I appreciate the clarifications from Andrew Goddard. It seems to me, however, that Tom Rightmyer makes a simpler distinction between the four categories of approach to sexuality in his excellent comment on Covenant (which I cannot currently access for some reason, or I’d be posting this there!). The reactions to the most recent developments in the Communion mirror pretty closely the reactions to the Windsor Report when it was issued, and even the reactions to Lambeth I.10 itself. Those reactions towards homosexuality do seem to fall into four groups with fuzzy boundaries:
(A) agreed as a matter of personal belief with substantially all of I.10, the WR, and the official responses from the Instruments. While I agree that this includes many of the members of the AMiA, CANA, etc., I am not sure that (A) represents the position of their leadership (at least their leaders abroad). The (A) group sees listening as a virtue and is not inclined to break communion with those in (C) who will obey the Communion teaching. They see Christian unity as a virtue worth preserving even at the cost of some compromise on other principles.
(B) rejected important components of all the key Communion documents. As to “listening,” I can still remember the response of the leader of the Global South after the election of Bp. Robinson, “He cannot possibly be invited to Lambeth. Nobody can seriously expect me to sit down at the same table with such a person” (quoting from memory). Just last Sunday, another prominent primate said, “We are reformed Anglicans who want to adhere to the original creeds of the Bible, and that’s why our church has decided to ignore the 2008 Lambeth Conference because it has not done much to fight homosexuality in the communion” (The New Times, Kigali, Dec. 5). So much for Lambeth resolutions as being authoritative for the provinces. The (B) group rejects any toleration of (D) and has no long-term interest in maintaining relations with (C) unless they swear to believe that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture in all circumstances.
(C) whatever their personal views on sexuality, agreed that I.10, WR, etc. represent the mind of the Anglican Communion, and should be heeded by all—including themselves—who wished to remain a part of the Communion. However, their sense of loyalty may have limits when it comes to demands that they surrender control over their own churches to those who hold (B) or (D) views. I agree that this group is still the majority in TEC, although they have almost no articulate spokesmen. Because they put a higher value on unity than on sexual doctrine, they may be inclined to quietly leave rather than put up a fight.
(D) disagrees with the Communion teaching to the extent that they feel called by the Gospel to disobey it, although they may be willing to make extremely short-term tactical concessions. Again, this seems to be the most vocal faction (able to muster majorities on key votes) in the TEC General Convention and some American and Canadian dioceses. It also has support in some other parts of global Anglicanism).
It is the division between (A) and (B) that has lit up the reasserter blogisphere recently.
#1 presents a useful classification. IMO, Goddard’s original classification was not so much incorrect as it was useless. Craig Goodrich commented on the original piece from the perspective of philosophy of science, which was my initial reaction as well. When I read Goddard’s piece, I immediately thought of the color [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_(color)]”grue”[/url]– those familiar with the work of Nelson Goodman will understand the reference. It is a color (green up until now and blue hereafter) that is empirically impeccable, but of no practical use whatsoever. The scheme in Dale’s comment, however, has real explanatory power.
My own belief is that B’s would live with C’s if D’s were ruled out of order. Rowan Williams made a grave error in inviting the D’s to Lambeth because once the B’s started writing on a clean slate they decided to eliminate the C’s as well as the D’s. And the B’s constitute well over half the communion. It would be interesting to see if things would settle down if Williams were to belatedly disinvite the D’s.
I remain unimpressed by Goddard’s whole scheme. Rather than offer a critique, I will offer a substitute of my own. Among other things, a simple dichotomy or binary division among those of us on the orthodox/”reasserter” side is probably too simplistic; I’m afraid it’s more complicated than that.
Although there may be many ways to slice this pie, I propose a three part analysis. The labels don’t matter as much to me as the underlying ideas. Basically, these three different types of groups on the conservative side are distinguished by whether they PRIMARILY are oriented toward the past, the present, or the future. Obviously, there would be overlapping areas of concern, but it’s a matter of where the primary emphasis falls and where the main attention is fixed.
Group A, “The Survivors.” This is the group primarily interested in preserving, or even restoring, the Anglicanism of the past. Some are just trying to hold on and survive, but aren’t trying to win over their liberal opponents. Others, more ambitious, seek to recover some golden era of Anglicanism in the past, such as those committed to the 1928 BCP (or 1549 or whatever). In some ways, the most conservative group, because they aren’t seeking to change Anglicanism, they just want to conserve our glorious heritage and pass it on uncompromised.
Group B, “The Renewers.” This group is primarily focused on the Anglicanism of the present, committed to the “inside” strategy of working within the current structures of church life in the Anglican Communion. They generally seek only moderate, gradual, incremental changes and are very eager to have the backing and support of the four Instruments of Unity/Communion. Unlike Group A, “the Survivors,” they are open to significant changes in Anglicanism, and may even be active in promoting such change. But they are usually very resistant to the idea of any major schism. They want to give the official representatives and processes of the Anglican Communion (including the four Instruments of Unity and the Covenant Process) the time and chance to mend the tear in the fabric of the Communion. They are concerned to “maintain the highest degree of communion possible” as a non-negotiable goal. This Group B or my “Renewers” would include almost all the so-called “Communion Conservatives” as well as the less radical “Federal Conservatives” (those pursuing or approving the “outside” strategy, i.e., outside TEC, but only seeking “realignment,” & not much in the way of changes in the liturgy or polity of Anglicanism as we know it).
Group C, “the Reformers.” This attention and energies of this last group are directed toward the future. They are so dissatisfied with the highly compromised Anglicanism of the present that they dream of remaking it and creating a whole new kind or style of Anglicanism suitable for meeting the daunting challenges of the 21st century.
They want to restore the supremacy of Scripture as a non-negotiable issue, and are committed to aggressively fulfilling the Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations.
The smallest and most adventuresome group, these audacious (some would say “reckless”) idealists are committed to such radical changes that the phrase “the New Reformation” fitly describes their objective. Not all “Federal Conservatives” are comfortable with such an inherently controversial and divisive approach. Led by the ACN and associated leaders in the CCP (Common Cause Partnership) and aligned with the Global South provinces currently intervening in America (Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Southern Cone), this group is ready to break not only with TEC or the ACoC, but even with Canterbury, IF necessary. But this group is clear that doctrine trumps polity, and that Scripture is the supreme authority within any form of Anglicanism worthy of the name. Unity in doctrine and worship thus takes precedence over past divisions based on separate polity structures, as the CCP seeks to unite the various foreign-based jurisdictions, the REC, APA etc. in a new orthodox province, with or without the approval of Canterbury. The main concern is to be aligned with the center of Anglicanism in the future (the Global South), rather than with its center in the past.
I don’t deny that there are other valid and useful ways of subdividing the conservative/orthodox/reasserter side. But this tripartite way of analyzing it makes the most sense to me.
I’d love to know what others think. Maybe everyone is just tired of the whole categorization issue. I don’t blame those who are. To quote someone with whom I rarely agree (Karl Marx or Lenin?), “The point is not to understand the world, but to change it.”
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Fervent Supporter of the New Reformation (i.e., “the Reformers”)
The interpretation of Windsor to say that “listening” means sitting down and breaking bread with heretics and unrepentant sinners is not a necessary one. Does listening require hearing the same nonsense over and over and never coming to a conclusion on it? What have the sodomites and their apologists said that hasn’t already been heard? If there is new evidence or new arguments we “Bâ€s would be willing to listen, but until that listening shows us sound reason for accepting their arguments we need not admit “Dâ€s to fellowship. We listen to Muslims and Hindus, Atheists and Jews without admitting them into fellowship with us. We can do the same for heretics and the willfully immoral.
As for “Câ€s being the majority, I wouldn’t doubt it. But they could never be a ruling majority for the primacy of unity forbids them leading. All leadership requires a willingness to move the group from where it is to somewhere else. This movement entails a risk of division between those who follow and those who don’t. Leadership always comes from a minority, a committed minority with a vision. They will successfully lead if their vision is acceptable to the majority, or if they can intimidate the majority through force and fear (the 815 leadership strategy).
Our present battle is not between Truth and Unity. That is the illusion of the fat puppets who don’t know who is really pulling the strings. Our battle is between Truth and Lies. Unity is what will be achieved once the battle is concluded, one way or the other.
As one who responded to Andrew Goddard’s original piece and who is mentioned in his current response, I shall seek to put up something a bit more organized as time permits.
Let me say, though, that I am glad that Andrew has clarified some points and wants to pursue the dialogue further among conservatives. To be honest, this kind of dialogue is the only kind that is possible. The experience I have had in attempting to engage and interact with Western “liberals†of whatever label is that there is no genuine openness to look at the spiritual, moral, psychological and sociological phenomenon of homosexuality or the substance of the biblical teaching. All is sexual politics.
So is really among conservatives that dialogue is possible. But at this point, there is another barrier to dialogue in the area of ecclesiology. I have asked the “Baal test†question over the years (see my Broken Communion essay of 1999) whether in principle there is any situation where Communion Conservatives/Reasserters would say: “This body has forfeited its claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ and is in fact serving another master.†And if the answer to that question is yes, then what does that situation look like, and does the culture of the current Episcopal Church (and others) qualify? Is there any point at which they would be willing to use Bishop Schofield’s description of the Episcopal Church as “an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith� And is there any justification for a person to stay in an apostate body?
I think Andrew is correct in raising the question of whether tolerating/condoning/blessing homosexual sexual relationships is a “first order issue,†but I also think it is too restricted a question. The fact that the Episcopal Church has never dealt with Bp. Spong’s open rejection of the doctrines of the Christian faith is not a red herring. It is sign that the Episcopal Church has departed or is departing wholesale from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Finally, I shall try to respond further from my own limited experience on the attitude of the African Church as I have observed it, because I think Andrew shows a kind of cultural blindness of his own in lumping Bishop Chukwuma and the Church of Nigeria with the real bigots and hatemongers who are out there.
RE: “Just last Sunday, another prominent primate said, “We are reformed Anglicans who want to adhere to the original creeds of the Bible, and that’s why our church has decided to ignore the 2008 Lambeth Conference because it has not done much to fight homosexuality in the communionâ€
I don’t consider those who have decided to not attend Lambeth because Communion discipline was not enacted to not be willing to “listen.” But the precondition to “listening” further was to restore order. Otherwise, the other side just continues on enacting their prophetic actions while all of us are demanded to “listen” to them as they move prophetically forward.
Those who are unwilling to attend Lambeth may still be in category A.
Also, those in Category D are in the majority of the bishops and national church leaders in ECUSA, not those in Category C.
In fact, the conflict and skirmishing between those in Categories C and D about what actions to take in Executive Council, the HOB, and various other national bodies is one of the most enthralling parts of the past four years, and particularly of the past year and a half. There is no doubt that the members of the D group are the hands-down winners in those conflicts.
“(C) whatever their personal views on sexuality, agreed that I.10, WR, etc. represent the mind of the Anglican Communion, and should be heeded by all—including themselves—who wished to remain a part of the Communion. . . . I agree that this group is still the majority in TEC . . .”
Not at all! Those I know are not generally aware of what Lambeth I.10 is! I am not sure they know what the Anglican Communion is! This is the result of a nearly complete “blackout” of information in many TEC parishes, where the crisis (and its issues) are fully suppressed by diocese and parish leaders alike. Regular “brainwashing” by special interest groups and clergy is the norm: “all is well,” “inclusiveness is all,” it’s “all you need to know.” This is a main reason why engagement and reconciliation appear so impossible: there is no common assumption of reality at all and, of course, no dialogue at all. I no longer believe there is a real “middle ground” in the American church.
As a view from the pew level, I appreciate Andrew Goddard’s clarifications regarding his logic structure. His explanation of point of view and perspective, made the argument presented in this document, much more understandable. I also now appreciate the point I missed last week, in that the two similar tables did not overlay or link. (Yeah, I made that mistake too.)
However, and this may be a matter of location, as much value as synthesis may have for the Communion as a whole, it is badly out of date in No. America. I have come to the belief that we are not merely 10 years past it, but in all likelihood longer, perhaps as much as 40 to 50 years. We did not arrive in our current poor position, in only a short span of time. And our personal perceptions of options and choices, will be different for each of us based on our location and the local circumstance.
[blockquote]If – as all conservatives do or should do – homosexual activity is classed as sin then “rejection†is surely a commendable stance and a refusal to reject homosexuality a sign either of cowardice or misunderstanding about the phenomenon…Rejection in that context is surely not “mean†or “badâ€.[/blockquote]
I am a little incredulous that Mr. Goddard was surprised and the rejection of the rejectionist label. Mr. Goddard’s schema is obviously self serving schema intended to portray the reassessors as cuddly and pastoral and rejectionists as cold hearted. As I said earlier, just prior to his definition of rejectionist in the original essay, he gives an example of an “anti-homosexual screed” and then implies that rejectionists secretly agree with this but do not vocalize it. In is newest essay, he compounds the offense with more vulgar anti-homosexual diatribes which to associate with the rejectionists. Why not just come out and say that Bp Duncan, Stephen Noll, ABp Orombi, ABp Venables… (with me way, way down the list) are Fred Phelps wannabe’s? Your implication is loud and clear, Mr. Goddard (and just as offensive).
No, we do not define ourselves by the negative. Mr Goddard tries to define us as anti-homosexuals. How preposterous. Rather, condemn the vice but more importantly extol the virtue. “Flee the evil desires of youth, and [i]pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.[/i]”
Again, the situation is similar to the abortion debate. Those that oppose abortion use the moniker pro-life not anti-abortionists and similar the supporters of abortion call themselves pro-choice.
To answer the question of whether Mr. Goddard’s slanted taxonomy is useful is tied inextricably to one’s desired endpoint. If one wants to compromise the Christian faith as practiced for the past 2000 years and live harmoniously with Mark Andrus and his gay-proud contingent, then Mr. Goddard’s taxonomy is very useful, indeed.
My endpoint is to return to Christian faith away from this political organization, to take up my cross and follow Him. Mr. Goddard’s classification just leads to more years in the wilderness with no sight of the cross.
Regarding Steve Noll’s ‘Baal’ test, I can’t speak for other Reasserters, but for me the answer is ‘yes’, and the points at which I would consider any church ‘apostate’ would be doctrinal. The first one that comes to my mind would be the status of the Apostles’ Creed: if any church were to repudiate it (ie formally deny the truth of its statements, not just leave it out of the baptismal service), I would consider that church apostate, and I would not stay in it. The fact that none of the leaders of a church believed the Apostles’ Creed to be true would make them apostates, but would not mean they led an apostate church. That’s the first ‘Baal test’ that comes to mind; I could add others, especially regarding Scripture as the word of God written, but I think this is sufficient to answer Steve’s question. And although I don’t speak for any other Reasserters, I’m pretty sure that all those I know (which is a good number) would answer ‘yes’ to the question, even if the point of apostasy were elsewhere.
I too would answer with a resounding “Yes!” to the “Baal test” of Dr. Noll (see #6 above). But I think you’re missing something crucial. For too long our liberal foes have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of leaders in the Global South (GS) by strenuously asserting that we continue to say the Creeds unaltered in our liturgy. But as Philip Turner has rightly noted, the problem with TEC is as the level of what he calls the “working theology” of so many clergy and lay leaders. That is, what people REALLY believe is evident in their behavior, not least in clergy sermons, parish newsletters, diocesan resolutions and coffee hour discussions or adult forums. Far too many members of TEC (ordained and lay) honor the creeds with their lips, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs as they recite the ancient words. Still, latent or incipient heresy is one thing, formal apostasy is another, as you rightly note.
That’s why for many of us, the disastrous Minneapolis General Convention of 2003 was the tipping point. For it was there that TEC formally and officially gave implicit sanction to the notion that “gay is OK,” which is simply, as Lambeth 1998 correctly insisted, flatly “incompatible” with Holy Scripture. It is totally indefensible theologically, and catastrophic pastorally. It is just plain inexcusable and intolerable.
Many of us now repent of our excessive tolerance in the past. But we won’t fall into that trap again. It’s one thing to grant a very wide margin of error and lots of tolerance for private expressions of deviance from the public standards of the Church’s official teaching, as we Anglicans have long done. It’s a completely different matter when the official standards of the Church are themselves compromised and the whole Church becomes heretical in principle.
Of course, our “Worthy Opponents” stoutly deny the charge. They insist loudly that the “gay is OK” ideology is not a matter of contradicting the “core doctrine” we hold as Anglicans (which of course was tactic employed at the recent General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada this summer). But they are wrong, terribly and provably wrong.
For it isn’t that difficult to PROVE beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the “gay is OK” delusion is indeed totally incompatible with Holy Scripture (as a growing nujmber of liberal, pro-gay biblical scholars now freely admit, e.g., Walter Wink, Dan Via, and Bernadette Brooten). And if so, then the reappraisers have in fact violated a “core doctrine” of the Church, since the primacy and supremacy of Scripture is most certainly such a core doctrine.
As far as I’m concerned, TEC has already failed the “Baal test.”
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Fervent Supporter of the New Reformation
For those who might be interested, you can find Philip Turner’s essay on TEC’s Working Theology (referenced in David Handy’s comment #12) on the old T19 blog.
The old blog is currently down due to severe hacking of CaNNet (hopefully it will be back online within a few days). In the meantime, [url=http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:3ipYRJQ5tzoJ:titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=6772+Titusonenine+Turner+Working+Theology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us]here is the Google Cache link[/url] to that blog entry.
Off topic, but if anyone is having problems accessing old T19 articles given CaNNet’s being offline, let us know. We can probably help you find what you’re looking for via Google’s cache, or the Internet Archive “The Wayback Machine.” Our e-mail: T19elves@yahoo.com
IMHO, I appreciate the effort at clarification, but still don’t find the categories very useful or accurate – the individual elements range widely from category to category.
The dialogue issue is curious – and seems to be important to him. I agree with those who posit that there should be no negotiation with pressure groups regarding changing Christian teaching. However, there should be pastoral care of those who view themselves with SS orientation, but it should include traditional Christian aspects of sanctification, fellowship, and discipleship. There is a profound difference between the two. The example of organizations seeking to make presentations to Lambeth are a good example – pastoral care cannot be given to a caucus.
The Baal Test question is a good one for reasserters, in that it draws a circle around the “…just wait and work in ignorance, regardless…” message that many, rightly or wrongly, are hearing.
As useful as the Baal Test question may be, the Broken Communion article also discussed another question – what then? Reasserters should discuss the appropriate response to failure of the Baal Test, particularly in the context of one or more instruments of unity that [i]fail[/i] or [i]refuse[/i] to take any action in response.
If an outside strategy is within the range of faithful responses to failure of the Baal Test, and given that some reasserters are now pursuing an outside TEC strategy, then perhaps reasserters should discuss (a) what we can do together to improve cooperation between inside and outside groups; and (b) what are we witnessing or discerning differently that leads to our disagreement over the results of the test.
I suggest that charity demands avoiding perjoratives among reasserters, and giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
Further, if our best efforts leave others with the message “…just wait and work in ignorance, regardless…,” then perhaps we should not occupy our time criticizing those taking a different path.
I appreciate the clarifications from Andrew Goddard. It seems to me, however, that Tom Rightmyer makes a simpler distinction between the four categories of approach to sexuality in his excellent comment on Covenant (which I cannot currently access for some reason, or I’d be posting this there!). The reactions to the most recent developments in the Communion mirror pretty closely the reactions to the Windsor Report when it was issued, and even the reactions to Lambeth I.10 itself. Those reactions towards homosexuality do seem to fall into four groups with fuzzy boundaries:
(A) agreed as a matter of personal belief with substantially all of I.10, the WR, and the official responses from the Instruments. While I agree that this includes many of the members of the AMiA, CANA, etc., I am not sure that (A) represents the position of their leadership (at least their leaders abroad). The (A) group sees listening as a virtue and is not inclined to break communion with those in (C) who will obey the Communion teaching. They see Christian unity as a virtue worth preserving even at the cost of some compromise on other principles.
(B) rejected important components of all the key Communion documents. As to “listening,” I can still remember the response of the leader of the Global South after the election of Bp. Robinson, “He cannot possibly be invited to Lambeth. Nobody can seriously expect me to sit down at the same table with such a person” (quoting from memory). Just last Sunday, another prominent primate said, “We are reformed Anglicans who want to adhere to the original creeds of the Bible, and that’s why our church has decided to ignore the 2008 Lambeth Conference because it has not done much to fight homosexuality in the communion” (The New Times, Kigali, Dec. 5). So much for Lambeth resolutions as being authoritative for the provinces. The (B) group rejects any toleration of (D) and has no long-term interest in maintaining relations with (C) unless they swear to believe that homosexuality is contrary to Scripture in all circumstances.
(C) whatever their personal views on sexuality, agreed that I.10, WR, etc. represent the mind of the Anglican Communion, and should be heeded by all—including themselves—who wished to remain a part of the Communion. However, their sense of loyalty may have limits when it comes to demands that they surrender control over their own churches to those who hold (B) or (D) views. I agree that this group is still the majority in TEC, although they have almost no articulate spokesmen. Because they put a higher value on unity than on sexual doctrine, they may be inclined to quietly leave rather than put up a fight.
(D) disagrees with the Communion teaching to the extent that they feel called by the Gospel to disobey it, although they may be willing to make extremely short-term tactical concessions. Again, this seems to be the most vocal faction (able to muster majorities on key votes) in the TEC General Convention and some American and Canadian dioceses. It also has support in some other parts of global Anglicanism).
It is the division between (A) and (B) that has lit up the reasserter blogisphere recently.
#1 presents a useful classification. IMO, Goddard’s original classification was not so much incorrect as it was useless. Craig Goodrich commented on the original piece from the perspective of philosophy of science, which was my initial reaction as well. When I read Goddard’s piece, I immediately thought of the color [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_(color)]”grue”[/url]– those familiar with the work of Nelson Goodman will understand the reference. It is a color (green up until now and blue hereafter) that is empirically impeccable, but of no practical use whatsoever. The scheme in Dale’s comment, however, has real explanatory power.
My own belief is that B’s would live with C’s if D’s were ruled out of order. Rowan Williams made a grave error in inviting the D’s to Lambeth because once the B’s started writing on a clean slate they decided to eliminate the C’s as well as the D’s. And the B’s constitute well over half the communion. It would be interesting to see if things would settle down if Williams were to belatedly disinvite the D’s.
Oops. My link above was to a Wikipedia dead end. Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_and_Bleen
I remain unimpressed by Goddard’s whole scheme. Rather than offer a critique, I will offer a substitute of my own. Among other things, a simple dichotomy or binary division among those of us on the orthodox/”reasserter” side is probably too simplistic; I’m afraid it’s more complicated than that.
Although there may be many ways to slice this pie, I propose a three part analysis. The labels don’t matter as much to me as the underlying ideas. Basically, these three different types of groups on the conservative side are distinguished by whether they PRIMARILY are oriented toward the past, the present, or the future. Obviously, there would be overlapping areas of concern, but it’s a matter of where the primary emphasis falls and where the main attention is fixed.
Group A, “The Survivors.” This is the group primarily interested in preserving, or even restoring, the Anglicanism of the past. Some are just trying to hold on and survive, but aren’t trying to win over their liberal opponents. Others, more ambitious, seek to recover some golden era of Anglicanism in the past, such as those committed to the 1928 BCP (or 1549 or whatever). In some ways, the most conservative group, because they aren’t seeking to change Anglicanism, they just want to conserve our glorious heritage and pass it on uncompromised.
Group B, “The Renewers.” This group is primarily focused on the Anglicanism of the present, committed to the “inside” strategy of working within the current structures of church life in the Anglican Communion. They generally seek only moderate, gradual, incremental changes and are very eager to have the backing and support of the four Instruments of Unity/Communion. Unlike Group A, “the Survivors,” they are open to significant changes in Anglicanism, and may even be active in promoting such change. But they are usually very resistant to the idea of any major schism. They want to give the official representatives and processes of the Anglican Communion (including the four Instruments of Unity and the Covenant Process) the time and chance to mend the tear in the fabric of the Communion. They are concerned to “maintain the highest degree of communion possible” as a non-negotiable goal. This Group B or my “Renewers” would include almost all the so-called “Communion Conservatives” as well as the less radical “Federal Conservatives” (those pursuing or approving the “outside” strategy, i.e., outside TEC, but only seeking “realignment,” & not much in the way of changes in the liturgy or polity of Anglicanism as we know it).
Group C, “the Reformers.” This attention and energies of this last group are directed toward the future. They are so dissatisfied with the highly compromised Anglicanism of the present that they dream of remaking it and creating a whole new kind or style of Anglicanism suitable for meeting the daunting challenges of the 21st century.
They want to restore the supremacy of Scripture as a non-negotiable issue, and are committed to aggressively fulfilling the Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations.
The smallest and most adventuresome group, these audacious (some would say “reckless”) idealists are committed to such radical changes that the phrase “the New Reformation” fitly describes their objective. Not all “Federal Conservatives” are comfortable with such an inherently controversial and divisive approach. Led by the ACN and associated leaders in the CCP (Common Cause Partnership) and aligned with the Global South provinces currently intervening in America (Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Southern Cone), this group is ready to break not only with TEC or the ACoC, but even with Canterbury, IF necessary. But this group is clear that doctrine trumps polity, and that Scripture is the supreme authority within any form of Anglicanism worthy of the name. Unity in doctrine and worship thus takes precedence over past divisions based on separate polity structures, as the CCP seeks to unite the various foreign-based jurisdictions, the REC, APA etc. in a new orthodox province, with or without the approval of Canterbury. The main concern is to be aligned with the center of Anglicanism in the future (the Global South), rather than with its center in the past.
I don’t deny that there are other valid and useful ways of subdividing the conservative/orthodox/reasserter side. But this tripartite way of analyzing it makes the most sense to me.
I’d love to know what others think. Maybe everyone is just tired of the whole categorization issue. I don’t blame those who are. To quote someone with whom I rarely agree (Karl Marx or Lenin?), “The point is not to understand the world, but to change it.”
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Fervent Supporter of the New Reformation (i.e., “the Reformers”)
The interpretation of Windsor to say that “listening” means sitting down and breaking bread with heretics and unrepentant sinners is not a necessary one. Does listening require hearing the same nonsense over and over and never coming to a conclusion on it? What have the sodomites and their apologists said that hasn’t already been heard? If there is new evidence or new arguments we “Bâ€s would be willing to listen, but until that listening shows us sound reason for accepting their arguments we need not admit “Dâ€s to fellowship. We listen to Muslims and Hindus, Atheists and Jews without admitting them into fellowship with us. We can do the same for heretics and the willfully immoral.
As for “Câ€s being the majority, I wouldn’t doubt it. But they could never be a ruling majority for the primacy of unity forbids them leading. All leadership requires a willingness to move the group from where it is to somewhere else. This movement entails a risk of division between those who follow and those who don’t. Leadership always comes from a minority, a committed minority with a vision. They will successfully lead if their vision is acceptable to the majority, or if they can intimidate the majority through force and fear (the 815 leadership strategy).
Our present battle is not between Truth and Unity. That is the illusion of the fat puppets who don’t know who is really pulling the strings. Our battle is between Truth and Lies. Unity is what will be achieved once the battle is concluded, one way or the other.
As one who responded to Andrew Goddard’s original piece and who is mentioned in his current response, I shall seek to put up something a bit more organized as time permits.
Let me say, though, that I am glad that Andrew has clarified some points and wants to pursue the dialogue further among conservatives. To be honest, this kind of dialogue is the only kind that is possible. The experience I have had in attempting to engage and interact with Western “liberals†of whatever label is that there is no genuine openness to look at the spiritual, moral, psychological and sociological phenomenon of homosexuality or the substance of the biblical teaching. All is sexual politics.
So is really among conservatives that dialogue is possible. But at this point, there is another barrier to dialogue in the area of ecclesiology. I have asked the “Baal test†question over the years (see my Broken Communion essay of 1999) whether in principle there is any situation where Communion Conservatives/Reasserters would say: “This body has forfeited its claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ and is in fact serving another master.†And if the answer to that question is yes, then what does that situation look like, and does the culture of the current Episcopal Church (and others) qualify? Is there any point at which they would be willing to use Bishop Schofield’s description of the Episcopal Church as “an apostate institution that has minted a new religion irreconcilable with the Anglican faith� And is there any justification for a person to stay in an apostate body?
I think Andrew is correct in raising the question of whether tolerating/condoning/blessing homosexual sexual relationships is a “first order issue,†but I also think it is too restricted a question. The fact that the Episcopal Church has never dealt with Bp. Spong’s open rejection of the doctrines of the Christian faith is not a red herring. It is sign that the Episcopal Church has departed or is departing wholesale from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Finally, I shall try to respond further from my own limited experience on the attitude of the African Church as I have observed it, because I think Andrew shows a kind of cultural blindness of his own in lumping Bishop Chukwuma and the Church of Nigeria with the real bigots and hatemongers who are out there.
RE: “Just last Sunday, another prominent primate said, “We are reformed Anglicans who want to adhere to the original creeds of the Bible, and that’s why our church has decided to ignore the 2008 Lambeth Conference because it has not done much to fight homosexuality in the communionâ€
I don’t consider those who have decided to not attend Lambeth because Communion discipline was not enacted to not be willing to “listen.” But the precondition to “listening” further was to restore order. Otherwise, the other side just continues on enacting their prophetic actions while all of us are demanded to “listen” to them as they move prophetically forward.
Those who are unwilling to attend Lambeth may still be in category A.
Also, those in Category D are in the majority of the bishops and national church leaders in ECUSA, not those in Category C.
In fact, the conflict and skirmishing between those in Categories C and D about what actions to take in Executive Council, the HOB, and various other national bodies is one of the most enthralling parts of the past four years, and particularly of the past year and a half. There is no doubt that the members of the D group are the hands-down winners in those conflicts.
“(C) whatever their personal views on sexuality, agreed that I.10, WR, etc. represent the mind of the Anglican Communion, and should be heeded by all—including themselves—who wished to remain a part of the Communion. . . . I agree that this group is still the majority in TEC . . .”
Not at all! Those I know are not generally aware of what Lambeth I.10 is! I am not sure they know what the Anglican Communion is! This is the result of a nearly complete “blackout” of information in many TEC parishes, where the crisis (and its issues) are fully suppressed by diocese and parish leaders alike. Regular “brainwashing” by special interest groups and clergy is the norm: “all is well,” “inclusiveness is all,” it’s “all you need to know.” This is a main reason why engagement and reconciliation appear so impossible: there is no common assumption of reality at all and, of course, no dialogue at all. I no longer believe there is a real “middle ground” in the American church.
As a view from the pew level, I appreciate Andrew Goddard’s clarifications regarding his logic structure. His explanation of point of view and perspective, made the argument presented in this document, much more understandable. I also now appreciate the point I missed last week, in that the two similar tables did not overlay or link. (Yeah, I made that mistake too.)
However, and this may be a matter of location, as much value as synthesis may have for the Communion as a whole, it is badly out of date in No. America. I have come to the belief that we are not merely 10 years past it, but in all likelihood longer, perhaps as much as 40 to 50 years. We did not arrive in our current poor position, in only a short span of time. And our personal perceptions of options and choices, will be different for each of us based on our location and the local circumstance.
[blockquote]If – as all conservatives do or should do – homosexual activity is classed as sin then “rejection†is surely a commendable stance and a refusal to reject homosexuality a sign either of cowardice or misunderstanding about the phenomenon…Rejection in that context is surely not “mean†or “badâ€.[/blockquote]
I am a little incredulous that Mr. Goddard was surprised and the rejection of the rejectionist label. Mr. Goddard’s schema is obviously self serving schema intended to portray the reassessors as cuddly and pastoral and rejectionists as cold hearted. As I said earlier, just prior to his definition of rejectionist in the original essay, he gives an example of an “anti-homosexual screed” and then implies that rejectionists secretly agree with this but do not vocalize it. In is newest essay, he compounds the offense with more vulgar anti-homosexual diatribes which to associate with the rejectionists. Why not just come out and say that Bp Duncan, Stephen Noll, ABp Orombi, ABp Venables… (with me way, way down the list) are Fred Phelps wannabe’s? Your implication is loud and clear, Mr. Goddard (and just as offensive).
No, we do not define ourselves by the negative. Mr Goddard tries to define us as anti-homosexuals. How preposterous. Rather, condemn the vice but more importantly extol the virtue. “Flee the evil desires of youth, and [i]pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.[/i]”
Again, the situation is similar to the abortion debate. Those that oppose abortion use the moniker pro-life not anti-abortionists and similar the supporters of abortion call themselves pro-choice.
To answer the question of whether Mr. Goddard’s slanted taxonomy is useful is tied inextricably to one’s desired endpoint. If one wants to compromise the Christian faith as practiced for the past 2000 years and live harmoniously with Mark Andrus and his gay-proud contingent, then Mr. Goddard’s taxonomy is very useful, indeed.
My endpoint is to return to Christian faith away from this political organization, to take up my cross and follow Him. Mr. Goddard’s classification just leads to more years in the wilderness with no sight of the cross.
Regarding Steve Noll’s ‘Baal’ test, I can’t speak for other Reasserters, but for me the answer is ‘yes’, and the points at which I would consider any church ‘apostate’ would be doctrinal. The first one that comes to my mind would be the status of the Apostles’ Creed: if any church were to repudiate it (ie formally deny the truth of its statements, not just leave it out of the baptismal service), I would consider that church apostate, and I would not stay in it. The fact that none of the leaders of a church believed the Apostles’ Creed to be true would make them apostates, but would not mean they led an apostate church. That’s the first ‘Baal test’ that comes to mind; I could add others, especially regarding Scripture as the word of God written, but I think this is sufficient to answer Steve’s question. And although I don’t speak for any other Reasserters, I’m pretty sure that all those I know (which is a good number) would answer ‘yes’ to the question, even if the point of apostasy were elsewhere.
#11, Philip Wainwright,
I too would answer with a resounding “Yes!” to the “Baal test” of Dr. Noll (see #6 above). But I think you’re missing something crucial. For too long our liberal foes have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of leaders in the Global South (GS) by strenuously asserting that we continue to say the Creeds unaltered in our liturgy. But as Philip Turner has rightly noted, the problem with TEC is as the level of what he calls the “working theology” of so many clergy and lay leaders. That is, what people REALLY believe is evident in their behavior, not least in clergy sermons, parish newsletters, diocesan resolutions and coffee hour discussions or adult forums. Far too many members of TEC (ordained and lay) honor the creeds with their lips, but with their fingers crossed behind their backs as they recite the ancient words. Still, latent or incipient heresy is one thing, formal apostasy is another, as you rightly note.
That’s why for many of us, the disastrous Minneapolis General Convention of 2003 was the tipping point. For it was there that TEC formally and officially gave implicit sanction to the notion that “gay is OK,” which is simply, as Lambeth 1998 correctly insisted, flatly “incompatible” with Holy Scripture. It is totally indefensible theologically, and catastrophic pastorally. It is just plain inexcusable and intolerable.
Many of us now repent of our excessive tolerance in the past. But we won’t fall into that trap again. It’s one thing to grant a very wide margin of error and lots of tolerance for private expressions of deviance from the public standards of the Church’s official teaching, as we Anglicans have long done. It’s a completely different matter when the official standards of the Church are themselves compromised and the whole Church becomes heretical in principle.
Of course, our “Worthy Opponents” stoutly deny the charge. They insist loudly that the “gay is OK” ideology is not a matter of contradicting the “core doctrine” we hold as Anglicans (which of course was tactic employed at the recent General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada this summer). But they are wrong, terribly and provably wrong.
For it isn’t that difficult to PROVE beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the “gay is OK” delusion is indeed totally incompatible with Holy Scripture (as a growing nujmber of liberal, pro-gay biblical scholars now freely admit, e.g., Walter Wink, Dan Via, and Bernadette Brooten). And if so, then the reappraisers have in fact violated a “core doctrine” of the Church, since the primacy and supremacy of Scripture is most certainly such a core doctrine.
As far as I’m concerned, TEC has already failed the “Baal test.”
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Fervent Supporter of the New Reformation
For those who might be interested, you can find Philip Turner’s essay on TEC’s Working Theology (referenced in David Handy’s comment #12) on the old T19 blog.
The old blog is currently down due to severe hacking of CaNNet (hopefully it will be back online within a few days). In the meantime, [url=http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:3ipYRJQ5tzoJ:titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=6772+Titusonenine+Turner+Working+Theology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us]here is the Google Cache link[/url] to that blog entry.
Off topic, but if anyone is having problems accessing old T19 articles given CaNNet’s being offline, let us know. We can probably help you find what you’re looking for via Google’s cache, or the Internet Archive “The Wayback Machine.” Our e-mail: T19elves@yahoo.com
IMHO, I appreciate the effort at clarification, but still don’t find the categories very useful or accurate – the individual elements range widely from category to category.
The dialogue issue is curious – and seems to be important to him. I agree with those who posit that there should be no negotiation with pressure groups regarding changing Christian teaching. However, there should be pastoral care of those who view themselves with SS orientation, but it should include traditional Christian aspects of sanctification, fellowship, and discipleship. There is a profound difference between the two. The example of organizations seeking to make presentations to Lambeth are a good example – pastoral care cannot be given to a caucus.
The Baal Test question is a good one for reasserters, in that it draws a circle around the “…just wait and work in ignorance, regardless…” message that many, rightly or wrongly, are hearing.
As useful as the Baal Test question may be, the Broken Communion article also discussed another question – what then? Reasserters should discuss the appropriate response to failure of the Baal Test, particularly in the context of one or more instruments of unity that [i]fail[/i] or [i]refuse[/i] to take any action in response.
If an outside strategy is within the range of faithful responses to failure of the Baal Test, and given that some reasserters are now pursuing an outside TEC strategy, then perhaps reasserters should discuss (a) what we can do together to improve cooperation between inside and outside groups; and (b) what are we witnessing or discerning differently that leads to our disagreement over the results of the test.
I suggest that charity demands avoiding perjoratives among reasserters, and giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
Further, if our best efforts leave others with the message “…just wait and work in ignorance, regardless…,” then perhaps we should not occupy our time criticizing those taking a different path.