In Luke’s gospel, Jesus prays ”˜That they may be one’. The reason for this prayer is simple, ”˜that the world may believe’. The priority of unity is therefore no added extra. We should not be content to see churches and denominations proliferate. On the other hand, the goal of full visible unity in the organic sense looks mpossible, but we should at least be working towards recognising each other’s ministry and as far as possible guaranteeing an interchangeable ministry to the world.
One of the greatest seductions of our time for the church is to serve consumerism by offering Christianity up as an option in the religious market place. This eduction creeps upon us in two main ways.
Firstly, we offer the proliferation of churches, styles of worshipping and our disagreements as a conduit for evangelism. In other words we make excuses for our disunity and pretend that our division serves the gospel. Everyone can find what they want in the religious market place, we suggest. Surely this contradicts the Pentecost vision of a church of all languages, cultures, generations?
Secondly, we pretend that Christianity itself is one option among many, that other faiths serve God through differing cultures. The prevailing wisdom of our age is that no one vision of God can possibly be universal. This is the greatest lie and deceit the Church currently faces.
The universality of faith is at stake in the contemporary Anglican crisis far more than the vexed subject of homosexuality. This is partly because if the Bible has no purchase in the area of personal morality, how can it possibly be said to have any relevance to other areas? But also because the two questions are related to the lordship of Christ in each of our lives.
Our heart rightly tells us that God loves all and judges no one, because we fear that judgement, but our reading of the text tells us that these decisions are entirely out of our hands.
So if unity is a priority for evangelism, then surely evangelicals, for whom Matthew 28 has meant more than most, should recognise this dearly. Yet a false dichotomy is constantly established between truth and unity ”” as though the two are divisible. And evangelicals have stood primarily for fissiparousness and acrimony rather than going the extra mile for the sake of a Gospel which prioritises unity, and describes the church as the body of Christ.
Disunity is akin to amputation. Undoubtedly it is something which is sometimes necessary for the whole body’s health, but only to be embarked upon as the last resort.
So what do we learn about the priority of unity as far as the current dispute in the Anglican Communion is concerned? Well, it’s not over till it’s over. In other words, whether or not Gene Robinson is there or not, the Lambeth Conference is an absolute priority for Anglican Bishops if they truly want to serve unity and truth.
In his Advent letter, Dr Rowan Williams stated quite bluntly about his original invitations that refusal to meet could constitute a refusal of the cross. “I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be…We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples.”
–This article appeared in the Church of England Newspaper, December 28 2007/January 4 2008 edition, page 14
“So what do we learn about the priority of unity as far as the current dispute in the Anglican Communion is concerned? Well, it’s not over till it’s over. In other words, whether or not Gene Robinson is there or not, the Lambeth Conference is an absolute priority for Anglican Bishops if they truly want to serve unity and truth.”
It is clear Andrew Carey has got the point.
Amen, brother.
Yet all those Protestants who make this argument never take the next step and return to the Church of Rome…
He articulates my concerns beautifully. Many of the people I love dearly and have gone another path accuse me of using this kind of thinking to justify my decision to not “leave” yet (or maybe ever). If I do leave it will be because the communion as a whole breaks up and I have to. I could not continue if TEC and others like it were the majority in the group — but as long as faithful bishops are showing up at Lambeth and we are still deliberating — stay I will.
3 — for many of us returning to Rome is not where “it” lives. It may symbolize it — but it is not “it”.
Dr. Williams writes: “An invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be…We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples.†Presumably that was done at Lambeth 1998, and for the past ten years we have been dealing with the reality of several provinces which have repudiated the 1998 resolution – not only repudiated but acted contemptuously in defiance of it. Once again, we have evidence that the present occupant of the See of Canterbury hasn’t a clue.
The son of the former Archbishop wants us to believe that “whether or not Gene Robinson is there or not, the Lambeth Conference is an absolute priority for Anglican Bishops if they truly want to serve unity and truth.” In point of fact that does not represent the priority of the bishops of the institution formerly known as ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada and others. It did not represent the priority of American and Canadian bishops in 1998. Presence at the meeting of an exclusive club, even with its opportunities for wonderful photo-ops and chicken dinners for the unsophisticated and theologically deficient non-American and non-Canadian bishops, is not the issue anymore. Accountability is. Lambeth 1998 had a resolution and ten years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council, the institution formerly known as ECUSA, and the Anglican Church of Canada, continue to act as if nothing has happened and that Anglicanism is one big happy family filled with good intentions and impeccably sincere behavior on the part of those who have emphatically rejected Lambeth 1998. Welcome to Wonderland.
I just pray that political strategies of divide and rule will not work……there should certainly be unity between The Network, THe ACI, The CCP and the GS…….there should be unity amongst all who have not rejected the authority of scripture.
It would be a terrible day if politics and delays led us to a position in which good leaders like Dr Radner were in the same church as +Schori and +Bruno but not +Duncan and ++Venables………
If “conservative” and open evos are split, that will be a great political result for the bureaucrats in Lambeth Palace who seem so often to be pulling the strings in Anglican affairs (eg turning up at New Orleans with the ABC and issuing reports purporting to have some sort of authority in the AC).
Clearly the GS should be at Lambeth so that it is no hijacked by a small group of rights-based campaigners…..without the GS there, special interest political campaign groups in the AC will have disproportionate influence as they only have to look slightly upset for so many from “the North” to cave in to whatever they want for fear of being labelled a discriminator of some sort.
It may be humiliating for some Primates to now turn up to Lambeth having said they would not but I hope they take that on the nose, turn up and do their jobs contending for the faith once delivered against false teachers in the AC
[blockquote]”The reason for this prayer is simple, ‘that the world may believe’.”[/blockquote]
This argument does not address the situation where active participation in traditional AC instruments spreads disbelief? At any rate, non-attendance of Lambeth will be effectively withdrawing from the AC – [b]if and only if[/b] – the ABC schismatically treats it as so. And we should not forget that the ABC is the same person who unilaterally thwarted the conciliar DES communique.
FWIW, if the AC does break apart, I would not be surprised if the “evangelical” portion of the communion develops closer ecumenical ties to the rest of catholicism than the devolving western remainder.
“Disunity is akin to amputation. Undoubtedly it is something which is sometimes necessary for the whole body’s health, but only to be embarked upon as the last resort.”
It amazes me at how people cannot see the gravity of the crisis. Exactly when do you acknowledge the last resort-ness of the situation? The best [i]possible[/i] outcome is a split into two (really an acknowledgement of present reality). The second option is that the Communion can fracture into many pieces. Blithely carrying on the present course of deferring to “just one more meeting” will assure the later total collapse of the AC.
[url=http://mcj.bloghorn.com/3578] Christopher Johnson [/url] says it like it is:
[blockquote] Quick Anglican quiz. What three things do the following have in common?
Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10
The October, 2003 Anglican Primates Statement
The Windsor Report
The Dromantine Primates Communiqué
The Dar es Salaam Primates Communiqué
All five (1) were the result of Anglican meetings, (2) express the mind of Anglican Christianity and (3) were resolutely ignored by the Anglican Communion. [/blockquote]
There will be no movement at Lambeth. Just more talk. The only hope is GAFCON.
Looks like Andrew Carey and the his Evangelical Centre(Radner, Graham King, Windsor bishops) live in the Wonderland. I ask you :Union with who? With Kath, Gene, Rowan and the revisionists. Come on folks, Jesus was talking with true believers, no heretics. Talking about revisionists Paul said if a Angel come preaching another Gospel, we should not listen, then why should I listen to Rowan, Kath, Gene etc. Paul said for true orthodox Christians not have relation with this people and treat them as PAGANS. Unity among Orthodox Anglicans but not with unrepentant revisionists.
With the highest respect for Andrew Carey, I wish attending Lambeth would serve truth and unity. My thoughts FWIW:
1. Any strong Lambeth resolutions that serve truth by putting apostasy in its place have been and will be subverted by the current occupant of the chair of Canterbury.
2. A key policy of said occupant has been to string along the orthodox enough to get everybody to Lambeth. That certainly has not served truth nor unity. And his subterfuge should not be rewarded or allowed to succeed.
Therefore, I reluctantly conclude the best course is not to attend Lambeth.
Carey Jr should read the cannons of Nicea, as like the liberals, he likes to talk about old traditions like Just one diocese and one bishop in a area. The council of Nicea was very clear that to keep orthodoxy was above unity. The cannons say that if a bishop have left Orthodoxy to preach a NEW THING, he(in pc language he/she) was not more a bishop of the CHURCH OF CHRIST, and the believers should not accept his authority and any orthodox bishop could intervene in that diocese. But this people don’t have time to read what the fundamentalist Church Fathers wrote more than 1.700 years ago and even the bible, because UNITY, THE NEW THING GOLPEL and the MDOs are more important.
To supplement my earlier comment for clarity: TEC has successfully repudiated 1.10 without serious consequence, and this has been coupled with Canterbury’s deliberate acceptance (to date) of that repudiation – to the point of thwarting conciliar steps taken by the primates.
What is the value of attending Lambeth if its resolutions are meaningless? At the same time, if some primates do not attend Lambeth and it somehow produces negative resolutions – well, once again, what does that mean – given the aforementioned repudiation?
That said, attendance of Lambeth does appeal in some related aspects: (a) if it prevents further damage; (b) if there is discipline of TEC and reform of the AC soon; and (c) if Lambeth will ever have any meaning in the future.
Those are very big ifs. 😉
#5 Saj
I suppose by “it”, you mean theological and belief distinctions between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism and one’s personal orientation towards one “it” over the other as a matter of faith and alliance. As a recent convert to Catholicism, this difference between the “its” was a presenting issue in my decision to leave TEC for Rome but I cannot say now that it should have been. Things are not that simple as the differences between Anglicanism and Catholicism cannot be understood as comparative absolutes, rather distinctions that are better understood in the context of a faith journey. In Anglicanism, I was comfortable with a catholic tradition and a broad allowance for reason; with Catholicism, I am also comfortable with tradition, but less so in its taxonomy and proscription of sin…something that, indeed, should make me and any other believer uncomfortable regardless of their denominational persuasion.
If the unity of the church, or rather, communion (koinonia in the New Testament) is communion in the life of the Triune God (a faithful response to the Gospel) and in Christian living and Christian mission (the fruit of the Gospel), what are we to do with passages such as 1 Cor. 10:16-21 or Eph. 5:11? These, and many other passages seem to set a limit to communion – or true union (and I here echo a paper by Rev. David Short of St. John’s Shaughnessy in Vancouver B.C., which can be found here: http://www.acl.asn.au/Short_on_Koinonia.html).
Unity at the expense of the Gospel is no unity at all.
Does “unity” imply/mean that those of us who believe in and uphold in our Chrisitan witness “the Faith once given” must sit down and ‘reason’ with those who have aggressively and defiantly attacked that Faith?
When it has become absolutely clear that the progressive-revisionist leadership in the United States, Canada and England has very clearly signalled that it WILL NOT back down from its attempts to radically and unScripturally change Anglicanism?
When does attacking that Faith through the denial and/or radical interpretation of Scripture become an open act of heresy on the part of the progressive-revisionists?
When does it become necessary to ‘prune the vine’ of Anglicanism in order to ensure that the Anglican Communion remains true to “the Faith once given?”
Not to be picky, but for the record:
“…that they may be one” & “…that the world may believe”
are NOT quotes from Luke’s Gospel. Unless I am wrong, they both come from Jesus’ great High Priestly Prayer in the 17th chapter of JOHN’s Gospel.
In that prayer, incidentally, UNITY is grounded in the absolute significance of Truth in Christ Jesus. Jesus even used the graphic expression “Sanctify”…set aside/make holy/put to the fire to dedicate in sacrifice… to stress Truth’s high importance: “Sanctify them in the Truth: Thy Word is Truth”. Of course, John’s Gospel does not leave the ground of Truth itself to pluriform interpretation: what is Truth? THY WORD is Truth.
To Mr. Carey, I would say: Thank you for caring so much for unity. It is so vitally needed, esp. as it testifies to the world that the Church is One and Loving. Please remember, though, Mr. Carey: TRUTH SUPPORTS UNITY…not the other way round!
Just to clarify #19: Truth supports Unity as a foundation supports everything built upon it. Unity does not serve as a foundation for Truth.
Andrew writes:
Is it not true that there really no place on the planet that comes close to have a “market” on religion than the United States – is that what Andrew is trying to avoid? In the United States you can truly pick (or be picked) by virtually any religion you wish. You asked for it, you got it. It is very difficult to go through one’s life and avoid the freedom of religion that we enjoy as Americans.
But with this freedom comes responsibility. It’s up to Americans to be discerning about what religion they are going to follow. Some are born into it and stick with it, some are born out of it and stick with that. And some make choices (or are chosen, which is of course, a theological point of view).
It is robust, it is messy, it is sometimes confusing, it appears to be chaotic – but it’s freedom. And just when we might think the whole thing is going to that proverbial hell in a handbasket, we get surprised by tremendous Christian unity – but not along denominational lines, but along lines of faith in Jesus Christ.
So within this religious marketplace we may find that religion takes a beating, but not Jesus Christ and when believers come together (briefly like inside a storefront in Manhattan as the towers fell, or in offices or at conferences or in neighborhood Bible Studies or where ever) there is a deep unity that is bound together by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus. The question remains, how to build on what is all ready happening even as the Anglican Communion is in crisis?
Andrew writes: “One of the greatest seductions of our time for the church is to serve consumerism by offering Christianity up as an option in the religious market place.” He gives us to examples of what he sees as signs of this “greatest seduction” If he means that every pastor that gets a vision to go start his own church is aiding in disunity, well, I would argue that this is a symptom of the problem not the cause. The old line denominations in the United States have been virtually co-opted by a progressive unitarian/paganism that they have emptied out their pews in the streets of the religious marketplace.
But shutting down the marketplace is a brand of socialism and I would hope that the Church of England will not take this opportunity to employ socialist views on an elitist institution in order to hold on to the Big Franchise. Consumerism means there are consumers and consumers are the ones with money and the ones with money are th e laity and the laity have freedom.
Yes, I would agree that we as Anglican Christians should not fall into the trap that all religions are equal (we’re learning that they are not in the current presidential campaign) and just because a religion says they are a Christian is not necessarily so. But if we fold up our tents and not even go into the marketplace, how do we know that our faith can stand up to the scrutiny of seekers?
bb
Stuart Smith beat me to it. I was somewhat surprised that it took as long as it did for someone to pick up on it. That being said, the unity Jesus prays for would seem to be unity of purpose. It’s about the disciples being sent into the world to continue the mission for which the Father sent Jesus into this disordered world “that the world may believe that you have sent me.” It would be hard to remain in unity with someone who saw Jesus’ mission through different eyes – especially if they insisted that one of the symptoms of this disordered world that Jesus came to restore was not really a sign of disordered creation at all.
Londoner is spot on with his observations. All should go to Lambeth and have it out, with gloves off.
All should go to Lambeth and have honest conversations, even debates, in which all abide by this Turkish proverb: “God gave us two ears and only one mouth. Therefore, we should listen twice as much as we speak.” And with hands extended to offer the Peace.
In a similar fashion, one of the great NT texts that exhorts us to maintain our unity as believers in Christ is Ephesians 4. It’s no wonder that this famous, much-loved chapter is so central and foundational to the Windsor Report, which relies on it heavily. But I fear it is easily misunderstood, and by people on both sides of this fierce debate.
For we love to hear the call to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3) and to celebrate our unity as those who share a common commitment to “one Lord, … one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:5). But did you remember the phrase I left out? There is also just “ONE FAITH,” as well as just one Lord and one baptism etc. And these are all inter-related, so that you can’t have the same Lord, if you don’t have the same (basic) faith, as set forth in Holy Scripture and summarized in the classic creeds.
Likewise, I’m so sick and tired of hearing Ephesians 4:15 misused and abused. And again, I’m afraid that’s true of both sides in this church civil war. For we are fond of quoting that beloved line about “speaking the truth in love” to one another. But the phrase is so commonly twisted and distorted…
For all too often, when that honored biblical passage is cited, it has seemed to me that the speaker meant something like this: “Please, let’s just learn to speak truthfully in a loving way to each other.” And, of course, while that’s true enough, that’s NOT at all what the text is saying, as the context makes very clear.
Even worse, I’ve all too often heard liberals quote this familiar text as if they understand Paul to be saying: “Now you just speak YOUR truth in love, and I’ll speak MY truth in love, and we’ll all get along just fine!” Yuck. It always makes me feel queasy, as if I might throw up. For that is virtually to turn the saying upside down.
For the context makes it unmistakably clear that the writer has real worries about false doctrine being taught in the Church and is zealous to guard against this. For the preceeding verse speaks of being “blown about by every WIND of DOCTRINE,” and how we are therefore, to speak “the TRUTH,” i.e., the true gospel, the true and authentic Christian doctrine, to one another, albeit in love. That is absolutely crucial to “maintaining the unity OF THE SPIRIT in the bond of peace.” For no unity can come from the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth, even less it involves abiding in the true doctrine of Christ.
What is killing us in modern western Anglicanism is NOT the lack of love, or goodwill, or desire for peace. Instead what is destroying us is the lack of TRUTH. Our greatest problem is not that people don’t speak “in love,” i.e., graciously and paitnetly and kindly etc.
No, what is killing us is the growing number of leaders, including all too many bishops and seminary professors, who speak FALSEHOODS in love, with the best of intentions. What is dividing the Church and “tearing the fabric” of our beloved Communion apart is that we tolerate all too readily those who parrot the lies of the Father of LIes in love, since they have been deceived by our Enemy into buying into the “Gay is OK” delusion that comes straight from the pit of Hell. Please note: I am not accusing them of being liars per se. For they are genuinely convinced that they are being prophetic. They are sincere. But they are wrong. Totally wrong.
Alas, the biblical record shows that it’s all too easy to be a FALSE prophet. And that is a very, very serious offense, not God, merciful as He is, doesn’t take lightly. Just ask Hananiah (see Jer. 28). He paid for that mortal sin with his life.
David Handy+
Committed to speaking THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH, hopefully in love
Not much to disagree with, but it makes one wonder what Carey was doing on his watch? Did *anything* happen to divert the course of the 90’s to something better? Is he suggesting all this just now appeared? It’s pretty useless at this point. This isn’t the Church that gave you CS Lewis, Newman, Gregory Dix…
It *is* the Church of illiteracy like this in the Church Times:
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=49299
Once you digest this, you’ll see Carey is interesting on paper, but that’s it.
#Bob this is a Islamic proverb, and the “god” that it is talking about isn’t my GOD. #24 and 25 Carey Jr is totally wrong, the time to listen and show Christian love towards the revisionists has ended, now is time to do what St. Paul said to Christians who believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father(Bible believing) should do, to cut all the relation with them and treat them as Pagans or what the LORD said: shake the dust your feet and go away from them.
Re #25: I think that everyone agrees that truth is good, but the real question we have been confronting in Anglicanism for a very long time is “Who (here on earth) gets to determine THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH?” The classic Christian answer for 1800 years or so was, “the Church,” seen as the Body of Christ operating in the world to mediate the Word of God to all faithful people.
Sometime after the Protestant Reformation, an increasing number of people started answering, “The individual Christian standing before God and using his reason to read the Bible.” Therefore, it wasn’t a problem for Liberal Protestants at the end of the 19th century to reject traditional dogmas like the Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection because that is how their private judgment led them to read the Bible. Surprisingly, many Conservative Protestants bought into the argument and argued in favor of the dogmas by showing how their private judgment had led them to a different reading (“Evidence that demands a verdict”).
Anglicans mostly stayed out of the Modernist vs. Fundamentalist wars because we rejected the common assumption of both sides that it was up to individuals to enter into doctrinal commitments on the basis of their personal reading of the Bible. We also rejected the related claim that the Church is just a voluntary association of like-minded people who are free to join or leave based on their private agreement or disagreement with the association’s agenda.
What we have now is a two-front war. On the one hand, we have the conflict between those who accept or reject traditional values, particularly in the area of human sexuality. On the other, we have a conflict between those who accept or reject the traditional role of the church as the final arbiter of what constitutes “THE TRUTH” and what constitutes error. We cannot resolve either of those battles by asserting increasingly loudly that we are right and our opponents are wrong. Perhaps we need to go “back to the sources,” to echo a battle-cry of both Reformation Protestants and 20th-century Roman Catholics. We cannot save Anglicanism by abandoning its traditional view of the church, when it is precisely that view that constitutes the justification for its separate existence.
Dale (#28) said,
“Anglicans mostly stayed out of the Modernist vs. Fundamentalist wars because we rejected the common assumption of both sides that it was up to individuals to enter into doctrinal commitments on the basis of their personal reading of the Bible. We also rejected the related claim that the Church is just a voluntary association of like-minded people who are free to join or leave based on their private agreement or disagreement with the association’s agenda.”
And I believe, that in the Anglican Communion, that major changes in the way in which Scripture is ‘read’ and major changes in doctrine require the ‘agreement in synod’ of ALL of the primacies of the Anglican Communion or it ceases to be a communion.
The unilateral changes in the way in which Scripture is ‘read’ and the unilateral changes in doctrine that have been made by the leadership of ECUSA have placed those who follow that leadership outside of the Anglican Communion.
The question that begs is
“Why hasn’t this ECUSAn unilateralism been rejected by all of the primacies of the Anglican Communion?”
I am afraid that the the answer is that the ‘ECUSAn disease’ has already deeply infected the primacies that have not openly taken exception to ECUSA’s unilateralism.
The 1988 Lambeth Conference passed the following resolution:
[blockquote]”18.2.(a) Urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates Meeting is able to exercise [b]an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance[/b] on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.[/blockquote] Thus, the role of the Primates Meeting under the WR.
This resolution was reaffirmed in Lambeth 1998, which also produced Resolution 1.10 (consistent with ecumenical, catholic standards). TEC has repudiated 1.10.
In response to TEC’s repudiation, the Primates produced the conciliar DES communique, which the ABC has thwarted. The ABC has said that Lambeth 1.10 is the teaching of the communion, but apparently Lambeth resolutions lack any other force, so that repudiation of resolutions brings no consequence vis-a-vis Lambeth Conference invitations (the broadest council). Further, the ABC appears to have repudiated the conciliar process under the WR/DC/DES Communique, rejecting a Res. 18.2 role for the Primates’ Meeting.
So:
*TEC repudiates Lambeth (98) 1.10 (communion teaching – established truth for the AC) without consequence.
*ABC thwarts a Lambeth (88) 18.2, conciliar effort to impose a consequence for repudiation of communion teaching/Lambeth resolutions.
I understand why bishops may view meeting at Lambeth and producing further resolutions (“…ok, we really, really mean it this time!”) that will be ignored or thwarted as… a bit…unproductive.
Even assuming a majority formed of reasserting bishops storms Lambeth, takes over the agenda, creates a detailed, specific covenant and an enforcement body, and expels TEC from the AC when it repudiates the covenant – what then prevents the ABC or the ACO from declaring it to be of no binding force?
The instruments of unity are working against each other, meaning – disunity.
IMHO, the ABC covets the appearance of unity. Yet his actions promote disunity. Given the ABC’s disrespect of resolutions from prior Lambeth Conferences, and the attempt to manipulate the upcoming conference, now the Lambeth Conference itself is a source of disunity. And of course, the ACC is heavily compromised by TEC financing.
My suggestion? Prayer.
Re # 25 & 28. There is a piece of the jig-saw missing in my view that helps to undergird how it is that we have reached the place we have re TEC and the Western Anglican Church in general. It is best summarized in Charles Taylor’s magnum opus, for which he won the 2007 Templeton Prize, A Secular Age (Harvard, 2007). This study originally began as the 1999 Gifford Lectures. Here he tells the story (his story admittedly) of those “conditions [or plausibility structures] of both belief and unbelief”, of what he terms “secularity 3”. For how are we to understand the fact that supposedly intelligent folk can actually say and believe the things that make David Handy – in my view! correctly – go YUCK!
To go further, what is required in any New Reformation is not only the cry of “ad fontes”, but also a far deeper catechetical application of Rom 12:1-2, where the form of “this age” takes place as Taylor has so admirably described it, step by step. Let’s hope and pray that the draft proposals for an Anglican Catechism may gloriously prevail.
Shalom! Art
Dale makes an excellent point in #28. I would encourage everyone who has not already done so to surf over to StandFirm and listen to (or read) Kendall Harmon’s three talks that he gave in Colorado late last year.
In light of that, I think we need to differentiate between the real need for Communion discipline (as opposed to this or that Province or faction of Provinces taking whatever action it sees fit) and the complete failure of the critical Instrument of Unity (the Archbishop of Canterbury) to do its part to bring Communion discipline into action.
My concern with Common Cause (in addition to the excellent points made by Kendall) is that they are only focusing on the ABC’s failure and tend to ignore the need for Communion discipline (given that they are acting outside of it). My concern with the ACI is that they have a great respect for Communion discipline but are not adequately addressing the problem of the failed Instrument of Unity (i.e. the complete unwillingness of the ABC to effect the Communion discipline).
What the orthodox movement badly needs right now is a strategy that is focused on Communion discipline but which honestly deals with the ABC’s refusal to engage in disciplining the Communion.
I don’t say I have all the answers, but I do think that this will require all orthodox bishops to attend Lambeth. However, it also means that the orthodox bishops should go in with a plan and immediately dismiss whatever the ACO has cooked up. Even if the ACO and ABC later attempt to nullify what Lambeth did, nevertheless, they can never undo it.
Thanks to Dale Rye (#28), AnglicanFirst (#29), tired (#30), and Art (#31), for your thoughtful contributions since I posted my #25. I won’t attempt detailed interaction with all of you, but here are a few thoughts stimulated by your helpful comments above.
Dale, I’m in basic agreement with you. You are absolutely right that one of the keys to resolving this drisis is recovering a sense that biblical interpretation is not a matter for private interpretation in the way that liberalism takes for granted (see 2 Peter 1:21). The Bible is “the Church’s book,” and our rule of faith or primary guide to its interpretation comes from the inherited consensus of the Church throughout the ages, i.e., “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
Part of our problem is that large sections of the western Anglican church have thrown out that consensus on numerous points, including sexual ethics, in order to conform to the prevailing permissive and secular culture.
But I’d want to go a step farther and add that this is not only a matter of preserving (or better, recovering) our Anglican tradition of staying in the mainstream of the Christian tradition when it comes to the doctrine of the Church (ecclesiology) and its central role in biblical interpretation; it also involves restoring a biblical understanding of the nature of truth and how we know it (what philophers call the field of epistemology).
And here, it was one of our most brilliant Archbishops of Canterbury, the great medieval philosopher St. Anselm, who expressed it so beautifully. “I believe in order that I may understand. And this I also believe, that unless I believe, I will not understand.” Or as he also sai,d “faith seeks understanding,” but faith must come first, then understanding follows. Our liberal foes reverse the order, and refuse to believe what they don’t understand, since it contradicts so much of what our society tells us.
AnglicanFirst, I’m in basic agreement with you too. And yes, there is absolutely no doubt that the cancer of false doctrine based on a rival worldview to the biblical/traditional Christian one has spread far and wide in the western provinces; you’re right.
But I’d want to nunace your position somewhat. The answer to TEC’s unilateralism is not to fall into the opposite error and waiting until ALL 38 primates agree that TEC is in error. Perhaps that’s not what you really meant to suggest; I hope not.
This is the flip side of Dale’s point above, i.e., that biblical interpretation is a matter of communal discernment. While that’s true; it’s not the whole truth. For it’s also true that when whole provinces fall into serious error, we can’t wait until they repent and see the light before we can agree on what constitutes the truth. It’s enough that there be an overwhelming majority, not total consensus.
Finally, tired, I sympathize with your skepticism about the prospects of real reform coming out of Lambeth 2008. After being let down so many times by ++Williams, and rightly distrusting the ACO completely, it’s entirely normal and natural to wonder: “Can anything good come out of Lambeth?” What can I say? My wife says I’m the epitome of the eternal optimist.
But I don’t think we’re left with nothing to do but pray. Agreed: intense, united prayer is vital, for we are asking God for a miracle. But hey, our God is the Creator of all things, he specializes in miracles.
My argument would be that the Lambeth Conference of all the world’s bishops trumps the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is merely “first among equals.” I think in the end, the ABoC will passively go along with the great majority of bishops. And the ACO is NOT an Instrument of Unity. Canon Kearon and his staff really don’t matter. Our conservative juggernaut can roll right over the ACO and flatten them.
David Handy+
Re #33. Just to add another dimension to Anselm (and Augustine) with whose dicta I agree are the correct premise as you have highlighted. It connects too with matters of discipline.
Christian faith has as much to do with obedience as epistemology. See Rom 1 & 16 and Paul’s “obedience of faith” for starters. In other words, we may not be a true Church of Faith if we do not have at least some basic avenues of due discipline. (I recall Stephen Sykes saying much to that effect as early as 1987.) Is that what Matt 18:10-20 among others is therefore suggesting?! For this passage has to do with exercised authority, and so power (Sykes’ point), and not just the prayer cells of my youth! Just so, #32 has much to commend; thank you. Which means that Lambeth 2008 does still offer some opportunity for a strategy of accountability – if only in the years ahead when we may say, this Instrument too tried most forcibly … But perhaps that already prejudices an orthodox failure rather than a resounding rout of liberals. So; to prevent that, our bishops and primates especially need to strategize (and so communicate) yet one more time folks … So back to prayer – for them!
Recent Modernism with its own “interpretations” of Scripture merely continue the tradition of private and differing readings of Scripture that also informs the thinking of the many unorthodox (heretical?) protestant-minded commentators on this thread and many others.
#21 babyblue you make a really important point.
This is the biggest difference between the Anglicanism of the past, which still prevails in England, and the Anglicanism of modern America, which probably tells us how things will look in England in time, since we often follow you.
Most English Anglicans – I think I can say every single one I have ever known or met – are born into Anglicanism and don’t think of changing, unless to become Roman Catholics. They find their “market” within the Church of England, gravitating to Anglo Catholic, liberal or low church evangelical churches according to taste, but not seriously considering shopping outside. This predisposes the Church of England to tolerance, live and let live, turn a blind eye to things you hate instead of kicking up a fuss, and, generally, just keep on keeping on. I seem to recall that the Archbishop of Canterbury has told us his postbag reflects this much more than it reflects taking of sides in current controversies.
I imagine in most of the Global South there is less religious choice than in the US. You can choose to be Christian or Muslim, or not religious; you can choose to be Catholic or Protestant, but you probably don’t have a choice of Anglicanism with women priests, Anglicanism without women priests, liberal Anglicanism or evangelicalism etc etc in your town or village.
My reading of US blogs, however, shows an amazing number of Anglicans of every stripe who have chosen Anglicanism in adult life, and then, when it is not what they want in one way or another, talk about breaking it up or going elsewhere. It is this which is leading to a sort of atomisation of Anglicanism which can’t surely make it stronger or more appealing, even if you choose the right atom to go along with.
#34, Art,
Ditto. I agree completely. And thanks for your kind words.
As for your earlier post #31, I must admit that I haven’t read Charles Tayor’s A Secular Age. It sounds like the kind of book I’d find congenial, however. I guess I’ll have to add it to the list of books I want to read in 2008.
But I can say that I’ve long been convinced that what we are up against is not only a momentous clash of worldviews (the historic, biblical one versus the post-modern, secularized, relativistic one). Daunting a challenge as that alone would be, we face another and very similar challenge at the same time. We must some somehow muster up the courage to re-invent Anglicanism for a “Post-Christendom” age. I think that we’ve hardly even begun to come to terms with the radical, revolutionary changes that requires in our whole way of doing Church. It means abandoning much that we’ve taken for granted for many centuries. For the state church has now gone the way of the Dodo bird. It’s essentailly extinct, or virtually so. The Church of England may still be technically and legally the established church, but it has ceased to be so in reality, for all practical purposes.
As I’m fond of saying: “The only thing worse than a state church is an ex-state church that still pretends to be a state church.” Or an ex-state church that simply can’t conceive of any other way to think or act. After all, habits formed over 1500 years are very hard to break. But break them we must, if we are to survive, much less thrive in our new hostile social environment, where committed Christians are a distinct and increasingly despised minority.
That’s why we need nothing less than a New Reformation!
David Handy, Ph.D.
Passionate advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
#36, badman,
You submitted your post while I was apparently composing my last one. I’m glad to get your perspective from across the Pond. So let me share a comment or two that you have stimulated.
First, you are quite right in general that Anglicanism is North America has a highly voluntaristic flavor that stands in stark contrast to what you have described as the inherited birthright of every Englishman to be an Anglican. Speaking for myself, I was raised Presbyterian, and then spent years in the Assemblies of God as a Pentecostal before making my long pilgrimage down the Canterbury Trail. To make it even more complex, the Presbyterian church I was raised in (until I graduated from high school) was a large, affluent one that was theologically left-of-center. But as a teenager, I rebelled against the “country club at prayer” sort of “mainline” Protestant church I had always known, and I experienced a radical conversion at age 14, and became a very conservative evangelical. I chose to attend Wheaton College, Billy Graham’s alma mater, the so-called Harvard of American evangelicals, much to the dismay of my Presbyterian pastor, who feared that I’d turn out a Jerry Falwell type. (Well, he got the personality type right, I’m perhaps as militant as Falwell; he just misjudged the particular ideology I’d end up espousing so fervently).
But in America, we are all sectarians of one sort or another, even if we are Roman Catholics or Anglicans or Russian Orthodox. Because inherited ties mean very, very little. All churches compete in an open religious marketplace here in the U.S., and thus even the groups that represent state church traditions back in Europe have to act like voluntaristic sects here.
And may I say it? I think that this is a very good thing!
For that brings up my second main point. Which is this. What I care about is not whether people are “low church” or “high church” in terms of the usual ways of looking at that famous distinction: frequency of communion, vestments preferred or hated etc. Instead, what I am passionately in favor of is a whole different understanding of what makes you “high church.” That is, I am an ardent advoate of what I call “high commitment” religion. What I favor is an extremely demanding form of Christianity that INSISTS on very high levels of performance in terms of practicing your faith. In other words, I think of myself as a high expectation, high impact, high intensity, high demand Christian, and that’s the kind of church I desire. I frankly admit that I despise and abhor minimalistic standards such as go along with all state churches. I simply see nothing in common between such ultra-low commitment churches and the religion of the New Testament. In other words, I’m proud to call myself an “enthusiast,” although this will probably strike someone from England as seeming distinctly fanatical and perhaps dangerously so. If you are still on-line, would you care to comment?
I really don’t like state churches at all. Not one bit. But I’d be curious how that sounds to someone like you. I hope it doesn’t come across as offensive. For no offense is intended.
David Handy+
Passionate or even strident advocate for Post-Constantinian, post-state church Christianity throughout the secularized West
#36 In the US it is even more ‘atomized’ than you suggest. Many ministries, for example, are supported by individual donations to the individual ministry workers without any money flowing through church accounts. In this way there are various cross denominational ministries.
This raises the question: What is the practical manifestation of Christian or Anglican unity? Attendance at Lambeth? Shared ministry funding? Obedience to the archbishop? Saying the creeds once a month … actually believing them is optional? Believing that someone called Jesus once existed … Actually, I just remembered, I attended an Episcopal church where members of all faiths were invited to participate in communion … How mean to exclude the atheists!
It wouldn’t be so bad if it were just a matter of so many alternatives. People don’t seem to take ‘official beliefs’ seriously. It is similar to the way most people click on the ‘I agree to the terms and conditions’ button without ever reading them.
#36 – Adult conversions may be a factor, on both sides. But the thing I have observed more is that the CoE has always had much more of a “live and let live” philosophy than TEC. I’m not sure that is not due to the differences in national character. But in TEC, once the revisionists got the upper hand, they used it to drive out anyone who disagreed with them. That is what got things here to the point that parishes had to leave in order to continue to have the clergy they wish, send seminarians to evangelical or anglo-catholic seminaries, or just to ask parishioners for money to repair their building without threat of takeover the minute it was completed, that kind of thing. Bishops in the CoE seem to have had a tendency to let evangelical parishes call evangelical clergy if that is what they wanted, or anglo-catholic parishes anglo-catholic clergy. I seem to recall at one point a liberal CoE priest claiming that a US bishop does not have much control over parishes, but that is false. Under TEC polity, most any parish can be reduced to mission status at the whim of the bishop, and once a mission, the clergy can be deposed or inhibited at will, since the vestry has been done away with. This has occurred many times. The preferred mechanism, though, has been to declare the priest to have “abandoned communion”, since this charge does not carry with it the right to a trial. A tortured interpretation of the canons in order to deliberately prevent due process, which is shameful.
It is important for those in the CoE to realize how bad the suppression of orthdoxy is in the US to understand how organizations like CANA have come into existence.
#38 Dr. Handy,
You remind me of the a guy at a lay ministerial meeting who asked why Palm Sunday’s liturgy covered the Passion. When told that that was because Good Friday wasn’t a Holy Day of Obligation and they would not hear the passion liturgy otherwise, he said that Good Friday [b]should[/b] be a HDoO. Which would be unique, since Good Friday doesn’t have a Mass per se.
You remind me in a good way, of course.
#41, Ed the Roman,
LOL. Thanks for your kind words.
Ironically, for someone who goes by the moniker “New Reformation Advocate,” and who passionately loves Martin Luther (whom I think fully deserves to be added as the 33rd Doctor of the Church!), I am frequently accused of being a Roman Catholic at heart by many of my colleagues in the ministry in TEC.
I presume that this is because they rightly see me as being extremely dogmatic in matters of Doctrine, and even more importantly, extremely STRICT in matters of church Discipline. Partly, this is ironic because there are actually lots of people who are more conservative than I am (all the CANA and AMiA bishops I think would be more conservative than I am on matters of the historical interpretation of the NT, which is my field of specialization as a scholar. I’m very close to Fr. Raymond Brown on most matters of biblical scholarship). But while there are LOTS of people more conservative than I am theologically, there are virtually none I know (again, e.g., including the CANA bishops) who are as ultra-strict as I am.
In many ways, this whole fight in Anglicanism is not so much between the western majority who are theologically liberal vs. the theologically conservative minority (although of course that is a very big factor too). Rather, in the end, I think it is even more of a bitter, unresolvable conflict between the overwhelming majority who are morally and ecclesiastically lenient (which includes people on BOTH sides) versus the small but growing minority like me who are ecclesiastically strict in ENFORCING classical doctrine (or orthodoxy) and firm moral and ecclesial discipline (or orthopraxis).
After all, although I often say that my love is forever given to the three great reformers: Luther, Wesley, and Newman, and I try to read the sermons and other writings of all three regularly, I freely admit that I am drawn most of all to the incomparable sermons of John Henry Newman. They probably are the STRICTEST, most severe and ultra-demanding sermons ever preached in the whole long history of the Christian Church. That’s why I love them so!
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
(No damn, unnecessary compromises!)
#38 NRA, very interesting post, which certainly seems to accept and confirm my impression of a possible difference between some American and English Anglicans in terms of personal history and temperament.
There’s too much in your post to respond to all of it – but I am far from thinking it offensive and I hope no-one, likewise, can be offended by mine!
You may well be right that a personally chosen free market US style of church affiliation, with no state church, is a very good thing. However, it is not an English thing. And it is certainly not a Church of England thing. So it may not be a particularly Anglican thing. More an American thing. And, as I said in my earlier post, the Americans may well be leading the way – but I sense that, communion wide, even conservative followers in the Anglican Communion are getting a little weary on the march.
As for your self description as “a high expectation, high impact, high intensity, high demand Christian”, Jesus himself was certainly that; as was St Paul, and others of the saints. But not everyone in the Gospels is. Mary wasn’t – she was essentially a passive figure, trusting and accepting in God’s work and purpose. I would take my lead from [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=12&version=9]1 Cor 12[/url] and say that it takes all sorts to make the Church, and we all need each other.
Your post suggest you may be wary of a certain sort of caricature effete upper class Englishman who thinks enthusiasm is bad form. But although there are (fewer and fewer) people like that in the Church of England, there are plenty of enthusiasts too, and always have been. And they lead the church, on the whole.
But the Archbishop of Canterbury is on record as saying that a Church with a balance between, in particular, the Catholic, the evangelical and the liberal, is “the only reason for being an Anglican”. He makes acceptance of a diverse church (like St Paul’s differently formed members in the body) the very definition of true Anglicanism. ([url=http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/060627%20Archbishop%20-%20challenge%20and%20hope%20reflection.htm]Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today[/url])
#43, badman,
Thank you, once again, for sharing your English perspective with us in the New World. I’m glad if you took no offense, despite my rather extreme and provocative language. As frequent readers of T19 know by now, I have a peculiar tendency toward wearing my heart on my sleeve in typical American fashion, and even more than most Americans, I freely indulge in occasional hyperbole. Certainly, nothing like the famous English instinct toward understating things and avoiding undue, crass displays of vulgar emotion! See, I just did it again (grin).
So please take what I’ve already posted with the proverbial grain of salt. In part, I’m just having fun expressing myself so boldly. For, I would actually agree with ++Williams that it is the unique synthesis of highly diverse elements that makes Anglicanism what it is and so attractive to most of us. As we all know, Anglicanism has always been either famous or infamous for its three main types of religion: the whimsically put schools of the “high and crazy, the low and lazy, and the broad and hazy.” And these correspond rather closely with our familiar emphasis upon Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as sources of authority (with Holy Scripture ALWAYS being supreme and primary, I hasten to add), with the different groups putting more or less stress on these three elements.
But things have gotten even more complex in recent years. First, there is the huge divide between those of us who clearly stand within the European cultural tradition (even if in its debased American form), as opposed to those in Africa, Asia, or Latin America, who don’t have English as their native tongue etc.
But secondly, there is the immense impact of the charismatic movement (as for instance, the tremendous, if highly controversial impact of the Alpha Course and Holy Trinity, Brompton). That has led a growing number of Anglicans, like myself, to reformulate the hybrid nature of Anglicanism in a rather different way. I prefer to speak of “3-D Christianity,” by which I mean the three dimensions of the evangelical, the catholic, and the charismatic planes of religion (I told you I’m a former Pentecostal). That doesn’t exactly throw out the liberal, Reason-oriented strand of Anglicanism, but it does downplay it significantly.
So on my more whimsical days, I like to say that my reason for being an Anglican (rather similar perhaps to that of the honorable ABoC) is that it is the only branch of Christianity in which I can imagine myself having the freedom to be all that I want to be. And what is that? Glad you asked. Here it is, idiosyncratic as it may seem.
I want the freedom to be as evangelical as Billy Graham and dear old Wheaton College. I also want the freedom to be as catholic as John Henry Newman, my favorite theologian and preacher of all time. And yet, I also want the freedom to be as charismatic as Nicky Gumbel and HTB.
But that’s not all! There’s more. Furthermore, I want the freedom to be as scholarly as Dr. Williams or +Tom Wright. But that deep love of reason is firmly within the bounds of classical Christian orthodoxy, as exemplified by the heroic early Fathers. My greatest admiration is reserved for those incomparable giants of the early centuries like St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and not least, my favorite pope of all time, St. Leo the Great.
Thus, my deepest wish is to be a biblical and patristic style Christian, albeit in an Anglican mode. I want to be like St. Paul, St. Luke, and St. John (or those who wrote in their names). And I want to have the dramatic impact on the Church of my three favorite reformers: Luther, Wesley, and Newman.
So yes, I’d like to be as evangelical as John Stott or Michael Green. But I also want to be as catholic as ++Michael Ramsay or ++Drexel Gomez. And yet, I also dream of being as boldly charismatic as Dennis Bennett (in the US) or Michael Harper (in the UK). While at the same time being as scholarly as Prof. Christopher Seitz or +Stephen Sykes. I want it ALL!
Gee, is that too much to ask?? Well, many would say I’m incredibly idealistic at best, and insufferably arrogant at worst. That no church tradition can handle that much diversity, and no one person can ever hope to combine all those traits. And when I get up on my high horse and wax eloquent about how much I want to be all those lofty things, my friends, even the conservative evangelical and charismatic ones, or the staunchly Anglo-Catholic ones, all tend to just roll their eyes and say,
“Oh yeah, Fr. Handy? Well I have my dreams too. I want to be as powerful as George W. Bush, as wealthy as Bill Gates, and as good-looking as…oh, George Clooney!”
In other words, “Dream on, David. Aint gonna happen.” Well, I guess that I was being pretty demanding now, wasn’t I?
David Handy+
Advocate of 3-D Anglicanism and moderate scholarship
along with the New Reformation
I’ll settle for a billion dollars and a pony.