Those who peruse the big Anglican blogs know that “Communion Conservatives” (those who advocate contending for the faith by staying in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion) and “Federal Conservatives” (those who are convinced one or both of those bodies are too far gone to the point they think it best orthodox at least prepare to leave) are rather close to each other’s throats at the moment.
To be honest, I have my opinion as to which side is most at blame, but that’s not my concern right now. This post may even seem a bit vague because I don’t want to engage in figure pointing. For my concern is that anger between the two sides is getting to and past the point that it will make it difficult for these two sides of orthodox Anglicans to work together in the future.
That distresses me. If it turns out the Federal Conservatives are right and the Communion Conservative eventually find staying in TEC and the like to be untenable, I want the Comm-Cons to feel they have a refuge in Common Cause and/or whatever church bodies the Fed-Cons form. Likewise, if a miracle happens and the Anglican Communion or even the Episcopal Church sufficiently reforms, I want Fed-Cons to feel they can return. I hope the current divisions between the two are temporary. And even if Comm-Cons and Fed-Cons remain on different tracks, I want them to be able still to work together on those things they can.
Boy I sure do agree with the thesis of the post, especially this paragraph:
[blockquote]”Communion Conservatives should focus on what they are going to do in the current situation instead of undercutting what the Federal Conservatives are doing. Likewise, Federal Conservatives should focus on their direction and not ridicule the strategy of Communion Conservatives or say they are in any way unfaithful for staying.”[/blockquote]
The only thing that I would quibble with is that one of the things that makes a ComCon a ComCon is that they in large part [although not entirely] do not consider the Common Cause movement to be something that they wish to be a part of now or in the future, no matter the circumstances — which makes them all the more determined to remain and struggle.
And one of the things that makes a FedCon a FedCon is that they in large part [although not entirely] do not consider the Episcopal church to be something that they wish to be a part of now or in the future, no matter the circumstances — which makes them all the more determined to go and build something new.
Almost sounds like the Puritans (those who left) and the evangelicals (those who staid) in the Church of England in its early years.
Thanks Sarah. And I agree with your “quibble.” For the most part, neither side feels the road not chosen is viable as far as the eye can see.
Still, harsh words are never appripriate and I apologize for mine. And I do wish the “Communion Conservatives†success. But in truth I do not see it. I don’t think that much of the AC leadership, to include the ABC, is operating in good faith, and they are manipulating the process to never reach conclusion. I think that the “Communion Conservatives†do expect to reach a favorable conclusion in a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable? Well Dr. Seitz disagrees with my guess of 2018. I think he would look to 2 to 3 years, recognizing that this is at best a good faith guess. I simply disagre , but hope I am wrong. I think that the “Communion Conservatives†have to recognize that this is a long time to wait for something that might happen in a system that has been successfully manipulated in the past to produce delay.
In any event I wish them well and apologize for my harsh words.
Perhaps my comment [url=http://descant.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/the-anglican-revolution-begins-in-earnest-in-north-america-a-few-predictions-new-directions/#comment-746]here[/url] may be germane to the topic at hand. Or, perhaps not. . .
In any case, this past summer we visited the local (approx. 50 minutes away) Anglo-Catholic parish, which is affiliated with FIF in some manner. Whenever I mentioned our own parish, the universal response was that of incredulity mixed with – well, not hostility, but perhaps a certain “coldness”. Some of the (rather few) people in attendance did realize the possible effect of this response, but only after they reacted in a similar manner.
This thread reminds me of a famous saying of Ronald Reagan, i.e., that “the 11th Commandment” was, “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican,” or something like that. No need for “friendly fire” casualties on this battlefield, when our active troops are so few.
But to invoke a higher authority than the late Geeat Communicator, we all should remember two very relevant passages in Ephesians 4. That’s the text that the Windsor Report highlights so prominently, and rightly so, for it is one of the key texts most pertinent to this whole, bitter Anglican civil war.
First, in Eph. 4:29, there is this stern admonition, “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear (or, in this case, read).” Ouch. Please note. It doesn’t say just, “Let LESS evil talk come out of your mouths…” It says, “Let NO evil talk come out…: Zip. Zilch. None.
Now I confess, I’ve violated the spirit, if not the leter, of that command numerous times, e.g., with some exaggerated talk lately of “tarring and feathering” heretical bishops on blogs like this one. Of course, if we all suddenly abided by that rather severe rule of never saying anything hurtful, but only what was useful for edification, and according to the needs of the situation, well it would take a lot of the fun out of blogging now, wouldn’t it? (grin)
Then, of course, there is the famous, and much misused and abused, text dear to so many of us, Eph. 4:15. That familiar text urges us all to “speak the truth in love…” This is one passage that reappraisers and reasserters both need to hear and take seriously, although for opposite reasons.
We reasserters need to heed the call to do all our speaking of “the truth” IN LOVE. And if Newbie Anglican (as a “Fed/Con) and Sarah Hey (as a Com/Con) can agree on that, then I think it’s clear that we all should, even though we often fail to exercise sufficient self-control. But as James, chapter 3 says, if we could fully control our (sometimes sharp) tongues, then we’d be close to perfect, for the tongue is quite an unruly part of us. And I certainly include myself in that company of strugglers in that challenging area.
But that brings me to the way this often-quoted and much-loved text is so commonly abused. I’ve lost count long ago of how often I’ve heard fellow Episcopalians/Anglicans (on both sides) cite this well-known injunction to “speak the truth in love,” with the clear sense that they took it to mean that we all should learn to speak TRUTHFULLY, and yet in a loving way, and then we’d get along a lot better. Well, of course that is true. In fact it’s really a cliche.
But my point is that such a use of Eph. 4:15 betrays a complete misunderstanding of what that key phrase really means. For it most certainly doesn’t mean what people often think it means. Tht is, it definitely does NOT mean: “You speak your truth in love, and I’ll speak my truth in love, and we’ll all get along just fine.”
Nope. The context is decisive here. For the preceding line makes it abundantly clear that Paul has a very specific truth in mind that we are to be speaking to one another, and that is what is so frequently overlooked. For the sentence immediately before verse 15 states,
“We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about BY EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE…But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”
That is, in context, the call is to speak the TRUE DOCTRINE. the authentic (Pauline) gospel, but to do so with love.
And what our Worthy Opponents, and especially the not-so-worthy ones, fail to realize is that what is killing us is NOT a failure to speak lovingly in most cases. Now yes, obviously, we do still struggle in that area, as Newbie Anglican is urging us not to excuse or rationalize away. Rather, the fundamental problem is that so many liberals are “speaking FALSEHOODS in love,” with the best of intentions. In claiming that the Holy Spirit is doing “a new thing” and overturning the old stereotyped prejudice against gay people and their “God-given” sexual orientation, these wanna be prophets are proving themselves to be FALSE PROPHETS, who speak LIES in the name of the Lord, albeit with admirable sincerity and conviction.
That is what is really killing us in TEC today. Not the lack of love. It’s the lack of truth. But at the same time, among the orthodox wing, it’s the opposite. It’s our blatant lack of respect for each other and our impatience with each other that is undermining our witness and weakening our already divided churches.
As always, the key to spiritaul and emotional health is balance. Maintaining that tricky balance between the passion for truth and the eager seeking after the ways of peace and love as fellow Christ followers.
Easy to say. Easy to understand. Just hard to do.
Especially in the heat of battle and amidst strife and anxiety.
David Handy+
Given to occasional sermonizing, as well as outbursts of hyperbole
I am grateful for any and all attempts to leave footpaths in place and doors open. Just as God calls folk to various vocations, so too, I believe he calls people to varieties of local churches. May we , while being crystal clear about our own stances, ever give each other the grace and benefit of the doubt. Who knows what our magnificent God can do down the road with even the slightest impulse (on our part) toward unity?
As a ComCon-minded FedCon pragmatist, having departed TEC as of Monday, I have no animosity, and I hope none has any toward me. I see know reason why we can’t support one another and even work together on both mission and political strategy. I wonder if the majority of us feel similarly. But it does seem that a very select, high-profile few do have a hatchet to grind. It would be nice if that rhetoric could be toned down.
As long as we reasserting conservative Anglicans continue to quibble among ourselves about such issues as women’s ordination and the Prayer Book…….issues which will, in due time be resolved one way or another…….our reappraiser opponents will chortle, clap, and dance with glee, and we’ll continue to be our own worst enemies.
It’s time to put a stop to it, folks!
This is a wonderful post, indeed. My own tendencies are toward the Fedcon, yet I remain at my ECUSA parish where I have been blessed with the very best preaching and teaching I have ever encountered. In a small group, we are studying Fairfield’s Episcopal Ethos. We just read the chapter where he describes the horrible shape of the church at the time of the Revolutionary War, with many of the same issues which we have today: “enlightenment theology,” in essence a secular humanism clothed in the garments of liturgical worship, with “objectional” sections of Scripture and the BCP being removed. I am looking forward to reading on to see how God fixed the church and allowed it to survive. Knowing that we have been there before gives me hope that God can get ECUSA through this and use the faithful remnant to restore its Gospel witness. In the absence of that, I just don’t see any other long-term alternative but to leave to a new entity, which is why I lean towards the Fed com. I have no intention of leaving my parish, though, as long as it remains faithful to the Gospel. Interestingly, there are areas of the country without any orthodox Anglican presence, and if I found myself in any ogf those, I would have to leave Anglicanism entirely because I have to hear the Gospel on a weekly or at least bi-weekly basis.
Once upon a time those who consider themselves progressives in the Episcopal Church were in the policy-making minority; yet most of them remained and – in the face of resistance – stood up for their beliefs and did the work of organizing and strategizing for the purposes of moving the so-called “mind of the church” in the direction they favored, one step at a time. Those who now consider themselves conservatives and/or “orthodox” in the minority in the Episcopal Church might well consider how much more nobly attractive their effort to move the “mind of the church” as they prefer would appear if they too remained in the Episcopal Church and followed the progressives’ strategic lead.
We threaten to kill ourselves with friendly fire – and, should that happen, we will fulfill the prophesies of TEC hierarchs. We are each called to different scenarios by our God, who regularly blows my mind with His ability to handle infinite variables, direct people in similar situations differently and accomplish the best outcome for all. If my wife and I didn’t have early-teenaged children, we likely would have stayed in our TEC parish and ‘fought the fight’ in the diocese – the parish was fairly orthodox (though not exclusively so). However, we could not in good conscience continue to tell our children about the importance of doctrine regarding Scripture, regarding Christ’s singular role in our salvation and regarding God’s creation of families, while they observed the wider church teaching otherwise. We left because our calling (as the parents of the particular children God gave us) demanded it. I admire those who are called to stay and do so. I admire those who have been called to leave and have done so. Neither road is easy. Leave the sniping for reappraisers.
I owe my ComCon brothers and sisters my support – and hope they will offer me theirs. If we do not do so, we are attacking Christ Himself and I pity each of us on Judgment Day!
Thanks to Newbie for posting this.
Thanks to #8 for defining so well what I am: a “ComCon-minded FedCon pragmatist.” I have a high view of the Church. I can’t reconcile it with my conscience to attend Episcopal services in Raleigh, giving my physical presence and my money to a diocese which has gone so far off the rails. So I’m doing the best I can. I’ve found a good Anglican place to worship and I’m working as a layperson to push towards Anglican reunion to the extent that I can. If TEC actually reforms and becomes once again part of the one, holy, apostolic and catholic church, I’ll rejoin it with joy. If it fails, I hope most of y’all will join the effort to rebuild Anglicanism without TEC. But what each side needs to avoid is the sin of the Prodigal’s older brother, who was incensed that his father still loved the brother who got it all wrong. Let the side that turns out to be correct not be self-righteous, but rather loving, to the siblings on the other track.
I don’t mean, with reference to the Prodigal, to imply that I think the other side of this debate (ComCon/FedCon) is sinful! Not so, not so. What I want to look at is the attitude of “our” side, whichever it is. A holier-than-thou attitude on either side is destructive.
It seems to me one of the problems faced by the TEC, and other churches in much of the western have failed to realise how lightly most people hold their denominational loyalties. I am often saddened by the loyalty to corrupt organisations displayed by posters on the list. I would remind posters to re-read articles 18 & 19. Apply the 18th, and add TEC to the list in 19!
Jon R
Henry, the problem we have now is that the canons have changed. Despite the PBs plea to be a comprehensive church, the new TEC has been in the process of changing the canons to make issues uniform. This is where conservatives have lost. They remained in a comprehensive mode, ordaining a variety of folks, while the liberals refused to be comprehensive and made the processes unavailable to the conservatives. Liberals have tightened the grip legally. They have killed the “comprehensive church.”
[blockquote]It seems to me one of the problems faced by the TEC, and other churches in much of the western have failed to realise how lightly most people hold their denominational loyalties.[/blockquote]
Exactly! I count it all rubbish compared to the importance of knowing Christ.
I don’t know what the latest numbers are but over the years millions have already left. At least the two groups who are at odds here at least agree that some aspects of the AC are worth saving. If some things are worth saving the others are not worth dividing over. It is mind blowing that, until recently (more or less), we all tolerated being ‘together’ within the TEC but now that some of us have left Egypt we can’t get along?
There is no reason to argue with each other. Some us consider TEC to be Egypt and others Babylon (Jer 29:4-6). In the end it will all get sorted out.
#16, francis,
Alas, you’re so right. Just look at how TEC has abandoned the idea of allowing consciencious objectors to women’s ordination. But it’s easy to find fault with others. Newbie Anglican is challenging us to face up to our own sins. We are in danger of fragmenting and so ceasing to be properly comprehensive ourselves (in the right way, i.e., within biblical bounds).
David Handy+
Advocate of “3-D Christianity,” i.e., comprehensively evangelical, catholic, and charismatic (besides the New Reformation)
#17: I agree with you. To me, the Anglican Liturgy (Rite I and previous versions) is the strongest in Christendom. But one must go where s/he can receive God’s gifts of Word and Sacrament, even if this means leaving Anglicanism.
“those who advocate contending for the faith by staying in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.†It is interesting to see what a summary of a position one does not hold—I gather Newbie is a ‘fedcon’—looks like. Speaking for ACI at least, our chief concern is with statements of Communion generated by the Communion. At present, these would have TEC risking its place in the family of Communion churches. ACI wishes to support that portion of TEC not at risk and not interested in the adventures of autonomy and revision. What happens with another portion of TEC demanding its own way is that it could in time get its own way and find itself separated from the family of Communion churches. People can opine—as they have quite aggressively and angrily—that this view of Communion discipline is wrong or benighted, etc. Or people can plead for a change in tone, as this letter implies. But I think some rightly comment above that there are matters of substance at stake. I would have concluded that those who argue strenuously for a Canterbury-free, federal set of alliances mean it and wish to be taken seriously on that point. Those who see this as something other than historic Anglicanism (Peter Toon; ACI in its way) will in the nature of the case resist a break-up of the Communion and its transformation into a federal or ‘confessional’ body – a form of church life already in existence in several protestant bodies. If there is a break-up and the Communion splinters, and a new kind of Anglican alliance emerges will people get along with each other? I imagine they will, as former members of the Anglican family. But the fight for principles would at that point be over, and choices would have to be made in the light of that.
I concur that it would be better if people conducted affairs at the present time with patience and care. If Newbie is requesting that, it seems sound and timely.
I want more than patience and care. How about a little charity, good will, and a mutual “cease fire” when it comes to press releases decrying each others’ initiatives and positions?
I would hope that all orthodox Anglicans would stand throat to throat, shoulder to shoulder in the spiritual battle that pecusa has thrust upon us (I understand that’s not what Newbie meant). As one who has left for CANA I feel no animosity toward those who have stayed; I do hope that we can support each other. As for Communion discipline of pecusa, I don’t see that happening, but who knows? I hope that the Communion will say forcefully that pecusa has left and that they are what they are: liberal protestant sectarians.
As I said before now is time to start the separation, the things never will the same again, because the people of the CENTRE(Redner, King, WINDSOR bishops, ACI and FULCRUM) don’t have any influence in the Anglican Communion. They can write how many articles as they want, but none of the extremes will listen to them.
#23, paulo uk,
Although my disagreements with the whole ACI approach are a matter of public record here at T19 (and SF), I myself think you’ve gone too far in simply dismissing the so-called “people of the CENTRE” (the Windsor Bishops, ACI, FULCRUM etc.) as lacking any real influence in the AC. That plainly isn’t true. They have the ear of many of us in the worldwide Communion, even those of us who in the end choose a more radical path. I think it was symptomatic of the kind of lack of respect that Newbie Anglican has bemoaned above, that you couldn’t even spell Dr. Ephraim Radner’s name right.
But having said all that, I’d like to go back to the kind of issues that Dr. Seitz raised once again in his post #20 above. And to get into that, let me commend you, paulo uk, for urging us to recognize the signs of the times we are in. For in the end, I do agree with you. This is indeed the time to start the separation. And yes, no matter what comes out of the GAF Conference in Jerusalem in June, and the later Lambeth Conference in Kent in July/August, I think that it’s safe to say that Anglicanism will never be the same. For better or worse (and on the whole I feel confident that it will be for the better), we have passed the point of no return. The Rubicon has been crossed. The die is cast. Pandora’s Box has been opened. The toothpaste is out of the rube. The old status quo will never be restored.
So, even though this thread is devoted to the theme of seeking harmony and understanding and mutual respect among those of us on the orthodox, reasserter side of this great church war, let me attempt a partial response to Dr. Seitz and the whole ACI approach.
Essentially, I argue that the time for such an amicable solution to our troubles is over. TEC and the ACoC have shown that they are determined to “walk apart.” Fine. Let them walk. I do NOT say, “Good riddance.” No, I mourn. “How are the mighty fallen!”
But I agree with paulo uk, in that I too believe that the need of the hour is clear “differentiation,” to use one of Kendall’s favorite terms. And I firmly believe and stoutly contend that the whole purpose of the proposed Covenant should be revisited and revised. Namely, I think it’s frankly foolish to try to “maintain the highest degree of communion possible” with those determined to walk apart. It’s neither possible, nor even desirable, in my opinion.
As I keep repeating monotonously, like a mantra. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Oil and water simply don’t mix. Never have. Never will. Therefore, the whole idea of trying to keep the pro-gay advocates within the AC is unworkable, unnecessary, and unwise. Let them walk. But no need to yell curses on them as they depart.
Therefore, I dare to propose a much more radical approach. Let the primary goal of the new Covenant be maximum doctrinal clarity, rather than maintaining a false, superficial, and impossible institutional unity.
Toward that end, I argue, persistently, loudly, and even vehemently (as is my wont and style) that the new Covenant should be drastically rewritten and made MUCH, MUCH STRONGER. With the clear goal in mind that it be so strong and clear that no self-respecting advocate of the pro-gay cause could ever in good conscience sign it. Let it declare two things, in unmistakable and ringing clarity.
First, let the Covenant declare that henceforth, Holy Scripture is, as the Lambeth Quadrilateral declares, “the ultimate rule of faith and pracitce.” But let it go on to affirm something like the old Article 20 of the 39 Articles, and declare that henceforth, no Anglican body can publicly teach or enact any provisions that are contrary to the clear and consistent teach of God’s Word. Note, mind you, this is not limited to saying we may not teach anything contrary to Scripture “as necessary to salvation.” No, rather it goes further and roundly asserts in no uncertain terms that all attempts to teach or do anything clearly contrary to the clear and emphatic teaching of the Holy Scriptures is automatically and permanently ruled out. Period. No exceptions. From now on, it will be unAnglican to be unbiblical. And if that causes huge number of liberal Anglicans to leave the AC, fine. Let them go. It’s long past time…
Second, the new Covenant should explicitly condemn homosexual behavior and decisively reject the whole pro-gay theology and ideology. I strongly urge the bishops to revise the Covenant to add an explicit claim that all homosexual behavior, and all other sexual activity outside of marriage, is totally unChristian and unAnglican. The Covenant should go BEYOND Lambeth 1998’s Res. 1:10 and not only affirm that homosexual behavior is flatly and undeniably “incompatible with Holy Scripture,” but also (since this corollary can no longer be assumed) that all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is “CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF GOD.”
And if that causes dozens or even hundreds of liberal bishops to walk? Well, fine. Let them walk apart. If Canterbury himself won’t sign it. Fine. Let ++RW depart too!
I agree with you, paulo uk, at least on this point. Even if I’d want to state it more respectfully. The time has come to foster a clear separation. It’s time to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff, the true Christians from the false ones, the orthodox from the heretics. We need not wait for the trumpet blast and the return of the King of Kings and the ultimate Judgment.
It’s time to separate. Let the Covenant do that. Let it draw a clear line in the sand. Then let us enforce it! Those who cross that line, depart from Anglicanism. And eventually go into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
David Handy+
Never one to shrink back from radical, extreme solutions
The New Reformation is here. Embrace it!
New reformation the problem will be CofE, Anglo-Catholic(no women priest) are10%, Evangelicals 23%, liberals 67%, as you see Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics traditionalists are one third(this are numbers of 7 years ago). So Rowan and his friends can’t say about those can’t accept the Anglican liberal NEW RELIGION, that they are just a marginal minority.
#25, paulo uk,
I’m glad if you took no offense at my rather critical remark about your earlier post. I certainly intended nothing personal by it. I don’t know you, and I certainly have no first-hand knowledge of the C of E. I’ll let others chime in there, but my impression was that things weren’t quite so bad as all that. I’ve heard that the evangelicals are growing and currently make up over half the seminarians in England and may amount to half the actual church-going population in the mother church. But I freely admit that this is second or third-hand information. And I’ll happily defer to those of you in the UK who can provide better data on that score.
I’m always glad to hear from orthodox Anglicans across the Pond. “God save the Queen!”
David Handy+
Thoroughly American
I agree totally with New Reformation Advocate. Conditions and attitudes in the two groups are now so negative that a biblical communion seems impossible. It remains for us to pray for the ones who won’t recognize and obey God’s word.
Sarah and others here,
If indeed you are serious about desires for rapprochement between Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives, why not halt the boycott against the growing [url=http://covenant-communion.com]Covenant site[/url] and our large group of Communion-minded writers? Several valued commentators here at T19, including Dale Rye, Christopher Wells, Richard Kew, Doug Leblanc, and Neal Michell, and many others, are part of Covenant. All Covenant writers are Communion-minded and support the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. Yet the official editorial policy of Stand Firm is to boycott Covenant and refer to us constantly as “Vichy” and “collaborationists.” Why? Among major blogs, who else is not linked here at T19? At Stand Firm? Sarah and others at Stand Firm, if your words have any meaning, stop the boycott and cease the abusive language in referring to us. If these comments are more than mere spin, show you are serious about peaceful dialogue between Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives by linking to Covenant and engaging with respect our 27 authors – almost all Communion Conservatives and all supporters of Windsor and the Covenant – rather continuing this unjustified but official boycott, which is clearly a policy of hostility.
Craig, it’s not clear if you are including T19 in your criticism of some boycott of the Covenant blog. Certainly there has been no such policy here on T19. Kendall and we elves have linked quite often to Covenant as well as featuring stand alone posts by many Covenant authors. I’m not certain if you’re in our sidebar. I don’t think Covenant existed when we first set up the sidebar. Unfortunately, after our initial push to get the blog set up, any spare time to continue working on the blog design got eaten up by a number of huge work projects, and so we’ve not added any new links for 6 months or so. We’ve got a list of 20-30 sites from all perspectives that someday we want to add to the list of links, Covenant included.
There has been no intentional boycott of Covenant here. Just wanted to make that clear.
–elfgirl
Thanks for the clarification, elfgirl. We look forward to the link! And could you please correct the url in #28?
[i]You’re welcome. Link fixed![/i]
All, here is the link to the Covenant blog:
http://covenant-communion.com/
Craig Uffman misunderstands Matt+ of using the the term vichy-con. Here is Matt+’s definition:
[blockquote]I would not at all consider the ACI within the category of “Vichy.†The ACI has long recognized that discipline is a must with regard to those who have adopted heretical positions. They simply prefer to enact or work for that discipline exclusively within Communion structures. I disagree with the ACI on a number of issues and found much with which to disagree in their latest essay, but I do not consider them vichy….The vichycons are those who seek to maintain communion and establish common cause (and that cause is visible unity) with revisionists. Discipline is something they would prefer not to see because it would mean a possible break in Communion between the Episcopal Church and Canterbury. They are willing to and working toward making it might be possible for heretics and orthodox to coexist peacefully within one body. They may hold conservative views on homosexuality but the unity of Church is their overarching concern and so they will be willing to obfuscate or blurr the lines between orthodoxy and heresy to acheive their end.
The ACI by contrast, is not willing to do this and they have unabashedly pushed for discipline from the beginning. Our disagreements with the ACI are on, primarily, an ecclesial and strategic level. [/blockquote]
Both fed-cons and comm-cons participate in this blog. I think that a lot of the hostility that is heaped upon the comm-cons is because they view the realigned Anglicans as ecclesiastically tainted and they write them off. They seek a solution where they realigned orthodox play no part. In contrast, the fed-cons seek a solution that both can participate in.
Also, while the comm-cons are comfortable, the fed-cons take the full brunt of the liberal firepower. The comm-cons cause would be going nowhere if not for the stance of the fed-cons. It is extremely irritating that this is not recognized.
Craig Uffman — the difficulty with the Covenant web site has nothing to do with the differences between Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives. That would be odd, since I’m a Communion Conservative . . . in fact, of the five of us, I would place three on the ComCon side in varying degrees, and two on the FedCon side.
We simply as a blog do not work with blogs that attempt to behave as if those who are for same-sex blessings and other such innovations and those against those innovations are on the same page or believe in the same gospel.
I understand that Covenant does not believe as we do about that, and I hold no personal animus against Covenant. But all of us at StandFirm — both Federal Conservatives and Communion Conservatives — simply can’t in conscience support an implication that those who support a violation of the clear mandates of scripture and those who do not are in the same camp or are in any way similar.
I understand that Covenant and StandFirm simply do not agree about this matter at all and again, there are a number of nice people at Covenant on all sides.
Elves, I am sorry to bring StandFirm topics onto T19, but Craig asked, and I noticed that you allowed the question to remain. So I am answering.
RobRoy, I disagree with your take here: “I think that a lot of the hostility that is heaped upon the comm-cons is because they view the realigned Anglicans as ecclesiastically tainted and they write them off. They seek a solution where they realigned orthodox play no part. In contrast, the fed-cons seek a solution that both can participate in.”
First, the FedCons don’t seek a solution that both can participate in . . . since ComCons can’t participate in the FedCon solution nor can FedCons participate in the ComCon solution.
I personally, as a person who has no interest in the FedCon solution, haven’t experienced a whole lot of scorn from FedCons based on my “writing off” FedCons. I feel glad that FedCons can create something for themselves that they can be happy and confident in. It’s simply not something that I want to be a part of.
Mainly the scorn I’ve experienced from FedCons is that they spend a lot of time claiming that my motives for my decisions are flawed.
Honestly, I’m okay with that. I can take it.
But, again — the issue with StandFirm’s inability to support the Covenant goals or values has nothing to do with issues between ComCons and FedCons. We link and review and analyze with abandon all sorts of ComCon sites. The issue for StandFirm is another matter entirely — as was explained months ago.
Sarah,
This thread is about a call for rapprochement between communion conservatives and federal conservatives. At Covenant, all of our writers must commit to support of the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. To quote one of our policy documents, “as Anglicans, we support “the Windsor and Covenant Processes,” as Abp Rowan has asked all the bishops to commit to as they prepare for Lambeth next summer—that is, to continue working constructively with the Windsor Report and the Covenant draft as tools for the development of appropriate “structures” for our common life, and to accept the constraints on Christian behavior articulated in those documents “until a new consensus emerges.”
Your suggestion that we are not communion conservatives is simply unfounded. A different gospel? Neal Michell? Tony Clavier? Christopher Wells? Dale Rye? Hogwash. All anyone needs to do is view our list of writers to see the wrongness of such a claim. That’s a smokescreen, Sarah. How about some straight talk?
If you are serious about a rapprochement between communion conservatives and federal conservatives, cease the official policy of hostility. Cease the offense to Christian charity that any child can see clearly is the content of labels like “Vichy” and “collaborationists.” Add our link to your site and stop deleting our posts.
If you are not willing to do these things, then you are not at all serious about working with communion conservatives. You are simply acting to eliminate the voices of those disagree with your perspective. And this thread therefore is just more public relations spin.
[i] This thread is seriously off topic in discussing an all together different blog. Please return to the original post.[/i]
-Elf Lady
[i]I have to agree with my esteemed elf colleague that we probably shouldn’t continue the discussion about Stand Firm’s policy here. I let Craig’s original comment stand partly because I think it illustrates the confusion about goals and “sides” and “labels” that clouds our discussions and contributes to hostility. But specific concerns about a blog other than T19 do not belong on this thread. Thanks. Elfgirl[/i]
I appreciate that concern, Elf Lady. But Newbie Anglican has written in his post a plea for Communion Conservatives and Federal Conservatives to be able to work together, a plea we at Covenant honor. My point is that claims of support for such a goal are empty indeed if the blog with the largest number of communion conservative writers is not even accessible by official policy to readers of the principle blog of Fed Cons. If we are serious about working together, removing such obstacles to communication seems a good place to begin.
We are certainly hostile, Craig, to some of Covenant’s goals and values, specifically your decision to attempt to meld together positions that are antithetical to clear scriptural mandates, an attempt to place revisionists and reasserters together as if they are in the same camp. We have been crystal clear about this, and will continue to be so. We cannot in conscience support such work at all, and we will not.
Communion conservatives and Federal conservatives do very well over at StandFirm. We’re happy with where we are. We need no further rapprochement.
The only deletion of comments from Covenant were those that attempted in the early days to blatantly send people to the Covenant site. We delete such links from all sides as a matter of course and will continue to do so. It is a rude abuse of commenting privileges as well as self-serving to attempt to send blog traffic to other sites.
The idea that I desire “public relations” spin is somewhat humorous — one would think that I would have started a little earlier with that goal. I do not. It would be hard not to be “serious about working with communion conservatives” since I myself am one and many many communion conservatives and I work together.
But one thing is true, Craig — we will not support the goals and values of Covenant in regards to the attempt to mix progressive theology and reasserting theology, while implying that they are equivalent. That is not something that we can support in conscience.
All of these things you are well aware of.
I understand that Covenant does not share the same goals or values of StandFirm. I accept that and hold nothing against you — or even the progressive bloggers there — personally. But we will have to follow the guidance of conscience — and all five of us at StandFirm believe quite strongly that we cannot support Covenant’s efforts in that area; we take it quite seriously that that is a part of your goals, and we do not want to do anything that would imply that we support such a goal.
[i]Sarah & Craig, you’ve both had your say and the chance to present your positions. Please now take any further discussion offline. We ask other commenters if you chime in to focus on the big picture issues and not on the Stand Firm – Covenant question. –elfgirl [/i]
This kind of spin that presents falsehoods about communion conservatives:
in an effort to discredit them is exactly what needs to stop if we are to take Newbie Anglican’s plea seriously. It is simply false and an irresponsible and uncharitable effort to silence those who disagree with the Fed Con approach.
Labels like “Vichy-Con” and “collaborationists” are similar uncharitable obstacles. They need to stop now. Those who use them are simply not credible in their claims of fellowship with communion conservatives. Indeed, such labels are inappropriate in any Christian forum.
It seems that we should be able to agree on these things.
Covenant’s writers are communion-minded persons committed to the Windsor Report and the Covenant process. We consistently press to work constructively with the Windsor Report and the Covenant draft as tools for the development of appropriate “structures†for our common life.
Thanks, Elf Girl. Will do.
No Craig — it is no falsehood. You have writers who are progressives there and writers who are reasserters.
Clearly we do not attempt to silence those who disagree with the FedCon approach — I disagree with the FedCon approach and I blog at StandFirm.
We simply do not support the Covenant goals and values, which have attempted to meld together Communion liberals and Communion conservatives.
Closing this thread would be extremely disappointing. The whole point of this thread would be undermined. Yet it seems that both Sarah and Craig are intent on getting the last word. It’s a lose-lose proposition for us elves if we close it or if we let this continue.
On one hand, we believe that this kind of discussion between Craig & Sarah is important and fits the topic and don’t want to stifle it. Yet it seems pretty obvious that there is fundamental disagreement that is not likely to be resolved by more discussion of the specific issues between Craig & Sarah, and that it risks becoming personal and too focused on Stand Firm. Is there no way to take it up to a higher level and continue the personal discussion and the issue of Stand Firm’s policy offline? This is NOT Stand Firm and it really doesn’t seem appropriate to continue this here.
—-
[b]Update:[/b] I’ve been informed by e-mail that there has been previous off blog discussion between Stand Firm and Craig Uffman about why Stand Firm doesn’t link Covenant. So truly, that conversation has been had and it does not need to be continued here. If other commenters want to chime in, please contact Sarah or Craig by private message. Thank you.
Any further discussion here should only be on a broader level about how we talk to one another and maintain civility in spite of differing goals or strategies.
–elfgirl
Sarah, my goal is a replacement North American province that is in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. OK, I can hear the raucous laughing from here. No, I do not mean the present ABC. He is an unmitigated disaster. I mean the next archbishop of Canterbury (ABp Sentanamu or Nazer-Ali). How’s that sound?
As far as the question of how we get there, I don’t think the linear path will ever get us to that point. Rather it will be through a realignment path. It will involve crises. An organization as inertially bound as the AC simply cannot correct its course without such upheaval. To imagine that it can correct its course through a series of meetings is folly, indeed.
RE: “To imagine that it can correct its course through a series of meetings is folly, indeed.”
Well . . . time will tell I guess. There were certainly “series of meetings” at other times that did the trick! ; > )
Actually, serious course corrections of the Church in the past only resulted from a series of meetings PLUS a few (or more) burning of heretics. The present ABC is much of the problem. His working supposition is that one can mix oil and water and that the Anglican Communion is presently a communion. (It is not.) No “series of meetings” can force him to resign. Quite the opposite, that is his whole raison d’etre. One would hope that the non-participation of the representatives of over half the world’s Anglicans in his “series of meetings” would make him see the disaster that his office now is and that he would resign. Truly, I believe the only hope for the Anglican Communion is his resignation.
I am not sure whether comm-cons trust the ABC, but I don’t think they can think outside of the box of moving around or past the ABC. The comm-cons are stuck in the mindset they must work with the sad excuse that sits in the see of Paul. Whereas fed-cons are tired of the dithering and are simply moving ahead, and this or the next ABC will cry out, “Hey guys, wait for me!”
Remember when the comm-cons cringed and wept at the patently obvious statement that the ABC, as an instrument of unity, is lost? This is not to say that it can’t be found again in the future.
#32 & 43, robroy,
Way to go, Pres! You have stated the view of the NRAFC very well. But perhaps a litle elaboration might help.
Meetings are important, but meetings must lead to ACTIONS. We’ve had more than enough exchange of empty words. Our mortal foes blithely ignore our words. All they pay any attention to is our actions.
Once again, you are absolutely right, robroy, in saying that the revisionists or reappraisers focus all their anger on us FedCon types, because we are choosing to go ahead and act on our orthodox beliefs. We don’t just SAY that someone like +Peter Lee is wrong in claiming that schism is worse than heresy, we DO something to show we really mean it. And that drives them crazy, as well it should.
Sarah has invoked the historical record, without providing examples of meetings that “did the trick” in the past. Well, let me supply an illuminating historical precedent or two, both from the time of the original 16th century Reformation. Since Newbie Anglican started this thread with his eloquent appeal for unity on the orthodox side, let me point to the limitations of such an approach, which I nonetheless favor, despite its inevitable limitations.
Do you recall the famous “Colloquy” at Marburg in 1529? The major reformers from Germany (led by Luther himself) met with the reformers from the Swiss cantons (led by Zwingli himself). The goal was to mend fences and be able to present a united front against the papacy. But despite many hours of intense debate, the talks finally broke down over the matter of eucharistic theology, with Luther INSISTING on the doctrine of the Real Presence, and Zwngli equally stoutly denying it as overthrowing the Reformation from the start. They could agree on almost everything else, but here they reached a stalemate and nothing could break the deadlock. And in the end, Luther departed in frustration, declaring simply to the more radical Swiss reformer, “You are of a different spirit.” From then on, it was clear that the Reformers would never maintain a unified front. They simply were too diverse to hold together.
Now, are we doomed to repeat that kind of thing? Will we in the end fail to patch up our differences as well and go our separate ways, as Luther and Zwingli did? Only time will tell…
Second, historical example. I remind all readers who have stuck with the thread thus far (without giving up after the long detour Craig and Sarah led us down), that there was such a thing as a Catholic Reformation too (usually known as the Counter Reformation of course). It was spearheaded by the new missionary order founded by Ignatius of Loyola, the Jesuits, and cluminated in the famous (or infamous) reforming Council of Trent. I’m not really interested in evaluating the adequacy of that reforming council (which I’m prone to call a case of “too little, too late”). But my point is that without the radical actions of all the Protestant reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Cranmer, Calvin, and others), there would never have been a Trent. There had been many attempts at instigating reforms through previous assemblies of bishops, but all those attempts at reform had come to naught, because of the obstinate resistance of the papacy and the Roman Curia, which acted just like bureaucracies always act.
I trust my point is obvious. Robroy, as usual, I couldn’t agree with you more. If true and lasting change of any real significance is going to come to worldwide Anglicanism at last, it will only be because we so-called “FedCons” (or radical New Reformation types even) force the hand of our foes.
Attempts to PERSUADE our opponents to agree with us or to achieve some sort of resolution by AC-wide consensus are totally fuitle. It’s clear by now that this simply can’t and won’t happen. There is no sense chasing after that mirage any longer. That’s where I fault the noble ACI team. So let’s abandon the folly of TALKING our liberal foes into changing. And let’s FORCE a solution on them.
That’s why I continue to argue, as I did briefly above, and I’ve done at more length elsewhere, for a much more daring approach. Let’s urge all the orthodox bishops to go to GAFCON, prepare a detailed plan to simply TAKE OVER Lambeth and the whole AC and then execute the plan. Let’s show up in force in Kent in July, proceed to trash the ACO agenda, invite bishops Minns, Guernsey, Atwood etc., and ram a much strengthened Covenant down the gagging throats of our theological enemies, create a 5th Instrument of Unity to enforce that new Covenant, and totally resturcture the AC so that future representation at all pan-Anglican events is based on the size of the provinces. That puts Nigeria and Uganda and the whole GS firmly in the driver’s seat, with full and complete control over the AC. Now that might entice ++Akinola and ++Orombi etc. to come after all.
Then we declare the New Reformation a success. And if the liberals don’t like it and fuss and scream? Well, so what? Who cares? Let them walk apart. Let them go. They really aren’t part of us anyway.
In other words, the flip side of the recognition that FedCons and ComCons are still on the same side, playing on the same team, is that our erstwhile opponents on the Left are on the opposite team. And let’s face it. They are THE ENEMY! So let’s stop playing around, get out of denial, and treat them as the ENEMIES of Christ and the gospel that they are! Do we still love them? Of course. We are called to love our enemies, as well as our friends. But there is absolutely no point in pretending that the liberal advocates of a false gospel of affirmation of people in their sin, a false gospel of universalism and moral relativism, are anything other than implacable and relentless enemies.
You see? It’s really very simple. It’s not a matter of shades of gray. It’s really black and white. There are the good guys in white hats (the orthodox), and their are the evil villains, the liberals. So let’s see this as the Western movie that it is. And all head to the climactic shoot out at the OK Corrall at Lambeth in July. Then let’s pull out our guns and wipe out our damn enemies, those cursed heretics, in the name of Christ!
David Handy+
And yes, that’s admittedly hyperbolic language! (grin)
Fierce Advocate of a militant New Reformation
Robroy #32 emphasizes half of it:[blockquote]The comm-cons cause would be going nowhere if not for the stance of the fed-cons. It is extremely irritating that this is not recognized.[/blockquote]
This is absolutely true; without the vigorous push from such as Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya — and the Provinces sponsoring GAFCon generally — the outcome of Dromantine, Nottingham, Dar es Salaam, and for that matter Lambeth ’98 itself would not have been nearly so protective of Christian orthodoxy and orthodox Christians.
On the other hand, without the careful persuasion and theological prestige of the more moderate group in the GS — e.g. Asia and the West Indies, now including +Anis in the Middle East — it’s doubtful that a sufficient majority could have been persuaded to come along as far as they did. If the Communion is (ever) to impose discipline on TEC (and New Westminster, and perhaps others) and restore its credibility as a legitimate stream of Patristic, catholic Christianity, close cooperation, tactical and otherwise, of both groups is absolutely necessary.
From a purely North American perspective, to avoid a legal (and therefore financial) bloodbath for the faithful parishes and dioceses, it is essential that TEC be ejected (or remove itself) from the Communion, thereby greatly reducing its legal (and possibly canonical) clout. This remains true whether the surviving Communion entity in America is the Windsor/Network/TEC remnant or the Common Cause coalition or some combination of both.
Moreover, there are on the order of 150,000 congregants (ASA) in nominally Windsor but non-CCP TEC dioceses. This amounts to nearly a fifth of TEC’s ASA that a simple secession strategy would just abandon — not to mention thousands more in dioceses where the nebbishop ordinary would suddenly Come to Jesus when the mass of pew potatoes finally wake up to the fact that they have traded their Communion heritage for a mess of Politically Correct pottage. It is the prospect of this huge exodus once real discipline is imposed that is giving 815 real nightmares, not the onesie-twosie of individual parishes, however large and prestigious.
Globally there is even more at stake. Unless TEC is firmly and unambiguously disciplined, the moral integrity of the Communion itself is irremediably shattered and it no longer represents a unitary member of the Body of Christ but rather a loose and fractious association of churches. This is a bad enough from a Western point of view, but as [url=http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/112/2/ ]Dr+ Radner[/url] has eloquently argued, amounts to a very real tragedy for much of the Global South.
Unless the orthodox have an overwhelming majority at Lambeth, it is a near-certainty that the ACO will succeed in manipulating the conference to produce the (unfortunately) usual insipid resolutions and a very weak Covenant, which in turn would assure TEC of at worst a mild rap on the knuckles. Recall again that such manipulation was attempted at Lambeth ’98, Dromantine, Nottingham, and Dar, and in each case was foiled only due to the presence of a firmly united Global South.
This is why many of us so-called ComCons are very worried by the whole concept of GAFCon. Certainly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a conference of the orthodox to discuss Lambeth strategy and undertake contingency planning based on different projected outcomes, but this is not the apparent goal of GAFCon, and particularly when combined with the worrisome plans of many key Provinces for a Lambeth boycott, it appears to amount to unilateral secession from the Communion, which then is handed to 815 and its henchmen in the ACO on a silver platter — complete with the basis of a perfect propaganda line, “Well, they are the ones that abandoned the Communion.”
So I sympathize with and completely support Newbie’s call for mutual respect, civility, and charity between the orthodox factions. But it must be realized that from a ComCon point of view, recent developments — however understandable, however frustrating the apparent inaction of Canterbury may be — are endangering the entire Communion, and it is not easy for many of us to contemplate the loss of a very precious baby, however disgusting the bathwater.
#47, Craig,
I welcome your post and find myself largely in sympathy with it. But I’m less skeptical than you appear to be that the GS can pull off a stunning “take over” of the whole AC and miraculously FORCE the hard-core liberals out. I may be wrong, of course, but my intuitive sense is that there is a huge amount of frustration out there with TEC’s unrepentant. relentless, and even reckless promotion of the gay agenda. That frustration even extends into much of the C of E that might otherwise be more sympathetic to the liberal side. And the Advent Letter from ++R. Williams strongly suggests to me that Canterbury has reconciled himself to the inevitability of real discipline having to be meted out, he just doesn’t have the heart to impose that discipline on TEC and the ACoC himself.
This is very high stakes poker indeed. The dangers are obviously very real. But so are the opportunities! And this is a GOLDEN opportunity for drastic actions to be taken. I say (characteristically): CARPE DIEM. Let’s seize the day! Let’s stick it to the heretical liberals, and boot them out of the AC once and for all (unless they genuinely repent of course).
David Handy+
David+ #47, I doubt that we disagree on anything. But for every charming cheerleader on the field, there’s a dour pessimistic old geezer back in the locker room doing risk analysis…
#49, Craig,
I’m delighted if we are in so much agreement. You may wish to consider joining the NRAFC. We seem to be having a banner day. We just picked up another member over on SF in the last hour.
But surely you aren’t suggesting that you yourself are such a “dour pessimistic old geezer” now, are you?? I certainly don’t get that impression from your posts. In fact, I’ve been admiring them.
David Handy+
The following quote of Hooker’s came to mind while reading this thread – for more reasons than one, I might say. Gregory’s resignation from the see of Constantinople, in part because of the feelings Hooker cites in this text, was probably a wise move, worthily to be followed by others in our midst during these sad days of the present (and not from episcopal sees alone!). Hooker’s hopes, by contrast, were never realized in England, as we know. A great question is “why not?”.
From the conclusion of Hooker’s Preface to The Laws:
Far more comfort it were for us (so small is the joy we
take in these strifes) to labour under the same yoke, as men that
look for the same eternal reward of their labours, to be enjoined
with you in bands of indissoluble love and amity, to live as if our
persons being many, our souls were but one, rather than in such
dismembered sort to spend our few and wretched days in a tedious
prosecuting of wearisome contentions; the end whereof, if they have
not some speedy end, will be heavy, even on both sides.
Brought already we are even to that estate which Gregory Nazianzen mournfully
describeth, saying, “My mind leadeth me (sith there is no other
remedy) to fly and convoy myself into some corner out of sight,
where I may scape from this cloudy tempest of maliciousness,
whereby all parts are entered into a deadly war amongst themselves,
and that little remnant of love which was, is now consumed to no-
thing. The only godliness we glory in, is to find out somewhat
whereby we may judge others to be ungodly. Each other’s faults
we observe, as matter of exprobation, and not of grief. By these
means we have grown hateful in the eyes of the heathens themselves,
and (which woundeth us the more deeply) able we are not to
deny, but that we have deserved their hatred : with the better sort
of our own, our fame and credit are clean lost. The less we are to
marvel, if they judge vilely of us, who although we did well, would
hardly allow thereof. On our backs they also build that are lewd,
and what we object one against another, the same they use, to the
utter scorn and disgrace of us all. This we have gained by our mutual
home-dissensions: this we are worthily rewarded with, which
are more forward to strive, than becometh men of virtuous and mild
disposition.”
But our trust in the Almighty is, that with us contentions
are now at the highest float, and that the day will come, (for
what cause of despair is there ?) when the passions of former en-
mity being allayed, we shall with ten times redoubled tokens of our
unfeignedly-reconciled love, shew ourselves each towards other the
same with Joseph, and the brethren of Joseph were at the time of their interview in Egypt.
Our comfortable expectation and most
thirsty desire whereof, what man soever amongst you shall any way
help to satisfy (as we truly hope there is no one amongst you but
someway or other will), the blessings of the God of peace, both in
this world and in the world to come, be upon him more than the
stars of the firmament in number.
Dear Master Po (aka Ephraim)
Thank you, and Amen.
Sincerely,
Grasshopper
Well, Hooker’s ascription of motives to St. Gregory is a nice “morality tale,” but it is unlikely to be historically accurate (not that Hooker could have known that). See: *St. Gregory of Nazianzen: An Intellectual Biography* by John McGuckin (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001). Fr. McGuckin’s fascinating study demonstrates clearly that Gregory (an attractive and winsome character, and one whom McG regards as, with Athanasius, one of the two most significant Eastern theologians) was an incredibly inept “ecclesiastical politician” and whose resignation was a “gambit” that he made at the Council of Constantinople in 381 to quell opposition at it (support me — or else I’m resigning); but instead, the council took him at his word (so sorry you feel that way — but thanks for all your work, and best wishes for a happy retirement).
On Gafcon, Conger has this crucial bit of exchange:
“It is my region, and I know it better than you,” Anis told Akinola, cautioning against an overt pro-Israel spin to the meeting. “To say we will do a pilgrimage to attract bishops, and [that] yet it is not entirely a pilgrimage, is not right in my point of view.”
Akinola responded that the organizers had considered the Egyptian bishop’s concerns, but had come to the “unanimous conclusion” to go ahead with the Jerusalem meeting.
**
There needs to be some serious mending, backing off, whatever, here. It would not help a fedcon sentiment to watch an over-reach go wrong. +Anis is very firm here and I doubt this is going to change. Things are very fragile. Is it really true that +Akinola and his select group from the GS decided to proceed without +Anis’s OK? That is not good. ACI has always warned that dividing the GS would be a serious risk in much of this. SE Asia has stayed out altogether and some reports say leaders there are incandescent. Lord have mercy.
#51, Dr. Radner,
Well, well, you’ve found one of the chinks in my armor, I’m afraid. I will confess that my use of the violent language of the shoot out at the OK Corrall (see my #46 above) does seem more than a bit hyperbolic in light of those admirably irenic quotes from Hooker and blessed Gregory of Nazienzus. And those aptly peaceable quotes do indeed fit the theme of this thread that Newbie Anglican set the tone for so well at the start.
But perhaps this may be a good time for a further confession on my part. Despite the fact that Richard Hooker is so often praised as the leading or pre-eminent Anglican theologian (or something of the sort), I find that I just can’t get excited about him. And for several reasons that may shed light on our sorry controversies and bitter conflicts within Anglicanism today.
First, as is well known, Hooker may have given classical espression to our famous triad of basic authorities, which we commonly refer to as “Scripture, Tradtion, and Reason,” but he himself would have ranked them in a different order: Scripture, Reason, and last of all, Tradition. That’s the first place where I differ strikingly from the learned Master of the Temple in London, for I place Tradition (mostly patristic tradition) above Reason.
But there’s actually something much more signifcant at the root of my discomfort with the one who is so often lauded as “the judicious Hooker.” I lost track long ago of how often I’ve heard Richard Hooker praised as always “judicious.” Indeed, he’s so commonly honored as “the judicious” Hooker that you might be pardoned for thinking that Judicious was his first name! Well, speaking only for myself, I wish that he’d been a little LESS judicious. He’d be a whole lot more FUN to read.
So may I confess it? I find Hooker dreadfully boring. I mean, I’ve found that if I can’t get to sleep some night because I’m worried about something (like the future of Anglicanism), all I have to do is pick up a copy of Hooker’s immortal The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, and before I’ve gone more than a few pages, he has put me fast to sleep. I mean, he’s so EXCESSIVELY moderate and irenic and yes, “judicious” that he just bores me to death! It works like a charm every time.
At first, I blamed it on Hooker’s notoriously convoluted rhetorical style. You know, those paragraph-long sentences, rather like the Greek text of Ephesians. They just go on and on, longer than the Energizer Bunny in the commercials. That is, I thought it was his never-ending syntax that put me to sleep.
And then, I realized that it went far beyond that. It was the theology itself that I found boring. Now maybe that’s a sign that I’m so very boisterously American, and Hooker is so quintessentially English. But I think it’s more than a matter of cultural preferences.
For I’ve come to believe that Richard Hooker was probably DELIBERATELY adopting a highly irenic style of argument with his Puritan opponents, in order to dampen the flames of controversy. That is, instead of fighting fire with fire, Hooker attempted to inject huge doses of moderation into the raging debates of the 1590s by refusing to engage in inflammatory rhetoric, the way his foes so shamelessly did. And it seems that this tactic was partially successful.
And it seems clear that this is part of Hooker’s immortal appeal to many. Certainly it was so for John Keble, the saintly leader of the Oxford Movement, who produced the first great critical, annotated edition of Hooker’s Works. Keble adored Hooker. Significantly, Newman did not. And need I say it? I’m much, MUCH closer to Newman in both theology and especially in personality than I am to Keble. What can I say? I’m drawn to radicals, not moderates. Only please note: I’m drawn to opposing radicals, whose various extreme tendencies normally cancel each other out.
That is, I would rather spend 20 hours reading Luther than 1 hour reading Hooker. I’d rather spend 10 hours reading John Wesley than an hour reading Lancelot Andrewes. And I’d rather spend 30 hours reading John Henry Newman (my alltime favorite) than one hour reading Keble or Joseph Butler or F D. Maurice etc. I’m sure you get the idea.
You see, from my point of view, the whole much-loved idea of a “Via Media” is a mistake. I tend to think we Anglicans make an idol out of moderation. Thus, I love to remind friends that “the golden mean” is a PAGAN ideal, drawn from the ancient Greeks, not an inherently Christian one. We need to get over our Anglican “immderate love of moderation.”
For too long we’ve avoided all signs of extremism like the plague (e.g., as in the historic use of “enthusiasm” in England with the derogatory connotation of implied fanaticism), and therefore we’ve instinctively cleaved to the sensible, moderate middle way between Rome and Geneva that has been so popular since Hooker’s time. Yuck. Where’s the fun in that?? My instinct is quite the opposite. I tend to feel like St. John the Divine, the author of Revelation, that it’s better to be either hot or cold, but for heaven’s sake, not “lukewarm.” Again, I say, yuck. Who wants to drink lukewarm water? Not me.
Instead, what I crave is the embracing of opposite extremes simultaneously, in such a way that they counterbalance each other. That is, instead of seeking to find the moderate middle path between Protestantism and Catholicism (as steering a cautious path between Scylla and Carybdis) , what I want is to embrace a fully evangelical form of Anglicanism along with an equally ardent and authentically catholic form of Anglicanism, and with yet a third element added as well, a fully and genuinely charismatic form of Anglicanism to boot, thrown in for good measure. This is what I like to call “3-D” or three dimensional Christianity.
Do you see what I mean? It’s highly paradoxical, and I relish in that very fact. It’s like the mystery of the Trinity, God being Three and yet One, or Christ being fully divine and yet fully human at the same time. And thus, in a similar way, what I long for is a similar sort of
3-D Christianity that shuns that tempting middle way and embraces all three extremes with joyful abandon.
I want to be free to be as evangelical as Billy Graham, not to mention John Stott, or John Wesley. But at the same time, I also claim the right to be as catholic as John Henry Newman (in his Anglican phase of course), not to mention Michael Ramsay, or (dare I say it?) even Joseph Ratzinger. And on top of that, I further insist on the freedom to be as charismatic or downright Pentecostal as Nicky Gumbel, or Dennis Bennett, or even “Mr. Pentecost,” David duPlessis. I want it ALL. And I’m not willing to give up any of it!
Doubtless, the ever “judicious” Richard Hooker would accuse me of “enthusiasm.” Well, so be it. I plead guilty as charged. That’s why we need a New Reformation!
What say you, Dr. Radner?
David Handy+
Ever the idealist
[i] You and Dr. Radner may want to consider taking this discussion off line. [/i]
#56, Dear Elves,
Certainly. Actually, my remarks weren’t just directed at Ephraim+. I hoped they might be of broader interest. I merely intended to provide an illustration of the diversity within our ranks as conservative-minded Anglicans. There certainly was no attack intended in the least. I have great respect for Dr. Radner.
And my somewhat critical remarks about the ever judicious Richard Hooker were partly in jest, as I hope was clear. My apologies to any Hooker-lovers out there who may have taken offense. His place at the head of the so-called “Caroline Divines” is quite secure. Richard Hooker will still be read generations from now (if Christ continues to tarry), long after any flippant remarks from NRA have long been deservedly forgotten.
David Handy+
[i] We have become unusually sensitive to the tone of every thread. In the past few weeks threads have veered way off topic and the tone of commenters has become less civil. We appeal to everyone to help us. [/i]
Don’t worry, Elves. I have no interest in a critical — polemical or just plain spirited — appraisal of Hooker’s theological tone. It’s not why I quoted him. Nor do I intend to engage in a historical inquiry as to Gregory of Nazianzus’ ecclesial-political motives, as I am sure the good Dr. Tighe knows well. My only point, on this particular thread, was — in following up with the original post — to emphasize the rather sad effect of our arguments on the credibility of our professed faith, and to sympathize with the instinct many feel to escape the eddies of Christian malice for calmer climes. An instinct, I might add, that is best resisted. Blessings to all, including the ever-effervescent Dr. Handy (whose use of the analogy of the Bunny can cut in in any number of ways!).
#58, Dr Radner,
Touche. Point scored. Yes, I admit that my own posts can indeed go on and on, like that Energizer Bunny. All too true.
Perhaps, therefore, it may be appropriate to call attention to the well-known psychological fact that the things that tend to bother us most about other people are the very things that secretly bother us most about ourselves. Hmmm. Maybe that’s why Hooker gets under my skin…
David Handy+
“Ever-effervescent” apologist