The Anglican Communion is currently pursuing a number of activities in response to the acrimonious struggle over sexual teaching and discipline within our churches. These activities have been encouraged by the Communion’s leadership, including at the recent Lambeth Conference. I have, to various degrees, been a supporter of these activities, not least because I have trusted those who have promoted these means towards ecclesial healing. I am increasingly skeptical, however, that the way these activities have been framed ”“ descriptively and practically ”“ represents the true nature of our disputes.
Categories like “moratoria” and “reception” and “listening”, for instance, are now prominent elements in our strategic ecclesial discussions. Unfortunately, they no longer appear to be useful categories, in large part because they do not accurately reflect the actual relationship of expectation and possibility that the disputing parties hold, one to another and with respect to their own commitments. When one party says, while responding to the request for a “moratorium” on specific actions, “yes we will consider it; but there is no going back on our underlying commitments”; and another party says at the same time, “yes we will consider it; but only on the condition that you others give up your practical commitments”, then the very category of “moratorium” functions in very different ways in each case. Similarly, when “reception” is a “process” that seeks to discern the Christian authenticity of an innovative practice, but also does so by the very means of rooting that practice within the life of the church in different areas, the notion that discernment has a possibly restraining role to play seems practically undercut. Or when “listening” presumes an ecclesial practice even as it refuses to evaluate that practice, one is not so much listening as receiving justification ex post facto.
A measured word of truth from the ACI, well worth reading through to a conclusion in remarkably unRadnerian clarity. Not being a daily reader of the ACI website, am I right to be struck by the accompanying change in its dominant color from mellow yellow to keen green?
Someone help me. Is Dr. Radner saying that he now thinks seperation is “logical” but only when ordered by a covenant?
Wrong. Stamping out “terms” is playing word games instead of taking action. Stating clear directives is a waste of time because the Episcopalians and their foul companions don’t comply. What is needed is ACTION not rephrased blather.
Wrong. The failure to uphold what is and is not morally equivalent is cowardly abdication of moral responsibility. Surrendering the phrase because of unwillingness to defend it is a retreat from moral principles. Descriptive demands bound to “context” are slick bogus evasions from Jesus’ all-encompassing one Kingdom of God.
Wrong. “Reception” has shown its vile rotten fruit and therefore should be smashed, burned, ground to microscopic dust, and thrown on the graves of the lying false prophets.
See “reception” above.
Wrong. Maintaining the teaching of the church requires actually teaching it, not weasel-wording around it in the name of “inquiry”. Witness the putrid consequence of Rowan Wiliams on Anglican Christianity.
[i]I am increasingly skeptical, however, that the way these activities have been framed – descriptively and practically – represents the true nature of our disputes.[/i]
I suppose that it is a good thing that Dr Radner has finally become “skeptical” of the process by which progressives are systematically undermining Catholic faith and order in ECUSA and the Anglican Communion generally. But where has he been the last thirty years?
Radner writes: “…the very fact that the element of “family†is not at issue in the border-crossings means that a significant stake that might contribute to the immovability of the practice is not present.”
This reveals yet again how out of touch the ACI folks are with the person sitting in the pew, serving on a vestry, or holding traditional theological perspectives…or with those heeding the call of Hebrews to: walk on straight paths (Hebrews 12:12-17).
The church is most assuredly a family system…and many of its members are the victims of ecclesiastical bad parenting and abuse…the presiding bishop is a cold and distant matriarch and many of our bishops have emotionally, spiritually, and legally abused those laity and clergy committed to their pastoral care. They have violated their trust and misused their power in a way that cannot be resolved by just putting the children back into the abusive home like Radner suggests.
Just as Sarah Palin seems to has sparked in many hearts a trust and hope because she is just like us…clinging to her guns and her religion…so too the solution for us will come from people just like us in the pews and pulpits in fly over America, and not distant academics who have escaped the day to day harangues, the abuse of legal process, and the marginalization inflicted on the children of God by the abusive bishops who are supposed to be otherwise…who use their power differential for their own self-satisfaction and self-aggrandizement.
Please Dr. Radner…listen to the critics of literally everything you write, read the message of those who are leaving the church…this is not a classroom debate…this has to do with the right now spiritual recovering of a very sick church.
As usual, Radner is extremely long-winded, but I believe his essay can be boiled down to one sentence: “But it now looks as if separation is simply necessary, not historically so much as logically and morally.”
So why is the ACI standing in the way of what is necessary and inevitable? Get on board with the realignment, for crying out loud.
For better or worse, the so-called Windsor bishops (I would rather call them Vichy bishops) respect the ACI. Their inaction is largely attributable to the ACI’s blathering on about how our catholic ecclesiology prevents us from taking decisive action. Wake up, ACI! You are part of the problem, not part of the solution!
There is no doubt that “moral equivalence” is a loaded description. Orthodox of all flavor reject “moral equivalence”, but it is the revisionists who do see it as such. Perhaps “parity” is more apt. Regardless of the term it is the revisionists together with Rowan Williams (in whose lap a great deal of the present crisis lies) clearly has placed “border crossing” on equal pairing with gay inclusivity. Of course, the revisionists wouldn’t stop what they are doing if the GS primates who are offering oversight would cast those parishes to the dogs.
Ephraim+ understandably still clings to the covenant and now seeks to position it as a method of orderly separation. Unfortunately, the covenant is being approached is as if we are still back in 2002. It is not a document for a post-GAFCon communion. The fundamental flaw is the assumption that the Communion is a communion. It is not. It has already split, and all that is left is to formalize it. The dynamics are changing to fast for the covenant. Is the covenant for the part of the communion that will go the FCA path? It is inappropriate (and unneeded?). Is it for the portion of the communion which will go with Ms Schori and Mr Hilz? They don’t want it.
Now, the attempt to frame the covenant as an orderly separation document is forcing a square peg in a round hole. The reality is that Windsor is dead. Rowan Williams has killed it with his dithering. The covenant is part of Windsor. It is time to put the covenant on hold, let the dynamics take their course, and then revisit it.
Some of this article makes sense but other part simply do not and other reveals Dr. Radner is just too nice for his own good. The two sides have different beliefs…it really is that simple. TEC and the ACiC have embraced a secular model of rights over the Christian example of denying self, taking up the Cross, and following Jesus. Of course, the other side believes they are correct…and of course, culture and society is supporting their logic. But the Church should not.
The Covenant will be misused/misinterpreted as the Windsor Report has. There is no way of an emphatic listening process to accomplish anything. Both sides know what the position and argument are from the other side. We don’t agree…..I believe the Traditionalist position is faithful to Christ and His Word. Faith and conscience will not allow me to listen to the other argument….separation is the only path…and has been for some time….
The two cannot continue to walk together….it is just taking Dr. Radner longer to realize it….
Sad really
For what it’s worth, this is about as clear, unambiguous, and realistic as anything I have seen Radner write. I agree with it more of it than I disagree. Could it be that Radner (and hopefully the ACI) has finally seen the writing on the wall.
the snarksterâ„¢
As always, I enjoy the encouraging comments of readers at T19.
A couple of attribution-related comments. ACI never puts up things on its site that it – as a group – objects to. But there are various levels of direct and indirect attribution on what is posted. Sometimes things are unsigned – that would indicate a completely common position and authorship; sometimes they are signed by several names explicitly, sometimes by only one name, each indicating relative degrees of authorship and possibly (although not always) of exact agreement. In this case, what you have read is what I alone wrote. While not objecting to what I wrote, I imagine that other members of ACI’s writing fellows, contributing authors, and board members might have alternative ways of assessing the matters discussed. (In this essay, I took up what one board member, Bp.Michael Scott-Joynt, has talked about.) That is to say, “the ACI folk†(#5) are more of a mixed lot than some have supposed. We go to different churches around the world; we sit in different pews (!), we preach, teach, and otherwise minister in different contexts, we reflect a range of ecclesial situations.
With respect to the content of this essay, I have not personally changed my general views. (Nor do they reflect any great change in ACI’s general principles as a whole.) Rather I have become clearer as to the direction my sense of the Communion’s movement is leading. As a result I think it would be helpful if our common decisions took this direction into account more openly.
I did not examine in any detail what might be involved in “orderlinessâ€, however, although I indicated that the Covenant remains, in my opinion, the principal potential way (and I emphasize “potentialâ€) for sustaining such orderly separation. I do not find, for instance, that the infuriated and obliterative vision of #3 above points to such an orderly direction, nor have I yet seen evidence that any orderly alternative to the Covenant has been pursued or is on the table. So, “getting on board†(#6) refers to a train that, at this time anyway, is going to a destination that is not on my itinerary. Indeed, “common decision-making†remains something that is intrinsic to orderliness in the Church, even if the decisions involved move, alas, in a centrifugal way. And such common-decision making is what has remained out of our grasp, for a host of reasons.
What I wish were more clearly set before us, therefore, is a mechanism for such decisions to be made that involve more than one party, and certainly more than two asymmetrically committed parties. It is possible that the Pastoral Forum, for instance, was thought by implication to be such a mechanism. But that has never been stated and my point is simply that it should be. Or perhaps there are other mechanisms that are being considered – but they need to be presented. For the moment, all we have are the civil law courts, and I remain unconvinced that this avenue represents the will of our Lord for our shared witness.
Well now I am totaly confused (so what else is new). For the time being I’ll put my money on GAFCON.
#10
The Communion is corrupted. The evil one has infiltrated the Anglican church to such a point that those who know the truth are subject to the dicipline of those who don’t know the truth and are not one of us. The Gospel, and peoples’ lives, are at stake.
Were it not for the Gospel there would be no Church. We must hate what is evil and cling to what is good. Why do you let yourself be mystified by the tricks of the enemy. If you know the truth, if you know what is right, then proclaim that truth and denounce the lies of Satan. The false gospel of TEC is levin that must be purged. It will not be taken away by logic or discussion. And, if you can’t purge it then you purge yourself.
Looks like ACI is addicted to old products in new packages…all the things in which Dr. Radner places his hopes are the same things that have already proven unworkable and a failure.
If ACI hearkens back to the formation of the Windsor Bishops they will remember that that course of action and all it entailed was given a year…and if it did not succeed everyone agreed to put their shoulders to the plow of a Common Cause type of way forward.
The Windsor Bishops came to nothing, not even a squeak…Bob Duncan, Martyn Minns and company moved forward as agreed…but ACI continues advocating that which has proven a failure, contrary to the agreement they and the institutional bishops made, and contrary to a common sense reading of the situation.
The Windsor Bishops are now Communion Partners, the Windsor Report is now the Covenant…nothing new here, no hope perceived, just delay, and all the while matters in TEC get worse, peoples lives are trashed, spiritual abuse is rampant, and the Communion becomes more and more likely to divide…with Rowan frozen in inaction…itself which will lead not to an asymmetrical relationship to the Communion for TEC, but a huge divide in the Communion, with much blood and GSR on the hands of ACI.
As someone who supports GAFCON and supports the Common Cause Partnership, I write to say openly that Prof. Radner and the ACI consistently have important points to make and yet are consistently ignored or branded traitors. I just taught in my college course on the Bible, that if something doesn’t make sense, read it again….. assume that the author did indeed know what he was talking about.
More topically, I continue to worry that most GAFCON supporters have a skewed vision of what GAFCON actually did. Were I a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that my co-supporters of GAFCON were deeply, deeply disappointed to learn that GAFCON emphatically stated that it was NOT splitting the Anglican Communion. Let me repeat that, because strangely some seem to think otherwise: GAFCON did not split the Communion. GAFCON argued that there is a new reality within the Anglican Communion and they plan, with or without the help of Canterbury and the other existing Instruments of Communion, to solve the problem as best they can. I in fact heartily think GAFCON’s is the best solution on offer (not the Covenant) and this is where I will disagree with Prof. Radner.
However, I plead with my fellow GAFCON supporters: don’t be too ready to dismiss Prof. Radner. I do wish Radner and others like him would “get on board” with us. But their absence from the car does not mean they (A) are against us or (B) will never join us.
I have the suspicion that in time Prof. Radner and many others like him will in fact be with us. But that time has yet to come.
Thanks for your work, nevertheless, Prof. Radner. While you may not find total agreement, your work is nevertheless appreciated.
Ephraim,
I know how ACI works…I used to be its Executive Director.
The more important thing for you to answer would have been my point about your plan simply sending the children of God back into an abusive home…how do you square that with your hope for peace where there is no peace?
Don
Mr Armstrong: Since I am on the staff of a church, and Radner has been and is active now, and his wife is, and Turner has been serving as locum at a church much larger than any in CO, and four relatives of mine are serving parishes—including my father who has been a priest since you were in short pants—at issue is clearly not whether one is in touch with the church. That is a canard.
It would of course be wiser to say, that you and the people in the church that you presently lead may not like Radner’s logic (though that would be hard to judge), as against the ones who left/were shut out and are under the care of another Priest (who, if I am rightly told, is from the Diocese of Quincy). This kind of opinionated digression serves no purpose and furthers the cause of Christ not one iota.
As for your views on Communion Partners. I encourage you, rather than continuing to berate former colleagues at ACI in a nagging kind of way, that you write or speak with the bishops and rectors in question and tell them how benighted they are: Love, Adams, Lawrence, Wimberly, Lilliebridge, MacPherson, Smith, Burton, Little, Wolfe. They are grown-ups. We have not tied their hands.
I must say I am pleased that at Lambeth Bishop Duncan agreed that this kind of attacking was not a healthy way forward. That is also my view.
That last suggestion is excellent. We should all contact the so-called Windsor bishops personally and remind them of exactly how complicit they are in the oppression of the Christian minority by the liberal majority in ECUSA. Thanks for the idea, Dr. Seitz.
Throughout my readings of Dr. Radner’s article and the writings of this thread, I couldn’t help but think the same thing Calvin said in #14. GAFCON was not about separation or schism. GAFCON basically said we are staying and we are going to takeover from within. I don’t believe there will ever be a covenant because I don’t believe wording can be prepared that can satisfy all sides of this debate – when two sides hold completely opposite views, a covenant between them is not going to happen. At some point in the future, if GAFCON is right in what it is doing (and I believe it is), it will have more churches (or an equal number of churches) in the US and Can to those of TEC and ACinC (and no telling what will be happening in the CofE). At some point, the Abp of C. will have to acknowledge this new giant of Anglicanism that is connected to GAFCON in North America (and maybe in the UK) and come into communion with it – though probably not before a new AbofC is appointed or maybe two or three down the line. To think that GAFCON bishops are in anyway following a path of short term separation is not at all what I got out of this GAFCON meeting and the Jerusalem Statement. GAFCON bishops are basically through negotiating and through calling TEC, et al back to the table and back to faith once delivered. They have followed the model of the Gospel of Matthew (and have said often before that is what they have been following) and are now having nothing to do with TEC, et al, other than being missionaries in the land of TEC, et al, as Matthew calls them to do, when those in the body of Christ have rejected His teachings, been called to repentence by one or two and then by the whole church. I’m sorry, Dr. Radner, and all the Windsor bishops, but you are now talking long after the train has left the station on this one. I personally wish it were not so, but I truly believe that the takeover from the inside is begun and it cannot be stopped by a future covenant or any more delaying tactics from TEC, ACinC, CofE or AbofC. And GAFCON is not worrying about the semantics of moral equivalency of boundary crossings versus SSBs or anything else. It simply is on the march and TEC, AbofC, Lambeth, et al are no longer relevant to its mission. I firmly believe (and I again wish it were not so) that further talk is just that … talk.
14, what you say in unfortunate, but the ACI/Fulcrum does nothing to actually help the oppressed. Fr. Armstrong and Chazzy are exactly correct.
I love the idea of an orderly separation. I can think of a few examples where it happened, such as in Overland Park. But, a whole lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. The strategy of “inclusionists” has been to create facts on the ground, as Ephraim says. They have had great success with that strategy, so why would they change now? I wish they would, but they won’t. The only Covenant TEC will sign on to will be one that leaves them with the camel’s nose in the tent.
If the Covenant “process” is for anyone, perhaps its for wavering “moderates”. What wavering moderates don’t seem to grasp is the behavior Ephraim describes–liberals will talk about discernment and reception and go home and do whatever they want. Perhaps those provinces that think there is hope for the communion as it is now constructed will get it–perhaps they’ll see its all a ploy to “stay at the table”. My concern is that like the promise of Windsor, of Primate meetings, of Lambeth, is that the promised covenant will just keep all at the table longer–prolonging the inevitable, and giving more time and opportunity to those spreading “another gospel.”
My suggestion to any provence that still has a traditional majority: send your liberals out now, even with property. They won’t grow, and you won’t waste time fighting with them. The inclusionists aren’t interested in “orderly” separation. Their goal is to export their vision to the whole world, and being a parasite, they need a host. Once they gain a majority, they certainly won’t offer terms to anyone.
I have absolutely zero hope for orderly separation in TEC: “Individuals can leave, but parishes cannot.” That is the party line, and as long as the courts support it, you better have deep pockets and a strong majority with you (if you don’t want to surrender property to our “worthy opponents.” I’m hopeful for what a covenant can do for other parts of the communion, but like Windsor, Primate meetings, or Lambeth, I don’t see it offering me, a traditional priest in TEC anything at all.
Perhaps an orderly separation is still possible in England. I don’t know. But here in America?
[i] Please do not send this thread off topic. Comments concerning the essay are welcome. Comments about individuals or the character of ACI members will be considered off topic and deleted. [/i]
Dr. Radner, I appreciate and commend you for your commitment to Christ and His Body, the Church. It is sincere.
When you spoke at the called special Clergy Conference call by our former bishop in the DRG, I had an uneasy feeling that somehow we were “behind the curve” and that everything proposed would put us farther behind. It seemed too little, too late. What you propose now is so far behind events that the curve doesn’t even exist any more. The Net, the Anglican Communion was ripped and ended as a communion and you’ve now empirically proved it cannot be mended. What was sown was and is being reaped.
Events here in the RG affirm your perspective, albeit, I think you’re mow so far behind that such a separation vehicle could not happen before the next Lambeth attended by TEC, ACC and some of the COE. That was the choice not looked at during the recent Lambeth, which was set aside for the confusing conversations using the words you “amplified.” What a blunder.
Here, Bishop Steenson became convinced the he had to leave for Rome. Our largest parish and one other have left PECUSA. Many clergy including Bp Kelshaw, deacons and priests have gone to ministries in new provinces, including myself. Unknown numbers of laity have found other homes. And we were what the ACI once called “a Windsor diocese.”
Companion diocese and parishes” face the same future: sowing = reaping.
Chris…thanks for your display…always fun to see an old friend in action…is there any way to have an adult conversation with you guys, maybe for one of you ACI types to answer the issue I raised?
I see your position to be primarily a doctrine of appeasement. One of the ministries in my parish is the John Jay Institute, with has on its web site a lecture on the problem of appeasement that I think applies to the current church struggles as well as on the war on terrorism (Jayhttp://www.johnjayinstitute.org/index.cfm?get=get.lecture_11162006&nav=lecture 2006)
The synopsis of the lecture is that “most critiques of liberalism overlook its deepest moral and religious problem—the denial of radical evil. The fact is that liberalism is sanguine about human nature and its capacities for good, even perfectibility. Plato taught that politics is the soul writ large. In his view the right ordering of our common life must take into account the nature or essence of humankind. Thus the pressing question for the science of politics is: Is humanity basically good and therefore perfectible or is humanity depraved and haunted by radical evil? Utopians throughout history consistently have denied evil as part of the universal human condition. Consequently, in the last century utopians of the 1930s downplayed the global threat of Nazism and Fascism. Similarly today’s utopians soft-pedal the clear and present danger of Islamic radicalism. The ghosts of appeasement, which now animate many political and religious leaders, present a profound challenge to the health and even survival of American democracy. Overcoming this challenge involves a recovery of Christian realism about the problem of evil in a post-9/11 world.”
I believe that in your positions, you fail to understand the evil that lurks in the hearts of some Communion and TEC leaders to whom you would entrust so much…particularly related to my original objection of throwing the children of God back into abusive systems/dioceses.
I appreciate Ephraim’s latest contribution. He is calling for truth in the language of this conversation. In typical deconstruction of language fashion, ‘listening’ means different things to different people. Likewise ‘moratorium.’ One has only to read the most recent article in the (Canadian) Anglican Journal in which Archbishop Hiltz wants the Canadian bishops to discuss what ‘moratorium’ really means.
However, I am concerned that no one is really listening. Each side listens to the comments of people on the other side primarily to find how to make a point against the other side. Dr. Williams has called for an orderly, Communion-wide process for resolving this crisis. Ephraim calls for the same thing.
The unilateral actions of people on both sides makes such a long term solution unlikely. By the time the Communion resolves the conflict, I fear the fabric of the Communion will have been ripped beyond repair.
#23, I wish what you say is true. But I don’t believe it is. Dr. Williams had a chance to continue an orderly process by calling a primates meeting after the TEC HOB responded to Dar Communique. But he failed to do that, in my opinion, because he knew the result would be that the primates would generally agree that the response was a rejection of what was asked of HOB. (I know, he later said he had contacted the primates and they were not unanimous in their opinions and he gave the impression that it was @ a 50/50 split. I don’t think anyone really believed that.) He also gave the HOB a bailout and said it had responded adequately. Though the AC does not have the curia of the RCC, he has not used the limited structure that the AC does have to solve this matter, when the means were and are there for him to resolve it, by his giving the primates their due and by his recognition and non-recognition of those abiding by Lambeth 1:10 and those not. He has tried to play all sides against the middle and has lost the loyalty, for now, of over 60% of the membership of AC to GAFCON, while retaining the moneyed interests of those who have brought the new theology into the church (with his personal blessing, apparently). This is not orderly nor is it a process. He basically stopped the process because it got too close to the end result, which result he apparently did not like. You are correct that no one is listening; especially TEC, ACinC, CofE and AbofC are not listening. Lambeth had over 60% of the AC unrepresented and all AbofC and the TEC et al said was how sorry they were for the absence of the GAFCON bishops. If they were listening, they should have said, “maybe we need to rethink what we’ve done, if over 60% of our members are not being represented at this decennial conference, which is the mark of our AC.” But what you heard from TEC bishops was basically we don’t care what GAFCON is saying or doing, we are going full speed ahead with our political agenda (and now all the bishops off CA are marching for gay marriage). An orderly process has been tried; it’s now over, unfortunately.
I see the ACI position in this paper and others to be primarily one of appeasement. One of the ministries in my parish is the John Jay Institute, which has on its web site a lecture on the problem of appeasement that was given at Grace Church and that I think applies to the current church struggles…although the lecture itself was primarily about the war on terrorism.
The lecture in full can be found at (Jayhttp://www.johnjayinstitute.org/index.cfm?get=get.lecture_11162006&nav=lecture 2006)
The synopsis of the lecture is that “most critiques of liberalism overlook its deepest moral and religious problem—the denial of radical evil. The fact is that liberalism is sanguine about human nature and its capacities for good, even perfectibility. Plato taught that politics is the soul writ large. In his view the right ordering of our common life must take into account the nature or essence of humankind. Thus the pressing question for the science of politics is: Is humanity basically good and therefore perfectible or is humanity depraved and haunted by radical evil? Utopians throughout history consistently have denied evil as part of the universal human condition. Consequently, in the last century utopians of the 1930s downplayed the global threat of Nazism and Fascism. Similarly today’s utopians soft-pedal the clear and present danger of Islamic radicalism. The ghosts of appeasement, which now animate many political and religious leaders, present a profound challenge to the health and even survival of American democracy. Overcoming this challenge involves a recovery of Christian realism about the problem of evil in a post-9/11 world.”
I believe that positions of appeasement fail to understand the evil that lurks in the hearts of some Communion and TEC leaders in whom Dr. Radner’s paper we are discussing would entrust so much…particularly related to my original objection to throwing the children of God back into abusive systems/dioceses.
I think this is an aspect of our situation in the church that many are failing to consider or willing to acknowledge in the current crisis.
I think the above deleted post responding to this paper makes an important point about both this paper and a doctrine of appeasement. The poster made reference to a lecture on the problem of appeasement that applies to the current church struggles…although the lecture itself was primarily about the war on terrorism.
The lecture in full can be found at (Jayhttp://www.johnjayinstitute.org/index.cfm?get=get.lecture1162006&nav=lecture 2006)
The synopsis of the lecture is that “most critiques of liberalism overlook its deepest moral and religious problem—the denial of radical evil. The fact is that liberalism is sanguine about human nature and its capacities for good, even perfectibility. Plato taught that politics is the soul writ large. In his view the right ordering of our common life must take into account the nature or essence of humankind. Thus the pressing question for the science of politics is: Is humanity basically good and therefore perfectible or is humanity depraved and haunted by radical evil? Utopians throughout history consistently have denied evil as part of the universal human condition. Consequently, in the last century utopians of the 1930s downplayed the global threat of Nazism and Fascism. Similarly today’s utopians soft-pedal the clear and present danger of Islamic radicalism. The ghosts of appeasement, which now animate many political and religious leaders, present a profound challenge to the health and even survival of American democracy. Overcoming this challenge involves a recovery of Christian realism about the problem of evil in a post-9/11 world.”
I believe that positions of appeasement fail to understand the evil that lurks in the hearts of some Communion and TEC leaders in whom Dr. Radner’s paper we are discussing entrusts so much.
I think this is an aspect of our situation in the church, a healthy doctrine of evil over and against a Pelagian hope in mankind, that many are failing to consider or willing to acknowledge in the current crisis.
What I hear in many of these comments is “way too lateâ€: too late to speak honestly with one another, because talking at all is pointless; too late to be concerned with orderliness; too late to think terms of common decision-making, and hence, certainly too late to worry about Covenants and things like that as being instrumental to some faithful purpose. I also hear frustration (!) that anyone could be so naïve or silly as to fail to understand how way too late it really is, and how foolish and perhaps even evil it is to expect that anything good could come from Lambeth or TEC bishops or whoever it is one blames for the mess we are in. More than once, the combination of these two observations in people’s minds have led them to quote to me the old saw about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and continually expecting different results from before.
But there are at least three reasons why I don’t buy these judgments:
First, the notion of “way too late†or of “doing something over and over and expecting different results†as being “insane†is not, as I understand it, probably compatible with the Gospel. God’s time is not my time, nor is the power of God’s work in the hearts of others (or in my own) within my power to predict or control. Mine is to state what it seems that God asks of us, over and over; to turn cheeks; to forgive; to appeal; to speak in season and out of season, pray without ceasing, never give up, and so on. Yes, I know there are places in the New Testament where one is asked to “move onâ€. But I still think that we are dealing with Christians in the broken Church, and not simply crying aimlessly in the desert. Although vox clamantis in deserto is also a Christian calling.
Second, because it is not my time but God’s to worry about, the fact that my hopes are not fulfilled now or even in a bit, or even in a long while, or even after I am dead (I think of Basil or John Chrysostom) – should not concern me over much. People don’t have to do what I think is best when I think it best that they do it. Obviously, we all have our saturation points. But these are hardly normative measuring rods. Certainly, I see no reason why we should be judged by other people’s “having it up to here†feelings. I wish people had listened to me 15 years ago, when I first got involved in this debate over sexuality, TEC and the Communion. I lost jobs over it. But I also learned that my bitterness over having my infinite wisdom ignored, let alone opposed, was probably not only silly but destructive in a wide range.
Third: after all, I may be wrong, and about a lot of things. I write things that say “must†and “should†and so on; but these are the rhetorical tics that cover up the real fallibility of my judgments. Just as I may be wrong in the way many here have emphasized; so I may be wrong in even more drastic and surprising ways, ways that make all our debates upside down.
So yes: I may be way too late in what I suggest; I may be silly, even foolish and wicked (that seems likely in many ways, I guess); I may finally come around to this or that person’s view. But that is the risk of saying anything at all on the basis of what I understand the Gospel of Christ to be that I have been entrusted to proclaim.
And, after all this, I still don’t see much glory being shed, at the present time, by those who are looking at our watches.
Round and round and round we go,
Where we end up only the Lord will know.
Jesus once ask Peter, “But you, who do you say that I am?” Now compaire Peter’s answer and Dr. Radner’s. At some point a human response is required, not let’s wait and see.
Anthan-asi-us,
You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig…
#26 Thank you Dr. Radner. As a 40 year old-priest who has found great comfort in the long view, I deeply appreciate your work, candor and humility. Blessings to you and your colleagues at ACI. May the Lord indeed, prosper the work of your hands, prosper your handiwork.
Dr. Radner, I don’t know if you are still reading this thread, but in case you are, I just wanted to say thank you. Many times your considered words have helped me in these last few years.
But GAFCON really is about separation. Not in the language, but in the fact of its existence. This is the reality, isn’t it? It is the other substantive voice in clear opposition to the liberal voices, and it had made its intention to stand autonomously simply by speaking its mind, standing in opposition.
And of course it is too late. Dr. Radner’s qualifications are the very sign that toolateness is upon us. The season is changing; a few hot days cannot bring summer back, only remind us how thoroughly it is past. For us who live in the Cold World, the issue is not schism, but yielding to the change assigned. GaFCON in this case is the brilliancy of the dying leaves; the change is upon us.
Larry
Wow — I read this thread and it’s clear that some people are deeply and personally bitter and angry that there are [i]any conservative Anglicans out there anywhere that actually 1) don’t agree with their particular strategy, and 2) are pursuing another strategy.[/i]
Dr. Radner having an opinion and a strategy — one that he has steadfastly maintained — is a [i]personal offense[/i] to some conservative Anglicans who have another opinion and strategy. That’s the only way I can explain the bitterness and personal animus. It’s simply [i]offensive[/i] that he doesn’t agree with them.
Since Dr. Radner seems to not have responded to some of these statements, allow me.
RE: “Get on board with the realignment, for crying out loud.”
No — I won’t get on board with your realignment. I don’t wish to be a part of your realignment, and your demand is self-serving, egocentric, and presumptious. Numerous others of us don’t wish to be a part of your realignment either, and we’ve stated it over and over and over. Good luck with your realignment. I hope that it is all you wish or need. I would love for it to be successful by your standards. I’m following another goal, focus, purpose, and direction.
RE: “Their [the Windsor bishops] inaction is largely attributable to the ACI’s blathering on about how our catholic ecclesiology prevents us from taking decisive action.”
I have to smile at that statement, which gives far too much credit to the Windsor Bishops. The ACI could pull the fire alarm tonight, right next to each slumbering Windsor Bishop’s head, and that would not cause them to take “action” — whatever that means. I assume that it means obeying the mindless chant of “leave now and join us” that certain parties keep intoning, but who knows.
RE: “If ACI hearkens back to the formation of the Windsor Bishops they will remember that that course of action and all it entailed was given a year…and if it did not succeed everyone agreed to put their shoulders to the plow of a Common Cause type of way forward.”
How odd — that is not the story that Don Armstrong has told on numerous other threads. In the past he has not said that “everyone agreed” to pursue Common Cause [i]together[/i]. He’s said that the ACI asked for a year to pursue their strategy unimpeded by something-or-other from Network bishops . . . but now it transpires that the ACI and “institutional bishops” made an “agreement” to all pursue “Common Cause”?
What a strange shift in the story.
Pretty much every single time that the ACI writes something I critique their ideas. I came loaded for bear to this essay, and had something I was going to analyze and expose as the faulty idea that it is.
But why bother? The ACI folks are clearly evil personified, so there’s no reason really to critique their ideas.
The man seems to be saying “hey — why don’t we all use language that’s actually truthful, like, say ‘cessation’ rather than ‘moratorium’.”
But the fact that Ephraim Radner has the unmitigated gall to pursue another strategy besides the Common Cause strategy — that precludes actually taking the trouble to parse whatever he said, other than of course to complain about his being long-winded — an eloquent, and articulate, and rational critique if ever I saw one.
If he’s always “long-winded” than why read him? Why not learn that the name “Ephraim Radner” next to a post means that one’s eyes will fall from their sockets in the effort to read the essay, and could do real physical damage to them. And then why not do something [i]really really radical[/i] — refuse to read or comment on the post.
I know it’s a crazy idea — but he just needs to learn to cut his sentences and paragraphs in half — maybe by three quarters even.
Refusing to read or comment on his writing will really teach him a sound lesson.
My bet is that if you did that for just a couple of years, his writing would be reduced to cereal box slogans in no time.
Who knows — given that kind of dose of strong medicine, he may even decide that he completely agrees with Common Cause.
Being hopeful is all well and good. But…following Pollyanna wishful thinking is basically violating the, “Thou shalt not put the Lord, thy God to the test:
[blockquote] 5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6″If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
” ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ ”
7Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[/blockquote]
Canon Neal writes, “Dr. Williams has called for an orderly, Communion-wide process for resolving this crisis. Ephraim calls for the same thing.” Therein lies the rub. The old ditherer is one of the major causes of lack of resolution. I truly find it incomprehensible that people are looking to give Rowan “homosexual – relations – can – be equivalent – to – Christian – marriage” Williams a more central part, thinking that will solve the problem. Both the Windsor Continuation Group or the St. Andrews draft do this – flabbergasting.
I repeat from my previous comment. Windsor is dead. The Covenant and the WCG are Windsor derivatives – branches of a dead tree. A new orthodox province in north America is incompatible with both. But a new orthodox province is a soon to be reality. The orderly or disorderly separation must recognize this new reality.
This is a forum for discussing ideas. Ephraim+ puts out ideas. Some object, sometimes vociferously, sometimes inappropriately in a knee-jerk, ad hominem fashion.
If there is a sinking ship and a rusty tug has come out to save them, it is certainly not inappropriate however to object strenuously to someone telling people that a much better rescue ship is coming. That ship is the H.M.S. Communion-wide-settlement, but it is fiction.
Ephraim+ objects to the dishonest language – [i]listening process, moratoria, moral-equivalence[/i]. But this is the language of the revisionists not the orthodox of any flavor. Tell them to stop using that language. I wouldn’t object, but I am hardly hopeful that they will turn from their dissembling ways.
That +Michael Scott-Joynt has openly called for orderly separation is remarkable – unthinkable three or four years ago. That Ephraim+ is sort of calling for orderly separation is more remarkable still.
Thanks, Ephraim, for your essay. Concerning your suggestion for the Listening Process:
[blockquote]that for the moment the “listening process†seek one end only, viz. learning of homosexual needs in face of civil violence and mistreatment in concrete instances and responding to such mistreatment as a church.[/blockquote]
see the ‘Don’t Throw Stones’ initiative of the Anglican Communion [url=http://www.dontthrowstones.info/]here[/url].
RE: “This is a forum for discussing ideas.”
Right — so it would have been nice to see that on this thread.
RE: “The orderly or disorderly separation must recognize this new reality.”
That’s just it, RobRoy — it’s highly likely that it will not do any such thing.
So what we’re going to end up with — and there will be lots and lots of rending of hair and gnashing of teeth when it does happen — is three large Anglican entities in the US: the Common Cause Province, recognized by several Primates, TEC, and the community of dioceses that sign on to the Covenant.
And judging by this thread and hundreds others like it, there will be NO “recognition of this new reality” by any of the sides.
You can say that there must be recognition “of this new reality” till the cows come home, but that won’t make it happen.
Sarah, #36, you may be correct that there ultimately will be no recognition of one group by another. As you said, you are judging that by the current situation (“this thread and hundreds others like it). But we don’t know what the Lord has in store or what future secularism has in store. At some point in the future, the ardor of all sides will calm and we all shall recommit. And then sometime after that, I have faith that reconciliation will occur – not from current bishops but from future generations. We are now in the wilderness and I agree with you, it is doubtful to me that anyone currently alive will see the promised land of recognition. The morality of North American and European societies will have to turn over before sufficient change will occur to allow for such recognition. And that appears to be a several generations away, barring a major catastrophic event, such as a world war or climatic change that brings everyone back to focus on the first Great Commandment.
A sarcastic rant is not an argument. I have read the entire article and understand Dr. Radner’s argument. However, in understanding it, does not mean I agree. Ultimately, I do not believe the two Churches can walk on together. As Neal says, it is more likely the Anglican Communion will tear itself apart.
I know of no one on this blog who wants this. Yes, there are two main sides: those who will continue with their efforts to reform from inside and those who will depart for a New Anglican Province in North America.
Clearly, we have come to different conclusions. With all respect to Dr. Radner, it does come across as too little way too late. Now, I am not insulting him when I say this…it is simply an opinion. I also understand he believes that God can do a miracle at any time in TEC and the ACiC. I certainly have prayed for such and will continue to work for it. Again as Dr. Radner says, God’s time is not ours…..
I pray none of us are taking things into our own hands….I pray that we all seek God’s will and path ahead. I believe it is more than possible and probable that God may lead us to different paths. Nor does He deign to explain himself to me even though I would greatly appreciate it.
But I believe God is directing me to look to the New Anglican Province. Why? Because I see no place for people like me in TEC. Nor do I believe reasserters will be tolerate in TEC in the days ahead. Again, just my opinion….and yes, I have prayed about it.
Again I appreciate Dr. Radner’s piece and believe the EC and the AC are unraveling…I wish it could be orderly….but past experience with TEC and the ACiC as well as the Instruments of Unity says other wise.
Oh, how discouraging to read these comments! Some of the meanness is breathtaking! I want to thank you, Ephraim, for writing this piece. I have found it very helpful and have commended it to a number of other people. What is most helpful to me is the direct explanation of why listening is not working, of why the language and situation have become incoherent. Some say this is all too late, but in the DRG we are now in the midst of a reconciliation process that has yet to be honest about some of the major issues going on here locally, not to mention worldwide, and in the beginning of a bishop search process. We, I think, are not unusual here in the numbers of lay people, and clergy! I dare say, who do not understand the most basic of issues in this fundamental debate. SO I don’t think this is too late at all. I appreciate the honesty, and to me, a fresh perspective on why this is an unequal process. Bravo, Ephraim! I am thankful for your intelligence, warmth, and persistent faith. Thank you!!
I have always and still appreciate the principled and thoughtful work of ACI and Ephraim. Ephraim’s comment that many of the responses illustrate a general frustration is directly relevant to my comments on this thread. I do think the work on the covenant is relevant and important. I do think “orderly separation” is a necessary evil. What I will not do, however, this Sunday in an adult forum, is tell my parish that the Anglican Communion can provide any material aid or comfort to a traditional parish in the Diocese of Colorado. From 2003 until the Lambeth invitations went out, I believed, hoped, “the communion” would offer some sort of orderly response to TEC.
“Orderly separation” cannot happen without a reason to be orderly or to separate. Inclusionists have every reason to stay connected, and where they have the power, to deny the “other” the opportunity to not be so intimately connected.
My concern over the Covenant is that people inside “reappraising” communities, as I am in Colorado, will HOPE the covenant can provide them with any structural relief. If the Covenant has anything in it that includes “orderly separation”, it will be for provences and perhaps dioceses that have the power to separate. I think its a great idea for people who are in places where it can do something for them. Go for it brother. I’m cheering for you, and praying for you. I hope the Covenant Design Team can get a covenant to the table that amounts to more than Lambeth’s “all have won and all must have prizes”–as G. Conger put it).
That is doubtless where the frustration comes from: Hope deferred makes the heart sick. I cannot promise my parish any material aid from “the communion.” I would not have said that a year ago–a year ago I believed “discipline” would come, and with it some sort of moral imparative for “orderly separation.”
I think this is where I’m hung up with Ephraim’s piece. I agree with him, lock, stock, and barrell. But, who is the audience? Is it K. Schori and David Booth Beers? Is it “moderate” primates who still believe “dialog” means dialog, and need to be disabused of this by a rational, Christian voice? Is it Rowan Williams? Is it Communion Partners or Windsor Bishops?
I just want to be clear for my own soul and for those whom I lead and serve: our hope should not be placed in the machinery of the communion. One can read one of Ephraim’s pieces and dare to hope that everyone will see the reasonableness, the Christlikeness, of it. Its just hard to accept that reasonable people will, and, um, unreasonable people won’t.
I hope all of these comments are kept in a sealed container and re-opened in 50 years, after the reality of recognized and blessed gay marriages and the presence of openly gay clergy are simply a fact of life. They will make interesting museum pieces the same way Civil War-era comments supporting the “necessity” of slavery are intersting today.
RE: “after the reality of recognized and blessed gay marriages and the presence of openly gay clergy are simply a fact of life . . . ”
Not to worry, plinx — the Episcopal Church will certainly be doing all those things, as well as of course the blessings of various loving, mutual, consensual other kinds of relationships as well — but will be too tiny for anyone to really notice.
After all — the Incredibly Shrinking Church is already plummeting every year — and you’ve got another 50 to go.
And I’m equally certain, Sarah, that you’ll be fighting off the hordes of people trying to join the Church High Anglican Purity in 50 years. In some ways, in won’t matter as most of us will long be dead by then, but it will be satisfying that the very thing you’ve spent your life trying to stop will be fully accepted by society and, importantly, that your struggle will likely be forgotten by everyone living in that time. It’s your wasted effort that I enjoy most.
Stop, cease, desist! On these sarcastic comments!
Heh.
RE: “It’s your wasted effort that I enjoy most.”
At least you are gaining [i]some[/i] pleasure out of life.
Now, now, Libbie — let plinx have a little fun! I don’t take it seriously . . . it’s just some Friday afternoon jibing, is all. ; > )
However . . . to respond at least a little seriously to one underlying point that progressive Episcopal activists keep missing . . .
It is not important to me if “society” at some single point in human civilization accepts or rejects certain behavior or not — or even changes its mind back and forth depending on the century or country.
Society has been getting it wrong off and on about any number of things for thousands of years now — that’s what Christ pointed out and came to redeem society from through His atoning death and resurrection.
But plinx shifted the terminology — from church [openly gay clergy] to “society” . . . I expect that plinx in his heart of hearts understands what is happening to the Episcopal Church.
But be that as it may . . . I am serenely confident that the Church — that church that is acknowledged by Christians and is the Church . . . will remain steadfast in the Gospel, no matter “society’s” opinion.
I will say this — I don’t think plinx is as confident as he pretends about what the Church will or will not do.
For as particular dead manifestations of “church” go off the deep end — [i]they simply cease to exist[/i] — we are seeing right now. And as the Church adheres to the gospel — it flourishes, no matter what society decides in a particular century or culture. As witness the church in China . . .
No, those who are confident of the eventual success of their beliefs have no need of gloating or gaining pleasure from the defeat of those who hold a different gospel. They merely need enjoy a quiet confidence.
I have no concern as to the outcome, for the Church . . . . and I am indifferent to the opinions of society.
[i] That’s the LAST WORD. Any more sarcasm will be deleted. [/i]
You mean any more dissent from the party line on this site will be deleted, yes?
I cannot sit back and allow all the comments on this page to go un-answered, even if this writing is Ficiton. For starters, NONE of you have made ANY comments regarding the subject matter of this post, and least of all, NONE of you, including Mr Radner, are using the language we’re talking about…Truthful Language. There IS such a language on this planet, AND, it is in use on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, there are NO “religious” people using it.
The moment a “religious” person quotes from his/her Bible/Koran/Torah, etc, etc, they TRUTHFULLY show their complete ignorance of the written word.
There is NOT one Noun in any “religious” book, anywhere in the world, in fact there are NO Nouns in any books for the public, anywhere in the world..!!!!!!!
Each “religious” book has a copyright (check out your own Bible). A copyright is a PRIVATE opinion, and MUST be registered as such.
There are also NO Nouns in the Lord’s Prayer, meaning, A LAWYER WROTE IT…!!!! If there are NO Nouns in the Lord’s Prayer, there are obviously NO Nouns in the entire Holy Bible, Koran, Torah, etc, etc,.
Now why do you suppose that is?
Get a grip you people, there is NO such language as US English, there is ONLY English, and it has been completely bastardized.
Your very own Daniel Webster (Webster’s) said in 1873, “The greatest crime ever perpetuated against the American people, was the bastardization of the English Language……..I have to make a living”. Kinda says it all huh? Get a life everyone, LEARN.
If you want to comment or write ANYTHING concerning Truthful Language….remember, I’m a professional teacher of Quantum-Language (prepositional-phrase-language), and can transpose ANY language on this planet into Quantum, write it in ANY other language then convert it back without losing a single word or sentence.
I challenge Mr Radner and Rev Harmon to use their talents to attempt to write their quotations in Truthful-Language-Format.