In 1851, French President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte seized dictatorial powers that eventually allowed him to become Emperor Napoleon III, the last monarch of France. His actions gave currency to the term coup d’ètat, literally “strike the state,” which has described political takeovers from that day to this.
The parallel phrase coup d’èglise (strike the church) has not made it into the common lexicon but may be the only way to accurately describe the lightning ascendancy of the primates of the Anglican Communion. From their first meeting in 1979 to their asserted role in the proposed Anglican Covenant, the group has moved from non-existence to centrality. This may or may not be what the Anglican Communion needs; it may or may not be what every devoted Anglican wants; it may or may not be the leading of the Holy Spirit; but we should all know that it is happening.
For most of its history the Anglican Communion lived with three basic facts of life: The members had a common root in the Church of England, a common focal point in the Archbishop of Canterbury, and common mission on a selective basis. A common doctrinal base was assumed but basically unexamined.
The idea of ecumenicity in the late 19th century led to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which was as close as the Communion ever came to formal doctrinal expression. The Quadrilateral was so broad that it was said that when we speak neither the pope nor the premier of China can say for certain they are not Anglicans.
This hazy sense of communion lasted until the emergence of indigenous leaders in the post-colonial church brought pre-existing differences of perspective and orientation into clarity and conflict. These differences became an Anglican crisis when the American and Canadian provinces gave tangible expression to a faithfully developed, but to many intolerable, view of human sexuality. That crisis provided the platform for the primates’ move to power.
Did I miss something? Where is the reference to the 1988 or 1998 Lambeth meetings? Just thought I would ask. Read it all.
As we posted on the recent ACI essay about “enhanced responsibility” for the Primates,
here’s the link to the 1988 Lambeth Resolution on the topic
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1988/1988-18.cfm
“The idea of ecumenicity in the late 19th century led to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which was as close as the Communion ever came to formal doctrinal expression.”
I seemed to have missed the 39 Articles.
“This hazy sense of communion lasted until the emergence of indigenous leaders in the post-colonial church brought pre-existing differences of perspective and orientation into clarity and conflict. These differences became an Anglican crisis when the American and Canadian provinces gave tangible expression to a faithfully developed, but to many intolerable, view of human sexuality. That
crisis provided the platform for the primates’ move to power.”
This seems a very truncated version of history. It’s as if to say: “Everything is was wonderful until the reactionary primates objected to our faithful innovation.”
I don’t see this as a “primates’ move to power” but as a bishops acting as bishop to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Did I miss something? Can anyone anywhere (reasserter-reappraiser-centrist, I don’t care) point me to something that can be seriously described as a ‘faithfully developed’ process leading to the new view of human sexuality?
+++Rowan Williams, in his recent audio interview with Time magazine, complained bitterly about just that: There was no process in which TEC developed a new view of human sexuality. They just assumed it, without taking time for a theological decision.
Exactly right, Br_er Rabbit. I believe one of the words that the ABC used in describing the pecusa “process” was bizarre.
“The parallel phrase coup d’èglise (strike the church) has not made it into the common lexicon…”
“Coup d’eglise” is a good term for what the revisionists have doing to ECUSA over the past forty years.
Orthodox Anglicans are not attempting a “coup d’eglis,” they are ‘protecting the Faith once given” against heretical innovations.
More like a coup de grace.
ECUSA/TEC and Victoria Gene Robinson’s “episcopacy” was an attempt at “coup d’eglise” after the coup d’etat of the ECUSA by the liberal theology faction. This attempted “coup d’eglise” failed. Now, ECUSA/TEC seeks the coupd’etat of the Anglican Communion but will settle for coup de grace because “it is better to burn it all down than suffer (perceived) injustice”. They have forgotten that not even the gates of hell can prevail against the Church on the word of the Word. They seem to have confused Milton with Scripture: “Better to reign in (America) than to serve in Heaven.”
Bre_er Rabbit
You just don’t understand the advantages of having the Holy Spirit on retainer.
Oddly, the way I remember the development of this thing is quite different from Mr Wade.
Way I remember it is that TEC departed drastically from that assumed but unexamined common doctrinal base and are trying to drag the rest of you out from the sheepfold into the wilds where the wolves are. The issue of sexuality is just the particular deviation used to destroy your karaal. The immediate objective is to scatter the sheep away from their Shepherd by making unrestricted sex mandatory for everyone. The long-term objective is to substitute Satan for God.
No?
Now the primates (especially the GS primates) in the Windsor and Dar es Salaam papers have got a process going to protect provincial autonomy while guarding against destruction of the karaal and scattering of the sheep. That’s their coup d’etat. The process involves asserting themselves first to demand that TEC stop making homoerotoc bishops and blessing homoerotic “unions”, and second to impose a dated deadline on TEC (and on an unwilling +++ABC) for a compliance report. That must be the “coup d’èglise”? Along the way, there is to be a covenant which will spell out guidelines for such primatial assertions in the future.
Personally, the argument sounds good to me that no covenant is needed because definitive documents (such as the 39 Articles and Lambath ’98) already exist.
That’s because the guarantor of orthodoxy will not be any document, but will be the spirit of the primates and their courage in withstanding the Episcopal heresy. That heresy has been very subtle and, let’s face it, very successful. It has promised all along that nothing was changing, and that whatever tiny changes might be needed were urgent measures to protect the human rights of disadvantaged and oppressed people (who could be against that!!! “What you do for the least of these my brothers you do for me”), and that the measures taken are only temporary, and that no one will be forced to accept them if they disagree in conscience.
Genius!!!
But the primates have shown a spiteful arrogance in trying to seize for themselves the right to act by majority vote on behalf of the whole Anglican Communion rather than accepting the dictates of the ACC and the AbC. That certainly needs to be looked into and, if their effort succeeds, applauded.
In faith, Dave
#9 dpierce:
“Unrestricted sex mandatory for everyone.” “Substitute Satan for God.” Please tell me this is hyperbole? It’s sometimes hard to tell on the net.
It’s obvious enough that there are profound theological disagreements in the Anglican world; but for the most part we are all — despite some frayed tempers on both sides — people of good will earnestly doing God’s work as we understand it. You may strenuously disagree with us about our understanding — as we do yours — but we are not silent-movie villains twirling our moustaches as we plot ways to destroy all this is good and right in the world.
I promise you that “mandatory unrestricted sex” and “substituting Satan for God” do not figure into our plans.
It has been some time since I was active on this blog (a lot going on in my life.) I am very sorry to see that things are as hurtful as before. Phrases like “mandatory unrestricted sex†and “substituting Satan for God†when directed at people within our own church are not helpful, nor are they truthful. My own new Bishop Love (Albany, NY) recently at our diocesan convention asked that we ask ourselves, ‘what would Jesus do’, when approaching our controversies. I don’t have the wisdom to be sure that I always know what Jesus would do, but I hope I can recognize something that I feel sure He would not do. I think that such demonization of opponents is clearly what He would not do. Please, for the love of God, can we all refrain from such comments? If we have really come to the point that this is how we see each other, then what path must we follow? This is profoundly sad.
Your brother in Christ (whether you accept that or not),
David Carroll
The long-term objective is to substitute Satan for God.
Thirty years in DioWash and a couple of turns as delegate to diocesan convention (already too many) and I can honestly say that Satan not only is alive and well in the diocese, but has a nice office in Church House.
And Frank Wade helped prepare for his entry.
Ross/David:
So you really think TEC isn’t out to destroy the Bible? To substitute “experience” and “I heard the voice of the spirit” for the Word of God transmitted to us over the centuries? And if their effort is successful, who will be in charge of TEC? God or Satan? There are only two choices.
This whole homosexual thing of TEC is nothing more than the point of the spear to do exactly that. Whether conscious or not, the result of their theology is to wipe out God from our minds; then they will install another god and call him God. Do you really think that is NOT what’s happening?
Not trying to hurt feelings, but that is what is going on. If my saying so hurts, I’m sorry but can’t say different. I was Episcopal 51 years and watched it happen all around me. I watched it take my kids and my grandkids. I hope it doesn’t happen to someone else.
In faith, Dave
If anybody can explain “common mission on a selective basis” as anything more than “subjective rationalizing” (as who is doing the ‘selecting’?), please tell me.
Hmmnnn…. “common mission on a selective basis†— I had missed that.
It’s… it’s… it’s… priceless?
Beyond priceless, you couldn’t buy one like that anywhere except TEC and they won’t sell (but they give it away in heaps and piles).