When you have an opportunity to stand back from what is going on, you are better able to see all the players in action, and it is a little easier to measure their play against a common set of reference points. Quite honestly, it seems to me that denial of the realities is standard at both ends of the spectrum. The voices of those who ally themselves with the “establishment” and the National Church seem as determined to read the situation through their own set of colored lenses as those at the other end of spectrum to put their own spin on the realities. While those who want everyone to kiss and make up are more sentimental than realistic.
If Kevin Martin is correct, and I think he has been fairer in his analysis of what is going on than most, then for those who continue as part of the Episcopal Church a crunch point is fast approaching when declining numbers and funds will no longer be capable of upholding the infrastructure that presently exists. You might have been able to say until now that its only a relatively small number of parishes that are causing all this upset and, by and large, other than them everything is fine and dandy, but it is no longer just parishes heading for the exit. When dioceses start doing the same then you have to change your tune.
But then, those who are conservative, orthodox, or whatever other label you want to give them, have their own blinkers on when it comes to looking at the realities. It might be a wonderful sense of relief for those leaving to get out from under the antagonistic leadership of the Episcopal Church, but it is incredibly hard and grueling work to create a whole new infrastructure in which to be church. Having been at the front end of a number of new ventures in my time, I know from personal experience the grinding agony of having limited financial resources, relatively little land or property, and how incapacitating it can be to do pioneer work after you have got over the euphoria of getting the new ministry (or whatever) up and started. It requires guts and a special mix of gifts to be a pioneer.
Comparing this to a rugby match is right on. Americans get beat badly in rugby and those in TEC and those moving out of TEC are getting beat badly too. It is all so sad to watch.
The problem that Kew aptly illustrates is that there is no agreement on what faithfulness is. As we know we have two irreconciable positions/understandings and while it would be great to find a reconciled way forward I don’t see any strategem in this essay or any other essay that approaches something that both sides could embrace.
Somehow Richard Kew’s essay here just rings true. We need to pray for what God wants to bring in this situation.
Eleven score years ago (220 – 1787) our forefathers gathered to create from what remained of the work of the previous nine score (180 – 1607) years of missionary work in this land a new form of church, set free of government control to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in an independent country. Between 1784 when Bishop Seabury was consecated in Scotland for Connecticut and 1789 when he joined with Bishops White (Pennsylvania) and Provoost (New York) in General Convention the newly organized Episcopal Church was able to deal with issues left over from the Revolution (where Seabury had served as a Loyalist Chaplain and White as Chaplain to the Continental Congress – and Provoost retired to his farm to study botany) and issues of churchmanship (Seabury High, Provoost Low and White early and very roughly Broad), isolation, and the death and departure of many clergy during the Revolution, to establish a structure to unite the churches in the newly independent states into state (diocesan) conventions and a national church with a common Prayer Book. We are now engaged in a great civil war to see whether that church so organized can survive. The southern states seceeded in 1861 in fear that the peculiar institution (slavery) of those states would be radically changed by the national government. San Joaquin has seceeded and Fort Worth and Pittsburgh have made the first steps toward secession in fear that the national government is determined to root out biblical orthodoxy in the church. We will never know whether the fears of the southern states in 1861 were real. The statements of President Lincoln and others at the time seem to say that slavery would not be allowed to expand and that gradual efforts would be made to free slaves. The approval on second effort of Bishop Lawrence for South Carolina suggests that the fear that an orthodox bishop will not be approved for other dioceses may not be accurate. But the response of the House of Bishops to the Primates also suggests that the majority of the Episcopal Church has determined not to conform to the interpretation of scripture held by the Lambeth bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury about same-sex sexual behavior, and statements by the Presiding Bishop and others appear to be inconsistent with traditional credal orthodoxy.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
Tom,
Succinct. Well said.
I am of the camp that it would be best just to walk away. The battle for material things would (& will) cause deep wounds that will be hard to heal and will leave huge scars. All the effort in fighting could be used much more positively in moving forward.
If an uninformed outsider were to view this conflict they would assume it was over one issue, the homosexual one, while in reality, it was just the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. You seldom see mention of Spong and his idiotology (not to mention his fat pension & retention of the title of Bishop), the support by the ECW of the pro-choice initiative, aside from the fact that Robinson is gay, he’s DIVORCED (this one riles the wife), Kate saying its not good to put God in a box when referencing whether Christ is the only way of salvation. There are more and I know from reading that many of you are much more learned than I about such matters that are probably thinking “Well duh!!!” But I’m a simple guy and I’m intimidated by the “deep” discussions. To me, these are matters of the Truth the way its been taught to me and of my heart, and ultimately to whom I must remain faithful to… my Lord Jesus. May all have a Blessed Christmas.
During bible study last night I was struck by how impatience (not materialsim) may be the most powerful example of a lack of faith in God’s ultimate justice. We decide when it “is time” to act, ignoring the tendency that Americans have to be impatient. Initial thoughts, not fully developed….
Our parish is staying in TEC, not because we agree with the agenda, not because we have a strong inclination that things will get better, not even because we think we can outlast them. We are staying because we are faithful here and the threats of what could happen, at this time, do not warrant impatient reaction. I am sad and frustrated by what is going on in TEC, but delighted to see our Lord at work among us in the parish. I understand why these dioceses and parishes want to leave, I guess I am not enough of a protestant to think that slicing and dicing a small (and shrinking/aging) denomination into smaller (though younger and more vibrant parts) is the answer…. For now, in our little neck of the woods, we are doing the same evangelism, prayer, worship, bible study and outreach that we would do under another ecclesial set up. But instead of paying hundreds of thousands in lawyer fees or land purchases to start over we are distributing that money to missionaries, food pantries and assorted groups putting Christ’s love into flesh and blood action… We will see what next year brings. But I think Richard Kew (and Dan Martins & others) is right…. Prayer and patience is appropriate to Advent! and God speed all those unable to stand the stench in TEC any longer.
Naturally, as New Reformation Advocate, I see the mixed and ambiguous evidence more positively than good Richard Kew does, or the earlier commenters. The glass seems more than half full to me.
Granted, it’s generating a lot of bad PR in the minds of the general public and the financial costs associated with the lawsuits over property rights are indeed scandalous. But I think Kew’s parallel with the relatively small exodus that left the northern Presbyterian and northern Baptist churche in the Fundamentalist-Modernist battles of the 1920s is not the best choice of a historical analogy. Only a few seminary professors, e.g., followed Gresham Machen out of Princeton to start Westminster Seminary from scratch. We already have two seminaries in place, Trinity and Nashotah, that are poised to grow. As far as I know, no presbyteries left the northern Presbyterians as part of the split etc. And furthermore, no international alliances were backing the dissenters who left. The differences may outweigh the similarities here.
Rather, it’s worth considering some other historical analogies that may be closer (though not exact, of course). One is the rebuilding of the Episcopal Church after all the travails of the American Revolution, as Tom Rightmyer has already indicated. We easily forget how American Anglicanism virtually died between 1776 and 1800. Here in Virginia, for instance, the once proud former state church utterly collapsed under repeated heavy blows: the departure of many Tory/loyalist clergy and even wealthy laity, the general discrediting of a church so closely tied to England, and not least, the sudden withdrawl of public funding when Jefferson’s famous Statute of Religious Freedom was passed. If I recall correctly, maybe Tom can clarify the details, only something like 10% of the Colonial era Anglican churches in Virginia (where we were strongest) survived the agonies of those first few decades after the War of Independence. Many, including John Marshall, the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice, expected the Episcopal Church to wither away completely.
But God raised up some remarkable leaders who had that rare mix of outstanding qualities Kew speaks of that are required for successful pioneer work, including Bishop John Henry Hobart in New York (High Church), and the equally legendary William Meade in Virginia (Low Church Evangelical). If it happened then, it can happen now.
But I suggest two other types of historical analogies that are worth pondering. First the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century under the Wesley brothers and George Whitefield, and the later Catholic Revival of the 19th century under Newman, Keble, Pusey and others. Both represented vigorous protest movements against the whole culture of the church establishment of their day. And they both grew rapidly, despite intense opposition (or perhaps in part because of it).
Finally, last but not least, I suggest that the original Exodus from Egypt may be a useful analogy too. Biblical scholarship strongly suggests that the number of Hebrew slaves that escaped from Egypt was much, much smaller than the census in Numbers claims. For there is absolutely no archaeological evidence that some 2 million or so people EVER camped and lived in the Sinai wilderness, especially not in the region of Kadesh Barnea, where they spend most of the 40 year period. And if Israel had in fact had such a huge army as “600,000” fighting men, they could actually have conquered Egypt itself, or any other ancient power.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not part of the Copenhagen School of historical minimalists. Not by a long shot. I do believe there was a historical Moses and a historical Exodus, just a much smaller one than the much later and inflated biblical numbers suggest. I’m sure good Dr. Chris Seitz or some other OT scholar could clarify that from the perspective of historical criticism (after all, I’m a NT guy).
My point, of course, is that an exodus doesn’t have to be huge, to be incredibly important. I just hope that San Joaquin, like the ancient Hebrew slaves, departs and indeed takes the “spoils of war” with them. Actually, the property is rightly owned by the parish anyway. The whole basis for the Denis Canon is unjust and bogus. But like the Hebrews fleeing the tyranny of Pharaoh, they need not go out into the desert completely impoverished.
Let me offer one specific type of evidence to counter Kew’s bleak assessment. I find it very encouraging that both Gordon-Conwell and Fuller have instituted new Anglican tracks for seminarians. It appears that all the publicity the orthodox cause in North American Anglicanism is now getting is starting to convince growing numbers of younger evangelicals that maybe you can be both orthodox and Anglican after all. The determination of a rapidly growing number of us to stand firm and leave TEC if necessary is a large part of the appeal we now have for them. For the New Reformation to thrive, we must continue to attract and grow new constituencies like this.
The Old Anglicanism is dying. Go ahead and grieve it. “It is meet and right so to do.” But after shedding your tears, get back up, take heart, and get back to work. A New Anglicanism is just beginning to be born. Like all babies its future is unclear. But I for one have great hopes for it. I’ve never been prouder to be an Anglican than I am today. We are finally standing up and refusing to go meekly along with our dominant culture, as a Post-Christendom church must. And that is a cause for celebration.
David Handy+
Undaunted Advocate of that New Reformation
It’s a good essay and an important one for us to read at this time. I don’t share his concern over the length of time required to rebuild church infrastructure, however. Some of the infrastructure appears to be going too. And if we are entering into a post-denominational era as Kevin Martin states in one of his books one can ask just how much of the infrastructure that we currently ‘enjoy’ is really necessary for the mission of the church anyway. It looks like some pruning may be going on in more ways than one.
Some of my most spiritually rewarding experiences have been in start-up or under-resourced parrishes. People really wanted to be in communion and the focus was not on what we didn’t have, it was on worship, mission, ministry and spritual growth. I’m not at all sure that we as the church didn’t suffer a bit after we attained a permanent structure.
I find the notion of continued “patience” sort of amusing. Its almost as if some, like Rip Van Winkle, are awakening from a twenty-year nap only to discover that their have been some changes and innovations within TEC. Its a little sad that peripheral issues of comfort and familiarity trump fundamental issues like “my soul is in peril”!
There is nothing amusing about patience from a scriptural perspective. It is called “steadfastness” and “courage.” God bless any who leave because the sins of the TEC are too awful to stand. I merely say I think that God may not be calling us to leave. Exodus is a good model for leaving. Jeremiah is a good model for staying. We are well aware of what is going on in the church and many of us has stood in a small circle of likeminded believers while neo-pagans, heretics and others less pernicious had their way. I respect every effort to be faithful.