We the undersigned contributors to Covenant-Communion.com believe that “a word in time” is now needed in order to assist the Communion to move forward in a constructive manner following the Lambeth Conference. We would like to speak such a word by specifically addressing the points Bishop Bob Duncan raises in his email to Bishop Gary Lillibridge, which has now been made public with Bp. Duncan’s permission. Our reflections are offered with all due respect for Bishop Duncan as a dear friend to some of us, and one whom those of us who know him personally admire as a stalwart in the faith. Bishop Duncan’s words are quoted in italics with our reflections following.
1. The first difficulty is the moral equivalence implied between the three moratoria, a notion specifically rejected in the original Windsor Report and at Dromantine.
Actually, it is largely American and Canadian liberals that have implied a moral equivalency between the two. We think most people are clear that the crisis in our Communion was precipitated by specific American and Canadian actions. In any event, someone has to be the first to give up their “rights” (either Bishop Duncan and the GAFCON folks by agreeing to moratorium #3 in clear terms, or the American and Canadian leadership by agreeing to moratoria #1 and #2, as well as an immediate cessation of the lawsuits and ecclesiastical trials). Who will be the first to display an act of Christian charity and self-giving on behalf of the Communion at this critical turning point in the life of the Communion?
Our understanding of the comments from the Windsor Continuation Group hearings at the Lambeth Conference is that no one really expects the jurisdictional crossings to cease without the concomitant cessation of blessing same sex unions and assurances of refusal to consent to the consecration of a bishop in a same sex relationship.
2. This process cannot be stopped – constitutions require an automatic second vote, and to recommend against passage without guarantees from the other side would be suicidal.
We recognize the canonical difficulties this presents. A constitutional change requires a second vote in the following year or the proposed constitutional change fails for lack of a second reading. Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury can change this requirement. Further, we understand that these dioceses are fearful of further legal repercussions that a delay would entail.
We suggest this is such a crucial issue that Dr. Williams convene a meeting, preferably in person, by September 30th, to work through an agreement on the assurances of the moratoria as well as the “safe haven” for those in the American and Canadian churches who feel the need for protection.
All that has been said has been asked and said before.
I trust the authors were simply unaware this sounds like amateur ad copy, with phrasing usually employed when attempting to prop up a once-great product widely recognized to be past its prime. That is, the fading brand name itself is feebly flogged, even though the attributes and experiences that gave it power have long since ceased to be delivered.
The truth is, for many, unity in Faith is more important than the opportunity to sip tea with the Queen of England every ten years. The apparent nakedness with which Covenant Communion touts the latter over the former is embarrassing.
Looks like a constructive contribution to me.
There is at least one wolf in sheep clothes in those who signed the statement. This person has before used delaying to his personal benefit before and I think may well have a hidden agenda To delay departure now is a serious risk.
#4 – I don’t see how it is constructive. It’s like being at a family reunion with Dear Uncle Ned, who everyone knows is a child molester, but still he is in the same space with you and your children. There are certain things that need to happen to create safe space: Uncle Ned needs to be called for what he is and has done (file a police report), you have to let him know that in order to guarantee you children’s safety he’s no longer on the family get-together invitation list, you let him know that if he decides to get help, that’ll be swell, but it won’t automatically get him on the list for Christmas dinner – first you want to see real change and then talk about it with everyone else. Telling Uncle Ned that you won’t call the police if he promises to stop isn’t a good first step. After all, if he wanted to and valued your family, he would have done so to begin with. Ring a bell? I, for one, am darn through with finding the middle ground. If you think this is constructive, be prepared to be spiritually molested.
#5 – BINGO!
#3 – Nice “proof-text” from Tertullian. Would that be the same Tertullian who became a Montanist and a heretic himself? According to the online Catholic Encyclopedia, “It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own.” He sounds like the perfect spokesperson for the fissiparous orthodox rebellion. As for me, I commend the Covenant-Communion folks for their long-standing effort to lend some dignity to the process of standing up for orthodox Anglicanism.
First, I need to lay my cards on the table and say that I heartily support Bp. Duncan. I believe he is one of the few bishops doing what is absolutely necessary in these days for the future of his diocese and for the good of Anglicanism in North America. It is my perception that the inaction of so many TEC bishops has nothing to do with ecclesiology, but rather a lack of courage in facing the conflict head-on.
Second, I want to say that I do, in fact, appreciate many of the items articulated in this open letter. I believe it really does offer a vision for the very best state of affairs: the moratoria, the end of border-crossing, the holding tank—all these would be wonderful and helpful if they actually actualized. The authors rightly call for urgent action of behalf of the Communion’s leadership to make this vision reality, and were that leadership provided, were the proposals of this letter implemented, I believe many of us (and I refer here to those who drafted the letter, many of them friends of mine) would be seeing exactly eye to eye.
Lastly, my only objection to the letter (a strong one) is the label of “culturally Anglican†applied to those whose ecclesiology does not center on the See of Canterbury. I can’t help myself here, but it would seem that it is more “culturally Anglican†to take the authors’ position: maintaining an attachment to the Emperor (whether that attachment is ecclesiastical or sentimental) even when the Emperor has no clothes! Indeed, the term “cultural†usually refers to nominal adherents who are more loyal to the institution than to practicing the principles of the institution. I think leaders like Bp. Duncan who are willing to take risks (and take hits) because of commitments that are essentially Anglican—a commitment to a kind of Christianity that is both reformed and Catholic, in which the locus of unity calls for a common adherence to Truth—these in my mind are the most counter-cultural Anglicans around!
David Houk+ (using my wife’s log-in)
Note how this proposal falls completely outside notions of established rules of order, and continues to lessen the relevance of the other instruments. This is the ABC going off and doing things on his own – not very conciliar.
The WCG properly viewed itself as the unilateral creation of the ABC, unrelated to the other instruments. Its role was simply to “address outstanding questions arising from the Windsor Report and the various formal responses from provinces and instruments of the Anglican Communion” for the ABC – not to create binding communion wide pronouncements or structures. In fact, the WCG characterized its statement as not even rising to the level of a report.
As such, its work should be ratified by the other instruments in order to become official; it would have been nice if this had occurred at the Lambeth Conference, but it did not because it was not a deliberative meeting.
From TLC
From the Windsor Continuation Group:
Well now, what an interesting proposal for the role of the see of Canterbury! On one hand, Canterbury lacks the power to do anything at all about TEC. Yet on the other hand, it is able unilaterally to create a forum to implement a moratorium on cross provincial oversight, even before the instruments can consider the proposal or the other moratoria have been enforced!
Does this circumstance surprise anyone?
My advice to the dioceses in question is that in voting, they should give due weight to the unofficial status of the proposal.
😉
#8 – AAA – throwing the baby out with the bath water, are we?
It’s a neat idea. But it calls the Archbishop of Canterbury to do something which he has stated repeatedly that he is unable to do. It also calls the Episcopal Church and the anglican Church of Canada to behave in an open and forthright manner, something which they have proven unable to do.
It’s all very well to be as innocent as doves, but there comes a time when one must be as wise as serpents as well. There comes a time when Erasmus must stop being Erasmian and declare whether he is Lutheran or Catholic.
[blockquote]
An Anxious Anglican wrote:
. As for me, I commend the Covenant-Communion folks for their long-standing effort to lend some dignity to the process of standing up for orthodox Anglicanism.
[/blockquote]
Many, albeit not all of those who signed the letter are people who are to be commended for their long term stance on a number of issues. As is often the case some times things are OBE. (Overcome by events). The number of feigns to bless same sex proclivities which have gone even since the bishops all returned from England is one element. The continuation of legal action even after major setback in Virginia is another element. In short it is too late for this thinking.
Sigh. There is nothing new in this Open Letter to the Anglican Communion. Plus, the priests who are sponsoring this letter via their signatures are known to me. I respect them, but I cannot agree with them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this comes across just that way. It places too much dependence on the good will of the various parties. Sadly, not all of the parties have good will. This means it would be foolish to enter into such vulnerable talks without something concrete. The argument that someone must go first is understandable except when the various parties have made it clear they do not trust one another and they don’t.
To me, with all do respect to the various priests and sponsors, it comes across as naive. Again, there is nothing new here. The ABC has never done enough when he had the chance. Lambeth 08 was a wasted opportunity. Of course, the Bishops of TEC will tout it as wonderful and a great opportunity to build relationships…but in the end the EC over played its hand.
I could go on and make a fuller case but it seems a waste of time. It can easily be summed up in too little, too late. Opportunities were wasted. TEC and the ACiC do not realize what they have wrought and how damaging it is to the entire AC. Plus, there is much more to being Anglican than simply being in communion with the See of Canterbury, and if Canterbury will not lead others have already stepped forward to do so.
Too little, much too late….
The crucial action item in this–the confab with the principals–is DOA. KJS will never attend. She will plead the necessity of approval by the full TEC legislative machine. And Bonnie Anderson would just have a duck over leaving out the voice of the House of Deputies.
Don’t the signatories know all that? We are way beyond such a nifty solution.
To clarify my #10:
While I appreciate the spirit of this open letter, I find myself in substantial agreement with Fr. Houk+ (#9) . Good words, Father, especially with respect to your third point.
G+
[blockquote] We suggest this is such a crucial issue that Dr. Williams convene a meeting, preferably in person, by September 30th, to work through an agreement on the assurances of the moratoria as well as the “safe haven” for those in the American and Canadian churches who feel the need for protection.[/blockquote]
And when this does not happen, then what?
Worth a try? At the moment as a Communion we are on a road to nowhere so asking various bodies and Primates to get a grip, let’s see – could it be any worse?
Why isn’t the dividing issue…..or should I say stumbling block……of women’s ordination mentioned here? I don’t see true unity coming unless and until this is dealt with.
I would support Bob Duncan following up on this letter by calling for the actions outlined, and offering to call for his diocese to pause in its vote IF (1) KJS pulls back on her deposition threat, and (2) if the ABC sets up specific and significant structures to protect the Diocese of Pittsburgh. That said, I think that the main point in this letter has a snowball’s chance in hell of happening. That being:
Rowan Williams’ track record is to avoid action whenever possible. I don’t see anything forcing Williams hand to call a meeting at this point. While Pittsburgh et.al.’s departures would displease Williams, I don’t think that it rises to the point of “forcing” him into action.
And if anyone thinks that KJS will actually agree to a meeting without lawyers with the purpose of reconciliation and creating a safe space for Bob Duncan, they would have to be insane.
I know that the authors of this letter are not insane, and so I think that they are actually counselling a very wise political strategy for Duncan, Iker and Ackerman. Basically, these three bishops (and the GAFCON primatial council) should all unite and call for just such a meeting as proposed here to take place. That way, if (as expected) Rowan drops the ball or KJS refuses, then it will have been made very clear to the Communion that the fault is not on the part of Duncan, Iker or Ackerman.
With all due respect to the authors of this document (most of whom I know personally – including a former seminary class-mate), hoping that the Revisionists in TEC, Anglican Church of Canada, CoE, and elsewhere are remotely interested in any situation/approach that does/may not advance their revisionist agenda is a false hope. Coming up with suggestions that are essentially “dead on arrivalâ€, considering what the ABC, KJS, et al have publicly stated and are doing, even as we speak, is essentially an exercise in futility.
Bottom line: what faithful Christians in the Anglican Communion need more than anything else at this time is COURAGE to suffer the loss of some comfort, personal, ministerial, professional, and familial stability. The Revisionists are interested only in “re-making†Christianity, and that you can take to the bank.
The Revisionists have taken ahold of Anglican Communion from Lambeth to 815 and beyond. This is the sad truth. But thanks be to God, we still have millions who have not accepted, and will not accept the lie. Anglicanism is more than Lambeth, Canterbury, and York. Period.
As long as there are still some faithful Provinces in the Communion, there is hope for some meaningful continuation of what was known as the Anglican Communion. I still see the need for the Diocese of Fort Worth and other courageous dioceses and bishops to continue with their plans and processes for alignment with God-honoring and Bible-believing Provinces. The die is cast.
Faithfully submitted,
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, Texas
#21… thanks JamesW. I agree completely. I think Duncan and others should make very clear proposals which would show their willingness to comply with requests of Lambeth or Windsor and do so in a way so that it’s a total no-lose proposition for them.
For example, I have suggested in the lastb few weeks that they propose that the moratoria as requested in full for both sides should begin whenever KJS says. As we know, that will last about ten days — ten days before some TEC parish breaks it with a SSU of some sort or other. After which the moratorium is then broken and no longer in effect. But the point is, it will be clear that the breaking of the agreement won’t be the fault of the Global South or the American traditionalists.
Now that we have this public proposal made, it’s even better. I’ll just repeat what you said again. I can’t say it better:
Incidentally, I see no reason we can’t combine the wisdom of post #22 with that of post #21. Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco is right that the dissenting dioceses should be realistic and should continue in practice to make plans for moving forward. He’s right to oppose people deluding themselves and so forth.
On the other hand I think JamesW is right too in saying that this is a shrewd political strategy to conduct in tandem because it allows them to retain the high moral ground of humility and peaceableness without putting their dioceses or ministries at any further risk. Why not offer to do this thing if it is obvious KJS and Co will be the ones to refuse it it? It just makes it clear to the rest of the AC where the real sorce of the conflcit is coming from.
Combining the advice of 21 and 22 is perfectly reasonable. Just as it is reasonable to both plan that your house will be here tomorrow and take out fire insurance at the same time.
Again, just my own thoughts, and I humbly admit to knowing far less about the complex ecclesiological political situation than many others do. Grace and peace to all…
Dear David Houk+ (9) and Greg Crosthwait+ (17),
I understand your objection to the “culturally Anglican”/”ecclesiologically Anglican” disctinction. In my view, to be fully catholic, we need both the Apostolic Order and Apostolic Faith. Both are necessary for the fullness of the Church.
I do not believe that the planting of the Church in the British Isles as one of the three major birthplaces of the Catholic Faith was an accident of history. It is incumbent on faithful Anglicans to preserve the unity of the faith along with the unity of catholic order. I am not ready or willing to dismiss +Canterbury as necessary for the fullness of the catholic faith.
Pipe Dream
As I have said through this entire mess, you cannot defend catholic faith by violating catholic order.
I also understand the concept of a life-boat for those times and places where a parish and its clergy are under oppression by the bishop who does not hold the catholic faith nor practice catholic order.
I think that implementing the moritorium on boundry crossing should be conditional on the setting up of a “safe haven” for those parishes and dioceses that cannot follow TECUSA into its errors. The safe haven needs to be a haven that the dessenting parishes and dioceses find acceptable and needs to have guarantees for several things:
1. Their candidates for ordination (deacon, priest, and bishop) will not be stopped for their traditional views on either sexual morality nor for their views on the ordination of women.
2. Parishes will be able to call, as Rectors, any priest in good standing and clergy will not be refused license because of their traditional views.
3. Parishes can retain their property by a majority vote. If there is a sizable minority that desires to stay in TECUSA, then they shall be able to rent the property for services and fellowship meetings for a proportionale amount of monthly expenses of non-clerical staff. For example, the montly expenses of a congregation with 100 members is $5000 (not including the priest) and 10 members want to continue to be part of TECUSA, they can continue to use the parish buildings for $500/month (10% of the monthly expenses). This can work both ways.
4. For dioceses that join the safe haven, congregations will have the option to stay in TECUSA by majority vote – see #3 above.
5. All clergy both in TECUSA and in the Safe Haven will have rights to participate in the Church Pension Fund until such time as either TECUSA is no longer part of the Anglican Communion or the Safe Haven is formally recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC as not representing an Anglican Witness in North America.
Having laid this out, I don’t think it is will come to pass as I believe that TECUSA will not allow it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Friends,
The authors and signatories of this letter (of whom I am one) have sincere respect for Bp. Duncan. A number of us consider him a personal friend. And we tried to acknowledge his willingness to take risks and hits for the Gospel (as Fr Houk reminds us) when we referred to him as “a stalwart in the faith”.
Many on this thread have noted that, as Fr Kingsley put it, “Anglicanism is more than Lambeth, Canterbury, and York. Period.” I think we at Covenant-Communion would all agree with that statement and that sentiment. Yet while Anglicanism is much, much than Canterbury and Lambeth (York seems less germane to this discussion), nevertheless we would argue that Canterbury and Lambeth are essential components of the Anglicanism we have inherited.
Logicians often cite the difference between “necessity and sufficiency”. To be specific: while communion with Canterbury and representation at the Lambeth Conference are not sufficient to identify oneself as “Anglican”, yet communion with Canterbury and participation in the Lambeth conference are “necessary” to identify oneself as “Anglican” — at least in the sense that most people use that word. Two extreme examples for the sake of clarity: I don’t think an Atheist could reasonably be called “Anglican” whether or not he is in communion with Canterbury or invited to the Lambeth Conference. On the other hand, neither do I believe the pope could be called “Anglican” (even though he is certainly a very faithful Christian and arguably the most important Christian leader on the planet), precisely because he is neither in Communion with Canterbury nor invited to the Lambeth Conference.
We do not mean to disparage the witness or the fidelity of people who are outside the Anglican Communion, or who disagree what we think is the best way forward — namely the Windsor Process. Many of them, like Bp. Duncan, are indeed “stalwarts of the faith”.
Our conviction, in positive terms, is that the Anglican Communion is a gift from God, it is something worth preserving, and its something worth making personal and corporate sacrifices to preserve. The grace of God has granted us to be a part of the third largest communion of Christians on the planet. And this fact enables us to bear witness to the Gospel in meaningful and powerful ways throughout the world. This witness is very certainly hobbled by the doctrinal innovations and litigiousness of TEC. But it is also hobbled by the fractions being pursued by many on the reasserting side. Both are scandalously visible to the unbelieving world — to atheist readers of the NY Times who laughingly ratify their rejection of the Gospel because of our disunity, as well as to Muslims in Africa who use the “Gay Church” monicker to justify the brutalization and in some cases the murder of our brethren. And this should be an impetus for all of us to tears and penance.
At the end of the day, we at Covenant-Communion have written this because we agree with this statement of Archbishop Orombi (written to explain his absence from the Lambeth Conference): our innovations and disunity “severely hinders our ability to engage our communities on such issues as clean water, food, employment, and good governance. That is why we must resolve this conflict. It is not a matter that we can “agree to disagree” about homosexuality (and the underlying theology that leads one to the acceptance of homosexuality) and still pursue together the Millennium Development Goals. Our credibility and integrity as a church are seriously undermined because of the lack of resolution of the current crisis.”
We do not disparage the necessity of orthodoxy for Anglcanism. And we acknowledge that necessity when we say that reconciliation must include respect for “Lambeth Resolutions [including 1998-1.10] and other official acts of the Instruments of Communion that have come to serve as boundary markers in our mutually shared discernment.”
Some on this thread have said that our call is an exercise in futility, that it is “Dead on Arrival” because “KJS will never attend” (#15 above), or because of what various parties “have publicly stated and are doing, even as we speak” (#22). That may be so. But we feel very strongly that even the guarantee of failure does not absolve us from our obligation to pursue a faithful and UNITED witness, in the Communion that God has graciously given us. We cannot spurn the gift because we think its dissolution is a foregone conclusion. In this respect we need look no further than the Lord’s cross: it was the instrument by which he has drawn and is drawing all men to himself (Jn. 12.32). And we would do well to remind ourselves that the cross also looked like a foregone failure to all who saw it, even Mary and the Apostles, or who saw it coming (Judas). It was foolishness to Greeks and a scandal to Jews (1 Cor. 1.23). And yet it was the means by which the Lord gave the gift of Communion to the whole creation (Rom. 8.20).
So it should not be surprising that the inhabitation of this gift means that we must take up the instrument of the gift — the cross — and suffer and seem to fail. We were never promised success. We were only assured that whoever isn’t willing to seem to fail, whoever isn’t willing to die, is not worthy of Jesus.
Blessings and peace to all of you.
I’m no logician, but “unofficial” to me is unofficial – while basic rules of order are basic rules of order. Doing things outside the basic rules are… well… of uncertain validity, putting it mildly.
🙄
RE: “And this fact enables us to bear witness to the Gospel in meaningful and powerful ways throughout the world. [This witness is very certainly hobbled] . . . . by the fractions being pursued by many on the reasserting side.”
Yes — that is what happens when discipline does not occur in an organization . . . people decide to leave the organization. Other than people ignoring the lack of discipline, turning off their minds, glazing over their eyes, and ceasing to care about the lack of discipline, leaving appears to be an alternate option.
I am puzzled by pleas for [i]another meeting[/i] amongst Canterbury and the leavers and Jefferts Schori. This happened over a year ago in New York and was, of course, fruitless, since there are no consequences to any of the parties worth mentioning that would cause them to come to the table to negotiate.
One party, for instance, has decided that it is enough to merely be a member of a province of the Anglican Communion, and be in close alliance and communion with certain provinces of the Communion — they’ve decided, and I think for the most part sadly, that of the two choices given them [being in the Anglican Communion and recognized and participating in the councils of the Anglican Communion OR leaving TEC] leaving TEC is by far the better option.
The other party has decided that it’s cool with whatever small consequences might come its way as well — chilling in their relationships with certain provinces of the Anglican Communion, and the departure from TEC of a number of people whom they heartily loathe anyway. What’s not to like with that???
Canterbury has had five years to work on this problem, and for good or ill, the Communion has divided. Not blaming it on his actions or lack of actions — but here we are. As Canterbury has taken pains to declare over and over — [i]there is nothing that he can do[/i]. And I think a lot of people have now gotten the picture.
I’m also puzzled by the urgency.
So another couple of dioceses are going to leave.
But we have [i]decades[/i] for all of this to play out . . . the lawsuits, parishes in each and every diocese of TEC departing, individuals leaving Anglicanism, other parishes declining by parishioner losses, etc, etc. It will be a long long time before TEC officially bites the dust. The votes of two more dioceses to leave are merely another marker in the journey.
No, if there were felt urgency on the part of [i]Canterbury[/i], then it certainly wouldn’t be merely a letter from some Anglican clergy crying out for Fort Worth and Pittsburgh to cease their actions. There would be a lot more. No, Canterbury is cool with these dioceses leaving . . . and I think Canterbury is cool with all of this carrying on for the next several decades, as he well knows that it will.
So why are others distressed beyond the usual distress? Nothing can, after all, be done about any of this anyway. Those of us who are in TEC and conservative have to simply work in the small areas where we can be useful — a parish, or a diocese, perhaps — and wait for more favorable winds and tides.
The good news is this.
As has been well-proven over the years, [i]it will never be considered “too late” for another meeting or for reasserters who believe they do not need to leave TEC to tell reasserters who do believe they need to leave TEC to “please wait”[/i].
Not ever.
So we have all the time in the world to hear those requests, over the coming decades.
I might add that the common understanding of acting “outside” the rules of order, is that such actions are “out of order,” unenforceable, or of no binding or meaningful effect.
Re: #20,
A prophet without honor (or even attention) — but I hope that your good bishop will keep this before his eyes in all events and choices.
He will, I am sure.
And my bishop is +John-David Schofield.
Dear Dr. Tighe (#32) and Cennydd (#20),
We discussed mentioning the ordination of women in our letter, and I think most of us at Covenant-Communion recognize that the dynamics of the situation are slightly different for those dioceses that do not ordain women. We decided to leave it out partly 1) because THIS crisis was not precipitated by the ordination of women, and 2) because the catalyst for our letter was Bp. Duncan’s letter to Bp. Lillibridge, and the ordination of women is an innovation that the Diocese of Pittsburgh has received.
I don’t disagree with Canon Neal over on Covenant that something could possibly be negotiated(with integrity) at the eleventh hour, but let’s just say that we’ve already noted, as with DeS, that there seems to be no honor amongst primatial thieves(“oh, yeah, I’ll do it…then at home, where the natives are restless: “oh, maybe I won’t do it or can’t do it”) and this, as BabyBlue has said, does not exactly make for a trusting environment in which to operate and work things out.
God bless ya; I think hope is springing eternal but I don’t think it will come to much. As someone not affiliated with GAFCON, I still thoroughly understand how and why they feel the way they do. Their position is not without merit.
I’m not ready to throw in the towel on Canterbury itself yet–perhaps things could be different when, shall we say, the next change of command takes place? I’m willing to hang out and see what happens–in the meantime, my spouse and I are simply trying to witness the Gospel in our small neck of the woods…
Standing by–Cheers and God bless to all…
GiD
Sarah, 30 accuractly summerizes the situation I think. The other thing is the the actions of the orthodox factions work the undermine the actions of the other orthodox factions, and that works to the advantage of the TEC. Thus the ACI etc. seeing the loss of orthodox support as people leave TEC and the AC, lob shells at GAFCON and those in GAFCON, seeing that the actions of the ACI etc., at least in the short run, works to the advantage of TEC, return fire. I wish that this were not so, but it is a reality.
It is sad, but it’s what is happening. I now expect the orthodox to splinter.
I think that GAFCON correctly reads the situation. We now have had 10+ years of kick the can down the road. Always one more meeting or plan or covenant or something. The AC has had plenty of time to act if it was going to act. It is not going to act in any meaningful way or in any corporate way. Those who value unity with Canterbury above all should at least be realistic about this.
By all means pursue the covenant and all the other new things, but remember that Dar es Salaam had everything at the point of decision and the ABC de-railed the entire thing. For me that was the tipping point and I don’t think that your new plan will be any different if it is about to result in meaningful decision.
Regardless and in the meantime it does nothing for the persecuted orthodox in TEC. We will make out way out of the TEC and the AC, if necessary, at our own pace. Either in a group as in GAFCON or individually as our orthodox pockets of safety dry up and I doubt that we will return to the organization that abandoned us when we needed it. But then we should never put our hope in organizations of men only in Jesus.
#20 while women’s ordination is an issue worth of much debate, it is not the subject of this thread and I do not wish to see this discussion diverted in that way. Many thanks
Regarding #30 (Sarah Hey)
I pray that you are right that there will always be preachers preaching to all parties that it is never too late to repent of the sin of schism.
To reiterate our view at Covenant, let me quote Fr. Will Brown, whose substantive response in #28 is to be applauded.
We must continue to preach repentance and reconciliation because that is precisely what we were commissioned by Christ to do. It’s not sufficient to surrender to cynicism or our own sense of futility.
Nor is it helpful to offer the cheap grace of relativism (“to each his own; one chose this path and the other chose that path, and who are we to judge either path as sinful?”). Such cheap grace masks the real desire (that we all sometimes have) to avoid the high cost of repentance. The real reconciliation to which we are called demands the dispossession of our selves necessary for us to turn back towards each other. Grace is located in our union-in-Christ.
As the 20th century martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, noted:
I appreciate the thought of Father Brown (a signatory) on the unlikely success of this proposal. The analogy to “taking up the cross” seems apt.
But can you reasonably expect that Bishop Duncan, when he has heard the sound of the Tiger tank clanking its way around the corner (ala Saving Private Ryan), would just stand in the middle of the street with his hands up?
And besides, the Diocese of Pittsburgh as a whole has the second reading of its action properly before it. KJS & Co. would have to make extraordinary provisions first (by chronological necessity), which they just won’t do.
Craig Uffman beautifully highlights the theological differences among so many members of TEC.
Naturally, I don’t believe it an inherent sin for people to leave an organization and join another. I don’t believe leaving an organization is the rather portentiously named “sinful and scandalous,” and saying it is over and over again doesn’t prove the case, nor troubles me one whit.
I am confident that, no matter what organization Christians worship in, they are beautifully unified in Christ.
And of course, no matter if believers and non-believers [i]are[/i] in the same organization — they are not at all unified in Christ.
To put it another way, those in TEC are not “united”, they are separated, and the fact that we reside behind the facade of one organization doesn’t make us “together” nor should it. TEC itself is a marvelous illustration of the division and separation and disunity that exists when organizational discipline does not occur and when those who believe the gospel and those who don’t are in one organization together. Leaving TEC and joining another organization doesn’t add even a fragment more of division and separation and disunity — although it certainly [i]demonstrates[/i] that division, separation, disunity — which in this case is a good thing, since it’s division, separation, and disunity amongst those who believe the gospel and those who don’t.
Indeed, I think it is important for the unchurched to watch with interest what is happening to an organization like TEC, as those who believe the gospel and those who don’t are in conflict within it. It has served as fodder for excellent discussions with the unchurched, speaking from personal experience.
I have to wonder if all of the people signing this letter believe that leaving the TEC organization is inherently sinful.
If so, that certainly throws a new light on the theological differences amongst conservatives within TEC.
I’d be interested in other ComCons weighing in on this question.
Is the departure from the organization of TEC inherently sinful?
To flesh this question out further . . . if the signatories to the letter believe that it is inherently sinful to leave TEC, then surely that is a far more urgent theological issue and should make up the substance of their pleas to Fort Worth and Pittsburgh.
The practical/logistical arguments stated in their letter are easily countered. After all, as I pointed out above: [blockquote]One party, for instance, has decided that it is enough to merely be a member of a province of the Anglican Communion, and be in close alliance and communion with certain provinces of the Communion—they’ve decided, and I think for the most part sadly, that of the two choices given them [being in the Anglican Communion and recognized and participating in the councils of the Anglican Communion OR leaving TEC] leaving TEC is by far the better option.[/blockquote]
It seems that, as long as there are no urgent practical reasons why that sad choice would be reconsidered, that the argument of “your departure is inherently sinful” is a far more important one to make and surely trumps any other points that one could make.
If leaving TEC is inherently sinful, then the debates amongst conservatives have been carried out on completely the wrong bases. So again, I’m interested in learning if there are a whole lot more ComCons out there who believe that leaving TEC is inherently sinful.
I myself have no intentions of leaving TEC — at least any time soon and as far as we can know the future — but my decision has been based on the excellent reasons I have listed before, and has nothing at all to do with its being inherently sinful to leave TEC.
Sarah in #41 and #42,
No one at Covenant, insofar as I am aware of it, would suggest that it is inherently sinful to leave TEC. Nor has any of us suggested such an obviously false notion.
Once again I commend readers to Fr. Will Brown’s substantive comments in #28 (and my own in #39) which is quite clear in drawing attention to our duty of reconciliation and calls upon both sides to repent of their separation from each other. This is a call for us to embody the ancient practices of repentance and forgiveness which are essential in our witness to the world of a different way of being.
Then there seems to be a big disconnect in our communications, Craig.
When I said this: [blockquote]”The good news is this. As has been well-proven over the years, it will never be considered “too late†for another meeting or for reasserters who believe they do not need to leave TEC to tell reasserters who do believe they need to leave TEC to “please waitâ€.[/blockquote]
You said in response this: “I pray that you are right that there will always be preachers preaching to all parties that it is never too late to repent of the sin of schism.”
And just now you said this: “Once again I commend readers to Fr. Will Brown’s substantive comments in #28 (and my own in #39) which is quite clear in drawing attention to our duty of reconciliation and calls upon both sides to repent of their separation from each other.”
If it is not inherently sinful to leave TEC, and if leaving is not “the sin of schism” than what are you calling Fort Worth and Pittsburgh to repent of?
In #30, Sarah raised several good points left unaddressed. In addition, IMHO the C-C group seems to gloss over the complicated issue of the exact meaning of cross provincial oversight with respect to biblical/catholic teaching; for example, where in the Big Book of Polity is it spelled out that these arrangements are, in fact, schism? I’m also unclear on exactly why a “holding tank†proposed by a group of clerics appointed by one instrument is so very different.
Regardless of the merits, I find it extraordinary that anyone would propose that these dioceses rely on something so insubstantial and unofficial as the observations or statements of a single instrument – particularly given the historic unreliability of that instrument.
Why not act today based on the reality of today, and act tomorrow based on the reality of tomorrow?
🙄
Yes, when I look at your comment in #39 it’s very clear that you are telling people to repent of their sin in leaving TEC.
And you quote Will Brown who says this: “Separation is upsetting because it is sinful and scandalous.”
If whatever it is that you are calling “separation” which you name as sinful, isn’t applied to what is happening with people, parishes, and dioceses leaving TEC, then what exactly is it being applied to?
The whole substance of your comments on this thread is about repentance of sin and the sin of “separation”.
If none of that applies to the contents of the letter written to respond to Bishop Duncan’s points in his letter, than I wonder that it is on this thread at all.
I too would like clarification. At what point are calls to repentance and reconciliation just words when one side refuses to repent or be reconciled? TEC is proceeding to do what it wants to do, so how is that to be dealt with or is it to be ignored? What do you do when TEC changes the canons and demands that you accept the innovations?
While I think that this is a very constructive approach from Covenant, in that any sign of activity from Lambeth Palace, 815 and the other participants is to be encouraged as opposed to just carrying on in the same old way, like Sarah I disagree with the notion that we are called primarily to repentence and reconciliation as a primary duty. Our primary duty is to answer the question Christ asked Peter: ‘who do you say I am’. This is the primary call and we are told that when we follow Him we are following the narrow road, the difficult road and in some ways the lonely road. The broad road is full of people, sociable, easy in some ways, but does not lead where we are called to go. We are called to repentence before God and reconciliation with Christ first, and at His direction with one another on the narrow road.
I keep hearing that there is more than one form of Christianity in the AC. There is only one form, although there are different expressions, but they all start with decision and our reply to the question ‘who do you say that I am’. From that the rest flows.
IMHO
I would also ask whether funds are being redirected? If you are staying in TEC should not the amount of funds owed to the diocese be paid and the full amount the diocese owes to 815 be paid?
Although I had stated I have no intent ever to post here again, I can’t resist on this issue, which is particularly close to my heart.
Divisions among Christians are inherently scandalous and would not occur were it not for human sin. It is difficult to reach any other conclusion on reading the Last Discourse and High Priestly Prayer in the Gospel of John. Jesus prays that we all may be one, not just in heaven, but here and now. He asks that all the sheep be gathered into one fold under one Shepherd.
It is equally difficult to read anything on the general subject of unity from any ancient, medieval, or modern writer within the mainstream Christian tradition without reaching the same conclusion about the sinfulness of division. Even those who felt compelled by their adherence to the Gospel to separate (including the Orthodox dissenters from the various Christological heresies and the Protestant and Anglican Reformers) agreed that division is a scandalous consequence of human frailty, pride, and sin.
It is a very new claim, contrary to Scripture as it has been traditionally understood, for anyone to assert that division can ever be a positive good, as distinct from the lesser of two evils. For those who stand within the broadly Catholic tradition (including many who would call themselves Evangelicals or Reformed), the visible Church is not an optional extra and membership in a particular ecclesiastical organization is not a matter of inconsequence.
The Church, as that term has always been understood, is not a voluntary membership organization. It is the Body of Christ. As the place where the Word is rightly preached and the Sacraments rightly celebrated, the Church must be a visible reality, not just an invisible fellowship of those who subjectively believe in Jesus. Any breach in the visible unity of that reality is a bad thing, never a good one.
That said, an individual Christian might find himself or herself in a position where division is less of a scandal than staying. That is a judgment that each individual must make, based on an analysis of the current situation in the light of Holy Scripture prayerfully considered with the assistance of the Christian tradition and right reason. I do not feel comfortable, and I suspect most of the other Covenant Communion authors do not feel comfortable, with judging whether a particular person is sinful because he has chosen to leave rather than stay or stay rather than leave. We do not see accusing individuals of personal sin as being helpful.
Many of us stand in traditions of theological ethics that are influenced, to one degree or another, by Karl Barth. One of the key notes in Barth’s ethics is that the Command of God is addressed to particular individuals who must obey God’s decree wherever it takes them. It is thus not useful to ask whether “Schism is worse than Heresy” or “Heresy is worse than Schism” as an abstract proposition. One can ask only whether obedience to God’s Word requires oneself, as a particular individual, to leave or stay. There is no generic heresy or generic schism that justify an invariable rule.
At this point in time, the Covenant Communion authors (who have deep differences of opinion on any number of other issues) are united in the belief that we are called to stay. We are exercising whatever influence we might have to keep our parishes, dioceses, and TEC from walking away. We are willing, and we think our churches should be willing, to accept a significant degree of sacrifice to preserve both unity and orthodoxy. Unlike some parties to this dispute, we do not expect all the sacrifices to be by those on the “other side.” There is enough blame to go around, and we are willing to accept our share.
That does not mean that we cannot imagine any circumstances that might not change our minds about leaving. However, we feel obliged to urge every possible alternative to a breach between our local churches and the See of Canterbury.
Sarah writes:
[blockquote] Leaving TEC and joining another organization doesn’t add even a fragment more of division and separation and disunity—although it certainly demonstrates that division, separation, disunity—which in this case is a good thing, since it’s division, separation, and disunity amongst those who believe the gospel and those who don’t. [/blockquote]
As a mere signer of the open letter, and the least of the least of the Covenant-Communion group, might I suggest that the above statement of Sarah’s illustrates the essential theological difference between conservative players in the present troubles. Sarah has on more than one occasion identified herself with the so-called “Com-Con” position. However, to state what most Com-Cons view as schism in terms of “leaving TEC and joining another [b] organization [/b]” betrays a disconnect between Sarah’s understanding of “church” and her desire to preserve and/or reclaim a once-upon-a-time eminent organization. No offense intended to Sarah (she of course can correct me if I’m wrong), but I have come to believe that she LIKES the idea of a worldwide Anglican Communion, and thinks it worthy to fight for and within. However, she would not place much stock in the idea that being in relation to the historic See of Canterbury is not only essential to the identity of Anglicanism, but constitutes for Anglicans our tangible connection to the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” Therein lies the difference between Com-Cons and Fed-Cons, for the most part (I realize this may be somewhat of a generalization).
Where Sarah may differ with her Fed-Con friends (particularly those at Stand Firm) is merely in the pragmatic arena of someone who appreciates the value and usefulness of organizations, and one who has had considerable amount of success working to organize and motivate a faithful insurgency within the same. (More power to her in these efforts, seriously.)
Sarah, forgive me for referrring to you in third person throughout. It was not meant in rudeness but as an illustrative exercise. You of course will have something to say in response and I look forward to your always challenging perspective.
RE: “. . . might I suggest that the above statement of Sarah’s illustrates the essential theological difference between conservative players in the present troubles.”
I agree that it represents a theological distinction amongst ComCons — not *the* distinction, but one among many, many which have been noted on all sides, just as there are many, many theological distinctives amongst FedCons, interestingly.
RE: “However, to state what most Com-Cons view as schism in terms of “leaving TEC and joining another organization †betrays a disconnect between Sarah’s understanding of “church†and her desire to preserve and/or reclaim a once-upon-a-time eminent organization.”
Two points.
First, none of the ComCons I hang out with — and most of the folks I hang out with are ComCons and thoroughly committed to staying within TEC — view leaving TEC as “the sin of separation” or as “schism” which again was clearly stated by Craig Uffman above in several areas of his comments which I pointed out above.
Second, I don’t understand how my speaking of TEC as an organization creates any sort of “disconnect” with my desire to work to renew or resist or reform [depending on where one is] an institution such as TEC. Since I believe that “church” is not entirely congruent with “TEC” [although not entirely *incongruent* as some would say], it’s only natural that I would desire to strive to make it more congruent than it now is, while recognizing that it will never be fully congruent, as I do not believe that the physical/institutional accoutrements of a human organization are what constitutes “church”, while certainly the non-institutional accoutrements might well make up “church.”
In other words, I see institutional aspects as appendages — sometimes quite helpful and sometimes quite harmful — that are not “church.” I do not know what “church” would look like to human eyes with zero “non-church”, institutional accoutrements attached, and suspect that God wouldn’t want us to try that, since it would seem to be a gnostic experiment, and it is a healthy human bent to construct edifices to “hold” realities, seen and unseen.
RE: “No offense intended to Sarah (she of course can correct me if I’m wrong), but I have come to believe that she LIKES the idea of a worldwide Anglican Communion, and thinks it worthy to fight for and within.”
I certainly do.
RE: “However, she would not place much stock in the idea that being in relation to the historic See of Canterbury is not only essential to the identity of Anglicanism . . . ”
Actually I have stated that I do not believe that a covenant or confessional-centered Anglican federation can survive. I have stated that I believe that it must have a “center that holds” to survive — and that center will not be a confession, but would be Canterbury.
I think Anglicanism is rather unique in that respect amongst Protestant entities, for a variety of reasons, some of which would please those who believe themselves to be Catholic. But I simply don’t believe that a thriving, flourishing Anglicanism will occur without a center that holds — and a confession won’t be it [though I think a confession/covenant would be a useful addition, were discipline to ever have been exercised].
I have stated that numerous times in the past. That is one reason — [of many] that I do not believe that the FedCon experiment will work — although I will be more than happy if it is successful and I do wish them well, since they are as trapped by their theology and circumstances as I am mine; it is apparent that they are [i]unable[/i] to remain in TEC and thus I hope that God will bless them in their departure.
On the other hand, I don’t grant that one [i]must have Canterbury[/i] in order to theologically exist as an *Anglican*, although certainly one must have Canterbury to exist within the Anglican Communion. If, for example, a great tsunami were to cover over Britain, eliminating the physical see of Canterbury, that would not mean that Anglicanism would cease to exist; of course . . . “Canterbury” would still exist, in one sense, and Anglicanism, even the Anglican Communion, would go on, although it would certainly be very hard.
RE: “. . . but constitutes for Anglicans our tangible connection to the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.â€
I’d have to have carefully defined “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” to be able to say for sure — but again, I’ve never been an Anglo-Catholic and freely confess that I do not share their theology about the church in that respect. Nor do I believe that the Anglican Communion is “the One True Church” — nor Rome, nor Orthodoxy. So I believe it is possible for someone to leave Anglicanism and still remain a Christian, and a Christian member of the church, as well.
Of course, as anyone who struggles within TEC learns, there are ComCons that are charismatic in theology [though not very many], ComCons that are evangelical in theology, and ComCons that are Anglo-Catholic in theology. In my own diocese, the greater percentage are evangelical in their ecclesiology and in other ways — but even they can certainly come up with [i]theological reasons[/i] not to leave TEC. I expect that almost all of my friends will, should they leave TEC, leave Anglicanism entirely rather than pursue the FedCon strategy.
RE: “Where Sarah may differ with her Fed-Con friends (particularly those at Stand Firm) is merely in the pragmatic arena of someone who appreciates the value and usefulness of organizations, and one who has had considerable amount of success working to organize and motivate a faithful insurgency within the same.”
No. I have theological disagreements with the FedCon strategy, as well as pragmatic disagreements, and I’ve named those before. I also am within the Anglican Communion for very serious and deeply-held theological reasons as well, but don’t usually share those positive reasons as they are not particularly interesting to others and furthermore involve sharing aspects of myself that would be unseemly in a public forum. But I have frequently stated that Anglicanism is the most beautiful, complete, and full expression and communication of Christianity that I have ever seen.
RE: “Sarah, forgive me for referrring to you in third person throughout.”
No problem! ; > )
On another note, the one thing I do note with real sorrow and surprise is just how vicious, unkind, insecure, angry, and bitter so many conservative leavers and stayers are concerning those on the opposite strategic side [I use the word “strategic” because we have established that the precise same *theology* is not the commonality amongst leavers or stayers] whom they wished had made the same decisions as they.
On thread after thread, no matter the blog, no matter which side, whether leaver or stayer, the denunciations and ugliness and accusations and rantings and bullying and manipulative bombast and attempted guilt-tripping are displayed in all of their glory. It’s still a shock to me to see just how bitter and outraged both sides are towards one another — and I see no percentage difference between the two sides as to frequency or constancy of the comments.
So in that way — with the exception of a few shining examples — the FedCons and the ComCons appear to have one thing in common, other than the gospel.
I should add something about this clause: “Where Sarah may differ with her Fed-Con friends (particularly those at Stand Firm) . . . ”
I have, so far, only one Fed-Con friend who is also a StandFirm blogger, and that is Matt Kennedy. Jackie, Greg, and I reside within TEC — and David is also a part of the Anglican Communion.
On the other hand, I have no FedCon friend who understands the importance of TEC as an organization, the importance and challenges of working within TEC, and who has supported me and others in working within TEC as much as Matt Kennedy. I’ve never had anyone on the FedCon side who has defended me for staying, either, as much as Matt, both in public and in private venues.
Collectively, we couldn’t have created a more supportive FedCon StandFirm blogger than Matt, had we tried.
I remain in The Episcopal Church, and in a strongly revisionist diocese (North Carolina), praying that my continued presence at least bolsters a rector whose theological conservatism has put him very much on the outside in the diocese (especially since most other conservative clergy in the diocese have left for other jurisdictions) and allows me to exercise an orthodox teaching ministry among fellow parishioners, many of whom are not theological conservatives. Efforts to charge conservative laity in this diocese have failed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is simple fatigue and dispiritedness on the part of many of us (I include myself in this condemnation). Many of our fellow laity have themselves departed for other Anglican jurisdictions, and I bless them for their obeying a call to faithfulness (I reject the letter’s dichotomy of cultural and ecclesiological Anglicans as theologically inaccurate and – if I may say – self-aggrandizing).
Nevertheless, I stay, in the main because my wife and I have not discerned a call to exercise faithfulness in leaving. This is not only for merely pragmatic reasons (though such play some part), but also for theological ones – I have abiding qualms about leaving, and possibly contributing to a fissiparous destruction of (true, faithful, catholic and reformed) Anglicanism. But that is primarily because I would be an individual, we would be a family, leaving. For many of the same ecclesiological reasons, I see no problems with a diocese making clear their differentiation from The Episcopal Church not only by making statements, not only by refusing to send money to the denominational headquarters, but also by seeking to establish new relationships with other provinces of the Anglican Communion, relationships that in some cases might, at least temporarily, require a withdrawal from The Episcopal Church for refuge within another province of the Communion. Indeed, if the diocese be the fundamental ecclesiological entity, then it is incumbent on bishops to withdraw from fellowship with other bishops and dioceses whom they believe to have proceeded with error in faith or practice and also persist in those errors. The messiness of the Church’s organization between the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople bears witness that this is nothing new in the history of the Church.
And if the diocese be the fundamental ecclesiological entity, then it may well be the case that the national denomination is actually a parachurch organization, existing to make mission and ministry between and among cooperating dioceses more efficient and to bear witness to the unity of bishops and their people in apostolic faith and practice within a national Church. The latter function, if true, means that the national Church cannot be ignored or dismissed. But it also means that, if apostolic faith and practice are not shared among the bishops of that national Church, then differentiation from faithlessness is going to require some measure of structural differentiation, but without abandoning the hope that the larger national body will eventually be brought back to faithful witness to the gospel. (This makes it incumbent on those differentiating structurally from the larger body to do all they can to work toward that goal. Of course, it is also possible that structural differentiation will make wider ecclesiastical reconciliations possible; e.g., the work within the Common Cause Coalition, or the ongoing discussions at a very high level between the Holy See and the Traditional Anglican Communion.)
As much as any ComCon, I value the place of the See of Canterbury in the life of the Churches of the Anglican Communion. But I very seriously question making communion with the See of Canterbury the sine qua non of catholicity and apostolicity for Anglican Churches. Has not every Anglican bishop been ordained into the historic succession, and as such, is not every Anglican see a local manifestation of the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” through a faithful succession in the episcopate and the catholic faith? Why are Anglicans who would constrain other Anglicans by a Canterburian sine qua non not themselves constrained by the loss of communion with the ancient see of Arles (St Augustine of Canterbury was consecrated to the episcopate by Archbishop Etherius of Arles) or with the Holy See itself? I understand the desire not to worsen the state of schism in which one already finds oneself (a situation not of one’s own making), but let us be sure to temper such statements with the reality of the perilous state of schism we are all already in as Anglican Christians.
Todd Granger writes:
[blockquote] But I very seriously question making communion with the See of Canterbury the sine qua non of catholicity and apostolicity for Anglican Churches. Has not every Anglican bishop been ordained into the historic succession, and as such, is not every Anglican see a local manifestation of the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church†through a faithful succession in the episcopate and the catholic faith? Why are Anglicans who would constrain other Anglicans by a Canterburian sine qua non not themselves constrained by the loss of communion with the ancient see of Arles (St Augustine of Canterbury was consecrated to the episcopate by Archbishop Etherius of Arles) or with the Holy See itself? [/blockquote]
Good to hear from you, Todd. It’s been awhile since we’ve corresponded. I’m going to assume that this was directed at my earlier statement. Forgive me if I’m mistaken. I’m not contending that communion with Canterbury, per se, is the [i] sine qua non [/i] of catholicity and apostolicity for Anglican churches. I would, however, suggest that for catholics (at least) UNITY is! (i.e., the ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church), and that for Anglican Catholics, Canterbury is an essential tangible sign (dare I say sacrament) of our unity, catholicity and apostolicity.
You ask whether every Anglican see, whether Canterbury-connected or not, is a local manifestation of the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” Sure, to the degree that such churches are in faithful succession to apostolic faith and order, I have no problem with that idea. But the converse is also true: to the degree that such churches are NOT, they are not; and this standard holds true for all who claim to be a part of the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” including our beloved Communion. The genius of Anglican Catholicity, unlike that of Rome and Byzantinism, is that it makes no claims to ecclesial ultimacy, i.e., it does not confess itself to be the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” to the exclusion of all others. Anglicanism, at its best, also frankly acknowledges how miserably it fails to live into its own confessed catholicity and apostolicity, because it sees catholicity and apostolicity as a gift, not as an inherent quality or character.
If you wish to know where my heart is in the matter, I will gladly acknowledge those Anglicans outside of the main flock as true Anglicans. (This is where Canon Michell’s distinction between “cultural” and “ecclesiastical” Anglicans comes in handy.) But I also believe that in losing their connection to Canterbury they have lost something very precious, and that, yes, whatever factors led to separation in each case has worsened the state of schism, and represents yet another failure of Anglicans (all Anglicans) to live into the gift of our catholicity TOGETHER.
Dan Dunlap (aka Third Mill Catholic)
Sarah writes:
[blockquote] Second, I don’t understand how my speaking of TEC as an organization creates any sort of “disconnect†with my desire to work to renew or resist or reform [depending on where one is] an institution such as TEC. Since I believe that “church†is not entirely congruent with “TEC†[although not entirely *incongruent* as some would say], it’s only natural that I would desire to strive to make it more congruent than it now is, while recognizing that it will never be fully congruent, as I do not believe that the physical/institutional accoutrements of a human organization are what constitutes “churchâ€, while certainly the non-institutional accoutrements might well make up “church.†[/blockquote]
I didn’t mean to suggest that there was a disconnect in the internal logic of your position. Not at all. You believe (and admitted above) that TEC is primarily and “institution,” and you desire to renew, reform and reclaim TEC as an INSTITUTION. The disconnect, as I see it, is between what the Com-Con understanding of the church is (in my experience, but apparently not yours) and your understanding, while maintaining common ground with the Com-Cons in the desire to renew, reform, and reclaim TEC. To my way of thinking, TEC is the Body and Bride of Christ (not to the exclusion of all others, btw). That is to say, TEC is not a mere organization or institution (though it has organizational and institutional aspects, obviously). For that reason, TEC is worth fighting for and reclaiming for Christ.
Just for the record, I consider myself an Anglo-Catholic CommCon and I remain in TEC, largely because I have nowhere else to go, for personal reasons I will temporarily leave undisclosed.
I love hearing emphatic statements like “the sin of schism” and “repenting of the sin of schism” and then the same person states that “no one is saying that leaving TEC is inherently sinful”.
But yet leaving is schism and schism is sin, according to Craig Uffman, so that’s exactly what you’re saying.
How about we change the topic of debate, i.e. whether or not unity in heresy is sin?
In the long run, I have no idea what I am going to do with my own ecclesial self, but I believe that the cockeyed optimists or glass half-fullers are eventually going to be sorely disappointed. You say that each is called to be a reconciler, but in reality I don’t think that TEC or its “leadership” will ever change course or repent of anything at all. The best hope here, in my view, of unity in Anglicanism is some sort of two-tiered Communion, possibly based on who does or does not ratify the Covenant. And yet, people like the Bishop of Western Michigan say they really don’t support a Covenant(eeew, why have standards or something we have to abide by or someone telling us what to do or “rules” to follow? That’s just so un-Episcopal…) but yet TEC needs to be a large part of its formation
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/15694/
but yet it appears lost on this man that TEC is unilaterally being “prophetic” and not working well and playing nice with others…what’s that cliche about having the cake and eating it, too?
I fully realize that, as my Mommy used to say, “two wrongs don’t make a right”, i.e. on the subject of actions of reconciliation, but if anyone believes that TEC is going to change course or behaviors or offer olive branches or blow sunshine and cotton candy at someone like that lion-hearted Bob Duncan, then he/she is sorely mistaken.
I hear that some of the episcopal scuttlebutt at Lambeth was, “Why are the Americans even here?” Good question–how about it, Your Grace? They’ve never done what they were asked to do by three Instruments of Unity–true they haven’t consecrated another actively gay bishop(too obvious; that’s not a case where they can say they’re doing one thing and then do another; well, unless one’s name is Griswold) and they say they haven’t “authorized” blessings and have no liturgy for blessings but we all know those continue wildly apace(in my former diocese it was, “oh, just use New Westminster’s service, and tell everyone that you haven’t been “authorized” to do it”), but yet no one is disciplined for blessings and I bet if you hunted around in MA and CA court records these days, you’ll find Episcopal clergy who ARE solemnizing gay “marriages” and going undisciplined.
So, again and in sum, schism is such a horrible sin, but how about unity in heresy and obvious ecclesial defiance? Not to mention off-the-chart rudeness, backbiting, backstabbing, and so on, and so forth. There’s also “though shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”, and that one’s been broken so many times it’s laughable but I’ve forgotten to note the one that says “thou shalt not be schismatic”. That one’s not original 10, is it?!! 🙂
Sin is sin and we’re all guilty of it and should repent and try to improve, but I’m not going to look at GAFCON folks like they’ve got three heads. I respect and understand what they’re doing, even though I’m still on the inside, and boy, I do believe that there’s a hell of a lot worse sin than schism to go around.
Maybe I’ve just given Spong his next book title–“Unity in Heresy”…while the demons laugh and the lawyers get rich…
Thank God my Triune God is a Rock in a weary land…may He help us all…
GiD
While I believe there are good theological reasons to maintain unity within the church even when there is great discomfort doing so, we need also to recognize that division, separation, whatever you want to call it brings to the surface a whole array of other problems, as is the case when a marriage comes to pieces.
1. Personal relationships are among the first victims. The tragedy of what has happened has been that in so many places those with whom we once labored in the Gospel together have now gone different ways, with the wedge between them being their assessment on the rightness of staying or going.
2. Those who affirm a catholic and biblical faith who have stayed have been immeasurably weakened in their witness.
3. The prospect of litigation as a result of separation/division, whoever instigates it, presents to the watching world a sorry spectacle of Christian against Christian which immensely weakens the mission and witness of the church.
4. A hardening of positions on all sides, which is what has happened, leads to a Western Front mentality with everyone lobbing all they have got at ‘the other side.’ Not only is this akin to WW1, it is also a civil war — and as recent history shows they are the bloodiest, while the Civil War in the USA was the bloodiest of all American conflicts.
I could go on, but the point is made.
I was pleased to sign this letter to my old friend, Bob Duncan, because there has to be a point where we move beyond the rhetoric and actions that will result in Mutually Assured Destruction. At some point someone has to step back from such folly and seek to pioneer a gracious and rational response to the present madness. It is easy to point the finger, it is easy to debate theological points, but the rubber of Christlike living hits the road when we are determined to try approaching conflict in another way.
What is at stake here is something far more important that the future configuration of the Anglican Communion.
Great discussion. I happen to think that the ComCons can save the AC, but I also think that it will have to be at the expense of the North American orthodox. At some point, for the sake of unity of the larger whole, they will have to let TEC go its way. And that leaves us on our own. And that makes practical matters more important that all the superb theology expressed above (and I am not being sarcastic).
I think this explains a lot of the nastiness that Sarah talks about. Because the actions of either group undercuts the actions of the other group. Actions which each group thinks are necessary to either their survival or the survival of what they think is an essential theological position. In order to fight from within you need numbers and every person who leaves reduces your numbers. Conversely those staying in become complicite is some way in the persecution of the orthodox by TEC. Because each group works to the disadvantage of the other it is easy to see why “tensions” arise.
I started out as a ComCon until I saw that not only was the AC not going to help me but was actively going to harm me. To use a crude analogy it’s hard to be charitable to your “rescuers” when they start to shoot holes in your lifeboats and tell you to hold on until they refloat the Titanic.
Sarah (#52) and Geek (#57),
No one at Covenant has said, to my knowledge, and none would agree, with your thrice-repeated identity of schism with “leaving TEC” or would agree with your refrain about “leaving TEC is inherently sinful.”
If there is a disconnect here, it it may be that this statement presupposes a familiarity with theology and church history that ought not to be presumed.
The Church has long made a distinction between “schism” and the exercise of “private judgment.” Both of these are technical terms that have meanings given by our Tradition. Protestants have always claimed more is permissible on the basis of private judgment than have those in the stream we now call Anglo-Catholicism, but both have agreed that there is an important distinction to be made. Leaving TEC for most falls into the category of private judgment. Schism on the other hand involves active participation in division in the body of Christ. Many exercise their private judgement in moving to other communities of faith without engaging in what historically has been seen as schism.
For more on this distinction, I urge you to read a fine Protestant treatment on this, such as Calvin’s Institutes 4. 9-16. Calvin explains well why schism is indeed a great sin, and he makes the distinction between that and private judgment that is customarily made.
Good to see Richard Kew’s name and thoughts. Yes, a hardening of positions is happening and, at least among conservatives, it is ominous for the future.
But Richard, it’s “War Between the States” (he writes with a smile, not hardening his position). An Englishman spending time in Tennessee can be forgiven for missing the subtle difference.
Hi Craig. Man, this thread has been so helpful to me. Lots of extraordinarily thoughtful posts. A remarkable degree of gentleness and people not using harsh or sarcastic language with each other. Awesome! Let’s keep that up.
I have a few questions for you, Craig, which will probably betray a degree of ignorance about church history and history of theological ideas and so on. Which is ok — I am fine with not knowing stuff. I like learning more from other folks here.
You mention that:
and that:
“Calvin explains well why schism is indeed a great sin, and he makes the distinction between that and private judgment that is customarily made.”
The first part of what you’ve said I think means: Sarah is not a bad person if she privately decides to leave TEC and go somewhere else. But Bob Duncan is a bad guy for helping his diocese in their decision to leave TEC. Is that sound right? I understand that distinction and I agree it’s worth making just so that you are clear that individuals on the thread don’t feel personally attacked if they choose to leave TEC. It’s also an interesting because it sounds like the same distinction that KJS and Co. have made — they can sadly but lovingly wish a private individual all the best who leaves, but if a rector or warden or bishop in any way helps a parish or diocese to leave, then he is very wicked and ought to be severely punished.
In regards to Calvin, help me understand better this great Reformer’s position. If indeed he was firmly defending the distinction mentioned above, then wouldn’t he necessarily believe his whole enterprise was quite wicked? He was actively engaged in breaking away from the Church of Rome — he was leading people in this effort. Wouldn’t that make what he was doing very sinful?
Dear Jon (#62),
Let me first ask you to go back to our Letter and Fr. Will Brown’s #28 to set this in proper context. Note especially our sympathy and respect for Bp. Duncan and all who struggle with how to deal with what TEC has done.
In that vein, I note that St. Thomas Aquinas points out that all heresy is schismatic. And so I believe we must locate this first in the context of TEC’s actions and remind ourselves that TEC’s actions, to the extent that they are heretical, would be seen by St. Thomas as schismatic.
But St. Thomas goes on to point out that schism breeds its own heresy. And by this he warns us that our acts of schism inevitably lead to heresy as we struggle to justify our schismatic acts.
You are right to raise the question you do about Calvin. I use Calvin because Sarah self-identified as a Protestant who is not Anglo -Catholic. I trust that she would find Calvin as an important witness. His writings in my reference come historically in a time when he was agonizing over schismatics in his own Geneva community, and so his writings, though we may see them as ironic, must be read in that vein. I note that John Wesley similarly (ironically) shared his view. These were both men who struggled to maintain commitments to catholicity while their parts of the Church were in upheaval. Certainly the schisms in which they participated in various ways were tragic for the Church.
[blockquote]An ecclesiological Anglican relates directly to the Archbishop of Canterbury through his or her own bishop and not through the primate.[/blockquote]
Picking up on Todd Granger’s excellent comment, the ecclesiology of this letter as expressed in the blockquote (which to this theologically unsophisticated layman seems like traditional catholic ecclesiology) carries the implication that those parishes and clergy who do not follow their bishop and diocese, but instead choose to divide the diocese and follow a new bishop installed uncanonically by the national church primate are more subject to the charge of schism than are the re-aligning bishop and diocese. Should not these members of the particular church, the diocese, be obedient to their bishop under the catholic ecclesiology expressed in the Covenant letter?
63, Graig, so can you summerize this? Does Jon have a good summary? What would you have us do? Are you not going around in circles? As in heresy, schism, heresy. Should we go along with the original herisy to get along? Would you rather individuals simply leave TEC quietly and at the same time walk out of the AC?
Should we continue to wait for the processes of the AC to act when they have demonstrated thare total inability to act? If we are to wait how long are we to wait remembering that we are always told by the ComCons to wait for the next “Anglican event” which never does anything.
The ABC has already said he wants the use the indaba process at the next scheduled Primates meeting? Does this mean that that meeting will do nothing too and decide not to decide? Are you suggesting that for the sake of unity we engage in endless process that never reaches conclusion?
If you say we should work from within then how do you propose to take control of GC 09 or 12 etc. and regain control of TEC?
Quite frankly I am now totaly confused with what the letter is saying and proposing.
Br. Michael #65,
No circles at all, actually. Two separate paths to heresy. In the first, one begins with a false teaching and persists in teaching that after legitimate authority has declared that teaching false. Many make the case that this is what TEC has done in its apparent refusal to submit to the teachings of the Church with regard to non-celibate homosexual practice. But a second path to heresy (per St. Thomas) is via schism. In this case, the act of schism itself is “the greatest of sins” because it denies the gift of charity to one’s neighbor, etc. (all arguments we have documented on our Covenant site). But the justification of that division of the body leads to some form of heresy, St. Thomas warns.
I don’t think I can answer your questions any better than Fr. Will already has in #28:
Now, some here have raised an important question. How are we to persist in our efforts to embody the practices of repentance and forgiveness in a world in which it seems like we have reached the an eclipse of hope. It is difficult to discern precisely how we ought to embody these practices in certain social and political circumstances. Such circumstances make it more difficult for us to avoid being enmeshed in the sin and evil that we are struggling so hard to resist. But it is precisely in such times when there must be a people whose lives testify to the habits of forgiveness handed down to us by our fathers. In such times, it may well be unclear what ought, or can, be done to resist the overwhelming darkness that seems to envelop us. But, as Bonhoeffer notes in his Ethics “the ultimate question remains open and must be kept open, for in either case man becomes guilty and in either case he can live only by the grace of God and by forgiveness.” So what are we to do?
Bonhoeffer offers this counsel to the individual person striving to take responsible action, action which necessarily takes its shape and form from Jesus Christ:
If our action is to take its form and shape from Jesus Christ, it cannot be concerned with our own history, but must be concerned with brokenness of our world, and it must seek to embody reconciliation, redemption, love of our enemies, and the living hope into which we are re-membered as we feast with our Risen Lord. There is no such thing as holiness that does not manifest the oneness and wholeness of the body.
Nice to see all the Covenanters.
So, what happens if (i) the ABC calls a meeting of TEC and the Dio of Pgh, (ii) the parties enter into to some sort of a stand still agreement based on the unofficial WCG observations, and (iii) when the other instruments finally take up the issue in a deliberative assembly, they substantially modify some aspect of the moratoria or the forum?
Well, aside from the unofficial status of all this, TEC and the dioceses are not equally situated with respect to the consequences of a breach of any such agreement.
For example, if Bp Duncan executed a stand still agreement with TEC, and despite that agreement the Dio. of Pgh voted to amend its constitution anyway – then TEC would be in the same situation it would have been without an agreement. But what if TEC were to breach a stand still agreement after the Dio of Pgh had passed the occasion for the second vote? The dioceses should consider the remedies or safeguards available to them in the event of such a breach.
🙄
66, Craig, no offense, but what you said makes no sense to me what so ever. I just must be too dense or I need a translator.
Are you saying that we must do nothing and resign ourselves to martyerdom? We should stay were we are, pay our money and let the others do what they want, trusting that at the end God will sort it all out? Are you saying that no human response is required?
Br. Michael —
I think, to shuck it down to the cob, we should not start a new group. Part of what it means to be an Anglican (perhaps the biggest part) is our commitment to discern these kinds of things (blessing same sex relationships, etc.) with our brother Anglicans. That’s what, in part, 1998.1.10 is all about. But the disciplinary stuff (e.g. what happens when a diocese doesn’t want to be part of its provincial structure but does want to be part of the Communion?) is no less a task for common discernment. In short: to be Anglican means to look for Anglican answers to these questions. Who enunciates Anglican answers? Well, over the past century and a half, the common life we lead as Anglicans has kind of indicated that we look to the ABC, Lambeth, the Primates Meeting, and the ACC to answer these kinds of questions. The problem is that the answers aren’t binding, because hitherto they haven’t really needed to be binding. Now the task is to mutually (as a Communion) discern a way to agree to be bound by Anglican answers (the answers of the Instruments). In other words, the task in front of us isn’t just for the Communion to tell TEC that TEC is wrong. The Communion has done that already… repeatedly (cf. 1998.1.10 and the various statements ever sense, most recently at Lambeth). We have to go back a step further and figure out a way to agree to be bound to one another more tightly. THAT’S what takes time. And rightly so. Its a sea change in the common life of Anglicans. And many of us think its a change for the better, because it will be the foundation not only for the solution to the current problems, but for future problems too. There will be not merely a resolution, but a MECHANISM for coming to a resolution. The lack of the mechanism is Anglicanism’s Achilles’ heal — i.e. the fact that there really is no legitimate way for the Communion to speak to TEC with authority. TEC is correct in pointing out that provinces are largely autonomous. But we now see that this kind of autonomy is disastrous. (That should be no surprise to anyone — autonomy literally means being a law unto oneself, and that just SOUNDS, prima facie, terrible unGospel — and it is.)
To recap: being an Anglican, at this point in time, means being willing to invest the time and psychic (aka “soulish”) energy necessary to lay a foundation for a renewed Communion with stronger and deeper trans-provincial (aka global) relationships — deepening our koinonia, our fellowship, our communion with one another. And concomitantly relinquishing some of our (unChristian) autonomy. In short: finding a way to live into the truth that “what effects all should be decided by all”. Above all else now this means patience and a willingness to endure the birth-pangs. But the result, if we can just endure to the end, could well be a deepened, renewed, and sanctified Anglican Communion, able to carry the Gospel to the unbelieving world all the more effectively precisely in virtue of our visibly deepened and renewed love for one another. The world will see that we are committed to one another, that we patiently bear one another’s burdens, that we willingly forego advantage and individual “success” for the sake of one another. And the world will find that compelling, because people want to LIVE, and because the world only knows self-seeking, isolation, violence and exploitation: which all lead to death.
Kind of a free-form ramble, but I hope that helps to clarify what we are trying to say Br. Micahel (and others).
Blessings and peace in Jesus, to all of you.
I think I understand what you are saying Fr. Will. I just don’t think, at this point, the Communion will ever act as you hope it will.
As we see now the ABC is exercising a type of power he claimed not to have earlier. He could have taken some sort of action to discipline TEC if he had wanted but he decided not to. While the Communion fails to act people are leaving TEC, voting with their feet as it were and out of both TEC and the AC. That is what has always concerned me – to preserve something of the AC in North America. Continued inaction by the AC, or action that is so slow as to be ineffective which can be seen as inaction, does not preserve the AC in this country or in Canada. That makes the AC, in practical terms, an intellectual concept with no practical reality and thus meaningless. It’s easy to walk away from something that is meaningless.
Anyway, thanks for your response. And I do pray that your efforts meet with success.
Pax et bonum.
Dear Br. Michael,
Thanks for your prayers. When you say you don’t think the Communion will act the way we hope it will, I’m inclined to agree. But as I tried to articulate in #28 — I don’t think even the guarantee of failure, much less the likelihood of failure, absolves us from our responsibilities.
I hope the ABC is now acting differently than he has hitherto. I think the way he’s acted (or rather the way he has NOT acted) hitherto has increased the likelihood of Communion fraction.
So what course(s) of action are therefore open to us? In my view there are two: 1) leave the Communion (as a group or an individual) and join another body of Christians already existing. In my view the only options are the Roman or Orthodox communions (not primarily because I agree with them the most as to theology — though I do — but because to join them would be to move oneself altogether beyond the Reformation schisms). Or 2) to hold on within the canonical structures of the Anglican Communion, such as they are, until one is driven out at the point of a lawsuit or a deposition, so to speak.
But what, I believe, we must NOT do is to create some new communion of Christians. That’s what I think is scandalous.
I keep saying “fraction” — I really mean “fracture”.
Well Fr. Will, I think that the reappraisers have already created a new Communion. A split would re-create the old. But I do understand what you are saying even if I disagree with it. We didn’t pick the split, it was forced on us. But, if you are correct, then you are arguing, in effect that the Reformation was wrong and in that case, we have no option as Anglicans, but to return to Rome because that was our mother Church.
Reformations are not fun when you are living throgh them are they. It’s much more fun to read about Latimer and Riddley than live through the experience.
Br. Michael,
With regard to your point that “the reappraisers have already created a new Communion”:
You are, in a way, converging with my point about schism and heresy above. To the extent that TEC’s (or any group’s) actions are heretical, they are schismatic; for heresy is inherently schismatic. But that means not that such actions create a new Communion, but that such actions set the actors apart from the Church and our Communion and in need of repentance. That is the truth in your point about a split being forced upon the Communion. But it does not follow from this that those who did not engage in such teaching and actions are therefore justified in generating a second schism. St. Thomas warns that those who initiate a schism will end in heresy in order to justify their actions. Labeling such schism a second “reformation” and identifying the struggles of our time and our Anglican Communion thereby as on par with those faced by Luther, Zwingli, and the Radical Reformers is a curious and risky thing; it is hard to see a window into the humility of the cross embodied in such claims.
With regard to rendering a verdict on whether or not the Reformation was right or wrong, I am with Ephraim Radner in claiming that we are long past the point at which such abstract discussions are fruitful. The Reformation is our inheritance, right or wrong, a fact of our destiny to which we must not respond as faithfully as we can. Recognizing this fact has been essential to the ecumenical dialogues that are bearing fruit, especially between (but not limited to) Rome, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. Such dialogues are movements towards our claim that we will be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Responding to the schism inherent in heresy with a second schism is a movement in the opposite direction. And therefore it is very difficult to claim with credibility that such a movement embodies the gospel that we are called to embody in our life together, for our holiness is manifest in the oneness and wholeness of the Body that the Spirit sustains.
Obviously, in my paragraph in #75 that begins with “With regard to rendering a verdict”, there is a typo. It should read “a fact of our destiny to which we must respond as faithfully as we can.”
I suppose that in their day some considered Christ or Athanasius to be schismatic. Perhaps one can overblow this schism/sin thing to the level of absurdity.
I don’t see anything schismatic in people moving from one part of our church to another and think it is infinitely preferable to them feeling pressed to leave our church or Christianity altogether. Now that really would be a sin.
#77,
As noted above, schism and “moving from one part of our church to another” are not the same thing. I gave a reference above to Calvin’s Institutes (Bk 4, articles 9-16) where he develops this distinction in a way that is congenial to Protestants. It is worth googling it and absorbing the material.
Calvin (and Pageantmaster, surely you have read in the Times and Telegraph in recent days of the decoding of Charles Wesley’s diary, revealing that he made exactly the same point we Covenanters are making here) would surely agree with our main point, as Fr. Will put it so well:
#78 Craig Uffman
Thanks for your reply. Like Sarah I am a protestant and not an anglo-catholic but would be very surprised to learn that I am a Calvinist.
I am aware of the pressures for division but I am not sure that our failure to deal with issues makes it helpful to talk in terms of sin or schism. If there is division, we are all to blame which is why I commend your efforts to inject some urgency into our instruments, but would not at this stage criticise those who are considering division out of deep concern over the direction things have taken.
#78 btw I would be interested to know if you feel that Covenant’s proposal for a meeting before September 30th has been well received.
FYI – I posted Fr. Will Brown’s quite excellent comments (#70) on my own humble blog – [url=http://www.3rdmillennium.blogspot.com]Catholic in the Third Millennium[/url] – with a link to this thread.
Craig, I understand your argument, I just don’t agree with it. At some point you must disassociate yourself from heritics. You know the scripture on this point as well as I do.
I think that it is important for others within the AC to observe normal rules of order in addressing the proposal of a forum or holding tank. It is an unofficial proposal that needs ratification by the other instruments, e.g., perhaps by an emergency meeting of the Primates – which should not be too difficult.
To repeat (for convenience) the quote from TLC:
(n.b., this certainly does not mean that parties might praise the proposal, meet to discuss it, try to figure out how it would work, or state that they welcome the concept, etc.)
However, if others within the AC decide to act as if the unilateral proposals of the ABC constitute official decisions of the AC, then a profound precedent will be set. The next logical step should then be to disestablish the remaining instruments or define an appropriately narrow scope for their authority, which, of course, could be accomplished using indaba.
This is to say nothing about any risks Bp Duncan may face by acting on an unofficial proposal, or the diocese should they lose the opportunity to vote.
I think that, as Americans, we’ve unhealthily internalized religious freedom. I.e. “I can pick which kind of laundry detergent I want; I can pick which kind of church I want. And if I don’t like what kind of laundry detergents are available, I can create a new and better kind — so too with churches. This is as it should be.”
But that’s terribly wrong. My friends, I honestly believe we could all stand to marinade in John 17. That’s the vision we are trying to hold up. Particularly verses 21 and 23, which contain the words “so that the world may believe” and “so that the world may know”. That’s the point of Communion. It must be VISIBLE. It can’t just be a pneumatic unity — it must be visible to unbelievers. It MUST be — because its the very mechanism by which the Lord means to reveal himself to them, and so to save their souls from hell.
As I’ve said, if we leave the Anglican Communion, we should join an already existing Communion of Christians. There are, at last count, twenty something THOUSAND communions of Protestants. And of course there are the Orthodox and Catholic Communions, from whom we separated. But to start a new Communion of Christians is, in essence, to announce that my new Communion has a more replete understanding of the faith than any of these other twenty-plus thousand Communions. And that just seems terribly arrogant and unlikely. So if you MUST go, then find a body of Believers in Jesus from whom you can learn something and with whom you can share Communion with integrity. To introduce another separation, another wound, in the Body is to postpone the fulfillment of the Lord’s prayer for visible unity, and so to postpone the completion of his work in the world — it is to declare that we don’t really love his appearing that much after all — not enough to pray earnestly “Come quickly Lord Jesus!” Not enough to sacrifice our party interests for his sake, anyway.
Lastly, Pageantmaster (77), the Lord founded one Church. It was visibly one. We fouled that up. There is no analog to what he did, because there is no other Church than the one he founded and we wrecked. The illusion that we have started other Churches is just that — an illusion. We can’t start new ones analogous to the one he started; we can only tear hew at the original. And Athanasius never left anything. He stayed doggedly put until he was kicked out. And he was kicked out many times, and submitted to it every time, and continued to preach the Gospel from exile. He didn’t go start “St. Athanasius’s REAL Catholic Church”. He recognized that there was only one Communion, and that he could only be unjustly evicted from it, but he couldn’t start a new and improved one. He wouldn’t have dared.
#84… Quick note to FWB. You write:
Are you saying that the Parousia cannot occur until all Christians are united in one visible institutional church?
Perhaps. I don’t know. It is clearly his will that we be visibly one in him. We pray that his will will be done. So if the parousia takes place before the visible unity of his Body, then it will have taken place without the fulfillment of his will. The alternative is really too frightening: that his Body IS visibly one, and we refuse to see it.
Well, it’s His will that all kinds of things happen, in one sense. He’d like rapists to stop raping, liars (all of us) to stop lying, pornographers to stop making pornography, teenagers to stop making fun of the fat girl in class. If all of these things have to stop happening before the Parousia can occur — all I got to say is Jesus ain’t comin quickly then.
I have never heard anyone lay down definite conditions for what has to be the case before Jesus can come back — aside from a nutty fringe of American fundamentalists (and even most AF’s don’t do this). Is this part of Roman or AC doctrine?
#84 Fr Will Brown
Thank you for your clear explanation. Just to clarify, I do not believe in division and have no intention to join any such thing. However I do not think it is helpful to characterise those joining another province or grouping within our Anglican church as divisive, much less sinful. There are certainly questions of temporal authority within the church being raised as those accused of the sin of ‘division’ or schism are raising and it remains to be seen where this will lead. This is why I am in favor of the efforts Covenant have made in this piece, indeed of any activity other than kicking things into the distant future.
But to clarify those who respond to persecution, both the persecuted and the good samaritans are neither divisive or sinful – but those who tolerate persecution may well be.
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”
Pageantmaster – This is partially off topic, but could you differentiate between your Protestantism on the one hand, and Calvinism and Catholicism on the other. Hope I don’t seem presumtious, but I’m interested. Thx.
I find all this talk of schism and starting a new church interesting.
GAFCON has formed and met but has stated it’s still in communion with Canterbury.
+Bob Duncan has NEVER said he’s out of communion with Canterbury and he did receive an invite to Lambeth, and as far as I know, he went.
The original letter above defines Communion as the bishop’s direct relationship to Canterbury, irrespective of the primate. Even if Bob Duncan and co. went under Southern Cone, they are still connected to Canterbury via the bishop’s own relationship with Canterbury, or through the primate of the Southern Cone, instead of TEC, unless the AB of C decides to state otherwise. Bishops like Bill Murdoch or Martyn Minns, e.g., also have desire to remain in Communion with Canterbury through Kenya and Nigeria, and would have gone to Lambeth if invited(I imagine). They were not invited to Lambeth due to “boundary issues” for lack of a better term, even though they are fully keeping the traditional Anglican faith, which is more than we can say for TEC.
It seems to me that the supposed “boundary bishops” above are not causing schism and having a problem with Canterbury, it seems that Canterbury is having a problem with them.
The Scriptures say nothing like “thou shalt not cross boundaries”, but Jesus does say, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Me” and both the OT and NT don’t hesitate to condemn sodomy. The PB herself has said Jesus is just a way, and blessings have not ceased and Robinson is still Bishop of New Hampshire, albeit without a relationship to Canterbury, evidenced by his absent Lambeth invitation. And boundary-crossing bishops were not invited to Lambeth, but those who consecrated Robinson were. I’m back to Bp. Duncan’s “moral equivalence” observation again, and the solid highlighting of Rowan Williams’s double standards.
I see the above letter(thank you, gentleman) as a heartfelt last-ditch effort, but I don’t believe that Rowan Williams is going to call any sort of urgent meeting, or spearhead any sort of viable reconciliation.
Not to mention, for the reasons Mary outlined above, there’s no way on God’s Earth, now, that bishops like Murdoch and Minns are going to go back “under” Shaw and Lee.
In my view, a church within a church or a double-tiered communion is looming. TEC, despite deceptive protest to the contrary, has not complied with anything(Windsor, Dromantine, Dar) and thus should not be part of the drafting of the Covenant and, if the Covenant, as others like to say, has real, traditional “teeth” and TEC does not ratify it, then the non-ratifying bishops should enjoy a reduced status in the Communion and have some sort of conditional invitations to any future Lambeth Conferences.
Just my 2 cents, and it may not even be worth that much. And in the meantime, while I would like to have utopian, sinless views of the world, I thank God for people like +Murdoch and +Minns because, without them, the Anglican faithful in those dioceses would have nowhere to go. And while I’m venting, I firmly disagree with Bishop Lee’s throwing in with 815 when amicable negotiations were nearing an end; and, to quote Trevor Howard in the movie “White Mischief”, he’s done nothing but waste a lot of money and end up looking like a “bit of a chump”. Sad…a better, and “greatest good for the greatest number” answer to KJS would have been, “So, sue me: I’m almost retired”. Thank God, too, for the judge in VA, because I think it’s him who has read the law correctly. God help us all…
GiD
Craig Uffman wrote:
[blockquote]But St. Thomas goes on to point out that schism breeds its own heresy. And by this he warns us that our acts of schism inevitably lead to heresy as we struggle to justify our schismatic acts.[/blockquote]
I ask this as an Anglican who has consciously chosen not to submit – to date, at least – to the claims of the (Roman) Catholic Church, but how can an Anglican or Protestant quote the Angelic Doctor against schism without being ironic?
And yes, irony is entirely appropriate there, because it highlights precisely the self-justifying schismatic tendencies of Anglicans and Protestants, but such a statement must surely also be made with the greatest humility and explicit recognition of the irony, not to say of the thinness of the ice underneath one’s feet.
[blockquote]And Athanasius never left anything. He stayed doggedly put until he was kicked out. And he was kicked out many times, and submitted to it every time, and continued to preach the Gospel from exile. He didn’t go start “St. Athanasius’s REAL Catholic Churchâ€. He recognized that there was only one Communion, and that he could only be unjustly evicted from it, but he couldn’t start a new and improved one. He wouldn’t have dared.[/blockquote]
This is quite true, Fr Brown – particularly that what he did was work for the restoration of the Church to the catholic and apostolic faith, and not create a “new” and faithful “Church”.
And yet we also know, from the writings of the 4th century ecclesiastical historian Socrates, that
[blockquote]Athanasius, after his vindication by the Council of Sardica in 343, and the ending of his exile (he would experience more exiles over the next quarter century), undertook to ordain men in dioceses whose bishops were tainted with Arianism to serve the orthodox upholders of Nicaea, and that without seeking or obtaining the permission of those bishops.[/blockquote]
It would seem that St Athanasius thought these “diocesan boundary crossings” and uncanonical ordinations were part of restoring the Church (the [i]one[/i] holy catholic and apostolic Church) to the catholic and apostolic faith.
See Dr William Tighe’s essay on the less-than-impermeable diocesan boundaries of the 4th century:
http://reader.classicalanglican.net/?p=133
“I ask this as an Anglican who has consciously chosen not to submit – to date, at least – to the claims of the (Roman) Catholic Church, but how can an Anglican or Protestant quote the Angelic Doctor against schism without being ironic?”
Well, this is a highly fair question. Thank you for your contributions, Mr. Granger–they raise excellent points. 🙂
We’ve got to be working toward reunion with Rome – that seems to me a necessity for any conscientious Anglicanism. And its another reason the presenting Anglican chaos is such a disaster: it sets back the possibility of our reunion with Rome – the undoing of the very visible, very scandalous wound our Fathers inflicted on the Body of Christ. Cardinal Kasper was quite emphatic about this in his Lambeth address; hence his call for a new Oxford Movement. And that’s why this Catholic Anglican finds the Anglican chaos so heart-breaking; not only are we not repairing the old breaches, but we’re creating new ones. We would do well to follow the advice of Isaiah the prophet (from last Sudnay’s OT lesson — the Sunday of the Confession of St. Peter) — “Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the LORD; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged.”***
Re #92: Interesting. I did not know that. Two significant differences between Athanasius’ actions and those of CANA / AMiA / et al: 1) that Athanasius was (presumably) ordaining / sending priests, not bishops; and 2) Athanasius was himself the rightful, canonical, duly consecrated bishop of Alexandria, and therefore the rightful metropolitan of Egypt. So he was well within his canonical prerogatives to ordain and send priests to his own jurisdiction, from which he had been wrongly exiled by the emperor. If George Bush kicked Bp. Duncan out of Pittsburgh, I’d support Duncan-in-Exile too.
***The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect those of the other featured authors of Covenant-Communion.com and are solely those of Fr Will Brown, who is an Anglo-Papalist.
As far as the talk of ‘division’ goes, I am with Geek in Dallas #90 in that while I approve of the Covenant letter and in particular their proposal for urgent meetings, I do not accept that their talk of ‘schism’, ‘heresy’ or ‘sin’ is relevant in our context in the current Anglican issues. The boundary crossing or as I would put it rescue missions undertaken in North America are one part of the church acting to protect a minority part of another part. While there has been talk of both conservatives and liberals forming their own ‘communion’ certainly Gafcon pulled back from that and we will have to see what view TEC and ACoC take but I would not approve of either. Gafcon has made it clear that it is going nowhere at the moment but is putting out a call to other parts of the church to answer: “do you answer Christ’s call ‘who do you say I am’ in the same way we understand?” I therefore don’t find Covenant banging on about schism and sin particularly helpful.
[#89 Rob k – off topic
FWIW I regard myself as a traditional if slightly rebellious Anglican. I regard myself as catholic as I say the Creeds and mean them. I believe in the one holy catholic church, all of those who serve the Lord including the divided parts, Orthodox and Roman Catholic. I believe that we should be united not only spiritually, but temporally, but I do not accept that this means on the terms the Roman Catholic Church currently requires or necessarily that unity means uniformity. I am catholic spiritually and culturally as I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist which for me is important to attend regularly. I am not Roman Catholic, and probably could not currently be as I do not accept the concepts of Purgatory, Adoration of Saints or some of the Marian issues. Although I read his books and learn from him, I do not accept all that the current Pope says as authoritive for all Christians.
I am Protestant in that I have read and pretty much found myself in accord with the 39 Articles and as such have found much in common with the Calvinists and Lutherans in what I understand of their beliefs. I believe the return to emphasising biblical authority which the Reformation led to, both in the Protestant churches and as far as I can see in the Roman Catholic Church to have been a good thing. Although I believe in the one Church I think both the creation of the Church of England and through it Anglicanism now numbering 78 million worldwide and the Methodists now numbering 50 million worldwide were also good things. God has blesssed us and I do not apologise for the Anglican Communion. I believe we should work for unity however.
I am not a behaviorist and believe God gave us an absolute free choice of whether to respond to his call and therefore I fail to understand the Calvinists talk of the ‘elect’.
I was born and brought up in the Church of England in its traditional form, BCP 1662 [Matins and Evensong] which remain my preferred services and came to know of the real existence of God and Christ through the evangelical traditionan. More recently I have come to appreciate the Charismatic end and also learn from the high church end.
I just consider myself to be an Anglican with all the depth and richness that implies and will be happy to discuss it more deeply by PM. I am very happy being an Anglican where I am.]
#94… hey FWB. You write:
I really appreciate your honesty here. I think that’s helpful.
Let me by way of truly respectful response be honest in return and let you know that I had a kind of AH-HA moment reading it. You see, for a person like me, who comes from the long Protestant tradition inside Anglicanism, I have been secretly suspecting that all this hand wringing about how schism “in general” is like the worst possible thing in the world — that what this really is being motivated by is a deep sometimes unspoken desire of many Anglicans to drop to their knees in front of Rome and kiss the ring.
And so when you finally “came out of the closet” and said that ALL Anglicans had a moral duty to work for reunion with Rome in particular — I felt like saying THANK YOU! Finally. Somebody amongst all the hand wringers about schism is being really honest about the real thing motivativing them. They are heartbroken not to have an earthly “Holy Father” — they want to be back under the Pope and his authority. Further, they don’t just feel this way personally but believe that any person who wishes to consider himself authentically Anglican ought to feel the same way. We have GOT to want to reunite with Rome, you say; “that seems to me a necessity for any conscientious Anglicanism” you say.
If a person reading your post hadn’t actually read the 39 Articles, and all he knew was the AC version of Anglicanism, he’d have no way to know how many of the articles specifically define us over and against Rome, Roman authority, Roman theology, the Council of Trent, and so on.
Now I am willing to give great space to ACs in our tradition (the AC movement traces back about 150 years) to do their own thing. I would never try to suggest that AC’s aren’t really Anglican. But it’s remarkable to me how little real willingness there is on the AC side to do the same conscious extension of respect to strong Protestants among Anglicans. If Joe Blow Anglican is a strong AC, and PERSONALLY feels a deep need to achieve reunion with Rome (have a frequent Lords Supper, whatever) then his private personal needs and spirituality become the defining ESSENCE of Anglicanism.
The triple asterisk footnote you gave doesn’t really solve my problem, because you claimed this frantic need to reunite with Rome (and what could that mean in practice except us acknowledging papal leadership and authority?) is NOT your own personal need but is the defining mark of any Anglican with a conscience.
I truly don’t mean to say all this in a mean spirited way. I am just being honest about what it does to a Protestant when you tell him that he’s a bad Anglican if he isn’t dying to kiss the ring. More than that, I want you to know that (in my case anyway) this has been on my mind throughout the thread. A strange puzzlement about why there should be such a frantic terror of institutional division as such. Obviously none of us here think it is a good thing in itself; but why is this being held up as the most awful thing imaginable? So it is helpful I think to hear somebody say that this is really because he is scared it’ll put us that further away from all being back under the banner of Rome.
My best wishes for you and your ministry. I have great respect for my AC brothers (my two closest friends are a Franciscan and a Benedictine) so do trust that I sincerely wish and pray for every good thing for you. Grace and peace…
Dear Jon (96),
Thank you for your generous words. And for further full disclosure: I am a cradle Episcopalian. My grandmother is still a parishioner at the church where I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained. That is by way of explaining why I use some otherwise melodramatic sounding words like “heart break”. I really feel that way – that the place where I learned to believe and hope in Jesus (where I learned the Catholic faith) is being ripped down: by liberals who feel the compulsion of “justice” because they think this house has outlived its usefulness, and from the other direction by conservatives who often seem to take the tone of Cato the Elder who in his opprobrium at Carthage’s heathen outrages ended every speech, no matter what the subject, “Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam” (“furthermore, I believe that Carthage must be destroyed”).
I grant that what separates Anglo-Catholics from our brethren, generally speaking, is ecclesiology. Thinking about the Church, and how much Jesus loves her, makes me weepy. One of the main ways of talking about the Church in the NT is as the Lord’s bride. In our marriage rites husbands are supposed to love their Brides like Jesus loves the Church. The Church is something precious, beautiful, and vulnerable. In the old marriage rites the groom said to the bride: “…with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow; in the name of the Father, and of the SOn, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” It strikes me that THAT is what Jesus does for the Church: he worships her (i.e. “proclaims her worth”) with his Body on the cross, and he endows her with everything that he has and is by sending her the Holy Spirit. And he left his Father in heaven and his Mother on earth to cleave to her, and to become “one flesh” with her, and he announced on the cross: “Consummatum est!” — “it is consummated!” (the Vulgate version of “it is finished”). And the Church’s unity, glorification, and perfection is a part of the Lord’s work, its kind of contemporaneous with the parousia, as the visionary of the Apocalypse records: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away'” (Rev.21.1ff).
The visible unity of the Church — for which the Lord prayed urgently the night before he died — is a part of his plan for the redemption of the whole creation (Romans 8.19ff), which he made out of love, and which is “very good” (Gen. 1.31), but which was subjected to corruption because of man’s sin. Its the sacrament of redemption through which the Lord’s saving power is to be manifest to all nations (Psalm 67.2). Its the New Jerusalem, the sacrament of God’s own presence, of which Jeremiah speaks in his eschatological vision of the world’s salvaiton: “At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart” (Jer. 3.17).
The Catholic conviction is therefore that salvation is a gathering (Heb: Qahal, Grk: Ekklesia) of all people to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, which is the Bride of Christ, the “ekklesia of God” as Paul often calls it. And this ekklesia of all people is accomplished and given through the breaking of Christ’s Body on the cross. So we see in the water and the blood flowing from the Lord’s pierced side the sacraments of initiation into the ekklesia, Baptism (the water), and of “Communion” (with its layers of meanings) (the blood). So Paul says: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11.26). We proclaim the instrument and substance of our reconciliation to God and to one another in the mass — we proclaim the act by which Jesus, by being broken, heals the brokenness and separation of all people. So the nascent Church (but the WHOLE Church), at Pentecost, mystically manifests the undoing of the separation and confusion wrought in judgment at the Tower of Babel. This is salvation: the gathering of the whole of creation into the Body of Christ to be presented acceptably before the throne of GOd.
And that’s why Anglo-Catholics (and others) feel such an urgency about unity. Because the Eucharist is at once an announcement that this salvation has taken place, “by his one oblation of himself, once offered” — and a pleading to God for it. But the Church — and not least the Church’s visible unity — is supposed to announce to the world that this HAS taken place, that the Father sent the Son to die on the cross, so that people no longer have to live in exile from God and in isolation from one another, so that they can find healing and peace. This too is why, in the old rite, The Peace is announced immediately after the celebrant breaks the Host: because Jesus created “in his flesh one new man, in place of the two, so making peace” (Eph. 2.15).
The note of urgency about reunion with Rome comes from a conviction that, as Rome herself has said in Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, that the Anglican Communion occupies a special place as being a body of Christians coming out of the REformation which yet maintains many elements of Catholic faith and practice. When we look back over the past five centuries, I discern a convergence. There was a time when priests would be arrested for putting candles on the altar or reserving the Sacrament or wearing Eucharistic vestments. This is all now de rigueur in most Episcopal Churches. And its not a superficial ritual convergence. The letter of the Archbishops of Canter. and York, Saepius Officio, which outlines the Anglican teaching about the Eucharist and Eucharistic sacrifice, and which is quite robust and catholic, is the official position of the Anglican Communion since Lambeth 1930. Since the Oxford Movement, we have come a long way toward healing the breach. And then came Vatican II, in which the Romans closed the gap even more dramatically. There was a convergence over the course of the 20th century. But I fear it is now being (or has been) squandered.
By the way, if you’re interested, Henri de Lubac has a wonderful book, which is basically a survey of the Father’s on this subject. Its called “Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man”. I highly recommend it.
#96,
Rather odd for any Christian who prays the Apostles’ Creed and says they believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” to suggest that a hope for the unity of the Church is a unique emphasis of Anglo-Catholicism. Hard to make the claim that one is “orthodox” if one does not embrace this hope as part of our fundamental identity. And that is precisely why we suggest that schism is a proposed solution to our crisis that is wholly out of the bounds of Scripture and tradition.
The lead author of this letter was Canon Neal Michell of Dallas, an evangelical who began with Intervarsity Fellowship and completed a doctorate from Fuller Seminary, surely one of the premier places of learning for evangelicalism in the world. Christopher Wells’ has a similarly strong evangelical background; Dorsey McConnell is an old-style evangelical priest in MA; I grew up and spent much of my life as a Methodist, was an ordained Baptist deacon, went to a Methodist seminary, and am on the leadership team of Fulcrum (along with fellow Covenanter Graham Kings), whose purpose is to renew the evangelical centre. Rev. Richard Kew and Rev. Jody Howard have similar evangelical backgrounds and are canonically resident in Tennessee (hardly and Anglo-Catholic diocese). I could go on through the list of signers to make my point but that should be sufficient. The bottom line is that we at Covenant include both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals, yet we are all united in our theological understanding, grounded in Scripture, that God has called us to be one.
Whether you locate yourself in the evangelical line descended from Luther, Calvin, or Wesley, catholicity is an essential and urgent claim and hope of the Christian faith. It is incoherent to claim one is “orthodox” who does not pray for and work towards the reunion of all of Christ’s Church.
Well, IF anyone is saying that +Bob Duncan is a schismatic sinner who repeatedly denies his catholicity, then I beg to differ.
Dear Pageantmaster – Thanks so much for your detailed and clear statement in answer to my earlier question. We agree on quite a bit. Really appreciate the time you took. I’d place myself pretty close to Fr. Will Brown’s ecclesiology. It only makes sense that eventual reunion of the visible Church be centered in the See of Peter. Before V II would many have thought that so much progress could have been in the offing. I feel badly for Cardinal Kasper, whose palpable good will is getting trashed by us Anglicans and also by those in the RC Church who do not want any reunion regardless of terms. On the question of heresy/schism here is my two cents worth – Schism is worse – it is a rending of the visible Church, the Body of Christ. Great heresy can be the cause of schism, but consider – there’s not one of us who has not had a heretical thought or held on to a heretical belief either privately or publicly. Take one example – the great number of RC’s who who do not believe in the Real Presence. That is heretical, especially in RC theology and practice. But those people are not in schism. Some Bishops and priests in Anglicanism believe in the Calvinistic view of double(?) Predestination. That’s heretical, but they are not in schism. I’m not saying, though, that schism in the current state of Anglicanism, would be entirely unjustified.
Not sure that I am an Anglo-Papalist, though.
Want to thank everyone who has posted recently for their thoughtful and kind comments. I hope to respond in the next few days though can’t be certain I’ll have the time. God bless everyone at worship tomorrow.
# 100/101 rob k – I always find our chats stimulating and one of the things I enjoy here; there is always the possibility to learn and grow. Thank you.
More generally as Jon says this has been a good thread and very educational, thanks. I have to say #97 [Father Will Brown] was a beautifully expressed post, very moving.
Well I hope its wrong but Riazat Butt today has a report saying that as far as +Jensen is aware there has been no contact between Dr Williams and Gafcon, notwithstanding what he said almost a month ago in his final Lambeth Presidential address. If all that happens is words are spoken but letters lie unposted and promised contacts are not made then why are we paying Dr Williams and the large bill for entertainment he ran up? Not to write books on Dostoevsky.
Quick note to Rob K…. hey Rob, nice to see you here! A few quick thoughts, before I run off to Saturday Errand Land. (GRIN.)
One is a small but important point. There is nothing heretical in the Anglican tradition about believing in predestination. Indeed, one of the 39 Articles explicitly asserts a belief in it! Luther believed in predestination. Cranmer did. All the early Anglicans did, including Hooker. And of course a number of great number of giants from before the Reformation believed in it as well: Augustine, arguably St. Paul, etc.
As I have said before, I personally have a pretty expansive view of Anglicanism (though not in the KJS, Jack Spong, Marcus Borg direction). So I give my AC brothers (and nonAC’s) a great deal of latitude in departing from the belief of classical (i.e. 1500s and early 1600s) Anglicanism on the issue of PD. So I’d never claim that a person is hereticial or a bad Anglican for rejecting a belief in PD — but certainly there is nothing heretical about still believing in it!
The other point I wanted to mention is much larger and even more important. And that is the way in which you discuss the issues of heresy vs. schism.
What I am about to say has been said before but clearly needs to continue to said again and again. Which is that no significant traditionalist voice inside the Anglican church has in the last 12 years suggested that ordinary rank and file parishioners must meet some kind of minimum doctrinal belief in order to be welcomed as members in TEC parishes — and that if they don’t, these laymen should be considered schismatics or should be ejected from the AC.
Kendall has never said that. Fitz Alison never said that. Neither did Bob Duncan, or the rector of Truro, or the Global South primates. Even most of the rabidly conservative bloggers don’t say that.
It is crucial to remember that in the period of 1996-2002, the overwhelming number of church leaders who would become so upset by the actions of General Convention 2003 knew back then that there were many lay people in TEC and even (very sadly) ordinary priests who did not fully believe the orthodox faith. They even knew about Jack Spong and other apostate bishops who ACTING AS INDIVIDUALS had written heretical tracts. (At this point we are getting into a murky area, because we are talking about high level CHURCH LEADERS expressing apostasy, and this did upset the Global South leaders, and both of the last two ABCs.)
What happened in 2003, from the point of traditionalists, is something very different: which is that TEC as a national church formally altered church teaching — they formally sanctioned heresy.
So this can’t be said often enough: the issue of the last 5-6 years is that in 2003, and again in 2006, TEC altered church teaching. That is what traditionalists are upset about. Nobody is saying that if you are a sinner or in error (either by way of doctrinal belief, sexual lifestyle, etc.) that you have implicitly cut yourself off or should be cut off from the Anglican church… nobody at the level of Kendall or Bob Duncan at any rate. We all err and we are all sinners! As Hamlet says to Horatio, use every man according to his desert, and who shall ‘scape whipping? Bob Duncan has never said that Gene Robinson should not be allowed to be an Anglican, not be allowed to take Holy Communion — and if you asked him whether he thinks that he’d VERY QUICKLY tell you absolutely not.
So as you think about the issue of heresy, I strongly suggest you keep your mind focused only on the issue of church teaching and those who in TEC have a role in protecting that teaching: bishops, especially our PB, deputies to GC, etc…. and at the parish level, priests and teachers. This is the concern. No one is saying that ordinary laymen have to meet some theological standard. Analogies to rank and file RCs who (say) disbelieve in the Real Presence or (say) disbelieve in papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception (etc.) have no real bearing on the crisis of the the last 6 years.
Thanks again for your post!
A short way to summarize my comment above is to say: what traditionalists have been upset about for the last 6-7 years is the heresy of TEC’s leaders — not the possible theological errors which may be being made by the vast bulk of TEC parishioners. (The errors of the flock are the fault of the shepherd!)
That said, I will say that there is one other thing which was so shocking about GC 2003 and which upset traditionalist leaders so very much. And that is that, even if TEC had been theologically somehow in the right, they were acting in gross defiance of the rest of the AC — defiance of Lambeth 1998, defiance of worldwide pleading in April-June of 2003, further defiance of pleading in July-Nov 2003, etc.
RE: #104–Interesting, huh, Pageantmaster? Especially as, if I remember correctly, Dostoevsky’s books often explored honesty as a theme.
To coin the not-so-polite American expression, the guy must just be out-to-lunch…
#107 I don’t know, but if true it is, um, disappointing.
Pageantmaster – Thx – I’ve enjoyed it too.
Jon – Right now, 9:42 PDT, your reply to me doesn’t show up on the screen of the computer I’m using. I do want to reply back to you, but I’m going to wait for your no. 101 (Ithink) to show up again. Otherwise I’ll try to remember it as well as I can. Right now I’m sort of tired, and will try to get back to you before Wed., when I have to go down to SoCal for a while. Thx.
Jon – A few words – Remember that in my post I spoke of Double Predestination. If by Predestination you simply mean the Catholic view that God has predestined all people to Salvation, and by Christ’s life and death jas redeemed all of creation, and that any individual may reject this freely offered gift, then there is no argument. However, if you mean that in His own mysterious counsels God did indeed pre-select certain induviduals to receive the gift of Grace for Salvation, leaving others to be unable to reach or find it, then we differ. And to the extent that Article 22 reinforces this second view of Predestination, then it is in damnable heresy, sorry to say. Haven’t read Newman’s spin on the Articles lately, but obviously the non Calvinists in the Communion can explain it away. Remember, as another Article proclaimedl, Alexandria and other ancient centers of Christianity have erred. So also may Canterbury. Butl, Jon, what do you, or any parent, in trying to teach the Faith to your children, say to them about Salvation/Predestination? Do you say “Welll, God may have not selected all of you for Salvation, Johnnie, Bobby, and Janie. But you’ll never really know until you die”. Jon, I just can’t understand that, I thought that Christ did indeed redeem all of creation, all of us. The gift is offered freely to all. As to heresy, I should say that heresy of the type that Spong has aggressively promulgated, positively denying certain parts of the Faith, should have been dealt with firmly by the Church. After presentment failed, weakness in the Church’s counsels were exposed. Schorri’s statement, if accurately reported, that Jesus Christ is only one of many ways to God, is certainly a heretical view. I have read a future clarification of this by here, and it was a much more orthodox view. I’m not defending her. she and many others are certainly guilty of loose thinking. Those in authority should certainly not express heretical views on this or that article of faith, even if, in private, they hold such views. Certainly on the gay issue, the Church in 2003 made a break with Tradition and teaching on Moral Theology. There has always been homosexuality present in the Church, and probably even in some of the Saints in our stained glass windows & statuary. It is now out in the open, and will not go away, for us, for the RC Church, or any other ecclesial body. Jon – I am already late leaving for SoCal. I won’t be back until Sept. 22, but I hope to hear from you. Leave an answer here. Down in LA I’ll try to get access to a computer and look for it. Thx.
Jon – A few words – Remember that in my post I spoke of Double Predestination. If by Predestination you simply mean the Catholic view that God has predestined all people to Salvation, and by Christ’s life and death jas redeemed all of creation, and that any individual may reject this freely offered gift, then there is no argument. However, if you mean that in His own mysterious counsels God did indeed pre-select certain induviduals to receive the gift of Grace for Salvation, leaving others to be unable to reach or find it, then we differ. And to the extent that Article 22 reinforces this second view of Predestination, then it is in damnable heresy, sorry to say. Haven’t read Newman’s spin on the Articles lately, but obviously the non Calvinists in the Communion can explain it away. Remember, as another Article proclaimedl, Alexandria and other ancient centers of Christianity have erred. So also may Canterbury. Butl, Jon, what do you, or any parent, in trying to teach the Faith to your children, say to them about Salvation/Predestination? Do you say “Welll, God may have not selected all of you for Salvation, Johnnie, Bobby, and Janie. But you’ll never really know until you die”. Jon, I just can’t understand that, I thought that Christ did indeed redeem all of creation, all of us. The gift is offered freely to all. As to heresy, I should say that heresy of the type that Spong has aggressively promulgated, positively denying certain parts of the Faith, should have been dealt with firmly by the Church. After presentment failed, weakness in the Church’s counsels were exposed. Schorri’s statement, if accurately reported, that Jesus Christ is only one of many ways to God, is certainly a heretical view. I have read a future clarification of this by here, and it was a much more orthodox view. I’m not defending her. she and many others are certainly guilty of loose thinking. Those in authority should certainly not express heretical views on this or that article of faith, even if, in private, they hold such views. Certainly on the gay issue, the Church in 2003 made a break with Tradition and teaching on Moral Theology. There has always been homosexuality present in the Church, and probably even in some of the Saints in our stained glass windows & statuary. It is now out in the open, and will not go away, for us, for the RC Church, or any other ecclesial body. Jon – I am already late leaving for SoCal. I won’t be back until Sept. 22, but I hope to hear from you. Leave an answer here. Down in LA I’ll try to get access to a computer and look for it. Thx.
Hey Rob. Regarding predestination… all I was trying to do is draw your attention to what seemed like a small mistake on your part. The mistake was to give as an example of a heresy against Anglicanism the belief in predestination. I was just pointing out that that this couldn’t be right, since the very founding documents of Anglicanism (the 39 Articles) asserted a firm belief in it. Plus the fact that all the early Anglicans believed in it. When Hooker and Cranmer and the 39 Articles are united in believing a thing, then that thing can’t be an example of a heresy against Anglicanism.
Now of course the simple fact that Hooker and Cranmer and the 39 Articles claim a thing as true — that doesn’t make the thing true! But it does prove that the thing can’t be a heresy against ANGLICANISM, which is what you were trying to give an example of.
Your RC example was better chosen. An RC who declares that there is no Real Presence in the Eucharist is indeed saying something heretical — with respect to the teaching of the Church of Rome. (Also with respect to the teaching of the Lutheran churches, but that is not essential to our discussion here.)
Now, if you’d like to have a seperate discussion for why so many great Christians (though certainly not all) have believed in PD (St. Augustine, Luther, Cranmer, etc. all did) that’s a great topic! It probably doesn’t belong in this thread, but it would be great to see it discussed somewhere else. Probably along with a discussion of grace and the bound will.
But I was not trying to encourage you to believe in PD, simply to point out that a person isn’t heretically attacking the essence of Anglicanism in so doing (though I’d agree that an RC who rejects the Real Presence is doing that with Roman doctrine).
Hi Rob K. Like I said, the thing about PD was comparitively minor.
My second and much larger point was that, in your post (#100), you were implying that the reasserter leaders of the last 5-6 years are principally concerned with any and all theological errors that might occur privately in a rank and file layman’s head. You wrote:
Your RC example (one of oridnary laymen) and your reference to heretical thoughts privately held, sounded like I was hearing again a claim made a lot in the last few years. Which is that reasserters, especially those deeply distressed by heresy, are demanding an Inquisition that seeks to purify all private theological error and also to do so at the level of the rank and file.
This is simply not so — that’s all I was trying to say. Kendall and Bob Duncan and many others are actually very inclusive. They have no agenda of forcing anyone away from worshiping at an Anglican parish, even those with whom they are in profound disagreement. Their problem is with those who have been entrusted with preserving the teaching of the church — and their opposition to what happened in GC 2003 is that their TEC officially altered church teaching. This is the problem — no one is saying that errant thoughts (from anyone) or errant public opinions (from the rank and file) are grounds for schism.
Now, if you want to say that widespread public heresy at the level of bishops and the leadership of the national church should also not be an occasion for schism — that under no circumstances could it ever be warranted — then that’s fine. But in that case your examples of private thoughts and error amongst the rank and file are wide of the mark.
Again, thanks so much for your time, RK. Always helpful to me to read what you have to say. Very best to you…..
Quick question Rob K…. in discussing the heresies of Jack Spong, you mentioned that “presentment failed.” Can you tell me more about that? I didn’t know that any official action against Spong had ever been taken. Not even the HOB passing a motion of disapproval, much less presentment. Am I mistaken?
rob k
Check your PM inbox
jon – It is Sept. 12, and I am on a friends’s computer in Oxnard, Ca. Just a few minutes here. Hope you are still looking at this thread. Just a few things. First, I wasn’t at all, I hope, indicating that I thought that the Reasserters want to conduct some sort of Inquisition against private or publicly stated heretical thoughts. I was only suggesting that formal heresy doesn’t occur until someone in authority promulgates a belief in formal denial of the Christian Creeds, or whatever is accepted by any ecclesial body as “official”. I wonder if Schorri”s statements about the uniquity of Christ are fuzzy, or are heretical in nature. Nevertheless this kind of stuff has to be formally pushed, a la Spong, or Pike. By the way, they tried to get Pike with Presentment, not Spong (my mistake). Spong is retired now, and his heresy is certainly “formal”, and probably he could have qualified for presentment even while still in office, but nothing happened. As to PD, I never said that promulgation of PD was a heresy AGAINST Anglicanism. No, what I meant was, to the extent that the Anglican Church promulgated Double PD (you never answered my question of what kind of PD you meant) it was itself in heresy against the Christian faith, that is, that God in his own counsels pre-selected certain individuals for salvation and others for damnation. To that extent, Canterbury was in error. I don’t think Hooker beleived in it that way. Not so sure about Cranmer in his theological meanderings. Anyway, I hope you see what I meant about the difference between formal heresy and the holding of heretical opinions, even by those who should know better. Have to go now. Will contact you further on this thread after 9/22. Pageantmaster – don’t know what you mean by checking my PD box. Thx. all,
#117 Rob k
Just to say I tried to send you a follow up private message through the T19 system accessible through the “your account” feature above and by clicking the “+” – perhaps it did not work, but not to worry.
Best regards
PM