their missionary work and their controversial pastoral oversight here prematurely. There was enormous pressure on them in Tanzania to do just that.
But from what I can gather from afar, it seems that true bonds of deep respect and fruitful cooperation are being forged between ++Akinola and +Minns, between ++Nzimbi and +Atwood, and not least between ++Orombi and +Guernsey and +Duncan. That bodes very well for the future.
David Handy
Enthusiastic Supporter of the New Reformation
Dear Brother, Clearly something is not clicking and playing 20 questions is probably no more fun for you than for me! It may have been my understanding that you were in a religious order and so had resources for struggling forward. It did occur to me on reflection that I might find it very hard if I did not have a way to bring some kind of force onto the problems we now face — through writing books, teaching students, doing the work we do at ACI in our own channels and more publicly. So perhaps the question could be best answered if you had a clearer sense of activity and purchase on the affairs within your own control? I doubt ACI can supply those, even were it to find a step-by-step plan it could make public and share with you. We are working as always to bring about a communion wide adjudication of TEC’s obvious non-compliance to DeS, with those who may be in a position to see to that. We will continue to seek a broad based alliance with dioceses like SC, Dallas, CFL, Albany and others, and do what is necessary to keep either from being held captive or from doing reactive thinking. We will continue to work for a strong set of threshholds for Lambeth, or a come-and-fight-it out alternative. As for guessing myself into your courtroom with its parameters, judge, protocols, jury, and so forth, you have caught me out! My sense of your context and courtroom is clearly impaired. May God go with you as you find the best way to make your decisions.
David–thanks, yes Childs was a close friend. My point was that I did not see what value there was in something bordering on Myers-Briggs analysis (perhaps I lived too long abroad, but this kind of thing is embarrassing and not really on point). If it is possible to stay with the actual point, all the better. My academic context, struggles in that, etc seem not to be relevant to the matters at hand. I try to refrain from returning this kind of personalising appeal. OK, enough of all this, back to the work I should be doing.
I think we Canadians will have an easier time of being under the authority of the Global South bishops. We tend to value interdependence over independence (you have to, in places where the weather can kill you – that’s way up north, of course, but the culture is in southern Canada as well). It’s not in our nature to buck authority – it’s being under ungodly authority that has been the problem.
Re #19: Again, though, the Americans who “must choose between orthodoxy and cultural accommodation” are allying with those who are not confronted with any such choice. Global South attitudes on sexuality are precisely what their cultures expect of them. Americans who choose what Niebuhr called “Christ over Culture” are linked with Global Southerners who may have a “Christ of Culture” stance on this issue among others. One suggestion of this is the repeated insistence in some of the African provinces that homosexuality and the toleration thereof are “unAfrican.”
It seems fairly obvious to me that if Americans can be accused of viewing the world through American-tinted spectacles, the GS is not immune from the same criticism. An example that Canon Twinamaani explains: the complete failure of the GS to comprehend why there was a problem with the Presiding Bishop simply blocking the Robinson consecration after he was elected and confirmed. It is not just that they minimized the problem; they failed to see that there even could be a problem with a primate assuming the authority to supersede canon law.
What happens when the cultures clash on other issues? The status of people who have been divorced and remarried strikes me as one possibility. A conflict between American free market economics and Global South support for social control of wealth and the means of production is another.
#23, Dale,
I grant the basic validity of your concern. It is certain that there will be such clashes as more and more North American congregations (and even dioceses now) realign themselves under foreign jurisdictions. And you are quite right that one such flash point will be in the economic realm. Many of the GS leaders are quite enthusiastic supporters of those controversial MDG’s that we American conservatives love to pick on and ridicule (at least when the Social Gospel seems to become the only gospel, as it certainly appears to be for the Presiding Bishop and many TEC leaders).
But in the end, it’s a matter of distinguishing between the essentials and the non-essentials. Or put another way, things like sharp differences on economic policies are NOT a salvation issue. Universalism and moral relativism ARE salvation issues. People can go to hell forever by being deceived into accepting that politically correct hogwash. That’s the difference.
Also, I would have to disagree with your analysis of how we western Anglicans and our GS counterparts fit into Richard Niebuhr’s classic five categories of relating to the surrounding culture. Much of the Global South (GS) still represents a basically Christ against Culture stance, since they are in a genuinely missionary position, with lots of first and second generation Christians, converts out of paganism. While they may be simply echoing their culture in the area of viewing homosexuality with disdain and repugnance (as in much of Africa), that doesn’t mean they don’t have real conflicts with the indigenous cultures in the sexual realm. Promiscuity is a HUGE problem in much of sub-Saharan Africa, that’s why AIDS is such a horrendous epidemic there (spread mostly heterosexually, not through drug use). And as we move into an increasingly adversarial relationship with the secularized, pluralistic, relativistic culture now dominant in the West, we too are going to find ourselves suddently FORCED into an antagonistic, confrontational, and yes, sectarian relationship with the hostile, Post-Christendom culture in which we live.
David Handy
Advocate of Christ AGAINST Culture, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Dr. Seitz, thank you for your kind words. Yes, I am an Anglican religious. But I was trying to speak on behalf of my lay friends who have either left TEC, although they wanted to stay Anglican, or who are forming their own Anglican church independently of TEC. They have no hope that the AC will help them. If there is to be a re-birth of Anglicanism in the US, it is my belief that we need to hold onto the laity.
My great disapointment with the ACI is that you seem to offer no way to do that. All you seem to offer is that maybe in three hundred years the AC will sort this all out. I truly do not mean to be unfair or harsh, but at some point action is required, just as a human response to God’s grace is required. Luther did in fact nail the 95 theses to the Church door.
Please have a joyous Christmas, Pax.
Dear Brother M, ACI is doing its thesis nailing where it matters and is not interested in 300 year solutions. I will refrain from comment about interpretations of the catholic Luther, and what kind of a ‘church’ he intended, but then got. Which is why most Lutherans I know have left and gone to Rome. I believe anglicanism has a unique charism in God’s providence and we at ACI wish to preserve that and not lose it to another denominated movement whose number on the ground–bringing I am sure Luther to tears–is legion and whose confessional potential in the name of separation is already well attested and ready for joiners. Poor Canon Twinamaani — I beg his forgiveness for turning this over to referenda on what ACI has and has not done. May God bless you as well and strengthen you and your friends for the decisions you must face.
#25: I have read the Seitz response too, and it is precisely what someone who has been too long cloistered in the academic world would make. He said to you, ” I am unable to answer a straightforward question in a straightforward manner, so I will write you an academic answer. It will take forever, and I will qualify everything so that nothing is clear.
So I had to laff and laff. But I will answer. Leave TEC sodomizing each other to the end that sterility shall supplant Genesis ; tell them to go to hell, and join the Anglican Church in America. This is precisely what I did. No women priests, no damned homophile agenda, just the parish, the music, the gospel, the priest, and the coffee and scones afterwards while the snow drives against the windows.
Never again utter the cant “inclusive,” ” multicultural,” “tolerant,”
“diversity,” “listen.” Never “live into” anything. Never listen to academics. ( I was one once and am ashamed to admit it now.) All this is language as saprophyte. The living language is elsewhere, as you well know.
It’s time for the Ceremony of Lessons and Carols. This is what counts. Larry
#25 ,#20
[blockquote] It did occur to me on reflection that I might find it very hard if I did not have a way to bring some kind of force onto the problems we now face—through writing books, teaching students, doing the work we do at ACI in our own channels and more publicly. So perhaps the question could be best answered if you had a clearer sense of activity and purchase on the affairs within your own control? I doubt ACI can supply those, even were it to find a step-by-step plan it could make public and share with you. [/blockquote]
Maybe that is exactly what Br Michael is asking for. I don’t see why it need be so hard to provide activities for those remaining behind to use? Sarah Hey on Stand Firm has done some good work on educating people to make sure to sign up for those positions where you can start to influence direction, and on issuing things like minority reports so every voice is heard, and ensuring resolutions are raised and voted on in convention. So have someone focus on those things you can do from a legislative sphere.
You seem focused on the academic side, so educate other people so inclined to join your fight in that area, add to your numbers to increase your influence.
Basically pull out the Integrity manual of how 2000 people changed the direction of a church with 2m members, and start learning and applying. Add prayer, and maybe 20000+ orthodox members can actually turn around the direction of a 2m strong church?
Isn’t that the purpose of the ACI? The opposition remaining in TEC does seem hopelessly divided and ineffectual at the moment. It should be uniting all othodox who want to remain, equipping them for battle and sending out its armies. Instead it does seem to be lacking in vision or an action plan that can fully involve all the resources at its disposal. Hard words I know, but something to think about. Who will unite these resources and get them playing together as an orchestra?
#28–ACI and SEAD before that sought to do these practical things, on top of busy schedules for us all. And we will continue to do that just as soon as we are able. I suspect it will come as no surprise to many here that ‘cloistered academia’ is a myth and a cliche, especially for those of us who have pledged ourselves to work in inner-city churches, the mission field, and all manner of contribution — even the joy of blogdom! Back to my own advent preaching and teaching responsibilities. I hope that Toronto can provide a solid base for fresh conferencing, publishing (basic teaching at parish level, etc), and a raft of necessary engagements. Thanks for the encouragement and ‘watch this space.’
If I stand for a principal, which I believe with all of my heart to be from God, no matter how wrong that is – is this creditied to me as faith? Even if I have to set aside my own comfort and bear persecution or derision from people who tell me they know more than me? Is that Faith? Is God Glorified in that? Romans 8:28 tells us that God works for the good in all who love the Lord and who are called according to his purpose.
So if the Lay person leaves the church for another one, following a principal that he knows to be from God (rightly or wrongly) perhaps in order to protect or keep the faith without compromise, is that following the way of righteousness?
In one sense Christianity is uniquley individual – in that we are called as individuals, we are saved as individuals, we are persued by god as individuals, called according to His purpose individually. We cannot run away from that calling or that God who knows our names.
Also we cannot run away from our corporate responsibility to the church – the Bride of Christ. We are not in felowship by ourselves and cannot be complete as an island.
It seems to me that in this time God is looking for people who will drop everything just for an opportunity to live just “one day in His courts”. The paradox is that Dale Rye is correct that our indiviualism is anti catholic, yet it is required at the same time in order for us to be called and sanctified. Both truths exists at the same time and appear to contradict.
The ACI – doesn’t have an answer for the guy in the parish – and maybe that is the way God wants it. The answer for the people in the parish and the people leading the parish comes from the question we are asked when we are called by Jesus – “will you follow me regardless of what people say about you (even if the things they say that might be right)?”
Is it in our following Jesus that we become like him, or is in our sitting in one place and watching it all happen? If I follow Jesus, and possibly get it wrong, but put all my trust in Him, can I follow and defend my choice without sinning against others who are around me and may question my choices? These may be the real questions in front of us.