he scene on Monday at the Synod of the Church of England was wild. The Archbishop of Canterbury cradled his head in his hands; his presumptive successor, the Archbishop of York, appeared to be tearing at his head; and a lower-ranking prelate was reduced to public tears.
The cause of this drama was a series of votes, over the vehement objections of traditionalists, allowing the church to name female bishops. To rub it in further, the Synod of the Church of England slapped down a counterproposal that would have allowed conservative parishes to avoid answering to female bishops and submit to an independent authority of special (that is, male) “superbishops” instead. Faced with this crushing denial, a sizeable chunk of traditionalist priests and bishops could well leave their church. On Wednesday, one bishop announced his intent to take his flock with him.
Does this sound familiar? A non-English spectator might be tempted to think that the agony was another chapter in the battle between theological conservatives and liberals that currently threatens the unity of both the global Anglican Communion and the U.S. Episcopal Church. (The Church of England is the flagship of the Communion and the Episcopal Church is a member.) In fact, on its face, the Church of England’s crisis is only distantly related to the global or American scene. However, it might draw in a very powerful observer from outside the Communion who could make things very interesting: Pope Benedict XVI.
Both the special nature of the English crisis and the Pope’s possible involvement hinge on the fact that most of the English dissidents this week are not the evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop has led to talks of schism this summer. Rather they are members of a faction, heavy on liturgy and ritual, that abhors evangelicalism but considers itself very close to the Catholicism from which the Anglican Church originally sprang.
“Rather they are members of a faction, heavy on liturgy and ritual, that abhors evangelicalism… ”
Is this true? Does it need to be true?
I know a couple of American bishops who disagree. I disagree – at least in theory. Spiritually and in practice, Evangelicals and Anglo-catholics need each other. Both will become irrelevant without the other. I’ll throw the charismatics in the pot as well.
Don
I am wondering if action by Rome will be delayed somewhat until this fades in the news. It might be the wise thing….but not too long, please.
“…members of a faction . . . that abhors evangelicalism…”
Sorry, I disagree as well. We are brothers of the Son and, like brothers, have disagreements but deeply need each other as a cathedral’s walls need the flying buttresses.
Don, No, it’s NOT true. This is mainstream media “simplifying” things again. Are Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in tension within Anglicanism? Yes, of course they are. Have they let those tensions get the better of them many times in the past? Of course they have. Do they need each other? Of course they do! In fact, without each other I would argue that you don’t have Anglicanism at all! For me this is the essence of Anglicanism — holding Catholic tradition and reformed Evangelicalism in unresolved tension. Without that you don’t have Anglicanism. One of the great hopeful things about the present moment is that both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are realizing this in large numbers. They’re also recognizing that they’ve got MUCH bigger issues to face besides quarrels over churchmanship.
As an Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic I also say that this is not true. All three strands quite propely hold tight to scriputre and all three can claim to be bible thumpers.
The perfect time to announce a Vatican plan for accepting Anglo-Catholics into the Church would be during Cardinal Kasper’s address to the Lambeth Conference. How’s that for indaba?
I’d like to offer comment, but I’m too busy thumping my bible. What pinheads!
Excuse me, I meant arrogant, elitist pinheads.
I think any serious writer who uses a phrase like this “the evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop” discredits himself. Not to mention the above remarks about anglo-catholics “abhorring evangelicalism.” This is another example of sloppy journalism by the msm.
I’m glad I can concur with Derek Zoolander, male super-model, “not too many people I know read your little Time Magazine.”
Evangelical churches in the UK often surprise US evangelicals, because they do not look, well, anglican. Given that the C of E is an established church, it covers a range that includes a kind of evangelicalism that, liturgically at any rate, will spill out into a more generic evangelicalism on US terms (P’s and G’s in Edinburgh and St Aldates in Oxford are examples of churches that are big evangelical gatherings with movie screens, etc; no vestments; no prayer books). It is because of this, in many ways, that ACs in the UK feel more like a distinct party, in addition to the fact that the ACs are in a PEV scheme and so more formalised that in the US. All descriptions are shorthands of course, and there are many exceptions. But one thing I think +Durham was trying to say is that the US and the UK are not carbon copies of each other. That is true of evangelicalism in the broad sense, but also of anglo-catholicism. The Time essay is intriguing because of the way anglo-catholics in the UK attract a distinctive kind of Roman Catholic interest, for historical/cultural reasons, that is not the same in the US region. I think many of the key bishops in the UK were genuinely stunned by the vote at General Synod (+Scott-Joynt, +NT Wright, +Sentamu, +Williams). This has caught a lot of people off guard, as the assumption was that there would be formal provision for ACs. It would be good to know what the more right wing evangelicals make of this in the UK.
Don:
As a prayerbook Anglo-Catholic, I was abhorred by the commentary. Sometimes I wonder if the majority in the establishment media are almost unable to not misrepresent (because it sends shockwaves through their worldview) the reality that traditional Christians can and do love and listen to each other even when we have major political and doctrinal differences. We are very concerned about a number of the teachings and practices of the evangelical wing of Anglicanism, but all the clergy of my Anglo-Catholic parish and much of the very orthodox catholic-minded laity are regularly involved in trying to learn from and work with the evangelical Anglicans in our area. Historically, this has been more the exception than the rule, but I think it has been nearly two generations of greater and greater cooperation and serving each other. There is no excuse for such a serious distortion.
The previous sentence of the article – “…evangelical, Bible-thumping members of the Communion whose fury at the American ordination of an openly gay bishop…” – is also a gross misrepresentation. And believe me, as an ex-fundamentalist southern Baptist who went to hear the preacher twice every Sunday and once every Wednesday night, I know real Bible-thumping when I see it.
The writer needs to do a bit more research. There’s no “Anglican Rite” provision — it’s called “Anglican Use” and that’s a big difference.
Before leaving the RCC, I looked into the Anglican Use provision. (There’s a large Anglican Use parish in San Antonio, btw.) I corresponded with someone from that church via email. “Anglican Use” can be a quite beautiful thing. However, I didn’t get a sense that it was in any way of “permanence.” For an Anglican Use parish to remain in existence, there has to be a former Anglican priest who is a convert to Rome to lead and minister to the congregation. Once the congregation’s leader (the one who brought them to Rome) retires or dies, the parish can become a typical RC parish, non-Anglican in character. At least, that’s how I understood it from what I read and from conversations.
Anglican Use requires that the Anglican congregation and its minister come over en masse. You can’t just collect disparate former Anglicans together and say, “Hey, let’s ask for an Anglican Use parish to be formed!” Obviously, this is a much different scenario from having an Anglican Rite within the RCC.
For anyone interested in learning a bit about Anglican Use, here’s the website for Church of the Atonement, San Antonio. The home page has a great description of the process and identity.
http://www.atonementonline.com/intro.php
And, just a week ago, the Houston Chronicle did a story on Our Lady of Walsingham, Anglican Use in Houston. The article says there are only seven Anglican Use parishes in the whole U.S. and four are in Texas.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5870808.html
As an Anglo-Catholic, I can certainly say that a lot of evangelical Anglican churches and worship bear little resemblence to what I would recognize as Anglican. There is also the radically different view of the sacraments between the two. True, we’re united against a common enemy (apostacy of 815 and elsewhere) at the moment, but once a new province emerges, our differences (WO, etc.) will loom larger.
It’s not as simple as that. The self-described Anglo-Catholics aren’t homogeneous. I won’t describe myself as Anglo-Catholic in certain circles because of the known propensity for A-Cs to be very liberal in theology but BIG devotees of the rituals and “fancy dress.” I wonder if it’s like that in England, too?
A few quick points in response to multiple comments above. First what the Holy See is contemplating will likely go beyond the Anglican Use provisions put in place by +JP II. If it does not rise to the level of a uniate Anglo-Catholic Church my guess is it will come very close. The TAC has been at the front of the line waiting for communion with Rome. I think they will get their answer first and that whatever framework is used to receive the TAC will be employed to absorb other defecting ACs.
Some have noted that Anglo-Catholics are themselves not of one mind on a variety of issues. Many are in fact quite comfortable with the evangelical wing of the church. This will become more evident by the response from ACs to the synod’s slap in their face. Not all of them are going to swim the Tiber. An educated guess is that perhaps a third will go to Rome with another third moving into one or more of the splinter sects (so called continuing churches) or moving to Orthodoxy. And what is left sticking it out with that redoubtable Anglican optimism that says things will get better… really… they will.
With respect the Orthodox option, I personally would love to see a mass movement into Orthodoxy. there was a time many years ago when so called Anglo-Catholics were seen by some Orthodox as a possible Western Orthodox Church. Sadly those days are now long gone.
I now expect only a very small number to migrate to Orthodoxy. Unfortunately Orthodoxy will not attract a very large number of converts for a number of reasons. The three main ones being jurisdictionalism, ethnocentrism, and the lack of a Western Rite. The Orthodox Church in the UK though united in faith, is as divided jurisdictionaly as it is here (albeit on a slightly smaller scale). So any thought of a corporate move would require picking who to talk to. Then there is the fact that as is true in the U. S. many (though not all) of the Orthodox jurisdictions are very ethnic in their nature and there is sometimes a perception that converts are not just changing their religious affiliation but also are converting into a nationality. This is especially true of the Russian Church. (In the U. S. this could be extended to the Greek Orthodox as well though they have been getting better about some things in recent years).
And lastly there is simply scant interest in a Western Rite among most Orthodox. Which means that converts will be expected to adopt the Byzantine Rite. I have no issue with the Byzantine Rite and in fact love it dearly. Some Anglo-Catholics will also doubtless not find this an impediment. However there will certainly be many others for whom it will be a bit too alien for them to embrace. And I think it completely rules out any corporate movement on the part of large number of ACs.
Given the choices I think Rome is the best option for those seeking a corporate separation from the CofE. Theologically I am Orthodox and so I would obviously urge those considering moving to at least give that option a good look. But I understand that it might not be an option that some can embrace.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
John,
I don’t think the numbers would support a “uniate Anglo-Catholic Church.” Look how few Anglican Use parishes there are in the U.S. after 25 years! SEVEN! And while some may be sizable by Episcopal standards, they’re smaller than a typical RC mission. The only way it could be supported in England is if ALL English Catholics became part of the Anglo-Catholic Church. Would that happen?
There is an underlying element here which just came into focus for me.
Many Anglo-Catholics have felt for a long time that “corporate reunion” with Rome has been their real goal and purpose. That is, they deeply believe that only a truly “catholic” church can be the True Church — the Body of Christ. So, while believing that the full unity of the Church is necessary, they have remained within the Anglican Communion really in order to work toward the day when that corporate reunion can become a reality.
So, to put it as plainly as possible: the whole meaning and purpose of remaining [i]Anglo[/i]-Catholic has been to work toward the full reunion of Anglicanism with Rome from the Anglican side of the equation.
Since this has now been made impossible by the existence of Anglican bishops who are women (at least for the foreseeable future) there is no longer any real reason or purpose for Anglo-Catholics to remain Anglican — except for ties of traditions, sentiment, English identity and attachment to the Crown.
When you look at the picture from the point of view of the goal of corporate reunion, however, there is now no real reason for them to stay with the Anglican church, which — in their eyes — no longer has a legitimate claim to being a genuine part of the “one true Church.” The goal being impossible, the strategy of remaining Anglican no longer has its most important point.
I believe we are going to see a huge mass exodus to Rome quite soon.
May I suggest to Hugh and to the elves that this anti-Catholic diatribe is not at all humorous or tasteful.
Although I also deeply disagree with much of Roman doctrine and ideas, Rcs are fellow Christians and are certainly NOT automatically damned to hell!
evan miller:
You do raise an important point, especially regarding the sacraments. However, I am aware of many evangelically-minded orthodox Anglicans here on the Pacific Coast and in the middle of the country (principally Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma) who are opposed to WO and have a very high view of the sacraments. They also have a commitment to the universal tradition of the Church (see, for example, http://www.westernanglicans.org), though they don’t see it as of binding authority.
I’m not comfortable with much of the language that mainstream evangelical Anglicans use to express their views, but I find that when I ask for definitions of terms and try to get clarification on their interpretations of key scriptural passages, we are not anywhere near as far apart as we have been led to believe. I do need to say, though, that ecclesiology is probably the one exception to this, and it may prove to be a serious stumbling block in the years ahead. Nevertheless, much of what I have read and inquired about in places like GlobalSouthAnglican.com have demonstrated to me that there is a kind of latent neo-catholicism that many non-Western Anglicans express and bear witness to in indirect but important ways. They believe in preserving the integrity of the visible Body of Christ at its broadest and the historic role of the bishop in accomplishing it and no one has to persuade them that it is a high priority. In general, I think, they have not learned to approach doctrinal issues in the same kind of strict categorical ways that North American and British Isles Anglicans (and most Protestants and Catholics in the US and Britain) do, and to me, this is a tremendous gift from God.
I am generally encouraged by what I have seen from GAFCON, and while the language of the documents coming out of GAFCON does not draw nearly enough on our rich orthodox Anglican heritage (and the documents fail to practice what they preach when they fail to reference or quote the 1662 BCP or works of the Church Fathers), there is most definitely an embrace of the whole of the orthodox Anglican tradition. What we need now is for all of the various sub-traditions to subject their teaching and practice to the patristic principle of the great canon of 1571 that IS referenced in the GAFCON statement (in the 3rd section, A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans). I think we need to set such a process of serious theological reflection in motion as soon as possible. We would also be opening the door for the kind of self-examination and repentance that God can use to take us to where Christ will truly renew and transform us as His Body. This is also where the Holy Spirit can make us closer and to create in us the spiritual weapons to fight the major (and ugly) battles with heresy and the old-line Anglican establishment.
A couple of corrections to #21 above –
1) The website of Global South Anglicans is globalsouthanglicans.org, not .com.
2) the last sentence of the last paragraph should read “This is also where the Holy Spirit can bring us closer and create in us the spiritual weapons needed to fight the major (and ugly) battles with heresy and the old-line Anglican establishment that are before us.”
Sorry for the sloppiness.
It’s difficult to take you seriously, McCann. Grow up.
Methinks Hugh be a troll. HE’s posted the same thing on about 5 threads.
Chris Seitz: If the final Synod vote to approve any legislation must pass by 2/3, and if voting is done by order, is there not sufficient votes in the CofE’s HoB to prevent passage of any legislation unless there is firm protection for the Ang-Cath’s? Am I missing something here?
I doubt if Hugh is a troll. More that likely just a fanatical Puritan spewing venom.
Jamesw,
I’ve been thinking the same thing. I guess we’re missing something. Of course, the opinion from the House of Lords that protections for the A-Cs wouldn’t be legally binding might make it a moot point.
Why would Anglo-Catholics in England prefer reunion with Rome to alternate primatial oversight by Anglican Bishops from Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya or the Southern Cone. Excuse my ignorance but is WO the only issue in that scenario?
No. 28 – Primatial oversight by Protestant-minded bishops for ACs is a non-starter. Sadly, the writer of the magazine article is right. You do see Bible thumping on this and other sites, quoting bible passages to condemn Roman Catholicism, Tec,, and the queers in it. Finally, maybe it is time to recognize that the deepest split within Anglicanism is between the catholic and protestant ecclesiologies that exist between it. The so-called “tension” between the two is not productive or healthy, just as is the so-called overuse of the word “tension” in TEC official material which is properly criticized quite often in this blog.
Regarding an exodus, I think there will be one, but in my experience there are any number of orthodox who feel they are too old to fight in these battles and prefer to remain in the “old shoe” until they die, Why? Because it is so comfortable and they can get some gllmmer of the truth in the liturgy, despite the antics of the clergy. There is also a measure of social stigma and social misunderstanding in some places that comes with being part of an orthodox church. Jesus never said it would be easy.
“The time is coming soon, Harry, when we will all have to decide between what is [i]right[/i] and what is [i]easy[/i]!”
–Albus Dumbledor
Um, I certainly hope this isn’t turning into the assertion that Anglo-Catholics who don’t head for the hills of Rome are all “lazy” and unfaithful to the Lord. 🙁 Rome has some laws that are too heavy on the backs of the people to bear, as Jesus pointed out in his day.
Consider the old dears in their 60s and 70s who divorced and remarried long ago. Rome would declare them as “living in sin” and rule that they couldn’t receive Communion until their previous marriages were annulled and then blessed by the RCC. Even the Orthodox Church permits one remarriage.