VII. Seventh, there are difficult and maddeningly slow formal attempts unfolding, yet unfolding nonetheless, within the Anglican Communion as a whole to begin to identify a means of getting through this adjudicatory impasse. It involves a host of synods, including the Lambeth Conference, and a proposed “covenant”, among other things. Since no one has offered an agreeable alternative to these unfolding attempts, they remain the primary means, indeed the only means available to all parties in the dispute to move forward. They are, furthermore, in keeping with the long traditions of catholic order and deserve a presumptive respect. Yet because they are both slow, still imperfectly defined, and legally of untested strength, the ultimate usefulness of these unfolding attempts must depend on a host of other Christian realities that – most would agree – actually define the Church of Jesus Christ far more essentially, primarily, and profoundly than do simply the Constitution and Canons of this or that province or diocese (indeed, that latter are, in a Christian sense, legitimate only to the degree that they embody these prior realities). These realities touch upon the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit and the powers thereof that permit a clear following of the Lord Jesus Christ’s own straightforward calling to specific forms of relational behavior. They touch upon matters of humility, patience, longsuffering, honesty and transparency, self-control, and much more. That is, both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion of which it is still a part and which it has, rightly or wrongly, so disturbed through its executive actions, have been thrown upon a complete dependence upon these gifts and fruit, in a way that must transcend, even while respecting for the sake of the world’s order, particular rules and regulations.
Excellent, thoughtful essay from Dr. Radner, as usual. There’s not a snowball’s chance that it will be heeded, but it is more than reasonable.
A special thanks to Dr. Radner. I actually read and understood what he was saying, and its a great thing he’s asking for.
From his puter to God’s ears..
Gloria
Wonderful!
Dr. Radner provides a balanced approach to these issues. His point that the ‘leadership’ has abandoned the doctrine and discipline of the church is central. I do wonder if the story out of LA (Hindu-Mass) and the increasing publicity of how the canons are ignored by some with no cost (e.g. LA) will grow into a bigger issue. Unfortunately, the secular press is pretty liberal and might think LA is doing a good thing… even so, the law of unintended consequences has a way of catching up with people and institutions and TEC/KJS are no exception. These inhibitions may prove to be the turning point. We will see
Unfortunately 815’s way of seeking a resolution is to throw the bishops out that disagree with the direction of the church. They have the votes. They’re not going to pay any attention to the academics who disagree either. It’s a runaway train headed for the washed-out bridge!
“There are difficult and maddeningly slow formal attempts unfolding…within the Anglican Communion as a whole to begin to identify a means of getting through this adjudicatory impasse”
Maddening, yes. But I’m less troubled by the speed of the process than by the revisionist tilt of Lambeth Palace’s actions, inactions, and pronouncements.
Think of Kenneth Kearon at the HoB meeting in New Orleans. Think of the ensuing whitewash by the joint standing committee. Think of Abp. Williams’ refusal to call a follow-up meeting of the primates. Think of how much more heavy-handed ECUSA has become since Sept. 30.
Katherine’s move against Bob Duncan really makes little or no difference, she will still be Katherine Schori when she wakes up in the morning and he will still be blessed to be Bob Duncan.
What Dale Rye wrote last week will simply always be the reality no matter what alternative universe they create at 815: “The Episcopal Church does not purport to have the power to erase someone’s ordination (“Thou art a priest forever”). All that inhibition and deposition claim to do is to remove someone’s official capacity to function as clergy in “this church,†a term that is uniformly used throughout the Constitution and Canons to describe The Episcopal Church, not the Church Universal or even the Anglican Communion.”
Congratulations. A finer epitaph for the Anglican tradition has seldom been written or even conceived.
Fine idea well expressed
TEC would do well to heed it
Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Chirp
If TEC is somehow an example of catholic order, it is an example of corrupt and dysfunctional catholic order–not something of which one should want to be a part, but something from which one might consider fleeing for the sake of their souls health, and for the re-establishment and preservation and continuance of right order, doctrine and worship…
Agreed!
Isn’t the point of Radner’s essay something along the lines of – yes, TEC is the legally appointed Anglican order in the USA, at least for right now, but it is a “corrupt and dysfuntional order” right now which, through the repeated violation of its own rules, doesn’t really have the legitimacy or credibility to throw its weight around.
So we are looking of ten to fifteen years of unfoldings. I think Chris Johnson is right. Discipline has to be this year or never.
The longer original form of Dr Tighe’s essay, published in Touchstone as “Abusing the Fathers: the Windsor Report’s Misleading Appeal to Nicea”, may be found here:
http://reader.classicalanglican.net/?p=133
Dr. Radner takes the long view—the sins of the TEC leadership will (eventually) be self-correcting, because the more they press their unilateral view of what is orthodox, the more constituents they will lose. However, for this to result in a victory (an overthrow of the TEC leadership), it will require that the faithful orthodox remain as members of TEC, until the numbers in the liberal wing have attenuated to the point where they are in a minority.
It is correct to say that the transgressions of the TEC leadership will result in a lower membership, because those transgressions are currently [i]designed[/i] to drive orthodox members out of the church. But they will also fail to attract or hold new members, whose only allegiance is to the novelty of the experience, and the degree to which the church affirms their individual identities. Because no church can be everything to everybody, TEC will fail to increase (or even maintain) its membership.
So the faithful will need to persevere in TEC, and wait for these things to come to pass. Those who choose to walk apart at this time will cause it to be more difficult (as well as to require a longer time) until the errors of the TEC leadership can be corrected.
14, unfortunately TEC is already lost. Many of the would-be faithful you refer to, such as my wife and me, have long ago left for other protestant churches. We had no Anglican parish in our vicinity. The only way we would come back is if our old parish went to CANA, or something like that. Doubtful. You know why? As time goes by, more reasserters get fed up and leave. Of those still in TEC, the percentage grows more and more liberal. They are in charge, they have all the votes they need, and they are not repenting. TEC is lost. TEC is all about paychecks, property and pensions, not Christ. What is a person called to be faithful to, TEC or Christ?
Go to a Prostestant church or make a Continuing church protestant and you will certainly be abandoning Catholic order.
Catholic, schmatholic. What we abandoned is an apostate church. What TEC at the highest levels preaches today is no longer the faith we believe in. We still believe in one, holy catholic church, as it says in the Creed we recite. Our only hope is that some day there will be a new American Anglican church. Sigh. Dream on . . .
I am particularly grateful for the way Dr. Radner speaks about the fruits of the Spirit. The power grabs and convulsions within a church’s polity have nothing to do with the worship of God or the transformation and redemption of souls. The beginning and end of our life together is in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. Period. The Church is a means to an end (the end being the union of the soul with God) it is not an end in itself. Our life together doesn’t depend upon the perfection of our catholic order, but upon the perfection of our Lord and Savior.
I agree with Dr Radner’s concerns about the TEC’s – let’s say – difficulties and biases in attempting to resolve this situation, However – how does he resolve the fact that the ABC is looking squarely at the TEC to do just this. He seems not to see these issues. Further – he seems to say that he will follow their lead. The following is a question and response at his press conference:
“Question: Are you going to disinvite Bishop Schofield now that he’s been inhibited?
ABC: I’m waiting really on what comes out of the American House of Bishops discussion of that. It’s not something I’ve got a position on yet. At the moment he still has an invitation
Now I am not trying to go off topic and make this a discussion about Bishop Shofield’s situation – however to me at least – this implies a position at odds with what Dr Radner expresses. It appears that this instrument of unity recognizes the TEC as the sole authority to make such decisions (I guess we could say there is some ambiguity in what the ABC says – isn’t there always – but that would beg the question of what he really expects. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, If Bishop Shofield being officially deposed would have no impact then this answer is at best misleading.) In light of the ABC’s not so clearly stated position – what exactly is the resolution? To me frustration is a reasonable response as all avenues seem to be…… a waste of energy. But given that a lot of us have invested a lot of energy in this endeavor known as the Anglican Communion – what exactly is one supposed to do at this point. Is the ABC’s answer also – Leave?
Paraphrase: “Dislike of [heretical] doctrine is not enough to leave [TEC’s] good catholic order.” I’m not sure where that quote (cf. comment #7 Chris Johnson) came from, but this brings out what is maddening to me. TEC does NOT have good catholic order. Good Catholic order…, I’m vexed, so I’ll repeat: [b]Good Catholic order[/b] is to “obey God rather than men”[!!] when there is contradiction between the two. Too many of these “good-catholic-order” folks have thrown the baby out the bathwater (the baby is obedience to God, the bathwater is the [i]excess[/i] of [i]prideful[/i] private judgment).
To belabor the point:
I am standing for good catholic order! Good catholic order demands we obey God rather than man. Good catholic order demands a humble non-compliance to the will of TEC which would have us disobey God.
I am not so anxious to have the motion to inhibit Duncan “tabled indefinitely”. That is pathetic on one level. Even though I don’t want him inhibited, I neither want to promote a muddled confusion and dissemblance that TEC has good catholic order. All things considered, it does NOT.
I remind you all that Bishop Schofield is a bishop of the Church of God…….the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…….and therefore any deposition issued by The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops applies to that Church, and that Church ONLY. He is under the jurisdiction of Archbishop Venables, and therefore, I don’t see why Rowan Cantuar would disinvite him, since he is one of the Communion’s most respected bishops…….unlike Katherine Jefferts Schori. To disinvite him would make ++Rowan look foolish, in my opinion.
Dr. Radner states (truly) that we must rely on the gifts of the Spirit in times like these, but that is true whether we stay where we are or make the difficult decision to leave, as my congregation did four years ago.
I had to think about this overnight, before I was certain of my thoughts here. I would like to commend Dr. Radner, on his analysis of the current conditions, facing us today. This is a truly well thought out and written article. One that needs to be considered by anyone interested in how we arrived at our current state. However, as I regard his conclusion in paragraph nine and his call for forbearance, I believe that the 90% rule applies.
For all that Dr. Radner, has correctly identified the issues facing the Church today, it is for those reasons that his conclusion is impossible. I believe that the present leadership of the Church is too deeply vested, in its present position, to exercise the forbearance, which Dr. Radner and others see as necessary. It is with my usual feeling of deep regret and sadness that I expect disciplinary action to be taken by the House of Bishops in March. I wish I was wrong and that Dr. Radner was correct in his view, of the ability of the HOB, to alter their course of action.
No. 20 – What are the ways that the will of TEC would have us disobey God?
No. 17 – Said by so many Protestant heretic and schismatics before now.
What are the ways?? I read this site a couple times a week, not often enough to know where everyone’s coming from, so I don’t know if that question is a troll comment or not. Anyways, the will of TEC would have us disobey God by placing “modern sensibilities and experience” as a higher authority than Scripture; by condoning Same-sex unions on every level; by condoning serial divorce & remarriage by clergy; by condoning clergy who deny the bodily resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, etc.–that’s it for a start.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
I beg your pardon, no. 26 – There are several others who are, or act like, trolls. on this site. You must think that anyone who questions or disagrees with you is a troll. Every church body has in it those who do those things you inveigh against. But I think you are just repeating a lot of charges you have heard. I do agree that the Church is, in part, asking us to condone same-sex unions. And there are new-agey advocates in it, no question. Just don’t make it hard for those who agree with you in part to agree with you at all. But wyou characterization of those things as “the will of TEC” is sheer hyperbole.