My first problem is with the headline in that while my sense of the significance of the time in the Anglican Communion is that it is a very important one, my expectations for this Lambeth Conference are low in the sense that it will make a meaningful contribution to the crisis tearing the family apart. I am sure the face to face time will be valuable, and the relational networking opportunities will be abundant, but we should not ignore the elephant in the living room. And, yes, I would love to be surprised.
(I will just note in passing that although the press, especially the British press, seems to have heightened expectations for the meeting, those who are organizing it have seemed to strike a different tone. Also, when I see “expectations are high” I need to ask: high for what?)
My second problem has to do with nomenclature. Some bishops are coming from parts of the Communion who are unable to be present for reasons of conscience and conviction. But in the article we read the term diocese where we should see the word province. “It was not immediately known if anyone from the Anglican Church of Uganda, the fourth “boycotting” diocese,” as the article now reads, is not proper Anglican terminology. Uganda is a province, not a diocese; the same mistake is made in the current headline which now reads “Bishops arrive, including from three ‘boycotting’ dioceses;” again it should be provinces.
Finally, I really do not believe that the proper terminology is to describe what is being done as a boycott. In order to argue for this, I need to go back to the analogy that won’t go away:
It is time to break through the veneer of what may be an air of unreality at this Convention, and tell ourselves the truth. I applaud the Presiding Bishop for saying “unawareness is a form of bondage” and I am concerned about precisely that unawareness now. It is a caricature to say that to speak of the church shattering is to use a threat. That is totally untrue.
Think this through with me. A woman who has been in a marriage for quite some time discovers that her husband is having an emotional affair. There are letters, emails, secret liasions and the like and she stumbles onto them. Then in a moment of great courage she summons her strength and confronts her husband. She gets him to admit the truth. Then she looks him squarely in the eye and says: “if you consummate that relationship our love will be shattered.”
Now the husband can think to himself “she is trying to control me by threat,” but we all know it is nothing of the kind”“ it is instead a loving warning. And please note carefully the husband can also say, “if you choose to go that is your choice, you will be the one responsible,” but that is untrue. And the husband also can say “look dear as long as we keep going to the dinner table together and loving each other we can work this out””“ and that is untrue. Please, please let us tell ourselves the truth..
”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””“
Now follow along and see where this goes in terms of the subsequent developments. The husband has consummated the affair. There has been much emotional and personal damage and the relationship is extremely frail. A marriage counselor is brought in. It is suggested because of the severity of the situation that a trial separation is necessary. The husband is asked to apologize and express repentance for his actions, and to cease the affair. The situation could not be more serious.
How to take the analogy further along the steps the Anglican Communion has taken is difficult, but, roughly speaking, there have been more meetings, including meetings of outside leaders who have asked for clarification within specified time limits from the husband, and, even though a group on behalf of said leaders has written a report saying that the husband has satisfied what he is being asked to do in order to repair the breach, his actions on occasion contradict those findings. Even though he has pledged his deep commitment to the marriage, has said he is sorry she has been hurt, and that he takes his wife’s concerns with the utmost seriousness, on certain days of certain months, he is still having the affair.
What does the wife do? Well, yes, at some point she may choose to leave the relationship, but, as a Christian, if she is persevering and prays for the lovingkindess of God to prevail, she might stay in the house.
If she were to choose to stay, the atmosphere would be very different from then on, and, the one thing she must do is act differently in what is left of the relationship itself. Indeed, not to act differently is not a sign of health, but a sign of real sickness. One example of an action she might take is that she might choose to move to another bedroom down the hall from the couple’s bedroom where she would choose to sleep from then on.
You can perhaps see where I am going here. If you were to drop a reporter who didn’t know a lot into this situation, he or she might write a story with the headline: “Wife boycotts marriage bed.” The reporter could write it, but it would not be an accurate description of what is in fact taking place–KSH.
“High” in the sense that nothing will happen to slow TEC’s total rejection of Scripture and tradition, Fr. Harmon. The revisionists are so close to making it past this critical juncture they can taste it. It will be the Lambeth that they entered as teachers of a false morality and emerged as spreaders of a new orthodoxy that they will bring back to dioceses like SC with a determined vengeance.
The second sentence was edited. Can we please go easy on the rhetoric where possible during the next two weeks. Remember people who completely disagree with you may be reading your remarks–thanks.
Kendall, your analogy of the husband and wife is right on. Not only does it very clearly mark the problem within the Anglican Communion, but it also clearly marks the problem with Jesus and His bride, the church. It’s the “bride” we need to focus on here for our true situation. She needs to remain pure for Jesus in the end. Will she? Let’s wait and see. I truly believe it will only be a small few who will remain faithful to Jesus.
Perfect, Kendall! Yep! The reporter would TOTALLY have it all confused. The WHOLE story clearly reveals the one responsible for the breach. BUT, the reporter never gets the WHOLE story, right??
I think the analogy is rather stretched. If TEC is the husband, then who is the bride? Remember that we now understand marriage as a partnership of parties having equal standing; we no longer see the bride as chattel.
Wouldn’t a stronger analogy involve an elected official who is seen as unfaithful by his constituency?
Jeffersonian:
Sadly, I have to say that you are probably not far off the mark. There will not exactly be anything we could call a new orthodoxy, as you put it – the ABC, who I believe is an orthodox catholic in his heart, knows that the stability of the Communion as a whole and his potential to influence its future for the true Gospel are in far too perilous a place to allow the North American progressivists to emerge as victors. However, there are likely going to be enough unconfronted innovations, toothless demands and sympathetic responses to crocodile tears formed in dramatic defense of TEC’s indefensible legal juggernaut that the HOB and the hierarchy at 815 will be able to spin the outcome as one that has given them carte blanche to continue to enforce the new “tolerance” and the new “inclusiveness”. But you are absolutely on the right track – unless the monstrosity of the new unitarian gnostic pseudo-Arian and semi-Manichean deistic individualism of TEC is forcefully challenged (and not simply critiqued), the spiritual disease will spread. And as the cult continues to grow, vengeance will be renamed “tough love” and sometimes explained as “proper expansion of executive authority in a state of emergency”.
Consider how the spinning of the TEC King Lear narrative of Lambeth is already underway in Bishop Bruno’s recent comments (reported dutifully by Episcopal News Service, no less) –
“This is an opportunity to support the Archbishop of Canterbury in an attempt to maintain civility and order in the church,” Bruno said. “We are independent provinces but it’s important to have the Archbishop as the head of the international church.”
Ah, yes – they have always loved and cared for the ABC and have only wanted to follow his example and be his servants in the cause of civility and order. They will now do everything in their power to defend his throne against the armies of the illegitimate conservatives. Ain’t it grand to reside just a stone’s throw from Hollywood.
Jeffersonian said:
[blockquote]“High†in the sense that nothing will happen to slow TEC’s total rejection of Scripture and tradition, Fr. Harmon.[/blockquote]
Hmm, I hadn’t contemplated this before, but here goes. Scripture and tradition are two of the three Anglican stool legs. What about the third, reason? Do the revisionists convincingly attempt to use reason on the whole in their efforts? If so, could respect for reason be lost in the larger Christian world? (Reason makes correct exegesis possible, no?)
Not sure if I buy the analogy Kendall, although it does help me understand your view point.
It seems to me that it’s one couple in one house telling another couple in another house how to live their lives. They both love the neighborhood, but one refuses to go to block parties, while the other couple goes. This new couple is less modest and tends to kiss in public. In front of the kids.
John,
They’re doing way more than kissing….
6, there is no three legged stool. Scripture comes first, followed by tradition and then Holy Spirit inspired reason.
6. Reason….at least human reason, is the only “leg” which is prone to sin, simply by its nature.
And let us not forget that the Revisionists have added a 4th leg: Experience.
I believe a PhD dissertation examining ENS/Episcopal Life could easily prove that it/they are more PR instruments than news organs. Here, the “high expectations” are the pushing of a line that all will be well by having warm, fuzzy relationships.
Richard Hooker’s formulation is Scripture, reason, and tradition, in that order. But the [i]stool[/i] metaphor is problematical for its implicit suggestion that these three components carry equal weight.
For more see the Rev. Dr. Canon Christopher Brown’s article [url=http://www.albanyepiscopaldiocese.org/news/episcopalian/061105.html]Rethinking the “Three-Legged Stool”[/url] at the website of the Diocese of Albany.
Canon Harmon, why doesn’t your discussion group take advantage of this Bishops’ preoccupation with Lambeth and invite some dialog about the Church’s abortion history and its theology of the pregnant woman and the unborn? We do know that the Church has lobbied for retaining the partial-birth abortion procedure and as far as I know has not changed its position. Is this satisfactory to both reasserters and reappraisers, and if not how should it change?
Please do thiis; otherwise, some of us may get the impression that the Church is dragging its feet in anticipation of a more congenial administration in Washington.