Peter Lee of Virginia elicited howls of protest and outrage a few years ago when he observed that heresy was better than schism. In fact, though I have known and loved and respected Peter for decades, I was pretty sympathetic to his critics, mostly because I believed that he was being rather self-justifying (to defend his decision to give consent to the consecration of Gene Robinson””which the ensuing years have clearly revealed to be a schismatic action) as well as my concern that he was awfully quick to accept that the “lesser evil” of false teaching was necessary (since the lives of the ordained are supposed to be an example to the faithful then living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage constitutes an implicit false teaching).
Though I still think Bishop Lee was being disingenuous, in the light of impending realignment in our own diocese, I have begun to reflect on his claim from a different perspective. For years, I have prayed and counseled and spoken and voted against the drift of the Episcopal Church toward simply reflecting the cultural norms of our society. That certainly is not because I hate those who disagree with me (in fact, often I believe they are motivated by a sincere commitment to a particular biblical interpretation). It is just that, as hard as it sometimes can be, I still have personally seen the power of God’s Word written, interpreted by the apostolic tradition which has been passed down to us as a precious legacy, to renew and transform individual lives and even institutions. A commitment to a desire for holiness, whetted by an obedience in accord with that of the saints and by the help of the Holy Spirit, has led to the change even of nations over the course of Christian history. To depart from this inheritance, on the basis of culturally influenced values, seems a dangerous and precipitous decision to make. As the Anglican primates have said, the onus to justify such changes clearly lies upon the innovators. So, as a consequence, I view the lobbying agenda of certain interest groups in TEC with intense dismay and as being, at the very least, insensitive and unfaithful.
“As messy and as infuriating and as terrifying as living in the Episcopal Church is for an apostolic and biblical Christian, breaking away is not the answer that the catholic witness of the saints throughout the ages have given—especially for those who still can worship in faithful parishes.”
============================================================
If I follow Father Murph’s statement to its logical and historical conclusion, then ECUSA should immediately start proceedings leading to its return to Rome and the hierarchial leadership of the Pope.
.
The thing that very few people on either side ever mention — or seem to understand — is this:
[b]ALL[/b] of the Fathers of the Church, from the very disciples of the Apostles themselves on down through history understood and taught that [b][i]Heresy IS schism[/i][/b]
When anyone departs from true Faith in Jesus Christ as passed on to us from the Apostles, that person has departed out of the Body of Christ, His Church.
This whole arguement of which is worse has been utterly spurious from the beginning, and it seems to me that people who are genuinely orthodox should not be afraid to say so — clearly.
The statement reads like justification.
#2. Lumen,
I agree with you, and believe that +Lee has departed the essential church catholic by his actions. Our parish has been saved by fleeing such rot. Anyone who stays around it is playing with fire.
Heresy is schism. That is true. But I believe that compounding the heresy by doing your own thing (that damnable American trait) is just as wrong as the heresy that originated the schism. You cannot defend Catholic truth by violating Catholic order. I believe that the best course of action is to seek resolution by the ACC and Primates. Let them suggest a way forward for us and then realign to the direction that the Church points.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i] Comment off topic. Deleted by elf. [/i]
Here is a question that I have never had answered to my satisfaction by those who advocate staying in TEC. Do the analogies of faithfulness earlier in an undivided church still hold for a portion of it? This becomes even more important when we consider that the structure of Roman Catholicism allowed for definitive binding decisions through council. TEC does not have this. I do not think that anthansius applies to TEC
# 7 — Yes. This is obvious to me and others, but I can’t help being mystified by those who seem unable (or unwilling??) to see it.
With a hattip to AndrewA on another thread, think this comment is appropriate here: [blockquote]God’s Will is going to Triumph. God’s Church is going to Triumph. However, there are no guarantees that the Anglican Communion, much less TEC, are going to be a part of that Triumph. [/blockquote]
I do not know if this answers your question, Commoncausepriest, but IMO no Protestant can argue against schism. Schism is part of Protestant DNA, a genetic disease if you will.
I know there are others here who will be able to correct any historical and factual errors I make, but I believe the analogy here is more akin to the papal excommunication, in 1054, of the Constantinople patriarchate. I guess this puts +Duncan in good company. In the current crisis, I see the orthodox Anglicans in North American as simply getting ahead of events and moving away from the heresy and apostasy of TEC and trying to remain in communion with the other orthodox parts of the Anglican Communion. To me, this is actually a better solution than waiting to get kicked out the door by the TEC hierarchy.
To those who say you have to “remain faithful†within TEC and wait on the Lord, I would mention that its almost a millennium since 1054 and that schism is still open.
Jeff Murph’s argument reminds me of a story told by my wife’s grandmother. There was an old spinster in her church that made no attempt to meet eligible men. She would always say that “when God wants me to be married, he will send me a man.†After hearing this refrain for years, my wife’s grandmother one day finally said “I don’t think God intends for you to wait until he opens a hole in the roof of your house and drops a man down into your lap. If you want a husband, you’re going to have to do something about it yourself.â€
Please do not blame on Luther the schism caused by Rome.
Please do not blame on CANA the schism caused by TEC.
I am afraid that the blog ends on a falsely optimistic note:
[i] … as history has proved, despite these terrible times of error, the Holy Spirit has always been faithful to bring the Church of Jesus Christ back into truth and unity… [/i]
As I look back on the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, none of them exists today. Christ is the vine, we are the branches. The vine lives, but there are many branches that have died, been pruned off and cast in the fire. I’m simply saying that while the church of Jesus Christ will persevere (Luke 18:8 not withstanding), there is no promise that individual branches/congregations/movements will do so.
Kendall, I know are busy. I was wondering as someone who advocates an inside approach could answer question #7. I have still not heard an articulate answer from someone who advocates that approach. I wonder if Sarah Hey is around?
Murph’s last paragraph is incoherent. He argues that, even in periods of great error, the Church has been led back to truth. However, he claims, “on the other hand, when human leaders have divided the church because of disputes, then those divisions seem to calcify and remain.â€
Which is it? Human leaders divided the Church during the Arian controversy to which he alludes, and they divided the Church during the Reformation. One schism was healed, and one was not. Therefore … what? And, to top it all off, Murph, despite his criticism, seems to have no problem remaining in one of the tens of thousands of splinter churches that separated from Rome. (Schism for me, but not for thee, I guess.)
What Murph misses is that, unfortunately, by its own self-understanding, ECUSA is not the Church, and therefore has no more likelihood of being led back to the Truth than the Arians.
Murph, apparently for the sake of his own agenda of going along to get along, also cynically appropriates St. Athanasius to the cause. Unfortunately, the Saint was everything Murph aspires not to be: one who clearly, loudly and even stridently separated himself from heresy; one who was willing to suffer the loss of his ecclesiastical position for the Truth of the Gospel; and one who, by his sheer bloody-mindedness that most certainly did not include kissing the ring of false-teaching superiors, helped return the Church to truth. The contrast with Murph’s strategy to shut up, sit down and hope things turn out for the best sometime in the future is striking.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing. (paraphrasing and forgot who said it, but it applies!)
I think we’re probably at a point where those of us who would support Phil Snyder’s comment in #5 above and those who have decided to turn to solutions beyond the common life of the Communion can’t hear each other very well–if at all. An impression of Jeff’s “incoherence” is simply, it seems to me, a case of emerging cognitive dissonance. What began as two bodies of faithful and orthodox Christians following a broader agenda of reform and renewal by two different routes, “inside” and “outside,” has gradually become two groups talking past each other, with less and less inclination toward charitable sympathy and mutual understanding. What I can tell you is that every headline and communication in the press and media here in Pittsburgh has communicated the theme, “Diocese of Pittsburgh splits from Episcopal Church.” It is a message of division, not of reformation. And the witness we present in the real world is I’m sure summarized by tens of thousands of folks here in Allegheny County and beyond who read the story, detached and amused, and perhaps offer a muttered, “these Christians, how they love one another,” before turning to the sports pages.
Bruce Robison
Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church; Katharine Jefferts-Schori is the head of her church; lets try not to confuse the two.
How [b][i]does[/i][/b] one stay “in the Church?”
That depends on how you define “The Church” and what you understand it to be.
Were the Arian congregations, who denied the full Divinity of Jesus Christ and therefore denied the Trinity, “The Church?” I would have to say, “No.” The Church remained and remains the Body of Christ, composed of those who are fully incorporated into Him by the Faith “Once Received.”
There are very many compelling facts in the structures, life and policies of TEC that would show it to be an apostate organization and therefore no longer The Church.
Therefore — the real actual maintainance of true “Catholic Faith and Order requires unity with The Church. One may have to leave the TEC organization in order to be a vital and faithful part of The Church which is genuinely incorporated as the Body of Christ.
You cannot successfully argue that Catholic faith and order require staying united with an apostate organization indefinitely.
I speak as one who is currently stuck in TEC by trying to wait for a faithful bishop to catch on and catch up. Meanwhile, we have to give care to our people and shepherd them to a real safe haven within The Church — the real one.
But we can’t be the last green leaf on a dead branch destined for the pruning fire.
Bruce #16 – what I can tell you is that every headline and communication in the press and media about this Wiccan priestess, or that bishop that denies Christ, or the parish over here that loudly promises to marry three cross-dressers, is a message of stark-raving weirdness, not of people with different views that admirably soldier on together in love. And I’m sure that witness – the witness of Episcopalianism today – is summarized by tens of thousands of folks in Western Pennsylvania and beyond, folks who enjoy sleeping in on Sundays, who read the story, detached and amused, and perhaps offer a muttered, “I get that stuff on MTV, why would I get up and go to a weird church like that?†before turning to the sports pages. After all, when the Browns or Ravens are in town, maybe tailgating has to come before walking the labyrinth.
Paul was deeply concern for the churches he planted as the means for spreading the gospel. He clearly thought false teaching threatened the churches. Other epistles condemn false teaching. Why do we think we should tolerate it much less celebrate it?
In response to my sympathies with those leaving TEC, I was once reminded by a friend who had done the research that the orthodox bishops actually showed amazing restraint during the Arian controversy. He recommended emulating them. I understand and generally concur while noting that the fact of their being said to “exercise restraint” clearly infers that the act they might otherwise have undertaken was not of itself wrong or sinful. To separate from purveyors of false teaching is not wrong, however desirable the exercise of restraint may be. In our case, then, it would seem that shaking off the dust at TEC or staying to fight the good fight from within are both acceptable options and perhaps the circumstances and makeup of the individuals deciding which to do is the main factor.
I think “commoncausepriest” in #7 asks a very important question. The fact that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church universal and triumphant does not mean they won’t clobber TEC. My opinion is that the sins of the fathers are best regretted than repeated and a careful examination of what is schismatic should take into account the effect of any action on reunion with the entire Church. TEC’s positions on a host of matters, most particularly its leadership’s extremely odd understanding of the nature of Divine Revelation, places it in the position of schismatic and hence staying is at best a highly problematic option if one’s wish is to avoid schism (which is distinguishable from heresy – I disagree with simply equating them – but is never its opposite: schism always involves rejecting orthodox believers, never heretics. One never chooses between the two).
I think it an immensely good thing that, despite how obvious the false teaching is and how painfully far from recognizeable Christian theology our leadership has gotten, we are still torn over whether to leave them behind. I hope that such an attitude will continue to prevail and someday lead us back into unity with all the broken branches of the universal Church. We Anglicans are uniquely well situated to effect such reconciliation and I cannot help but think that that is the reason for the ferocity of the devil’s attack in these latter days. Let us continue to pray for the Church.
I think we need charity on all sides of the comcon (Communion conservatives – working within the structures of the Anglican Communion for reform and renewal) / fedcon (Federal Conservatives – working for reform and renewal of the Church by realigning with the Global South) debate. There are those of use, like Kendall+ and myself who advocate staying in TECUSA because we have not given up hope that God will reform His church and that, while it will take a long time, the Anglican Communion will heal itself around the Gospel and either exclude TECUSA or TECUSA will exclude itself (as seems likely). There is a place for the truly prophetic voice within TECUSA and that can be exercised by those who are in faithful dioceses. I see trouble and issues in this area but I discern that doing things my way causes more issues or problems. I also cannot speak to the discernment of others. I can urge and talk and reason with fedcons, but I refuse to judge them.
Likewise, the fedcons should realize that we comcons are doing our best to be faithful to God’s call and the Holy Spirit’s working in this issue. Charges of cowardice or sloth are unfounded and unhelpful to the debate. Instead, please pray that we will hear the Holy Spirit and have the strength and courage to witness to the truth during TECUSA’s exile.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I placed the following comment on the original blog, in response to a particularly historically-mistaken comment:
“I think it is important to note that the separation of the English Church from Rome came about not because the English “left,” but because the Roman Church enacted an excommunication.”
This is factually and historically incorrect, however you look at it. If it is a reference to the “original split” under Henry VIII, then the pope excommunicated Henry and Cranmer only in 1534 when, in defiance of Canon Law (accepted in England as well as in Rome), Cranmer in May 1533 presumed to grant Henry an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and Henry (who had secretly and bigamously married Anne in January 1533) and Henry proclaimed Anne his queen and wife in June 1533. Cranmer was excommunicated for granting Henry the annulment in defiance of the fact that the annulment case was pending in Rome, and Henry was excommunicated for not breaking off his connection with Anne and returning to Catherine when the pope upheld the validity of Henry’s first marriage, as he did in late 1533. Henry’s response was to get Parliament pass legislation repudiating the authority of Rome, and making it treason (with death as the penalty) to uphold it. So clearly the initiative for schism was Henry’s, not Rome’s.
But if you are speaking of the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559, the case is no better; indeed, worse. In Henry’s case one could argue that the Church of England at least “went along with” Henry’s break with Rome. But when the Act of Supremacy (which repudiated papal authority over the Church of England) and the Act of Uniformity (which replaced the Latin services with the Book of Common Payer) were making their way through Parliament in 1559, the Elizabethan government consulted the clergy and bishops assembled in the Convocation of Canterbury in 1559 about the proposed “reforms.” The Convocation’s response was to pass five articles (1) upholding the Sacrifice of the Mass, (2) upholding transubstantiation, (3) upholding papal supremacy and (5) denying that secular authority had the authority or competence to “reform” the church. Elizabeth went ahead anyway, signed the bills when they passed Parliament, removed all but one of the Church of England’s bishops and appointed others in their place; and all English clergy and bishops were required to swear an oath rejecting the “pretensed authority of the Bishop of Rome.” This is clearly schism, and clearly the initiative for it came from the “Anglican” side. The papal excommunication of Elizabeth I did not come until 1570, too late to do any good; and the desire of a number of English bishops in early 1559 to excommunicate Elizabeth and her principal officials, once their intention to break with Rome had become clear, was frustrated by thr cautious Archbishop of York, Nicholas Heath.
These are the historical facts, and it is hard to see how the contention that the schism was Rome’s fault can be sustained in their light. It’s far easier to rave about the “Romish Antichrist” and his “damnable doctrines” than to contend (on historic principles of Catholic, or Anglo-Catholic, ecclesiology) that Rome initiated the schism, and was responsible for it.
Dr. Tighe,
How then would you see the case with Dr. Martin Luther? Whose fault was that schism?
Who’s been “raving” about the “Romish Antichrist”? Huh?
Answer to question # 24: the messenger who got “lost” in the Alps. Have fun tracking that down.
I appreciate Dr. Tighe’s response, and am glad to step at least half way back on the question that might be asked jointly of the English reformers and the Roman cabinet, “who drove the last nail in the coffin?” It was, I believe, a collaborative effort. My reply to Dr. Tighe on the orginal blog intends a similar point.
[blockquote]Dr. Tighe,
I think it’s something of a fine point. The excommunication of 1570 was both an affirmative act of separation initiated by the Roman Church and a simple recognition of a reality of separation created eagerly and enthusiastically by at least the hard core of the English reformers. My intended main point, to restate, was
plenty of sin to be observed on both sides of that divide.
Which is, of course, true now as well. The notion that the schism implicit in the catastrophe of the 16th and 17th century Church of the West somehow provides a rationale or support for schism today just seems to me to be off base.
Bruce Robison[/blockquote]
Rev. Snyder do you think that the analogies of God reforming his church pre-reformation hold true post reformation? Can any advocate of remaining in TEC produce an example of the reform of doctrinal error in a protestant tradition without division? Ever? The baptist, methodist, & Presbyterians all have conservative liberal splits.
Daniel Muth (#21) wrote:
“I was once reminded by a friend who had done the research that the orthodox bishops actually showed amazing restraint during the Arian controversy. He recommended emulating them.”
I agree with the second sentence, but the first sentence is nonsense. For an explanation why, read my article here:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-03-036-f
By all means, emulate Athanasius, as well as his supporters and fellow-bishops Eusebius of Samosata and Lucifer of Cagliari, but realize that all three of these had no hesitations about intruding into the dioceses of heretical (Arian or Arianizing) bishops, supporting the orthodox faithful there, ordaining deacons and priests for them and even, on occasion, consecrating an orthodox bishop as al alternative to the heretical one in possession. To put it bluntly, Athanasius and his fellows stand clearly on the side of the “boundary crossers,” the “intruders,” the “seceders” and, most bluntly of all, the Continuing Anglicans who left ECUSA a generation ago, and not of those who advocate “fighting from within.” And for those who are willing to read more on the subject, I woul;d recommend that fine and pointed book by a Lutheran scholar of the last century, Werner Elert’s *Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries* (1966):
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=elert&sts=t&tn=eucharist&x=72&y=17
which is not cheap (in the $30.00+ range), but it is very good.
Harry Edmon (#24) wrote:
“How then would you see the case with Dr. Martin Luther? Whose fault was that schism?”
Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo X in 1520 for (alleged) heresy and definace of papal authority. Before his excommunication, Luther disavowed any thought of leaving or of creating a “new” or “reformed” church, and the process by which an “alternative” Lutheran or “Evangelical” church emerged in Germany in the 1520s was a complex one, and not a process in which Luther took any initiative. If you think that Luther correct in his assertions, you will probably conclude that that the pope was at fault in excommunicating Luther for the truth, and disgrace and discredited his office thereby; but if you think him wrong in his doctrinal contentions (notably, sola fide and sola scriptura), you will probably conclude that the pope was right to excummunicate Luther, or that his excommunication was inevitable, sooner or later.
CommonCause Priest (#28)
Yes. Witness the latidudinarianism of the 18th Century in the CofE – where bishops were purely political appointments and no one really believed that stuff anyway – at least the clergy and upper classes didn’t. It was the age of “Dieism” where lack of belief was wrapped in the words of faith. (sound familiar).
Into that scene came John and Charles Wesley – men who began the Evangelical Revival in the Church of England. This revival, in turn, sparked the Oxford Movement and the Ritualist revival that we enjoy today. Seeing the Apostacy and sickness in the CofE neither Wesley nor Pusey decided to split the church and form their own congregations. True, Wesley’s followers formed their own church, but only after Wesley had died and the bishops had kicked them out.
When TECUSA kicks me out, I will look at another church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Re #29: Dr Tighe, the friend I was referring to is Jeffery Steenson (who has a PhD from Oxford in Church History, as I recall), resigned Episcopal Bishop of the Rio Grande and newly minted Roman Catholic. He claimed to have reviewed, as far as I know, the same data that you present in your article and opined, as I stated in #21 above, that the fourth century orthodox bishops exercised “considerable restraint” with regard to boundary crossing. I haven’t done the homework (I guess I’ll get started) and so am not qualified to comment on whether or not his opinion is “nonsense.” My point is still that, regardless of the extent to which one considers Athanasius & co. to be acting without restraint, there can be no doubting the validity, given the circumstances, of their actions and so modern Anglicans are entirely justified in rejecting bishops who prefer worship of the Civil Rights Movement to that of the God of Israel. Those of us who don’t can understand ourselves as exercising restraint and need not consider our actions as other than honorable. One should never leave one’s church lightly and I think that, despite the obviousness of the TEC leadership’s errors, we should all be thinking twice about separation from their fellowship. The fact that Anglicanism is not exactly consonant with the undivided Church would seem to sharpen the difficulties all around.
As to the witness of divison within the church to the world outside: Phil in #19 answered well the reality that it is our heresy that is most evident in our Anglican witness. I really don’t see how anyone outside would care whether we stay together or not, since, as a church, there isn’t a Gospel worth listening to by anybody with brains in their heads. Corporately we are a mess spiritually speaking. It is not “See how love each other” or not, that they are seeing. It is “see how they fornicate with each other”. That is our witness to the world.
There are only two ways I can see to have any kind of healthy witness as Anglicans:
1 Separate visibly from the heretics, as I have done. Only the irreligious cynics will see that act as something negative. Those who really want to here the truth (and they are the only ones we should care about) won’t be much bothered by schism if we are preaching the Gospel. Schism only really matters to those insidethe church.
2. Separate without formal division by simply ignoring as much as possible the wider corrupt church. This seems to be the strategy of dioceses like South Carolina, Dallas, Central Florida, et all. On of the problems I see with this is that while this is the very thing which might make evangelism possible, it also works against being very effective at being a prophetic witness to the Episcopal Church for the more you focus on preaching the Gospel against the heresy within the more you highlight the sickness within the church, which makes for a very bad witness to encoyrage people to join the church. Given that there are healthier churches out there less up to their armpits in heresy and sodomy, “Become an Episcopalian so that you can join us in fighting the heretics in high positions in this church” seems unlikely to be a very attractive evangelistic method.
It must be remembered about the prophets: They headed no churches, they founded no religious movements of reform. They were voices in the wilderness. The church is called to be more than that. I am profoundly unhappy with the idea of settling for any ecclesiology that denies me the ability of being part of church that functions as a church.
People like to say that The Episcopal church and Anglicanism is “under judgment”. Well, the church has always been under judgment. It is always being refined. If the form of judgment Anglicanism is experiencing means that we can’t be a healthy church then it is time to pack it in as a Communion and return to wherever it was possible to be healthy. God did not call Anglicanism into being with the mission to be sick. The sickness is our contribution, and it’s time for us to deal with it.
Common Cause Priest,
RE: “Here is a question that I have never had answered to my satisfaction by those who advocate staying in TEC. Do the analogies of faithfulness earlier in an undivided church still hold for a portion of it?”
Unlike some, I have made no such argument by analogy. I do not think that “schism” — if that’s what you call people leaving a physical/human organization that holds a part of the church invisible — is worse than heresy and have not argued that as a reason for not leaving TEC.
Remember, I’m a Protestant in my theology.
in answer to #7 and avoiding the historical discussion of Tighe et al, the low flying answer is: Ecumenism turns on having coherent ecclesial bodies with whom to have serious (ongoing) discussion, press issues, correct misapprehensions in history, seek ways forward. Neither Rome nor the Orthodox Churches, inter alia, see something like the fissuring of the Church of England, for whatever cause; or the breaking of Anglicanism into more discrete units, as helpful or desirable. They would like Anglicanism to present its own coherent face, and bring order to its own confusions and turmoil. If that does not happen, Christian Unity is further away, not closer.
“They would like Anglicanism to present its own coherent face …”
Or, perhaps, to find one, after 450 years.
I assume that is no endorsement of any present anglican body, including Gafcon or Common Cause, in favour of an anglicanism that is 450 years old.
Perhaps not; but we ought to at least be able to stipulate that a body that purports to “marry” men to each other is no form of Anglicanism at all, and thus is an irrelevancy in discussions, like these, of schism.
The Anglicanism that is 450 years old is no longer represented by Canterbury or the CofE. If there is to be a coherent face of Anglicanism it must come through a second reformation, which is highly unlikely to come through the dead establishment head. Thus, temporary schism, if only partial, is likely the only means for greater unity and spiritual health.
If this solution is theologically illegitimate, then Anglicanism is so as well, and I’m offf to Rome (or Constantinople), as should all with any intellectual integrity.
Well the AC has had an opportunity to impose discipline and, at least to me, has conclusively proved that it cannot do it. On the other hand at least TEC has and is showing that it can act decisevly. For example the deposition of Bishop Duncan.