The concerns I have listed above do not diminish the respect and support I give to the Network and its leadership, of which I remain a member. My concerns, rather,derive from my desire that we hold our witness together, and that we do so in away that not only maintains but garners trust. We have a work and a witness we are called to do together,and I pray it is together that we do it.
But concerns are still concerns. From my own perspective, I cannot see any way through the current disputes and threatened divisions other than persistent and good-willed common counsel on the part of the Communion’s representative leaders done openly and with as wide a reach as possible. If Lambeth cannot meet and agree, then who will listen? If the Primates cannot meet and agree,in conjunction with Lambeth, nothing will be done together. If the ACC cannot consider and respond to the executive desires of the Primates, there will be no common following. If Primates do not take counsel and seek agreement with all their bishops, and bishops with all their dioceses, there is nothing but individual conscience and passion determining all things. And if, in all these things, the Scriptures of Christ are not placed at the center of prayer, discussion, and discernment, there is nothing about which to counsel that will bear the mark of the Spirit’s direction. And other than this last ”“ and most important! ”“ element, we already have the structures by which to carry through with such common decision-making, if we but discipline ourselves to submit ourselves to them in faith, hope, and love. Then perhaps we shall have made room to listen to the Word of God.
As I said, I believe these kinds of concerns need to be aired and debated openly, by those whose names are known, by those who have a stake in the outcome, and by the full gathering of those granted authority to take counsel and make decisions for the church. They should be debated, but they should also and even more be subjected to the wisdom of gathered representatives of our churches, and not pursued by one group or another regardless of the views and decisions of others. The Episcopal Church as a whole has been an egregious model of such brazen disregard, and the model is one to be rejected wholly and utterly.
It is not that the gathering together of traditional Anglicans in North America is not a worthy and evangelical goal. It is, and many of us would welcome and are willing to work for such a goal. The AMiA, for instance ”“ and one can say analogous things about other parties represented in Common Cause — has had for several years now a strong witness in evangelism and church-planting that is needed by all of us, and their full integration back into the Communion would prove a spiritual gift for mission that all of us need and that would do honor to the Gospel. But there are realities on the ground that require serious resolution for this to happen fruitfully, and that resolution requires the engagement of many parties and peoples in honest and common discussion on the basis of shared prayer and humble listening within the context of the Scriptures. What is one to do, for instance, of a long-standing lawsuit between a current Network bishop and a current AMiA bishop? How resolve the disagreements and even bitterness that exists between conservative bishops and AMiA plants and splits within their borders? What of the deep theological and ecclesiological differences that exist between many Network bishops and those of the AMiA, let alone other non-Network traditionalists? And this pertains to North America only, and has not yet touched on the divides and disagreements and misunderstandings that exist, on this matter, around the Communion, and with Lambeth in particular, where a trail of bitter denunciations cannot simply be papered over. It is not enough for this or that group to formulate position papers and declare their views and commitments apart from the whole (this includes the Network, ACI, Camp Allen, Common Cause or anyone else), and then to expect that these views will persuade or bear converting authority. The cause we have in common at present is the cause for common consultation, discernment,decision, and only then, action, so that our work “side by side” for the Gospel is founded on the “common mind” of the Church in Christ (Phil. 1:27).
Another thoughtful and thought provoking contribution by Dr. Radner. This is a sobering and painful read, but a very necessary one. Orthodox Anglican realignment is clearly at an important crossroad in its history. There will surely be others. Over the past few months I have become increasingly concerned about the proliferation of “orthodox” jurisdictions within the Network. There must be a better way. As others have pointed out, these competing alternative jurisdictions are much easier to create than to combine down the road.
What is most important about this piece in my view is the way in which it models the need for self-criticism and self evaluation among reasserters in the present situation. I tried to insist on this at Plano I and would like to see more of it occurring from here on out.
In an article full of hard (and difficult) facts and concepts, one of the things he mentions is the publication of negotiations and debates that should be private. I am appalled at the concept among most bloggers that all debate must be public. This is not true. We must allow our leaders a place to debate, argue, yes, and perhaps even fight, without such becomming public fodder. It is time that there were decisions made in dark, smoke-filled rooms. We must trust our leaders in those places.
If we do not do this, those leaders will be eternally gun-shy of presenting ANY idea or policy that might be interim in purpose but vital for the dcommunion. If they do they will be chewed up by friends and enemy alike.
I beg all, in the name of Jesus, support leaders that are trustworthy and them urge them to do the behind-closed-doors work that will bring us all together again.
I do not HAVE to know. I will be praying. God knows. May He work with those who have begun a good thing. I pray that they are close to God and, therefore, close to each other.
DonGander
The problem, however, with the need for self-criticism has been the reluctance of reasserters to take on other reasserters publically given the weakened state in which they find themselves.
Dr. Radner’s piece could be strengthened, btw, with some self-criticism of the ACI itself. One consistently gets the sense with them that this is all everyone else’s fault. It simply isn’t true.
I am glad for these words from Dr. Radner. It brings to my mind the story of Abraham and Sarah. They believed God’s promise that they’d have a son. They followed a plan of action that seemed reasonable. It even appeared to have worked. They were ‘orthodox.’ But St. Paul tells us that Ishmael “was born according to the flesh” (Gal. 4:23), but Isaac “was born according to the Spirit” (v. 29).
I hope that in our zeal to remain faithful to God, we pursue God’s promises not “according to the flesh”–which is all too easy (mea culpa), but “according to the Spirit.”
My comment on Brad Drell,s blog where I first read this.
What Ephraim is pointing out is the rampant individualism AT EVERY LEVEL that is occurring. He has tapped into the weakness that is at the heart of our fallen nature, namely, end run around authority when the decisions of that authority does not suit us.
The Network began as a promising coalition of churches gathering around the positive affirmation of confessional orthodoxy within the Episcopal Church. Rather than growing as a coalition and gaining steam, it marginalized itself. We have fallen to the “divide and conquer†approach.
Did the reappraisers do this to us? No. We have done it to ourselves. Rather than focusing ourselves on what unites us, we have been separated by insisting on–demanding–our own personal preferences.
Yes, there are enough stones to be cast, some would be self-inflicted, but the fact is that the mess we have is not really any better than than the mess of which we are all complaining. Maybe even worse. Friends and family members on the reasserts’ side are divided from each other. People who once were friends are now estranged. How many Anglican bodies do we have in the United States? Is God glorified in this? I seriously doubt it.
[blockquote] Regular consultation among Network bishops has diminished in frequency, while the work on Common Cause has demanded new and steadier communication. [/blockquote]
Is this a surprise given the comments from some Windsor bishops and +Howe’s actions in the HoB and his own Standing Committee? Even the Network bishops ultimately wish to stand to with those who will support them and cover their backs.
The Network is mocked in 815, along with the Windsor bishops for their inability stand together. This is not the makings of a successful revolution. From my perspective they do not support their chosen leaders, but are as infected with the “do my own thing” as any other bishop on the reappraising side.
In my post (#3), I note that I am too brief, again, thus denying my thoughts a good expression.
I have no problem with self-criticism and I ardently encourage discussion that leads to orthodox truths. What I was refering to are those technical and theological concepts which can be compromised or at least be made co-existent for a time. The classic case is that of women’s ordination. One side is like flint and the other side is like iron and these two groups must be kept in close proximity so the sparks will fly and we (all) will become more the bride of Christ that He desires. I firmly believe that there are technical ways to keep both groups in the same room (or sanctuary) but these technicalities and policies will not be able to be worked out in public.
I do have a lively hope of such a thing because Jesus Christ is in control and He is not divided.
God bless our leaders.
DonGander
I think these are important questions/concerns that Ephraim has raised and ones that the two of us have discussed many times.
As Bishop Salmon said to me just yesterday however, we are not in the same setting we were in five years ago and the assumptions that were true then, may not be true today.
I do believe earnest, humble, and thoughtful work has been attempted by everyone, all those players mentioned in Ephriam’s paper–I think here primarily of the humble and God fearing spirit of Bob Duncan, who has always readily given way to the common good and larger body of decision makers.
The Episcopal Church continues to force new and more immediate realities on dioceses and congregations, and it is a nasty war they have waged—if you knew the details of my own situation and the sinister plotting and dollars spent you would know what sort of war we are in.
Common Cause is very important in this regard. Before I left for CANA, I e-mailed NT Wright to consult with him about doing so, and he made clear to me that a common cause effort was important for those who depart from the existing Episcopal structure if one is to have credibility in leaving.
To follow through on my agreement with Bishop Wright to work toward that end, I meet just this week with AMiA rector Ken Ross, whose congregation of 350 ASA meets just two blocks from my own parish. The spirit of cooperation, shared vision, and problem solving that we had together was simply God inspired. The many complications that are faced by a common effort seemed easily resolvable in the face of the important things we could to do together. We left our meeting excited by a shared vision of planting new churches in the shifting population centers of Colorado Springs–especially when TEC is closing churches even as the population continues to explode.
I think the questions Eprhaim raises are good ones, but I am convinced that the establishment of a new province, pulling together all those who profess and call themselves Anglicans, even under the sort of covenant that Ephraim and Drexel Gomez have drawn up, is the best way to say goodbye to the increasingly wayward, seemingly possessed, and spiritually draining Episcopal Church, and to reassert a viable and mission minded Anglican presence in America.
So, just how far, in the estimation of Fr. Radner, do ASAs need to fall in ACN-affiliated dioceses and parishes before they may be allowed to disaffiliate themselves with TEC? And how much more time do we need to give the Brunos et al to put their air-tight legal cases together?
Let’s be honest with each other–unless the AoC takes the leadership thrust upon and demanded of him in this hour, come the first week of October we are going to have to find a couple of pennies to put over the eyes of the Anglican Communion as we have known it.
Jesus’ addage about a house divided against itself presumes there is a house. We’re talking about two religions here, not about some gentlemen’s disagreement on protocol. If we truly hold apostolic catholicity to be the authentic vehicle for godly mission then we’d best get ourselves out from under the false “apostles” instead of trying to make a bad tree bear good fruit. Because what fruit there is seems to be rotting on the limb.
Self-criticism and self evaluation? Yes, absolutely, Kendall. That is what accountability is all about. But let’s deal with the facts on the ground, not the world as we wish it was.
Self-examination” is a good thing, but undertaken as a proscription maybe not so good. We could all sit around examining our navals, while souls perish around us. No matter what we think, pray about, or pointificate, the fact remains our church continues down the slope.
And, I’m sorry, but it seems to me Radner+, and Seitz leave this parting shot as they toddle off to academia.
As for “competition”, at this point there is NONE! Both ++Akinola, and ++Orombi have promised to “let go”, as soon as there is a viable sanctuary for the “orthodox”. I do not believe for one minute that they are “competing” with each other.
As for me, I’m a member of a “coffin” church, you can imagine what that means. There is currently no other choice within reasonable distance for an ‘elderly” person. But, I do resent the fact that my grandchildren cannot find an Episcopal Church where the Gospel is still upheld. (Norfolk and Oklahoma City).
As for “not knowing” (DonGander), yes we DO have to know. Some of the self-examination reveals that we are in this mess specificlly because we allowed it by sitting on our duffs while someone else went to convention, voted, volunteered etc. AND WE KNEW NOTHING!
So, most of us have decided we do want and need to know what is going on, else we’re sitting on our hands again, with our heads planted firmly in the sand.
God Bless those who are working for the Gospel, and worrying for the souls that are being misled. Yes we’ll pray for them,
Gloria in SC
It seemed to me that Dr Radner is talking about consulting TEC’s revisionists, as well as the various factions within North American Anglican orthodoxy, in regard to planning future actions and structures. Did I read that correctly? If yes, does he trust the revisionists to council in honesty and Godliness? Why? If it’s to be accepted, this needs a very careful explanation.
Other than that, he has pointed out some possible weaknesses among the orthodox. I’ve wondered what happened to the “Windsor Bishops”, and why Bishop Stanton wavered (or seemed to), and if this were not some kind of subtle under-the-table “evangelization” by the revisionists in the US and throughout the world. And I’ve wondered how the orthodox’ theological and legal differences will affect their efforts toward unity. Anglican support for individualism will be difficult to overcome; and don’t blame the enemy for taking advantage of weaknesses.
However, I don’t yet agree with his assessment that the Primates are impotent. IMHO, the Primates have set a deadline for TEC and certain actions to take. At some point not too long after Sept 30, assuming TEC stiffs the Primates, we will see if they are potent or not (regardless of who goes or doesn’t go to Lambeth). It may be that TEC has by then evangelised enough Primates that the GS no longer has a majority; or it may be that the GS Primates don’t have stomach for the nasty fight TEC will put up; or it might be that the GS Primates do have the majority and the stomach. In that third event, I can’t see the other AC “instruments of union” defying a majority of the Primates for very long.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Grandmother:
I wanted nothing to do with advancing the dedicated ignorance that has been in the pew of TEC for too many years. I am all for enlightenment of Scripture and history of the Christian Church. I have always encouraged theological debate. I have done so in many different venues. What I specifically do not think needs to be public are the machinations of our orthodox and godly leaders in the political efforts that must take place in any organization but are right now vital within Anglicanism. In that one area good debate and struggle turns into dirty laundry all to quickly in this cruel and unjust world.
I believe that the debate that you are talking about has been growing for years and years. I entered the fray about 8 years ago. I gladly support the type of debate and information that Mr kendall has blessed us with. I hope that my own attempts at communicating these issues improve with time.
God bless you in every way.
For a few years now I, also, have been a grandfather. I think that God saves the best for last. I could not immagine the joys and blessings of being a grandparent until it suddenly came. As a grandparent I can take the time to know my grandchildren in ways that I could never had known my own son. I sincerely hope that those same blessings belong to you.
DonGander
#11: To be clear, the suggestion that Drs. Radner and Seitz are leaving a parting shot and waltzing off to academia is well off the mark. All of the ACI theologians maintain an intense volume of scholarly work. You might check out Dr. Radner’s scholarly publications on the ACI web site to see his prolific contributions to the academy even while serving as a rector. Service as both parish priest and scholar is a longstanding Anglican tradition. And, of course, Dr. Seitz is a world famous Old Testament scholar and theologian who has an even larger body of scholarly work, and who has been serving as a professor during his entire tenure as volunteer president of ACI. Though they will be moving to the new Center for Biblical Interpretation, they will hardly be leaving us. To the contrary, the new institute means they will be able to contribute in fresh ways to the hard work that is Christ’s ministry.
Dr. Radner presents a careful analysis of the situation within the communion. However, he seems to describe what is happening as if the various groupings (AMiA, etc.) consist only of leaders who ought to have careful discussions to best further the Anglican Communion. Unlike Orombi and those who are currently placing episcopal leadership on North American soil, Dr. Radner seems to ignore the ultimate problem – souls of individual parishioners (both current and potential future ones) are in mortal danger. Those, especially like Orombi who are the fruit of the East African Revival, understand that whatever the Anglican leaders do or delay doing is potentially a salvation issue for real congregations as real time slips by and real individual lives are either aimed more securely toward the Kingdom of God or away from it. As C. S. Lewis describes in his “Weight of Glory”, every day that passes has eternal consequences for every person.
Putting a solid Anglican structure in place in a very careful and lengthy process without performing timely tactical operations, such as Orombi, Akinola, Nzimbi, Venables and others are doing, would lose souls that Jesus came to save.
The call by Dr. Radner for what seems to be extreme carefulness in laying down proper Anglican structure at the expense of souls reminds me of a story about the great evangelist D. L. Moody. His habit in his preaching to the thousands that came to hear his messages in Chicago was to ask non-believers who felt the tug of God on them to go home, ask God to fully convict them and be ready to respond to that call at the next week’s service. He used that pattern for the last time on the evening immediately before the great Chicago fire. Some people who he told to delay one week did not live through that fire. From that moment forward, he issued a call at every service, for those who felt God convicting them, to commit their lives without any delay. Souls come into the Kingdom or do not in real time. Delay for full conciliar processes or any other reason can put people in eternal danger.
Dr. Radner also speaks of “competing political strategies” and the danger of limited open discussion about strategies. I am very thankful for the limited open discussion about strategies. Opening up all strategic discussions would be a bit like Eisenhower holding his D-Day planning sessions with an open BBC microphone in the room in order to ensure that nobody was confused about the Calais versus Normandy landing sites. I am quite content to have Godly bishops keep much of their planning and sorting out among those who actually will have care of souls and congregations. Concerning “competing political strategies”, I am sure that Dr. Radner is aware of much that we who merely sit in pews do not know. However, I see continuing cooperation among those who I suppose he might consider to be in potentially competing camps. At Truro, we are of course, a Virginia CANA congregation, but two of our daughter missions who left TEC before CANA was formed are with Uganda. I have not heard anything but cooperation among these and other neighboring Anglican congregations. A newly-ordained priest at Truro was ordained into the diaconate at an Ohio congregation under the Diocese of Bolivia. That same Bolivian congregation is working closely with several AMiA church plants near it. This kind of cooperation, not competition, with the presumed agreement of the various bishops, is what any group of Anglican Communion congregations should find normative.
Undoubtedly, when the fog of battle recedes a bit, much sorting out will need to occur, and in anticipation of that I am thankful for the careful strategic thinking of people such as Dr. Radner, but while the battle rages, keeping the troops alive, supplied, and headed in the right direction for their Gospel mission, while not prematurely exposing them to enemy fire, will often appear messy, especially when tactical actions are necessary to ensure the safety and salvation of souls and the protection of congregations and even dioceses. (I am in the midst of rereading some of Sarah Hey’s “Little Stone Bridges” essays, so please excuse the apparent military focus.)
Again, I am 100 percent in agreement with Fr. Don Armstrong and am delighted with his outreach to the AMIA congregation down the street. I have encouraged Fr. Don in that direction for some time and firmly believe that there is a common cause for unity with that group. I pray too that the log will be lifted from the eyes of our Episcopal brethren.
PS: I finished Sarah Hey’s book, “Little Stone Bridges” and find her an inspired writer. However, I crossed the bridge to CANA and am happy in doing so.
Remember that The ACA and Christ The King have essentially joined forces. The evidence therefore is that real cooperation in possible, at least among those for whom cooperation yields a real good, not merely a political one. This is a different issue than the issue of cooperating with TEC. we should not WANT to cooperate with TEC; we should demand tht they be out of the house by midnight, taking eveything with them.
Atomistic individualism is a quintessential problem. Because it is a systemic disease, and because it is a disease tha people want to catch, its remedy lies, not so much in the leaders as in the congregation, for the antibodies will be generated here. Synods ofr the priestly are nice, for it keeps the marguerita mix companies in business. But we need a synod of laymen, many such, to chat about whether we want to get along with each other. We don’t need to be in communion, we need forbearance, and we need a set of essential beliefs and practices spelled out which the laymen can hand to the bishops. The sorting now,ladies and gentlemen, must begin at the bottom and percolate upward. Not terribly Anglican, but the present mess will not be sifted out any other way. The orthodox layman will take this task seriously. The liberal, we may in all justice let go to hell. Larry
[blockquote] The liberal, we may in all justice let go to hell. [/blockquote]
Larry, let us pray that if they do go to hell, it is by their choice and not our neglect to invite them to dinner with Jesus.
I think once it has become clear that TEC is not reformable and it is not based upon the votes – the polity – then an orderly exit strategy is the only viable one. By now the people in the know should have a good idea of the political calculations of the primates. I think (and I am not in the know) that the primates are more likely to ratify a new province if one exists on the ground then to create one themselves. I would also think that +++Rowan would be more likely to recognize a second province than to kick TEC out – religious organizations prefer to grow not shrink (TEC seems to be an exception). I think common cause makes sense because it unites those elements that left TEC over the last 40 years ( 60’s liberalism, WO, 1979 Prayer Brook, 90’s liberalism, homosexuality/gay weddings, and wholesale rejection of scripture). Although the Common Cause churches are small – they could provide structure (clergy/buildings) and geographic representation for a new province. I for one will be very happy when the mantra here and at Stand Firm stops being Dunkirk/life boats and ya’ll start thinking of beachheads. Churchhill’s (who is frequenlty quoted here by ya’ll) quote after Dunkirk was that “wars are not won by evacuations.”
Horace Mann said, ” “Much that we call evil is really good in disguises; and we should not quarrel rashly with adversities not yet understood, nor overlook the mercies often bound up in them.â€
How can Christians show the world the healing grace of reconciliation if the approach to our adversaries is [i]The liberal, we may in all justice let go to hell [/i]? So show some mercy upon us miserable sinners.
“The quality of mercy is not strained; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown. His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this scept’red sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings; It is an attribute to God himself, And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice.”
#21
Glad you said that. I’m not aware than any reappraiser on T19 has ever said that reasserters may/should go to hell.
John…just my reaction to Larry Morse’s post #18. Personally I don’t think anyone should go to hell.
Larry Morse #18: Problem is that, as reformation history shows, the pewsitters will never agree on a common belief. Look at the development of more than 6,000 Protestant denominations, each splitting away from its fellows over a doctrine where they can’t agree. That’s ecclesial “democracy” carried to it’s logical end… one denomination – one member; an atomized Church. That’s why Jesus called us sheep; we wander all over the place and then get lost.
We need shepherds who can agree among themselves on what they received from Christ, and who can then lead the rest of us into the True Word. Those leaders will have to do it over our intense opposition because, just like sheep, soon as we figure out he wants us to go THAT way… we will go the other.
True mercy is to teach True Word, and not the desires of men in place of that Word. It’s not mercy to support that which God has called sinful.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Dave…[i]It’s not mercy to support that which God has called sinful.[/i] I think you’re spot-on Dave. Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. The problem is we don’t agree whose behavior manifests as one of those sins. Mostly we’re certain it is not our own. 🙂
Well, since the general subject here is TEC, I was mainly thinking about homosexuality. That falls under lust, gluttony, wrath, and pride, at least, and maybe under the rest as well. I’m not homosexual but I do pretty well on all of the seven in one way or another. However, my pastors don’t try and tell me that my sins aren’t sinful. I’m not in TEC any more, but I do mourn my old Church.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
I have a sense of deja vu. During the years 1976 – 2003, each time a new person or group emerged to create a new continuing church or something of that order, or an organization, there seemed a studied ignorance and refusal to deal with that which had happened before. As a result each new group added to division and even often justified division by lauding themselves in distinction to that which already existed. Ephraim is reminding us that the manner by which we make decisions has to be open and above board, and must involve wide consultation and open-forums.
I understand that secrecy has emerged and been practiced in an attempt to ensure that the Establishment is not aware, at least until too late, of the plans being made. If secrecy creates or furthers disunity, suspicion, or ignores and fails to employ the wisdom of others, the decisions made and actions taken are none the better for having been done in secret. The liberals complain that decisions are being made for them by bishops, “prelates” and primates, leaving the laity out of the discussion. Is that what is happening among the orthodox?
At the moment what the watching world sees, whether this is true or false, is a series of what seems to be ad hoc decisions by individuals or ecclesiatical “powers” without regard for the greater whole, based on the assumption that they possess all the wisdom needed to effect a solution. And thus we have multiple solutions and multiple “power bases” reflecting alternative and sometimes conflicting positions. Whether Humpty Dumpty can be put together again is the question.
Does anyone wonder why the Archbishop of Canterbury seems confused by the Ameican scene?