Similar issues arise with the claim that the integrity of TEC is assured by the continuing authority of the historic creeds. However, the progressive clergy who now hold the levers of power within TEC insist vehemently that the creeds are not to be used as binding confessions that exclude from fellowship people whose experience of God or whose beliefs about God are different from or even contradictory to those normally associated with the creeds as tokens of Christian identity and sufficient statements of Christian belief. The progressive position in respect to the creeds is that Christians in the U.S. now live in a pluralistic society; and, in response to this fact, its advocates agree with our former Presiding Bishop who is fond of saying we should tolerate the contradictions because they will find a final reconciliation within the pleroma of divine truth. The prevalence of this view recently received vivid illustration when a Priest of TEC announced that she is now both and Muslim and a Christian. The response of her bishop was that he welcomed her decision because it would do wonders for interfaith relations!
A more fundamental problem arises when one looks hard at the meaning and use of the two sacraments on the part of TEC’s clerical leadership. It is no secret that in a significant number of dioceses and parishes Baptism is no longer thought to be a necessary precondition for participation in the Supper of the Lord. To be sure, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord are sacraments found throughout the dioceses and parishes of TEC. However, use is changing the meaning of both in ways most Christians within the Anglican Communion and within the other churches would not recognize as faithful to Christ’s intention. How is one to understand this remarkable novelty? One can come the Supper of the Lord without Baptism because one does not have to die and rise with Christ in order to come to the Father. As a consequence, Baptism is not an effective sign of dying and rising with Christ and the Supper of the Lord is not a participation in that death and resurrection. Both sacraments are simply ways of offering hospitality to a diverse humankind and so manifesting the welcoming love of God to all.
Here is an alternate link to the full paper..
The words leap off the page. Literally.
I find this remarkable:
[blockquote] Be that as it may, what I find so distressing about what might be called the “confessionalist turn†in thought and action is that planning for an independent ecclesiastical entity of the sort apparently being considered by the bishops involved in Common Cause has been going on in secret perhaps from the year 2004 and certainly from the year 2005. The recent appearance on the Web of a memo by the Rev. Allison Barfoot and dated 2004 suggesting many of the developments and possibilities I have noted above certainly suggests that plans for a new province have been in the making for some time. A memo from Bishops Duncan to the Primates of the Global South dated 2005 proposing a “missionary distinct†clearly recommends such a course. What is even more distressing than the secrecy, however, is the fact that the confessional nature of the suggestions for a new province and a new definition of communion portends splits within the Communion that run all the way down–through parishes, dioceses, and provinces. We are speaking here not of “realignment†but the shattering of the Anglican Communion as we have known it.[/blockquote]
The shattering came in 2003. Secret meetings have been going on since Integrity’s founding by Louie Crew in the 70’s. That the orthodox get together and discuss any and all possiblities or strategies for any and all eventualities is not inappropriate but required.
It is the TEC’s machinations and innovations that are killing the Anglican communion. The establishment of an orthodox Anglican communion is the only hope for the communion’s continued existence. When will the ACI folks come around to this “in front of your nose” reality?
I don’t get the notion of “secrecy” that Philip Turner suggests. Does he read? Folks have been talking openly about a separate province for ages. Common Cause has been public for ages.
Speeches — PUBLIC — and written letters — PUBLIC — have been posted at the ACN web site for ages about a separate province.
The main difference between the Network — it seems — and the ACI is that the Network appears to have given up on a separate province that is Communion-and-therefore-Canterbury acknowledged. They don’t believe any longer that a way forward for the reasserters in ECUSA will be accomplished through the communion, as Bob Duncan made quite clear in a speech six months ago that was also, yes, posted on the ACN web site.
I’m going to say it again. Given that the Network appears to no longer believe that a communion-acknowledged space for the ECUSA reasserters will be made for them, it falls to those who are willing [and I’m not one of them] to depart and attempt to gather up the fragments.
That is what is left to them.
For Philip Turner to be so blissfully unaware of all of this that has been going on now for two years is spectacularly oblivious. I mean *spectacularly* oblivious.
I — as a lay peon — have read about it on the Internet for years now.
It’s just shocking that a theologian could have been so unware of this, and in fact I think that he was NOT unaware at all, as the ACI has warned repeatedly and continuously that IF THE COMMUNION DOES NOT DISCIPLINE THE COMMUNION WILL SHATTER — or to put it in Turner’s words it “portends splits within the COmmunion that run all the way down — through parishes, dioceses, and provinces.”
YES, Dr. Turner, it does.
That’s what happens when the Anglican Communion fails to discipline — as you and the ACI warned for years — and as the Communion has failed to do.
Please — stop with the false shock and horror in mid-2007. It really doesn’t become the ACI to have this pretense of surprise.
Turner’s point about dying and rising in baptism is an invitation for us to look carefully at the theology behind TEC’s baptismal covenant ideas, constantly proposed in liturgy and sermon.
I am quite sure that a doctrine of baptism, shorn of the remission of sin, of dying and rising in Christ, is inadequate and misleading.
Robroy,
It is important to note that in that section of his address, Dr. Turner is drawing distinction between what he terms as “confessionalists” and “progressives” in their approach to the ecclesiology of Communion. I think he is correct in his two sided (balanced methinks) assessment. We here have no problem pointing to the manifold troubles inflicted on the Communion by the progressives in TEC, and their devastating ecclesiological ramifications. But we should not delude ourselves in thinking that the orthodox have not harbored the tendency to sacrifice ecclesial catholicity in their own right for the sake of expediency– (his noting of Bp. Minns’ “The World is Flat” article is a good example, and indeed I continue to shake my head at AMiA plants in TEC diocese, if not down the street from an orthodox parish).
This critique should not be considered unfounded or unwarranted judgment against the orthodox, I think Dr. Turner is obviously sympathetic and recognizes that they have a tough row to hoe against great local opposition and in many ways wading into uncharted waters. But nonetheless at this time in Anglican history balanced and well thought out assessments of both theology and practice are absolutely necessary. The task at hand is monumental, and I appreciate Dr. Turner’s willingness to take stock of the theological shortfalls among the orthodox so that we can consider them, remedy them, and ensure a lasting future for the Communion. Along this line, I find his closing paragraph quite moving, and a good summary of what he is attempting to accomplish in this address:
“It is my belief that God has brought us to a point within our present conflicts at which he is asking if we Anglicans have sufficient faith, hope and love to sustain such a vision of the church catholic, and offer it as a way forward for Christ’s broken and divided body. This is the question posed to us by the proposal that we covenant one with another. What ought such a covenant to look like. If we are progressive, it will resemble a charter of good will and mutual aid. If we are confessionalists it will resemble a rather carefully formulated statement of shared belief. If we follow the road suggested by the Windsor Report, it will more closely resemble a marriage—a commitment to mutual subjection in Christ that will carry us through time and in the process unite us both to Christ and one another in a bond that binds in one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, and one God and Father of all. Amen.”
Cheers,
Jerod
Jerod, I find confessionalist business rather forced. There is not a confessionalist church and a non-confessionalist church, merely shades of gray and Anglicanism certainly is not monochromatic, i.e., there is definitely confessionalism in the church. One of the eventualities that needed to be discussed in orthodox planning sessions that I was referring to in my above post is a swing towards more confessionalism.
Another obvious reality is that people are tired of the chaos, and such a shift is inevitable. How much a shift is debatable, but it will happen. ACI folks: get used to the idea because I am afraid that you will be left out in the cold if not. One can argue how much but not if.
It’s interesting to read this section that Kendall excerpted above on the same blog page with Ed Bacon’s sermon denying the atonement and the need for salvation.
Turner wrote [i]One can come the Supper of the Lord without Baptism because one does not have to die and rise with Christ in order to come to the Father.[/i]
Bingo.
And then to have just read this at Stand Firm about an inter-faith baptism service in the Diocese of Newark:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4360/
Bingo again.
–elfgirl
Recently I had a long conversation with an English friend of mine, a priest in the Church of England of strongly Anglo-Catholic views and a frequent visitor to the United States whose name is very well-known in FIF circles. We were speaking about the “orthodox bishops” (sic) in ECUSA and of what we both believed to be the overwhelming unlikelihood that they and their diocese will ever try to leave ECUSA whatever betide before or after September 30th. As the conversation went on, I asked him what, if it was up to him to propose a “final solution” he would recommend. He replied, the bishops and their dioceses should call one or more meetings of their Diocesan Conventions, if more than one is necessary to effect the result, and simply pass an act seceding from ECUSA — and then immediately appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury (without consulting him, or even informing him before hand, lest Kearon & Co., and his own desire to avoid confrontational scenarios and taking firm decisions, enable him to dodge the issue) to accept them under his primatial oversight as extra-provincial dioceses of Canterbury — and defy KJS, Consigliere Beers and all the rest to do their worst. (At the very least, in doing so, they would be attempting a worthy emulation of Samson’s deed in the Philistine temple.) We both agreed that this is about the only “ice-breaker” what would be possible for these dioceses within a putatively “Canterbury Communion” context, but we also both agreed that even were we betting men we would not care to wager anything on these dioceses or their bishops having the cojones to do it (although we agreed that Bishop Iker probably has the force of character to do it if he would, and that the CA legal situation makes it well worth while for San Joaquin to take the lead in the matter).
ACI has been overtaken by events beyond its control. The conclusions here only work among people of goodwill. Every opportunity for goodwill has been rejected by TEC leadership. The ACI vision is rather like offering marriage counseling to a couple who are only days away from the final decree.
Of course planning has been underway for years. Anything less would have been irresponsible and unfaithful. No one seeks realignment without being pushed to it by one circumstance or another. Perhaps Dr. Turner fell asleep during the final scenes of Casablanca, when Captain Renault exclaims “I am shocked” and subliminal influences took over during the drafting of that section of his essay. Unfortunately, an excellent analysis and presentation of the reality of our present situation is marred by a useless exhortation toward a vision that is unworkable given all that has happened over the years.
1. I do not believe that Bishops Love, Steenson, Howe, Stanton, Salmon are committing themselves to a College of Bishops idea, so I believe the use of the term ‘Network’ needs to reflect this reality;
2. I had no sense that ACI’s position was regarded as in any way curious or isolated at the recent Oxford conference, though there is concern about two apparently different strategies (see 1 as well);
3. there seems to be a lot of pressure coming from financial stresses in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, due to lawsuits;
4. It is far from clear that separate province plans can escape profound legal dilemmas, and ACI is pressing for the next stages in the Communion process, and especially the Primates’ prosecution of Dar, to be carried out; if this happens, it could make the legal matters turn in a different light, esp if TEC HOB’s presence at Lambeth were endangered;
5. Unlike all the despair about this in certain quarters, there was genuine hopefulness about the Primatial capacity to respond strongly to TEC after 1 October.
Do these views leave ACI in some strange place of isolation? It has not seemed that way to me, but then I may see the matter more from the standpoint of the Communion Instruments and less from within superheated places (like Pittsburgh or Colorado?) where people are itching to ‘leave TEC’.
I admire Dr. Turner but he has lost vision in one or both eyes. The need we have now cannot be declared by a mutual subjection in Christ when a rejection of the Christ is what the other half is offering. I don’t understand Dr. Phil. Too much talk, too little understanding of the attempts of Bishops Duncan, Iker and others to offer a way forward. And please, nothing is secret. That is simply ludicrous.
My own understanding, having sat in almost every meeting that has been held about these issues for over a decade, is that the new province idea has clearly been on the table for some time. Last year it was decided by many of the advocates of a replacement province to give the ACI/Windsor Bishops scheme a year to play out for specifically the reasons Professor Seitz sites above.
It seems to me, having attended those meeting as well, that the Windsor Bishops are reigning over situations of almost certain division if they do much more than live in denial, so find themselves in no-win impossible situations.
Although I think the way of the cross calls them to action, and have myself made the decision to walk in that path, I have great sympathy for their various predicaments and their reticence to jump into the fire.
The real hope for a solution to this incredible set of circumstances thrust on us all by a determined revisionist TEC, is exactly what Professor Seitz suggests, a very strong and definitive reaction by the primates to TEC’s complete rejection of Dar.
A clear action by the Primates will drastically change the legal scene for those already preparing for the courts as well as create an easier path out of TEC for all those who would not other wise be able to afford to do it.
I am deeply thankful for the hard work ACI has done for so long. I hope they are right (and I am wrong) about what will happen in the coming months. But what I keep wondering is: do they have a Plan B?
I find it so interesting that the discussion here has largely focused on the paragraph which RobRoy excerpted about the confessionalists and secrecy. When I first skimmed through this document yesterday at the Wycliffe Hall site before Kendall posted it here, that passage jumped off the page at me as well. And as Brien writes, it marred the rest of the paper for me. I found it hard to take Turner’s argument seriously if this is how he categorizes those who have made a hard choice to leave.
It made it seem as if he is an ivory tower somewhere and very out of touch with the realities on the ground of life for clergy, layfolks and congregations in hostile dioceses.
(Apologies if he is not in fact out of touch, I have no idea where he is currently based since his tenure as interim dean at the SW School of Theology ended…, but it is how his words sounded.)
Desperately curious, I e-mailed someone who was at the Oxford consultation to find out how Turner’s words about confessionalists and secrecy were received. As it turns out, due to time constraints, Turner presented only an abbreviated version of his paper, so the section Rob Roy quoted was news to the friend whom I e-mailed.
I’m deeply thankful for each of the ACI theologians. Their papers over the past 3 years have been very helpful and caused me to think through the issues on a much deeper systematic level than I am likely to have done without their influence. I’ve been forced to study the Scriptures afresh, and to confront perspectives other than what I would have naturally concluded. But I do hope that they will remember this is not an abstract theological debate. That we’re talking about individuals, families and congregations on the ground with real choices to make. We need APPLIED theology.
It is so sad/curious to read perceptions of ACI. We could not be more applied but are unable both to do this work well and speak of it in detail. I cannot count the number of hours of direct and applied work with Primates, Lambeth, C of E, Windsor Bishops, Network Bishops. I suspect from where we sit, blogs look like ‘Ivory Tower speculation’ gone amok It just goes to show how odd this season of judgment is. I say this with great sympathy for the obvious pathos out there. I do thank God for the combination of reflection and action on our part, and pray foir others in this struggle. I suspect when Turner speaks of secrecy he means decisions to form things like College of Bishops without wide consultation — indeed, even with Network bishops themselves. But obviously we are in troibled times and people are doing what they feel is necessary. ACI will continue to do ‘applied theology’ as it has all along: with Primates, Lambeth, C of E, Windsor and other Bishops. God bless!
With Dr. Turner, I am not convinced that confessionalist turns are the answer to our problems. Aren’t Presbyterians and Lutherans confessionalists? Isn’t the United Church of Christ a confessionalist body? While my admiration and respect goes out to those championing orthodox faith from the global south, I don’t see a confessional solution providing long term help. I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘solution’ to heresy in the church, but some approaches seem more effective, and more ‘gospel’ than others. I see the vision of Windsor in that light.
I especially appreciated Dr. Turner’s allusion to marriage in the conclusion of his article. How astounding and amazing it is that Scripture is book-ended with marriage as a pre-eminent figure of our relationship with the Almighty. In that light, we all know that the vows of marriage are essential, but vows are no guarantee of fidelity! The solution to our Anglican Wars isn’t only in vows (note that clarifyier, “only”). The solution lies in understanding communion as a participation in the Marriage of the Bride and the Bridegroom. It seems to me that we have one party (TEC) arguing that our marriage ought to be “open.” Obviously, such a marriage can only bring Hosea to mind.
I do appreciate ACI’s call for time and space for discipline. When a cheating partner is forced to leave home, and live with their actions, when their fantasy/affair becomes real, their bubble often breaks. Then, reconciliation can happen. I certainly wouldn’t counsel a husband or wife to put up with cheating indefinately. Time and space, yes…but not forever.
Anyway, I don’t worry about catching an STD from TEC, but I do know that TEC isn’t giving birth to children. I do know that our children are exposed to dangerous people. That really gnaws at me…so much so that at times I loose patience.
Theron Walker+
Sedalia, Colorado
Dr. Seitz, thanks for your comment, and sincere apologies if my comment was harsh.
I think your comment answers mine well in that it reminds me that in most cases ACI’s work is generally directed to bishops, primates and the Communion level, not individual lay folks stuck in revisionist dioceses. So, something that is very applicable at the level of bishops and primates can seem distant and abstract from the perspective of an individual lay person.
Perhaps what I am wanting to say is that the level of analysis may need from time to time to go down yet one more level. The actions of layfolks have consequences that may affect the Communion as a whole and its potential to remain intact.
As an example: the departure or threatened departure of many families and lay leaders was one of the acknowledged factors in Truro and other No. Virginia parishes’ decision to leave ECUSA. The creation of CANA and the split of the Virginia parishes obviously has greatly upped the tension in the Communion. Providing an analysis that focuses only on the structural level (how the Communion should answer CANA, etc.) may miss the point if the underlying issues that helped lead to the formation of CANA are not addressed.
At times in the past, ACI scholars have brought the dialogue down to a very practical level for the laity. I’m thinking of documents like these:
Radner: What Way Ahead?
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18425
and “After the ACC”
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/Post-ACCrev.htm
We need ACI’s theologians to help us analyze and respond to the situation as it exists. *Sometimes* (but not always) it seems like your papers tend to be stuck in the mode of defending what should be. CANA exists. Congregations have left, even those that very much want to remain part of the Communion. Rather than decrying those who have left, it would be really helpful to see more analysis that acknowledges what has happened and now helps us sort through the options to find the most faithful way forward. Like:
–What needs to happen on the ground to help the different alphabet soup jurisdictions come together and combat the centrifugal tendencies of American Protestantism?
–What are the various scenarios that could emerge out of a 5-5 split among the Network bishops? In what ways can unity be maintained even in the face of different strategies? How do we avoid having such a split if it occurs fundamentally divide the orthodox and derail realignment?
Those are the questions on my mind and I believe the minds of many others.
Thanks for listening. I’m speaking personally of what I would find helpful and appreciate seeing in future ACI documents. But please know I do truly appreciate the work that has been done. Documents like to Mend the Net and True Union in the Body have been absolutely essential reading in this crisis. Foundational. You all are in my prayers.
Thanks, Karen. We all do this ACI work above our day jobs. Maybe at times it would be useful to recall the settings in which these papers emerge (including my own, which was not posted). This was a conference for Communion leaders (Primates, missionaries, Bishops, C of E officials, clergy and provincial leaders). I suppose if we had lots of time we could write various versions of our work, but we just don’t. Perhaps the papers that appealed to you were from settings when we were asked to address local churches. We have done that work as well. These are not easy times. I apologize as well if I have not caught the proper drift of the various comments on this blog. I don’t know who I am talking to most of the time (fake names), and often find the fault-finding with ACI gratuitous or misinformed. But we are also working in contexts where confidentiality must be guarded, by common agreements. Your recent criticism was quite clear and important. Thank you.
Dr. Seitz, just to let you know, we’re still posting papers from the Oxford consultation. We didn’t want to overload the blog with too many of them at once such that none of them got serious consideration or discussion.
Thanks very much for your participation here.
–elfgirl
I am grateful for your very hard work. Bless you in His service! C
I had trouble following the link above but this worked:
http://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/temp/Plenarysp-spPhilipspTurner.pdf